The oceans were supposed to be swallowing up the islands
Climate change has unleashed rampant growth in mangrove forests. The trees are capturing coral detritus in large sand drifts, and locking it into whole new ecosystems that expand 5 to 6 meters a year. It’s just remarkable — some islands have grown by several kilometers since 1928.
The Howick Group of islands is north of Cairns Australia. Three scientific expeditions mapped out them out in 1928 and in 1974, and again in 2021, and lo, they have grown, especially in the last four decades. That makes them like most of the 709 islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans that were studied a few years ago. Satellites showed that 89% of those islands had grown.
It turns out warmer more carbon rich world makes mangroves happy. Who could have seen that coming, apart from every biologist on Earth?
From the commentary in the video below:
“We’ve seen some really dramatic changes. Some of the things that we’ve seen are advancing fronts of forests. Forests that were mapped to small patches on the windward part of the reef flat are now occupying a much larger section of the reef patch. We’ve seen forests expanding by as much as 5 or 6m a year. That equates to several kilometers of extension.”
Mangroves are expanding on the Howick Group islands in the Great Barrier Reef
The Sydney Morning Herald even managed to let their readers know. We can appreciate their struggle with the headline:
Magic mangroves a ‘blue carbon’ buffer for Great Barrier Reef
by Laim Phelan
Apparently, the news is not that tropical islands are loving climate change and growing which the models didn’t predict, what matters is that mangroves are “magical” carbon sinks, because the world revolves around your carbon footprint. “Blue Carbon” means carbon dioxide trapped by a mangrove that ends up being sequestered underwater.
“What’s particularly interesting for a lot of the islands in the Howick group that we are mapping and investigating is that they are growing,” Associate Professor Hamylton says.
“Most of the islands we have looked at are predominantly made up of broken up corals, which waves then sweep and deposit on the island. This coral sediment is responsible for building up the islands. Add in mangrove forests and you can see that these islands are actually growing.”
Associate Professor Hamylton says the group was able to compare aerial images taken by a drone with hand-drawn maps created in 1928 and photographs from 1974.
But golly… perfectly good reef sand and ocean is being captured by those invasive mangroves and no one seems to care? Quick, someone cover the islands with solar panels, yeah?
Mangroves are rapidly taking over the bare reef sand.
At this rate, the Arafura sea may disappear in the next two thousand years, forming a mangrove land bridge between Papua New Guinea and Australia.
Friends of the Arafura Sea immediately started a fundraising campaign and lobbying for a seat at the UN. Meanwhile UNESCO warned that the new threat to the Great Barrier Reef Heritage listing was uncontrolled forest growth and they needed half a billion dollars to assess it. Plus it’s not clear whether the mangroves got the correct zoning permit in 1928 either. /sarc
The video:
The Mangroves Strike Back
Warm tropical waters are an odd beast with respect to CO2 and carbonate chemistry. Calcium and magnesium carbonate are LESS soluble in warm water than cold due to the instability of calcium bicarbonate as sea water temperature increases. That’s why warm shallow seas have always been needed for limestone deposits to form as deep water mostly gets colder with depth. So while there is a lot of interesting biology going on with the mangrove stands, there is also some really simply chemistry leading to CO2 sequestration.
360
Reality sometimes breaks through the miasma of leftist lunacy. Whether it seeps into the collective consciousness of enough people to stop the slide we see happening is another matter. Losing the bulk of the MSM to leftism has consequences.
420
It’s not just the MSM that has been caught by the leftist ideology. The LNP party has been as well to some extent at least. Anyone who hasn’t woken up to that fact must be sleeping under a rock. As for whether reality does eventually penetrate the masses and wakes them up out of their mass formation psychosis, only time will tell. The problem is it’s two-fold at the moment (CAGW and COVID-19 vaccination) perhaps becoming three-fold if another scam enters the scene.
400
It’s just a matter of time …I reckon our best bet is to maintain our own equilibrium and graciousness while we wait for the left lunacy to be dissolved……
180
The problem is the left lunacy is becoming more powerful and widespread through c0rrupt organisations like the WEF so waiting for it to be dissolved might take too long by which time they will have achieved their goal of complete tyranny.
