
The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing - Amorymeltzer
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html
======
23452436
Atolls, in an undeveloped state, will always be just a few feet about sea
level. They are the result of an equilibrium between deposition and erosion.
If the sea level were to drop, an undeveloped atoll (without walls, paving,
etc) would erode downwards because of greater wind exposure. Attempting to fix
the level of an atoll by paving it will not work in the long term, regardless
of what the climate does.

~~~
dredmorbius
If your primary form of deposition (coral formation) breaks down, a lot of
former atols will be sub-optimal investments, in the "under-water" sense that
means being under water.

~~~
ertyuiopas
The main deposit is sand, as I understand it. That's why atolls change shape a
lot. On the whole, they're not even as stable as coral. Building (with paving)
is just a bad idea.

~~~
dredmorbius
My understanding is seamount (underwater volcano) on which coral builds
further toward the surface, from depths of < 200' (~60m), topped with sand
which is almost certainly formed from coral.

The sand topping will blow way in wind, but with slow sea rise, coral can
build up. Coral _cannot_ grow _above_ sea level, so atolls are of necessity
_close_ to sea level. With rapid rise, particularly where coral growth is
retarded (carbonate levels, other forms of coral blight), you'll lose that
ability entirely, and the island will flood.

More:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoll)

~~~
23452436
Correct. Atolls (the bit above water) are mainly sand, regardless of the
sand's origin. Not a good place to build.

------
PeterisP
There are places like Marshall islands where relocation inland is not an
option (unlike the millions of coastal population) and a significant sea level
rise will simply eliminate them as dryland.

However, those places are comparatively small. Compared to the massive scale
of anything we must start/stop doing to actually change global warming, for
solving the particular issue of Marshall islands simply relocating the 70 000
people is the easiest and simplest solution with less impact on people lives.

A smallish military conflict displaces more civilians than that. In a sea
level rise, the likely sea border disputes as islands disappear will impact
far more people than those who live in atoll nations, their combined number of
people is so tiny compared to, say, a couple coastal towns in Bangladesh.

~~~
kibwen

      > In a sea level rise, the likely sea border disputes as 
      > islands disappear
    

If we're talking about UNCLOS, I doubt that anyone's going to redraw
territorial water boundaries based upon rising sea levels given that there are
already provisions that prevent expanding your territorial waters by building
artificial islands.

~~~
PeterisP
You're right for borders between existing nations, however, the expected
result of a large sea level rise will include a number of current countries
being eliminated.

I wouldn't expect a non-existent nation to keep it's territorial waters,
instead it will be re-distributed among its neighbours (possibly depending on
some deal with relocation of their current inhabitants), but no matter how you
do that, there is a lot of potential for disputes.

------
sawyerh
Shoutout to the kids throwing rocks at the drone:
[https://media.giphy.com/media/d2YUC2fu21BTda4U/giphy.gif](https://media.giphy.com/media/d2YUC2fu21BTda4U/giphy.gif)

------
crispy2000
The article does (quietly) mention that the sea level rise in the Marshall is
due to changes in the trade winds. They also mention that they are not sure of
the relationship between global warming and these trade wind changes. Over the
last century the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen 4-8 inches.

The Marshall Islanders would be better served if the Paris meeting had been
called off, and the millions that were spent for food, fuel, lodging, and
security could be sent to keep their islands from capsizing ;-) not to mention
the savings in CO2...

~~~
noiv
Global warming is not exactly solved by saving the Marshall Islands.

~~~
Pinatubo
I think he's saying we should stop spending money on trying to stop global
warming, and start spending money on dealing with the consequences.

------
gweinberg
I'd be interested in an explanation as to why sea level would rise more some
places than others. It seems to me it should raise pretty much the same
everywhere because gravity.

~~~
nusq
Gravity is not the same around the Globe, there is something called the Geoid
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid).

Also, sea level is determined by a number of factors including astronomical
and predictable, like moon, sun and other planets gravity influence, or random
meteorological events like winds, low or high pressure systems and land mass
configuration. All these contribute to the tide cycle and the sea level
anywhere in the globle.

For example, there are places in the world with huge tide amplitudes like 12 m
or so and other with no tides at all (excluding meteorological events).

The problem is the "mean sea level rise". The "mean sea level" is usually
determined by and average of at least 19 years of measurements of the sea
level, which is approximately the time it takes to complete a full moon cycle.

