This is climate change: Alaskan villagers struggle as island is chewed up by the sea

First topic message reminder :


This is what climate change looks like, up close and personal.
In this town of 403 residents 83 miles above the Arctic Circle, beaches are disappearing, ice is melting, temperatures are rising, and the barrier reef Kivalina calls home gets smaller and smaller with every storm.
There is no space left to build homes for the living. The dead are now flown to the mainland so the ocean won't encroach upon their graves. Most here agree that the town should be relocated; where, when and who will pay for it are the big questions. The Army Corps of Engineers figures Kivalina will be underwater in the next decade or so.
because the town's days on the edge of the Chukchi Sea are numbered, no money has been invested to improve residents' lives. Eighty percent of the homes do not have toilets. Most rely on homemade honey buckets — a receptacle lined with a garbage bag topped by a toilet seat.



Residents haul water from tanks in the middle of town, 25 cents for five gallons. The school is overcrowded. Still, the unpaved streets here ring with the laughter of children, the buzz of all-terrain vehicles, the whoosh of the wind.
Earlier this summer, White House advance staff cased the slender, apostrophe-shaped island to see whether President Obama could get here during his visit to the Arctic this week — the first by a sitting White House occupant. At the very least, he is scheduled to visit Kotzebue, less than 100 miles away, the heart of Alaska's Northwest Arctic Borough.
Obama has high hopes for addressing climate change during his remaining time in office. The Alaska trip is part of a global warming tour. In Washington he will talk environmental issues with Pope Francis in late September, and in Paris he will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in November.
The Alaska trip is part of an effort to "speak openly, honestly and frequently about how climate change is already affecting the lives of Americans and the strength and health of our economy," senior White House advisor Brian Deese said.
NEWSLETTER: Get the day's top headlines from Times Editor Davan Maharaj >>
Alaskans, Obama said Saturday in his weekly address, are already living with climate change's effects: "More frequent and extensive wildfires. Bigger storm surges as sea ice melts faster. Some of the swiftest shoreline erosion in the world — in some places, more than 3 feet a year.



One of Kivalina's main roads. The tiny village of 403 residents on the Chukchi Sea lies 83 miles above the Arctic Circle. (Maria La Ganga / Los Angeles Times)

"Alaska's glaciers are melting faster too," he said, "threatening tourism and adding to rising seas. And if we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and 12 degrees by the end of the century, changing all sorts of industries forever."
Although Obama views this state as the U.S. poster child for climate change, some Alaskans beg to differ. They are glad the president agreed to allow limited offshore oil exploration. They want more access to the vast state's natural resources. And they are wary of a leader who views their home as a global warming disaster area.
Gov. Bill Walker, who will meet with Obama during his visit to the Last Frontier, said he wants the president to support a natural gas pipeline and allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But most of all, the independent governor said in a news conference Tuesday, he doesn't want the Lower 48 to achieve its environmental goals on the backs of Alaskans by barring access to natural resources.


"We probably have the smallest footprint per capita in the nation, if not the world, on impacting climate change," Walker said. "We have some impacts, there's no question, but ... I'm going to talk a lot about the economic climate change that we're experiencing today. That's really what my focus is going to be on with the president."
Shelby Adams has a different message for Obama. That is, if she gets to talk to him when he travels more than 3,600 miles from the Beltway to see the Arctic with his own eyes. Shelby, who just turned 13, has lived in Kivalina her entire life, and she loves her island home dearly.
"It's where I grew up, where everybody I know is," she said five days before Obama was scheduled to land in Kotzebue. "We need to relocate because the ocean is slowly eating away our island."

