Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Inhabited Island Vanishes Forever Underwater 408

Posted by Zonk
from the seeya-later-island-guy dept.
PhreakOfTime writes "For the first time the rising ocean levels have washed away an inhabited island. Lohachara island was at one point home to some 10,000 people. It, along with several other spits of land near the Indian mainland, is now permanently underwater. From the article: ' As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities. Eight years ago ... the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Inhabited Island Vanishes Forever Underwater

Comments Filter:
  • by Travoltus (110240) on Monday December 25, 2006 @04:44AM (#17358866) Journal
    Ergo, there's no need to panic here on Earth.

    [Republican parody mode off]
    • by arpad1 (458649) on Monday December 25, 2006 @05:15AM (#17358978)
      There sure as hell isn't any reason to panic over this piece of drek reporting.

      You get a clue at the intent of the piece when, in the first paragraph, you find out that the islands are part of a river delta. Well, you kind of find out. But nowhere does the piece just come out and say that river deltas are always changing shape, i.e. some parts wash away and other parts build up. Nope, right away there's a diatribelet about global warning right where there ought to be an explanation about how river delta islands come and go.

      I've got an apocalyptic prediction to make:

      If the story about these islands doesn't kick off a global panic there'll be another gas-inflated story, probably out of the Guardian, before January is done. Oh the humanity!
      • There sure as hell isn't any reason to panic over this piece of drek reporting.
        That may well be the case, but I hope you're not dismissing the research results from the last fifty years of climatology en masse on that basis though.
      • some parts wash away and other parts build up

        Right, so can you please point us to some island that has been built up in the time when Lohachara island disappeared?

        The simple fact is that river deltas are disappearing all over the world. A lot of this can be blamed to causes like bad water management, by building dams, canals, and levees without proper planning. But even if the rising sea level isn't the only cause for the problem, it's certainly not making things better.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by aaronl (43811)
          It takes a long time to build up new islands in a busy delta. The sand that formed these islands was eroded, and then washed out to sea. It could be decades, or more, before more silt builds up to make new islands. It has taken decades for the islands that *have* disappeared to do so, even.

          If you jump to Wikipedia and search for Lohachara Island, there are links to a few other articles on the topic. TFA is probably the worst written of all of them.
      • by Qzukk (229616) on Monday December 25, 2006 @10:38AM (#17359950) Journal
        the islands are part of a river delta.

        Refer to a map, please, like this one [tuvaluislands.com]. Unless you're going to claim Tuvalu and Kiribati (you know, the other nations that are becoming "washed up") are part of the "Pacific Ocean River Delta" just to try to convince everyone you're right.
      • by Jahz (831343) on Monday December 25, 2006 @01:03PM (#17360680) Homepage Journal
        I agree, "global warming" has become no more than a public relations buz word.. For use when you want to garner public attention for any natural or unnatural change in an ecosystem. I'm sure nobody will make the argument that the blackened air created by cars, factories and other industrial complexes is helpful to the environment around us. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that global warming is responsible for everything negative that happens. It seems from this discussion, I am not the only one who feels this way. From what I learned in Geology, the river delta explanation seems plausible.

        What everybody needs to understand is that Earth - as an environmental system - is always in a state of change. People don't like to hear that because people like to believe that they are in control of their surroundings. In reality, the environment and the ecosystems around us will move to adapt to any new stimuli introduced. This is what we (the public) lack an understanding of. If we continue to abuse the Earth by polluting the air as we are now, the ice caps might melt quite a bit. Okay, fine... but that is a short term, direct reaction. How will the world look in 100 years? 500 years?

        No computer model is going to accurately predict that. Too many unknown variables in the equation. It might not be as bad as we are led to believe. Just something to keep in mind.... I personally support environmental reform, but not because of global warming threats.
    • by eclectro (227083)
      Ergo, there's no need to panic here on Earth.

      Correct. There is no global warming. I know it's inconvenient, but people need to stop peeing in the water when they go swimming. That is the truth.
    • Islands in that area are sinking and would be doing so regardless if mankind ever discovered fire. It's amazing for a bunch of tech geeks who are willing to believe anything that sounds like a disaster, if the other political party can be blamed for it. Go back watching your pr0n, it's more realistic then your AGW religion.

