do you know the islands which submerged under ocean because of global warming?

Question

i have just heard a little about that some islands have submerged but which one , i am not aware...

İ cant deside which one to choose as a best answer. thank you for all

Answer 1

The Carteret Islands in the Pacific were the first group of islands to be submerged and the population displaced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1650407,00.html
http://web.mac.com/pipstarr/iWeb/starr.tv/Climate/1389EF06-0A02-4BC3-A039-AD98E7B4E4DF.html

Other islands affected but not yet enough to enforce full evacuation include Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Micronesia, Maldives, Antigua and Bermuda as well as island groups off the coasts of Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Bangladesh.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT. To Amancalledchuda

I would respectfully suggest that until you read my answer you had not heard of the Carteret Islands and as such you knowledge of them is limited to a single press article which you then cite, out of context, in an attempt to repudiate my answer. I on the other hand have studied the Cartartet Islands, their history and climate and based by answer on first hand science, not second hand media.

I would also question the validity of the second link you provide. The article having being written by Lord Christopher Monckton the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Not a climate scientist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, he's a publisher and designer of geometric puzzles. His report has been widely criticise, shown to be factually inaccurate. can be justifiably accused of using selective editing and is largely constructed to compliment opinion rather than scientific fact. Facts are more useful than opinion when debating climate change.

Answer 2

Many of these areas can be protected with dike systems, similar to those in Holland to hold back the sea.

Global Warming is inevitable. We cannot cutback enough fossil fuel use world wide to stop Global Warming.

Instead we should be focusing on the things that we can do to help poor countries deal with the impacts of Global Warming.

We need to be helping with dike systems where those are appropriate, relocating populations where that is appropriate, drought relief where that is appropriate and disaster relief for hurricanes where that is appropriate.

Answer 3

A couple of problems with chuda's claims:

1) coral reefs are dying due to increased ocean temperatures, so they can't protect these islands from rising sea levels.

2) average sea level rise since the last ice age doesn't tell you a whole lot. How do you know most of that sea level rise wasn't immediately after the ice age ended?

3) I can't speak to the study he cited, but the people on islands like Fiji and Tuvalu are witnessing the effects of climate change:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11111096
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10950375

Answer 4

OK, first of all, lets talk about sea level rise, shall we?

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, approximately 12,000 years ago. In that time they have risen by 120m – an average of 1m per century. Humankind was not the cause. The observed sea level rise in the last century was about 0.17m well below the 1m average of the last 12,000 years. The IPCC’s latest predictions for sea level rise in the next century have a range of 0.18m – 0.59m with an average of 0.39. This is more than double the observed 20th century rise, but is still well below the 12,000 year average (and also below the IPCCs 2001 estimate of 0.09m – 0.88m average: 0.49m)

Even the IPCCs top-end estimate is therefore less than 2 feet in a century – and remember that’s the *high* end of the range, on their *worst* case scenario so it’s unlikely to be that bad.

Trevor mentions the Carteret Islands, obviously implying that they have disappeared due to global warming, but the truth is rather different, as this December '06 article points out… http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article759319.ece

“…there is no doubt that the islanders have unwittingly made their own contribution to the problem. Unlike many tropical reefs, the Carteret atoll seems little damaged by bomb fishing — but the mangroves that once formed a natural sea wall around the islands were stripped away for firewood a generation ago. Islanders speak of smoke and even fire that rises from the centre of the lagoon every few years — if these emerge from a submarine volcano, that may have contributed to the subsidence.”

So, hardly an open-and-shut global warming case then?

Trevor then mentions a couple of the “usual suspects” when it comes to scare stories of islands sinking beneath the waves. There has been much concern about whether small, low-lying islands such as the Maldives or Tuvalu will be swamped, but, for geological reasons, nearly all islands that are low-lying are of coral. Corals are more than capable of growing fast enough to match what the UN says is the current rate at which sea levels are rising, and, in the past, have coped with a rate ten times greater.

Khandekar et al (2005) studied many of them with the following results…

Johnston Island: no sea level rise for 50 years
Tuvalu: no sea level rise for 48 years
Tarawa, Kiribati: no sea level rise for 24 years
Kanton Island: no sea level rise for 28 years
Nauru: no sea level rise for 26 years
Honiara, Solomons: no sea level rise for 26 years
Saipan: no sea level rise for 22 years

Many other records exhibit a stable period followed by a sudden jump, probably caused by hotel or airport construction or by a hurricane, and show no mean temperature increase over the period.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

::::EDIT::::

In response to Trevor,

I hold my hands up; you are quite correct about my knowledge of the Carteret Islands, but I’m at a loss to understand why you think the article is out of context? Are you saying that the mangroves never existed, that they haven’t cut them down, or that they didn’t form a sea wall? Global Warming Alarmist will blame everything possible on climate change, but is it often the case that it’s not caused by warming at all. I suggest that this is another such example.

And as for Christopher Monckton; have you actually read the articles that he wrote, and all his references? If not, then you should. Monckton was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher in the 80s and made recommendations on scientific issues. His basic principle was; look at the actual data and then ask whether the claims being made are a fair reflection of that data. If the claims tended to quote the extremes of the data, then we were “being had”. In other words, he made sure that the claims were not biased. You don’t need to be a scientist to do this; you just need the ability to read, a reasonable level of intelligence, and have good judgement.

He concludes that the claims made by the IPCC and others are *not* a fair reflection of the science. And this seems reasonable to me. I am alarmed when I read about how the IPCC, and others, are being underhand in how they present their data. (See for example - http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070518/20070518_04.html ) It is just this sort of behaviour that has made me doubt the theory (I was a believer a year or two ago).

You claim that “His report has been widely criticise, shown to be factually inaccurate”. Yes, there were inevitably criticisms from the Global Warming Alarmists, as one would expect. But he replied to them all, see for example - http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1947976,00.html and http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

He received about 200 e-mails in response to his article. About a third were from scientists, including well-known climatologists and a physicist who confirmed his calculations. Some advise governments.

You conclude with: “Facts are more useful than opinion when debating climate change”. I agree, but perhaps you should be directing that comment towards Global Warming Alarmists such as James Hansen - http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070611/20070611_04.pdf

In response to dana1981

1) Evidence suggests that Coral Bleaching may not be caused by warmer sea temperatures – see http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V7/N3/C3.jsp

2) Most of the sea level rise could have been immediately after the ice age ended, but that would mean that the temperature must have risen very rapidly. But GWAs claim that the real problem with the current warming is how *fast* it’s happening. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

3) Apart from one comment about how a guy came home and noticed he had “lost quite a bit of land” there was little in the articles you linked that suggested a problem from sea level rise. I’ll stick with the science, thanks.

Answer 5

They are the same islands that emerged from the waters during global cooling. Funny how those things happen all on their own!