150
The media is going to have a tough time, as it becomes ever more obvious that all their dire projections continue to fail, to claw back some credibility. Less and less people buy newspapers. The SMH it seems gives many away at motels and the like so that is hardly a great business model. Their news on the Channel Nine network is becoming more left leaning although not as much as the ABC of course. The Fairfax group has changed the listening demographics of their once great 2GB as Alan Jones has been replaced with a nice young chap who will be beaten by a music station. My son watches no news and reads no papers yet is fully informed having gained his information from the web as many here do. The days of the MSM are all but over as they commit Hari Kari with a biro. CNN tried to make a big deal out of the anniversary of 6th January and failed miserably. The people know that the MSM cannot be trusted when CNN cannot draw one million viewers from 330 million potential viewers. The reef story may be a bit of claw back and is welcome but is too late coming.
300
Mangroves are a carbon sink and acts as an island building exercise, beyond that its a question of sea level rise (SLR).
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2022/01/not-washed-away-on-the-highest-tide/
Hard to gauge with certainty but 125,000 years ago, at the height of the Eemian Interglacial, sea level was up to eight metres higher than today and temperatures at the poles was 3-5C degrees warmer. It wasn’t caused by CO2.
310
Coastal geology on NSW indicates that sea level was around 1-1.5m higher around 1000-2000 years ago.
190
Yes, you can see evidence of historical sea levels in the Illawarra Escarpment which also show other interesting geological history such as the Illawarra Coal Measurement.
80
*measures, not measurement. An unauthorised change by the spelling checker.
50
Beryl Nashar taught us that fifty six years ago.
70
They also act as a breeding ground and nursery for all sorts of aquatic creatures.
120
It’s the mozzies that I can’t cope with. Tropical islands infested with super mangrove forests just mean more and more little biters sadly.
40
The Kench and Duvat etc SLR studies have been telling us that most of the Coral Atoll islands have been growing for decades and yet the clowns at Glasgow lied about this repeatedly.
The UN Sec Gen is the worst serial offender and he should’ve been sacked years ago.
So why do we listen to these delusional extremists and fall for their blatant con tricks every time?
340
Coral Atolls HAVE to grow, vertically and laterally.
Why are atolls “ring-shaped”? Some weird polyp engineering joke?
Not exactly; they are built on top of extinct / dormant volcanoes.
The same ocean current that wash away the relatively soft volcanic ash that makes up much of the “cones” of volcanoes, brought the polyps to landfall on the volcanic stumps and the laying down of corals started.
Then, it gets really interesting. The ocean is steadily causing the relatively fragile caldera rim to collapse, whilst the surviving corrals are furiously building UP to maintain their place in the sunlight (and “planktonic”) sweet-spot). The volcanic ash is rich in minerals that are attractive to life and the physical presence is a shelter.
As long as the coral can build at least as fast as the rim is subsiding,all is good. The corals can also build laterally, thus broadening the “footprint”.
Bear in mind that the movement between “land” and sea is RELATIVE. The land , huge slabs of it, goes up and down and in accordance with varying solar activity, meteor / comet strikes, also rises and falls.
On my first serious dive trip, in 1977, I stepped of the shelving reef of a small island off the Queensland coast. The coal “wall” descended over 60 feet. at that depth, there was ZERO live coral and even in those waters at around noon, the sunlight was a bit feeble, This raised an interesting question.
How could coral start building in nutrient and light deficient water? Short answer; it didn’t. The speck of an island on which we were based, rose to several metres above the high-water mark. Coral does NOT grow on dry land.. Thus, it appears that said island, and MANY like it, formed and developed during several cycles of upheaval. Let us assume that there was, at some time, an undersea “mountain” whose peak was close to the sea level of the day. It would be ripe for colonization by wandering coral polyps riding the warm, northward flowing coastal ocean current. Did the “tide come in” bigly, or the land subside at the right speed, such that the coral could keep life going in the critical upper few feet of water. See also: “AND”.
During the Ice AGES (plural), sea levels fell dramatically. If they did not, then our indigenous cousins could not have walked in. And, given the genetic difference, this happened more than once. As an aside, whatever happened to the “little people found and photographed in the rain forest of North Queensland?
