Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 10:21pm:



I gave you the opportunity to tell me which ones weren't sinking. Perhaps that was too hard.

"The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

"We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said.

"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels."


https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#jCp

Hmm Not Tuvalu either.

Perhaps you can tell us which ones are being drowned by SLR.

Bolt? Don't read him. You will have to come up with new material.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 12:49am:



Oh Skep Sci?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm - 2013

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Tuvalu-sea-level-rise.htm - 2015

https://www.skepticalscience.com/coral-atoll.htm - 2013 ( the same paper as the first. You must have really liked that one.)

But of course you forgot to read the science that I referred to above.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html#jCp

From 2018 published in Phy.org a major peer-reviewed magazine.

But from your coral atolls one perhaps you missed the last bit?

"Although they appear like permanent features, Pacific coral atolls have only existed for about two thousand years. These atolls are stable because the solid foundations protect them from major erosion. This protection is only likely to continue until mid century for some atolls. So, although coral atolls may indeed grow as sea level rises, this hasn't always been the case in the past, and won't be the case in the future."

Another view -

"For the atoll to persist, continued erosion or subsidence must be at a rate slow enough to permit reef growth upwards and outwards to replace the lost height."

Source wiki

Wiki reference - Erickson, Jon (2003), Marine Geology, Facts on File, pp. 126–8, ISBN 0-8160-4874-6

And SLR has been occurring since the end of the LIA (about 1700). Which is before industrialization.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 12:47pm:



Of course I never said that.

BTW - you haven't shown evidence of any island being drowned by SLR.

The Maldives? Nah - they got funding for a new runway. Can't do that if it is going to be underwater.

All you have given us something may happen. Not something has happened.

BTW - did you know that satellite altimeters that they use for SLR have a resolution of between 32 - 43 mm? And calculating SLR of 3.3mm?

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 7:08pm:



That's the problem with you lot. You blame everyone for something that hasn't even happened.

lee wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 7:09pm:


The problem with most conservatives is they have no concept of probability and statistics which is why they keep expecting climate change models to predict exactly when and where the next extreme weather event will occur. Also they have no concept of risk mitigation. To them the climate is always changing so there is no problem to solve.

The shrunken heads of the lying SPAMMING TROLLS are drowning in their own uneducated GROSSLY IGNORANT TECHNICALLY OBTUSE SLIME.

The shrunken heads of the lying Spamming Trolls could not argue their way out of a wet paper bag they are just so thick.

Typical MT headed Greeny types.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:



I would like the climate models to at least come close. They don't. The reasons they don't are many. They have never been verified, validated or calibrated.

They don't do clouds well.

They don't do water vapour well. (Not the same thing).

There is no evidence of CO2 doing anything.

You like those graphs? Do you like the fact that according to Gavin Schmidt, Director of GISS, that the uncertainty is +/-0.5C. Of course that is an estimate. With large tracts of land having no measurements and the oceans not completely covered, I have extreme doubts as to the size of the uncertainties.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:



Risk mitigation is not clamping down on CO2. The Paris Agreement would result in a cooling of 0.2C by 2100.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 16^th, 2018 at 9:01pm:



Yep. Now all you have to do is, without climate models, which aren't good, prove what effect CO2 has had on climate.

If CO2 were the driver surely the ever increasing level would be rising faster?



Look at the decadal rate.

And as a service to the good guys I have shrunk Lee's whopper graph.





This shrinking reminds one of the shrunken heads of the Village Idiot Troll VIRI with IQ's < 10.