Day: February 24, 2026

Changing Sunlight – Sun Movement and Spin

This article follows up on an earlier article that considered how the movement of the Sun relative to Earth as well as solar activity alters Earth’s climate.

The motion of the Sun so far during this century is analysed in detail and gives insights into how the various planets contribute to the motion of the Sun. The cause of the daily anomalous distance from Earth to Sun is also investigated and quantified for the same day of the year over 30 years.

From Watts Up With That?

Richard Willoughby

Summary

This article follows up on an earlier article that considered how the movement of the Sun relative to Earth as well as solar activity alters Earth’s climate.

The motion of the Sun so far during this century is analysed in detail and gives insights into how the various planets contribute to the motion of the Sun.  The cause of the daily anomalous distance from Earth to Sun is also investigated and quantified for the same day of the year over 30 years.

The originating Sun motion data for this analysis has been extracted directly from the NASA Horizons Application and used for free body dynamic motion analysis.  The JPL free body model of the solar system treats each celestial object as a point mass concentrated at the centre of mass.  The free body analysis of the Sun here extends to a point mass elastically connected to the centre of mass of the Sun and rotating around the centre of mass to determine the gravitation torque imposed on the rotating mass.

Sun Movement

The orbit of the Sun is somewhat erratic with each rotation being different to the preceding and those following.  Diagram 1 shows the path of the Sun using the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF) for the period 2000 to 2030 in the celestial equatorial plane.  In the ICRF, Point (0,0,0) is the barycentre of the solar system.  The dynamic analysis in this article assumes the North-South motion of the Sun out of the equatorial plane is negligibly small.

However, to complete the picture of the Sun motion, Chart 1 indicates the North-South excursions from the celestial equatorial plane over the same period as Diagram 1.

Jupiter’s orbit dominates the motion of the Sun and Jupiter’s orbital plane has a 1.3 degree tilt to the celestial equatorial plane. The North-South excursion of the Sun with respect to the ICRF is a result of the Sun essentially moving in Jupiter’s orbital plane. As observed in Chart 1, Earth tends to follow the Sun in its North-South excursion. Jupiter’s direct influence on Earth is more apparent in the equatorial plane as shown in Chart 2 that displays the Sun to Earth distance anomaly wrt to 2000 for the September Equinox over a 30 year period.

The range of the anomalous distance shown in Chart 2 is sufficient to alter the peak solar intensity by 1W/m² for the selected day.  The day was selected for ease of annual alignment in the equatorial plane rather than being the maximum difference for any particular day of the year.

Individual Planetary Influence on the Sun’s Orbit

The Sun orbit is broadly in opposition to Jupiter; as in the Sun being the hammer thrower and Jupiter being the hammer.  The Sun is 1050 times more massive than Jupiter so the orbit of the Sun needs to be 1/1050th of Jupiter’s orbit to keep the orbits stable.  Diagram 2 shows the 2-D free body orbit of the Sun being driven by Jupiter’s actual orbit.

To be clear, the motion of the Sun shown here is the result of the Sun only being influenced by Jupiter while Jupiter is following its prescribed path under the influence of all the other celestial bodies having gravitational influence on the solar system.  The initial conditions shown on Diagram 2 for the Sun position and velocity differ from the full system that produces the actual orbit shown in Diagram 1 above.

Diagram 3 shows how the Sun would move when both Jupiter and Saturn are present.  Saturn has sufficient influence to require resetting the initial conditions to maintain stable orbit of the Sun.

Including Saturn causes the orbit of the Sun to have some similarity to the full system orbit of Diagram 1.

Although Jupiter is 390 times more massive than Venus, Venus is 1/7 the distance from the Sun so Venus has detectable influence on the motion of the Sun as shown in Diagram 4.

Neptune is the most distance planet from the Sun but its mass is slightly more than half the mass of Jupiter so it has gravitation influence by virtue of the double integration of time from force to distance as shown in Diagram 5.

The 30 year time period shown in Diagram 5 is somewhat brief to get a full appreciation of Neptune’s influence on the motion of the Sun because the planet has only moved through 65 degrees of arc in that time.  Neptune is the plodder in moving the Sun; slow and steady.

