Alright, one less thing to worry about. =)
The comment section is so much nicer before the evil trolls get here.

We seem to keep walking back all the terrible things that global warming was supposed to do or going to make happen. And here we go again............. Could it be that the sea levels are not really rising and that the data has been manipulated or just plain wrong? I kind of think we all really know the answer to that and some are not ready to admit it. So they come up with some other wacky explanation that makes even less sense to justify that the previous misrepresentations were not really wrong. Maybe the whole premise is wrong....just sayin'.

Alright, one less thing to worry about. =)
The comment section is so much nicer before the evil trolls get here.

I'm not sure they don't have to worry about it. As the sea level rise continues to accelerate, it's not clear to me that the island growth will be able to keep up. Will the island really be able to grow 2m (or more) by the end of the century? And grow even faster after that? It seems to me they just have more time than they thought.

Geological changes.

they have some nerve claiming that sea level can 'rise' in one area and not another . you know , water finds its own level ,,,,,,, basic stuff . OR what they mean but refuse to say, land may be rising or falling .

Another disappointment for the hysterical Warmer's Cult members!
Look for it to be buried on page 20 by tomorrow...

I would expect more from a science site.
1) Aren't these islands part of the Pacific Ring of Fire tectonic activity?
2) One island in a region was "sinking" but others weren't and this was due to rising sea levels?

Query: Could the additional weight of water pushing down on the sea floor surrounding small islands cause the islands to be pushed up?

Okay can we get that punchlist of issues we will have to deal with as a result of 'climate change' and / or global warming back out? What if there is global warming and it is overall ...good for the inhabitants of the planet. Has anyone dared to consider that?

Hank Johnson will be glad to know that Tuvalu is no longer in danger of capsizing

[
As the sea level rise continues to accelerate, it's not clear to me that the island growth will be able to keep up. Will the island really be able to grow 2m (or more) by the end of the century? And grow even faster after that? It seems to me they just have more time than they thought.

Sea level rise is not accelerating- rather the opposite

Summary of the reasons why CAGW myth is over:
Global greening and increased crop yields due to higher CO2 levels;
No appreciable rise in sea levels, and no change in the rate of rise (or slight decrease in the rate);
No appreciable human induced warming of either oceans or troposphere in over 20 years;
Arctic sea ice is rebounding, and very thick;
Highest ever Antarctic ice cover, including sea ice;
90% of glaciers growing;
IPCC models that invariably run hot;
Lack of correlation with solar cycles;
The no-CO2 agenda hurts the poorest;
and the 'consensus' meme is false.

This article is a little misleading and its value questionable looking at the interpretation by the comments section. What does it matter if there is more land if this is unusable because of salinity of the soil?

The key, I imagine for Tuvaluans, is ""While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."" Indeed it is the other factors which are actually valuable. If the land still submerges every king tide - what does it matter that this research says there is more land? Except that it might direct people to think that Tuvalu's future is o.k., when it is not. This makes, I believe, this article really irresponsible journalism.

Arctic sea ice is rebounding, and very thick;
Highest ever Antarctic ice cover, including sea ice;

Ha haaa ! That is agood one.
Wake up capt'n America you are 2018

Arctic sea ice extent 13.860 millions km²... lowest sea ice ever for a february 8th.
Antarctic sea ice extent 2.382 millions km²... lowest sea ice ever for a february 8th.

Go check it out, don't take my word for it. National Snow and Ice Data Center https://nsidc.org...e-graph/

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.

Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming)

Help! We need more global warming -- yesterday!!!

So I also now hear the sun is going to cool for decades and thus it will 'mitigate' global warming. I thought Al Gore said there would be no snow at all on earth by now and the sea would rise?

What happened?

It's amazing that no matter what happens to contradict GW it's always portrayed as some special event that has merely 'delayed' GW but never as something that disproves GW. I guess those 'scientists' are gonna keep milking that GW cow as long as they can.

they have some nerve claiming that sea level can 'rise' in one area and not another . .

snoosebaum

WOW you are ignorant. The sea level can rise in all areas but in a few places the local land can rise faster than the sea level rise thus make its local shores rise; -welcome to this thing called 'geology'.

Summary of the reasons why CAGW myth is over:
Global greening and increased crop yields due to higher CO2 levels;

captbob.

That hasn't happenned. And neither has most of the other things you listed there. Please don't make crap up.

Globally, the only beneficial effect on plants of more CO2 (slightly more photosynthesis) have been more than offset by the bad effects, such as more hurricanes and droughts etc.

Poor greenloons never tire of being wrong. In fact, someone making pure guesses is usually right about 20% of the time. Greenloons actually defy the the law of averages. Superloosers.

All those scientists who are proven wrong by this study, would say that global warming is changing our planet so dramatically that the sea level is retreating in those places where it is supposed to rise... This change in Tuvalu will also be attributed to global warming!!

