The End of the Carterets
| Sat May. 9, 2009 1:34 PM PDT
The residents of the Carteret Islands have finally lost their long battle with global warming. Sea levels have been rising for decades, crops no longer grow, and they're now left with no choice but to get out. Dan Box reports:
The evacuation of the Carteret Islands have begun. This morning I stood on black volcanic sand, pressed up right against the jungle, and watched a small white boat powered by a single outboard engine run in against the shore. On board were five men from the Islands, the fathers of five families, who have come to finish building houses and gardens already begun in a cleared patch of jungle at Tinputz, on the east coast of Bougainville. When these homes are ready the five will return to the Carterets, to fetch their wives and children back. Life, they hope, will be better for them here. On the Carterets, king tides have washed away their crops and rising sea levels poisoned those that remain with salt. The people have been forced to move.
This is likely to become an increasingly common story over the upcoming decades, and while there are probably multiple causes, it's likely that global warming is one of the big ones. We may be the ones causing most of the warming, but we're not the ones who will pay the biggest price.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
I have it on good
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 1:59 PM PDT.
I have it on good information from many websites that there is no actual evidence of sea levels rising. I am quite sure this is not a global warming related problem, but more likely caused by local subduction or other local geographic answers, maybe just beach erosion.
I've heard the same thing,
Submitted by Simplicio on Sat May. 9, 2009 2:54 PM PDT.
I've heard the same thing, that the inundation of islands in the S. Pacific is due to plate subduction, not sea-level rise due to Global Warming, I'd like a cite for Kevin's statement "it's likely that global warming is one of the big ones".
FWIW, I'm not a Global Warming denier, I'm quite certain human activity is causing the climate to become warmer, and we need to greatly reduce carbon emission in the near future to limit future warming. But I also think it's worth it to make sure we only blame on Global Warming those things for which there is a scientific basis.
You may have heard that
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 8:51 PM PDT.
You may have heard that Simplicio, and you may also be correct.
(Up above, I was just trolling however....) :)
Ditto from me
Submitted by bob in fla on Sat May. 9, 2009 3:12 PM PDT.
Kevin, you've been had. We hear all the time about how sea levels will rise due to global warming, but I cannot remember reading any reliable source that this has already happened in recent history. These islanders' problems are not being caused by rising sea levels.
.... earth to
Submitted by Shoe (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 3:28 PM PDT.
....
earth to commentariat
google for: sea level trends
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
The Carterets are not solely
Submitted by Kevin Drum on Sat May. 9, 2009 4:06 PM PDT.
The Carterets are not solely a victim of global warming. However, keep in mind a couple of things. First, sea level *has* risen over the past 50 years. Second, even small changes in sea level can contribute to outsize effects from storms. When Bangladesh floods, it's not because the entire country is literally under water. It's because big storms force a lot more flooding when the ambient sea level is even a little bit higher than in the past.
(There's also the question of whether global warming contributes to increasing severity of the storms themselves. The jury is still out on that, but it seems likely that it may be having at least a modest effect on storm size.)
NOAA rocks
Submitted by Trippp on Sat May. 9, 2009 5:04 PM PDT.
Shoe,
Thanks for the links. NOAA is awesome.
Tripp
On the real Earth water
Submitted by Marc (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 5:55 PM PDT.
On the real Earth water expands when it heats; this causes the sea levels to rise. In Republican and Libertarian fantasy land the actual laws of physics are irrelevant. Clap harder!
And the odds of a catastrophic rise (if ice melts faster than expected) are significant. The paleoclimate record is inconsistent with the survival of ice above 350 ppm - a threshold that we are already above. The only question is how long it takes, not whether it happens.
wrath
Submitted by steve duncan on Sat May. 9, 2009 7:14 PM PDT.
Obviously the people of these islands have committed sins for which God has seen fit to visit them with tribulation.
The sea levels may have
Submitted by EB (not verified) on Sat May. 9, 2009 7:23 PM PDT.
The sea levels may have risen, and may have caused increased flooding, which may have been exacerbated by storms, which may have increased in intensity, which may be due to global warming. Is this line of thinking even remotely scientific? Why are we using it?
facts are stupid things
Submitted by Jeff S. on Sun May. 10, 2009 7:01 AM PDT.
The sea levels may have risen...
Oh, please! There is no question that average sea levels are rising. Even most global warming skeptics, the ones that care at all about being taken seriously, admit this. The evidence is overwhelming. Look for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Yes, there are local effects that cause variations, but the global trend is clear.
To the extent that there is a "debate", it's around whether human induced increases in gases like CO2 are leading to an increasing rate of sea level rise. The evidence that it is happening is also extremely strong. See:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_sci...
