The Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands are sinking. Your heroes, the tippy toppiest "top climate scientists" claim it is because of rising ocean levels because of CO2 in the atmosphere melting all of Earth's ice... However, the Hawaiian Islands, the Galapagos, Catalina Island, New Zealand, and every other island is not sinking, not at all. WHY? Rising sea levels? Wouldn't that "sink" everything, and not just the islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire?
Haven't you heard? Algore has been thrown under the solar powered bus by the warmer cult. He's has been caught in too many lies and caught making too much money off the warmer hysteria. Don't look for the cult to defend him.
Every other island? Really? http://pgf.soest.hawaii.edu/Publications/caccamise_grl_05.pdf http://dornsife.usc.edu/wrigley/2014v1-impact-of-sea-level-rise-on-los-angeles/ http://www.umsl.edu/~naumannj/profe...gher sea levels in New Zealand - A review.pdf
From the last link: So the measurement method is changed and the result also changes but no mention of what the old measurement data is ?? And the rate of 3 mm per year is ~ 1 foot per century - so what ?? And the rate of sea level rise was ~ 5 mm per year in the years following WWII. More alarmism.
If you read the rest of the paper, you will know where the old measurement came from. It means that the OP is false. According to Holgate 2007, decadal sea level rates in the years following WWII were consistently below 2 mm per year. The only thing alarming is your willingness to defend such a blatantly false OP.
From the other sea level thread - Hoosier sums it up: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=459408&page=2&p=1066262351#post1066262351 According to the IPCC AR5 sea level rise was 4 - 5 mm per year in the '40's. https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ The OP is not false. There is no quantification and no claim that sea level is not rising.
I would be careful using Hoosier8 as a source. He still thinks satellites are better at measuring surface temperature than thermometers. That is not what Figure 3.14 from AR5 is saying. It is illustrating the multi-decadal variability that appears in various sea level reconstructions. You'll note that only one of the three reconstructions shown gets above 3 mm/yr, and not only does Jevrejeva et al 2008 show the most variability, it is also the oldest of the three reconstructions. Really? You mean the OP that says: If global sea level is rising, even just a little, doesn't that mean all of these islands are in fact sinking? BTW, even Judith Curry doesn't dispute that global sea level is rising. She just questions whether or not it is accelerating.
No he doesn't. The chart speaks for itself. It clearly shows that sea level rise and CO2 concentration do not correlate. The Jevrejeva data is what it is. I'm not aware that the Hawaiian Islands, et al are sinking ?? And no, rising sea level does not mean that all islands are sinking. There is no dispute that the sea level is rising and has been rising for many years. And there is no evidence that the rate has been accelerating recently.
If there is no dispute, then why are you defending an OP that claims sea level is not rising? Jevrejeva et al. 2008, Church & White 2011, and Ray & Douglas 2011 may not appear to show accelerating sea level rise, but probabilistic reanalysis tells us otherwise. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html
In some places it is not rising ?? I prefer to look at real data rather than probabilistic reanalysis.
" Understanding trends in sea level, as well as the relationship between global and local sea level, provides critical information about the impacts of the Earth's climate on our ocean and atmosphere. The image above shows sea level change since 1993 and demonstrates the variation globally. Most people are surprised to learn that, just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is not flat, and that the surface of the sea changes at different rates around the globe. For instance, the absolute water level height is higher along the West Coast of the United States than the East Coast." http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html You're Welcome.
Meanwhile, despite sub human obsession with parroting fudge, the truth remains... 1. the ONLY islands on the planet sinking are RIGHT ON THE LIP of the Pacific Ring of Fire 2. there is no sea level rise 3. #2 is because there is NO NET ICE MELT, especially with 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every years since Algore started lying about CO2 3. there is NO WARMING in the atmosphere according to the highly correlated satellite and balloon RAW DATA 4. NO WARMING in the raw data from the oceans either 5. NO BREAKOUT in 'cane activity NOTHING... except the deliberate misinterpretation of the URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMPERATURE SERIES...
Then why did the Maldives, over 1,500 miles from the Ring of Fire, have to build a 10 foot wall around the island? The data says that it is. While Antarctica gains 82 gigatons of ice per year, the Arctic looses 340 gigatons per year, for a net loss of 238 billion tons. Both UAH and RSS show increasing temperature trends. Not only is sea surface temperature increasing, but when you measure ocean heat content down to 700 m, the trend is irrefutable. The trend still shows an increase in tropical cyclone activity. How many urban heat sinks can explain temperature increases in Antarctica?
