The problem for Truss is not that great. He simply has to assure delegates that Australia’s contribution to global warming is so small (~1.6% of global greenhouse gases) that it makes no difference to global warming or sea level rise which is likely to sea the drowning of several inhabited Pacific Islands over the next 30 years.

Of course if an informed delegate points out that Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world and those exports, when burnt, contribute some 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, Warren Truss might have some difficulty. He would then have to admit that his government firmly believes that competitive advantage and economic growth are much more important than Australia’s contribution to global warming – a truth far less easy to defend.

Truss might contend that those affected by rising sea level can always move to other islands. After all, not all Pacific islands are going to drown beneath rising seas – at least not this century. And in any case the National Interest (economic growth at all costs) is so much more important. Warren is the ideal Australian Delegate. He is good with words and, more importantly, a denier of the science of climate change and its effects. What more could we ask for in a representative of our country?

Certainly from the point of view of the inhabitants of those Pacific Islands, the sea level is rising, but could it be that the islands are also sinking slowly. After all, they are situated in fairly close proximity to the fault line that runs down through the Pacific to New Zealand. One would assume that rising sea levels would also be a concern in low lying coastal areas of Australia which geologically is quite stable. This does not seem to have been the case.

According to N.O.A A. sea level is rising at 0.12 inches per year. This does not seem to account for the rate at which water levels are rising on those islands in the Pacific.

Pehaps it is time for the inhabitants to face reality and bale out instead of trying to do a "Canute" and command the water to stop rising, which of course it inevitably will.

David

I wonder if Thistlethwaite actually believes this bit of trash, or if he is just politicking?

If he believes it, he is just too lazy to research something before running off at the mouth. Recent satellite measurements have proven 96% of atolls are growing, as the do naturally, every where that the fish population that does the "earthwork" have not been decimated.

If he doesn't believe it, he is just another Gillard, lying for political advantage. Which ever, he has no right to represent anyone but the global warming conmen, as he is doing here.

I wonder if he asked his islanders how the population had grown on their island? How many fish they were taking, & what method they used?

Did he ask how much more water they were pumping from the small fresh water lens that all atoll residents depend on for their water? Well most depend on. I have visited atolls where they had clam shells around the drip line of the palms to catch & augment the fresh water supply. I did wonder at the time, if this water so gathered was just reducing the lens, shrinking from over population, now white mans medicines had increased the lifespan of the people.

It is this type of untruthful, [lying perhaps], or uninformed dumb rubbish, coming from a Parliamentary Secretary, that makes Labor so bad at governing, even themselves.

Matt Thistlethwaite's party might be out of office but they are still signing blank cheques on our behalf --how many billion$ would he like us to hand-out to the Pacific islands on account of AGW damages?

'I hope our Pacific neighbours understand that Warren Truss and Brett Mason do not speak for all Australians when they outline our Government's response to climate change. '

I certainly hope you don't get a chance Matt. You would be an embarassment as indicated by the electors not to long back. Hiding behind pseudo science to push your politcal bias defines everything wrong with politics today.

The actual increase in sea levels has been tracked by satellite for the past 20 years http://sealevel.colorado.edu/frontpage .. its 3.2 mm a year.. at that rate, assumes that rate continues, it will take several decades for our south sea islanders to notice anything, if they ever do.. as for the drought what the islanders need to do is have some scientist firmly declare that the lack of rain is "unquestionably" due to global warming and there is no possibility of rain again.. then the floods will start. Worked for us during the megadrought..

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60023/IDO60023.2010.pdf
See page 13.

Sea level rise in the pacific is fairly complicated.
As Curmudgeon states sea level on average is rising at about 3.2 mm per year in the pacific.

The following factors confuse the issue:-
1 Islands vertical movement
2 El Nina causes sea level to drop in the western pacific and rise in the eastern pacific possibly by as much as 160 mm
3 La Nina produces the opposite effect.
4 Differences in average air pressure.

Nevertheless a sea level rise of 3.2mm per year is a major problem, that is over a foot per decade, and if as in the case of Tuvalu your Island is on average only six and half feet above sea level, you will be lucky if you do not get swamped within 60 years, and uninhabitable long before then.

warmair - sorry but you've miscalculated.. I do it quite often, so I always have to work it out - 3.1 mm a year is 3.1 cms over a decade - or 31cms over a century which is somewhere around a foot in the Imperial units so its a foot over a century not a decade or two..
But you are right in that there is considerable natural variation which would have nothing to do with climate change..

warmair,

1mm is 0.0032808398950131233 feet, making 3 mm = 0.00984251968503937 feet, or 3 mm = 0.11811023622047245 inches, or 1 inch = 25.4 mm.