Distributed Mass of the Sun

The radius of the Sun at 6.96E8m is significant relative to its orbit of 7.31E8m under the influence of only Jupiter.  Considering the erratic orbit of the Sun under the influence of all the objects of the solar system, there are times when the barycentre is within the sphere of the Sun.  In fact there are some orbits when the centre of mass (CoM) of the Sun does not encircle the barycentre.

Another feature of the Sun is that its mass is in the form of plasma.  Hence it is more fluid than solid.  Under the influence of its spin, the centrifugal forces on the plasma cause the whole Sun to oblate with the diameter at the equator increasing relative to the pole to pole diameter.

The simplest way to analyse the free body motion of the surface of the Sun is to reduce it to a single point in space tethered to the CoM.  This is shown diagrammatically in Image 1.

The tether has elasticity to represent the behaviour of the plasma oblation under centrifugal acceleration.

The initial analysis, shown in Diagram 6, displays the position of the Sun as determined by JPL as the black locus for the CoM and the red locus for the equatorial point (EP) under the influence of the same gravitational accelerations moving the CoM.  The EP is set in the X-direction from the CoM.  

The EP essentially holds its position in the X-direction tracing a similar, but displaced orbit. Chart 2 shows the velocity of the EP if the Sun did not have any spin. It is the same as the velocity of the Sun. Venus contributes most to the small dither in the velocity.

Diagram 7 shows the loci of the CoM and EP after the EP is given initial motion in the Y-direction of 100m/s relative to the CoM.

The initial spin of 100m/s gives a spin period of 506 days so the EP orbits the CoM 22 times over the 30 year period minus the almost 3 orbits the CoM completed in the same time. This is observed in Chart 3, showing the velocity of the EP over the period with average of 100m/s and 19 excursions.

The velocity of the EP is observed to have a range about the average governed by the velocity of the CoM. The EP has to be accelerated and decelerated through the course of each rotation resulting in the tether stretching and relaxing each rotation. If the EP was not influenced by the gravitation field, the accelerating torque and decelerating torque would cancel out. The gravitational force acting on the EP is orders of magnitude smaller than the tether force but gravitation force creates a net torque as shown in Chart 4. The calculated torque is based on the EP having unit mass of 1kg.

Over the 30 year period, the average spin velocity increases by 0.04m/s but there are periods when the spin also slows down.  

The equatorial spin of the Sun is approximately 25 days; corresponding to 2000m/s.  Chart 5 shows the cumulative spin torque on the EP under these conditions.

The average torque for a spin period of 25 days is slightly negative. 

Spin Torque Between 100m/s & 2000m/s

The two examples considered so far yielded both a net positive cumulative torque and net negative cumulative torque over the 30 year period considered.  This begs the question – what happens in between these extremes. 

If the Sun spin was caused by gravitational effects then they would be most pronounced in the region that could generate the highest torque.  Considering the Sun as a series of concentric cylinders surrounding the spin axis and assuming constant density, the highest torque would be achieved at 5.7E8m; corresponding to latitude of 35 degrees.  Accordingly, Chart 6 shows the cumulative torque for a range of initial spin velocity at 5.7E8m from 900m/s up to 1850m/s.

There are two interesting peaks indicative of resonances.  The first occurs at periods of 44 days and the second at 29.3 days.  Both peaks exhibit a sharp increase in torque followed by a rapid collapse into negative torque.  There is a recovery to positive torque at 970m/s with a gradual increase to 1400m/s before the next peak and sudden collapse.

The cumulative torque goes through a phasing sequence as the initial velocity approaches the resonance.  Chart 7 shows the cumulative torque at 5.7E8m for 1403.7m/s, which was chosen because the cycles have good negative correlation with solar activity over the 60 year period.

The cumulative torque cycles reduce as the initial velocity approaches 1413m/s where it just becomes a steady upward trend per Chart 8.

Although the torque rises throughout the period, it only increases the EP velocity by 0.05m/s over that period.  The torque drops precipitously above 1413m/s and is negative by 1414m/s.  So any portion of the Sun spinning with a period of 29.33 days is on the verge of switching between spin acceleration and spin braking. 

