For the first time, an inhabited island has sunk into the watery embrace of Varuna

Mongoloid Cow · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
What about good ol' erosion?

The islands were actually growing there through silting.

North King · Dec 26, 2006

IglooDude said:
Excuse me? First inhabited island in thousands of years to sink into the sea? I think you're getting a bit breathless there, yourself.

I was quoting the article.

I can think of one or two isles which actually have sunk into the sea... But not particularly many.

Perfection · Dec 26, 2006

Mongoloid Cow said:
The islands were actually growing there through silting.

How do you know that?

VX250 · Dec 26, 2006

I hope the local tourism industry isn't harmed.

North King · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
How do you know that?

Because the Ganges Delta has been doing that for thousands of years. Most river deltas in the world have been.

Perfection · Dec 26, 2006

North King said:
Because the Ganges Delta has been doing that for thousands of years. Most river deltas in the world have been.

I don't think you can generalize it to say that every island in every river basin (or even every island in the Ganges Delta) is growing due to silt deposition.

North King · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
I don't think you can generalize it to say that every island in every river basin (or even every island in the Ganges Delta) is growing due to silt deposition.

Yet that's almost always what happens, so, yes, I think it's a fair assumption to say that the island is silting up. Why does humanity keep denying the change in global temperature? The blinders are only comforting for so long.

Xanikk999 · Dec 26, 2006

So if this has "proven" to be an act of global warming, which i cant see how it could be proven.

But if it was will this stop the naysayers?

Perfection · Dec 26, 2006

North King said:
Yet that's almost always what happens, so, yes, I think it's a fair assumption to say that the island is silting up.

Not really, this is a very special case. Applying generalizations to very special cases is an absolutely stupid way to do things.

North King said:
Why does humanity keep denying the change in global temperature? The blinders are only comforting for so long.

Am I denying global warming?

North King · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
Not really, this is a very special case. Applying generalizations to very special cases is an absolutely stupid way to do things.

How is it very special? Quoted in the article it mentions a neighboring island swallowed the same way. Islands in the Pacific are sinking. This is not a special case, this is happening all around the world, and it is imperative that we act soon, given how many people live low to sea level.

Am I denying global warming?

No, you're denying that sea levels might be responsible for swallowing this island, and suggest that erosion is wearing it away, which is simply ridiculous. That's simply contrary to what a river delta is. River deltas are where the water slows down, and thus waterborne particles sink to the bottom of the river, building up silt. It does not go fast enough to erode the islands in the delta faster than it builds them up; a river delta's islands should be growing, never shrinking.

Perfection · Dec 26, 2006

North King said:
How is it very special?

It sank!

North King said:
Quoted in the article it mentions a neighboring island swallowed the same way.

close islands sometimes suffer the same fate.

North King said:
Islands in the Pacific are sinking. This is not a special case, this is happening all around the world, and it is imperative that we act soon, given how many people live low to sea level.

I don't care about the rest of the world, I'm talking about this island

North King said:
No, you're denying that sea levels might be responsible for swallowing this island, and suggest that erosion is wearing it away, which is simply ridiculous.

Incorrect! I stated the article should be approached with skepticism and it has not given any evidence that this is the work of global warming other then directly stating it. I like to hear a hint of scientific consultation and understanding before I rely on thier claims.

North King said:
That's simply contrary to what a river delta is. River deltas are where the water slows down, and thus waterborne particles sink to the bottom of the river, building up silt. It does not go fast enough to erode the islands in the delta faster than it builds them up; a river delta's islands should be growing, never shrinking.

if islands never shrank wouldn't they dam up the river? Parts of deltas can have water going faster then what is need to deposit and actually strip away sediments.

You're also missing all sorts of other mechanisms in which islands can sink, development can sink islands, look at Venice!

To say this must be global warming is to only take a cursory look (or an extremely well informed in-depth look, which I highly doubt you or the editors of the article have done).

North King · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
It sank!

This is happening all around the world. It is not special.

close islands sometimes suffer the same fate. I don't care about the rest of the world, I'm talking about this island

Then you are making the typical error of being extremely narrow minded. This is a worldwide problem.

