Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth NASA United States News Science

Five Solomon Islands Disappear Into The Pacific Ocean As A Result Of Climate Change (go.com) 287

An anonymous reader writes: Climate change strikes again. A paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters says five of the Solomon Islands have completely submerged underwater due to man-made climate change, and six more have experienced a dramatic reduction in shoreline. The Solomon Islands has a population of a little more than 500,000 people, many of whom have been adversely affected by rising sea levels in recent years. NASA scientist James Hansen estimated that seas could rise by seven meters within the next century. In 2014, Losing Ground issued a report that shows how large areas of the Louisiana coastline are being lost to rising sea levels. A 2011 study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the state's wetlands were being lost at a rate of "a football field per hour." Michael Edison Hayden writes from ABC News, "The Solomon Islands provides a preview of how sea-level rise could affect other coastal communities in the coming years, according to the study, largely because the speed which erosion is taking place has been accelerated by a "synergistic interaction" with the waves that surround it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Five Solomon Islands Disappear Into The Pacific Ocean As A Result Of Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • Lies (Score:4, Informative)

    by legRoom ( 4450027 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @07:53PM (#52080247)

    ...five of the Solomon Islands have completely submerged underwater due to man-made climate change...

    That's a bold-faced lie. The total global sea level rise since 1880 is less than 25 cm (10 inches), according to the EPA [epa.gov]. The natural tidal range of the oceans is of the order of one metre (several feet). Any island that has "submerged" during that time period did so primarily because of other factors, such as the ground subsiding, or erosion driven by the wind and the waves.

    This is especially obvious when you consider that anthropogenic global warming is not believed to have reached significant levels until around 1950 (if then).

    As for houses washing away and such - any land that can be "submerged" solely by a sea level change of 25 cm was already getting scoured regularly by waves, storm surges, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by JoeMerchant ( 803320 )

      Wave driven erosion can be dramatically accelerated by a small rise in water level. Were these islands on their way out anyway? Maybe not, if sea level were moving in the other direction.

      • Re:Lies (Score:5, Interesting)

        by legRoom ( 4450027 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @08:35PM (#52080515)

        Did you look at the EPA graph? I'm being waaaaayyyy too generous when I make it sound like AGW sea level rise-to-date could be as much as 25 cm.

        The rate of rise was astonishingly constant from the beginning of the record in 1880 (allegedly ~70 years before man-made warming became meaningful), up until about 2000.

        There is a small bump at the end representing approximately the last seven years. The size of that bump? About 2 cm. (Also, the bump is shrinking now and was never there to begin with in the satellite record; it's only present in the tide gauge data. There's a good chance it's just noise.)

        The average annual sea level rise prior to the bump was about 0.15 cm, meaning that the bump accelerated the inevitable natural end of the "islands" by less than twenty years, even if you want to blame a non-linear increase in wave erosion. Colour me unimpressed, seeing as real islands generally don't have expiration dates that are humanly relevant, at all.

      • Of course they were on the way out. It's called entropy.

      • the oceans have been rising since the last ice age, these islands essentially at sea level already of course were on their way out this century or two centuries from now. Good thing the people got out now before there were even more people that had to evacuate

    • Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 09, 2016 @08:12PM (#52080357)

      ...five of the Solomon Islands have completely submerged underwater due to man-made climate change...

      That's a bold-faced lie. The total global sea level rise since 1880 is less than 25 cm (10 inches), according to the EPA [epa.gov]. The natural tidal range of the oceans is of the order of one metre (several feet). Any island that has "submerged" during that time period did so primarily because of other factors, such as the ground subsiding, or erosion driven by the wind and the waves.

      This is especially obvious when you consider that anthropogenic global warming is not believed to have reached significant levels until around 1950 (if then).

      As for houses washing away and such - any land that can be "submerged" solely by a sea level change of 25 cm was already getting scoured regularly by waves, storm surges, etc.

      Read the paper. It is short, linked, and not technical.

      They aren't claiming that the island got submerged due to sea level changes. They are claiming that it got eroded.