From the paper: "Existing paradigms are based on flawed assumptions that islands are static landforms, which will simply drown as the sea level rises. There is growing evidence that islands are geologically dynamic features that will adjust to changing sea level and climatic conditions."

This makes a lot of sense. Consider the plasticity of the mantle, lithosphere, and asthenosphere. The Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia are still bouncing up from the last ice age. If melt water causes the oceans to rise, then there is greater weight on the ocean bottom which pushes tectonic plates and perhaps sea mounts and islands up. If billionths of +H change to ocean acidity are of merit then minute changes to water weight on the ocean floor merits serious consideration.

From article/study:

sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.

Please Note Well:

- sea levels ARE rising.

- the ADDED coral sand etc is dumped at the EDGES, by storm surges, winds/currents etc (NOT 'geologic' activity), extending ONLY LOW-LYING coastal fringe 'land area'.

- said new coral sand etc 'deposits' TEMPORARILY may balance usual/increased erosion due to said storms etc (which storms etc are made worse by AGW effects); HOWEVER...

- LONG TERM dangers remain/worsens because: ( a ) such 'dune' deposits CAN easily 'disappear' in the next unfavorable 'pattern' of storms/current etc which will EXACERBATE due to AGW related enhanced climate dynamics (all beaches/dunes so near water's edge are 'in flux').

Nothing new! :)

cont:

and ( b ) the FRESH WATER TABLE still at same level, so rising sea levels mean SALT WATER INGRESS will exacerbate and destroy that fresh water resource because the 'new sand/dunes' are PERMEABLE and the already occurring ingress of salt water will not be stopped but only accelerate as sea level rises.

Again, there's really nothing 'new' in this; anyone familiar with LITTORAL DYNAMICS already knew all this. So the above 'study' seems just another of those all-too-frequent 'publish or perish' type exercises/publications that infests many areas of science literature/discourse; adding nothing 'new', and may actually further confuse things (as some of the comments here demonstrate only too well).

Calm down, everyone. It's not a 'game' of 'us against them'. Work together not against each other. We're all on the same Earth 'lifeboat', hey?

Good luck and good thinking, everyone. Cheers. :)

All those scientists who are proven wrong by this study, would say that global warming is changing our planet so dramatically that the sea level is retreating in those places where it is supposed to rise... This change in Tuvalu will also be attributed to global warming!!

This article is poorly written in that it puts one bit of research out of the total context that actual Tuvaluans live with day in and day out.

Whether or not Tuvalu's islands grow by 1000's km3 matters not if they are so low that because of the rising sea levels you can't plant crops. It doesn't matter how much land you gain if during high tides the seas washes over large swathes of the islands. Importantly to the Tuvaluans who have a rich culture, their stories, ancestry (gravesites, etc) are literally being washed away.

It isn't difficult to find this information out.

Are there any Freeways on this Island, just in case I go there & find I need to get someplace in a hurry?

Ok. Like wow I've not read as much BS in one comment section as I have on this article. I mean you climate deniers are at a fever pitch on this one. Can we all just sing "LAHHHHwwww" and drown out this total horse sh*t? So for example;

This makes a lot of sense. Consider the plasticity of the mantle, lithosphere, and asthenosphere. The Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia are still bouncing up from the last ice age.

That's it. I call BS! Like this even effects the small island nation of Tuvalu. I mean are the AGW denier goons so desperate that goofy is the new science for them? I bet they would believe anything you toss at them, like wolves sucking the marrow of a bone if FOX news gave it to them.
As you denier goons want to claim;

It isn't difficult to find this information out.

so grow a pair and prove your not an idiot RW climate denier goon.

It is intelligent and prudent of us to study this problem - and listen to the science - not listen to those that do not have scientific credentials or experience - but want to throw nonsense from the sidelines

You should follow your own advice:

Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much
February 7, 2018, University of California - San Diego

Read more at: https://phys.org/...sts.html#jCp]https://phys.org/...html#jCp[/url]

https://phys.org/...sts.html

How about doing stuff to actually help and make a change. Stop using computers, electricity, cars, buses, planes. Stop living in houses that have been built with power tools.

.........Greeno expects YOU to do that, not HIM. You see, he reasons that just one person (you) following his green advice gives him the offsetting latitude & benefit for not following the lifestyle he sets for others but won't himself practice, of course he'll say he practices such a lifestyle but he won't PROVE it to be factual, in contrast to what gkam does by putting up EVIDENCE that he's not just PREACHING but in fact PRACTICING.

You are just as responsible for AGW as that "RW climate denier goon".

There is a bit of a difference between someone who, after being made aware of a mistake, is prepared to help alleviate the mistake and someone who will just ignore the notice and keeps on making the mistake.