Th planet is not preserved in aspic, unchanging, immutable, even. Time spent t the Hawaiian volcano National Part is enlightening. The concept of a static “hot-spot and a rotating plate are responsible for a long chain of islands that start in Hawaii and trail through Midway and up towards the Aleutians, is pretty heady stuff, but there it all is.
If you think all of that is weird, go and read up on “The Wallace Line”.
So, if anyone has verifiable answers to these issues, let’s see them.
180
Bruce, the little people of Queensland lived in settlements near Cairns until the 1960’s when they were closed down. Many intermarried with islanders and aboriginal people. The little people settled ( they built huts with banana fronds as roofing) across the north. They settled also in northern WA and right down the East coast and into Tasmania. There are pictures of Truganini where she is sitting on a chair and her feet don’t reach the ground – about the size of an eight year old.
This is just speculative, but a few years ago Ernie Dingo commented on how little his aunties were and introduced them to the audience on camera one day, they were very tiny with the frizzy hair, just like Truganini’s and the photographs from Queensland.
There are genealogical records kept at Flinders University , however people must prove they are descendants of particular tribes before they can access them. These records were put together by an anthropologist who was associated with the University and interviewed hundreds of little people across northern Australia in the 1940’s.
The little people have been removed from our history – they don’t fit the “narrative”.
140
Great info Chris. My understanding is that the Tasmanian aborigines were a totally different race to the mainland tribes. That they were “driven” to Tasmania by the more aggressive newer tribes and eventually trapped there by Bass Strait flooding after the last ice age dissipated. That they were a more placid nature people.
80
There were little people (not quite human) living on Flores 50,000 years ago.
‘The remains of an individual who would have stood about 1.1 m (3 ft 7 in) in height were discovered in 2003 at Liang Bua on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Partial skeletons of at least nine individuals have been recovered, including one complete skull, referred to as “LB1”. These remains have been the subject of intense research to determine whether they were diseased modern humans or a separate species; a 2017 study concludes by phylogenetic analysis that H. floresiensis is an early species of Homo, a sister species of Homo habilis.’ (wiki)
40
Chris, I had a long reply with quotes from disparate articles ..but it failed to upload! Anyway, I’m fascinated by this story, and you are quite right, they have been deliberately cancelled in our history! A piece on the Australian Museum website ‘debunks’ the myth that they existed, with references to plenty of other articles saying the modern aborigines were first here.
However it is easy to find the essays from the researchers who measured over 100 people living off Cairns, as you said. When they’re all 4’6″ tall its hard to disagree with! Yes, the huts with banana leaf roofs and “the people with tightly wound spiral curls of black hair and soft childlike faces.”
After Covid I’m not surprised to see the Aussie Govt are capable of this, and I’m used to it from NZ too. I see after the Maoris tried to ‘disappear’ the Morioris for decades the Govt over there are now making the taxpayer pay Moriori decendants for the suffering they endured by the Maoris!!
[Found your long post in the Bin, but inserting it at this date would foul up the sequence of comment numbers. So, I’ll insert the critical thoughts just below. – LVA]
AU Pygmies
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/
Aboriginals were the First People in AU
https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/debunking-australian-pygmy-people-myth/
Aboriginals did not displace earlier people, they Were the earlier people
https://indigenousx.com.au/debunking-aborigines-took-this-place-from-the-pygmies/
60
Is it just coincidence that NTZ has a similar topic today.
https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/10/coastal-land-area-is-expanding-so-fast-that-catastrophic-sea-level-rise-cannot-keep-up/
150
Found this gem amongst it, SLR is nothing to fear, we are at the end of the Holocene.
‘Italy’s famous leaning-tower city, Pisa, used to be a bustling sea port just ~3,300 years ago. That was when sea levels were much higher than they are today.
‘As the seas retreated over the next millennia, Pisa was left sitting almost 4 km from the sea coast during the Roman Warm Period.
‘Today Pisa is located 9.7 km from the coast.’
120
Camarthen in Wales is a town located about 8 miles from the coast on the river Tywy. In Roman times i.e 1st 2nd centuries, it was on the coast and was named Maridunum, which means sea port in Latin.