      As sea levels go up, erosion (in the form of waves) gets worse. They claim that the increased erosion has completed wiped out the islands. This is a separate effect from your silly claim of a lie. You can read the paper for how they try and separate the erosion from other effects like El Nino and tides.

      • Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

        by legRoom ( 4450027 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @08:42PM (#52080543)

        They are claiming that it got eroded, and that it wouldn't have if the sea level were a tiny bit lower. There is no way they can know that, especially since the actual sea level rise-to-date which is possibly attributable to AGW is more like 2 cm [slashdot.org], not 25 cm.

        This is a separate effect from your silly claim of a lie.

        The statement in the summary, at least, is a lie because they are asserting a definitive cause-and-effect relationship where there is - at best - an unprovable possibility of one, rather than actual solid evidence for one. The claim is being sensationalized.

        • by raind ( 174356 )
          Misleading /. headlines for click is how this corp rolls, doesn't mean I won't sell you some land on the FL coast - interested?
          • Unless it's at least 10m above sea level, it was always a dumb place to build anything you don't want to get wet. Hurricanes are not new...
          • Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)

            by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @09:05PM (#52080673) Journal

            CNN had an article a few years back hyperventilating about GW and a small island nation sinking and slowly evacuating over the years. In the fine print they admitted it was the land sinking, not oceans rising, but seas rising our future!

            In another after the terrible tsunami, they hyperventilate again with the headline "sea rise from GW will be like the tsunami zomgggg!" In the fine print they meant 30 feet not over seconds but 300 years.

            Also New Orleans is sinking because the river delta is bottled up instead of meandering back and forth over centuries and no longer deposits fresh silt everywhere to boost the slowly compressing silt. This was figured out long ago.

        • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

          Wait - you're quoting this very slashdot discussion to support your argument?

          Well done.

        • Re:Lies (Score:4, Informative)

          by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @10:53PM (#52081231)

          They are claiming that it got eroded, and that it wouldn't have if the sea level were a tiny bit lower. There is no way they can know that, especially since the actual sea level rise-to-date which is possibly attributable to AGW is more like 2 cm [slashdot.org], not 25 cm.

          This is a separate effect from your silly claim of a lie.

          The statement in the summary, at least, is a lie because they are asserting a definitive cause-and-effect relationship where there is - at best - an unprovable possibility of one, rather than actual solid evidence for one. The claim is being sensationalized.

          The summary definitely overstates things. But the paper itself is guilty of none of the things you imply.

          There's actually a link to the entire paper with the abstract, I'll even helpfully bold the important bits:

          Low-lying reef islands in the Solomon Islands provide a valuable window into the future impacts of global sea-level rise. Sea-level rise has been predicted to cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the central Pacific. However, the limited research on reef islands in the western Pacific indicates the majority of shoreline changes and inundation to date result from extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development rather than sea-level rise alone. Here, we present the first analysis of coastal dynamics from a sea-level rise hotspot in the Solomon Islands. Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these remote Pacific communities.

          I don't see these definitive claims you speak of, instead I see "sea level rise predicts X, here we observe and analyze some X that's consistent with sea level rise". I'd be more careful before making sensational claims of sensationalization.

          • Re:Lies (Score:5, Interesting)

            by legRoom ( 4450027 ) on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @12:23AM (#52081427)

            I have now read the entire paper. It is true that it does not ever directly attribute the sea level rise in the Solomon Islands to AGW. (The linked ABC news article does though - surely the scientists will be publicly denouncing the media's gross distortion of their claims any minute now... ?)

            On the other hand, the premise of the paper is that sea level rise is responsible for significant loss of land area in the Solomon Islands (and the authors worked very hard to connect sea level rise to AGW at every opportunity, even though they didn't quite come out and say that AGW has actually caused any sea level rise yet).