Stop using computers, electricity, cars, buses, planes. Stop living in houses that have been built with power tools.

That's a false dichotomy, and you know it. No one is advocating for a full stop of civilization, because that is not needed. All that is needed is to live within our means (where 'means' in the context of AGW is the climate budget)

So the lies of the AGW Cult are revealed, yet the ignorant Chicken Littles choose to blindly believe in their Cult. That special Kool Aid mix is brewing, let's see how many will drink.

All that is needed is to live within our means (where 'means' in the context of AGW is the climate budget)

......AGW gobblygook.

So why are the most visible of advocates of REDUCING CARBON USE the most unapologetic offenders of using it? For example Al Gore flying all over the globe in his private jet & the huge house he lives in?

At least by 2050 our present carbon use will have a positive result when it offsets dropping worldwide temps of the dimming Sun, in the meantime I'm gonna really ramp up my use of firewood so I won't be freezing my ass off by 2050 while at the same time doing my part to prevent the resultant cooling of the planet.

SAVE THE PLANET from 2050 : RELEASE CO2........NO CARBON CAPTURE

I'm proposing the above be the new AGW motto to save the planet.

At least by 2050 our present carbon use will have a positive result when it offsets dropping worldwide temps of the dimming Sun, in the meantime I'm gonna really ramp up my use of firewood so I won't be freezing my ass off by 2050 while at the same time doing my part to prevent the resultant cooling of the planet.

SAVE THE PLANET from 2050 : RELEASE CO2........NO CARBON CAPTURE

I'm proposing the above be the new AGW motto to save the planet.

Story Title Date Rank By
'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: study February 12, 2018, 11:42 am 1 Captain Stumpy

Stubby doesn't want to save the planet.........next?

@Benni
troll coment, but I will reply

...doesn't want to save the planet

the Captain doesn't believe your claims of:

At least by 2050 our present carbon use will have a positive result when it offsets dropping worldwide temps of the dimming Sun

links/references?

considering you've not been able to provide links or references to show where the sun will be dimmed to a point in 2050 that will cause widespread cooling allowing for your additional claim to be supported, then what you have posted is a belief

but if you consider the evidence, it's delusional:
Church et al. (2011)
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)

you will refuse to read the studies (like always)
you will interject random irrelevant data (like above: Gore, GreenO, myself)
you will post about DE's despite your proven inability to do basic math
you will argue with your own self-perceived authority

you will not, however, refute with science

the Captain doesn't believe your claims

"Captain"? Of what, the Stubby Klansmen?

considering you've not been able to provide links or references to show where the sun will be dimmed to a point in 2050

......try this stubby:

https://phys.org/...sts.html

....... and you're right there rebutting my Commentary on what is now Settled Science about the dimming Sun, all you are is just in denial which is what DENIERS do.

@troll benji

and you're right there rebutting my Commentary on what is now Settled Science

there is exactly one post I made to you
- and it's factually accurate and supported by evidence linked and referenced in said post

so lets see how you did in my prediction:

you will refuse to read the studies (like always)

yep, you didn't read them

you will interject random irrelevant data

yup, you did that

you will argue with your own self-perceived authority

yup! you want people to believe I rebutted "[your] Commentary on what is now Settled Science"

you will not, however, refute with science

and yup again

the only thing you didn't mention was DE's

and you've just demonstrated why deniers of science always fail - because science trumps belief

thanks for the demonstration: it will be saved for later

@howhot,

Ok. Like wow I've not read as much BS in one comment section as I have on this article. I mean you climate deniers are at a fever pitch on this one. Can we all just sing "LAHHHHwwww" and drown out this total horse sh*t? So for example;

This makes a lot of sense. Consider the plasticity of the mantle, lithosphere, and asthenosphere. The Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia are still bouncing up from the last ice age.

That's it. I call BS! Like this even effects the small island nation of Tuvalu. I mean are the AGW denier goons so desperate that goofy is the new science for them? I bet they would believe anything you toss at them, like wolves sucking the marrow of a bone if FOX news gave it to them.
As you denier goons want to claim;

It isn't difficult to find this information out.

so grow a pair and prove your not an idiot RW climate denier goon.

Could you make the box in with you think any smaller?

there is exactly one post I made to you
- and it's factually accurate and supported by evidence linked and referenced in said post

..........and previously you said:

inks/references?

considering you've not been able to provide links or references to show where the sun will be dimmed to a point in 2050 that will cause widespread cooling allowing for your additional claim to be supported, then what you have posted is a belief

https://phys.org/...sts.html ......and so I did where your post is located just above mine that you at first stated didn't exist, now you are simply trying to do the usual walk back after you've been caught in yet another one of your fairytale fantasies

What you lack downstairs is superbly indicative of what you lack upstairs, eh Stub.Your ultimate fantasy.

What I advocate for is an intelligent approach to understanding our world - and to talking about it. You seem not capable of that.

