Rising Sea Levels Uncover Japanese War Dead In Marshall Islands

An anonymous reader writes "The foreign minister of the Marshall Islands says that, 'even the dead are affected' by climate change. From the article: 'Speaking at UN climate talks in Bonn, the Island's foreign minister said that high tides had exposed one grave with 26 dead. The minister said the bones were most likely those of Japanese troops. Driven by global warming, waters in this part of the Pacific have risen faster than the global average. With a high point just two metres above the waters, the Marshall Islands are one of the most vulnerable locations to changes in sea level.'"

Comments

Dead Marshes, yes, yes, that is their name.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Don't follow the lights!

Re:that's odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the world where people believe scientific papers rather than press releases from coal companies.

Faster than the global average?

[kruach aum]

How can the water level on earth rise faster in some places than in others? I would expect water to rise uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg).

Re:Faster than the global average?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

How can the wind be stronger in some parts of the Earth's atmosphere than in others? I would expect the air to move uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg).

Re:Faster than the global average?

[i kan reed]

Since all you've got is a sarcastic reply that doesn't actually address the question, I'll help.

Water pressure only causes perfect leveling to human eyes, but as the transmission distance of that pressure increases, the effects of random interference, and natural obstacles becomes the dominant ones. This manifests most discernably in the relatively huge sea level differences between the pacific side the Panama canal and the Atlantic side.

Now as to what mechanisms allow changes to be different, instead of just static value, it gets a little bit beyond my comprehension as to the exact mechanisms, but I believe it might have to do with where thermal expansion occurs(the deepest parts of the ocean most) and where land ice is melting to.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[peragrin]

Because the earth isn't a perfect sphere or egg shape. It bulges in the middle, but it doesn't bulge evenly.

That was why the earth wobbles on its axis.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'm just speculating here, but perhaps changes in ocean currents, wind patterns, rainfall patterns and evaporation patterns could be a contributing factor here? Thanks to different evaporation rates, different precipitation rates and different currents and prevailing winds in different places, you probably can't expect the water to follow the geoid precisely.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[flyingfsck]

Yeah, yeah and obviously all of that, the continental drift, the isostatic movement of the crust, the wobbling, the uneven gravitation, the tides and effect of the moon are ALL due to global warming and coal burning power stations...

Re:Faster than the global average?

[ArcadeMan]

Because the earth isn't a perfect sphere or egg shape. It bulges in the middle.

So, the problem isn't global warming or whatever. The Earth is just getting fat, spinning is more of a strain than before so it's getting hotter, just like a fat guy jogging.

Stop feeding the Earth junk food! Go green!

Re:Faster than the global average?

[ArcadeMan]

The Panama Canal has to use locks to connect the Pacific and Atlantic because they have different sea levels.

I think this is the perfect example to show as proof, even to someone with a low I.Q. Physical proof doesn't need scientific demonstration.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[kruach aum]

Thank you for your informative reply. I understand the situation a little better now.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with asking why something happens. Your original answer wasn't at all helpful, and "it just does, shut up" is even worse.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[mrchaotica]

The Pamama Canal would need locks whether the sea levels were the same or not because Lago Gatun / Rio Chagres (which makes up most of the canal route) is at an even higher elevation.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[budgenator]

Ocean currents and Prevailing winds push water around but,

According to a recent report from the UN Environment Programme, sea level is rising in the Pacific around the Marshall's at a much higher rate than elsewhere in the world. The rate of rise between 1993 and 2009 was 12mm per year, compared with the global average of 3.2mm. Climate change helps seas disturb Japanese war dead

the Marshal Islands (not realy Islands but coral atolls) are really unlikely to have graves washed away because the sea-level rose a half inch, more likely it was factors like increased water consumption due to population depleteing the ground water and causing subsistance, and paved roads reducing replenishment from rains.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[tempestdata]

There are other forces involved.. currents, water densities due to fresh water inflows, tides, topography, etc.. I do not personally understand these forces involved, I am just listing out what I think could be factors... but for instance the pacific side of the panama canal is widely known to be 8 inches higher than the atlantic side. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal)

Re:Faster than the global average?

[budgenator]

The panama canal has locks mostly because the ships have to be lifted and dropped 85 feet, the tides would be more of a problem because they would be of opposing phase i.e. when pacific side is low the atlantic side is high, the typical sealevel difference of 8 inches would have a challenging current of about 6 MPH but it wouldn't be insurmountable.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Deadstick]

It would indeed, if the sphere consisted of a solid, perfect sphere surrounded by water, not rotating, and not subject to the external gravitational fields of the Sun and Moon. However it meets none of those conditions: it has continents and two pairs of tidal bulges, so the water moves in a dynamic and extremely complex fashion. Remember: it's a huge mass of complex shape moving back and forth over thousands of miles.

If you could just take away the continents, and you stuck a giant dipstick in the bottom, you'd find the tidal bulges were only a matter of inches. The actual tides vary from practically nil in certain places, to +/- 25 feet in the Bay of Fundy. If you'd like to see why, jack up your car and give it an oil change -- and try to pull the bowl out from underneath without getting oil all over your driveway.

Tides are basically a sloshing effect. For a famous example, the Pacific side of the Panama Canal sees much larger tides than the Atlantic side, and has a mean sea level about 8 inches higher.

Re: Faster than the global average?

[io bus]

Because the sea is not flat.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[kenaaker]

It has been observed for quite a while. At the Panama Canal, the Pacific Ocean average sea level is about 8 inches higher that the Atlantic Ocean average sea level.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[riverat1]

If the rate of SLR in the Marshall Islands was 12 mm/year from 1993 to 2009 that's a total of 204 mm or 8 inches in the 17 year period.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[jittles]

This manifests most discernably in the relatively huge sea level differences between the pacific side the Panama canal and the Atlantic side.