            That's a problem, because nowhere in their paper (that I could find, anyway) do they actually offer any evidence that the local sea level rise experienced by the Solomon Islands contributed meaningfully to the loss. They point out several other factors that likely dominated, one of which was erosion by wave action. They then attempt to connect this back to AGW with the following statement:

            Wave energy can interact synergistically with localised sea-level rise (through changing wave refraction dynamics and more wave energy propagating across reef crest onto the coast) to exacerbate coastal erosion (Storlazzi et al 2015) and thus may be a key driver of the rapid coastal recession in the Solomon Islands. Further work is required to determine the relative importance of extreme wave events or incremental changes in incident wave energy and their interactions with sea-level on shoreline dynamics of islands.

            Notice the operative words there: "can", "may be", and "further work is required". They don't actually have anything to say on the subject - that is, on the causal connection between sea level rise and increased wave erosion - other than "maybe you should read these other guys' papers" and "give us money and we'll write something too". But, they decided to name their paper after it anyway, and the media ran with it.

            The main actual content of the study - once all of the background material and discussion is filtered out - is basically just:

            1) Some statistics about the rates of erosion and accretion on various islands in the Central Pacific, including the Solomon Islands.
            2) More statistics about the atmospheric and oceanic conditions over time around those islands - much of which was extrapolated, not measured.
            3) A few anecdotes about communities that need to relocate - all of whom, from the sound of it, were in poor locations to begin with.

            As someone else pointed out, the last graph clearly shows (if you know how to read the axes, anyway), that there was a net increase in land area for the islands chains studied; the authors simply chose to focus upon a specific few tiny islands that shrank.

            • I have now read the entire paper. It is true that it does not ever directly attribute the sea level rise in the Solomon Islands to AGW. (The linked ABC news article does though - surely the scientists will be publicly denouncing the media's gross distortion of their claims any minute now... ?)

              Welcome to science journalism, we're lucky they didn't talk about a nuclear war.

              On the other hand, the premise of the paper is that sea level rise is responsible for significant loss of land area in the Solomon Islands (and the authors worked very hard to connect sea level rise to AGW at every opportunity, even though they didn't quite come out and say that AGW has actually caused any sea level rise yet).

              That's a problem, because nowhere in their paper (that I could find, anyway) do they actually offer any evidence that the local sea level rise experienced by the Solomon Islands contributed meaningfully to the loss. They point out several other factors that likely dominated, one of which was erosion by wave action. They then attempt to connect this back to AGW with the following statement:

              Wave energy can interact synergistically with localised sea-level rise (through changing wave refraction dynamics and more wave energy propagating across reef crest onto the coast) to exacerbate coastal erosion (Storlazzi et al 2015) and thus may be a key driver of the rapid coastal recession in the Solomon Islands. Further work is required to determine the relative importance of extreme wave events or incremental changes in incident wave energy and their interactions with sea-level on shoreline dynamics of islands.

              It does make sense that sea level rise is going to increase wave erosion and it looks like they've seen ~15cm rise in sea level in that region which is pretty significant.

              3) A few anecdotes about communities that need to relocate - all of whom, from the sound of it, were in poor locations to begin with.

              As someone else pointed out, the last graph clearly shows (if you know how to read the axes, anyway), that there was a net increase in land area for the islands chains studied; the authors simply chose to focus upon a specific few tiny islands that shrank.

              Figure 7? It's possible, they should have addressed it. If looks like smaller islands in specific were really shrinking, I'd be curious about the mechanism for how the bigger ones got larger. Is wave erosion spreading out sediment from the island itself making

            • Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday May 10, 2016 @03:37AM (#52081957) Homepage Journal

              Notice the operative words there: "can", "may be", and "further work is required". They don't actually have anything to say on the subject - that is, on the causal connection between sea level rise and increased wave erosion - other than "maybe you should read these other guys' papers" and "give us money and we'll write something too". But, they decided to name their paper after it anyway, and the media ran with it.

              This is how science works. You don't start from scratch every time, proving basic physics and maths until you build up to your main point. You base your work on the work of others, building on it to advance the field. You avoid making definite statements when you can't be entirely sure, but suggest promising areas of further work.

