Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by aneeshm, Dec 25, 2006.
The islands were actually growing there through silting.
I was quoting the article. I can think of one or two isles which actually have sunk into the sea... But not particularly many.
How do you know that?
I hope the local tourism industry isn't harmed.
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.
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.
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?
Not really, this is a very special case. Applying generalizations to very special cases is an absolutely stupid way to do things.
Am I denying global warming?
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.
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.
close islands sometimes suffer the same fate.
I don't care about the rest of the world, I'm talking about this island
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.
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).
This is happening all around the world. It is not special.
Then you are making the typical error of being extremely narrow minded. This is a worldwide problem.
No, you offered the alternate explanation of erosion, which is pure BS.
No, the delta usually shifts. See the Mississippi Delta.
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.
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.
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.
The article says it's special.
It's not an error, I'm focusing on a single island
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!
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.
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.
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.
What theory am I abandoning?
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
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.
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.
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.)
So the first casualty in a war is special? Not really.
That is an error, though, because you have to take into account the worldwide effects of a global phenomenon.
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.
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.
People were living on it. Presumably people don't move onto islands that they notice are sinking rapidly.
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.
You're denying that global warming is responsible for the submergence of islands in the world.
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.
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.
Just read about this. Maybe Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) will be next. Who will we declare war on then? The US is already at war with the environment.
Separate names with a comma.