Discussion

The period of the two resonances show Mercury has a tidal influence on the Sun.  In fact, this analysis may underestimate the impact of Mercury because the individual planetary contributions are summed and applied as a single varying gravitational force to both the CoM and the EP.  Given Mercury’s proximity to the Sun and the large diameter of the Sun, the local tidal effects of Mercury on the adjacent Sun surface may be significant as well.  Mercury’s contribution to the motion of the Sun CoM is miniscule but it appears to play a key role in the spin of the Sun, which extends to the development of solar activity.

If the torque was always positive, the Sun would continue to spin faster.  The fact that the torque reaches a tripping point that causes a sharp torque reversal is consistent with generating local turbulence and high shear in any region spinning at a period of 29.33 days.  This aligns with the observed dominant period of the Sun per the headline image above from the Max Planck Solar System Research.

The torque calculations do not explain the period of rotation of the Sun’s equator nor why the rotational speed at smaller radii is slower than 29.33 days. 

Conclusions

The motion of the Sun is uniquely different to the movement of the planets.  The Sun tracks an erratic path while experiencing a two to one range in its orbital velocity.  The plasma of the Sun imbues the ability to oblate under centrifugal acceleration from axial spin.  This ability is shared with the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn which spin at even higher equatorial velocity than the Sun.

Analysing the motion of celestial bodies as point masses is a simplification that limits understanding of their behaviour.  The distribution of the mass and its physical state are important considerations for assessing gravitational influences beyond velocity and position.

The Author

Richard Willoughby is a retired electrical engineer having worked in the Australian mining and mineral processing industry for 30 years with roles in large scale operations, corporate R&D and mine development.  A further ten years was spent in the global insurance industry as an engineering risk consultant where he developed an enduring interest in natural catastrophes and changing climate.

Trump reopens vast swath of waters off northeastern coast to commercial fishing

One of the nation’s richest fishing grounds — put off-limits to commercial use by the Obama and Biden administrations — is once again open for business, courtesy of a proclamation issued by the Trump White House.

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

One of the nation’s richest fishing grounds — put off-limits to commercial use by the Obama and Biden administrations — is once again open for business, courtesy of a proclamation issued by the Trump White House.

The Feb. 6 proclamation — “Unleashing American Commercial Fishing in the Atlantic” —revokes an Obama- and Biden-era policy that prohibited commercial fishing within the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. Created in 2016 by the Obama administration, the marine national monument covers nearly 5,000 square miles on the edge of the continental shelf about 150 miles east of Cape Cod. The monument designation included a ban on commercial fishing, which Trump lifted in his first term. The Biden  administration reimposed the ban in 2021, a step Trump 2.0 is now reversing.

When it reimposed the prohibition on commercial fishing within the marine monument’s boundaries, the Biden White House, like the Obama administration before it, cited the need to protect sensitive marine life in the area. “Restoring the prohibition on commercial fishing,” the Biden administration said, “will ensure that the unique, fragile, and largely pristine canyons and seamounts, and the dynamic ocean systems and marine life they support … will be safeguarded and will continue to provide an important venue for scientific study and research.”

While the monument does contain three underwater canyons, four underwater mountains known as seamounts, along with deep-sea corals and an assortment of marine life, none of this justifies banning commercial fishing in the area, the Trump administration argues.

“Prohibiting commercial fishing is not necessary for the proper care and management of the Monument,” a White House fact sheet says, “as many fish species are highly migratory, not unique to the area, and are already protected through existing laws, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.”

Indeed, commercial fishing in the United States is already governed by a comprehensive, science-based, and publicly-accountable regulatory system. “Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, fishing activities in federal waters must meet strict sustainability standards, undergo vigorous scientific review, and follow a transparent process that includes stakeholder input and council oversight,” Bob Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, an industry group, said in a statement.

By contrast, “the 2016 Obama designation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Monuments excluded commercial fishermen from a region they had sustainably fished for generations. It was imposed unilaterally through executive order — without public hearings, without a cost-benefit analysis, and without input from those whose livelihoods were affected.” Vanasse added.

The establishment of national monuments on federal lands via presidential proclamation was authorized by the 1906 Antiquities Act. As originally envisioned, national monuments were to “contain historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historical or scientific interest.” Under the law, the president is to reserve “the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

In the 120 years since the Antiquities Act’s enactment, national monuments have come to include not just federal lands but also federal waters, and the small monuments originally envisioned in the law have grown, in some cases, to encompass thousands of square miles. Critics have asserted that the law’s narrow mission to safeguard archaeological sites and small areas surrounding them has been transformed into a mechanism to quash development of natural resources. The 1996 proclamation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah by President Clinton, for example, withdrew the monument’s lands (1.7 million acres) from energy and mineral development.