              I agree that the media has puffed this up into more than the paper warrants, but the paper itself is perfectly fine. You use a lot of weasel words and make baseless accusations, like saying they chose to focus on the islands that shrank as if it's part of some sinister plot to prove AGW is bad, when actually it was just the focus of the study. Not every study has to be a holistic review of all possible related issues, you know.

              • This is how science works. You don't start from scratch every time, proving basic physics and maths until you build up to your main point.

                Sure. But it would be nice if their paper actually had anything new to say, at all, with respect to its titular topic. I could not find anything new in the entire paper about the " Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics", except the unsupported "can", "may be", and "further work is required".

              • by khallow ( 566160 )
                One obvious rebuttal is that the title of the paper is "Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands". But they don't actually measure the effects of sea level rise and thus, can't say anything about the interactions of sea level rise and wave exposure. This can be seen in the conclusion to the study:

                This study represents the ïrst assessment of shoreline change from the Solomon Islands, a global sea-level rise hotspot. We have documented ïve vegetated reef islands(1â"5hainsize)thathaverecentlyvanishedand a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.

                In other words, we have nothing to add to the particular issue of sea level rise interactions with wave exposure on reef island dynamics, contrary to our

    • It's "bald-faced lie." (As in, a lie so brazen that you don't even use facial hair to hide your smirking expression.) If you're going to use the idiom, at least get it right!

      • "Bold-faced lie" is also an English idiom, albeit likely of more recent origin.

        Also, since the phrase makes sense by itself, even without having heard it before, it is a valid, meaningful English phrase even if you refuse to acknowledge idioms coined after [insert arbitrary date here].

        • Unfortunately it seems like there are lies and deception and agendas on both sides of the AGW issue.

          If we would only take an objective look at objective science, we'd actually have an answer that all reasonable people should agree on.

          I say "should" because of course they won't. It seems like even reasonable people lose reason when it comes it AGW.

          • Unfortunately it seems like there are lies and deception and agendas on both sides of the AGW issue.

            This is true. In the absence of clarity though, I think the sensible thing is not to panic, discard the foundation of the world's energy economy, and cede power to a global government. That may just be me, though.

            Hopefully renewables and/or nuclear (fission or fusion) will eventually get good enough (actually good enough, without excessive subsidies) that people won't want to mess around with fossil fuels, and then we can put the whole argument to rest.

    • As for houses washing away and such - any land that can be "submerged" solely by a sea level change of 25 cm was already getting scoured regularly by waves, storm surges, etc.

      Ok I don't want to get involved in stupid AGW arguments, but I used to live in a place that lost it's beach when a new ferry service started up nearby.
      The ferry only generated wake of a few cms, but the constant wake, along a water system that wasn't used to it caused a significant change in the ecosystem.
      So yeah, there's probably a bit more to it than just raw numbers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by legRoom ( 4450027 )
        The point is, that if the land was at such low elevation, or so fragile, that it could be submerged or destroyed by a tiny rise in sea level (probably more like 2 cm [slashdot.org], than 25 cm), there is no way that anyone can assert a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 emissions and the islands disappearing. There is a high probability that it was going to disappear anyway, even without the extra 2 (or if you insist, 25) cm.
    • We're doomed, actually, check out this study that predicts seven meters of sea level rise by the end of the century. [theguardian.com] That is not a joke: it's a real, peer reviewed scientific paper.
      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by legRoom ( 4450027 )

        The post you replied to is addressing claims that AGW-induced sea level rise is already causing significant damage, which is clearly bogus. One of the reasons I am sceptical of the claims of sea level doom, is the fact that its prophets seem incapable of distinguishing clearly between predictions about the future, and present reality.

        That is not a joke: it's a real, peer reviewed scientific paper.

        And there are other "real, peer reviewed scientific paper"s that say the number will be more like 2 meters. Almost as if the science is not settled...

        Moreover, all of the catas

    • by dmbrun ( 907271 )

      The natural tidal range of the oceans is of the order of one metre (several feet).

      That's at sea. NOT on the coastline.

