iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Marshall Islands' Climate Change Dilemma: If It Vanishes Beneath Rising Sea Levels, Is It Still A Nation?

CHARLES J. HANLEY   12/ 6/10 02:27 PM ET   AP

Mexico Climate Disappearing

CANCUN, Mexico — Encroaching seas in the far Pacific are raising the salt level in the wells of the Marshall Islands. Waves threaten to cut one sliver of an island in two. "It's getting worse," says Kaminaga Kaminaga, the tiny nation's climate change coordinator.

The rising ocean raises questions, too: What happens if the 61,000 Marshallese must abandon their low-lying atolls? Would they still be a nation? With a U.N. seat? With control of their old fisheries and their undersea minerals? Where would they live, and how would they make a living? Who, precisely, would they and their children become?

For years global negotiations to act on climate change have dragged on, with little to show. Parties to the 193-nation U.N. climate treaty are meeting again in this Caribbean resort, but no one expects decisive action to roll back the industrial, agricultural and transport emissions blamed for global warming – and consequently for swelling seas.

From 7,000 miles (11,000 kilometers) away, the people of the Marshalls – and of Kiribati, Tuvalu and other atoll nations beyond – can only wonder how many more years they'll be able to cope.

"People who built their homes close to shore, all they can do is get more rocks to rebuild the seawall in front day by day," said Kaminaga, who is in Cancun with the Marshallese delegation to the U.N. talks.

The Marshallese government is looking beyond today, however, to those ultimate questions of nationhood, displacement and rights.

"We're facing a set of issues unique in the history of the system of nation-states," Dean Bialek, a New York-based adviser to the Republic of the Marshall Islands who is also in Cancun, told The Associated Press. "We're confronting existential issues associated with climate impacts that are not adequately addressed in the international legal framework."

The Marshallese government took a first step to confront these issues by asking for advice from the Center for Climate Change Law at New York's Columbia University. The center's director, Michael B. Gerrard, in turn has asked legal scholars worldwide to assemble at Columbia next May to begin to piece together answers.

Nations have faded into history through secession – recently with the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, for example – or through conquest or ceding their territory to other countries.

But "no country has ever physically disappeared, and it's a real void in the law," Gerrard said during an interview in New York.

The U.N. network of climate scientists projects that seas, expanding from heat and from the runoff of melting land ice, may rise by up to 1.94 feet (0.59 meters) by 2100, swamping much of the scarce land of coral atolls.

But the islands may become uninhabitable long before waves wash over them, because of the saline contamination of water supplies and ruining of crops, and because warming is expected to produce more threatening tropical storms.

"If a country like Tuvalu or Kiribati were to become uninhabitable, would the people be stateless? What's their position in international law?" asked Australian legal scholar Jane McAdam. "The short answer is, it depends. It's complicated."

McAdam, of the University of New South Wales, has traveled in the atoll nations and studied the legal history.

As far as islanders keeping their citizenship and sovereignty if they abandon their homelands, she said by telephone from Sydney, "it's unclear when a state would end because of climate change. It would come down to what the international community was prepared to tolerate" – that is, whether the U.N. General Assembly would move to take a seat away from a displaced people.

The 1951 global treaty on refugees, mandating that nations shelter those fleeing because of persecution, does not cover the looming situation of those displaced by climate change. Some advocate negotiating a new international pact obliging similar treatment for environmental refugees.

In the case of the Marshallese, the picture is murkier. Under a compact with Washington, citizens of the former U.S. trusteeship territory have the right to freely enter the U.S. for study or work, but their right to permanent residency must be clarified, government advisers say.

The islanders worry, too, about their long-term economic rights. The wide scattering of the Marshalls' 29 atolls, 2,300 miles (3,700 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii, give them an exclusive economic zone of 800,000 square miles (2 million square kilometers) of ocean, an area the size of Mexico.