Incorrect! I stated the article should be approached with skepticism and it has not given any evidence that this is the work of global warming other then directly stating it. I like to hear a hint of scientific consultation and understanding before I rely on thier claims.

No, you offered the alternate explanation of erosion, which is pure BS.

if islands never shrank wouldn't they dam up the river? Parts of deltas can have water going faster then what is need to deposit and actually strip away sediments.

No, the delta usually shifts. See the Mississippi Delta.

You're also missing all sorts of other mechanisms in which islands can sink, development can sink islands, look at Venice!

No, I'm not. I and others have systematically shot down every other explanation that's been offered for this particular island that's been offered up so far. Plate tectonics is absurd, and so is erosion in a river delta. And Bangladesh is not Venice, nor is the Venetian lagoon the same as the Ganges Delta.

To say this must be global warming is to only take a cursory look (or an extremely well informed in-depth look, which I highly doubt you or the editors of the article have done).

This island has disappeared under the sea. Either the land is sinking (which, as we have seen above, probably is not happening), or the water is rising. Skepticism is good, but it must be moderated with common sense. Just because there COULD be another explanation for why humans stick to the ground than gravity, doesn't mean we should abandon gravity as a theory.

bhsup · Dec 26, 2006

DISCLAIMER: The following quote does only come from Wiki, so take with a couple of pounds of salt. However, I felt it relevant enough to throw in here.

More spectacularly, there was 10 m (33 ft) movement laterally and 4–5 m (13–16 ft) vertically along the fault line. Early speculation was that some of the smaller islands south-west of Sumatra, which is on the Burma Plate (the southern regions are on the Sunda Plate), may have moved south-west by up to 20 m (66 ft), and some early estimates said up to 36 m (118 ft). However, more accurate data released, more than a month following the earthquake, present a more manageable figure of 20 cm (7.9 in).[21] Since movement was vertical as well as lateral, some coastal areas may have been moved to below sea level. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands appear to have shifted south-west by around 1.25 m (4.1 ft) and to have sunk by 1 m (3.28 ft).[22]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

Perfection · Dec 26, 2006

North King said:
This is happening all around the world. It is not special.

The article says it's special.

North King said:
Then you are making the typical error of being extremely narrow minded. This is a worldwide problem.

It's not an error, I'm focusing on a single island

North King said:
No, you offered the alternate explanation of erosion, which is pure BS.

I offered it as an off-the-cuff example. I'm not married to the explination, my main point is the article is sensationalist, from a biased source, and lacking in the detail neccesary for me to think its much more then crappy journalistic speculation. I have higher standards then that. You want to convince me, give me more to work with!

North King said:
No, the delta usually shifts. See the Mississippi Delta.

Do they? Can you provide a good source on delta evolution? And you neglect the impact of human activity such as damming on the delta. Could that be a factor? I'm not going to pretend I know, but I'm fairly certain you're not an expert on the topic.

North King said:
No, I'm not. I and others have systematically shot down every other explanation that's been offered for this particular island that's been offered up so far. Plate tectonics is absurd,

I'm unconvinced about the rate argument. It assumes that the island wasn't sinking over a very long period of time, which it may well have.

North King said:
and so is erosion in a river delta. And Bangladesh is not Venice, nor is the Venetian lagoon the same as the Ganges Delta.

The delta/lagoon differences does not make the mechanism of venetian sinking impossible. A lot of this stems from the way the island has been constructed.

North King said:
This island has disappeared under the sea. Either the land is sinking (which, as we have seen above, probably is not happening), or the water is rising. Skepticism is good, but it must be moderated with common sense. Just because there COULD be another explanation for why humans stick to the ground than gravity, doesn't mean we should abandon gravity as a theory.

What theory am I abandoning?

Urederra · Dec 26, 2006

VRWCAgent said:
DISCLAIMER: The following quote does only come from Wiki, so take with a couple of pounds of salt. However, I felt it relevant enough to throw in here.

I heard of that shortly after the big tsunami two years ago, that is why I also mentioned earthquakes in my post #6, but I am on holidays and too lazy to look for a reference.

