Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disputed Island Disappears Into Sea

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the say-hi-to-atlantis dept.

Earth 460

RawJoe writes "India and Bangladesh have argued for almost 30 years over control of a tiny island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have ended the argument for them: the island's gone. From the article: 'New Moore Island, in the Sunderbans, has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols, he said. "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.'"

cancel ×

460 comments

Reminds me of kids. (5, Funny)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31625952)

If you can't play nice with your toys and share, mom will take them off you.

Re:Reminds me of kids. (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626024)

If you can't play nice with your toys and share, mom will take them off you.

"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain.

Addendum: They're deleting it now too.

Re:Reminds me of kids. (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626162)

But it's not like its completely gone now. According to the article the sea level is raising 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) an year, so the water is only just a little bit over the land. Lay over some sand, wood, whatever and you have land again - or build those wooden houses on piers. Venice is also build on top of water in the middle of a lagoon.

Re:Reminds me of kids. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626708)

You appear to have forgotten about soil erosion, which is a big problem with unconsolidated soils which are recently submerged.

And regardin edification, you can't just build stuff on disputed land. Israel does that but it only does that because the people they are oppressing can barely muster any rocks to throw at them. You don't do that to a nation which has a semblance of an army.

Re:Reminds me of kids. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626400)

Duck Dodgers in the 24th 1/2 Century [youtube.com] seems even more apropos. Only difference is that it's an island instead of Planet X.

Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks! (5, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31625966)

I say this year we nominate Global Warming for the Nobel Peace Prize for providing a peaceful solution to this heated dispute between Bangladesh and India.

Global warming? Or.... (1, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626064)

Global warming? Or mere subsidence?

(Or both?)

Re:Global warming? Or.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626630)

I vote for subsidence, been happening for centuries. Look at the mississippi river delta, oh, wait that was Katerina, wasn't it?

Re:Global warming? Or.... (4, Informative)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626730)

***Global warming? Or mere subsidence?***

Subsidence or wave erosion of course. Sea Level rise continues at about 29 cm (a foot for us Americans) a century. Rates computed from sea level gauge and satellite data are similar. I'm guessing that it would take about 500-1000 years to get anything that was called an island rather than a reef to go away at current rates of sea level rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks! (3, Insightful)

viridari (1138635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626070)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one actually has to do something to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks! (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626448)

Aww, come on, I'm sure Global Warming has the BEST of plans for us!

Re:Just one more reason why Global Warming rocks! (1)

arachnoprobe (945081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626586)

Just give it to Al Gore :-)

Fascinating (4, Funny)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31625974)

New Moore Island, eh?

So the new name is now No More Island, right?

Re:Fascinating (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626320)

Since its no longer an island, but more likely to become a Coral Reef just off the surface, they'll probably call it Nothing Atoll.

Re:Fascinating (3, Funny)

mindcorrosive (1524455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626352)

More like Nuthin' Atol (hat tip to Guybrush Threepwood)

Re:Fascinating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626432)

New Moore Island, eh?

So the new name is now No More Island, right?

Why do you hate island people?
That was great!

Hey, wait a minute (4, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31625980)

I thought global warming was a myth? Darth Cheney said so.

Re:Hey, wait a minute (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626128)

I thought global warming was a myth? Darth Cheney said so.

That was when it was cold outside. Now it's warm outside, so global warming must be real. It will go back to being a myth in a few months.

Re:Hey, wait a minute (0, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626388)

Is there ANY event that would disprove global warming? I shoveled almost 9 feet of snow this winter, setting a new seasonal record, but apparently that is proof of GW. "More moisture in the air means more snow." --- Meanwhile the previous winter we had virtually no snow along the Mid-Atlantic coast, and Al Gore said that too is proof of GW.

I admit it. I'm confused. Lots of snow == GW. No snow == GW. What the fej?