30
Ken Stewart recently checked historical SLs around Australia and proved that our SLs today are much lower than our earlier Holocene.
And he is correct about the data proving to be the world’s biggest Thermometer.
Many SL studies at the link and plenty of data and evidence to prove his case.
Even their ABC told us that SLs at Sydney area were 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago. Big surprise NOT.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-worlds-biggest-thermometer/
190
The last I recall, they were lamenting the alleged extensive loss of mangroves. I wish they’d make up their minds.
I eagerly await development of the technology to sequester and nullify the ecco-terrorists.
180
The technology to make the change is already here. It’s called the ballot box.
81
Junket on a Tropical Island!! Photo of luxury research vessel please?
The same accretion study could have been done next to Parliament House on the Brisbane River.
Many of the changes along these land – sea interfaces are to do with change of use. These islands would have seen pearling camps, beche de mer drying, guano mining, been shelled by passing warships to range guns etc.
So well done especially if someone was studying crayfish during the same expedition.
70
Notwithstanding that these coral cays are increasing in size, such types of islands are not fundamentally stable and are subject to change due to storms such as cyclones and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles and other weather conditions.
It is never a good idea to assume that such island structures are stable and unchanging forever and certainly should not be built upon.
Of course, that doesn’t stop the tourist website https://sailing-whitsundays.com/article/what-is-a-cay-why-are-they-special saying under the heading “What is a cay? Why are they special?”.
“Don’t be fooled, just because they are primarily made of sand does not mean they cannot sustain vegetation, wildlife, buildings and resorts.”
Go figure…
Back in the day it used to be considered (un)common sense not to build in flood or tidal zones, earthquake zones, bushfire zones, unstable land subject to landslides or erosion, etc.. Nowadays people just build there and expect fellow taxpayers to bail them out of their stupidity when the inevitable comes.
230
David I agree with your comment, but there’s a lot of data over the last couple of hundred years that also proves we are living in the very best of times.
Just over 100 years ago droughts, floods, hurricanes etc would kill 100,000s people per year but our science+ technology + information highways etc have allowed us to reduce that terrible death toll by 95%.
And our pop then was just 1.7 billion, while today that has increased by 6 + billion.
This proves that for various reasons we live in a much safer and more prosperous + GREENING world.
140
If the CO2 weenies are building systems to extract C02 from the air and sequester it in storage facilities, apart from knowing where I can go to get plenty of CO2 for my post-mix drinks, one down side is that if they lower atmospheric CO2 too low, could it leave to some degree of human and animal starvation, as crops wont produce enough yield?
120
As it always the case when leftists get involved there will be unintended consequences. Well, it can be argued it’s intended but regardless of whether it’s intended or not, it’s a sad indictment of how our system allows such people to get away with so much destruction to our way of life, socially and economically. There would be no issue grabbing a terrorist doing the exact same thing by other means but when it comes to the destructive practices as presented by the leftist mob, it’s applauded and supported by our governments, state and federal. Go figure.
80
Maybe that is the endgame, Steve.
30
Even their BBC reported on the 2016 Dutch study showing coastal land area was increasing around the world.
Satellite data was used and showed an increase in coastal land over the last 30 years.
Why wasn’t this trumpeted at Glasgow and then they could’ve packed up and gone home ASAP and saved us WASTING endless trillions $ for the next 100 years?
And we’d have reliable BASE-LOAD ENERGY to run our businesses + create jobs and save many more lives for the rest of the century.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/30/earths-surface-gaining-coastal-land-area-despite-sea-level-rise/
80
Here Andrew Bolt interviews NSW Hydro-graphic Surveyor Daniel Fitzhenry about SLs at Sydney since 1914.
They use the BOM data and this SLR expert tries to explain the data so we can more easily understand it.
Only a short video and well worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk
60
For reference, here are graphs of Fort Denison, and the Bondi stilling pool sea levels.
https://i.postimg.cc/NFQ7bB3X/fort-denison.png
https://i.postimg.cc/tRdrKCN8/Bondi-surge-pool.jpg
Each showing a horrendous 1mm/year sea level rise.. no acceleration
70
Sea level is within normal parameters, but if we return to the start of the Holocene we see global warming writ large.