      Dammy
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gaim (938370)
      Islands have been known to sink beneath the waves without sea level rising. Islands can and do naturally sink. Pacific volcanic islands are famous for this (like Hawaii or Fiji) will all eventually sink beneath the waves after the volcanic activity has ceased and the island rock cools becoming more dense. So to state an island is sinking without knowing the context on how the island was created is laughable evidence of global warming. Do you also know that the gravitation pull of the Himalayas near Indi
    • by DiamondGeezer (872237) on Monday December 25, 2006 @09:29AM (#17359670) Homepage
      I am shocked, shocked to discover that islands on an unstable delta in India can sink under their own weight into the ocean. This has clearly never happened before and George W Bush is clearly to blame.

      Clearly if Bush had signed the Kyoto death pact, and if the Senate which had voted 95-0 in 1998 had let him, then these islands would still be here and, for good measure, the earth will have been cooled by an astonishing and completely unmeasureable 0.07C by 2050.

      We will now see the Slashdot approach to group censorship take effect. Your rights online?
  • by j35ter (895427)
    ...Nothing to see here anymore...just the sea....move along...
  • by Behrooz (302401) on Monday December 25, 2006 @04:56AM (#17358908)
    Short-term changes in sea level like waves, tides, and storm surge mask the effects of rising sea levels. When the signal-to-noise ratio is that low, you end up with news articles stating that the island in question became uninhabitable 22 years ago [expressindia.com].
     
    Not to rain on anyone's parade, but compared to serious examination of [uea.ac.uk] long-term sea level trends [nasa.gov], one island isn't a very useful measuring stick.
     
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by node 3 (115640)

      Not to rain on anyone's parade, but compared to serious examination of long-term sea level trends, one island isn't a very useful measuring stick.
      The article--hell, the *summary*--pointed out that it's not just one island that's going under. This is just the first one that used to be habited.

      If "there used to be an island here big enough for people to live on. Now it's uninhabitable." isn't enough to raise your eyebrow, you've really got to remove your blinders.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JackHoffman (1033824)
        In a word: No. Large swaths of land become uninhabitable all the time. Earth is not a holiday resort where everything is controlled and nothing changes. Volcanic activity makes and breaks entire civilizations, deserts grow, landmasses get covered by huge ice crusts, lakes turn into swamps or dry out. Earth constantly changes. Pointing to one instance of change doesn't prove anything. It shouldn't even raise eyebrows. Many of the picture postcard islands are and have always been on the edge of inhabitability
    • Another slashdot dupe; this article was posted in 1984.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by OriginalArlen (726444)
      Quite right. Here's a single chart that's worth more than a thousand ignorant and misinformed climate-change trolls [nasa.gov]. May I now post my regular link to RealClimate.org [realclimate.org] for the benefit of any sceptics out there who really do have an interest in what the actual science actually says.
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        If you're going to link to nothing but a chart and say that it's of any worth whatsoever, it should at least have all its units specified. What are those anonymous numbers on the left supposed to mean?
  • by 3dWarlord (862844) on Monday December 25, 2006 @04:57AM (#17358912)
    for rising ocean levels to take California next.
  • by kale77in (703316) on Monday December 25, 2006 @04:57AM (#17358914) Homepage
    I live not far from the Sydney Opera House, and though I haven't been measuring things there, I haven't seen any sign of it getting closer to the water. Certainly not a whole island worth of closer. Likewise I would expect somewhere like Venice to be in the news if its gradual descent into the ocean were suddenly to accelerate, threatening all that tourism. Ditto the pacific islands; or anywhere people have jetties or wharves that would need rebuilding.

    Is it possible that sea levels could change in the Indian ocean while remaining constant in other parts of the globe? That's what seems odd here. Or is this likely to be local, run-of-the-mill geology at work, and people seeing what they (justifiably, IMHO) expect to see?
  • Sponsor? (Score:4, Funny)

    by BlackPignouf (1017012) on Monday December 25, 2006 @04:59AM (#17358926)
    This post was sponsored by Hummer, Mercedes and the American/European way of life.
    Hope you liked it folks!
  • "unprecedented" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khallow (566160) on Monday December 25, 2006 @05:11AM (#17358966)
    Also, this probably isn't unprecedented in human history. For example, the ocean levels rose substantially after the end of the last ice age. It's quite likely that human inhabited islands became submerged during that time. We also have land that is in the process of sinking, eg, along the southern part of the north sea or southern Louisianna to name a couple of locations that experience substantial sinking of land and have been populated for a fair bit of time.
    • Sssshhh! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Logic, reason, and rational thought are unwelcome here.