Re:Hey, wait a minute (2, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626572)

Weather |= Climate

Re:Hey, wait a minute (4, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626652)

Well to be fair, both sides of the debate have been using that fallacy, depending on how the weather has been in your local geographical area. It's THE major problem I've had with the climate change debate. The only public person I've heard who's actually tried to call people on it was Krugman over at the New York Times, who pointed out that by selecting your sample years carefully from the last 10-20 years, you can "prove" anything you want about the climate. He was arguing at the time against the anti-AGW crowd (as you might expect).

As for me, I'm inclined to think we do have some cause for concern, based on what little actual evidence I've seen from both sides of the debate. I'm by no means convinced that we have enough evidence to support one side or another. I also think we have some other very good reasons to reduce carbon emissions, including a need to reduce particulate emissions of all kinds (air pollution), reduce dependence on petroleum products (whose supplies are probably running out), reduce the "need" to colonize the Middle East (eliminate the causes of terrorism), etc.

Re:Hey, wait a minute (4, Interesting)

bdenton42 (1313735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626748)

I think they're sure that the Earth has been warming up. What they are not so sure about is if humans have any meaningful impact on the warming or if it is just mostly the natural heat/cool cycle at work.

Given that where I live was under a glacier 11,000 years ago IMO a little extra help warming wouldn't hurt... a new ice age would be far more destructive to humans than a higher sea level due to warming.

That's why... (1)

spammeister (586331) | more than 4 years ago | (#31625986)

We can't have pretty/shiny things.

HEY now. (5, Insightful)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31625998)

It's not Global Warming it's Global Climate change. That way, when it comes resurfaces, we can blame it again!

Re:HEY now. (1)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626036)

That way when it resurfaces, we can blame it again.
Going Afk; using typing tutor again.

Re:HEY now. (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626514)

If you are going AFK to use Typing Tutor, we may have discovered your problem....

Re:HEY now. (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626408)

It's not about "blame". It's about predicting what will happen if we engage in a particular activity. The warming due to humans burning fossil fuels was predicted over 100 years ago [wikipedia.org] , and we're now observing that predicted warming. We now have confirmation that burning fossil fuels causes warming, so we know we can lessen the warming by burning fewer fossil fuels.

If you know that germs cause disease, you can improve sanitation and lessen disease. It has nothing to do with "blaming" germs!

Re:HEY now. (0, Troll)

Mekkah (1651935) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626540)

I don't believe in germs either. Do you believe in Ghosts too? Patrick Swayze is still alive, FYI.

Re:HEY now. (5, Informative)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626628)

Everyone was having fun until the climate change evangelist showed up.
I mean has anyone even looked into exactly why water covers more of the island now? Have the coast lines reflected the same gain? Is the island sinking under it's own weight?
I know I'm killing everyone's climate change buzz by asking some basic questions, but it's not my fault the climate change evangelist made me do it.

Re:HEY now. (2, Insightful)

Botia (855350) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626634)

Funny thing. The waters seem to rise and fall two times each day. I always thought the big circles in the sky had something to do with it.

"Always attribute to global warming... (0, Flamebait)

Greg_D (138979) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626004)

... what can easily be dismissed as an otherwise natural process, like plate tectonics. That's how you get PAID, my Ivy League brothas!" -- Al Gore

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626062)

"Hurry! Buy into my company's carbon credits scheme so you can keep polluting!" -Al Gore

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626114)

So THAT is why I see all these geese who have never belonged here forming a real plague now. It's because the drop-dead obvious does not exist...

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626190)

Totally. It's like Wikipedia. If a lot of believe something, then it's a fact.

Know What Else Is Blatantly Obvious? (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626322)

Ice cream causes skin cancer. I know this because in places where they eat more ice cream they have higher rates of skin cancer.

It's blatantly obvious, and I KNOW I can count on you to back me up on that. Power to the insightful, brother!

"Never let scientific evidence..." (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626160)

"...stand in the way of a good ad hominem. HAHA! Al Gore's fat!"
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.

Re:"Never let scientific evidence..." (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626248)

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter.

Real Republicans [cnn.com] do it the other way around.