Now as to what mechanisms allow changes to be different, instead of just static value, it gets a little bit beyond my comprehension as to the exact mechanisms, but I believe it might have to do with where thermal expansion occurs(the deepest parts of the ocean most) and where land ice is melting to.

There is a sea level difference between the Eastern Pacific and the Western Pacific. My understanding is that just the flow of the wind across the water causes it to be deeper in the Eastern Pacific than the Western. You don't even need continental mass between the two ends to cause a difference in level.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Artifakt]

There's nothing wrong with asking why something happens.

So, If we were in a thread about new medical procedures that affect HIV transmission, and somebody asked why the simpler, common sense, Cabbage Patch theory of Child Origins was being ignored in favor of the S.E.X thory those silly scientists propose, there would be no reason to be dismissive? If I thought somebody asking that sort of question actually meant it, I'd try to give them an honest answer*, but why shouldn't I assume they are not really honestly confused, but tossing in a deliberately spurious question, in an attempt to throw the argument off track, politicise it, ot just plain troll? Sometimes, you read a question, and think, "What are the odds the person really doesn't know THAT and is really honestly asking to become more informed?"

There's some "simple, common sense" reasons to doubt that sea levels will or should rise uniformly, and most of us learned the first one of them about 3rd grade (in the US system).

1. The oceans aren't starting from static equilibrium - if they were, there would be no currents, as all the water would have already gotten to where it was going. So the question assumes something we already know is false, that the oceans can swiftly get to a static equilibriums state. Knowing that there are currents is enough to make a reasonable person doubt the question, Water keeps rushing from place to place all over the oceans, it never stops flowing as a whole, and it has from times well before the contemporary (AGW related) era, so why does it seem reasonable to assume that NOW it should all swiftly get to the lowest spot possible and stay there? How how old were you when you first heard about ocean currents?

2. Oceans are very large. Why does it seem like common sense to some that changes happen near instantaniously in such big objects? Wouldn't it be more common sense to find out something about the time scales for other changes in the oceans? How old were you when you learned there were tides, and did you learn that high tides are higher in some places than others, and at some times of the year than others? That's probably something people who live well away from seacoasts start getting exposed to by 6th grade or so, but if they missed it then, there's typically this course in junior high school, usually called something like Ecology or Earth Science. It's the course people who want an easy pass on their required science credits take, if Introductory Chemistry or Physics seems daunting. (all this assumes the child lives in a state with at least some science requirements for secondary education, but despite the problems of the US educational system, the vast majority of states do have science requirements) .And the majority of people live in cities, which are very frequently on seacoasts, so many people pick up many more facts about tides very early in life. Now how do I give a person a respectful answer, if that answer implies they went to a vastly substandard school system, or failed a 'bonehead' course, or ignored something they were near-constantly exposed to in their formative years? If I give a deliberately dismissive answer, I'm not honoring the principles of free, scientific enquiry, but if I ask the questions needed to find out what the other person doesn't know, I'll probably end up insulting the person anyway, and if it's deliberate trolling/politics, the person will jump on any answer and spin it in the worst possible light.

3. The Earth is a flattened sphere with some odd buldges, not either a true sphere or an egg shape. We're not just talking mountains and valleys here, but larger scale differences, caused in part by the Earth's rotation, and by the continents themselves. Many people don't pick that fact up until high school or even college, but it was probably offered too in those same Earth Science type classes. Is that enough to explain why everywhere doesn't see the exact same sea level rise? If I didn't know one way or the other, I would at least consider t

Re:Faster than the global average?

[OneAhead]

Don't act obtuse. GP's question was to explain why, if you increase the volume of liquid water in the system, you'll see bigger sea level rises at some places than other places. The factors you're citing do explain that. They change nothing to the fact that it's rising pretty much everywhere, so the global increase of liquid volume is real. And precisely consistent with the observed effects of the observed warming.

I wonder what bunch of idiots modded parent to +5.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Jane Q. Public]

How can the water level on earth rise faster in some places than in others? I would expect water to rise uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg).

The same way the Atlantic Ocean on one side of the Panama Canal is a different height than the Pacific Ocean on the other side.

And the amount it has actually risen in the Marshalls is roughly about 3". Even then, attributing this to "Climate Change" is a bit of a leap. Even though water has risen there "more than the global average", that's really not saying much since the global average is something like 1/4" over the last century. (Roughly... I don't remember the exact figure.) It is actually lower in some places, too.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Because the earth isn't a perfect sphere or egg shape. It bulges in the middle, but it doesn't bulge evenly.

I'm not sure that this matter of simple geometry has any effect other than determining ocean depths, sea coast shapes and continent elevations. The issue here is the relative altitude of actual sea level with respect to the perfect geoid. The shape of Earth's solid body and the mass distribution inside it determine the geoid, but the question here was related to the fact why isn't the ocean surface following the geoid in all places in exactly the same way (beyond the fact that simply adding more water does provide a modest amount of "spherization" of the geoid, as you're removing yourself further from the non-homogeneous solid mass, which does indeed mean a different rise in different places, but I'd expect this to be quantitatively quite a bit smaller that all the other effects causing the ssea level discrepancy).

That was why the earth wobbles on its axis.

Uh, I don't think so. It's not the unevenness of the bulge that causes precession, it's the existence of the bulge itself.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[radarskiy]

"There's nothing wrong with asking why something happens."

There is nothing wrong with asking in good faith. However, it is possible to ask a question in bad faith as a way of making a stipulation that has not been supported by evidence. This is known in journalism as "telling a question".

