New Paper: 54% Of ‘Vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands Studied Had Shorelines That EXPANDED From 2005-2015

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Despite a rapid local sea level rise rate nearly 3 times the global mean (1.8 mm/yr), 15 of 28 studied atoll islands in the southwest Pacific increased in shoreline area during 2005 to 2015 according to a new study (Hisabayashi et al., 2018). For the 3 islands that experienced extreme shoreline erosion – with one atoll island even “disappearing” – a Category 5 cyclone was identified as the most likely causal factor. 

Consequently, the authors conclude that “the dramatic impacts of climate change felt on coastlines and people across the Pacific are still anecdotal


Hisabayashi et al., 2018 (full paper)

Quantifying shoreline change in Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu using
a time series of Quickbird, Worldview and Landsat data

Summary: “Atoll islands are low-lying accumulations of reef-derived sediment that provide the only habitable land in Tuvalu, and are considered vulnerable to the myriad possible impacts of climate change, especially sea-level rise. This study examines the shoreline change of twenty-eight islands in Funafuti Atoll between 2005 and 2015 Results indicate a 0.13% (0.35 ha) decrease in net island area over the study time period, with 13 islands decreasing in area and 15 islands increasing in area.  Substantial decreases in island area occurred on the islands of Fuagea, Tefala and Vasafua, which coincides with the timing of Cyclone Pam in March, 2015.”
“Funafuti Atoll is located in the southwest Pacific Ocean, which has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (~5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr) from 1950 to 2009 due to regional variability and vertical ground motion. The rate is nearly three times the global mean [~1.8 mm/yr], and corresponds with a total increase in sea level of ~0.30 ± 0.04 m (Ballu et al. 2011; Becker et al. 2012).”
Most of the islands remained stable, experiencing slight accretion or erosion or a combination of both over time. The total net land area of the islands increased by 1.55 ha (0.55%) between 2005 and 2010, and it has decreased by 1.90 ha (0.68%) between 2010 and 2015, resulting in a net decrease by 0.35 ha (0.13%).  Over this 10-year period, 13 of 28 studied islands had a net decrease in area, ranging from −0.04% on Fongafale (−0.06 ha) to −100% on Vasafua (−0.07 ha). The decrease in area adds up to −2.56 ha and the mean reduction in island area for these 13 islands was −0.20 ha (−20.5%). The largest absolute decreases in island area occurred on Fuagea (−0.90 ha, −78.33%), Fualefeke (−0.54 ha, −7.94%), and Tefala (−0.34 ha, −43.86%), and Vasafua experienced the largest percentage decrease (−0.07 ha, −100%). Vasafua’s “disappearance” is discussed below. The remaining 15 of 28 studied islands had a net increase in area, totaling 2.21 ha, with a range from negligible values (Motugie, 0.01%, 0.00002 ha) to a 5.05% growth on Falefatu (0.18 ha). The mean increase in island area for these 15 islands was 0.15 ha (2.41%). The largest absolute increase in island area occurred on Funafala (0.83 ha, 3.56%), Avalau-Teafuafou (0.33 ha, 2.74%), and TeleleMotusanapa (0.33 ha, 3.59%).”

Image Source: Hisabayashi et al., 2018
“The imagery captured in 2015 reveals a significant change in shape and size of the vegetated area for all three islands, and Vasafua’s vegetation is completely missing in the 2015 image. These drastic differences between the 2014 and 2015 imagery are most likely the impacts of Cyclone Pam, which was a Category-5 tropical cyclone that struck the Pacific region on March 9–16 in 2015. Substantial decreases in island area were detected in three small, uninhabited islands all located in the southwestern rim of Funafuti Atoll (Fuagea, Tefota, and Vasafua). … The most drastic changes in these islands occurred between December 2014 and June 2015, which we deduce to be the impact wrought by the Category 5 Cyclone Pam that passed through the southwest Pacific Ocean in March 2015…. [T]he level of details observed in this study on Vasafua islet that lost all vegetation due to Cyclone Pam would not have been detected if not for the availability of fine spatial resolution data and the short revisit times.”

Image Source: Hisabayashi et al., 2018
“Some studies (Leatherman, Zhang, and Douglas 2000; Romine et al. 2013; Albert et al. 2016) have systematically/rigorously shown the relationship between sea-level rise and shoreline changes, but the dramatic impacts of climate change felt on coastlines and people across the Pacific are still anecdotal and highlights the urgent need for further research.”
Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

56 responses to “New Paper: 5456 Of ‘Vulnerable’ SW Pacific Islands Studied Had Shorelines That EXPANDED From 2005-2015”

  1. SebastianH

    From that paper:

    However, there is little doubt that sea level will continue to rise and that rates of global mean sea-level rise will accelerate regardless of a global reduction in CO2 emissions (Church et al. 2011; Mimura et al. 2007; Nicholls and Cazenave 2010; Nurse et al. 2014)

    Are we cherry picking again or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?

