As far as the fearmongering, it is not likely to stop just because observed data contradict the predictions of the AGW hypothesis. You underestimate the powers of self-deception operating within a movement driven by Gustav LeBon's 'religious sentiment' and an idea's 'prestige'.
“Intolerance and fanaticism are the necessary accompaniments of the religious sentiment. They are inevitably displayed by those who believe themselves in the possession of the secret of earthly or eternal happiness. These two characteristics are to be found in all men grouped together when they are inspired by a conviction of any kind.”
“The special characteristic of prestige is to prevent us seeing things as they are and to entirely paralyze our judgment. Crowds always, and individuals as a rule, stand in need of ready-made opinions on all subjects. The popularity of these opinions is independent of the measure of truth or error they contain, and is solely regulated by their prestige.”
Actually the counterpoint to the sinking islands observations is that most of the sinking islands are on oceanic plates near a boundary where the plate is descending below another plate so they are supposed to be sinking regardless of sea levels. Neither the sinking oceanic plates or any observation of a growing island would negate the rising sea levels argument, they simply state there are more factors involved than sea level and more study would be needed before these observations confirm or deny sea level rise. But that's a nice attempt to pull at straws for your weak argument
Atolls are formed when a volcanic island subsides. So they actually grow as sea level rises around them. It's almost like they are living organisms. And they will never be higher than a few meters above sea level.
So the real question to address for atolls is can they grow fast enough to keep above sea level given their rate of growth, sea level rate of rise and the rate of the sea floor subsistence.
Of course the nature of alarmism is to jump straight to sea level rise rate and forget about the other two factors. If anybody thinks that's science, then they are either ill-informed or an activist promoting propaganda.
As the typical science denier, you extrapolate the findings regarding low lying reef islands on atolls and think the same will happen in the rest of the world. There is absolutely nothing in this paper which claims that or which forms a sound scientific basis for such a claim.
FYI, reef islands have a very unique geomorphology.
Below is the original paper. Note it says "Article in Press" just as Lewandowski's paper which for that reason alone you considered as 'none peer-reviewed.
I guess the rise of 2 to 3mm per year can be explained by the upwelling and expansion of land which automatically makes sea levels rise. Is the planet actually growing in size or just shifting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_E...
"During deglaciation, the melted ice water returns to the oceans, thus sea level in the ocean increases again. However, geological records of sea level changes show that the redistribution of the melted ice water is not the same everywhere in the oceans. In other words, depending upon the location, the rise in sea level at a certain site may be more than that at another site. This is due to the gravitational attraction between the mass of the melted water and the other masses, such as remaining ice sheets, glaciers, water masses and mantle rocks[3] and the changes in centrifugal potential due to Earth's variable rotation.[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacia...
"Recent rise in sea levels has been monitored by tide gauges and Satellite Altimetry (e.g. TOPEX/Poseidon). In addition to the addition of melted ice water from glaciers and ice sheets, recent sea level changes are also affected by the thermal expansion of sea water due to global warming, sea level change due to deglaciation of the last Ice Age (postglacial sea level change), deformation of the land and ocean floor and other factors. Thus, to understand global warming from sea level change, one must be able to separate all these factors, especially postglacial rebound, since it is one of the leading factors."
This clearly shows that science is still work-in-progress in drawing conclusions. There's too much variability in the planet to assume that irreversible damage has been done to the planet. There is at least one thing that climate science has brought to attention and that is a "cautionary toss at the winds of change" due to human involvement on the climate. The question still remains : "How much effect do we really have?".
"Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment."
WOW - I guess that disproves climate science
Similarly , your question disproves evolution
There have been many postings on this board by Warmists decrying how the rising oceans were about to cover Tuvalu, Kiribati, Maldives and others. It's just fearmongering. All of these islands have been studied at one time or another and they are not threatened by being covered by the oceans, at least not for centuries if at all.
Warmists try to make it sound like these islands will have to be evacuated within the next few years and that is nonsense, just scare tactics as usual.
-----------------------
Don't be stupid,
Don't you know the UN and IPCC said there will be 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738
If you're an alarmist do you get depressed with good news?
Alarmist: "The sea levels are rising, the sea levels are rising. Run for your lives."
Skeptic: "The highest estimate of sea level rise is an upward adjusted 2.8mm/year and there are a number of islands in the Pacific that are actually growing in size."
Alarmist: "Oh for **** sakes. Dammit!"