I looked for more information and this is what I found. http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=59792

http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=59792 said:
For example, on Nias Island, off the southern coast of Sumatra, inhabitants reported that the highest wave was about 12 feet. On Simeulue Island (southwest of Aceh), Sieh found that the sea had not returned to its pre-tsunami shoreline. In some cases, over three-feet of water now stands in places that were dry; while in others, once-submerged coral reefs are now completely exposed.

Perfection said:
To say this must be global warming is to only take a cursory look (or an extremely well informed in-depth look, which I highly doubt you or the editors of the article have done)

That is my initial point, it looks like the writer of the article is blaming the soccer moms driving SUVs for the sink of the island, without ruling out any other more than possible explanation or without trying to demonstrate the link between cause and effect.

North King said:
I was quoting the article. I can think of one or two isles which actually have sunk into the sea... But not particularly many.

That is good enough. If you can think of just one, then you should agree in that the article is not very accurate when it says that this is the first time this happens.

Cuivienen · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
What about good ol' erosion?

Given the sensationalist nature of the claims, and the lack of data cited, I think a fair amount of skepticism is warrented. I'm not going to say that it wasn't global warming induced sea level change, but I haven't been given good evidence to believe that it is.

Erosion would cause the top of the island to sink beneath the water. In this case, the water rose over the top of the island. (Plus, erosion actually destroying islands is extraordinarily rare when it doesn't happen in the context of a powerful storm.)

North King · Dec 26, 2006

Perfection said:
The article says it's special.

So the first casualty in a war is special? Not really.

It's not an error, I'm focusing on a single island

That is an error, though, because you have to take into account the worldwide effects of a global phenomenon.

I offered it as an off-the-cuff example. I'm not married to the explination, my main point is the article is sensationalist, from a biased source, and lacking in the detail neccesary for me to think its much more then crappy journalistic speculation. I have higher standards then that. You want to convince me, give me more to work with!

You must have been sleeping under a rock for the past few years. It's a well known fact that islands around the world are being submerged in rising ocean levels; I'm not quite motivated enough to dig up sources to prove it.

Do they? Can you provide a good source on delta evolution? And you neglect the impact of human activity such as damming on the delta. Could that be a factor? I'm not going to pretend I know, but I'm fairly certain you're not an expert on the topic.

Excuse me, but that's basic knowledge about a river delta being put into play. Knowing it is not something that needs to be looked up in an obscure textbook; it's part of the reason a river delta forms.

I'm unconvinced about the rate argument. It assumes that the island wasn't sinking over a very long period of time, which it may well have.

People were living on it. Presumably people don't move onto islands that they notice are sinking rapidly.

The delta/lagoon differences does not make the mechanism of venetian sinking impossible. A lot of this stems from the way the island has been constructed.

This is the Ganges River Delta. Venice is in the middle of a Western, urbanized, European country. the Ganges is smack dab in a subsistence farming culture. You're unlikely to sink a Bengali island via weight of buildings.

What theory am I abandoning?

You're denying that global warming is responsible for the submergence of islands in the world.

Urederra said:
That is good enough. If you can think of just one, then you should agree in that the article is not very accurate when it says that this is the first time this happens.

It wasn't my article; not my fault.

In any case, the few cases I can name are usually things that happened in freak storms or sudden spurts of geological activity. Neither of which there is evidence of here.

JerichoHill · Dec 26, 2006

It would appear that, with further information on seismic activity in the region, the washing away by the ocean effect was more likely due to these forces and not global warming.

Narz · Dec 29, 2006

Just read about this. Maybe Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) will be next. Who will we declare war on then? :lol:

The US is already at war with the environment.

For the first time, an inhabited island has sunk into the watery embrace of Varuna

Mongoloid Cow

Great Khan

North King

blech

Perfection

The Great Head.

VX250

Down With Swingtown

North King

blech

Perfection

The Great Head.

North King

blech

Xanikk999

History junkie

Perfection

The Great Head.

North King

blech

Perfection

The Great Head.

North King

blech

bhsup

Deity

Perfection

The Great Head.

Urederra

Mostly harmless

Cuivienen

Deity

North King

blech

JerichoHill

Bedrock of Knowledge

Narz

keeping it real

Similar threads