Shelby was in fourth grade when much of Kivalina was forced to evacuate during a fierce storm in 2011. She and her family were on one of the few planes that made it to the mainland before flying conditions became too dangerous. Everyone else sheltered in the school, the highest point on the nearly flat island.
"We had people sleeping in all the classrooms and the gym," said Emma Knowles, who was Shelby's teacher at McQueen School that year. "Someone had gotten a caribou the day before, so we made a huge pot of caribou stew.... The school didn't even budge. As dilapidated as it looks, it survived."
Kivalina is no stranger to harsh weather, and erosion worries have dogged the 27-acre town almost since its inception in 1905. In the 21st century, however, warming temperatures and the perilous changes that cascade from them have stripped the island of its major source of protection: ice.
Normally each fall, ice begins hugging the Kivalina shoreline around the end of October and stays until the end of June. Even during fierce storms, ice keeps the raging ocean away. But climate change has caused the ice to appear later and melt earlier, leaving the barrier island more vulnerable to storm surges.
Thinner ice also makes it harder for the Inupiat to go whaling. Normally, crews will build camps at the edge of the so-called shore-fast ice and hunt bowhead and beluga whales as they swim north in spring.
"If the shore-fast ice is thin and weak, it's not safe to make a camp," said Timothy Schuerch, president of the Maniilaq Assn., a tribally operated health services organization with clinics in Kivalina and the other borough villages. "Whaling crews have drifted out to sea."
The Inupiat who live in Kivalina get most of their food from the land and sea around them. The increasingly warm weather means an abundance of cloudberries and low-bush blackberries, said Millie Hawley, Kivalina tribal president, but it also threatens many of the food staples on which Alaska natives here depend.
"With the caribou, usually it's like clockwork," Hawley said. "Every June, we'd hunt. We haven't done that in years. It's unpredictable. We don't know when we'll see them."
Kivalina residents hang the caribou's hindquarters outside of their homes to age. The frozen meat is eaten raw, dipped in seal oil, which is also harvested in June. Trout is eaten the same way. The Inupiat also depend on seal for meat.
"Usually we get 80 to 100 seals for the whole community," Hawley said. "This year, we were looking to get eight. The community now has to go without dried meat and oil."



Millie Hawley, Kivalina tribal president, in front of the sea wall that village residents hope can protect them from the Chukchi Sea until plans are made to relocate. (Maria La Ganga / Los Angeles Times)

When their traditional foods become scarce, island residents must depend on the Kivalina Native Store, the only one in town. Kivalina is closer to Russia than it is to Anchorage, and nearly all supplies are shipped here by air. Which accounts for astronomical prices:
A quart of shelf-stable whole milk runs $4.19. A can of Campbell's tomato soup is $2.95. A 5-pound bag of unbleached, all-purpose flour is $8.75. A 25.5-ounce bottle of Bertolli extra virgin olive oil is $23.79.
The store is Kivalina's pride and joy, the newest building in this wind-battered town. The old store burned down in December. Its replacement opened in July. It is big, clean, warm and well-stocked. And it stands out in a town of peeling paint and crowded, threatened structures, most on short stilts to protect from flooding.
The school, attended by 154 students from pre-kindergarten through high school, is so jammed that every available space is used for storage. Hallways, stairwells and classrooms are lined with books and supplies. A working washing machine stands at the end of one hall.
The main drags, Bering and Channel streets, are unpaved, their gravel surfaces deeply rutted from the rain and the ATVs that residents use to get around in summer.
Small houses crowd together; each is home to extended families, some of up to 17 or so. At least two houses, Hawley said, are in imminent danger of tumbling into the water. The cemetery lines Kivalina's slender runway, its crosses visible on takeoff and landing.
Because of erosion, there is almost no room to build, Hawley said, so "we break every state and federal regulation. The airport is supposed to be a mile or a mile and a half from the dump. It's 500 feet away."
The fuel tanks that run the power plant were in danger of falling into the Chukchi Sea, so the town moved them to higher, safer ground. Fifty feet away is a small cluster of housing for teachers, which cozies up right next to the school.
When Hawley is asked why her people don't move — somewhere, anywhere to be safe — she is polite but firm. The land and the water make the Inupiat who they are. If they moved to Kotzebue, they would be visitors.
Moving to Anchorage or Fairbanks, she said, "would be like asking us not to be a people any more."
So what does she want to tell the leader of the free world when she greets him next week — in Kotzebue, if not Kivalina?

"We are American citizens," she said, fast and fierce. "We have as much right as all of America to have access to the resources Washington provides. ... If you are going to provide millions of dollars to stop hunger in Africa, my people are hungry. Stop hunger here."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arctic-obama-20150830-story.html

It'll be under water in a lifetime.

You are not answering the questions dodge... try again!?





Still waiting for you to tell us about the 'accuracy' of temperature measuring 100 years ago!?


And how widespread this was?


And how this means that any claims to accurately know global temperatures historically are in any way credible...!!!???


You can't say conclusively that there has been any rise in temperatures from 100 years ago or so if you can't say conclusively what the temperature actually was back then in The first place!!!