Environmental groups have been outspoken in their support of national monuments, and they lost little time in blasting President Trump’s latest action. “These magnificent canyons and seamounts are protected because vulnerable animals like the endangered sperm whale depend on them for survival. It’s illegal and unconscionable for Trump to try to strip way safeguards just to throw commercial fishing a few more bucks,” said Kristin Monsell, oceans legal director for the Center for Biological Diversity.

But Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Mass., home to the nation’s highest-value fishing port, who warned Congress in 2016 that the monument designation would harm fishing communities, welcomed Trump’s action. “[The designation] stretched the language of the Antiquities Act to close the area to fishing without undertaking a thorough analysis of the conservation and economic tradeoffs,” Mitchell told The Bedford Light.

With environmental groups pledging to sue the Trump White House, the future of this vast New England fishing ground will be settled in court.

Sabine Hossenfelder: Climate Action is Like Preventative Cancer Surgery

Sabine Hossenfelder is a high-profile science influencer. I’m a fan – except for her misconceptions about climate change.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Sabine Hossenfelder is a high-profile science influencer. I’m a fan – except for her misconceptions about climate change.

Why I fear for the future of mankind

0.00 We’ve given up on climate change. This  is what I take away from the news.

…

0:36 About 10 years ago I was diagnosed with  a tumour. The doc said I should have it  removed as soon as possible. I had  a preventive surgery. I voluntarily  made myself temporarily miserable,  to avoid worse consequences later.

Climate change is like that, just not on an  individual level, but on a species level.  

…

1:59 Another problem has been all the people who  claimed that solving this problem would be “simple” and that the energy transition is  a win-win solution. Everyone is going to  be better off with renewables, because it will  create jobs and wealth and prosperity and so on. The most vivid demonstration of this  problem has been Greta Thunberg. A child  of a reasonably wealthy family in a wealthy  country who has never had to work to heat a house or feed a family. Most people knew  that these “win-win” tales were always lies. 

…

2:50 energy transition that isn’t happening because it’s never been realistic. It’s because everyone knew they were being lied to about the  true cost. And that’s why they’re against it.

…

3:07 isn’t just an American thing, we have this  here in Europe too, just not as explicitly. It’s no longer because they don’t believe that  the climate is changing or that we’re causing it. It’s because they think they’re being lied  to about what the “green deals” will actually  mean for them. And it’s why now, I think, a  lot of people are relieved that it’s over.

…

5:01 This failure worries me not so much about  climate change itself. It will be bad for  my retirement savings, it will be bad for our  children, but maybe in two or three generations,  progress will resume. No, it worries me because it  means we are almost certainly also too stupid to solve other problems. Regulating artificial  intelligence is a good example.

…Read more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBHSmwxgLfQ

Sabine’s video from which the above transcript was taken;

Who am I to criticise a famous physicist like Sabine? Thankfully I’m not alone in calling out Sabine’s climate change blind spot;

I had a conversation with Dr Peter Ridd, the author of the video above, about this time last year. He’s still hopeful Sabine will make that same final leap of understanding which helped his awakening.

There is so much Sabine gets right – she calls out Greta Thunberg’s hollow posturing, she calls out the fatal engineering flaws of the green energy revolution and hydrogen economy, a year ago she called out the absurd attempt to link the LA wildfires to climate change. But like an electron trapped in a potential well of misplaced trust in the scientific community, she can’t quite tunnel her way to intellectual freedom, to the realisation that claims we face an imminent climate crisis are just as nonsensical as claims that renewables are a viable solution to the world’s energy needs.

Net Zero Nightmare? UK Industrial Power Prices Surge 81% Above France’s Nuclear Edge

The Adam Smith Institute (ASI), a free- market think tank, tells that UK industrial and business electricity prices (for factories, data centres, and office blocks) are now 81% higher than in France, effectively nearly twice as much and blames this largely on the UK’s net zero policies

The Adam Smith Institute (ASI), a free- market think tank, tells that UK industrial and business electricity prices (for factories, data centres, and office blocks) are now 81% higher than in France, effectively nearly twice as much and blames this largely on the UK’s net zero policies.

