Another new false-alarm paper reveals that coastal wetlands may not only persist well into the 21st century despite present rates of sea level rise, but the coasts may expand and even prosper due to the natural ability for soil to “build up vertically by sediment accretion”.
Headline/image source: Sciencenews.org
“Coasts are growing all over the world”
Two years ago, a ground-breaking paper was published in the journal Nature Climate Change indicating that the Earth’s shorelines have been growing overall since the mid-1980s (Donchyts et al., 2016).
In other words, because “coasts are growing all over the world”, there is more land area above sea level today than there was 30 years ago.
This conclusion has again been confirmed by a new paper (Luijendijk et al., 2018) that indicates only 24% of the world’s beach shorelines are eroding, whereas 76% of the world’s beach shorelines are either growing (28%) or stable (48%).
Supposedly “vulnerable” Pacific islands are expanding
Hisabayashi et al., 2018 found that 15 of 28 studied atoll islands in the southwest Pacific grew in shoreline area during 2005 to 2015.
Kench et al., 2018 examined “101 islands in Tuvalu over the past four decades (1971–2014)”, a period in which local sea level has risen at twice the global average. They found a “land area increase in eight of nine atolls.”
“Surprisingly, we show that all islands have changed and that the dominant mode of change has been island expansion, which has increased the land area of the nation. … Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average [<2 mm/yr-1] (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls.” (Kench et al., 2018)
Coastal marsh area has been stable or expanding
Kirwan et al., 2016 reported that coastal marshes and their “vulnerable” ecosystems are not only persisting despite present-day sea level rise, coastal marsh area has generally been stable or expanding.
In fact, it was claimed that sea level rise rates of 10-50 mm/yr (1 to 5 meters per century) during the 21st century would not be substantial enough to submerge the globe’s coastal marshes.
“Coastal marshes are considered to be among the most valuable and vulnerable ecosystems on Earth, where the imminent loss of ecosystem services is a feared consequence of sea level rise. However, we show with a meta-analysis that global measurements of marsh elevation change indicate that marshes are generally building at rates similar to or exceeding historical sea level rise, and that process-based models predict survival under a wide range of future sea level scenarios. We argue that marsh vulnerability tends to be overstated because assessment methods often fail to consider biophysical feedback processes known to accelerate soil building with sea level rise, and the potential for marshes to migrate inland. … In summary, dynamic models of marsh vertical accretion indicate that marshes will generally survive relative SLR rates of 10–50 mm yr−1 during the twenty-first century, depending on tidal range and suspended sediment availability.” (Kirwan et al., 2016)
Coastal wetlands may not be threatened by sea level rise
Adding yet another layer to the strengthening conclusion that global sea levels aren’t rising fast enough to “spell doom” to “vulnerable” coastal ecosystems and communities, Schuerch et al. (2018) find that the natural ability of coastal wetlands to “build up vertically by sediment accretion” could potentially lead to “wetland gains of up to 60 per cent of the current area“.
More and more, scientists are undercutting alarmist proclamations of catastrophic 21st century sea level rise brought on by anthropogenic global warming.
“Rising sea levels don’t have to spell doom for the world’s coastal wetlands. A new study suggests salt marshes and other wetlands could accumulate soil quickly enough to avoid becoming fully submerged — if humans are willing to give them a little elbow room. … The new study builds on previous work that suggests rising seas will increase sediment buildup in some parts of coastal wetlands. This increased sediment, as well as human adaptations to allow wetlands to move inland as the seas rise, could allow the coastal fringes to not only survive but to increase their global area by as much as 60 percent.” (Sciencenews press release for Schuerch et al., 2018)
32 responses to “New Study: Sea Level Rise Doesn’t ‘Spell Doom’ – Little To No Loss Of Coastal Wetlands Projected By 2100”
Island nations such as Tuvalu will need to invent a new excuse for the West to send them “climate money” – which they actually use to buy Mercedes Benz Limousines, Palaces, and Weaponry
They don’t need climate money. Aren’t they making big bucks out of the .tv domain suffix?
Golly gosh. Another example of “settled science”.
Pacifica California: Icon of Coastal Erosion & Natural Climate Change
The oceans have been rising ever since the end of the last ice age.