For example, here is a slight modification of a classic: "Why did you stop beating your wife?" It carries with it the stipulation that the questioned person has been beating his wife. Any subsequent discussion is implicitly based on wife-beating having occurred, and any attempt to back up and establish whether there is a factual basis can be shown to be a diversion from the substance of the discussion.

So let's go back to the OP: "How can the water level on earth rise faster in some places than in others? I would expect water to rise uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg)." This is not just a question about why something happens; there is also a statement about expectations not being met. The stated expectations now change the framing of the subsequent dialog. Whether the question is asked in good faith now depends on whether the expectation could be held by a reasonable person AND whether someone actually holds it. The expectation could be absurd ("I would expect water to rise uniformly because unicorns would drink the excess.") or it could not actually be held by anyone (a strawman or a concern troll).

This is more of a concern in some discussion where a side can benefit even if its own arguments are invalid. If one side employs a large number of bad faith arguments then eventually even the opposite side gets cast into doubt as a) it makes all of the participants look foolish, and b) it provokes bad behavior out of frustration from the side attempting to make good faith arguments. This discourages any action by third parties so if a side's goal is to maintain the status quo this is a practical tactic.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[The Snowman]

I would also add that the Moon is a factor. Its gravity is the reason for the tides: and with so much of the Earth's surface covered by water, it is reasonable that whatever ocean is facing the Moon at any given time will have a higher water level (tide) than the oceans not facing the Moon.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Derling Whirvish]

I just want to point out that many people learn at an early age that the Panama canal uses locks to raise and lower ships passing through, and that these are absolutely necessary because the sea levels on the two ends are different.

WTF? You make this statement in a post where you're trying to make someone else seem uneducated and unknowledgeable? The sea levels on the two ends are not different. They are the same. The locks are there because the water in the canal comes from rivers that feed into it and the canal is not at sea level the whole way across-- it rises to cross the terrain. Incoming river water fills the locks to raise the ships and it is released when the locks are drained to lower the ships.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Derling Whirvish]

This manifests most discernably in the relatively huge sea level differences between the pacific side the Panama canal and the Atlantic side.

There isn't a "huge" difference. It's a matter of a few inches (eight I think on average). It's mostly as a result of wind and current pushing the water up on the Pacific side as the prevailing winds there blow onshore on the Pacific side and offshore on the Atlantic side.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Deadstick]

whatever ocean is facing the Moon at any given time will have a higher water level

The Moon creates two tidal bulges, one facing the Moon and one on the opposite side. Google "gravity gradient" for an explanation. (To put it in a very oversimplified way, the Moon's gravity is strongest on the side toward it, weakest on the opposite side, and intermediate at the center of the Earth.)

The Sun also creates a pair of bulges. It has much more mass than the Moon, but it's also a lot farther away, so the solar tides are about half as big as the lunar tides. In the course of about a day we get four high tides, two from the Moon and two from the Sun. As the relative position of the Moon changes, they slide into and out of sync; we get the highest tides when all three bodies are in a line.

The continents interact with the bulges to create a sloshing effect which greatly amplifies the tides in some places, and almost eliminates them in others.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Arker]

Your post is disappointing, you are quite correct that sea level is not completely uniform (and we have some understanding of the reasons why) but when it gets to the question that is actually important here you have nothing but a hand-wave and expression of certainty.

The sea level differences are explainable in terms of fluid dynamics, but that does nothing to explain how adding water to the global ocean could raise the sea level by more in one area than another (Except on an inappropriately short timescale, perhaps - obviously dumping a massive amount of water off Greenland, for example, would in the short term raise the sea levels most closes to it, but after a short delay it should even back out, and it's hard to see how it could raise the sea around the Marshalls instead.)

Re: Faster than the global average?

[Bartles]

Do you believe that?

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Kiwikwi]

To be fair, there is a difference in water level of about 20 cm across the entire Panama canal, which was the grandparent's point. That is not the reason for the locks, though.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[khayman80]

And the amount it has actually risen in the Marshalls is roughly about 3". Even then, attributing this to "Climate Change" is a bit of a leap. Even though water has risen there "more than the global average", that's really not saying much since the global average is something like 1/4" over the last century. (Roughly... I don't remember the exact figure.) [Jane Q. Public]

Quoting 3" for the Marshalls makes it clear that Jane is talking about the total sea level rise, not the annual rise. Total global average sea level rise over the last century (1914-2014) is more like ~6 inches (see fig. 5 of Church and White 2011. Jane obviously doesn't remember the exact figure, because the rise Jane's memory provides is ~24x smaller than the actual observed rise.

Anyway, sea level rise can vary regionally due to factors like the gravity of thinning ice sheets.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[iNaya]

You deduced that the environment can change without humans! Well done. Animals can also be killed without humans! Therefore poaching isn't a problem. Trees can also be felled without humans! Chopping down the rainforest isn't a problem! People can die without other humans killing them. Therefore murder is not a problem!

Re:Faster than the global average?

[OneAhead]

the AGW scam is being promulgated by the powerful and those who hope to tag along with the powerful.

More powerful that the interest in fossil fuel? Who have been responsible for a significant fraction of the wars in the last few decades? Just to keep tabs, are we talking about the Illuminati, the Masons, the Elders of Zion or the New World Order here?

Re:Faster than the global average?

[dryeo]

The Panama Canal has to use locks to connect the Pacific and Atlantic because they have different sea levels.

I think this is the perfect example to show as proof, even to someone with a low I.Q. Physical proof doesn't need scientific demonstration.