Ha ha ha ha

lol you are being a complete dick now when faced with overwhelming evidence.
Either put up or shut up, because your views have fallen very flat.
Given you plenty of links to read, seems time you actually opened them up, read them and understood

You are not answering the questions dodge... try again!?





Still waiting for you to tell us about the 'accuracy' of temperature measuring 100 years ago!?


And how widespread this was?


And how this means that any claims to accurately know global temperatures historically are in any way credible...!!!???


You can't say conclusively that there has been any rise in temperatures from 100 years ago or so if you can't say conclusively what the temperature actually was back then in The first place!!!

lol you need to reads back to the links I gave you where it states clearly about the accuracy of temp readings
Ha Ha ha ha ha
This seems to be your last throw of the dice, claim ignorance to something already posted.




So funny watch Twatty be so desperate

Can you post the relevant section please dodge...?






Didn't think so... I wonder why!!!???

Ha ha ha, which further proves you did not read a single link I presented you with lol

Just accept defeat with some grace for a change

Can you post the relevant section please dodge...?

Dodge...?


Still waiting for you to tell us about the 'accuracy' of temperature measuring 100 years ago?


And how widespread this measuring was across the world?


And how that then means that any claims to accurately know global temperatures historically are in any way credible...?


When in fact, the complete lack of any widespread data alone makes any claim to accurately know what global temperatures were even 50 years ago... let alone 100 years ago or more!!!


Plus the fact that any data that was available from the extremely limited pool necessary to be accurate on global temperatures, was all from highly inaccurate forms of measurement!!!



Dodge... your earlier post claiming global temperature change from 1880 to now, is basing the claim on actually knowing conclusively what global temperatures were in 1880!!!


When, as I've easily shown, the global temperature 100 years ago (even A few decades ago), is something that is not known!!!


Even the current claims of today's scientists to accurately know the exact global temperature/s are subject to inaccuracies/error/doubt!!!





You can't say conclusively that there has been any rise in temperatures from 100 years ago or so if you can't say conclusively what the temperature actually was back then in The first place!!!

Whilst you are waiting and not bothering to read the evidence, I shall continue to laugh at you Tommy for how you so badly screwed up here ha ha ha ha ha
If you think they are inaccurate, then you need to provide conclusive evidence that the data used is unreliable. Which even the top denialists have never been able to do. What is hilarious is you think with your claims are accurate and yet far removed from the reality of climate change. I am yet to see evidence for any of your claims, where we already saw how you screwed up on tempreture rising lol.
You just have no comprehension what you are talking about and if you had read the links would understand why.

Never seen someone as stupid as you Tommy think you are smarter than scientists, where you fail to provide evidence, methodology, reasoning etc to all that you claim.
PMSL

So the evidence is there for you to read, you choose not to and want to remain acting like a child.
I am happy with that and will continue to tear the piss out of you until you present something viable


Laters Dummy

Dodge... it is those making claims of temperature changes who need to validate the legitimacy and accuracy of The 'data' they are using to base their claims on...


It is easy to show that global temperatures from even A few decades ago are not accurately known... let alone over 100 years ago!!!


Anyone can check for themselves that this is simply not known because there was no widespread and global measuring or recording of temperatures across all parts of The world going on, plus any that was going on is not taken as being accurate anyway!!!


You really are a twat sometimes dodge!!!


Most amusing!!!





Maybe you can tell us what organised method of temperature measurement were going on 100 years ago across all parts of The world and what makes any of them recognised as being accurate...!!!???

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

I think Tommy needs to go to specsavers




Rught have to go, but this is yout last chance to post up a method proving your claims, backed with evidence.

If you fail once again, everyone will know what a complete copout you are.
Ha ha ha ha ha


Night

Maybe you can tell us what organised method of temperature measurement were going on 100 years ago across all parts of The world and what makes any of them recognised as being accurate...!!!???

Game over

You had your chances, and now when you continue to act like a 2 year old, I will kill the debate off as its clearly evident you have no clue what you are talking about or even digested the evidence presentged to you.

Laters

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge... it is those making claims of temperature changes who need to validate the legitimacy and accuracy of The 'data' they are using to base their claims on...


It is easy to show that global temperatures from even A few decades ago are not accurately known... let alone over 100 years ago!!!


