Global warming has, for the first time, washed an inhabited island entirely off the face of the earth.
The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India’s part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
At least 70,000 people are at immediate risk of becoming environmental refugees as a direct result of climate change. If current predictions of sea level rise are correct, we can expect that number to be millions in years to come.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Hi Matt,
The article says that scientists recorded the submergence of the island. I´m wondering whether it can be said that global warming caused it. Many islands would naturally go under because of ongoing sand erosion, but I don´t know if this is true for this island. In any case, islands will go under in the future as more ice melts and oceans expand.
Carlos
I thought this post was going to be about santa’s diseapearing home. I wonder which news would have more of an impact on American consumers - no more north pole or no more tropical islands.
A partial quote from a story that offers no facts as to what actually happened. The tree huggers like you cry global warming without any scientific facts to back it up. It will be interesting to see the truth as to what really happened, my money is on erosion under the island, causing it to submerge, not the ocean level increasing causing the island to be submerged. Until the truth is known, the quoted article, and subsequent garbage like yours is unsubstantiated fear mongering. I would have thought that someone who claims to be educated as a scientist would act more intelligently.
Re: willyoutellthewholestory Dec 26th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
If we are to believe what we have been teaching for years, this cycle has repeated itself many times in the past and will do so again in the future.
How could man and our technology arriving on the scene cause this? We had nothing to do with it the last time right?
Is it possible we are speeding up the process? I doubt it.
A more logical assumption would be the earth is changing once again and there is nothing we can do to start or stop the process.
Can you see the day we try to put smog control devises on Volcano’s or fine the Volcano for erupting? Sounds ridiculous right? Most of these stories are……
I agree, Lets see the scientific data !
It’s called the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. It’s the largest scientific body on climate change in the world.
You want to talk about credibility? What’s yours? The sad thing is that idiots like you will probably be the most affected by climate change when it gets really bad - which is probably sooner then you think. Will Exxon fund you then?
EXXON FUNDING ? WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ? ?
I try and make a living each and every day, my family of 5 BARELY make ends meet!
Your attack on me (re: idiot) for speaking my mind without knowing me or what my status is absolutley uncalled for. The human response would be to attack back and call you names…..but I will not take myself to that level…..
Again I Say,
LETS SEE THE SCIENTIFIC DATA !
OK, scientific data: let’s start with the summary for policy makers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 3rd Assessment Report, the single largest broad-base consensus scientific study of a single issue. Ever:
“The corresponding projection for the highest emission scenario (IS92e) combined with “high” climate and icemelt sensitivities gives a sealevel rise of about 95 cm from the present to 2100. Sea level would continue to rise at a similar rate in future centuries beyond 2100, even if concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilized by that time, and would continue to do so even beyond the time of stabilization of global mean temperature.”
If you are familiar with the IPCC emissions scenarios, you will already know that the “high” scenario - where no substantive action is taken to reduce GHG emissions - is infact the track we are currently on. If you want the details of the many thousands of scientific papers that research was drawn from it’s all available there in the full reports on the IPCC website. On top of that you should probably read this, this, this and this. Oh, and this powerpoint slide (also from the IPCC) summarises sea level rise scenarios. And while we’re at it, realclimate.org (written entirely by climate scientists) has a section dedicated to oceans.
But then again, you really don’t need to read websites, just go and ask any first year undergraduate who has taken introduction to environmental science 101. Sea level rise really isn’t a difficult concept to understand - it’s mostly thermal expansion - the average temperature of the earth is increasing (it is, no debate here) and when things get warmer they expand.
Regarding whether the disappearance is due to erosion, that was part of the reason I linked to the map of the islands in the original post (which is not included in The Independent’s article). Coastal erosion almost always manifests on one side of a body of land due to prevailing currents. If you look at that map, the encroachment is around all the islands in that area, equally on opposite sides, which indicates the disappearance is due to sea level rise, not erosion.
Regarding only posting a ‘partial quote’ my intention was - quite clearly - to share the article with others, not quote out of context… hence the introduction and link to the full original article.
Regarding Exxon Funding, I believe Cameron is referring to Exxon Mobil’s proven history of funding astroturfing campaigns. They actually pay people to spend their time posting nonsensical comments that fly in the face of the established science such as “sea level isn’t rising” and “global warming is a myth”, in such a way that these comments appear to be coming from the grassroots. Of course, whether you are part of an astroturfing campaign funded by Exxon, or have just bought into the unfortunate denial hype and are genuinely misguided I have no way of knowing.
Finally regarding whether I hug trees, it’s worth remembering that argumentum ad hominem is a fundamental logical falicy.
Matthew
I don’t want to take up too much time here.
Sorry if I’m not making my self clear, I will try one more time.
I Can Assure You I AM NOT ANY PART OF AN EXXON CONSPIRACY !
They only money that changes hands between me and Exxon is what I PAY when buying overpriced gas !
I am all for protecting our natural resources ! After all my children,grandchildren,ect… will have to live here after I am gone. I’m just one person who is concerned with over regulation. It’s taking away our rights and making it way too expensive to live.
My question is:
With or without more regulation is it possible (looking back at the Earth’s history) to stop or slow this cycle down by cutting emissions ? If so, where do I find this information in terms understandable by the average person ?
Matthew, I see your response above and WILL look at those sites. Any other info you have would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for responding (without attacks) to someone who has concerns on BOTH sides of the argument.