Bishop Hill Coral atolls are safe
Aug 2, 2014 Climate: WG2 Mark Lynas famously makes much of his living advising the government of the Maldives on climate change. The chief alleged threat to these low-lying atolls is of course that they are going to be swamped by rising seas.
Unfortunately for Lynas, a news article (£) in Science magazine suggests that his position is based on a misconception about how atolls work.
In 1999, the World Bank asked [University of Auckland geomorphologist Paul Kench] to evaluate the economic costs of sea-level rise and climate change to Pacific island nations. Kench, who had been studying how atoll islands evolve over time, says he had assumed that a rising ocean would engulf the islands, which consist of sand perched on reefs. “That’s what everyone thought, and nobody questioned it,” he says. But when he scoured the literature, he could not find a single study to support that scenario. So Kench teamed up with Peter Cowell, a geomorphologist at the University of Sydney in Australia, to model what might happen. They found that during episodes of high seas—at high tide during El Niño events, which raise sea level in the Central Pacific, for example—storm waves would wash over higher and higher sections of atoll islands. But instead of eroding land, the waves would raise island elevation by depositing sand produced from broken coral, coralline algae, mollusks, and foraminifera. Kench notes that reefs can grow 10 to 15 mill imeters a year—faster than the sea-level rise expected to occur later this century. “As long as the reef is healthy and generates an abundant supply of sand, there’s no reason a reef island can’t grow and keep up,” he argues.
This isn't new of course. Kench's work is years old and was mentioned in de Lange and Carter's report on sea-level rise for GWPF. But it's interesting to see Sciencemag allowing such heresy on its pages.
Reader Comments (77)
I'm baffled by the reaction to these holes in Siberia.
Open Google Earth.
Type in Yamal and zoom into satellite view.
Lots and lots of holes. In every phase of development. Young, old, fresh, eroded, flattened, raised, ejecta rims, rim eroded away, empty of water, full of water.
Stuck-Record
No mystery it's removal of trees previously used in evidence against the CO2
I have a copy of a letter from Prof Nils Axil Morner, the world authority on sea levels, to the Maldive government. It states quite clearly that the islands were in no danger of ''drowning'' and that his letter should be released for the local population to read. This was refised by the Maldive government who obviously think scaring people is OK if money comes to feed the Maldive government's agenda.
This is “gobsmacking”!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/
I hope the Heartland Institute, or some other U.S. based organisation, will be pressing for a judicial review of temperature data adjustments made to the USHCN database.
At school, during our Geography O'level, 1969, we were taught that atolls grew in height when sea levels rose, so how did our Geography teacher, Mr Evans, know then what the Alarmists still don't know now?
Is it "Integrative complexity", where the Alarmists are too intelligent to understand simple phenomena, such as climate? :)
Mark Stein explains this so well, with a short bit starting at 1:20 to 2:05 and then from 3:30 !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl7zDLxtmr8
it is like with infinite nr monkeys typing the bible, or the periods muslims THEY were traumatised: when you just cherrypick the right time intervals, there will be correlation between CO2 and temp
not the last 18y
not the last 500k years (CO2 LAGS not precedes temp then)
I know what I believe about evolution and I know what I believe about God and on both subjects the views of trolls do not even register on my radar!! :-)
Mike Jackson
Aimed more at them than you, Ad hominem, red herrings and all that.
Stuck-Record,
Thanks. I try to always seek images of existing events before I comment on a claim either way. It is part of being a skeptic: Actually look at the issue in question and not to rely on news reports. What is interesting is that we see EM not reading the definition I posted, which specifically refers to how the pingo referred to in the article looks, nor apparently at the images which are just a click away under, not surprisingly, "images" in the google tool bar.