Use the google people! You might learn something.
If somebody paid me $700,000
Submitted by Billy Ruff'n (not verified) on Sun May. 10, 2009 2:31 PM PDT.
If somebody paid me $700,000 to move off this atoll, I think I might take them up on it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands (Ongoing Relocation at the bottom of the page).
But aside from the economic incentive, Google Earth shows it to be an active earthquake zone and Australian studies indicate the plates are moving in this region at rates more than 1000X the sea level rise making the region subject to subduction. See http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:xfSNuB3LXPgJ:wwwrses.anu.e...
And Kevin, please cite the evidence that storm forces are actually increasing. In fact, the opposite is true - see http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/?p=8.
Relevance?
Submitted by Jeff S. on Sun May. 10, 2009 2:48 PM PDT.
Google Earth shows it to be an active earthquake zone and Australian studies indicate the plates are moving in this region at rates more than 1000X the sea level rise making the region subject to subduction.
Most of Alaska, coastal Washington, Oregon, and California, not to mention Japan, China etc, are very active earthquake zones, and most of them, (central and So Cal are the exception) are in subduction zones. Not sure what that's got to do with the price of eggs in Carteret. But, you know, whatevers.
When you're standing on an
Submitted by Billy Ruff'n (not verified) on Sun May. 10, 2009 5:54 PM PDT.
When you're standing on an island that's sinking into the ocean it probably appears as if that the sea level is rising. Perspective is everything in life.
Jeff S., that Wikipedia
Submitted by EB (not verified) on Sun May. 10, 2009 3:27 PM PDT.
Jeff S.,
that Wikipedia graph shows sea level rise of whopping 20 cm per century(!). That's barely enough to get your feet wet. Local variation could easily cancel that, that's why "sea levels may have risen". That is, unless you can point me to a century of data on sea level in these islands....
And the CO2-temperature-sea level correlation article, well, here's a somewhat different version of that temperature data. Decide for yourself.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/07/april-global-temperature-anomalies...
Dig a little deeper than Google, you might learn something :)
I do think that one has to
Submitted by Varecia on Mon May. 11, 2009 6:55 AM PDT.
I do think that one has to consider all the possible explanations for what is occurring there before concluding it's attributable to any specific causes, BUT this is not the only place that is experiencing problems like this. I recall reports about a town in the arctic that is eroding into the ocean, as well as yet another tropical island that is losing its fresh water sources and the palms are dying because of salt water infiltration with apparently rising sea levels. Co-inky-dinks? The big picture seems to indicate that similar things are happening in diverse locations. Is this typical?
Peer-reviewed science and some guy with a blog
Submitted by Jeff S. on Mon May. 11, 2009 8:06 AM PDT.
EB,
I tend to credit peer-reviewed science, particularly in top journals like Science or Nature over what some guy writes in a blog. Even if said blogger is a former TV weather guy. In Chico, CA. I know, horribly elitist of me. But that's just how I roll. Feel free to believe what you want.
As for the 20 cm/century, that was in reference to your "seas may be rising" remark. Why you wrote that when you apparently know that there's no question that seas have been rising for thousands of years is really of no concern to me. The best available evidence is that sea level rise is accelerating, and this century will see much more than 20 cm. If you don't believe that, or don't care, that's your business.
Finally, if you are so sure that AGW is BS, make your way over to
backseatdriving.blogspot.com
and put your money where your mouth is.
Nature and Science Anthony
Submitted by EB (not verified) on Mon May. 11, 2009 1:55 PM PDT.
Nature and Science
Anthony Watts is obviously not the source of satellite data I've linked to. The guys who are publish in Nature and Science as well. I'll let you look up the references. It should only take a couple of minutes for somebody who clearly reads his Nature and Science regularly.
earth to commentariat
google for: sea level trends
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
RTFM
Submitted by BillS (not verified) on Sat May. 16, 2009 10:46 PM PDT.
To those linking to the sltrends.shtml page on noaa, you might want to Read The FAQ:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.shtml#q1
It includes the following statement on how NOAA defines it's data:
"global sea level rise was approximately 1.7-1.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr) over the past century (IPCC, 2007), " which for those who aren't up to snuff on the math is 1/10th of 1 meter...
on the other hand the data shown on the NOAA page is does not reflect changes in sea level but instead includes:
"both global sea level rise and vertical land motion, such as subsidence, glacial rebound, or large-scale tectonic motion." in other words changes more than about 2 mm (aka about the thickness of a penny are NOT related to global sea level or global warming)
I agree when someone reads the data the answers are pretty clear.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