When a new ice age arrives, humans won’t be blamed, they’ll seek refuge into warmer climes. There will be no choice. If you are too far north to make the trip, you’ll be an Eskimo. There will be nothing that you can do except accept the hard cold facts of the matter.
A new ice age will dictate what happens with natural forces.
A new Lake Missoula will form.
Coastal wetlands will follow, the wetlands will subside at higher elevations and grow at new lower sea level areas.
Try reading Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, et al. It is very instructive on the mental attitude of the green blob.
The oceans have been rising ever since the last ice age BEGAN to melt, not when it ended.
A bit OT
But it looks like Arctic sea ice extent via MASIE has bottomed out at around 4.6 Wadhams, just above the 12 year average. (Just under 13 Germanies.)
NSIDC probably has a day or so to go, but will be around 4.5 Wadhams.
DMI volume has definitely turned. Low volume was 6.213 Mkm³ against a 12 year average low of 5.872 Mkm³
It only takes 1 spike55 to ignore the “hot” pocket below the Arctic that scientists found. It also takes only 1 spike55 (that ought to be a unit now) to imagine the current extent to be above a 12 year average.
It’s about 1 million km² below the 2001-2010 average and not one year after 2010 was above that average … so what are you talking about, unit man?
Current level is above 2007, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 for this day seb.
NOTHING UNUSUAL IS HAPPENING at all, just the NORMAL AMO cycle.
Seb STILL DENIES the FACT that Arctic sea levels are FAR higher than most of the last 10,000 years.
And that the late 1970s was the HIGHEST EXTENT since the climb out of the LIA.
Why are you such a CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, seb ???
No more Arctic death spiral.. Poor little seb.
I suppose you mean the hot pocket from volcanic activity seb, there is certainly NO KNOWN MECHANISM for it to be caused by anything human.
I suppose you could FANTASIES, if you wanted to, but whatever you came up with would be IRRELEVANT, just like the rest of your cackling.
We might be interested in your 10-year average in another context, Seb, but since spike55 was talking about a 12-year average we don’t really care what you think.
Was his DMI figure right or wrong? If wrong, prove it. If right, shut up.
Seb, my statement is 100% correct.
You are unable to provide evidence to counter any of the FACTS posted.
You know that.. so GROW UP, and stop your juvenile trolling attempts.
No “ice-free” Arctic this year, little troll.
No passage through the Larsen route (1944) this year or any year since 1944 as far as I can find.
One HECK OF A LOT OF SEA ICE up there, Far more than for some90% of the current interglacial. !
Wouldn’t you agree, seb..
.. or would you DENY the facts, yet again.
Great article … “The largest increase in water has been on the Tibetan Plateau, while the Aral Sea has been the biggest conversion of water to land.”
That’s really something the sea level rise or sediment accretion did, right?
Who lives in coastal wetlands?
And to make Yonason happy, I provide a link to Google Scholar where readers interested in science can find papers about economic effects sea level rise has:
That’s more science than the 7 comments before mine managed to contribute to this discussion. Happy?
Exactly. As long as humans don’t live in swamps, who cares about those habitats and ecosystems, right?
Uh, since there is more coastal land area above sea level today than there was in the 1980s per satellite observation, why are you linking to a search for alarming projections (rooted in computer modeling) of the economic costs of sea level rise — which has nothing to do with what this article is about?
Why not address what the article is about — that coastal wetlands/marshes/tropical islands/global land area as a whole has not been submerged by sea level rise in recent decades — rather than veering off into yet another SebastianH-specialty Oh-no-we’re-doomed tangent?
Yes, SebastianH, we’re happy. Your comments are percolating with science. Thank you for this valuable contribution.
See what you are doing here again? You make up things and put words into my mouth. Just like in those energy poverty threads and bats getting killed by windmills threads, trying to paint a picture of your awful opponent not caring … and you call me dishonest?
What is so hard to understand from “the Aral Sea has been the biggest conversion of water to land”? Another big contribution was artificial islands humans created.
Ehm, this article is about sea level rise being no problem in special cases. I am pointing out that it generally is a problem. If you don’t see the connection, I don’t understand why you could see one in rainfall vs. CO2 emissions in a previous article here.
