News Unbelievable!

[rynnor]

BBC News - Disputed Bay of Bengal island 'vanishes' say scientists

<sigh> This was internationally reported but its total crap.

The 'Island' was a large sandbar up to 2m high - in the time since it was discovered in 1974 the sea level in the area has risen by less than 2cm.

Sandbars are inherently temporary - all it takes is a big storm, a change of currents or tide and they are gone as seems the case hear.

To link this to global warming seems total desperation - pathetic!

 

[Raven]

Don't worry it will all stop if we pay enough tax towards it! Or when they find something more lucrative than carbon trading.

 

[ECA]

When Tuvalu disappears will you make shit up as well to support your personal uninformed opinion also?

 

[Jeros]

BBC News - Disputed Bay of Bengal island 'vanishes' say scientists

<sigh> This was internationally reported but its total crap.

The 'Island' was a large sandbar up to 2m high - in the time since it was discovered in 1974 the sea level in the area has risen by less than 2cm.

Sandbars are inherently temporary - all it takes is a big storm, a change of currents or tide and they are gone as seems the case hear.

To link this to global warming seems total desperation - pathetic!

"A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas, scientists in India say."

Lol

Tiny changes in sea level cause big effects, wave action, currents, sea temp ALL play a role in how things like sandbars will react as you pointed out.

Also just to point out, an "Island" in terms of Geoscience/Biology is an area/enviroment surrounded by another different area/enviroment as i recall.

A area of forest surrounded by tundras can be defined as an Island.

Hell we can refer to a TREE as an island.

Just FYI

 

[rynnor]

When Tuvalu disappears will you make shit up as well to support your personal uninformed opinion also?

Ad hominem attacks and making things up are the stamp of the believers - I'll leave it to you to make stuff up.

 

[rynnor]

Also just to point out, an "Island" in terms of Geoscience/Biology is an area/enviroment surrounded by another different area/enviroment as i recall.

Then it was never an island because it was a mudbar amongst a muddy delta - it would need to be something different like rock by that definition.

 

[Jeros]

Then it was never an island because it was a mudbar amongst a muddy delta - it would need to be something different like rock by that definition.

Yes but it was above water and surrounded by water, thus it is different

 

[rynnor]

Yes but it was above water and surrounded by water, thus it is different

Temporarily above water - isnt it a tad suspicious that it wasnt discovered till 1974 - its a highly populated area but no-one had noticed it before?

Seems more likely it was formed by a storm or high tide and has now dispersed?

Can we declare every mud flat that peaks above sea level to be an island now then

 

[Jeros]

Can we declare every mud flat that peaks above sea level to be an island now then

Yes, yes you can if you want! I know it seems do-lally but there it is :/

 

[ECA]

Ad hominem attacks and making things up are the stamp of the believers - I'll leave it to you to make stuff up.

When you have a degree in climate science I'll give some credence to your opinion on global warming/climate change.

We're all basically uninformed plebs on the matter regardless of our ego.

 

[Raven]

Its quite right, it was an island by the truest definition. But only a temporary island and nothing really to worry about, unless you are a scaremongering BBC reporter ofc, they are getting as bad as the Daily Fail these days.

 

[rynnor]

Its quite right, it was an island by the truest definition. But only a temporary island and nothing really to worry about, unless you are a scaremongering BBC reporter ofc, they are getting as bad as the Daily Fail these days.

Actually they were at the mild end of the reports - others ran headlines like these:

Rising seas claim island at centre of 30-year dispute - Asia, World - The Independent

(interesting sidenote - the Independant was sold for £1 today - quality reporting )

 

[rynnor]

When you have a degree in climate science I'll give some credence to your opinion on global warming/climate change.

We're all basically uninformed plebs on the matter regardless of our ego.

Again pure Ad hominem attack - how would a PHD in 'climate science' help you in this case where its nothing to do with climate

 

[Tom]

When you have a degree in climate science I'll give some credence to your opinion on global warming/climate change.

We're all basically uninformed plebs on the matter regardless of our ego.

Its a false argument to declare that just because one does not hold a degree, or some kind of expertise on the subject under comment, that one cannot hold a valid opinion.

For instance, I don't hold a degree in stupidity but that doesn't stop me from recognising your argument for what it is.

 

[kirennia]

When you have a degree in climate science I'll give some credence to your opinion on global warming/climate change.

We're all basically uninformed plebs on the matter regardless of our ego.

I never get these kind of comments as they could be applied to everything, even though uninformed opinions still hold weight. Think of every single post you make on this forum, every single comment made irl outside of your area of expertise and this very thing can be said against you. Should nobody bother to say anything...ever?

The point is, a lot of shit is spouted about political matters whereby even an 'uninformed pleb' should be more then capable of being able to highlight potential pitfalls with an argument, especially when the party releasing the information has potential gains from more people believing them. It doesn't take a degree in climate science to realise that a very shallow small piece of land in the ocean can easily be displaced by non-global warming measures, even though it is being reported that global warming is the absolutist reasoning behind this event.

 

[Cadelin]

BBC News - Disputed Bay of Bengal island 'vanishes' say scientists

<sigh> This was internationally reported but its total crap.

The 'Island' was a large sandbar up to 2m high - in the time since it was discovered in 1974 the sea level in the area has risen by less than 2cm.

Sandbars are inherently temporary - all it takes is a big storm, a change of currents or tide and they are gone as seems the case hear.

To link this to global warming seems total desperation - pathetic!

Which bit is total crap?

Are you saying that the island hasn't really disappeared? That the satellite images have been faked?

