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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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.

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?

[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: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

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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:The USA

[iNaya]

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

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.