France heavily subsidizes industrial electricity through state-owned EDF, which sells about a quarter of its generation at below-market rates to businesses, effectively a policy choice rather than a pure net zero outcome.

UK industrial electricity prices have indeed been among the highest in Europe and the G7 for several years, driven by a mix of wholesale market dynamics, network charges, policy costs (including renewables subsidies), and taxes.

Recent government data (from DESNZ/IEA comparisons for 2024–2025) shows UK large industrial users paying significantly more than EU averages, with France often lower due to its nuclear dominance.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Net zero blamed as British factories pay nearly twice as much as France for electricity

UK’s use of ‘expensive renewables’ has contributed to price surge in manufacturing

Net zero has been blamed for British businesses having to pay nearly double the price of power than their French counterparts. The Telegraph has the story.

UK factories, data centres and office blocks are paying 81pc more for electricity than companies in France, according to analysis published on Sunday by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), a think tank.

This has left Britain at a “significant competitive disadvantage” compared with its Continental neighbour.

Over the past 25 years, the cost of electricity used in manufacturing has risen in both Britain and France, but the UK price has surged further and faster since 2021, the ASI study found.

The ASI said the “most important” factor for the disparity was the “UK’s reliance on a combination of expensive renewables and a gas backstop”.

“France, by contrast, enjoys reliable, low-carbon electricity from nuclear power plants that were relatively affordable to build at the time,” it said.

As an example, Mitchell Palmer, an ASI economist, said a large UK data centre might pay £167m for 657 gigawatt hours of electricity a year, versus just £92m in France.

Mr Palmer said a key factor in the growing disparity between the two countries was also Britain’s declining nuclear power output.

“Since 1998, the UK’s nuclear output has collapsed by 60pc. While France maintained a robust nuclear fleet, UK gold-plating and red tape have turned construction into a bureaucratic nightmare.

“At Hinkley Point C, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) mandated over 7,000 design changes, driving costs to record levels.”

Mr Palmer said the UK’s resulting reliance on wind was also driving up prices. “Wind subsidies, in particular, are driving up electricity prices, especially as wind becomes a more dominant source.”

Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: “This report is right. Sky-high electricity prices are crushing businesses across the country.

“No country can be prosperous with the highest electricity prices in the world. If we are serious about growth, our absolute priority must be to make electricity cheap.”

Read the full story here.

New Research Reaffirms Clouds, Aerosols, And Surface Solar Radiation Are ‘Driving the Climate System’

Another new study affirms clouds and aerosols play a key role in explaining trends in solar surface radiation (SSR), which is “essential for the global energy cycle driving the climate system.”

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard

Warming across Germany in the last 3 decades can be explained by declining cloud and aerosol albedo and consequent rising solar radiation. Not CO2.

Another new study affirms clouds and aerosols play a key role in explaining trends in solar surface radiation (SSR), which is “essential for the global energy cycle driving the climate system.”

Over Germany, five independent observational datasets all agree that SSR increased by 4 W/m² per decade (~10 W/m²) from 1995-2020.

A 4 W/m² per decade increase in SSR easily explains recent warming. It especially explains warming far better than the alleged 20-times smaller clear-sky-only CO2 impact (0.2 W/m² per decade) over this span.

Image Source: Pfeifroth et al., 2026

Supporting this new research, a 2024 study (Wacker et al.) utilizing a German “testbed site” reports total and direct shortwave (SW) radiation forcing rose by 3.5 and 9.3 W/m² per decade, respectively, from 1996-2021.

Image Source: Wacker et al., 2024

Wrong, Oceanographic Magazine, Sea Level Rise in Hawaii Is Not a Looming Catastrophe

Oceanographic Magazine (OM) recently published the article “Most Hawaiins are already feeling the affects of sea level rise” by Eva Cahill on February 17, 2026, asserting that Hawaii residents are already experiencing the impacts of rising seas and that it is accelerating. This framing is false, unsupported by local data. The actual long-term measurement record at Honolulu shows that sea levels are rising at less than half the rate that OM claims.