Except the fact that the Panama Canal goes over a hill and the tides are probably enough to cause a difference in sea level on either side of the Isthmus.
Wind is probably a better example for someone with a low IQ, for the high IQ people here probably nothing will work as they're convinced of their superiour intellect and not open to learning.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[riverat1]

One of those other factors is gravity. For instance the sea level around Antarctica is some 15 to 20 feet higher than it would otherwise be because of the gravitational attraction of the Antarctic ice sheet and some 5 feet higher around Greenland because of the gravitational attraction of its ice sheet. So paradoxically the relative sea level around those big ice sheets will drop compared to the rest of the world as they melt.

Re: Faster than the global average?

[riverat1]

Well, I was just doing the math. But if you go look at the actual tide gauge for Kwajalein in the Marshalls it show nearly 6 inches of sea level rise since 1990.

Re: Faster than the global average?

[Bartles]

That looks like BS to me.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Jane Q. Public]

Pardon me. NOAAs figures are that ocean rise has been about 0.9mm per year since 2010. Projecting backward (which I am not sure is a valid technique, Mann nothwithstanding) would give a rise of about 3".

So by projection only, without researching actual historical data this Sunday evening, I concede that 3" may be a reasonable figure.

Re: Faster than the global average?

[riverat1]

What, the Kwajalein tide gauge? It's empirical data. What makes you think it's BS?

Re:Faster than the global average?

[khayman80]

Pardon me. NOAAs figures are that ocean rise has been about 0.9mm per year since 2010. Projecting backward (which I am not sure is a valid technique, Mann nothwithstanding) would give a rise of about 3". So by projection only, without researching actual historical data this Sunday evening, I concede that 3" may be a reasonable figure.

So instead of researching actual historical data by simply clicking on the link I provided, you ignored the uncertainties on 4 years of data and project a highly uncertain short term "trend" backwards over 100 years? Wow.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Kazoo the Clown]

That's because the earth is not a bathtub. Current, gravity, rotation, temperature, etc., all have effects in sea level. The moon isn't the only force that affects sea level.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Kazoo the Clown]

The continents exert gravitational effects on the ocean that affects sea level. And this can change over time if the continent contains significant ice that is melting away. The melt of Greenland for example, is expected to actually DROP sea level nearer to Greenland, even as the melt increases ocean volume. This is because gravitational effect is lessened when the body's mass decreases (the body here being Greenland). This is basic physics. Increased ocean mass due to glacier melt will have a disproportionate effect in areas where change in gravitational and/or temperature or current effects are less, such as in the south pacific. Also, ocean temperature is not static, warm water moves around due to currents and the related temperature expansion of the water volume does too. But keep pretending the ocean is just a big bathtub, it's certainly appropriate to the level of your ignorance in the matter.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Kazoo the Clown]

Since the melting Greenland ice is mostly above ground, the melt causes the mass of Greenland to reduce. This reduced mass produces less gravitational effect on the surrounding ocean. Consequently, as Greenland ice melts, the sea level nearest the Greenland melt will actually drop, even as more volume is added to the ocean from this particular melt. It is basic physics, and contributions to sea level from various reducing ice masses can and has been estimated. Europe actually is at somewhat less risk of sea level rise from such gravitational changes than the South pacific or the US east coast. That is why Florida is at increased risk, while Italy, not so much.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Kazoo the Clown]

No need for all of it to be, increasing ocean volume is enough, the comments you are responding to are the explanation of why sea level does not rise the same worldwide. Your failure to notice that does not bode well for your powers of comprehension.

Re:Faster than the global average?

[Kazoo the Clown]

17.5? Why not 15? Or 30? Cherry pick much?

Re:Faster than the global average?

[FirstOne]

Add to water density aspect, thermal expansion, water water isn't as dense as cold water.. more of if can be displaced..ergo higher tides..

Re: Faster than the global average?

[dave420]

Because he doesn't like it. There is simply no other reason to simply and quickly refute it in that manner.

Re: Faster than the global average?

[riverat1]

Yea, I knew that but I had to ask the question.

Are these the first in 70 years?

[tomhath]

Hard to believe that a couple inches makes all that much difference. Yea, I read the article - the Marshall Islands are low and flat. But I've also seen the open Pacific Ocean, where 20 foot waves are normal. I assume bones have been washing up every year since the war; Japan lost over 17,000 soldiers during the four month battle for the two islands.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[kruach aum]

Not to mention that the difference between high and low tide would be much larger than the increase in average water level.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[i kan reed]

Yes, but high tide has consistently been going up as the average does. I don't think that's a particularly meaningful objection.

I'm going to have to research the material on this to be sure, but I believe one of the artifacts of increasing water levels is that the gap between high and low tide gets larger, as more mass is available to be pulled on by the moon.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yes, but high tide has consistently been going up as the average does.

Since, from TFA, water levels have risen just bit more than seven inches, it's probably safe to say that the high-tide has increased a similar amount.

I fail to see the relationship.

By the by, have you ever noticed that when a weather event supports AGW, it's caused by AGW, but when one doesn't, it's "just weather". Hint: most of the weather events we've been seeing were just weather events, not proof-positive of AGW, nor proof-positive of !AGW....

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[i kan reed]

7 inches per 60 tears is only a little bit less than the worldwide average of coastal sea level changes(of 2-3 feet per century), so no your counter-argument isn't really rational as we're not over-localizing the phenomenon. Sorry.

People buried soldiers in WWII imagining sea level as a constant thing, and evidence bears out that this isn't true.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[Hognoxious]

I believe one of the artifacts of increasing water levels is that the gap between high and low tide gets larger, as more mass is available to be pulled on by the moon.

Probably true. After all, in most deserts it's practically undetectable.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[radarskiy]

"have you ever noticed that when a weather event supports AGW, it's caused by AGW, but when one doesn't, it's "just weather"."