Anyone can check for themselves that this is simply not known because there was no widespread and global measuring or recording of temperatures across all parts of The world going on, plus any that was going on is not taken as being accurate anyway!!!


You really are a twat sometimes dodge!!!


Most amusing!!!





Maybe you can tell us what organised method of temperature measurement were going on 100 years ago across all parts of The world and what makes any of them recognised as being accurate...!!!???

Still waiting dodge...!



Plus... the current/recent claimed global temperatures are also highly questionable as to accuracy so for anyone to claim definitively and conclusively that the global temperature has changed from 1880 to now, based on any of this ambiguous data, is simply telling lies!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe you can tell us what organised method of temperature measurement were going on 100 years ago across all parts of The world and what makes any of them recognised as being accurate...!!!???

How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?
September 20, 2004
Robert Mulvaney, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, explains.
The cornerstone of the success achieved by ice core scientists reconstructing climate change over many thousands of years is the ability to measure past changes in both atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature. The measurement of the gas composition is direct: trapped in deep ice cores are tiny bubbles of ancient air, which we can extract and analyze using mass spectrometers. Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.

Water is made up of molecules comprising two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O). But it's not that simple, because there are several isotopes (chemically identical atoms with the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons, and therefore mass) of oxygen, and several isotopes of hydrogen. The isotopes of particular interest for climate studies are 16O (with 8 protons and 8 neutrons that makes up 99.76 percent of the oxygen in water) and 18O (8 protons and 10 neutrons), together with 1H (with one proton and no neutrons, which is 99.985 percent of the hydrogen in water) and 2H (also known as deuterium (D), which has one proton and one neutron). All of these isotopes are termed 'stable' because they do not undergo radioactive decay.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

Tommy, please stop talking about scientific issues. You're beyond laughable on such subjects -- no offense.

Not the basis for estimated global temp in 1880 so irrelevant...


THe fact remains that global temp is NOT only not known with any real accuracy a hundred years ago... And even today's claims of global temp are also admittedly inaccurate...



The technique you mention is also more theory than absolute fact... and subject to a high degree of inaccuracy!!!


And not even being the subject data that dodge's temp change post was based on!!!


So that still leaves the claim of global temp change from 1880 to now being bollocks as entirely based on bullshit!!!


You simply cannot claim anything to be factual and accurate unless you are basing it on entirely factual and accurate information in The first place!!!


You cannot claim global temp change from 1880 to now, when it simply isn't factually and accurately known what global temp was in 1880... and also that today's claims of global temp are also highly questionable!!!



It's like saying that one hand full of jelly is different from another different persons hand full of jelly...!!!

How big is a handful of jelly dodge?


And how big was a handfulj of jelly back in 1880?


And what is the difference between the two?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe you can tell us what organised method of temperature measurement were going on 100 years ago across all parts of The world and what makes any of them recognised as being accurate...!!!???

How are past temperatures determined from an ice core?
September 20, 2004
Robert Mulvaney, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, explains.
The cornerstone of the success achieved by ice core scientists reconstructing climate change over many thousands of years is the ability to measure past changes in both atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature. The measurement of the gas composition is direct: trapped in deep ice cores are tiny bubbles of ancient air, which we can extract and analyze using mass spectrometers. Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting the ice cores.

Water is made up of molecules comprising two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen (H2O). But it's not that simple, because there are several isotopes (chemically identical atoms with the same number of protons, but differing numbers of neutrons, and therefore mass) of oxygen, and several isotopes of hydrogen. The isotopes of particular interest for climate studies are 16O (with 8 protons and 8 neutrons that makes up 99.76 percent of the oxygen in water) and 18O (8 protons and 10 neutrons), together with 1H (with one proton and no neutrons, which is 99.985 percent of the hydrogen in water) and 2H (also known as deuterium (D), which has one proton and one neutron). All of these isotopes are termed 'stable' because they do not undergo radioactive decay.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/

Tommy, please stop talking about scientific issues. You're beyond laughable on such subjects -- no offense.

As seen he still cannot grasp simple science lol

The simple fact of science here is that you cannot conclusively claim something to be a known fact when it is based on speculation...

Ha Ha ha ha ha

What an idiot

They have countless factual evidence of man made global warming.
You are just sticking your fingers in your ears going
"la la la la I'm not listening, la la la la"