    1. spike55

      There is absolute ZERO sign of sea level rise acceleration except in the “adjusted” satellite data.

      As you pointed out the other day, seb, tide gauges not showing any acceleration, just a cyclic trend on a steady linear base.

      Anything else about future acceleration is purely and simply wacked-out model-based crystal ball gazing.

      1. SebastianH

        As you pointed out the other day, seb, tide gauges not showing any acceleration, just a cyclic trend on a steady linear base.

        What the hell are you talking about?

        1. spike55

          You don’t even pay any attention to the graphs YOU post.

          So Funny

          No wonder you get constantly left behind.

          1. SebastianH

            You don’t even pay any attention to the graphs YOU post.

            So Funny

            A fools reply?

            Enlighten me, what graph did I post? Or was it just a repetition of a graph Kenneth posted and your lacking reading comprehension skills make you think it was I who posted it?

    2. spike55

      “regardless of a global reduction in CO2 emissions “

      That’s news to me.

      Do they provide any data to back it up ?

      https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Global-CO2-emissions-by-region-since-1751.png

      Seems they ruined an otherwise good paper by bleating the scientifically unsupportable AGW mantra.

      1. Yonason

        @Spike

        “…regardless of a global reduction in CO2 emissions…”

        regardless of = “in spite of; without regard for.”

        Sure, they are pushing global warming, but they are decoupling sea level rise from CO2, saying the oceans will continue to rise no matter what it’s concentration is – even if it drops. They don’t want you to think the problem will go away if CO2 levels go down. The safety of those islands will still need further study. And they are just the scientists to it, too.

        No, no. Don’t thank them. They are happy to do it.

        1. SebastianH

          Sure, they are pushing global warming, but they are decoupling sea level rise from CO2, saying the oceans will continue to rise no matter what it’s concentration is – even if it drops.

          Thank you for displaying that you have no clue. Please continue to ignore everything climate scientists write that sounds to complicated for you. Speaking donkeys like this kind of behaviour that shows just how ignorant you guys are …

          1. Yonason

            Oh, dear me. You mean he wasn’t talking about CO2, but about “…CO2 EMISSIONS?” (insert scary music here) And what he was really saying was that emissions reductions, AKA Trillion dollar Kyoto style protocols are a useless waste, because they can’t reverse the unstoppable imaginary looming disasters???!!! Ah, but surely they aren’t a waste, because without them climate “scientists” wouldn’t have the funding to keep stoking the hysteria, and would then have to find REAL jobs, poor things.

            Yeah, I know what he was saying, and what it really means. Thanks for playing “catch and release.” (I was bored)

          2. spike55

            Poor seb,

            There is NO EVIDENCE given in the paper that supports that throw-away line

            You have been caught out, YET AGAIN.

            Get over it and stop acting like a petulant child.

            You KNOW you have ZERO evidence for CO2 causing warming anywhere, anytime, of anything

            The real problem is that these semi-scientists feel the need to add unsupportable AGW junk statements to papers to get through climate non-science peer-review.

          3. SebastianH

            Oh, dear me. You mean he wasn’t talking about CO2, but about “…CO2 EMISSIONS?” (insert scary music here) And what he was really saying was that emissions reductions, AKA Trillion dollar Kyoto style protocols are a useless waste, because they can’t reverse the unstoppable imaginary looming disasters???!!!

            No, I replied because you somehow drifted into that conspiracy theme again. “They do this …”, “They don’t want you to think …”, etc.

            You don’t seem to understand that a reduction of the CO2 emissions will only stop the CO2 concentration increase if it is pretty drastic. And you don’t seem to understand that even at a constant CO2 concentration of whatever we have when we stopped the increase will cause warming of the oceans for quite some time.

            Nobody is saying it is unstoppable. That is entirely your imagination, Yonason.

            @Spikey:

            There is NO EVIDENCE given in the paper that supports that throw-away line

            Why would the paper contain evidence about Yonason’s conspiracy addiction and lack of understanding?

          4. spike55

            Twist and slime yet again, seb

            Your ONLY tactics.

            No evidence of CO2 warming

            And you KNOW it.

            You can’t even answer two simple questions.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    3. John Brown

      SebH

      John thinks that that grammar is getting in the way of what SebH believes.

      He looking at sentence that is put there to guarantee that the paper is published. He must read correctly because it is referred to future not a fact.

      Says “…will accelerate” Not saying “… did accelerate”

      SebH need admit that this difference.

      1. SebastianH

        He looking at sentence that is put there to guarantee that the paper is published. He must read correctly because it is referred to future not a fact.

        Says “…will accelerate” Not saying “… did accelerate”

        SebH need admit that this difference.

        I think you need to open your eyes a little bit further or explain to me where my accompaning sentence “or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?” refers to past acceleration.

        Or are you trying to say that sea leve rise did not accelerate and/or is currently not accelerating?

        1. spike55

          Sea level rise as measured by tide gauges is NOT accelerating.

