Bezza,

You’ve cited the very study we’ve been discussing (Kench et al. (2018).) And yes, they are the ones who found that many atolls have grown in landmass. No one here is denying that. In fact, it’s been cited repeatedly - by me - in this very thread.

What you’ve missed is that growing landmass doesn’t make an island more habitable, especially when that land is salt-contaminated, flood-prone, and lacking the infrastructure to keep up with population needs. And it certainly doesn’t contradict the fact that sea levels are rising, nor that this rise is accelerating.

Kench et al. also said this:

“These shoreline changes do not negate the myriad challenges that low-lying island nations face from sea-level rise, particularly with regard to infrastructure, freshwater availability, and long-term habitability.”

So while you’re congratulating yourself on dunking some imaginary alarmist who thinks the islands are physically vanishing, you’ve actually reinforced the very point you thought you were debunking:

Tuvalu’s core issue was never about the land visibly vanishing overnight. It’s about rising seas outpacing resilience - degrading water sources, overwhelming infrastructure, and forcing long-term questions about liveability. If you think a few extra metres of sandbank fixes that, you’ve badly misunderstood the stakes.

That’s what “sinking” means in this context. And waving around aerial photos from 1945 doesn’t change the fact that Tuvalu’s freshwater supply is under pressure, its roads and housing are vulnerable to storm surges, and relocation planning is already underway.

Your last line might as well be a summary of the thread:

“A completely different set of deniers this time.”

Indeed. Ones who read the title of the paper, but not the conclusion.