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • "Of the order" is a science/engineering term meaning "very roughly", within a factor of two to ten (depending on the context). I was just too lazy to go look up the actual numbers, so thanks for the link.

        It looks like the actual range is 0-16 meters depending on the location, but with most beaches being very much at the lower end of that range.

    • by edibobb ( 113989 )
      Global warming is affecting the ocean and waves and that affects the islands, but the islands were definitely not submerged. They were eroded, which can occur for a lot of reasons. It's kind of funny that one of the islands rose by 60 cm because of an earthquake.
  • by cirby ( 2599 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @07:56PM (#52080269)

    Not climate change.

    "Ten houses from one island were washed away at sea between 2011 and 2014"

    Oddly enough, the Solomon Islands were struck by Tropical Cyclone Freda in 2012. What a coincidence. And they've lost five low-lying reef islands in the last 70 or so years. Out of ten THOUSAND islands in the Solomons.

    Here's part of the paper's abstract:555

    "Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local
    knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a
    further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has
    destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of
    shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a
    synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that
    increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these
    remote Pacific communities."

    Actual story: "People built houses near the beach on islands that were being washed away in the first place, and we're going to blame it on the SIX INCHES of global sea level rise since the mid-1930s."

    They also casually toss in the fact that the Solomons are very geologically active, and a lot of the sea level rise they refer to is RELATIVE sea level rise - in other words, the water didn't rise, the land sank - often by as much as three times the amount of actual sea level rise over time.

  • and how much did the sea level rise?
    to say whole islands and coastlines that were permanently above(not land that go below due to tides and seasonal weather for instance) are now below sea through rise of sea level(instead of soil erosion, effect of currents, artificial land/jetty creation, volcanic activity, etc ) means sea level must have risen considerable number of centimeters.

    if sea level rose uniformly (and it must), coastline should be lost on all parts of the world to similar significant extent, and this needs be observed more broadly.

    -
    i live on the sea shore in tropics, for very long time, i for one don't see any change whatever . but it is not scientific to generalize from my experience, nor should we generalize from isolated observations, about a phenomenon, which if true, should be observed more generally.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The erosion in coastal Louisiana at the mouth of the Mississippi River *is* man-made, but not attributable to climate change.

    As the Mississippi river was "controlled" for flood prevention and shipping, less and less sediment from upstream flooding and erosion has been available to replenish the delta at the river outflow. That is why the coast is eroding

    • 100% correct. The threat is not AGW, but other man made constructs. This is why AGW is such a scam. It keeps us from addressing real problems, like LOCAL pollution, unsafe water, disappearing wetlands due to to development, etc.
  • It appears from the PDF that most of the island area that disappeared did so between 1947-1962. If it is accelerating, the data presented seem inadequate to show it.
  • by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Monday May 09, 2016 @08:58PM (#52080621)

    Still, the evidence was presented. The cost of denial is upon you, you pick wrong you pay. My money is going to investment into Appalachian Ocean Front properties.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Until recently, I was your typical far-right climate change skeptic. After seeing for myself the changes in places I once lived, speaking with people from around the world who have seen the changes first hand, evaluating the data for myself (I'm a healthy skeptic).

    What's not being discussed is Africa. The water shortage in Africa is becoming a real problem. Wars are on the verge of happening because of water shortages. I lived on a certain island for years, and as a child, it never got above 80 in the summe

  • Bullshit (Score:2, Informative)

    Bullshit

  • Tells you all to shut up about "climate change" or he'll hit you in the head with a snowball. The Bible says that mankind has been given domain over the planet, it's ours to do what we want to with and nothing we can possibly do can possibly mess it up. Even if it does, Jesus will fly in and save us all anyway. /sarcasm
  • Ok, so here is what to expect from the right wing. Those five islands have not submerged. You just can't see them because Satan is blocking your vision. Besides, you are not a scientist so who are you to tell me those islands submerged? It's just a scheme to cover up Obama's real place of birth!

Shortest distance between two jokes = A straight line

Working...