The pace of deglaciation would have been concerning for people living through these tumultuous times. Of particular note, SLR continued during the Younger Dryas, albeit at a slower pace, perhaps the AMOC was operating by then.
‘Meltwater pulse 1A was a 13.5 m rise over about 290 years centered at 14,200 years ago and Meltwater pulse 1B was a 7.5 m rise over about 160 years centered at 11,000 years ago. In sharp contrast, the period between 14,300 and 11,100 years ago, which includes the Younger Dryas interval, was an interval of reduced sea level rise at about 6.0–9.9 mm/yr. Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 years ago and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years, such that sea levels 5000 years ago were around 3m higher than present day, as evidenced in many locations by fossil beaches.’ (wiki)
20
The significance of this expansion is far more profound. It means man made CO2 driven Global Warming is wrong. Nett Zero is wrong. Carbon Neutrality is rubbish.
Man produces CO2 even if it is only about 4% each year. We are told this has added to the atmosphere until it is now 50% more CO2 than in say 1900. This produces warming. And even tiny warming is a disaster. You would not feel +1C.
So why does only man produced CO2 stay in the air? Because nothing else has changed and according to the IPCC laws of physics, it takes 80 years for even half the man produced CO2 to be absorbed in the vast oceans. Which is incredible as fish breathe and CO2 is 30x more soluble than O2.
The only problem with this logic is that not only is none of this proven, everything is demonstrably wrong.
The IPCC story is that CO2 is constant because the whole biosphere is ‘carbon neutral’. So it’s all our fault. They offer no proof.
Despite the fact that 98% of all gaseous CO2 is dissolved in the ocean, we are told without explanation that the CO2 in the deep ocean never surfaces. The whole story of man made CO2 hinges on this incredible idea.
So you get proposals to reduce our contribution and balance it, like Tony Abbot’s idea to plant trees. And wood chips for fuel because trees grow again quickly, far faster than 80 years. The idea is that we are good global citizens if our nett contribution to CO2 is nothing. Farm animals have to go of course, even if they are just replacements for native animals. As if buffalo and kangaroos and camels do not fart. Vegetarian animals all have to go. Which also means no lions or tigers or polar bears. Eliminating the major source of methane, termites, will take longer. Basically shut down the modern world, but China is exempt as they are backward. And do not question that.
However as the mangrove story implies and the CSIRO and NASA, the Greening of the planet observed by satellites is obvious, about 15%, roughly equal to the increase in CO2 since we could see such things. Even the Guardian reported the effect of Australian busfires, CO2 and ash over the pacific producing ‘a massive phytoplankton’ bloom. So much for staying in the air! And green phytoplankton are said to produce half the world’s oxygen and they love CO2. Which is a shame as the same groups allege CO2 never enters the ocean, let alone immediately.
Except that the Greening is NOT reducing CO2. So obviously to Blind Freddy, Greening is a direct result of increased CO2. The CO2 which was supposed to stay in the air for much longer than 80 years . But the amount of CO2 in the air clearly determines how many trees exist. According to the bible of CO2 neutrality, increased greening must reduce CO2 but the number of trees has no effect on CO2. The whole of carbon neutrality, biosphere equilibrium, is busted. The extra greening has done nothing to stop the steady growth of CO2? It has no effect?
According to the IPCC ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘nett zero’ model, an increase of 15% in the number of trees must reduce CO2 by 15%.
But the level of CO2 determines the number of trees, the exact reverse of what is expected. So we do not need to plant hundreds of millions of trees! They are plant themselves. And CO2 is still going up steadily? How? Further it is clear that if we output more CO2 will we get more trees, more crops? Isn’t that a good thing?
The answer is that there really is equilibrium but it is not static and more than world temperature is static. And this equilibrium existed before we knew anything about chemistry or CO2 or the internal combustion engine. CO2 levels in the atmosphere existed before we crawled out of the oceans and learned to breathe the new Oxygen with lungs, our blood the salt content of the ancient oceans. We could do this because the plants learned to convert CO2 into Oxygen and we could use oxygen to burn plants and power our bodies.
