Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

6 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. Except it's not actual sea level rise... by cirby · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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. 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.

  3. It s alie, they are actually growing. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not even that fortunately.

    Read the article, the summary is a bald faced lie.

    In fact, the total land area of the Solomons is growing relatively quickly, there are a few exceptions, which are
    basically old unstable low lying reefs that were washed away in a couple of major tropical cyclones, which is
    very normal. They are selectively reporting a very few examples where it is not..

    Add to that a couple of islands where, due to human pollution the coral has experience die back (remember, many
    of these islands are natural growing coral, when it dies, they erode away..)

    Its actually quite impressive that the total land area is growing..

    Of course that doesn't suit certain political agendas, and doesn't generate free money (aid..), so....

  4. Re:Lies by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. Re:SAVE THE BAGS by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no one in the gubmint got their hands dirty supplying oil

    Are you joking? Did you not see the price tag on the second gulf war?

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  6. Re:SAVE THE BAGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Based upon a $3.00 gallon of gasoline, the average break-down is as follows.

    Gasoline Retailer $.01 cents per gallon Oil Company $.08 cents per gallon Refining $.29 cents per gallon Marketing/Distribution $.32 cents per gallon Cost of crude $1.71 per gallon (delivered)

    Taxes $.59 cents per gallon - no one in the gubmint got their hands dirty supplying oil but they take the lion's share.

    Who is gouging who?

    I work in the oil industry providing logistics software as a service. Let me reformat your list, again based on $3.00 per gallon of gasoline (your numbers are off but they're mostly besides the point):

    $0.01 per gallon Gasoline retailer
    $0.08 per gallon Oil company
    $0.29 per gallon Oil company (refining)
    $0.32 per gallon Oil company (marketing and distribution)
    $1.71 per gallon Oil company (crude extraction and delivery)
    $0.59 per gallon taxes

    Totals:

    $2.40 per gallon Oil company
    $0.59 per gallon Taxes (seems like a good price for the roads and infrastructure and environmental cleanups involved, no?)
    $0.01 per gallon Gasoline retailer

    And at every step of the way, the oil companies push off every last inch of risk and liability they can, but hook and by crook, on whomever they can force it.

    You, sir, are ignorant and a fool. And spewing your ignorance and foolishness all over the 'net is a detriment to us all.