Alex, the sea level rise associated with the Holocene interglacial began about 18 millennia ago and ended about 8 millennia ago. The rise was about 120 meters, and was fastest during meltwater pulse 1. The rise since has been about 2 meters, and the present Sea level is about 6-7 meters lower than the peak during the previous Eemian interglacial, which was also about 3C warmer, and perhaps as much as 6-7c warmer in places like Greenland (Neem core). For once, Wikipedia has a reasonably accurate graphic summarizing sediment core SLR results from all over the world providing a good image of the Holocene SLR. There will be two essays on this general topic in my next book.
Hunter
I,be been looking at pinto images. I found nothing recently formed that resembles the three craters. Perhaps you could !ink to images which support your hypothesis.
Mooloo
On the millennial of glacial periods, interstadials and interglacials the paleo data shows insolation driving temperature temperature initially drives CO2 and the two both increase in a positive feedback loop damped by the increasing difficulty of getting CO2 out of sinks.
Since worldwide temperature records began in the 1880s there has been no genuine alternative mechanism driving the temperature rise except CO2.
SandyS
Graph and calculation here .
The data compares the temperature anomaly and CO2 concentrations for individual years since the modern temperature record began.
SandyS
Graph and calculation here .
The data compares the temperature anomaly and CO2 concentrations for individual years since the modern temperature record began.
Jack Haye
The pattern change in warming effect due to increasing CO2 is natural logarithmic. Over a much larger range the slope of the graph decreases with increasing concentration, but over the range described the change is almost linear.
Saturation has occurred at the 15 micrometre spot absorption frequency for pure CO2. Over the range of frequencies on either side at which CO2 absorbs in the atmosphere absorption continues to increase with concentration.For more detail examine the OLR spectrum and research line broadening .
>sigh<
Now EM is operating at the level of someone who sees an image of the Blessed Mother in a tortilla and claims it to be more than a faith based interpretation.
How pingos form.
Please note the image in part "G":
http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC41W9D_lake-hitchcock-pingo-scars
please note the high walls:
http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/environments/land/features/freeze-thaw/pingo_xsec.htm
Here is one that looks pretty similar:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/pingo-ice-core-hill-created-by-permafrost-high-res-stock-photography/139803150
I have to wash my "new" Volvo (1991 940 GLE) and wax it. I will be pleased to toss more pearls before you later.
Do you understand the concept of "obtuse" and how clinging to the assertion that a pingo in an area well known for pingos is not a pingo might just fit that definition rather well?
Entropic man
There are a couple of things about that link to a blog I haven't come across before by a blogger whose name was equally unfamiliar. First it dates to early 2009, so no data for a large part of "The Pause".
A couple of interesting comments
and
Since thousands of sand islands exist today, one's first thought should have been that they can survive having the seas wash over them. Natives have lived on the islands for so long they've generated unique cultures, did a geologist miss this point?
And then to demonstrate his ignorance, he comes up with “That’s what everyone thought, and nobody questioned it”. Utter crud. For God's sake some universities need slapping.
SandyS
" it is temperature that is the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well be miniscule) - of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature change."
He's partly correct. Milankovich cycle driven temperature changes drive glacial/interglacial cycles. CO2 acts as an amplifier of the temperature changes through positive feedback. With the insolation change producing a 1C change at 65N latitude and the overall global change around 5C, the effect of CO2 is not "minuscule".
Unfortunately, under modern conditions, we are generating CO2 driven temperature change. The positive feedback amplification is still happening as described in your first qoute, but the cause is an anthropogenic CO2 increase instead of a Milankovich cycle driven temperature change.
A better analogy to current conditions would be shield vulcanism like the Deccan Traps, recovery from a Snowball Earth or a PETM with an increase in CO2 preceding and triggering the temperature change.
Since CO2 levels above 400ppm have not been seen since before the last hothouse Earth to icehouse Earth transition, some 2 million years ago, precedent would suggest that a temperature regime well above normal interglacial levels is quite possible.
Glebekinvara, Pharos,
Re oceanic acidifimation - thanks for the info' and yes indeed - to all of it...............But please believe me when I say - "oceanic acidification" and un Sea level rise, along with the sky falling in - I never lose a moments sleep thinking about these 'threats', the same when the BBC tells us shouting this is, "unprecedented weather!"