From Climate Realism

By Anthony Watts

Oceanographic Magazine (OM) recently published the article “Most Hawaiins are already feeling the affects of sea level rise” by Eva Cahill on February 17, 2026, asserting that Hawaii residents are already experiencing the impacts of rising seas and that it is accelerating. This framing is false, unsupported by local data. The actual long-term measurement record at Honolulu shows that sea levels are rising at less than half the rate that OM claims.

“Over the past three decades, the rate of global sea level rise has doubled, with the best estimate of the rate of global-average rise over the last decade being 3.6 millimeters per year,” the article states, continuing, “83% believe that the impacts of sea level rise will be catastrophic within the next 50 years.”

These claims are debunked by actual data, and thus the people’s fears of catastrophe are unwarranted. As the graph below show, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) long-running Honolulu tide gauge record, the rate of sea level rise there has not measurably increased during the recent period of modest warming, and is far below, less than half in fact, of the 3.6mm rate of rise in the last decade claimed by OM.

Figure 1. The relative sea level trend is approximately 1.56 millimetres per year, with a 95 percent confidence interval of ±0.20 mm/year, based on data extending back to 1905. The same NOAA page expresses that as about 0.51 feet per century, which is roughly six inches in 100 years, not a foot, and certainly not an acceleration to 1.18 feet per century (3.6 mm/year) at this location. Source: NOAA Tides and Currents.

Local relative sea level, measured by tide gauges, is the only real direct measurement of sea level rise and it is what determines flooding risk on Oʻahu. Satellite measurements from space are a calculation, based on a model. Thus, it is an indirect measurement.

This distinction matters because sea level does not “operate” uniformly at the state level. Local trends reflect regional ocean dynamics, vertical land motion, and multi-decadal variability. NOAA’s tide gauge station description for Honolulu notes that interannual and decadal fluctuations are influenced by factors such as ENSO and broader Pacific circulation patterns. Short-term peaks during strong El Niño events can create the impression of sudden jumps, but the century-scale record smooths those oscillations and shows a far more modest rise.

That rise measured by the Honolulu tide gauge is not trivial, and it requires sensible coastal planning. But it is not the kind of rapid rise implied when a global satellite-era average is presented as if it defines local reality. The 3.6 mm/year figure cited by OM refers to a recent global-average estimate derived primarily from satellite altimetry, not a site specific measurement. Further, a recently published peer reviewed paper suggests that the satellite data has serious errors in it, saying:

Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis.

In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise.

OM also leans heavily on public perception, citing survey results about “catastrophic” expectations. But beliefs are not measurements; what determines long-term shoreline change is not a survey but sediment budgets, reef health, storm patterns, and vertical land motion. That is why it is important to consider the growing body of research on island dynamics, summarized in my colleague H. Sterling Burnett’s article “Rising Seas Aren’t Swamping Small Island Nations,” which discusses peer-reviewed findings that many reef islands and atolls have remained stable or increased in area over recent decades due to sediment transport and reef-driven processes. The article notes that islands are dynamic landforms, shaped continuously by waves and currents, not static platforms waiting to drown.

Climate at a Glance’s “Islands and Sea Level Rise” also highlights studies showing that numerous Pacific Islands have maintained or expanded their land area even as global sea level has risen. That does not mean every shoreline is stable, but it does mean the simplistic narrative that rising seas automatically translate into uniform land loss is not supported by the empirical record.

With regard to Hawai’i in particular, volcanic activity has increased the size of the main island, adding height, mass, and acreage. From January 1983 to September 2002, lava flows added 543 acres to the island. An additional 875 acres were added from May to July 2018 alone as a result of lava flow from the 2018 lower Puna eruption. In short, Hawai’i is increasing in size even in the face of modest sea level rise – as is true for other islands as well.

None of these facts argue against prudent adaptation. Limiting development in flood-prone areas, improving building standards, and preserving natural buffers are common-sense policies regardless of whether the rise is 1.5 mm/year or 3.6 mm/year. But presenting a global satellite number as if it accurately describes Hawaii’s observed coastal trend is misleading in the extreme.

Oceanographic Magazine conflates global statistics, public anxiety, and local coastal management into a single storyline of impending doom. The actual sea level measurements at Honolulu report relatively slow sea level rise. That is not climate reporting grounded in observation; it is advocacy framed as inevitability.