Approximately 13,000 islands around the world have increased land mass over two decades, disproving claims of climate alarmists about rising sea levels

submitted by Questionable from (twitter.com)

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hematomato 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Here's the actual study:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816

Of over 13,000 islands examined, approximately 12% experienced significant shifts in shoreline positions. The total shoreline length of these islands approaches 200,000 km, with 7.57% showing signs of landward erosion and 6.05% expanding seaward. Human activities, particularly reclamation and land filling, were identified as primary drivers of local shoreline transformations, while natural factors have a comparatively minor impact. Moreover, the ongoing rise in sea levels is identified as an exacerbating factor for coastal erosion rather than the primary cause.

In other words, the study found that between 1990 and 2020, reclamation and land filling had a much larger impact on island size than rising sea levels.

Which is not remotely surprising and certainly doesn't "disprove" claims of rising sea levels. In fact, the study fully accepts that sea levels have risen. Because they have.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Because they have.

It is so because it is so.

Except that the it is so people have been caught lying in the past, and the it's not so people are relentlessly silenced and slandered. The vast majority of sea level rise happened millions of years ago. That kind of sea level rise will never happen again because the vast majority of the ice caps have already melted. Miles deep glaciers used to stretch all the way down to what is now Chicago.

The sea level rise propaganda claims that catastrophic sea level rise will happen in the near future, and that is just not true. But when you call out that propaganda everyone starts shifting the goal posts and claiming they did not say that. But an inch over 100 years is not significant.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

It is so because it is so.

It is so because we can measure it. Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900. That's not an ideology. It's an observation.

The sea level rise propaganda claims that catastrophic sea level rise will happen in the near future, and that is just not true.

It all just depends on how you define "catastrophic" and how you define "near future."

Miami will be suddenly submerged in 2028? No. Ridiculous.

The Maldives won't have any natural land above water by 2150? Yeah, probably.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It all just depends on how you define "catastrophic" and how you define "near future."

That's a funny game called "moving the goal posts". They define it as one thing to demand immediate and drastic action, then redefine it when it is time to show the facts. The fact is that there is nothing alarming about it. So anyone who is alarmed has been greatly misinformed. Bamboozled.

Sea levels have risen about 8 inches since 1900

Oh rly? According to NOAA it is 1 foot in the last 100 and 6 inches of that have been in the last 30 years. They go on to claim another foot in the next 30 years. This will not happen. When it doesn't happen they will move the goal posts and erase all evidence that they made these claims. And people like you will continue claiming that they are the experts and anyone who does not believe them is (enter every slander and insult). The "authorities" are liars. They claimed that New York would already be under water. They claimed that the Arctic ocean would be ice free by now.

"Hur dur global warming exists" is not a valid excuse. It does not excuse their lies. It does not justify continuing to believe them and demand that everyone believe them. It absolutely does not justify drastic and harmful government policies, including those that simply cost a lot of money.

Global warming is not an existential threat, it is an inconvenience at best. The institutions that we used to rely on to give us the facts have been corrupted and turned against us to implement horribly destructive programs that benefit the oligarchs at the expense of everyone else. Controlling CO2 will not slow down global warming in any meaningful way.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

My understanding of climate change isn't based on "them" or "their motives" or "who is and isn't an expert."

It's based on reading data. A combination of reading both the scientific publications directly and reading sources I trust to summarize papers without partisan editorializing.

Anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's real. The planet is warming and the oceans are rising.

It's also quite slow on the timeline of a single human life. It's not something that "hasn't happened but is going to." It's been happening for centuries and it will continue to happen, so slowly that any given individual person can barely notice it.

It's also global, and therefore our system of national governments is probably profoundly helpless to stop it.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Anthropogenic climate change is happening.

It's been happening for centuries and it will continue to happen

Has it always been anthropogenic? Why centuries, has it not been in constant flux since the planet formed?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Studies show that measurable anthropogenic climate change began with the deforestation of Europe in the Middle Ages.

It was nothing anyone would notice without instruments, though. It's accelerated vastly since the widespread use of oil as a power source.

has it not been in constant flux since the planet formed?

It has, but never this quickly without a supervolcano or asteroid in the mix.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Studies show that measurable anthropogenic climate change began with the deforestation of Europe in the Middle Ages.

Why should the forests of Europe be so powerful as to change the world's climate? Isn't that just one of those silly "blame everything bad on white people" tropes? 12% of the world's population on 6.8% of the world's land covering 2% of the surface of the planet and it was the slow and primitive manual labor tree felling that started climate change. That sir, is absurd.

It has, but never this quickly without a supervolcano or asteroid in the mix.

Surely you don't claim this is a fact base on science.

What is the actual mechanism by which humans control the climate? Is it number of trees? Are you aware of the fact that there are more trees now then before the Middle Ages?