          In fact, its decelerating
          https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slowsPuls_2.jpg

          Yes there was a brief spike after this graph because of the El Nino, but not enough to change the general trend.

          1. SebastianH

            In fact, its decelerating
            https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slowsPuls_2.jpg

            No, it’s not …
            http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ (the source of your graph)

          2. spike55

            One is working with actual data without “adjustments.”

            Can you guess which one?

            Can you guess how many times you have ducked and weaves avoiding answering these two simple questions.

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        2. John Brown

          There still grammar in the way.

          If there would have been an acceleration, they would have said: “did accelerate”. Since they used the term “will” it indicates that the study supports the notion that there was no acceleration before that.

          While seems John splitting hair this sort of reading (comprehension) is required in the space of climate science papers.

          1. SebastianH

            While seems John splitting hair this sort of reading (comprehension) is required in the space of climate science papers.

            I asked Kenneth “or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?”. Why do you think it matters if the paper wrote about past acceleration or future acceleration for this question?

            If there would have been an acceleration, they would have said: “did accelerate”. Since they used the term “will” it indicates that the study supports the notion that there was no acceleration before that.

            That is just crazy. If an author writes that the Sun will be going to rise tomorrow that doesn’t mean it did not rise the days before. What kind of logic is that?

          2. spike55

            John is talking about REALITY

            Seb is making up FANTASIES.

            Unproven CO2 warming being his deepest darkest wish, fetish, and fantasy.

            He dreams about finding actual evidence..

            But it is turning into a nightmare for the poor scientific inebriate.

  2. Willis Eschenbach

    SebastianH 26. July 2018 at 3:21 PM

    From that paper:

    However, there is little doubt that sea level will continue to rise and that rates of global mean sea-level rise will accelerate regardless of a global reduction in CO2 emissions (Church et al. 2011; Mimura et al. 2007; Nicholls and Cazenave 2010; Nurse et al. 2014)

    Are we cherry picking again or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?

    We all know what “accelerating sea level rise” means. What you didn’t seem to notice is that the paper did NOT say that sea level rise IS accelerating. It says, quite unscientifically in my opinion, that sea level rise WILL accelerate.

    That is a fantasy about the future which has no place in a scientific paper.

    w.

    1. SebastianH

      We all know what “accelerating sea level rise” means

      I don’t know if we all know this. There is AndyG55/Spike55 who thinks it’s “tiny”, but somehow doesn’t get that a 0.07 mm/yr² acceleration makes a difference of 3.92 mm/yr after 56 years. And of course we have Kenneth, who think sea level rise rates will soon slow down again because it is all periodical or something like that. He somehow doubts that a warmer world means higher sea levels and questions how the IPCC predictions could ever become reality even though a continued acceleration like we observed in more than 6 decades comes pretty close already.

      What you didn’t seem to notice is that the paper did NOT say that sea level rise IS accelerating. It says, quite unscientifically in my opinion, that sea level rise WILL accelerate.

      Doesn’t really matter. I asked if he finally accepts what accelerating sea level rise means, not if he accepted that sea level will continue to accelerate.

      1. spike55

        Poor seb,

        Yet again FAILS with his INADEQUATE understanding of maths.

        His IDIOTIC extrapolation of cyclic type data as though it is constant, tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about his lack of basic mathematical and scientific comprehension.

    2. SebastianH

      P.S.: Ask these skeptics here if they understand your “Steel Greenhouse” in case you think they have a clue 😉

      1. SebastianH

        Really? This is the only comment that made it through?

      2. spike55

        Seb’s mind lives in a steel greenhouse.

        Explains everything.

        A basic ignorance of everything to do with atmospheric physics

        Hint seb

        the atmosphere is NOT ANALOGOUS to a steel greenhouse.

        It is an irrelevant distraction.. like everything else.

        A distraction from your abject INABILITY to produce any science to back up the fallacy that is CO2 warming.

  3. John Brown

    About science.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

    The interesting part is the change in the gravitational constant note!

  4. MrZ

    John talks about grammar.
    John then post link to video
    Video is interesting with some new aspects

    MrZ says thank you John. 😄

    1. John Brown

      MrZ,

      now you talking!

  5. dennisambler

    I posted this over at WUWT in response to another “disappearing Pacific islands” piece:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/26/swallowed-islands-getting-slr-out-of-variability/

  6. New Paper: 54% Of 'Vulnerable' SW Pacific Islands Studied Had Shorelines That EXPANDED From 2005-2015 | Un hobby...

    […] Kenneth Richard, July 26, 2018 in […]

  7. Sea Level Study: Most ‘Vulnerable’ Pacific Islands GROWING – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  8. dbeyat45

    Do not engage Sebastian.

  9. Derg

    To all the people with coastline property, due to the accelerating sea levels surely you must know that your property will be under water. I understand that insurance rates do not reflect this conclusion, but they are too dumb to see it. I am offering $1 US dollar per meter of shoreline. That is a very generous offer!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close