Yes but they were MY uninhabited sunken rocks.

Oh GLOBAL WARMING HAS THOU Cometh to your knees by the swift sword of man? ... A little sarcasm for the day :)

LOL FLYING..funny! I say..."Its not NICE to fool..with..Mother Nature!

Global Warming, Climate Change, Erosion saves lives in the Southern Hemisphere saves lives. We need more in the world.

I am positive that Al Gore is somehow behind this to support his stupid global climate change agenda. Some folks will do anything to get their way, even artificially raise the sea level of the planet. Talk about pushy!

Now on the bright side this will help real estate values in some places that really need it, places that are inland and much out of the sea level change problematic areas....like Las Vegas; Phoenix; South Dakota; Colorado....it is gonna kinda suck for those multi-millions of people who live near an ocean on the planet, but think about the opportunity for new growth and industry as the oceans overtake the coastal areas and all new cities and industries must be moved elsewhere....now that's what I call a job stimulus plan....of course we will need to find new farmland since we will be living and working on those places where food once grew....???

Gee whiz Al, could you cut us a break and bring the sea level back down!

It's hard to believe that the seas would only rise in this small part of the Earth from "global warming".

A much more plausible explanation is that the land area of the islands has subsided - much like New Orleans is doing. This is quite normal in several parts of the world.

Well here it is all over again. With the same asinine remarks again. The idea that the only argument so many have is to throw out the name Al Gore and they think that this makes some point. Along with the individuals that refuse to accept this as true because they don't see the ocean rising 6 feet a year. These are exactly the types of thinking that got us where we are now, and where our great grandchildren are going to be, and get to deal with.

Because so many people can not comprehend or correlate how much water (melting ice sheets) it takes to raise the ocean by "only" 5mm per year. This is not like accidentally leaving you garden hose on for a couple of hours. This is an absolutely enormous amount of water that (not is, but) has been pouring into the oceans for a long time. And it is not caused by something that we started doing 4 or 5 years ago. The cause of this began over a hundred years ago, and has been accelerating at an exponential rate ever since. And there is no real hope of it even slowing down (let alone reversing) for the foreseeable future. And the reality is that it is not at the peak. This is going to get worse and worse every year. Because the enormity of our atmosphere is so large, we are not going to be able to just decide to switch it back around.

It doesn't require anyone to understand it, or believe it. But this is happening. And it is us that is causing it. And whining like a 10 year old school girl about Al Gore is not going to make it go away. But on the bright side (at least for you) you will not be around 200 or 300 years from now to try to explain why you didn't even TRY to do anything about it.

Sorry to be an "AGW" (AlGore'sWallet) skeptic, but we just experienced our third 70 degree day of the year and its' almost April. We set an all time record for earliest freeze and have been below normal for almost six months. That's not a weather event,that's an El-Nino' winter!! Man has little effect on nature and while I agree with protecting our environment, I'm not buying the whole CO2 hysteria,especially when it lets the worst REAL polluters (India,China,Russia and Indonesia) off the hook while punishing the successful nations that have limited their emissions for generations (the U.S. and EU nations) !!

Roy Wilson's thoughts were the ones that were rolling around in mine. Does anyone have any data like they published for New Orleans. It is just like those global warming people to take a fact and misconstrue it to add to their global warming file. I would bet anyone 10 dollars that the land is subsiding due to less silt coming down the Ganges river. The article failed to mention that it was a great river delta. Cut off the supply of sediments and you lose islands to erosion.

Do some research. Do you have the slightest idea how idiotic what you just posted was? The silt coming down the Ganges as well as all other rivers on the planet is increasing. Erosion due to increased population and poor land management guarantees that it will only get worse. Is it opposite day on the planet you come from?

Well that's one way for their Foreign Envoy to get things done. "You can have it."

Let me guess. Conservatives/Repubs. will say that this is a made up story. How can the oceans be rising if its actually getting colder? Those scientists are using special effects to produce fake video.

The Island had a max elevation of 6 feet.

How does a couple of inches of water submerge an island up to 6 feet?

Global Warming Style Evidence, like most of what you hear from the Gov't is innaccurarte.

Once again we catch them in a lie.

The article does not mention subsidence. Subsidence is very common in coastal lands.

But the choice is yours. Believe the Global Warming Religion and you have to accept that a couple of inches of water rise can submerge 6 foot rock outcropping.