.......the fundamental difference being that I can solve Rate of Reaction Equations, all you've EVER done on this site is embark on foul mouthed name calling binges when you are challenged to prove your long held contention that the Sun does not create Climate Change. Oh, almost forgot, I can also solve Differential Equations.

@benji-TROLL
wow
I even used small words so you could understand - but you failed
again

and so I did where your post is located just above mine that you at first stated didn't exist

by all means, please quote where the article or the study show there will be widespread cooling, per your claims, because what any semi-literate person will read in said article is:

Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that "a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming."

so as I stated above: you've posted your delusional opinion and it's directly refuted by the science (and your own link - LMFAO)

I leave you with your own words, which you may chew at your leisure:
now you are simply trying to do the usual walk back after you've been caught in yet another one of your fairytale fantasies

What you lack downstairs is superbly indicative of what you lack upstairs, eh Benji-TROLL.Your ultimate fantasy.

So the fact that you may be able to do calculus is irrelevant.

May? He has repeatedly failed to demonstrate even that. Not for lack of asking, mind. There must be a dozen posts by DaSchneib where he was asked to solve a simple problem.

so as I stated above: you've posted your delusional opinion and it's directly refuted by the science (and your own link - LMFAO)

If anything the science trolls are really good at dismantling their own positions. It's like shooting fish in a barrel - with the fish doing their own shooting.

Those of us who comprehend the language of REAL SCIENCE have always been making these points:

https://phys.org/...sts.html

"Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much"

It's you DENIERS that the Sun is the primary driver of CLIMATE CHANGE who are the pseudo-science trolls being really good at dismantling your own positions.

Next, it'll be so much fun as you try telling us you never said the Sun was not the primary driver of CLIMATE CHANGE, can't wait for that, in fact that will begin coming up very shortly, right? OK DENIERS, on your mark, get set, GO.

@Antialias

If anything the science trolls are really good at dismantling their own positions. It's like shooting fish in a barrel - with the fish doing their own shooting

LMFAO
I know, right?

I usually just ignore his rantings - I know a couple folk who just report them

Sometimes I don't know if he is intentionally going for comic relief or displaying genuine stupidity though... with benji it's hard to tell because there are absolutely no demonstrations of any skill or intelligence

Classic Dunning-Kruger though, so it's a great example to have when you need to demonstrate it

Uh, Stubby, you're back on Ignore & you're not coming back. We know why you have ex-wives as if we couldn't have figured it out the very first time we ever saw that Stumpy handle. That you label yourself the Captain of the stubbies really is insightful.

@howhot3

Rabid and jaundice minds like should read something like https://doi.org/1...16007114 to flush some of the ignorance and putrid bias from the little boxes to which they are limited. This particularly before they blurt out how useful an idiot they are.

The material on sea level rise has always attributed such to either thermal expansion or melt water. It would be interesting to see research on sea level effect from movement of tectonic plates or sea bed rise. The rise of the Labrador and Scandinavian peninsulas, rise or fall of the mid ocean rights, and rise of oceanic hots spots, like Hawaii, and magmatic upwelling could add or subtract from sea level.

We seem to keep walking back all the terrible things that global warming was supposed to do or going to make happen. And here we go again............. Could it be that the sea levels are not really rising and that the data has been manipulated or just plain wrong? I kind of think we all really know the answer to that and some are not ready to admit it. So they come up with some other wacky explanation that makes even less sense to justify that the previous misrepresentations were not really wrong. Maybe the whole premise is wrong....just sayin'.

Could it be that a desperate delusional dumb phark always anxiously seeks for any scrap of possible to try to validate his delusion?

Is it possible that this increase in land area could explained also by the augmentation of the mass of the sea and the effects ( deformations ) on the crust particularly on the layers are thin (like Ring of Fire) ?
By a greater pressure of the ocean on the crust , a kind of "tire bubble" could appear and could increase.

they have some nerve claiming that sea level can 'rise' in one area and not another . you know , water finds its own level ,,,,,,, basic stuff . -snoosebaum

Water's "own level" is anything but trivial, even ignoring tides. High air pressure pushes down harder on the water than in areas of low air pressure. Conveniently, wind tends to blow from high to low pressure, allowing wind to push water from the high-pressure dip to the low-pressure bulge. Ocean currents, when confronted with an obstacle such as a shoreline or seamount, will produce a bulge (to visualize what's happening, aim a hose perpendicular to your wall and notice that some of the water sprays upwards). The gravity of dynamic objects like glaciers pulls water toward them, increasing the local sea level. A melting glacier is a double-whammy of not just its own water but a release of its gravitational bulge water.

And then of course warmer, fresher (and hence less dense) water is going to ride higher, via Archimedes principle, augmented by the water's own self-gravity which will be lower for less dense water.