Actually no, I have never once seen anyone make a scientific argument that a single weather event represents a long term AGW trend. Care to cite some examples?

I have seen people shoot their mouths off in eitheir direction while supplying no basis, or make joke where an analysis is not expected, and as such I find them to be equally dismissible.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[GrumblyStuff]

On the other hand, most desserts are fairly delectable.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[khallow]

7 inches per 60 tears is only a little bit less than the worldwide average of coastal sea level changes(of 2-3 feet per century)

By at least a factor of two.

Re:Are these the first in 70 years?

[khallow]

Actually no, I have never once seen anyone make a scientific argument that a single weather event represents a long term AGW trend.

Impossible. Such arguments are by definition not scientific arguments.

How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

... I thought total it was couple centimeters.... which shouldn't be enough to uncover anything but sand crabs...

Are we sure this isn't erosion? Because that seems far more likely then sea levels changing.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[hey!]

Well, it's a bit like stairs. It's really important to make sure each riser is exactly the same, because people going up and down those stairs adapt with remarkable precision to the height of the first few steps they climb. If you took a slow motion picture, you'd see their foot gliding onto each step with a scant millimeter or so to spare. A 2mm difference in all the stairs nobody will notice; a 2mm difference in one stair will trip people up, even though you can't even *see* it.

People build around flood levels the same way. They build right up to what the historical floodline is for the frequency they can tolerate. If they can tolerate one flood every ten years, they'll build right up to to the ten year floodline. But if the sea levels rise 15cm/5.5 inches, as they have since 1945 or so, that spot might be flooded every year. You can easily imagine a gravesite that was stable in its balance between sand deposition and erosion for many years "suddenly" getting washed away, although in truth the line between stable and unstable has been continually creeping up over the decades.

Understand this is not a simple situation; 5 inches of sea level rise doesn't mean suddenly lots of homes are under water everywhere around the world. But it can mean lots of homes are getting flooded in some parts of the world. It depends on local conditions and building practices. Here in Boston, for example, we have two meter tides, and massive variation between spring and neap tides, and with the direction of wind and air pressure, and we've historically built accordingly. 5 inches of sea level rise over half a century has made no noticeable difference *here*. Other places that have very low tidal amplitudes and don't experience large storms with persistent low pressure (e.g., Venice) might find a lot of stuff getting flooded after a 5 inch sea level rise.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[flyingfsck]

Well, now don't confuse things and ruin the global warming story with facts...

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

Well, I know Venice's big problem is that the city is actually sinking into the mud. That's been known for a long time. There are parts of the city that are always a good more then 5 inches under water. You'll see buildings with door ways that are about 4 feet submerged. So I'm a little dubious of that reference.

As to this situation. I'd have to see the thing. I can't take anyone's word for this sort of thing anymore. There's too much "opinion making" going on with people trying to distort the issue to suit their own personal grinding axe.

I could do the same thing... but I won't... I'll just say I'll need to see more to believe a word of it.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

You can't blame that on global warming though or global sea levels.

You start talking about global warming and now you're talking about global stats. How is the sea going to CONSISTENTLY be higher in one part of the world then another if its all really one giant body of water? That doesn't make any sense.

I think there's a lot of erosion that has always been going on that is often blamed on global warming.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[mpe]

You start talking about global warming and now you're talking about global stats. How is the sea going to CONSISTENTLY be higher in one part of the world then another if its all really one giant body of water? That doesn't make any sense.

Most likely what is actually going on here is that the land is sinking. Something which can easily be a local effect.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Hognoxious]

How is the sea going to CONSISTENTLY be higher in one part of the world then another if its all really one giant body of water? That doesn't make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal#Water_issues

Do you reckon that fish drink in the Atlantic and pee in the Pacific?

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[kenaaker]

No. Simply No. This is wrong. In almost every particular

The continents are masses of rock that are on average less dense than mantle rock. So, the continents are floating on the mantle rock. Upwelling plumes from the mantle are most often associated with volcanic activity and aren't "lifting the land up" at least in anything approaching a continental area. When ice melts off a continental area, that part of the continent will rebound, floating higher on the mantle rock. Some areas on the periphery of the land mass will sink due to the changing orientation of the mass, but the general motion is upward. All of this takes place over millennia. Parts of North America are still rebounding from the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet. The convective cells in the mantle have some effect on the height of different land masses, but those changes take millions of years to be measurable.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[OneAhead]

Well spoken! I for one don't believe in atomic theory, continental drift or mircowave background. I'd have to see the thing.... </sarcasm>

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[hey!]

As to this situation. I'd have to see the thing. I can't take anyone's word for this sort of thing anymore..

That's an admirable thing -- if you actually make the effort. Not believing experts but not being bothered to prove them wrong is not quite as admirable.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

The expert in this case is the media not the scientists. Failing to believe the media because they've lied and misrepresented in the past and failed to offer enough evidence to make me trust them is not in any way dishonorable or foolish.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

You're right, if I show anything short of blind faith to any report in the media... if I fail to believe utterly any story in the newspaper or in any press release, then I must question the total sum of all human knowledge. /s

You're a fucking moron.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

On what do you base that claim? Or do you only have baseless insults?

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

That seems much more likely then a significant rise in global sea levels that is only really evident in a couple isolated places.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[khallow]

A 2mm difference in all the stairs nobody will notice; a 2mm difference in one stair will trip people up

There's a scientific term for this sort of assertion: bullshit.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Karmashock]

Okay... but was the pacific always higher then the Atlantic or is this something just just happened in last few years?

I live on the US west coast... we have no problem with flooding from the pacific. We have big beautiful beaches, mild storms, no hurricanes, and days that alternate between foggy and sunny.