~~~
BurningFrog
None of this explains why a _small change_ in ocean water volume would be
distributed unevenly across the planet.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
The earth is huge(compared to us), so it's hard to grasp why it doesn't work
as seemingly instantaneously as bowl of water, for example. Eventually, in a
perfect vacuum, that would be the case.

------
dghughes
I'm worried my tiny province in Canada (PEI) will be gone maybe in a 100 years
or at least eroded substantially. About 224km (140 miles) long by 60km (37
miles) wide 140,000 people.

The island is all sandstone there is no native rock here the highest point is
142m (466 feet) but the average height I'd say is a metre/a few feet above sea
level.

There are places around the island where 30m (100 feet) have washed away just
within the last few decades. None of what washed away was replaced by the
government it just keeps washing away never to return.

~~~
crispy2000
Being below sea level hasn't particularly bothered the Dutch. Half of Holland
is at least a meter below sea level.

Of course, in the 1200's when they started, they didn't have climate change
conferences and carbon credits.

~~~
vacri
The Dutch also didn't have the wide open spaces of half a continent to
relocate to, but instead were rather cooped up.

------
gd1
Australian BOM:

[http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.shtml](http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70052/IDO70052SLI.shtml)

"Changing global trade winds have raised sea levels in the South Pacific about
a foot over the past 30 years"

No.

~~~
tosseraccount
Can't the winds cause sea water erosion of the sand in the absence of volcanic
upward pressure?

------
phkahler
Sea level was higher during the previous interglacial period:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian)

Why do people think this process has stopped? Or do they think we're at the
peak sea level rise today? Why?

~~~
untog
Does that matter? People live there, the fact that it is disappearing is
relevant. "Well, those islands used to be totally submerged 115,000 years
ago!" isn't really of use to the islands' inhabitants.

~~~
phkahler
>> Does that matter? People live there, the fact that it is disappearing is
relevant. "Well, those islands used to be totally submerged 115,000 years
ago!" isn't really of use to the islands' inhabitants.

To the people who live there, it doesn't matter. To the people trying to blame
it on human activity it should.

~~~
avar
No it shouldn't. The Earth's climate has been at various extreme points in the
past, from ice ball to covered in tropical rain-forest.

That has nothing to do with the evidence for whether we're through human
activity pushing it towards one of those past extreme states at an accelerated
or unnatural pace.

------
tehchromic
No one could have predicted this based on any kind of evidence tho so we best
go about business as usual without making any changes to our way of life.

~~~
underwires
finally a reasonable response. why change things when we can not

------
ggchappell
I don't recall ever seeing a video clip quite like the one at the top of this
article. (Aren't camera drones cool!)

~~~
xemoka
Take a look at some of what mapbox has done, here's a good example:
[https://www.mapbox.com/drone/video/](https://www.mapbox.com/drone/video/)
(from [https://www.mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-gl-video-
drone/](https://www.mapbox.com/blog/mapbox-gl-video-drone/))

------
jlebrech
couldn't they hire a dutch firm to help reclaim the land. we should create a
whole sea wall around it as an alternative to seasteading.

~~~
albemuth
Seems as viable as relocating them all to Greenland once it's done with its
transition to lush tropical forest.

~~~
wed210
Assuming AGW is the cause--did the islanders not also benefit from the
worldwide consumption of fossil fuels: supplies delivered by ship,
manufacturing of the supplies themselves, worldwide communications built by an
energy intensive civilization, medication and learning fostered by this
development? I would pay my share to _relocate_ them, and throw in a 'Sorry
about the sea level rise' gift basket, but not anything to maintain a life
there.