Anyway, considering that there are 12 inches in 1 foot, 100 years of sea level rise at 3.2 mm per year for 100 years gives 1.0498687664041994 feet.

So it will take about 100 years for sea levels to rise about 1 foot.

A rise for sure, but that that great.

With one of the highest ecological footprints in the world, and our governments dedicated to increasing growth, consumption and population well beyond bursting capacity, I think there won’t be much left of Australia in 100 years (or even 50 years) to be worried about a rise in sea level.

Curmudgeon
How embarrassing I stuffed up the calculation completely.
I must try to remember read twice post once.

You could also try reading other posts Warmair.

The coral growth is increasing the amount of material making up all atolls where the fish have not been decimated.

Perhaps you don't realise, that is how atolls came into being. 101 in Reef building, just for you.

First a fringing reef around a volcanic island. Then sea rise or subsidence of the island left just the fringing reef. The work of fish, wind, tides & sea built the atoll from the debris of that reef.

It continues today, & will keep up with natural sea level rise, the only rise that is happening.

Do try to remember that just 10,000 ago the area where our outer reef now lies, was a range of coastal hills. The atolls survived the sea rise that submerged them, & will mostly survive now, if their people don't exceed their fresh water, mine the reef excessively for building materials, or destroy the fish.

Warren Truss g-g-good with ah um er w-w-words? Surely you jest?
Even prepared speeches seem to provide a p-p-problem.
And his original thoughts sis sis seem la la limited to blaming La La Labor for all our current ra ra raft of par par problems?
[Does he have a right royal speech impediment?
In which case I apologize for my laconic remarks.]
Easily addressed, by just closing all the tax loopholes, the coalition, more than anybody else, created via ever increasing complexity?
Every time I hear Warren, I'm reminded of the Kiwi parrot, the Kaka.
Which as many might know, got its name by flying around the Southern Alps, screaming out, ka ka crikey it's ka ka cold.
Rhrosty.

Hasbeen: Do try to remember that just 10,000 ago the area where our outer reef now lies, was a range of coastal hills.

& the sea has been about 5 metres higher at some time too. If you have a look at the rocks around the Whitsunday Islands & the rocks around the coast in Nth Qld you will see where the sea level once was, oh & throw in a bit of Continental rise too, so a sea rise of 3 meters then it went down.

Hasbeen: The atolls survived the sea rise that submerged them, & will mostly survive now, if their people don't exceed their fresh water, mine the reef excessively for building materials, or destroy the fish.

Recently I went on a sea voyage & attended some interesting Lectures on the origins of the Pacific Islands & it's people. I also have reread that part of the "Cambridge History of the Pacific Islands" which covers the Pacific Islands & it's peoples migrations. Very interesting.

The Islands are formed through Volcanic Hot Spots. The Volcano forms an Island then the Island wears down, Some of it eventually disappearing beneath the Ocean. Fringing reefs eventually form atolls & the island is colonized by plants. In some cases this is only for a relatively short period of time, a few thousand years. The Pacific Islands have only been inhabited for, on average, 1200 years in the North & 800 years South of the Equator. (give or take a bit.)

So my take on it is that these Islands were never permanently habitable. In the case of Kiribati, the most they could expect is about 1000 years of habitation then they would have to move anyway. Climate Change or not.

I remember at the Copenhagen kerfuffle where some young good looking bloke went into bat for Naru. Was not a Naruan but an actor and gave a very well rehearsed speech that was not only wrong but insulting. Basically it was you Europeans give us more money rather than we actually do anything ourselves.
My suggestion is for them to get off their backsides, start looking after themselves and get their hands out of my pocket.

Matt,
You take it as accepted that sinking of islands is caused by burning of carbon.
That is not the opinion of Darwin who observed the sinking of Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean in 1836 evidenced by coconut trees falling into the sea---1836 when coal consumption was minimal and oil consumption was nil. ( Voyage of the Beagle).
Darwin had theories about shifting of plates confirmed by his observations of sea shells hundreds of feet above sea level in South America.
I believe we should make immigration to Australia open to the Islanders as our contribution to world order and to the exclusion of refugees from other areas, but I do not accept the premise that either the sinking of islands or less rainfall ( if that is a fact) is caused by anything Australia or the Western countries has done. There is no real science to that effect.
I suppose you would call Darwin a global waring denier.
Regards
Old Man George Gell