None of which is relevant to the central point... but I sort of question whether there is one.

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Not saying this applies here, but I recall a scandalously dishonest CNN article trumpeting rising oceans and a tiny ocean nation about to sink beneath. In the fine print they point out the island is sinking and not the ocean rising (or the sinking rate is magnitudes faster anyway). The headline though...scary warming!

Re:How much have the seas risen?

[Hognoxious]

None of which is relevant to the central point...

No, not relevant to an assertion that the sea is at the same level everywhere at all.

Re:that's odd

[i kan reed]

Press releases from coal companies never really consist of "evidence against" though. They're usually just "rhetoric against". And they've discovered that's not really as necessary now that they've managed to instill denying it as a core value of one political party. People will assert counter-factual things because that's far easier than accepting the idea of previously being wrong.

The really dumb thing is we're doing it all to ourselves, and there's not even much of a conspiracy to manipulate us anymore.

Re:that's odd

[Toad-san]

Wait! What world is that? I live in Nawth Ca'lina, where Duke Power is king. And coal ash is good for the roses. Where, now that almost all the shallow water wells are contaminated with fuel, chemicals and fertilizers, they're now targeting the deep aquifers with fracking. Yeah, THAT Nawth Ca'lina. And obviously not part of your world at all, alas.

Re:Now the rest of the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting quote from that article:

Dr Murray Ford, from the University of Auckland, has been comparing aerial photographs of the islands taken by the United States military during World War II with photographs taken in the 1970s and in recent years. He found that many islands are getting larger and that the shrinking shoreline along coastal villages has largely been caused by commercial development, building of seawalls and land reclamation.

Those are most probably Koreans or Taiwanese

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the Japanese troops stationed in the Marshall Islands back in WW II were mostly from Taiwan and Korea as most of the Japanese troops were deployed in China

Erosion

[Anonymous Coward]

Not "global warming," "climate change," or any other trendy catch-phrase designed to instill fear upon a gullible public.

Re:Erosion

[top_down]

The funny part is that it was the other way around when the climate discussions first started here on Slashdot. Then the climate threads would be page after page of dumb skeptic comments. Now the new generation of braindead are alarmist it seems.

The reason I found the article in the Telegraph is because I am biased myself. I dislike any alarmist drama, not just of the climate variation. And since the BBC has a track record when it comes to alarmism I went looking for the other side of the story ;-)

Re:Erosion

[dave420]

Or you could act like an adult and be the truth-seeker you claim to be and look at the scientific papers. I guess that's too difficult, so you just listen to what the Telegraph has to say on the matter because genius. You and your ilk are causing untold damage to our "lifeboat" simply because you can convince yourself you are not. Future generations will not look kindly upon you and your sort, and thankfully your inane nonsensical postings will survive for all to point at and try to ensure this sort of mass-science-denialism doesn't happen again. Ask yourself this question: If the "alarmists" are correct, what stops your "I don't listen to alarmism" stance from blinding you to reality? If someone at your place of business screamed that the building is on fire, do you open up telegraph.co.uk, look for a story on whether it is on fire, and upon finding none call them an alarmist and go back to dying? Discounting something because you assume it's "alarmist" only helps to perpetuate any existing problems, ensure our collective reaction to real problems is delayed or ineffectual, and makes you look like an absolute muppet of the highest calibre.

It's called ... subsidance

[American Patent Guy]

Some places on the earth naturally accumulate sand/soil from natural processes. In the Marshall Islands, it is a hurricane now and again. The sand/soil naturally subsides (sinks) into the surrounding lower-lying regions, or sometimes because of the pumping out of groundwater. Here's a description made for the southern shore of the U.S.:

http://www.agu.org/report/hurr...

When the next hurricane comes along, the graves of these soldiers will be covered again. Let this "foreign minister" flap about "global warming" all he wants: he's really just concerned about getting foreign aid for a populace trying to live on untenable land.

Re:Erm...

[oz1cz]

waters in this part of the Pacific have risen faster than the global average.

I really have some trouble conceiving that...

This has been adressed in a previous comment: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

Re:that's odd

[ColdWetDog]

Welcome to our Slashdot where (some) people think the entire planet can be modeled by a rubber duck, a bathtub, a tray of icecubes and a fifth of cheap vodka.

Re:that's odd

[tempestdata]

China, not the US is the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions. And it is by a WIDE margin. China's CO2 emissions are almost double the USA's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

This does not mean that the USA isn't contributing to the problem. It definitely is.. but even if the US were to drop it's emissions by a Quarter (which is a LOT) it would barely have a 3% impact on worldwide CO2 emissions. I have no way of estimating the impact on the US economy if it were to drop it's emissions by a Quarter.

My point is even though you are right, the outcome of this debate in the US is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. My point is we are f*cked, this is a run away train, and there is no organizational or political entity big or strong enough to stop it.

Sea Level Hype

[edibobb]

Sea level has risen 7-8 inches over the past 100 years. By the year 2200, sea level is expected to rise somewhere between 4 and 30 inches. The sea level in the Pacific has not risen significantly more than on the rest of the earth.

When people exaggerate the effects of global warming, it only provides ammunition for the global warming deniers.

Re: Sea Level Hype

[Bartles]

Yes, because science always benefits from being vague and non specific. It would be terrible if it were specific, and people might point out that it's often wrong.

Re:Sea Level Hype

[WalksOnDirt]

By the year 2200, sea level is expected to rise somewhere between 4 and 30 inches.

A more reasonable guess might be around a meter by 2100, plus or minus a half meter. What will happen in 2200 will depend too much on our actions before then to say much.