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why should the forests of Europe be so powerful as to change the world's climate? Isn't that just one of those silly "blame everything bad on white people" tropes? 12% of the world's population on 6.8% of the world's land covering 2% of the surface of the planet and it was the slow and primitive manual labor tree felling that started climate change. That sir, is absurd.

Like I said, the change due to the deforestation of Europe was tiny and not noticable by human beings without instruments. But it was measurable with modern instruments. Why Europe? Just because it was the first continent to be deforested. And losing 1% of the world's trees does change the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in a measurable way.

What is the actual mechanism by which humans control the climate?

Our activities change the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are you aware that before the ice age started the concentration of co2 was 4k ppm and today it is only 400 ppm?

How did we enter into massive global cooling during a time when co2 was 100x higher?

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"My understanding of climate change isn't based on 'them' or 'their motives' or 'who is and isn't an expert.' It's based on reading data. A combination of reading both the scientific publications directly and reading sources I trust to summarize papers without partisan editorializing."

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

According to NOAA it is 1 foot in the last 100 and 6 inches of that have been in the last 30 years.

10-12 inches in the last 100 years for the US is not the same as a foot globally. Neither is it incompatible with a global mean rise of 8 inches over that time.

They go on to claim another foot in the next 30 years. This will not happen.

How do you know it won't happen?

They claimed that New York would already be under water.

No one claimed that.

They claimed that the Arctic ocean would be ice free by now.

One paper, looking at the huge drop in sea ice in the summer of 2007 projected that the arctic would be ice free by now.

"Hur dur global warming exists" is not a valid excuse.

"Hur dur sientis lighd" is not a valid argument.

It does not excuse their lies.

Science progresses by correcting errors. No one is lying. It's called finding things out.

It absolutely does not justify drastic and harmful government policies, including those that simply cost a lot of money.

Adaptation is more expensive than amelioration. So we should spend money to ameliorate. Because not doing so will simply cost a lot of money.

Global warming is not an existential threat, it is an inconvenience at best.

This is from the same school of thought that brought us "disproving claims of climate alarmists about rising sea levels" by misreporting a paper showing that sea levels were reducing the land area of islands, but some were expanding due to human land filling.

Sorry if I don't trust you, but the denialist industry puts out a lot of lies.

Controlling CO2 will not slow down global warming in any meaningful way.

I don't trust you any more. What's your best proof of that?

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"""☀️🌍🌓"""

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except that the it is so people have been caught lying in the past

This paper was by Yuxin Zhang,Hao Li,Dong Li,Xiyong Hou,Peng Guo & Jiawei Guo. Can you point to where they have been caught lying in the past, please.

and the it's not so people are relentlessly silenced and slandered.

Funny you should mention slander, having just implied that 5 people have been caught lying in the past, without providing any instances. But who do you claim has been silenced and slandered because they said that the sea level was not rising?

The vast majority of sea level rise happened millions of years ago.

I'm not sure what that even means. The sea level rises and falls primarily with the amount of ice sheet on the planet. What happened "millions of years ago", and how are you accounting for sea level rise to say that "the vast majority" of it happened then?

That kind of sea level rise will never happen again because the vast majority of the ice caps have already melted.

There's about 80 metres of sea level rise left in the ice caps. That would displace nearly a third of the world's population. Surely that's of some concern independent of what happened millions of years ago?

The sea level rise propaganda claims that catastrophic sea level rise will happen in the near future

Can you link me to an example of "sea level rise propaganda"? I don't have a sense of "catastrophic sea level rise" or what you mean by "near future".

But when you call out that propaganda everyone starts shifting the goal posts and claiming they did not say that.

In the current example, a study showed that of 13,000 islands nearly 1000 were shrinking and nearly 800 had grown, the growth mostly due to human land filling.

And this has been reported here as "Approximately 13,000 islands around the world have increased land mass over two decades, disproving claims of climate alarmists about rising sea levels".

Explain again which side is pushing out propaganda, because I'm not seeing your point of view.

But an inch over 100 years is not significant.

Sea level rise was ten times that thirty years ago. It has accelerated about 30% since then. Currently it's rising an inch in between 7 and 8 years.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/8/is-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-increasing/

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well and correctly stated.

[–]GuyWhite 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your explanation sounds plausible.

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I’m not a big warmer.

Let me ask this question. Did the Chinese count the new islands they made/are making in contested areas of the Pacific?

I suspect they did. If so, then the finding about land mass increases is questionable.

Sorry, I disagree with the commie “big warming;” it’s a hoax. But this story needs some “‘splaining.”

[–]Questionable[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Roughly 3% or 3200 acres can be attributed to China if we include all of the island mass that China has ever created in these numbers.

13km/370km

https://iask.ai/?mode=question&options%5Bdetail_level%5D=detailed&q=how+many+islands+has+china+made+in+total%3F

https://www.checkyourmath.com/convert/area/acres_km.php

[–]carn0ld03 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which is generally consistent with a planetary cooling phase.