Or choose logic, with which you have to consider many possible reasons for natural phenomenon.

Ryan - You are correct. This story doesn't add up. It would have taken 360 years (6 feet = 72" / .2" per year) to submerge that island at the latest reported accelerated rate of .2 inches per year. More leftist, liberal LIES and irresponsible alarmist journalism.

LMFAO!! Global warming my a_ss!! LOLOL! I have 2 waterfront homes in south Florida. The water has not risen an inch.

Cloudiing the issue with facts I see ... This is why we must engage in the reform of school reform.

The ability to add and subtract generates far too many citizens with the ability to think, and consequently, far too few liberal democrats ...

:-)

Gary Cooper:

We call this irony, or tongue is cheek, or spoofing, or punking; go back and reread my post, it's in there, promise.

Good Luck!

It's true that by the sea level rising it would have taken forever, but didn't you forget erosion?

Joe don't be so taken in by these fear mongers. Do a little research and try thinking for yourself, instead of buying into exageration. The truth is these islands are sinking and will go under water whether the sea rises or not. Read the article! Even a 0.2 in/yr ocean rise would only be 2 inches in a ten year period. Also there is no proof that ocean rise is caused by global warming. There is new evidence coming to light that polar ice melt is being caused by seafloor volcanos.

I live on the ocean and it is not rising, at least not at a noticable rate. The rocks that were exposed at low tide are still exposed today at low tide and that hasn't changed as long as I've been alive. Why do you kool-aid suckers choose to believe what you can see is false with you own eyes?

sdhagerman, the rise in sea level over the past 150 years is well documented. it's been rising for the past 12,000 years and the rate is likely increasing. these are measurments that don't depend on any greenhouse gas theory. You are the one who chooses to twist facts to fit your political pursuasion.

in addition, it is most likely, given what is known about our planet, that the rate of sea level rise will continue to increase as the climate warms due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses.

this is not about cap and trade law. it's about science.

Why would you think for yourself when experts are predicting the oceans will rise. Maybe if I buy sdhagerman a thinking cap now it will save all of us from having to move him later from the ocean he doesn't see rising or maybe obamacare will spring for a pair of glasses instead.

If these islands were at near 0 or maybe 3 foot above sea level. This would take in the last 30 years based on the calculation. Habitation here would not be possible. since every storm would flood the islands.

If you start thinking about it, instead of buying into this articles liberal propaganda, you would realize that there is more going on here than sea level rise. The truth is that this area is sinking due to the geological structure under the area. There is no way that sea levels have risen enough to completely submerge an island that by the articles own admission rose 6 feet above sea level. If sea level had risen 6 feet, there would be a lot more to be concerned about in the region than one insignificant, unpopulated rock.

This article is a poor example of journalism, but a great example of liberal global warming propaganda.

The big deal is that rising sea levels will eventually claim vast areas of developed US coastline

Hmmm, I wonder why there are salt lakes in Utah, multiple layers of salt in the earth's crust throughout our heartland?

Kudos Js in San Diego for plainly pointing out the obvious. It's ironic Joe points out global warming as the cause, yet states that sea levels have been rising for 12000 years. So you're saying that the earth has been warming for that many years and we are just now starting to worry about it?? I wonder if some people actually listen to what they say or write? The Global warming fear mongers are hard at work I guess. What a bunch of tools.

Hey Joe, you must understand that you will never confuse some people with the facts. I dare say that when New Orleans goes underwater, they will blame it on Obama and not global warming. They know more than all of the scientific community and the extensive research that has been done. They are in the same camp as those who said the Earth was flat and would not believe it was round. They blame "liberals" I guess there were liberals back in that day spreading socialist lies that the earth was round too.

Semper Fi!

Hey Joe, you must understand that you will never confuse some people with the facts

that's because their poorly-educated "common sense" is sooo much better than years and years of data collection and study.....