Because that is not the problem that sea level rise is causing … obviously. The first part of your headline is “New Study: Sea Level Rise Doesn’t ‘Spell Doom’” … remember?
Oh you are welcome. Feel free to tell others how valuable their comments are in furthering the debate about the science of sea level.
Hmmm. So what does the question “Who lives in coastal wetlands?” mean then if it doesn’t mean that humans (the only “who” possible) don’t live in coastal wetlands? By answering the rhetorical question directly and agreeing that we humans don’t live in coastal wetlands, how does this not indicate that you are minimizing the value of habitats and ecosystems where humans don’t live?
I don’t have to paint a picture. Your own concerning history on the topic of poor people who have their power cut off because they can’t afford to pay for heating is of your own making.
Silent Catastrophe …330,000 Households See Power Turned Off In One Year!
Your very first comment on that report of 330,000 poor households having their power cut off, and the 8th comment overall for that article, was to deny that people on “wellfare” have to pay for their heating, as well as to attempt to minimize the 330,000 by saying it’s “less then” [sic] that:
In the past, you’ve also denied the seriousness of energy poverty in Germany. You’ve even said that nobody has to live in energy poverty in Germany because heating and cooling are paid for by “state money”. In other words, the above is not the only time you’ve denied that a problem exists. Once again, these are your exact words:
Of course, 6.9 million people live in energy poverty in Germany.
And then, bewilderingly, you write this:
How is this “painting a picture” of your lack of concern for the impoverished when we have your own words to go on?
What is so hard to understand about “coasts are growing all over the world”? Why are you talking about one location?
Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart
The article is about coastal marshes/wetlands and coasts of islands and land “all over the world” increasing in area despite sea level rise due to the natural ability of coasts to build up and keep pace with or exceed rates of sea level rise. You tangentially (again) wrote about the economic consequences of sea level rise that presumes coasts are not “growing all over the world”, but shrinking and engulfing beaches and wetlands and islands. In other words, you didn’t address what the article was about, but decided to veer off onto your preferred alarmism and doom-and-gloom.
And you continue on that path … not minimizing anything. You are the one who is trying to minimize the problems that we face as sea level continues to rise and the rise accelerates.
Are you saying that this is not true? Really? How about you do a little research into the German system then …
The rest of your quotes to open up this topic again … well, that is an impressive achievement of your imagination to interpret this as “lack of concern”. Bravo!
Do your research, compare the German numbers to other countries and don’t try to paint the picture that your opponents would not care for anything. That is super weird for someone who doesn’t care about climate change and its effects because he doesn’t like models.
I am merely quoting from the link you posted.
If coast where growing sea level rise would not be a problem in lots of places. What you are saying is that leaving a garden hose running is not a problem because the plants can use the water while ignoring that your basement is running full of water at the same time.
And no, I am not veering off. Read my original comment one more time. I am expanding the topic about special cases to a more general case, inviting people to look at papers about the economic effects of sea level rise instead of feeling save now that you told them that wetlands adapt to sea level rise. The one who veered off is you, by making up something I didn’t say (no doom and gloom anywhere, no “not caring” for wetlands anywhere).
So long …
Back to dishonestly making up positions I don’t have. I care about climate change and its effects. I would prefer warmer temperatures rather than slipping back into another Little Ice Age. Your you-don’t-care-about-climate-change-because-you-don’t-like-models made-up argument is another gem. Do you even attempt to honestly represent what I have actually written?
What problems do we face as the globe as a whole is gaining more coastline and island area than it’s losing because sea level rise isn’t occurring fast enough to keep up with natural geological processes? To what do you attribute the net growth in coastlines and island area in the tropical Pacific considering sea level rise is something like 5 mm/yr in those places?
Why are you talking about one location?
The link that cites satellite observational evidence showing the globe as a whole is gaining land area and coastlines are expanding “all over the world” was posted too. And yet you point to one location? Why? Because you just don’t want to address these observations since they undermine your alarmism?
