New Climate Report Trashes Alarmist Claims About Sea-Level Rise
New study posted at ClimateAtAGlance.com documents that most small islands are growing, not losing land to sea-level rise, and island nations are attracting growing populations rather than shedding climate refugees.
The new climate summary drives a stake into the heart of alarmist assertions that climate change and rising seas are threatening island nations and their populations.
Objective measurements show that islands and atolls are growing in size, not disappearing under rising seas. Rising seas bring sand and sediment, which build up coastal shorelines and are more than keeping pace with rising waters.
Also, coral, as living organisms growing near sea level, build up their height along with the rising sea.
For example, climate activists often claim the island nation of Tuvalu is shrinking due to rising seas and spawning climate refugees.
However, a recent peer-reviewed study found eight out of Tuvalu’s nine coral atolls have grown in size during recent decades, and three-fourths of Tuvalu’s 101 reef islands have similarly grown in size.
Also, Tuvalu’s population is consistently growing, not declining, with 20% more people living on Tuvalu now than 30 years ago. Tuvalu’s population has doubled since 1970.
Additional peer-reviewed studies (see here, here, and here) confirm the same processes are allowing – and will continue to allow – other Pacific islands to keep up with rising seas.
For example, 30 years ago, the Canberra Times claimed all 1196 islands that comprise the Maldives could be completely underwater by now.
Not only are all 1196 islands still there, but the Maldives population has doubled during the past 20 years.
People are flocking to the Maldives islands, not fleeing them. The Maldives are absorbing political refugees, not spawning climate refugees.
To read the full summary, see Climate at a Glance: Islands and Sea Level Rise.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Â
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Dr Roger Higgs (sedimentologist)
| #
It’s all about sedimentation rates. Coral-fed islands such as atolls can only expand as long as the RATE of upward coral growth and the RATE of deposition of sediment supplied by coral erosion exceed the rate of sea-level rise. Atolls’ very existence is thanks to recent sea-level FALL (google Dickinson atolls); otherwise they would still be under water from the previous sea-level rise (which drowned them).
What’s controlling the ongoing sea-level rise? The Sun. The strongest solar Grand Maximum (GM) in 10,000 years has just ended (1937-2004). The previous GM caused a 3-metre sea-level rise within 100 years, around 350-450AD (start of the Dark Ages), by an Antarctic ice-sheet-rim collapse event (google MISI MICI).
The rate of sea-level is now accelerating, the delayed reaction to the just-ended Modern GM (‘ocean memory’ lag-time of a few decades). Within the next 2 or 3 decades the rate of sea-level rise will overwhelm the rate of atoll sediment supply. Sea level has risen only 30cm since 1850. The total rise by 2100 will be about 3 metres, as before.
I visited two atolls, Majuro (Marshall Islands) and Tarawa (Kiribati), in 2018 and 2019, making detailed sedimentological observations for one week each. In all of the many localities visited by me, the shore is undergoing erosion (except where protected, for now, by man-made defences), undercutting the trees, which are falling into the sea; this applies to both flanks, oceanside and lagoonside.
The clock is ticking for the world’s atolls; I predict inevitable evacuation within 30 years, possibly much sooner; and it’s nothing to do with CO2 …
Kiribati (3-minute read):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330912182
Maldives:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330883289
Marshall Islands:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331071387
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Dr. Higgs.
I was wondering with the predicted solar minimum the sun is purported to entering, to what degree that could/would alter or evolve your predictions?
Thank you. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Roger,
I always question anyone who ‘knows’ “The strongest solar Grand Maximum (GM) in 10,000 years has just ended (1937-2004).” I ‘know’ there has been a great variety of weather between 1937 and 2004 at most locations on the Earth’s surface.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Roger,
And I have no idea why 57 years has something to GM but I do know 3 X 19 = 57. And I know 19 and 57 years are the approximate periods of observed lunar cycles. Does the GM have an observed repeating period of 57 years?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I find it astonishing Dr Higgs says the oceans will rise by ten feet by 2100, this plays right into the hands of the alarmists.