So what really sets the CO2 level? The answer from physical chemistry is that with dissolved gases and Henry’s Law, the amount of the gas in the air at given pressure and temperature is determined by only one thing, the temperature of the surface. Ask any real scientist, especially a physical chemist, not science fiction writer Tim Flannery. Warmer ocean surfaces (the deeper ocean never changes) means more CO2. And highly soluble, highly compressible CO2 means very slightly warmer ocean surfaces. Warming increases CO2 is a far easier story than CO2 causes warming.
Plus world food production has climbed 200% since 1980 while land use has hardly changed. Could that be more CO2?
So don’t bother planting trees. They will plant themselves. And the same satellites show us that the world temperatures in 2021 was the same as in 1980, no matter what else happened, so the ‘world’ is not warming rapidly or at all, but the ocean surface is a little hotter. And for an ocean stuffed with CO2, that means more CO2 and that means more trees. And we are irrelevant.
150
And as I wrote years ago, we can distinguish fossil fuel CO2 instantly from modern CO2. Modern CO2 has 1 part per trillion of radioactive C14. Fossil fuel has none. It’s easy to measure. We know absolutely that the half life of CO2 in the air is 7 years, not the 80 of the IPCC, but who needs facts?
So all along we have known the amount of man made CO2 in the air. And in 1958 it was not the expected 14% but only 2.03%+/-0.15% as in the Royal Society paper. Since then no one has dared say anything.
I had thought that this would die down, but generating $1,500,000,000,000 every year in cash, it is the biggest scam in human history. And any scientist who points out that it is not true is immediately punished, cancelled, fired and hounded. So what you need is a rich scientist, which is a contradiction. Or joannenova’s blog where people can read the truth.
Plus it gives power to the United Nations to become a world government. Just like the EU and the CCP.
And the IPCC would not exist if the facts were known. It is after all an explicitly Inter Governmental political body to promote and stop Climate Change and the rich socialists who control the UN unabashedly see Climate Change as a mechanism to redistribute wealth. As Margaret Thatcher said the essential problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
180
And the irony is that the people pushing Carbon Neutrality including the CSIRO, NASA, Guardian and the rest have no inkling that the observation that increasing CO2 proportionally increases the biosphere means carbon neutrality is completely wrong. Trees have nothing to do with controlling CO2. We cannot. It’s a fact of nature. The total amount of CO2 determines the number of trees. Carbon neutrality is a delusion of grandeur, utterly fake shamanistic non science. And very profitable.
110
In the introduction (a long one) to geologist Ian Plimer’s book, Green Murder, he postulates that there are up to 500,000 active volcanoes on fault lines on the ocean floors and as many as 10 million volcanic vents, all spewing out CO2 and SO2. Because of the enormous pressures at these depths these gasses stay in liquid form and only very slowly, over hundreds or thousands of years as the oceans circulate, do they eventually reach the surface and may be available for release to the atmosphere, in accordance with Henry’s Law. (Happy to be corrected if I have got any of that wrong, I read it about two weeks ago and am working from memory)
However, the isotopes in CO2 released from volcanic activity are the same as those produced by burning fossil fuels, according to Plimer. He feels that the 3% or so of CO2 in the atmosphere blamed on man’s use of fossil fuels is more likely 1% and the balance is from the ancient volcanic gasses that eventually rise to the oceans surfaces.
80
Interesting.
It’s not whether CO2 heats the planet, but whether mankind produced the CO2 and either way almost none of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. There is no man made anything. We could not change % CO2 in the atmosphere if we wanted too. And we have been trying to do so at incredible expense and without any result for 34 years.
I have never seen any government body refer to the effect of all our efforts on CO2, which is precisely zero. It’s irrelevant, branded ’emissions’. And in the record you cannot see giant forest fires, volcanoes, even the world wide shutdown of aircraft. So why penalize everyone?
What is the point of controlling ’emissions’ if they vanish quickly and have no effect? Why all the incredible restrictions on our activity, restrictions ignored by the biggest countries on the planet. It’s all fake, greed, profit and the destruction of Western democracies and the UN has made it clear, it is about ‘economic redistribution’ and their control.