      Now, back to the gravy train...
      • by khallow (566160)
        My sarcasm detector has been broken for a long time. But I'm starting to suspect that my original take on your post was a wee bit off.
  • Satellite photos (Score:5, Interesting)

    by telso (924323) on Monday December 25, 2006 @05:32AM (#17359028)
    Telegraph India [telegraphindia.com] has a map [telegraphindia.com] of the island and some islands nearby in 1969 and in 2001, and Google Maps has a Satellite photo [google.com].
  • "Forever"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HexRei (515117) on Monday December 25, 2006 @05:41AM (#17359052)
    Or just till the next ice age? Seriously, it would reason that if the sea level lowers, it might become exposed again, right?
    • I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the inhabitants of the US Eastern Seaboard in 50 years' time when the Greenland ice sheet starts to really let go and you realise you're looking down the wrong end of a 6m sea level rise. Ever seen a city built off-shore in 6m (~20 feet) of water? No? There's a very good reason for that...
  • by dybdahl (80720) <(kd.lhadbyd) (ta) (ofni)> on Monday December 25, 2006 @05:45AM (#17359062) Homepage Journal
    The small island of "Jordsand" was inhabited in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, rising water has since then made the island vanish entirely. I visited the island in the 1980s before it vanished entirely. More info here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordsand [wikipedia.org]

    Plate tectonics means that some part of continents are rising, and some are falling. In Denmark, the northern part is rising, and the southern part is going down. Jordsand was located in the area that is going down. This means, that measured relatively to the ground, the water is "rising" in south Denmark and "falling" in north Denmark.

    Here is a picture of the remains of the "Ferry farm" in Ræhr, Denmark:

    http://www.saarup.dk/saarup2/johannespedersen.htm [saarup.dk]

    From this place, there was once a ferry going to "Boat farm" in Hanstholm. Today, you drive this distance by car instead. Both farms are located in the middle of this map:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hanstholmen-map .png [wikipedia.org]

    What has once been a collection of islands, is today countryside with a few lakes. More information about the former island of Hanstholm is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanstholm [wikipedia.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dybdahl (80720)
      I think I'd better explain better where the two farms actually are: The "Ferry farm" (Danish: Færgegården) was in the northern part of the town Sårup. The Boat farm (Danish: bådsgård) is located in Nytorp.

      Ræhr and Nytorp are both located on the former island of Hanstholm.

      Sårup was once another island.

      This lake is just between those two, and is the remainder of the North Atlantic Ocean's presence here:

      http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=14&ll=57.088282, 8.64521&sp [google.com]
  • WHERE are the rest? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WgT2 (591074) on Monday December 25, 2006 @05:55AM (#17359078) Journal

    If this island has "been covered" (as opposed to having "sank") where are the rest of the islands that should also be completely covered by the sea?

    Could it just possibly be an issue of that island sinking?

    If not, then I think you've gone past blind faith.

  • by Keichann (888574)
    I for one welcome our new, many-tentacled, overlord.
  • Unprecedented (Score:5, Insightful)

    by umbrellasd (876984) on Monday December 25, 2006 @06:10AM (#17359112)
    Well, that's BS. There are plenty of precedents. Where'd the rainforest go? "OMG, there were like 50% more trees here a decade ago?" Where'd the penguins go? Where'd this species go? Where'd that species go? There are plenty of precedents for things disappearing due to our tampering with the world, and--news flash--Nobody Really Gives a Fuck.

    The other day there was an article about the dolphins in China disappearing. Sure we clamour, "OMG, it's terrible. If we don't stop soon, we might be screwed. Aw, but what can we do, it's so hard. So uncertain, so...hey, can I have one of those bagels? Oh, yum." The other day I was talking with a group of 10 people about glacial melting and the rising sea level. They all nodded seriously and said, "Sure, but that is a theory and even then it would only happen in 50 years." I assure you, if I bring up this article, people will look just as serious, and then hop in their Hummer and drive to the gas station so they can go hiking on what used to be ski slopes.

    Until about a million people are absolutely, beyond any doubt--beyond even the ability of the most resolutely blind dumbass moron I know's ability to doubt--are going to relocate or drown in their home because of rising sea level...and it has to be a first world country because otherwise, reminder: Nobody Really Gives a Fuck...until that point, I do not really want to hear about it.