Or are you saying that sea level haven't risen? Although in your post you actually say they have been rising although you don't give a reference.

Or are you saying that its unlikely that any other islands will disappear? Although once again in your post you say these islands are temporary so you seem to be agreeing that they will disappear.

So the only thing left in the article is:

What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming

Now the BBC are just reporting this. You may not like what they say but they have backed up their statement with a referenced to who has said it and this person seems to be an expert in the field. Do you have any evidence that this professor is wrong?

 

[Tom]

Considering it was formed 40-odd years ago by one of the worst cyclones in recorded history and was uninhabitable, it seems churlish to now suggest that global warming is responsible for its removal, rather than random variations in the weather.

The river I cycle along every day has huge sections of the bank that have collapsed. This isn't due to global warming, its because the ground was unstable.

 

[rynnor]

Which bit is total crap?

Hyping movements of mud in a muddy delta as 'the disappearance of an island due to global warming'.

Or are you saying that sea level haven't risen? Although in your post you actually say they have been rising although you don't give a reference.

Sea level has been rising for thousands of years since the last Ice Age, compounded by this some areas are sinking and some are rebounding so its not a uniform increase.

Are you saying it has risen over 2 metres since 1974 which is whats required for this 'Island' to have disappeared due to a global warming driven sea level rise

The whole piece is risible.

 

[Cadelin]

Hyping movements of mud in a muddy delta as 'the disappearance of an island due to global warming'.

The BBC article was hardly hyping it. A quote in the middle of the article is the only reference to it at all.

Sea level has been rising for thousands of years since the last Ice Age, compounded by this some areas are sinking and some are rebounding so its not a uniform increase.

Are you saying it has risen over 2 metres since 1974 which is whats required for this 'Island' to have disappeared due to a global warming driven sea level rise

The whole piece is risible.

I have not made any claims. You once again seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that the "muddy delta" can change for a number of reasons and then you say for this change to be due to global warming the rise in sea levels needs to be 2 meters. If global warming has contributed to any of the methods by which the island could disappear then you can correctly attribute the disappearance down to it.

 

[rynnor]

I have not made any claims. You once again seem to be contradicting yourself. You say that the "muddy delta" can change for a number of reasons and then you say for this change to be due to global warming the rise in sea levels needs to be 2 meters. If global warming has contributed to any of the methods by which the island could disappear then you can correctly attribute the disappearance down to it.

From the beeb article headline paragraph:

"A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas"

Note the beneath the rising seas bit - for this to be true the sea level would have had to have risen over 2 metres since 74. I'm not seeing a contradiction here - please elucidate?

 

[Cadelin]

From the beeb article headline paragraph:

"A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas"

Note the beneath the rising seas bit - for this to be true the sea level would have had to have risen over 2 metres since 74. I'm not seeing a contradiction here - please elucidate?

Not true at all. All that needs to be true for that statement to be correct is for the sea level to be rising (which you already admitted they are) and for the island to have disappeared (which is very easy to prove).

 

[rynnor]

Not true at all. All that needs to be true for that statement to be correct is for the sea level to be rising (which you already admitted they are) and for the island to have disappeared (which is very easy to prove).

Semantics - if you tell people something to have 'disappeared beneath the rising seas' they expect the thing to actually be there under the sea - this mud has been dispersed so is palpably not just sunk beneath the sea.

 

[ECA]

Its a false argument to declare that just because one does not hold a degree, or some kind of expertise on the subject under comment, that one cannot hold a valid opinion.

For instance, I don't hold a degree in stupidity but that doesn't stop me from recognising your argument for what it is.

I can have any kind of opinion I want about astrophysics, so can you.
We'd both be talking utter bollocks however.

How is climate science any different?

 

[Tom]

Why would either of us be talking bollocks, if we knew enough about the subject to comment?

In fact I have a pretty good general knowledge of space, so I don't think I'd be talking any bollocks whatsoever.

 

[00dave]

I can have any kind of opinion I want about astrophysics, so can you.
We'd both be talking utter bollocks however.

How is climate science any different?

It is no different, therefore by your own logic your opinion is as much bollocks as Rynnor's so essentially you're both at a stalemate in the debating world.

The proof swings either way too depending on your opinion, either the evidence is solid and climate change did wipe out this island, or the scientists involved were clever in the wording of their report and it's all circumstantial.

I believe I'm yet to state my opinion on climate change so far on these forums so consider me a neutral party for now

 

[Raven]

How is climate science any different?

Tom's posts can't be taxed to buggery or sold via carbon trading.

 

[ECA]

It is no different, therefore by your own logic your opinion is as much bollocks as Rynnor's so essentially you're both at a stalemate in the debating world.

This is pretty much my point, the vast majority of people on either side of the debate are basically supportive or opposed based on their personal ethical/political viewpoint, and not from a scientific standpoint.

 

[Ch3tan]

From the beeb article headline paragraph:

"A tiny island claimed for years by India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal has disappeared beneath the rising seas"

Note the beneath the rising seas bit - for this to be true the sea level would have had to have risen over 2 metres since 74. I'm not seeing a contradiction here - please elucidate?

Selective quoting by you Rynnor, it says "scientists report" at the end of that sentence. The beeb are simply reporting on what has been claimed. The article is neutral, it is just you that seems to want to read more into it.

 

[rynnor]

Selective quoting by you Rynnor, it says "scientists report" at the end of that sentence. The beeb are simply reporting on what has been claimed. The article is neutral, it is just you that seems to want to read more into it.

The Beeb is not neutral on the issue of global warming - they actually re-wrote their own code to allow them to pick the believer side and pimp it like crazy rather than providing balanced coverage.