The tuna coursing through those waters are the Marshalls' chief resource, exploited by selling licenses to foreign fishing fleets. "If their islands go underwater, what becomes of their fishing rights?" Gerrard asked. Potentially just as important: revenues from magnesium and other sea-floor minerals that geologists have been exploring in recent years.

While lawyers at next May's New York conference begin to sort out the puzzle of disappeared nations, the Marshallese will grapple with the growing problems.

The "top priority," Kaminaga said, is to save the isthmus linking the Marshalls' Jaluit island to its airport, a link now swept by high tides.

Meantime, a lingering drought this year led islanders to tap deeper into their wells, finding salty water requiring them to deploy emergency desalination units. And "parts of the islands are eroding away," Kaminaga said, as undermined lines of coconut palms topple into the sea.

This week in Cancun and in the months to come, the Marshalls' representatives will seek international aid for climate adaptation. They envision such projects as a Jaluit causeway, replanting of protective vegetation on shorelines, and a 3-mile-long (5-kilometer-long) seawall protecting their capital, Majuro, from the Pacific's rising tides.

Islanders' hopes are fading, however, for quick, decisive action to slash global emissions and save their remote spits of land for the next century.

"If all these financial and diplomatic tools don't work, I think some countries are looking at some kind of legal measures," said Dessima Williams, Grenada's U.N. ambassador and chair of a group of small island-nations. Those measures might include appeals to the International Court of Justice or other forums for compensation, a difficult route at best.

In the end, islanders wonder, too, what will happen to their culture, their history, their identity with a homeland – even to their ancestors – if they must leave.

"Cemeteries along the coastline are being eroded. Gravesites are falling into the sea," Kaminaga said. "Even in death we're affected."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CANCUN, Mexico — Encroaching seas in the far Pacific are raising the salt level in the wells of the Marshall Islands. Waves threaten to cut one sliver of an island in two. "It's getting worse," ...
CANCUN, Mexico — Encroaching seas in the far Pacific are raising the salt level in the wells of the Marshall Islands. Waves threaten to cut one sliver of an island in two. "It's getting worse," ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 350
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cyberfringe
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
03:52 AM on 12/24/2010
This is a fascinating question. What exactly is required to have a nation? If physical land to stand on is not a requirement, then how far are we from deciding that corporate entities are in fact nations? The big multi-nationals already behave like nations, have more cash, engage in diplomacy, etc. I think this is another signal that we are beginning to see the end of nation-states as the political organizing entities of the world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
02:09 PM on 12/12/2010
"While some Sudanese hyperbole is to be expected at UN conferences, surely the Pacific island nations should be listened to. It’s one thing to dispute obscure points of aquatic physics sitting comfortably in your office, but the people of Tuvalu are apparently on the frontline of climate change.

After showing the film, Ielemia took questions from journalists who were clearly shocked by the footage. I, too, got a chance to ask a question of the accommodating prime minister.

‘Mr Prime Minister. In view of the impending deluge, how much have land prices fallen on Tuvalu?’ I stammered.

For some reason my question completely silenced the room packed with environmental press. After what I will charitably call an inquisitive stare, the prime minister gave his longwinded answer full of long-term projections of rising ocean levels. To be fair, he concluded with a simple declaration: ‘Land prices have not been affected.’

This baffles me. The Tuvaluans have experienced the very floods Ielemia had just shown us. If the ocean is encroaching the island, surely it would make sense to sell all your land, at any price, while you still have some. This should cause a dramatic drop in land value as the market gets flooded (no pun intended).

But no, land prices are stable."
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:52 AM on 12/17/2010
Q: Why doesn't R2 cite where he gets his "information" that he copy-and-pastes from?

A: Because they are invariably from science deniers like (evidently in this case) non-scientist OpEd columnist Andrew Bolt, of course.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:00 PM on 12/11/2010
"But "no country has ever physically disappeared, and it's a real void in the law," Gerrard said during an interview in New York."