This is one of the most illogical comments I’ve seen you make. SebastianH, SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS reveal that the world’s coasts as a whole are growing. In “lots of places”, though, land subsidence is occurring. What that means is that the land in these locations is sinking. Other places, such as the Alaska coasts and Scandinavian coasts, has uplift occurring, which means that sea levels are falling, sometimes at rates of -5 mm/yr to -13 mm/yr. Geological processes — such as the one described in this articles’ featured paper — are generally more determinative of relative sea levels at specific locations than just looking at the rate of sea level rise in those places. Put succinctly, just because sea level rise is a problem in “lots of places” doesn’t mean that the satellite observations cease to accurate because they show the globe as a whole is gaining land area. Why are you so intent on believing in problems and alarming sea level rise? Why deny that the coasts are growing?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. (But thank you for once again demonstrating for all to see just how willing you are to disingenuously make up what I’m saying.) For the umpteenth time, I’m saying SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS SHOW THAT COASTLINES “ALL OVER THE WORLD” ARE GROWING MORE THAN THEY’RE SHRINKING. This has been occurring for the last 30 years, or since the mid-1980s. Do you deny the satellite observational measurements/evidence, SebastianH?
This article had nothing to do with the economic effects of sea level rise. It had to do with the wetlands and marshes expansion and the projection that they will not be submerged even with rapid sea level rise. So yes, you veered off. Again.
There are no words…
SebastianH’s purposeful misrepresentations of what others have written have been snipped.
You try to belittle the effects and show no effort in actually understanding the mechanisms you are arguing against. That isn’t caring about climate science in my book.
If you want to have warmer temperatures, move to somehwere where it is warmer. Instead you try to argue that [snipped – purposeful misrepresentation]
You can’t be thinking that [snipped – purposeful misrepresentation]
They undermine nothing. Coastal expanion (look at the aqua monitor images) doesn’t magically make sea level rise go away. I point to one location because that is what your linked article says is the location where land expanded the most. Using the aqua monitor you can easily find that large green spot. Most other large spots are river deltas.
Is that really so hard to understand? If land rises faster than the sea level or coasts expand in places, sea level rise is obviously not a problem in those places. Since it is a problem in many places obviously land rise and coastal accretion doesn’t mitigate this problem. Maybe it’s the language barrier … or maybe it’s you applying your weird version of logic again that makes you say [snipped – purposeful misrepresentation]
Seriously, look at the data and where the coasts are growing. The features in those green areas follow a pattern. Maybe you are able to identify it: http://aqua-monitor.appspot.com/
It is exactly what you are saying. You are trying to weight sea level rise against land increases. As if growing river deltas and dried up seas would be able to mitigate what sea level rise is doing to areas where people live.
I hate these back and forth things with you ignoring everything I write. The first part of your headline is “New Study: Sea Level Rise Doesn’t ‘Spell Doom’” … isn’t it? You argue that this is the case because of wetlands not experiencing loss, don’t you? Looking at the global picture of sea level rise effects and projections of those doesn’t exactly “spell doom” either, but it is recognized as a problem by everyone. Well, everyone except this little pseudoskeptic bubble who make up their own realities.
Again, you claim [snipped – purposeful misrepresentation]
I let this purposeful misrepresentation stay just so I could point out that (obviously) no one has claimed that sea level rise magically goes away because coasts have been growing, not shrinking, “all over the world” since the 1980s.
No, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. (Another purposeful misrepresentation I let stand so as to respond to it.) What I have been saying is that despite the fact that sea levels are rising in many regions of the world, satellite observations reveal that even in places where sea level rise is very high (4-5 mm/yr), coastal land area is expanding faster in these same regions, meaning that natural geological processes are more determinative than sea level changes (or climate change) in affecting coastal area change.
This paper is illustrative:
“We show that Grande Glorieuse Island has increased in area by 7.5 ha between 1989 and 2003, predominantly as a result of shoreline accretion: accretion occurred over 47% of shoreline length, whereas 26% was stable and 28% was eroded. Topographic transects and field observations show that the accretion is due to sediment transfer from the reef outer slopes to the reef flat and then to the beach. This accretion occurred in a context of sea level rise: sea level has risen by about 6 cm in the last twenty years and the island height is probably stable or very slowly subsiding.”