Re:"Never let scientific evidence..." (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626764)

go listen to Rush while I jerk off to a picture of Ann Coulter

I'll not have you impugning a fine Canadian rock band [rush.com] that way.

Re:"Never let scientific evidence..." (5, Funny)

dbet (1607261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626442)

"...stand in the way of a good ad hominem. HAHA! Al Gore's fat!"

Hey! That's not an ad hominem attack! Observe:

insult - Al Gore is fat.
ad hominem - Al Gore is wrong because he's fat.

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (5, Informative)

rrkbogie (161946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626334)

There's lots of information available on the subsidence, via plate tectonics, of the Bay of Bengal, for exameple:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-4B4PWYT-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F02%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1269324457&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=098986c85bd272474f1579b29771b39c [sciencedirect.com]

The islands are made of silt deposited by the river, and rise and fall depending or whether or not the river floods are depositing mud and building up islands faster than wave erosion and subsidence of the underlying plate are taking them down. The process is weather dependent, but weather is not the only significant force at work. The islands have come and gone before and will do so again.

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626378)

Exactly! Global Warming...the left's choice of religion designed to enslave mankind. Nevermind that the Earth has changed from the moment it was formed, that islands have come and gone throughout history. It's all because of GLOBAL WARMING! Now bow down to your Global Warming Pope (Al Gore).

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626416)

Attribute to plate tectonics? You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around? The process that's so slow that it couldn't make effects like this at the rate we're seeing? ... nah, you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics. Sadly, I've never heard of another meaning. Please enlighten us?

Re:"Always attribute to global warming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626686)

Attribute to plate tectonics? You mean the incredibly slow process whereby the continental plates move around? The process that's so slow that it couldn't make effects like this at the rate we're seeing? ... nah, you clearly mean some thing else that goes by the name plate tectonics. Sadly, I've never heard of another meaning. Please enlighten us?

Yea, plate tectonics is poop. It's too slow to cause anything. Volcanoes and Earthquakes, those all take way over 30 years to happen. The idea that these slow moving plates could push against each other and cause a localized area to buckle up or down a few feet is hooey. It's just that all that extra water from global warming acting in a localized area.

Children's Lesson (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626008)

I learned that from my parents - "If the two of you can't share, neither of you gets the toy." As a side note, I doubt I was particularly happy at that, as I was an only child, and toys generally truly were mine.

Re:Children's Lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626230)

My mom would always cut in half whatever we were arguing over (just like King Solomon). Worked great for sandwiches, not so great for the dog :(

Sound familiar to Pratchett fans? (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626028)

I'm pretty sure this was the plot of a book [wikipedia.org] ...

Re:Sound familiar to Pratchett fans? (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626102)

Just a wee bit :) Tagging article Jingo

Sounds familiar... (1)

dewie (685736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626038)

I'm fairly sure this was the plot of a Terry Pratchett book.

What a great reminder... (1)

tom_75 (1013457) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626042)

... of the futility of it all. Good job, Nature !

Haven't heard of Solomon's judgment? (2)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626048)

*sigh* Dude, the correct answer is, "No, no! Let him have it! Please! Just don't destroy it! I love it too much!" Shame on India and Bengaladesh!

Everyone knows that [wikipedia.org] by now!

Wait - what? (4, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626052)

From TFA: Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually

So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years? Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context [wikipedia.org] . Increases in sea level are not new phenomena. No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.

Re:Wait - what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626250)

Beware of conservatives such as him when discussing global warming, because they argue with facts!

Re:Wait - what? (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626268)

First, 20,000 years ago the climate changed for other reasons [wikipedia.org] . No one has ever said that the only way the climate can warm is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Deniers like to act as if AGW proponents have said that, however. 'Tis just a strawman.

Second, 20,000 years ago we didn't have over 100 million people living in cities near the ocean. Over the next century, these millions of people will be displaced, or the land they're on will be protected, at a cost of trillions of dollars [pbs.org] . If we can avoid it by spending much less money, say, only one trillion dollars, it makes economic sense to do so.