Not in RECENT history anyway...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
01:16 AM on 12/10/2010
Does Atlantis have a delegation at Cancun?
05:34 PM on 12/09/2010
Some of the most compelling data supporting the cooler MWP theory is the tree ring data. The NASA climate website lists the reconstructed temps for periods going back as far as the mid 7th century using tree ring data/proxies. Out of approx 50-70 sets of tree ring studies, I found at least 10 of the tree ring studies where the temps were reconstructed into the 7th century
Now I ask you as a scientist – how reliable are those studies.
A) given that the average live span of a tree ranges 40-150 years depending on the species, the longest living trees being the sequoa’s in northern california which range from 350-400 years old – how could the top scientist date the decade or century a tree ring related to much less the year? Unless you knew when the tree was cut down, you cant know what date to use to count backward to date the tree ring in question.
B) Could locate a specimen that wasnt degraded (due to natural rotting) to reconstruct the temp for that year?
C) assuming you overcame the hurdle of dating the tree ring, and located a specimen that wasnt degraded, How could you determine that the growth was due to either warmer, colder wet year or dry year, – yes partly could tell by wood density, but what about slower growth due to either colder or warmer weather outside the tree’s optimum range,
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:51 PM on 12/09/2010
JoeDallas: "Some of the most compelling data supporting the cooler MWP theory is the tree ring data"

Good 'ol tree ring red herring.

The cooler MWP assessment, which is shared by most scientists in the field today, is not dependent on tree ring data - there are many temperature proxies that are in general agreement here, of which tree rings are but one.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
05:47 PM on 12/10/2010
Better check your data on the maximum age of the sequoias!!
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
01:31 PM on 12/09/2010
I don't know the right answer for these threatened island nations, but I feel that their fate is overly dependent upon poorly understood human psychology. By this I mean that the range of response to human travails is astounding, and the factors that determine whether the response is nearer to the uplifting and compassionate, or more nearly hateful and selfish, are so subtle as to be almost beyond comprehension.

For example, if poor Mexican farmers from drought ravaged regions could have been unquestionably identified as "climate refugees" (as they may indeed be), then would typically generous and kind-hearted Americans have enfolded them instead of hatefully rejecting them with "not in my back yard" nastiness? What are the words and actions that trigger the welcoming response?

If these island nations could have just a portion of the American charity that has been wasted due to lack of understanding and attention to infrastructure, staffing, etc. it might well sustain them, but then would the charitable begrudge them that if it meant welcoming them to our shores? It will be interesting to watch.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:47 PM on 12/08/2010
Patrick Sawyer: "There are very few people in this word that are denying climate change. However, people are arguing if it is caused by humans or not."

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­­­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.

* Anthropoge­­­­nic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperatur­­­­e of the Earth would be below freezing.

* Satellite measuremen­­­­ts demonstrat­­­­e that increasing atmospheri­­­­c CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphere­­.

* Atmospheri­­­­c CO2 has increased by almost 40% since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years, if not far longer.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheri­­­­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­­­­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­­­­n for said atmospheri­­­­c CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­­­­n between said atmospheri­­­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­­­­nic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropoge­­­­nic global warming is overwhelmi­­­­ng.
10:02 PM on 12/08/2010
cntl-c, cntl-v... Argumentum ad nauseum...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:49 PM on 12/08/2010
Yeah, those silly science facts are stubborn things, aren't they.
08:22 AM on 12/09/2010
Of the seven statements made, five are either DEDUCTIONS or OPINIONS.

Only two appear to be FACTS - do you know which ones?
02:44 AM on 12/09/2010
The following are also scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed modestly for over 200 years - perhaps equaling the MWP but less than the Roman or Minoan Climate Optimums. The 10,000 year trend has been cooling.

* CO2 also comes from land use changes, deforestation, forest fires, cement use, ocean seepage, and volcanoes. Attempting to depict fossil fuel burning as the sole culprit of global warming is disingenuous.