    Why should we all have to suffer with our feelings of the awful terrible things that will likely happen (but hopefully just after we die happily in our old age so our children can deal with it instead), when elected or otherwise empowered people will never act fast enough to ever avert any true crisis. I say, bring on the disasters. One after another. Because getting some practice at actually dealing with problems just might start building a habit of acting and instill some fear in a real problem, rather than the lurking possibility of a boogeyman or an Osama or little microbes that people will only act on enough to deprive others of their liberties, but never act on enough to actually address the issue since the issue isn't there yet. Isn't it ironic how proactive we are at doing terrible things when faced with a real problem, and how inactive we are at doing the good things? Well, it's not ironic at all. Good things are invariably more work and most people are inherently lazy, which is why 5% of the world has 90% of the wealth, and they wealthy are too busy driving around in hummers.

    Wake me up when we're all drowning.

    • I say, bring on the disasters. One after another.

      Congratulations! You appear to have gotten your wish. How's that working out for you? PS in the future please to be wishing disasters upon the residents of your own city instead of mine kthx.

    • by Vellmont (569020)

      Until about a million people are absolutely, beyond any doubt--beyond even the ability of the most resolutely blind dumbass moron I know's ability to doubt--are going to relocate or drown in their home because of rising sea level...and it has to be a first world country because otherwise, reminder: Nobody Really Gives a Fuck

      Don't underestimate the power of people "not giving a fuck". You seem to think that a majority of people need to care about something for change to happen. History has proven time and
  • by vtcodger (957785) on Monday December 25, 2006 @06:24AM (#17359156)
    Not to minimize the potential problems of global warming, but sea level rises associated with global warming so far are measured in inches, and not very many of them. So few inches in fact that it isn't even 100% certain that sea levels have changed at all. It's difficult to measure sea level changes of a few inches because the sea moves up and down all the time on its own due to tides and storms. It doesn't help that many places are locally rising or sinking on their own for a variety of reasons.

    It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a phenomenon that is (so far) too small to even measure with confidence could erase an island big enough to have a substantial population. It's a bit hard to tell because of the "noise", but it looks like the total sea level rise in the 20th Century was maybe 4-6 inches ... at most.

    So what really happened to this island? Who knows -- either erosion or local sinking one suspects.

    Wikipedia has a long article on global warming href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise.

    And here's an article that says that the Sundabaran Islands of which Lohachara is (was?) a member are sinking at 3.4cm (about 1.4 inches) a year which is maybe 20 times the estimated rate of sea level rise from global warming. href="http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/tig er.html">http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/ tiger.html

    • It's difficult to measure sea level changes of a few inches because the sea moves up and down all the time on its own due to tides and storms

      Measuring values with lots of background noise can be done with great accuracy, it's just a matter of how many data point you have and how you calculate the averages. Scientists do it all the time, a lot of the effort that goes in review of scientific papers is checking that the data was collected correctly, without statistical bias.

      The problem with rising sea level i

  • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Monday December 25, 2006 @06:35AM (#17359172)
    step 1: spread the word that the inhabitants of those islands are thinking about suing some state for huge gobs of cash
    step 2: a whole hurd of weasely frivolous lawyers stampede to get there as soon as possible
    step 3: they get there but there is no way out
    step 4: water level rises
    step 5: happy times!

    See? Every cloud has it's silver lining.
    • by MooUK (905450)
      Ooooh. Damn good idea!

      Hmm... we need a way to add politicians to the mix, though. Especially presidents and prime ministers.
  • Yeah, like this has never happened before. How many people lived on Atlantis [wikipedia.org]?
  • Subsidence (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jamesl (106902) on Monday December 25, 2006 @06:59AM (#17359246)
    Sagar Island (Sunderbans), October 29: An annual 3.14 mm rise in sea level at Sunderbans due to climate change is eating away 12 islands on the delta, says a study by a group of scientists from Jadavpur University.

    http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsi d=207247/ [expressindia.com]
    (Kolkata Newsline)
    Careful measurements of sea level change around the globe show similar numbers. Larger reported changes are usually due to subsidence (sinking land), erosion, annual rain (monsoon, hurricane) related flooding and poor land management. Talk a walk on your nearest beach and figure out how many years it would take at three mm/year before anything interesting would happen. Or be noticed.
    • by slashkitty (21637)
      Yes, exactly. The article is completely inaccurate saying that it's global warming. It's on a delta, like the land of New Orleans. The islands are sinking and washing away. Not the first either.
  • At least the sea took Cthulhu [berkeley.edu] with it!
  • WTF? How are entire islands being wiped out and we know less about it than how many celebrities are pissed about hurricane katrina? I mean I know less, and I've never heard this brought up as a topic of conversation before, so I assume nobody I know was aware of this either.