Spending a trillion dollars sounds almost scary, except when you put in into context of saving several trillion dollars.

Re:Wait - what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626436)

I live 800 miles from an ocean, why should I pay so some dbag can save their ocean front view?

mod parent troll? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626286)

I'd say you're trolling sir. Unless you have really been living under a rock and don't realize that there are about a million other reasons to worry about climate change.

Re:Wait - what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626482)

Increases in sea level are not new phenomena.

Neither are world wars or mass extinctions, but I think we should work to avoid those.

Re:Wait - what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626546)

So er we're talking a foot of water every 60 years? Sounds almost scary, except when you put it into context. Increases in sea level are not new phenomena. No doubt they were produced by all that fossil fuel consumption 20,000 years ago.

Great, sounds like more Denier talking points. For the FACTS on the matter, start here [realclimate.org] please.

Yes, those sea level changes 20,000 years ago were caused by humans. It's not like coal burning was some recent thing started in England's industrial revolution. No, they used coal as a fuel then because it had LONG been used as a fuel. With good reason -- it's very energy dense, gives you some good heat. (As long as you don't mind the smell or the environmental damage, of course.)

Before the modern days of coal mining, coal was REALLY cheap to get to -- almost lying for the taking anywhere there's anything of geological significance. And the folks back then were just burning it for whatever. And so yes, even back then, all that extra CO2 was gathering in the atmosphere, increasing the absorption spectrum where the sun is most intense, warming the planet. It's just that right now, CO2 is being emitted at a MUCH higher rate, leading to literally unprecedented warming rates. (Heard of the hockey stick? Yeah ... that's how much faster it's increasing.)

And THAT, my friends, is the reason to worry. Could we adapt to the slow warming on NATURAL scales, or with caveman level emissions? Absolutely. Can we do it now in the gotta-have-an-SUV days? Absolutely NOT.

Go back to your Denier cave plz.

Re:Wait - what? (2, Insightful)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626606)

So you are saying that if we have a cataclysm similar to glaciers melting 20,000 years ago, it's okay because it happened before?
Extinction of humanity sounds scary, except when you put it in context [wikipedia.org] , species extinction is not a new phenomenon

!atlantis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626076)

Should be tagged !atlantis imho.

Local Sea Level Rise??? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626080)

Sea levels can't just rise in one place. They haven't risen enough to submerge islands. Period. Subsidence is to blame here.

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626148)

Have you seen the moon recently? No? That's because it parked over the Bay of Bengal whislt it went into India for a quick curry, and someone clamped it for not obeying the laws of motion. The clamping company won't release the moon until the fine is paid, but the moon has no money to pay for its own release. So high tide is permanently over the Bay of Bengal now.

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (1)

Sleepy (4551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626288)

Glenn Beck makes a visit to Slashdot?

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626384)

Just think of the moths!

No moon. No sex.

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (2, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626404)

And Rachel Maddow posts here as "Sleepy."

Now, did you have a point to make, or is just being ridiculous enough for you today?

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626692)

Being ridiculous should be enough for anyone. -Billy Gate

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626688)

If he did make this claim it's more in line with logic then the global warming excuse.

Re:Local Sea Level Rise??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626526)

Sea level rise is not consistent across the whole of the ocean. Mainly because it's caused by thermal expansion of water, where it is warming up, and the warming, of course, is not consistent over the whole of the planet.
Bangladesh is in an area where sea levels are rising faster than average

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-3.html

Note: I'm not saying outright that the island was a victim of sea level rise caused by global warming - I don't know enough about the local geology to say that. I'm just pointing out that sea level does rise more quickly in some areas

Super! (2, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626118)

See, we just need to understand that global climate change isn't good or bad. It's both. It solves problems and creates them. We just have to accept that it will happen, and continue to do whatever we're doing. No need to change anything, just ride out the changes. We can live without coral and fish. It'll be fine. Because now we have less land to fight over. Which will result in less conflict because we'll be able to peacefully come to agreements about how to divide the less amount of remaining land that we now have. See? It all balances out.