------
tosseraccount
_" The debate over loss and damage has been intense because the final language
of the Paris accord could require developed countries, first and foremost the
United States, to give billions of dollars to vulnerable countries like the
Marshall Islands."_ [ from the NYTimes article ]

Hoo boy. This is going to have problems passing in the current U.S. Congress.

~~~
caseysoftware
Apparently developing countries want the top nations to pay $1-2T (yes,
trillion) to execute their own plans. There's also another $1-2T in damages
being discussed.

Ref: [http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/30/439679/France-
Paris-...](http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/11/30/439679/France-Paris-IIED-
COP21Yemen-climate-change)

~~~
ocschwar
Bangladesh alone is 100,000,000 people looking for new digs.

$1T is about right. And someone is going to pay it. Only question is who.

~~~
fixermark
It's distressingly possible that the answer is "Nobody," at least nobody
directly to the populations. The $1T will get spent, just in preventing, not
assisting, relocation.

Mass migration is an ancient trigger of wars, is what I'm saying.

~~~
ocschwar
If the people displaced by climate change don't get any assistance relocating,
then they are the ones paying.

------
mgr86
There is something about a NYtimes online articles. They are such an
appropriate blend of investigative reporting and proper adoption of new media.
Wrapped neatly in nice typography and minimal advertisements.

...Now only if I had the attention span.

~~~
eitally
Their Snow Fall piece was so well received that a startup created a platform
to sell to media outlets who wanted to create similar immersive pieces.

NYT article about it: [http://futurenytimes.org/reviews/interactive-
storytelling/](http://futurenytimes.org/reviews/interactive-storytelling/)

Venturebeat article about Storied: [http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/12/storied-
launches-publishin...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/12/storied-launches-
publishing-platform-to-create-the-next-gen-of-snow-fall/)

Storied site: [http://www.storied.co/welcome](http://www.storied.co/welcome)

Comparative article about various immersive journalism platforms:
[https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/9-tools-for-journalists-
to...](https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/9-tools-for-journalists-to-produce-
immersive-stories/s2/a554425/)

I think Immersive.sh is currently the most widely used:
[http://immersive.sh/rachelbartlett/itMsUweiM](http://immersive.sh/rachelbartlett/itMsUweiM)

~~~
untog
Are there any publications using Storied? My concern is that using a third
party service will always be sub-par compared to a setup like that at NYTimes,
where the developers, designers and journalists all work in the same building.

~~~
eitally
Looks like they list a few here:
[http://www.storied.co/partners](http://www.storied.co/partners)

I agree re: NYT, especially. They seem to be taking platform evolution very
seriously.

------
ertyuiopas
Why do folks keep on getting suckered by this "everything is global warming"
and "it's all our fault" scam? The satellite data means (the only trustworthy
source) haven't changed in nearly 20 years of their 35ish-year existence. CO2
isn't even the main greenhouse gas, that's water vapor. The sun's variability
and its effect on climate are poorly understood. Yet the sun is the driver.
The claim that anthropogenic CO2 (an unknown amount of the overall carbon
cycle) is in a positive feedback loop with other processes is unproven: that's
why the models are doing such a lousy job of predicting the non-warming. If it
weren't a near trillion dollar proposition to keep the scam going, this would
all be more widely known.

------
pocketstar
This article fails to mention the aging Cactus Dome containing gratuitous
amounts of radioactive soil that will breach containment soon and cause
fukushima _chernobyl_ 9/11*1000 radioactive damage

------
double0jimb0
The US has missile test bases in the Marshall Islands. Watching what is done
with these would seem to indicate the state's intent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Test_Site)

~~~
maratd
> Watching what is done with these would seem to indicate the state's intent

What intent? There is nothing the federal government can do to stop increasing
sea levels or erosion. Just like the inhabitants, when it becomes untenable,
they will just move.

------
gd1
Marshall Islands sea level, unchanged for 20 years:

[http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-
level-t...](http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/interactive-sea-level-time-
series-wizard?dlat=7&dlon=171&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60)

No one denies the science more than alarmists.

~~~
ajkjk
Really hard to not take you for a crackpot. You:

* initially call everyone science-denying alarmists

* ignore all the responses that point out that there is trend in the data you linked.

* respond only to the reply that gives you the benefit of the doubt ('what smoothing do you recommend so we can see it's unchanged.') by switching datasets and trying to make the same point again (unable to defend it in with first source?)

* make a claim of your own ('it's unchanged'), but switch to a different, easier-to-defend claim when contested ('it's not a foot, like the original article claims')

So do you actually believe it's unchanged, or are you irrationally dead-set on
disagreeing with the article? Can't take you seriously like this.