    This shows that the current state of our media (even with the advent of the Internet) is abysmal to say the least. Not to mention it kinda shows how self-centered we are (forced to become).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by localroger (258128)
      As others have pointed out the disappearance of river delta island that was abandoned over 20 years ago is not all that unprecedented, but the near total destruction of a first-world city of over 1,000,000 followed by total failure to deal with the situation is.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 25, 2006 @07:52AM (#17359368)
    I'm Dutch and us Dutch have something with water. Did you know that one of our small islands (located north north/east of our country) has also been swallowed by the sea at the end of the last century? No? Guess thats because they didn't invent global warming at that time. At least not in the extends they have now. For us it was a very simple process, one which has been part of our 'folklore' for millenia now: "The sea gives and the sea takes.". Every year we have parts of the country which flood over ("uiterwaarden"). When the sea finally retreats it sometimes leaves enough soil to build on so such a terrain is then "added" to the main land (easily put ofcourse). However that doesn't mean that this is the end of it. On the contrary; mostly these new terrains were used for agraculture. And why? Simple; because it has also happened numerous of times that the sea rose again and took away the newly given land. No global warming, no environmental problems, just the work of Mother Nature.

    And on that subject. I could be mistaken here but I always learned at school that ice, in contrary to other materials, expanded when it was frozen. Thats why you get your broken waterpipes if they freeze up. When it melts then the water shrinks again. So how does the melting of the polar caps make the sea rise when the whole mass is actually shrinking?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Watson Ladd (955755)
      Most of the North Polar Icecap and all of the South Polar Icecap is on land, not water. When it melts it will pour water into the sea.
  • by DanielMarkham (765899) * on Monday December 25, 2006 @08:38AM (#17359494) Homepage
    First off, sea level increases, assuming the sea level IS rising, is happening in mm per year, not meters. Unless these inhabitants are extremely small, a few extra mm of water is not covering a whole island.

    Secondly, it's not unprecedented. In fact, as other posters have pointed out, islands have come and gone for all of recorded history.

    Thirdly, the island appears to actually have dissapeared 22 years ago. It's part of a freaking river delta, guys.

    I'm not smart enough to make a call on Global Warming. Maybe you guys are. But I do know enough to see that for all of recorded history, there have been large sections of the population that believe the world is ending. In EVERY instance, this is due to some sins of mankind. Repent! Say the believers. Repent now and perhaps we will all be spared! If this same slant was in a technology article, most of you would be calling FUD. Well I call it on this. This article is total crap.

    That's not saying GW is false, that's saying that when trying to extrapolate long-term trends from short term inputs in a chaotic system a little humility is in order. Articles like this one make the whole GW movement look like a bunch of knee-jerk idiots. The science deserves better treatment than this. The public deserves a higher level of discussion than stories that can be tossed out after five minutes of inspection. FUD is no way to make a technology buy, or have a serious discussion about science.
  • by bradbury (33372) <Robert@Bradbury.gmail@com> on Monday December 25, 2006 @08:46AM (#17359516) Homepage
    While others have commented on the fact that the oceans are not rising (and will not ultimately rise very much) it is useful to note that the land on which the island rested could be sinking. You have both (a) the problem of sea floors being driven under the continent plates (subduction) as well as (b) the fact that islands which are built out of sedimentary material are going to be compressed (and sink) over time. So before everyone runs off to cite this as an example of global warming at work it would be useful to know whether other processes may be contributing.
  • images (Score:2, Insightful)

    by B.Stolk (132572)
    The image of the submerged island is here:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&z=14&ll=21.900 128,88.112411&spn=0.033209,0.080338&t=h&om=1 [google.com]

    BTW: In Holland, we simply elevate the dikes. I live several meters below sea level.
  • by heartsurgeon (453305) on Monday December 25, 2006 @09:15AM (#17359620) Homepage
    i hate to be cynical, but this is nothing but an orchestrated effort to lay the groundwork for a monetary claim against "The Rich Industrialized West" a.k.a., the U.S.

    First off, the article doesn't even have the date correct for when the island disappeared..22 years ago (that would be 1988). So let's dispense with accuracy right there..

    Second, the river delta in question is FAMOUS for flooding and killing/displacing hundreds of thousands...geez it's the drainage basin for the freakin Himalayan mountain range...

    Bangladesh is in bottom quintile in per capita GDP.

    and finally, lets not forget this article..
    'Bangladesh floods: rich nations 'must share the blame'
    http://www.scidev.net/Editorials/index.cfm?fuseact ion=readEditorials&itemid=125&language=1 [scidev.net]

    pretty much lays it out...they're after money..

    'In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible.'

    this is all sponsored and written under the auspices of that famously neutral organization the U.N.

    this is a giant effort at laying the groundwork for demanding monetary compensation, not aid, for flooding that has been going on FOREVER in that country. These islands didn't "sink", they where washed away 22 years ago from flooding, that has been going on for millenia....

    in the enviromental arena...it's never about the enviroment, it's always about money, and getting someone who has it, to fork it over to someone else, who wants it.
  • First of all this is not the first inhabited island to disappear "forever" under the sea. Several others around the globe have done this 1000's of years ago. I am sure even more did so when the last ice age came to an end. "Land Bridge disappears forever". Second of all the word forever is something that can never be proven. A colder climate could cause this island to pop right out of the ocean again. Despite what some people would have you believe the earth has never "always been the same". Even in the sho
  • by flajann (658201) <flajann&linuxbloke,com> on Monday December 25, 2006 @10:38AM (#17359954) Homepage Journal
    The article mentions nothing at all about the poissible impact the Asian Brown Cloud's possible role in this flooding. Why is that? Not to mention the hyperbolic language such as "forever", etc., which puts the objectivity of this article in question.

    An extensive impact study of the Asian Brown Cloud can be found Here [unep.org].

    Also some "Quick Facts" on the Asian Brown Cloud may be found Here [adb.org].

    And well, if you just Google it [google.com], you can become a complete expert!

    Could Asia be doing itself in here? Surely, the ABC has a significant impact on their environment that simply cannot be ignored -- unless, that it, your goal is to milk the West of money. But hey, perhaps the ABC is having a significant impact on our climate here in the West and perhaps we should be bilking them for money!

    Ain't Geopolitics grand?

  • by yoder (178161) * <progressivepenguin@gmail.com> on Monday December 25, 2006 @10:53AM (#17360018) Homepage Journal
    Since we will not get instant gratification from our selfless sacrifice to clean up our CO2 emissions, it isn't worth doing.

    That is the most dangerous "stinkin' thinkin'" going on in the US today. Great Gramma and Great Grandpa are to blame for the CO2 problem we have today, so technically it is not my problem. If I'm to blame for the CO2 problem that my great grandkids have to live with, then at least I'll be dead and won't have to listen to them complain.

    At the very least humans have muddied the environmental waters to the point that we cannot pinpoint exactly what we have caused and what is natural cyclic environmental behaviour. And because of this we have no way of knowing how much we are accelerating any natural cyclical events beyond what is natural. And yet, any mention of sacrifice or change on our part is still dealt with viciously and remorselessly.

    Unfortunately, those who believe that change and sacrifice are for those other countries will never realize that they are giving up a perfect opportunity to create multiple industries that can make the oil and coal industries look like child's play. Their panicky death grip on the status quo will never allow them to see the opportunities that the US has missed already, or what we will soon be completely missing out on. Those who have been fighting change the most viciously are the same ones who, in ten years, will be shrieking "Why are we licensing wind and solar technology from Europe? Why can't our auto manufacturers sell to Asia or Europe? Why is our economy slowly weakening while Asia and Europe are getting stronger?"

    It's a matter of economics. A majority of the rest of the world gets it, but so far we have not and that does not bode well for America's future.
    • by khallow (566160) on Monday December 25, 2006 @06:24PM (#17361894)

      Since we will not get instant gratification from our selfless sacrifice to clean up our CO2 emissions, it isn't worth doing.

      You fail to do justice by misrepresenting or misunderstanding opposing viewpoints. It's not an issue of instant gratification to wonder if the sacrifices warrant the benefit.

      That is the most dangerous "stinkin' thinkin'" going on in the US today. Great Gramma and Great Grandpa are to blame for the CO2 problem we have today, so technically it is not my problem. If I'm to blame for the CO2 problem that my great grandkids have to live with, then at least I'll be dead and won't have to listen to them complain.

      "Stinkin' thinkin'"? Sounds like one of the cheap and pointless little slogans that green propaganda generates. How about more rational concerns rather than just the most stupid of opposing arguments?

      At the very least humans have muddied the environmental waters to the point that we cannot pinpoint exactly what we have caused and what is natural cyclic environmental behaviour. And because of this we have no way of knowing how much we are accelerating any natural cyclical events beyond what is natural. And yet, any mention of sacrifice or change on our part is still dealt with viciously and remorselessly.

      The phrase is "crying wolf" and it's something that is routinely done by less responsible elements of the pro-environment side. I gather society is growing increasingly resistant to such warnings because so many have turned out to be waste of time (eg, high profile garbage disposal issues such as washable versus disposal diapers and mandatory recycling of uneconomic materials such as paper, glass, and most plastics). Also, a lot of people work in the industries that are demonized and threatened by the irresponsible. This alienation is one of several factors poisoning the water in global warming and other genuine environmental issues.

      Unfortunately, those who believe that change and sacrifice are for those other countries will never realize that they are giving up a perfect opportunity to create multiple industries that can make the oil and coal industries look like child's play. Their panicky death grip on the status quo will never allow them to see the opportunities that the US has missed already, or what we will soon be completely missing out on. Those who have been fighting change the most viciously are the same ones who, in ten years, will be shrieking "Why are we licensing wind and solar technology from Europe? Why can't our auto manufacturers sell to Asia or Europe? Why is our economy slowly weakening while Asia and Europe are getting stronger?"

      I suspect we agree that clinging to the status quo isn't good, but I think we might disagree with what the problem is. My take is that the problem is that US labor just isn't as valuable as it used to be. The education system especially in the public schools isn't working properly. Too much wealth is being wasted on grossly inefficient health insurance systems. As I see it, the US worker is too expensive and relatively speaking growing less capable. That's why the US economy is weakening. Rather than address these problems, the US is selling off its capital to the rest of the world.

      Another thing that bugs me is the assumption that investing in "green" technologies will automatically result in an increase in the standard of living. My take is that even without substantial subsidies and externalities (handled through such things as sane carbon emission markets), various fossil fuels still beat these technologies. I have no problem with eliminating these subsidies and charging for externalities so we can rationally trade in fossil fuel and alternate energy markets, but my take is that the environmental side is still exaggerating the harm fossil fuel burning causes.

      It's a matter of economics. A majority of the rest of the world gets it, but so far we have not and that does not bode well for America's future.

      At least anothe

  • Old news. Literally. (Score:4, Informative)

    by crmartin (98227) on Monday December 25, 2006 @12:05PM (#17360362)
    d000d! These islands washed away twenty two years ago [expressindia.com].

    In fact, the intruding salty water has already had its effects on the region's flora and fauna: Lohachara and Bedford islands, with an area of more than six square kilometres between them, "vanished from the map" two decades ago. (See here. [indianjungles.com])
  • by ChaoticLimbs (597275) on Monday December 25, 2006 @12:07PM (#17360370) Journal
    Because they're SAND BARS.
  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Monday December 25, 2006 @12:34PM (#17360494)
    that is the land subsiding. To the people concerned it makes no difference, but confusing plate techtonics with global warming is simply alarmist.
  • How much rise? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by solitas (916005) on Monday December 25, 2006 @11:05PM (#17363268)
    Maybe I missed it in a posting (it sure isn't in TFA), but HOW MUCH was the sea supposed to have risen to supposedly 'wipe out' this island (sandbar?)?

    I've gone through a few dozen search results from google already and cannot seem to find a map of exactly where the island is/was, no aerial before/after images, and no definite numbers regarding how much the sea rose to erode it. But, yet, everyone agrees that it was a real place and that Man is evil for letting this happen.

    The story would be a lot easier to swallow if _any_ of the "news" outlets had any substantive, verifiable information.

One possible reason that things aren't going according to plan is that there never was a plan in the first place.

Working...