Re:Super! (1)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626618)

We can live without coral and fish.

But if we have no fish, what will the dolphins thank us for?

It'll be fine. Because now we have less land to fight over.

Oh, yeah. Because more people with less land means more peace. Why don't we produce less food too?

Rising sea level? (5, Informative)

johndiii (229824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626152)

According to the article, sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year. This would imply a rise of about two inches since 2000. Over the previous twenty years (back to the origin of the dispute over the island), the rise would have been about 2.4 inches, using the figures in the article. So the island, at its highest point would have been less than five inches above sea level.

According to the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] , the "highest elevation of the island had never exceeded two meters above sea level." Which would indicate that it was at least one meter above sea level at some point, meaning that the cited increases in sea level could not have accounted for the disappearance of the island. For the quoted rise in sea level over time, it would take about 330 years for the sea to rise one meter.

Yet "oceanographer Sugata Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta" said "What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming." One would think that a university professor would have a slightly better grasp of the numbers than that. It helps nothing to make clearly false claims about the effects of climate change.

Re:Rising sea level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626364)

It does help one thing: it helps that professor get grant money.

Re:Rising sea level? (4, Insightful)

Scootin159 (557129) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626392)

And if it was only 2.4 inches "high", one would think that most of the day the island would be underwater anyways. I'm not an expert on tides, but I'm pretty sure they're more than 3 inches in most places.

Re:Rising sea level? (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626418)

umm.. erosion? when the levels rise up they a likely to erode the land, and what may have been a meter high 'hill' could easily have washed away

Re:Rising sea level? (1)

inthealpine (1337881) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626690)

+1 dumbass comment.

Re:Rising sea level? (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626426)

What other type of claim is there about the effects of climate change?

Re:Rising sea level? (1)

KWolfe81 (1593877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626508)

You aren't taking into effect erosion. As the rising sea passed a threshold erosion likely exacerbated. Think of water behind a dyke. As soon as a little water trickles over the edge, a small channel will grow quickly. In this case, if it weren't for climate change and the rising sea, the island might have been fine.

Re:Rising sea level? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626762)

That is actually an argument against it being global warming.

Re:Rising sea level? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626738)

What they didn't mention was that the "point" in question was on top of a politician's head.

Re:Rising sea level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626768)

have you heard of erosion?

Re:Rising sea level? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626798)

According to the article, sea level has been rising by 0.2 inches per year.

This is an obvious fallacy because all elevations are measured from sea level. Hence, by definition, sea level cannot change. What's happening is that global warming is causing all of the land to sink. Explain that one, Al Gore!

Born by global cooling. (4, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626234)

For people thinking this was a huge old island that is not so. The island came into being during the 1970 after a cyclone.
Since the talk that it is gone came from a single photo will be interesting to know if the picture was taken during high or low tide.

Re:Born by global cooling. (2, Informative)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626570)

Since the talk that it is gone came from a single photo will be interesting to know if the picture was taken during high or low tide.

From the summary at the top of this very page:

Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite imagery and sea patrols

I think the answer is clear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626256)

Ben turned the wheel, and now the island has relocated.

Next comes.... (2, Funny)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626304)

...the Netherlands. Oh, and Venice. We'll all end up as game addicts in a suburb of Sprawlopolis.

If it is barely under water- call it Fiji. (5, Funny)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626324)

If the water is still less than say 3 feet deep, crossbreed some sheep with dolphins and start farming leaping mutton!

Re:If it is barely under water- call it Fiji. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626434)

+1 for Red Dwarf reference

Re:If it is barely under water- call it Fiji. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626498)

Yum

Except it wasn't sea levels rising... (2, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626350)

I know OMFG global warming is hip and all, but this almost certainly wasn't a case of rising sea levels. Sea levels are rising REALLY slowly. That isn't to say that a big hunk of the antarctic couldn't melt and slide off into the ocean and give me some beach front property, just that it hasn't happened yet. The island almost certainly simply sunk into the ground. The earth sucks stuff down and pushes other stuff up all the time. It happens.