~~~
droithomme
gd1 posted the actual empirical sea level data which shows clearly that sea
level is not rising as significantly in this region as is claimed. You then
called him a crackpot, an ad hominem response. Your denialism in the face of
actual scientific factual data is more likely to be the crackpot science-
denialist position.

~~~
ajkjk
a) you don't win points for using the buzzphrase "ad hominem". fyi, the
capital-L-capital-F as-taught-in-high-school Logical Fallacy 'ad hominem'
refers to insulting a person _in lieu of_ an actual argument. Hopefully we can
agree that I've in fact argued my point in detail.

b) I argued that:

1\. he is behaving like a crackpot, for a commonly-accepted understanding of
the word 'crackpot'

2\. that he has not adequately defended his position against challenges

3\. that the data does not show what he claims ('refuting' and 'denying' are
very different things)

Now, I agree that the data he posted " shows clearly that sea level is not
rising as significantly in this region as is claimed". You'll hear no
objection from me. Fortunately, that is not the claim gd1 made, nor the claim
I attempted to refute.

And I stand by my (admittedly easier-to-defend) position that: my post was
pointing out that he's getting harangued for defending his point abysmally. I
don't really want to take a side in the actual debate, except to say that the
position that the sea level HAS changed is very clearly legitimate, and if
we're going to quibble over changed vs unchanged we have to agree on
definitions and methodology.

~~~
droithomme
Calling someone a crackpot is clearly an ad hominem argument. Claiming it is
not in a followup, and then furiously downvoting is neither a valid nor
legitimate response.

~~~
ajkjk
Hm. I think you're confused about what 'ad hominem' means. That or you're
struggling to read more than one sentence at a time as a coherent thought. Do
you realize that every sentence past the one with the word 'crackpot' in it
was a justification of that statement?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
says "... is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive,
or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking
the argument directly".

So can we agree, at least, that I have attacked the argument directly, at
length, and therefore the "rather than..." clause is not satisfied?

Moreover, even if you don't agree with that: I have no obligation _not_ to
attack a person directly if it gets the point across faster. I am, after all,
writing to the readers as much as gd1 - and if gd1 is truly irrational then
I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince them of anything, nor
avoiding offending them. And my attack (if you can call it that - I did say
"Really hard to not take you for a crackpot", which intentionally gives him a
wide benefit of the doubt) was, I think, well-justified:

The definition of the word "crackpot" that I am reaching for is that of "a
person who believes absurd notions". That would be as opposed to "a person who
believes rationally justifiable notions". I called gd1 a crackpot because as a
way of capturing the notion that they were not defending their argument via
rationality, but by _insistence that it was correct_ , and were (as I pointed
out in my original post) _intentionally evading challenges to the argument_ \-
but responding to things to that did not challenge it. These to me suggest
that they had no ability to defend the argument (and I invited a proper
defense), and therefore that they would be a person who believes an argument
without rational defense, aka a crackpot.

So I posted the argument that "gd1 is behaving like a crackpot for reasons A,
B, C, D", and I listed the reasons. We can substitute the phrase "one who
believes absurd notions" for "crackpot". Both the word and its substitution
are derogatory terms - we can't get around that. It's a negative quality to
believe absurd things.

~~~
kevinskii
No. You called gd1 a crackpot because that's an easy way to gain karma when
people express views contrary to the HN consensus.

~~~
ajkjk
No, I didn't do it for that reason. Does karma do anything? I wrote a Chrome
plugin that hides my karma score anyway so I'm not sure what it is..

I enjoy meta-arguments and there's a certain satisfaction to trying to set
things straight. It devolved into a nightmare though, but it was still
decently good practice at arguing.