One day Vesuvius will go up, Katla is due...... and that [geologically speaking] SOON a part of Wyoming - will be vapourised and launched around the globe - now then, I must admit I've had a few nightmares about them but usually I worry more about Cameron, Hollande and Obarmy wanting to start a war against President Putin - now that is really worrying.
@SandyS
Why is it relevant that you've never heard of my or my blog? I know, let's say 3000 scientists in my fields. That's a small fraction of even a single professional society I'm in (the American Geophysical Union has about 60,000 members, so, I don't know something like 95% of them.) Rather than dismiss you (or them) because I haven't heard of you before, I'll see what you have to say.
Several people claimed that I was 'attacking' a straw man, claiming that 'nobody' had said there was no correlation between CO2 and temperature. The only reason I wrote the article what that I'd seen several such claims. For reference, here are 20 such claims. This, too, was in the article to which you were referred.
It's interesting that you are dismissive of my note for being 5 years old, yet are accepting of articles which are 10 or more years old (regarding the lead-lag of CO2 and temperature through ice age cycles). In my 5 year-old article, I observed that the temperature looked to be leading by ~1000 years. But that is indeed 5 years ago. Since then, more research on the temperature-CO2 lead/lag has been done, and found instead that CO2 is the leader (2012).
I'd already been planning to issue an update to that older note. But we (anyone familiar with correlation statistics) already know that adding 5 years to a 130 year record will not make for any great changes in either the correlation or the slope, since neither temperatures nor CO2 levels are wildly different from what has preceded. Still, with all the fanfare about 'hiatus', 'pause', 'cooling trend', it's worth computing the figures over climate time scales and have real numbers.
The lead/lag leads some people to interesting errors. The thing is, ..., well, some different things. One being the people who invoke current warming to excuse current CO2 rise. Supposing the 800 (or 2900, or 1600) year lead is true and the only factor. Current temperatures say nothing about the CO2 rise. It would be the temperatures 800 years ago that would matter -- and that's the end (cooling phase, heading in to little ice age) of the Medieval Warm Period. CO2 levels would have to be dropping now if this is the driver.
The second thing is to suppose that temperature were indeed the sole reason for CO2 rise in the glacial/interglacial cycle, and that temperature were entirely unaffected by CO2 levels. Neither is true, but those are the most favorable assumptions for the people who respond as the person you quote. Glacial to interglacial temperature change, global mean, is order 5 C. CO2 levels change by order 100 ppm. So, to explain the CO2 rise as being a response to the leading temperatures, not only does it have to be warmer 800 (or 1600 or 2900, but do explain why you choose one of them and reject the other two) years ago, but the current 100 ppm rise requires it to have been -- global mean -- 5 C warmer (closer to 6 now) at that time. The peak of the Medieval Warm Period was arguably about 1 C warmer (than same reference). Maybe a little more, maybe substantially less. But 5 C is far outside any plausibility -- that's as much warmer than 20th century as 20th century was than the Last Glacial Maximum. People, and the geologic record, abundantly notice climate changes as large as the ice age cycle.
Even under the most favorable assumptions, the lead/lag argument dies quickly on exposure to observation. CO2 is rising, but Temperature leading says it should be falling. Ignore that, and the recent CO2 rise is also 5 times too large.
Back to the point of my original -- anyone interested in learning about climate science can safely ignore anyone who says there's no correlation between temperature and CO2. It's blindingly obvious that there is quite a good correlation. You're also safe ignoring anyone who says that the correlation, alone, proves CO2 is the cause of all temperature variation. Good thing I didn't say that it did.
Comments are still open on my original if anyone is interested in pursuing the topic. I think I've infringed enough on the host's patience.