Re:Except it wasn't sea levels rising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626710)

>> That isn't to say that a big hunk of the antarctic couldn't melt and slide off into the ocean and give me some beach front property, just that it hasn't happened yet.

How would that increase sea level? Fill a glass with water and ice to the top of the rim .... when the ice melts does the water overflow the glass?

Leshp (1)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626356)

If no one has done so yet, this story needs to be tagged "Leshp"

Fine then... (1)

Sandhog (1776492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626380)

If I can't have it, then nobody can have it!

is that photo real ? YAHOO punted (2, Informative)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626430)

a few days ago this was a top story on yahoo home page, with another picture, if you right clicked on the photo on th yahoo site, the info strongly suggested the photo was stock of someplace else, aka a lie

Sandbar, not island (5, Informative)

Orgasmatron (8103) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626456)

This is a sandbar in an estuary. It first accumulated enough silt to poke above the surface back in 1974, and was never more than 2 meters high. In addition, the nearest tide gauge is showing +0.54 (+/- 0.52, heh) mm per year rise in sea level, meaning that it would have taken nearly 4000 years for the local change in sea level to have caused it to disappear.

If you insist on bringing up global warming, you have to blame the sandbar's emergence on global cooling during the 70s and notice that we are now back where we started. A much wiser choice would be to simply notice that rivers flush crap down stream, and ignore this "island" the way we ignore all the other sandbars and ephemera.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/bengal-island-succumbs-to-global-warming-nonsense-ap-gets-nutty-over-loss-of-a-sandbar/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Talpatti_Island [wikipedia.org]

Move along, nothing to see here.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon (1)

Hohlraum (135212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626580)

Mom's comin' round, to put it back the way it ought to be. Learn to swim.

chyeah dood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626602)

If this was caused by global warming than the tooth fairy is my mother. islands have been submerged before global warming "happened"

I love how Global Warming has to be everywhere (5, Insightful)

ugen (93902) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626664)

This is clearly *not* global warming or "rising seas" but old boring "erosion" (I know, not fun).
Consider this - less than 30 years ago India could sent paratroopers to this island's "rocky shores" (sic).
Seas were rising 2mm per year until 2000 and 5mm per year thereafter, so we are talking about a rise of 2*20 + 5 * 10 = 90 mm , less than 10cm, or for those US-residents - about 3.5 inches.

I am sorry, but something smells fishy here - a place can't be 3.5 inches above water surface and have "rocky shores" which paratroopers can walk on. Consider that a tidal range in those parts is at least a few feet, so those 3.5 inches would have to completely disappear under water once or twice a day. That would make this land a "shoal" by any maritime definition.

If this island no longer exists it is because it has been washed away, as these things often occur, especially in river deltas - perhaps after a cyclone or hurricane. Nothing to see here, move along.

Jingo? (1)

Tinyn (1100891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626672)

Is this a Terry Pratchett novel? Jingo?

The island is gone?1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626712)

I'm going to skip all the obligatory "Lost" [wikipedia.org] jokes.

You pussy kids today (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31626766)

You kids today think you have it so tough because all you can come up with in your "WE ALL GONNA DIE!" scenario is that you might have to abandon a few coastal cities and loose a few fucking islands?!?!? Let me tell you something, ladies--back in my day, we had REAL fears, like nuclear winter. We had roving packs of post-nuclear-holocaust marauders ready to cut our heads off just to steal a lousy tank of gasoline and some shotgun shells in OUR fucking doomsday scenarios! Has a little rising seawater ever caused your hair and teeth to fall out? Huh? Has a little coastal flooding ever caused packs of cannibals to roam the lands looking to rape your wife and have you for dinner? I don't think so! Ever had a supercomputer start an apocalyptic war with some slowly melting ice caps? Not likely!

Grow up and get some real irrational fears, you pansies.

It wasn't a real island (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31626796)

It only appeared in a river delta known for silting after a exceptionally big cyclone in 1970.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...