* Satellite measurements do show a modest temperature increase in the low altitude tropical region but much less than that predicted by climate models. They do not claim a source for the warming.

* Atmospheric CO2 has been 15x today's values in the past. During that time, the Earth both sweltered and froze. There is no long-term correlation of CO2 and temperature in the paleo proxy record.

* It's hard to say if there are other scientific explanations. Today's funding is overwhelmingly concentrated on human causes.

* If one focuses on recent decades, there is correlation between CO2 and temperature. However, if one looks at 1910 - 1940, one sees increasing temperature with static CO2. If one looks at 1940 - 1970, one sees increasing CO2 and declining temperatures.

* The Earth has been warming since we exited the LIA roughly 200 years ago. The warming of the past few decades has not accelerated from the slope of that warming.

Again, these are scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting AGW is very suspect.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:33 AM on 12/09/2010
stevea526: "The Earth has warmed modestly for over 200 years - perhaps equaling the MWP but less than the Roman or Minoan Climate Optimums.

False. There are no global climate reconstructions for either the Roman or Minoan "Climate Optimums".

Also, the available data indicate that the MWP was globally slightly cooler than today.

stevea526: "CO2 also comes from land use changes, deforestation, forest fires, cement use, ocean seepage, and volcanoes."

Although correct again the scientific evidence strongly indicates that the almost 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the dawn of the fossil fuel era is due to fossil fuel emissions. Do you understand carbon isotope ratios and their relationship to organic material, stevea526?

stevea526: "Attempting to depict fossil fuel burning as the sole culprit of global warming is disingenuous."

Attempting to depict AGW theory as depicting fossil fuel burning as the sole culprit of global warming is disingenuous.

stevea526: "Satellite measurements do show a modest temperature increase in the low altitude tropical region but much less than that predicted by climate models. They do not claim a source for the warming."

You seem confused about what satellite measurements I am talking about, Steve - read what I wrote again:

Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased heat energy retention in the atmosphere.

And yes, those satellite measurements do "claim" a source for that heating: anthropogenic CO2.

continued...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:00 AM on 12/09/2010
Also, please cite your source for this claim of yours:

"Satellite measurements do show a modest temperature increase in the low altitude tropical region but much less than that predicted by climate models."

Specifically, delineate exactly what you mean by "much less" here, and support your claim with peer-reviewed science source(s); thanks.

stevea526: "Atmospheric CO2 has been 15x today's values in the past. During that time, the Earth both sweltered..."

Like, duh. That's nothing but a science denier straw man.

stevea526: "...and froze."

False.

stevea526: "There is no long-term correlation of CO2 and temperature in the paleo proxy record."

Again, false. When isolation is controlled for there is a strong long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleo temperature record.

stevea526: "Today's funding is overwhelmingly concentrated on human causes."

All other once-viable theories have been ruled out as being able to explain the bulk of warming over recent decades.

stevea526: "If one focuses on recent decades, there is correlation between CO2 and temperature. However, if one looks at 1910-1940, one sees increasing temperature with static CO2. If one looks at 1940-1970, one sees increasing CO2 and declining temperatures."

And when one controls for sulfur particulate emissions and isolation one sees a strong correlation over that entire time period between CO2 and temperature.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chaz
11:29 AM on 12/08/2010
Don't worry,the national media and the Republican party claim that the Globe isn't warming.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen Leverett
12:03 PM on 12/08/2010
"Claim"?
The data shows that the earth is currently cooling. That sea levels are not changing.
These people are having a problem with their island, which built on coral is sinking (not the sea rising) and is so low that it has always been overrun by high seas.
It is truly a problem but the article paints a picture of some lone native on a shore when the real problem is the buildings and the stress of the eco system by commercialization. These islands are subject to constant swells that flood the islands. This is not new, only the fact the people have developed commercial infrastructure that these islands are not capable of maintaining. When will people realize that building on a patch of sand only a few feet above sea level is going to get overrun by psunami's and typhoons which occur naturally.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:02 PM on 12/08/2010
Leverett: "The data shows that the earth is currently cooling."