Re:that's odd

[i kan reed]

He's right in that any solution needs to involve China, but that's not a reason to do nothing, and I'm not sure how it counters the idea I presented.

Re:that's odd

[Anonymous Coward]

That presumes the US is unable to influence the world.

That's mistaken.

Especially since US technology is exported to other countries, and that includes CO2 producing equipment.

Example one...

[shellster_dude]

This is the reason we can't have a real conversation about Global Warming. It is a fact that islands sink. Little islands are commonly sinking slowly back into the ocean. This is long established, proved, and accepted. Erosion near cost lines is also well understood and a likely explanation. However, a bunch of "journalists" are using this story to promote Global Warming without ever even mentioning the most likely explanation. The resulting story gets promulgated across the internet because if fits a theme, that is popular and the media likes. This is simply unacceptable from a side that likes to claim "science" at every turn.

Re:that's odd

[reboot246]

No, that sounds like the makings of a great party! Kinky to the max.

Re:that's odd

[Bartles]

Oh, in that case, I guess China doesn't produce more CO2. Because it it a populous country filled with citizens who are minorities, we can excuse it.

Something Smells...

[Bartles]

...Why do the Marshall Islands have a yearly rise increase almost 4 times the world average? Is it a low pressure zone? Are there Marshall Island glaciers that no one has discovered yet? How much has the sea level risen in the Marshall Islands since WWII. There is a lot of information missing from this story, and it reeks of politics and money.

Re:Something Smells...

[riverat1]

Here is the tide gauge for Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands since about 1945. There is a definite uptick in the past 15 or 20 years.

Re:Something Smells...

[Bartles]

I wonder what the raw data looks like. I have a feeling the uptick appeared after the data was altered.

Re:Something Smells...

[riverat1]

Well, there's an opportunity for you to do the research and find out for yourself if you are right. Until you publish I'll take NOAA's word for it. Here is the main page for the Kwajalein gauge to get you started. If you dig enough the raw data is available.

Re:oh great

[Tablizer]

Now here come all the Global Zombie Deniers...

The USA

[Anonymous Coward]

But China and India point fingers at the USA, the leader of the World (for now), and say, "Why don't YOU do something about it! Otherwise, put up or shut up!"

So, that's what Obama did - he put up.

And being a geeks, we will never see a Star Trek type of World if we insist on clinging to ancient fuels and technology. They are past due. They are inefficient, polluting and have no redeeming quality other than being cheap on the surface.

No one considers the costs from the health impact from the air pollution, the costs to the ecosystem and water sheds down river from mining and usage (see Assholes at Duke Power), and the damage from all the mercury that is spewed out of coal plants which then gets into our food supply - where do you think all that mercury in your Tuna, Shark, Swordfish .... comes from?

Although, the Chinese do realize the health consequences and the finite supply of fossil fuels and that's why they are LEADING in green energy.

Yep, the Chinese are ahead of us.

Remember that when green energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels and China is just kicking our ignorant asses economically, scientifically, and socially.

Re:The USA

[Shakrai]

and have no redeeming quality other than being cheap on the surface.

Google the term "energy density". Hydrocarbons beat any non-nuclear alternative in this department, which is a large part of the reason why they're cheaper than the competition. I can put 14 gallons of gasoline (roughly equivalent to 1.8 billion joules or ~512 kilowatt hours) into my automobile in about one minute. I can't fully charge my cell phone battery (with a paltry capacity of ~10,000 joules) in less than an hour....

Re:The USA

[DarwinSurvivor]

Google the term "energy density". Hydrocarbons beat any non-nuclear alternative in this department, which is a large part of the reason why they're cheaper than the competition. I can put 14 gallons of gasoline (roughly equivalent to 1.8 billion joules or ~512 kilowatt hours) into my automobile in about one minute. I can't fully charge my cell phone battery (with a paltry capacity of ~10,000 joules) in less than an hour....

I think you just answered your own question.

Re:The USA

[Shakrai]

How's that? Nuclear is awesome, I'm a huge proponent, but it doesn't exactly scale into the aerospace or automotive/trucking sectors. The failure of the green energy crowd to put forth a workable alternative for these sectors is rarely mentioned, but they'll have to come up with something if they're serious about abandoning hydrocarbons.

Re:The USA

[iNaya]

Most of the emissions from vehicles come from shipping. Which is certainly capable of being nuclear run.

Re:The USA

[DarwinSurvivor]

We are very close to a large percentage of the population being able to do all of their day-to-day driving by simply recharging at their various destinations without any inconvenience. Instead of going down to the gas station ever week (or half-week) and sitting there waiting for it to fill up, just plug it in when you get home or to work and let it recharge until you get back.

Re:The USA

[Whatanut]

I fail to see how we're "very close to a large percentage" being able to do this. Sounds plausible on the surface. But I still see a huge amount of infrastructure that needs to be put in place. It's not like it's good enough to just have a power outlet somewhere in the building that you can use. Number one, a parking garage would basically need a receptacle at every parking space. Along with a system for charging the person recharging their vehicle. Energy is not free.

That being said, are these difficult obstacles to overcome? No. But it's still a lot of infrastructure somebody needs to invest in before it becomes a plausible solution.

Re:The USA

[Talderas]

Nuclear ran as in powered by a nuclear reactor or powered by electricity generated by nuclear energy?

Naval freight would certainly necessitate nuclear reactors. However there have only ever been four nuclear powered cargo ships and they have all been light in compared of the bulk freighters we see today. One was converted to diesel. One was a hybrid passenger/cargo ship. One was converted into a nuclear powered drill ship. The last never carried cargo. I'm honestly not certain if nuclear could be a competitive fuel, at least not without raising the price of that dirty dirty dirty hydrocarbon they burn.