40
I’m gonna love it when there are no sandy beaches around Sydney & Manly is covered in mangroves. How long before we’d hear the first calls for Roundup to protect our beaches?
71
..and make sure they’re Perovskite ones while you’re at it 😅
(extreme poke at delusional premature death green agenda products)
31
“Satellites showed that 89% of those islands had grown.”
I’m guessing these are uninhabited islands, it seems to be the inhabited ones that aren’t doing so well.
I wonder why.
30
The funniest COP26 Glasgow attendee, the allegedly drowning island country of Tuvalu (population 10,200) and the desperate speech of the Prime Minister to COP26 in Glasgow. Clearly they have run out of land and he copied John Cleese? Tuvalu sent 24 delegates to Glasgow. That’s 0.2% of the population. For Australia that would be 59,000 people. For India, 3 million people.
But there was also the delegation from Nepal which sent an amazing 75 delegates. I would love to know if their concern was rapid sea rise (average altitude 11,000 feet and contain Mt Everest, 29,000 feet) or warming? Or perhaps even a drought? (annual rainfall 55 Inches/1375mm).
But then Yaks are native to Nepal and perhaps that attracted them?
70
Just scanning the list of attendees you would be amazed to know
Lichenstein sent 9 delegates.
Andorra just behind at 8 delegates.
And the ‘Holy See’ or Vatican sent 7.
and North Macedonia tied with New Zealand with 16 delegates.
Just behind Tuvalu, another tie on 23 candidates between Monaco (29,000) , Phillipines (110 million) and Cabo Verde (555,000).
All concerned. After all, why else would you have a holiday in Glasgow in mid winter?
110
That is so funny. Surely this is parody
30
Plenty of room for airport runways, though. 😉
Gotta have room for those CO2 releasing jets to land.
80
Here’s the BOM MSL data for Fort Denison up to DEC 2021 and since that Andrew Bolt interview above little has changed since 1914.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
30
Looks like there is absolutely no change in the mean sea level since 1914.
20
Love seeing the facts of our world Jo.
Especially when thye show up ideological lunacy !
40
The Roman invasion beach of Britain in 43 AD has been found off the Kent coast. And it is about 4 kilometres INLAND today.
That’s a fair distance for the SL to drop in about 2000 years.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/roman-invasion-beach-found-in-kent-949717.html
30
That’s a fair way for the land to rise in about 2000years.. As Britain (and most of Europe) recovered from being sunk down by glaciation in the last ice age.
We have no way of knowing if land is rising or seas sinking, the only hope is since satellites were launched and even then I doubt if there is a faultless way of determining their orbital decay, their orbital changes with respect to the moon, the planets or the sun.
Add to that the plate tectonics that is busily tilting some countries so one side is rising and one sinking..
Its all guesswork, pick the reason for the facts that suits your argument!
30
Ahhh.. those Roman galley slaves were a hardy lot. But those last 4kms must have been hard going… 😉
10
I give most weight to the possibility the biosphere would boom should it get warmer. I see little reason to doubt it.
20
Didn’t one of the Solomon Islands rise up a few years ago, due to volcanic action? I know Mark Twain advised, “Invest in land- they’ve stopped making it.” But he might have been wrong.
10
So one could say they’re building back better?
10
[…] JoNova; A field expedition to investigate remote islands on the Great Barrier Reef has discovered the […]
00
After looking at the video, I am concerned about their mensuration techniques.
The International standard for tree measure is height and trunk diameter (not width) at breast height (1.3 meters). His height measurement stick was at an angle – a Clinometer is a more traditional method. The other important measure is Basal area – not taken. In my earlier career I have conducted many a forest inventory – that what this survey was. The information obtained from this poor survey technique is of limited value. It would obtain area extent and rough tree height.
I more modern technique and cheaper would be to use LIDAR. Add a few growth plots and the information available would be immense. A conversation with Professor Chris Brack would greatly improve their research.
Before LIDAR I would have used linear transects (that is what they did) with set 3P sample plots. I assume (often a bad thing to do) that they were also recording the species of the tree they were measuring.
00
[…] Stop That Now! Climate change helps aggressive mangrove forests build bigger tropical islands […]
00