False. The past decade has been the warmest on recorded record, with this year being one of the warmest on record too.

Leverett: "That sea levels are not changing"

Patently false.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:45 AM on 12/09/2010
Proof by assertion there Leverett?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
novo organon
11:14 AM on 12/08/2010
The planet is at the tipping point of dying due to "human-ani­mal hybrid" behavior, and US coprorate run media can't even devote a second of news coverage of the UN climate summit in Cancun, Mexico. If it were not for Amy Goodman, Some would be in the dark about it. I guess for ABC, NBC, CBS and Cable News Networks, climate change or global warming and its disastrous effects is not an issue of concern for those picking and choosing the stories in their efforts to inform the public.
09:30 AM on 12/08/2010
Do guys know how much the sea levels have actually risen since 1850. Virtually no rise at all. From 1850 to 1940, the rise has been 1.1mm per year (11cm per 100 years or less than 1/2 inch per 100 years) From 1940 to 1970, no rise at all. Using satellite altimetry, from 1992 to 2002, the trend shows a straight line - which means there has been no sea level rising. How did the IPCC get an alarmist claim of rising sea levels - They used one the six tidal gauges in Hong Kong which showed a 2.3mm rise per year. Unfortunately, Hong Kong as most every geologist knows is subsiding. So in effect the IPCC is using false and misleading data to make the claim of rising sea levels. see Dr. Nils-Axel Morner.

It is amazing that those worshiping at the altar of global warming decry the denial of science by the "deniers" but dont have the capacity to question the science of global warming when presented with the falsified data. Can you continue to believe the evidence is solid when constantly discovering falsified data. Are those worshiping at the altar of global warming also one of the MWP deniers as falsified by the NOAA?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:11 AM on 12/08/2010
First and foremost, this article talks about global climate change, not global warming. Two different concepts. There are very few people in this word that are denying climate change. However, people are arguing if it is caused by humans or not. 11 cm is all that some of these islands are dealing with. Where are the data from 1970 till 1992, or 2002 and beyond?
10:40 AM on 12/08/2010
The Church (2008) study relies on the IPCC report to claim similar sea level rises through 2008. The University of Colorado at Boulder shows both rising and falling sea levels based on location with an overall trend line of flat through 2009.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:45 PM on 12/08/2010
JoeDallas: "The Church (2008) study relies on the IPCC report to claim similar sea level rises through 2008."

As the follwoing link to the Church (2008) study demonstrat­es, that claim is as patently false as your "sea levels... with an overall trend line of flat through 2009" claim is.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB
MQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Facademics.eckerd.edu%2Finstructor%2F
hastindw%2FMS1410-001_FA08%2Fhandouts%2F2008SLRSustain.pdf&r
ct=j&q=Church%20(2008)%20sea%20level&ei=kMv_TKGIOIP2swO1ytCv
Cw&usg=AFQjCNFCs1LHVEfyJWVy7-wym_NFidFJmQ&cad=rja
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:00 PM on 12/08/2010
JoeDallas: "From 1940 to 1970, no rise at all."

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
10:48 PM on 12/07/2010
AH the splendor of Majuro Atoll - If I am ever so lucky to return there again...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kendall Hawley
Great stories, told well. www.blogfreako.com
04:54 PM on 12/07/2010
Are multiple people really comparing an active nation with a seat at the UN, land and sea rights, and an active indigenous people with a unique and beautiful culture to the mythical city of Atlantis? Way to attempt avoidance of some very serious questions we need to consider. This is an issue that is going to completely change many people's ways of life. If you don't care about it because it's not in your tiny corner of the Earth then go comment in the Entertainment section. Don't trivialize a problem that is making entire countries' futures uncertain.
GSR
Crouch! Touch! Pause! Engage!
05:24 PM on 12/07/2010
Beautifully put and fanned
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:17 PM on 12/07/2010
What GSR said and did.
02:33 PM on 12/07/2010
Cancun resides in the presence of the corporate world.. down the coast resides a capital of the Mayan people of not long ago with portals set to guide cargo craft ashore where respect for Nature and the way people live was part of the picture and was a guiding concept of life.. Respect for Nature and the sustainability of how people live resides with the hope that some still have eyes to see and ears to hear. That they speak in ways that others can understand them that the two worlds are not for them to keep at odds to the point the Earth collapses..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
04:48 PM on 12/07/2010
The Maya? Really? Get a grip and let go of the colonialist fantasy. Classic Maya culture wasn't conquered by the Spanish. It collapsed from within, due to increased internecine warfare that was a direct product of environmental degradation exacerbated by climate change.