“This island expansion during a period of rising sea level demonstrates that sea level rise is not the primary factor controlling the shoreline changes. This paper highlights the key role of non-climate factors in changes in island area, especially sediment availability and transport.”
Sea level rise pretty much constant, with slight deceleration. around 2-3mm/year
And there is absolutely no scientific evidence that human anything has had, or will have, any effect on sea level rise.
We don’t give two hoots about NON-science BS projections built on ASSumption driven NON-science BS.
Your DESPERATION is showing, seb-troll,..
.. as you slip further and further into scientific DENIAL and your own little hallucinogenic anti-science fantasy land..
Sure … make my comment look like that to impress your audience. I know what I wrote and you do too. Can’t bear it, fine with me. Kind of an expected behavior.
I see, you are going after the exact wording again. You never having said this in this way or something like that.
Uh, it’s not about impressing an audience. It’s about being fed up with telling you to stop making up your own version of our positions and statements so as to purposely misrepresent them. You’ve been given about 50 warnings (not an exaggeration) in the last 6 months, and it continues anyway — sometimes multiple misrepresentations in a single comment. If you modify your tactics and actually represent what has been written accurately and truthfully (using direct quotes would be welcome), they will not be snipped. Purposefully misrepresent, and these portions of your comments will be snipped. It’s your choice.
Correct. I don’t use words like “magically” when describing natural world occurrences. You know that I don’t, and yet you used this word anyway so as to purposefully misrepresent my position. Again, it’s your choice if you’d like to have your comments stand as is. Stop misrepresenting what other people have written. We’re done accommodating these dishonest tactics.
Of course it is, it’s making an impression on the audience if there are multiple “misrepresentation” edits in a comment none happened.
And he’s doing it again.
I just wished you would put what you write yourself to the same standard instead of misrepresenting what every one of your opponents says. Are you really not recognizing when you do that?
Anyway, I’ll quote you from now on and ask verifying questions about the quoted part to make sure I understood you correctly. Mainly what I am doing all the time already …
Uh, it’s not about impressing an audience.
Who are you to tell me why I am snipping your purposeful misrepresentations? For the 3rd time now, the reason they are being snipped is because I have had enough with your purposeful misrepresentations of what I write, such as saying that I have written that “coastal expanion [sic] magically makes sea level rise go away.” I have not ever written that sea level rise “goes away” because the coasts are expanding. Nor have I characterized this as a “magical” process. I’m done allowing you to dishonestly make up stuff.
That would be great. Using my actual words and positions rather than making them up yourself would be a welcome change.
Is this sarcasm, or do you actually believe you are “all the time” correctly representing what I and others have actually written?
Dito. Can you do that?
There might be a language barrier from time to time, but yes, I do believe (in this instance this word is correctly used) that I am correctly representing what you guys imply.
This would explain why many of us think you have a profound lack of self-awareness.
“There might be a language barrier ”
Its not that you are ignorant of English,
Its that your knowledge of science, and physics, and biology, and geology, and structures, and .. basically EVERYTHING relating to any sort of rational though ..
.. seems to have come from either a warped fairy-tale, or the back of a cereal carton.
Every thought process is TAINTED by your warped anti-CO2 agenda.
As such, you are basically INCAPABLE of discussion based on real evidential or rational thought.
How many times do we have to tell them, the economic effects of “climate change” are nothing compared with the costs of their idiotic “solutions.”
Also, here’s how to use Google Scholar.
Not that you can teach an activist, but for the benefit of others who might be interested in those results.
Sorry seb, a link to a SEARCH on costs of sea level rise is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT since sea level rise is constant, and coastal areas are actually expanding.
You have FAILED MAGNAMINOUSLY, yet again !!
Sea level rise is not constant, I prefer pointing people to tools to make up their own mind instead of cherry picked papers that I imagine support my view of the world and coastal areas expanding (where?) doesn’t really mean that an increasing sea level will not be a problem for lots of places.
If you had left out the last sentence and refrained from capitalizing words your comment would have been almost a normal reply even though it does only disinform. Keep trying!
Sea level rise has actually been decelerating over the last while years.
Again, you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO SCIENCE to back up anything you say, just mindless cackling.
There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of human caused sea level rise.
You continue to FAIL, UTTERLY and COMPLETELY.