Rail freight I think has a better chance of being nuclear powered if you can convert it to electrical however I still think that the costs of enough batteries or electrifying the enter rail grid would be cost prohibitive. So we would need nuclear reactors scaled down small enough to fit within a reasonably sized rail engine. That honestly may not be that far off but there's no way that would fly with the public as long as there's still concerns about derailment, especially in or close to urban areas.

Rail trucking is likely a pipedream even if nuclear reactors small enough to fit in trucks could be developed so you would be better off trying to convert them electrical. However well that would work, I'm not certain.

Re:The USA

[DarwinSurvivor]

Yes, there is a fair bit of infrastructure to put in. Many places are putting in their own chargers, be it 1 or 2 designated spots (a couple of strip malls near me have them) or an entire parking lot of charging stations (like BCIT just installed). I live near Vancouver, so I am probably seeing a lot more progress than most of North America, but once its been proven to work in one city, others will follow. Where I live, almost all new structures are getting high-amperage cabling laid during construction to facilitate future charger installations (even private homes), so the infrastructure is already being built.

As for the cost of power, most estimates put it at around $3 for a full charge (from dead to 100%). For existing paid-parking garages, they already have the ability to charge for the parking spot by the hour/etc, so simply adding a flat percentage increase should take care of the cost of any power they consumed (just like the costs of maintenance and security are already included in the ticket fee). There are also chargers on the market that have built-in transaction systems for credit cards or coins similar to how a parking meter works.

I spot (without looking for them) at least 1 electric car almost every day during my daily commute (more if I drive instead of taking the train) compared to them being almost non-existent only a year or two ago.

Maybe the evidence isn't

[jarek]

all that strong but the evidence for the enhancement of the CO2 warming (for this to be anything but a big advantage for nature) is very weak indeed. It is scary that we are wrecking the economies of the west while the dictatorships are having our lunch. If people would like to to see how science fails, do have a look at the fiasco of cholesterol research and how literally, the American Heart Association is killing people for the funding it gets by selling its logo to companies still trading in cholesterol level lowering products which is known to make heart disease worse and increase mortality. It is absolutely horrible. Another consensus driven research. All peer reviewed and payed for but the drug companies. And it is still going on.

Re:that's odd

[OneAhead]

Not only that, if the US imposes CO2 tax or efficiency standards, this tax / these standards will also need to apply to imported goods, else they will be null and void. And in case GP has been living under a rock, the US imports a lot from China...

The EU has been playing this game for a long time: stealth market protectionism in the form of standards. You're using growth hormone or antibiotics to produce your beef? Too bad, you can't sell it here. The laborers that produce your clothes/gadgets are not treated humanely? Too bad, you don't pass the import standards.
While it is somewhat hypocrite to wave the "free trade" flag while doing this, I say "fsck free trade". This practice puts positive market pressure on other countries to improve things. Also, you need to be sure that your own companies can comply with the new standards before the foreign ones catch on, so you're effectively spurring innovation. Nothing but advantages.

Re:that's odd

[OneAhead]

Welcome to the world where that's demonstrably true. Explanations here and here.

Re:that's odd

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I would argue that its not irreverent. If we can prove that large groups of intelligent apes who have been so obstinate in believing facts can be persuaded to listen to facts, that would be a great accomplishment indeed. It would also be nice if we could deal with the effects of climate change without having to deal with the stupid arguments against climate change.

Re: that's odd

[Bartles]

Isn't this basically a press release?

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

[iNaya]

Except the Marshall Islands are in the same body of water that is on the shore of USA, Australia UK, etc. None of whom have seen any substantial sea level rise. The island is sinking.

Re:that's odd

[unitron]

Duke isn't giving us contaminated water, that's "Freedom Juice".

Re:that's odd

[dryeo]

Welcome to a world with winds which can pile up whole oceans so one side is higher then the other.
Welcome to a world with different temperatures where parts of the oceans can expand more then other parts.
Welcome to a world with ocean currents where parts of the ocean can be higher then other parts.
Welcome to a world where people post without giving any thought that their simple view of the world might be incomplete.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

[riverat1]

I guess 3 mm/year for the last 20 years isn't substantial sea level rise but compare that to less than 0.25 mm/year for the last 3000 years.

Re:that's odd

[chipschap]

I'm trying to understand how rising water uncovered something. I can see rising water floating something into view or the like, but uncovering? Shouldn't that be falling water levels? (This is not an anti-climate change question, by the way; I just don't get the idea here.)

Re:that's odd

[dryeo]

The waves would go further up the beach or past the beach and when retreating take some of the sand or soil with them, especially if the ground was not compacted. Its amazing how waves can rearrange the landscape, especially when driven by a big storm.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Kazoo the Clown]

Sea level is not constant or consistent across the SAME body of water. This is due to gravitational, rotational and current effects. Virtually all of the islands in the south pacific AND the north and west of Australia has been experiencing significant sea level rise. To suggest they're all simply sinking is completely ignorant of the facts. And note that some are ALSO sinking as well, it's not mutually exclusive.

Re:that's odd

[Kazoo the Clown]

Don't forget gravitational and rotational effects.

More slashdot climate clickbait - boring

[MooseMiester]

So let's make an already emotionally charged subject even more charged, to see if we can get even more of the same people shouting the same opposing points at each other, and neither side bothering to listen to the other.

Re:Global Cooling and Warming at the same time!

[dave420]

Ask why 2007 and 18 years ago were chosen and you have your answer: You listen to idiots, and have allowed yourself to become one. Plus ice volume has been dropping at both poles whereas surface area might be increasing - but I guess those mean the same thing to you. Fool.