The Maya clearcut their forests to make lime for their temples...under the cult of personality of warrior-gods who corrupted their pre-civilized ways of life. You might say that there is a lesson in this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
02:02 PM on 12/07/2010
These Island nations as a civilization with land that is occupied are probably doomed by 2040

the remains-mostly underwater- natural resources will have legitimacy- the inhabitants will need to find solace elsewhere.
01:06 PM on 12/07/2010
It may not be much of a real concern if this scientist is right:

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-research-shows-pacific-islands-not-shrinking-3577883

Also seems like an easy question to me. You have to have land and people living on that land to have a nation.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:34 PM on 12/07/2010
MelloY: "It may not be much of a real concern if this scientist is right:"

1: That article is in reference to Tuvalu and nearby islands, not the Marshall Islands, which may or may not be undergoing similar changes.

2: As noted in the article:

-----------------------

while the islands were coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise could re-instate the earlier gloomy predictions.

No one knows how fast the islands can grow, and calculating sea level rise is an inexact science.

Climate experts have generally raised estimates for sea level rise - the United Nations spoke in late 2009 of a maximum 2 metre rise by 2100, up from 18-59cm estimated in 2007.
02:06 PM on 12/07/2010
It doesn't specifically mention the Marshall Islands, but saying it only references Tuvalu and nearby islands is wrong. It mentions Tuvalu, Kiribati about 1000 miles ENE (close to the same distance as the Marshall Islands), Betio, and Bairiki both about 2/3 of the way NNW toward the Marshall Islands. I saw Micronesia mentioned in another article on the paper which is even further away than the Marshall Islands but roughly part of the same group of seamounts. I don't see anything that would make me think the situation in the Marshall Islands is unique compared to those others. The article is behind a paywall (of course) so I can't get a full list of which islands were growing and which were shrinking.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:35 PM on 12/07/2010
I stand corrected - did not know Kiribati and other islands were so far from Tuvalu. Whether that applies to the Marshalls is still an open question, but I agree that is seems reasonable to tentatively assume.

In any event the second point -- made by the authors of the study -- still holds:

Even for islands like Tuvalu that we know are now growing sea level rise could be the dominate factor over time. This is in part because there is evidence that sea level rise has accelerated over recent decades, and rapid ice sheet melting may cause sea levels to rise even faster.
11:33 AM on 12/08/2010
Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm - an average of 2mm a year - over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.

2mm a year is less than 3/4 of inch over a period of 100 years. Reasonably consistent with the highest measurements over the last 150 years. Most measurement show the 2mm risen being 1850 through 1940, with flat trend lines though 2008.

Not exactly the doomsday scenario hyped by the IPCC.

lets look closely at the science and not the altar of global warming
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:02 PM on 12/08/2010
As reported above Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench also says this

----------­----------­---

But the two men [Kench and Webb] warned that while the islands were coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise could re-instate the earlier gloomy predictions.

No one knows how fast the islands can grow, and calculating sea level rise is an inexact science.

Climate experts have generally raised estimates for sea level rise - the United Nations spoke in late 2009 of a maximum 2 metre rise by 2100, up from 18-59cm estimated in 2007.