An earlier poster correctly identified island futures as "keep up, catch-up, or give-up". The beautiful islands of Hawaii have all of them including those that gave up, and one that is staying ahead of the problem. Each future is determined by the rate and duration of encroachment of the sea for what ever reason, and the initial island elevation above sea level. Islands don't survive all possible insults thrown their way and so one has to do the field work to make a high probability assessment of any particular island's future. Here is some interesting background information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maui_Nui
Nobody is expecting the kinds of sea level changes that put Maui Nui underwater so it is I think safe to assume the Maldives are safe but most likely the brand spanky new airport is doomed at some point in the future. Nature doesn't accommodate fools but economics does - the airport will likely have paid for itself many times over before it becomes sea bottom.
dp,
Fortunately slr has been stable for quite a long period of time.
Robert Grumbine
That was merely a comment to Entropic man, as I had never heard of you or your blog. When Emtropic man gives me a reference they are normally NOAA. NASA or some other such body. If you read what I said I didn't make a comment on how good or how bad your blog is merely that I hadn't come across it before. As Entropic man was quoting you as if you were a leading authority on the subject of CO2, which indeed you may be, I did google you, so I can see why you're interested in this thread.
Is quite good good enough? From the blindingly obvious part I assume that you don't agree with long timescale, hundred million+ or 400+K years, temperature/CO2 reconstructions which don't show any great correlation? I'm with Sir Patrick Moore "We just don't know"
I knew the Lynas theory was crap after a stormy night on a Maldivian island 4 years ago.
In less than 12 hours a moderately strong wind and rough surf threw a berm fully six FEET high of broken coral up on the shore line.
It stands to reason, coral grows offshore and gets broken in rough weather. The coral is not at all dense and has a high surface area to mass. A stormy period easily pushes the coral up onto the beach and the island grows higher.
Entropic man says:
"Your description of a pingo as a 70m hill with a crater on top does not match these pictures and a collapsing ice inclusion does not explain the ejecta."
Actually a fully collapsed pingo is not "a hill with with a crater on top". It's a roundish lake. And for the "ejecta", just where did 99% of the missing material in the crater go? Into orbit? This is obviously a collapse structure, not an explosion crater.
As for "keep up, catch-up, or give-up" there is also “come-back”. Coral probably can’t keep up with the rate of sea-level rise that occurs near the end of glaciations, e. g. during MWP-1A (up to 40-70 mm/year). But then they don’t have to, because the islands don’t magically shrink during glaciations. They change from being atolls to raised atolls where the former lagoon forms a dry limestone plateau with an annular reef some varying distance down the slope around it.
There are a few such raised atolls around even now, where tectonic movement has raised an atoll so high that even the present high interglacial sea-level doesn’t reach the top. Good examples are Lifu, Mangareva, Niue and Henderson Island.
There are also cases where large lagoon systems failed to keep up (perhaps because they had been tectonically lowered during the last glaciation), e. g. between Australia and New Caledonia. All islands in the Hawaiian chain ultimately will fail to keep up as their volcanic cores subside and plate tectonics carry them into colder waters (water temperatures are actually rather marginal for hermatypic corals at Hawaii). Maui Nui however is in the “come-back” category. It is not an atoll but a large composite volcanic island that happens to be partly flooded during the current interglacial.
As a matter of fact the current situation with a large number of very large atoll systems and barrier reefs may well be exceptional and due to the fact that the last eight 100,000 year glacial cycles have all been separated by fairly long (10,000-30,000 years) interglacials with broadly identical sea levels during which very large reef complexes have had time to form (consider that the famous Great Barrier Reef is actually a low limestone range well inland about 90% of the time). Today’s very large reefs often turn out to be less than a million years old when drilled. The short 41,000 year glacial cycles befor 800,000 years ago seem to have been much less favourable for reef growth.
However all these complications do not affect the fact that corals can, and do, keep up with any reasonably fast sea-level rise, as long as conditions for coral growth and coral sand accumulation are favourable.
Unfortunately this is often no longer the case. Once a coral reaf is dead or dying the sea will wash away the reef islands and plane the atoll off to a shallow submerged bank quite quickly.