Reply
MattH
| #
The conflicting conclusions between this article and Dr Higgs is deserving of further analysis and as correctly noted by Dr Krause’s comments the moon deserves some attention.
At Minor Lunar Standstill it is reasonable to assume that more oceanic water will accumulate in the tropical and lower latitude regions than during a Major Lunar Standstill.
Add to that mix a new or full moon coinciding with moon perigee and the haphazard geographical location of maximum gravitational influence due to the moons variable orbiting oscillations and there will be an obvious apparent near decadal sea level rise in many locations.
Conversely, during a Major Lunar Standstill more oceanic water will accumulate nearer the polar regions. When the coincidence of perigee, full or new moon, Northern extreme of the moon’s orbit, and late summer Arctic Ice minimum occur, there will be a pumping effect in the Arctic ocean of tidal ingress and egress as the moons orbit oscillates between extreme Northern and extreme Southern parameters. This would have a potential effect of greater dispersal of the fresh water content of the Beaufort Gyre as well as introducing more warmer Atlantic and Pacific oceanic water into the Arctic Ocean. There would also be an apparent sea level rise nearer the poles at this time.
During the Major Lunar Standstill the biggest tides in the tropics and lower latitudes will be less extreme giving the observational effect of near decadal sea level decline.
These assessments are based on everything else being equal, wind, weather etc. So often the moon’s effect is overlooked.
The following comments are a selection I have downloaded from Wikipedia.
The Moon’s orbit around Earth has many irregularities (perturbations), the study of which (lunar theory) has a long history.
An event referred to as a ‘supermoon’ occurs when the full Moon is at its closest to Earth (perigee).
The equation of the ellipse yields an eccentricity of 0.0549 and perigee and apogee distances of 362,600 km and 405,400 km respectively (a difference of 12%).
Every 18.6 years, the angle between the Moon’s orbit and Earth’s equator reaches a maximum of 28°36′, the sum of Earth’s equatorial tilt (23°27′) and the Moon’s orbital inclination (5°09′) to the ecliptic. This is called major lunar standstill. Around this time, the Moon’s declination will vary from −28°36′ to +28°36′. Conversely, 9.3 years later, the angle between the Moon’s orbit and Earth’s equator reaches its minimum of 18°20′. This is called a minor lunar standstill. The last lunar standstill was a minor standstill in October 2015.
Note that a point on the Moon can actually be visible when it is about 34 arc minutes below the horizon, due to atmospheric refraction.
All are welcome to blow my assertions out of the water.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
Thank you for doing the heavy lifting.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH,
I initially didn’t see that you left the easier lifting (3 X 19 = 57) for me. Which, when 18.6 is substituted for 19, 56 complete years when rounded off. To illustrate the significance of 3 of the cycles which you explained, I do have to reason and explain as you did. All I have to do is list the dates of the Full Moon for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 for a reader to see the probable significance of an approximate repeating period of 56 years.
2017
1/12, 2/10, 3/12, 4/10, 5/10, 6/9, 7,8, 8/7, 9,6, 10/5, 11/3, 12/3
2018
1/1, 1/31, 3/1, 3/31, 4/29, 5/29, 6/27, 7/27, 8/26, 9/24, 10/24, 11/22, 12/22
2019
1/24, 2/19, 3/21, 4/19, 5/18, 6/17, 7/16, 8/15, 9/14, 10/13, 11/12, 12/12
2020
1/10, 2/9, 3/9. 4/7, 5/7, 6/5, 7/5, 8/3, 9/2, 10/1, 10/31, 11/31, 12/29
In case one doesn’t notice, the dates of 2017 and 2020 are within 4 days or less and produce high tides of similar magnitudes for a given month. Hopefully one can see there will be in a few cases related tides at the end of one month and the beginning of the next month.
Maybe I should have paired the similar date of the first and fourth but that seemed too much weight and if a reader wantssuch a comparison, he/she can do the lifting.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply