Inhabited Island Vanishes Forever Underwater

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.'"

Comments

Satellite photos

[telso]

Telegraph India has a map of the island and some islands nearby in 1969 and in 2001, and Google Maps has a Satellite photo.

WHERE are the rest?

[WgT2]

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.

Subsidence

[jamesl]

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/
(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.

Asian Brown Cloud -- Perhaps it plays a role?

[flajann]

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.

Also some "Quick Facts" on the Asian Brown Cloud may be found Here.

And well, if you just Google it, 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?

Re:First Time?

[Frumious Wombat]

The only issue really is (with a few apologies to the Tuvaluans), are we going to do anything to help those places about to disappear beneath the waves, or are we going to shrug and tell them, "sucks to be you?" We really only care because modern air travel and modern technology make modern terrorism by disaffected and newly damp populaces a possibility in our own back yards. Ten thousand Tuvaluans will be relatively easy to relocate. 144 Million Bengalis are another issue.

So, the issue isn't really, are we ruining the holy earth and should we immediately move heaven and earth (so to speak) to restore it to some static, Platonic, ideal. The issue is, are we prepared to deal with the human fallout when 144x10^6 Bengalis decide they 're not going to quietly slip beneath the waves to avoid inconveniencing us. Foreign aid directed towards building Polders in affected areas, controlled migrations starting now while low-lying areas are converted to non-permanently inhabited farmland, and similar moves are probably warranted, unless you want to take the chance that some enterprising soul isn't going to come up with the "relocate us to Kansas or we set off a Nuke in NY Harbor" solution.

It was a lot easier for a few hundred to few thousand proto-Hamptonites 10K years ago to move inland and to higher ground when there was less competition and fewer of them. A last minute exodus from some overly-inhabited sub-tropical delta into higher-ground already occupied by a couple hundred million current inhabitants is going to be less smooth a transition.

We used to call these islands "sand bars"

[ChaoticLimbs]

Because they're SAND BARS.

big empty words

[prk166]

The alarm bells went off for me when I saw platitudes of "never" and "forever". Neither of those hold true when we talk about the earth. And this sort of thing is going to happen irregardless of mankind's contribution to global warming. No matter how much or little mankind is affecting the earth's temperature, it's clear the earth is on an up cycle and would be warming to large degree on it's own. That doesn't mean I reject the relatively youthful science about man's contributions, simply that if let's say that 75% of the warming would've happened on it's own, there are quite a few of these low lying areas that would be toast.

Re:Ongoing damage, political opposition to change

[WhiteWolf666]

I've always held that you can have as much living space as you want, just make sure to build it prudently.

Build a majority of your house underground, and you can do nearly ALL of your heating and cooling via solar + geothermal heat pump.

Build your house as a 1/2 underground monolithic dome, and you can do ALL of your heating, cooling, and electrical via solar + geothermal heat pump.

Collect your water from rain water, purify it, and than pump it out through a septic system. Feel free to pour out all the waste into the environment, as long as you use 100% biodegradable cleaners/chemicals (buy from us! www.biogenesis.com)

In short, you don't have to cut your standard of living; just build prudently, and somewhat against the grain.

I don't have the money to do this yet, but my parents will be moving into such a house in the near future, and as soon as I can afford it I will, too. Incidentally, I live in a well insulated ~800 ft^2 apartment, and my electrical/gas combined is about $50-60 a month.

Re:Mod parent flamebait

[pnewhook]

I wouldn't say that calling global warming 'highly doubtful' is inflammatory. While I have no doubt that continued destruction and pollution of our environment will have profound if not irreversable negative impact on our planet, attributing the sinking of an island to global warming is irresponsible journalism at best.

While ocean levels are rising around the world, Arctic levels are falling http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322. stm and the model predicting the globabl warming trend cannot explain why.

Another unexplained action is while consensus is that the planet is getting warmer and glaciers are melting, the Antarctic ice sheet - by far the biggest in the word is actually growing larger: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_She et.htm. Glaciers in California are also growing: http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14317368p -15234887c.html

Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."

But with the increase in global temperature, the worlds deserts would increase in size causing more environmental destruction you say? Not so - the Sahara desert, the largest desert in the world, is actually shrinking, again contrary to the global warming model. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523610.300 -africans-go-back-to-the-land-as-plants-reclaim-th e-desert.html

So given all of these environmental observations (not minor discrepancies but huge anomalies) that are contrary to the global warming prediction, I think its perfectly acceptableto have doubts as to the actual cause of sinking islands.

Warming issues in NH not all positive

[cyberwench]

Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm [usgcrp.gov] "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."

Up in British Columbia, Canada, vast amounts of pine forests are being destroyed due to the mountain pine beetle - an insect that was formerly kept in check during extended freezes in winter. The pine forests here are just devastated - it's really shocking to see places that were green a year or two ago that are now all brown and black. We just haven't had the temperatures to control it and it's not looking like we'll get them any time soon.

While there may be positives to a global warming trend, they would most likely be balanced out by negatives - new pests and diseases will be able to make inroads that they weren't able to before.