The fact that the land-based glaciers of Greenland and the Antarctic are melting at rates unprecedented in human history and that this melting is happening much faster than even the most pessimistic of climatologists predicted means nothing. So what if we lose a few islands. Go ahead and get that SUV. Go ahead and use more coal and oil. Go ahead and cut down another forest and toss another log on the fire. We need a lot more cars, highways and parking lots. We all know that those idiotic, lying scientists are just making up their lies to get more grant money. We humans are so insignificant that we couldn't possibly make a difference. Just because our streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans are so polluted that we can't swim in them, much less drink from them means nothing. Just because the seriously polluted Mississippi drains into an ever increasing dead-zone in the gulf means nothing. We humans don't have the power to effect something as big as the whole planet. We especially couldn't be causing something as big as global warming. This is god's will. We are just pawns in his game. He wants us to be fruitful and multiply. He wants us to cover the planet with our waste products. His will be done!

Fill a glas with Ice & water wait till it melts. The volume in the glass will be less not more 3rd grade science class...

Try thinking a lot about this Sir. If you fill a glass with water. All the way to the rim. Then place a large piece of ice over the already full glass, and let it melt, with the water flowing into the glass, what is going to happen. I think a second grader will be able to help you with that.

Sir Thinksalot,

It is the land-based ice that is melting at unprecedented rates, not sea-based ice that we need to be most worried about (although sea ice melting is indicative and causative of the problem). If Greenland and Antarctic glaciers continue to melt at their current rates, the lowlands on this planet are in for a whole world of hurt.

True science collects data from all points of view and compares different researchers' work and theories, not just that which supports one point of view and the U.N.'s "one world government" dream of taking from the successful nations and giving to the unsuccessful ones!

danwill -

Yes, their uninformed "common sense."

I perceive a growing mindset among the less-informed, non-expert lay class...a peculiar sort of smug pride because they think their "common sense" means that they "know more" than the experts.

That seems an odd thing to take pride in, don't you think?

Any guess why it's called "GREENland"? Because it was warm enough in 700 -1300AD to grow trees and row crops. That's when people colonized it. They called it Greenland because it was not covered with ice. Since then it has cooled. Maybe now we are just going back to the same climate it had back then.

But there were no cars or industry back then.

So you Global Warming zealots, how did that happen?

maybe you should move to California so you can smoke some more weed wthout fear of prosecution with Pelosi and watch the water pour over the sides of San Francisco

Joe,

"The big deal is that rising sea levels will eventually claim vast areas of developed US coastline"

Wrong. I have 2 waterfront homes in Florida. the water is not rising. you would think that all this global warming for the last 100 years that I would be 50 feet underwater by now. It has not risen a fcking inch. Quit drinking the liberal lame stream media koolaid dude.

Lol New Orleans has always been under sealevel. That wasn't global warming.

Any guess why it's called "GREENland"? Because it was warm enough in 700 -1300AD to grow trees and row crops. That's when people colonized it. They called it Greenland because it was not covered with ice. Since then it has cooled. Maybe now we are just going back to the same climate it had back then.

WRONG again!

You should REALLY check your facts before spouting nonsense, it just makes you look stupid.

Greenland was NEVER without it's huge icecap in human history, only the southern tip and the edges have ever been inhabitable ).

Greenland got it's name because 'Eric the Red' was a great land salesman trying to get people to settle a mostly, but not entirely inhospitable piece of land.

Because it doesn't fit into the agenda of the global warming PR machine. And this was a non-story until Al Gore needed to sell some energy credits for a new wing on his hacienda.

The "news story" said this island's seen a 2" sea level rise over the past 10 years*. So in 100 years it will rise 20"? Whoop-dee-doo! Aren't there sea shells in the Rocky Mountains?

* "But over the last decade sea levels in the bay have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said."

D2... if you don't like science, don't read about it. but please spare the rest of us from your idiotic politics infused musings.

I'm sorry Joe, I guess your stance doesn't come from any political leaning? Idiot.

Aren't there sea shells in the Rocky Mountains?

oh, that must be from "noah's flood" <sarcasm>

anyone that thinks the earth is 6000 years old is an idiot.

Oh joe, joe, joe ... personal attacks from such an educated man. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Surely you must realize that public relations stories are published daily in an attempt to sway public opinion and generate business, right? Say your business was green energy and your stock had taken a beating recently. So you hire a PR firm to find a story about a cyclone-stricken, sinking island that's now underwater. Then said PR firm gets some "expert" with a PhD to say, "Global Warming did it!" Then the next thing ya know, people are buying your stock and the PR firm sends you a bill. That's business, joe, not science.

And Dan...oh man, where's the faith? You don't believe there's seashells in the Rockies? I too was surprised to learn that there are and it's not for the reason you might think. But it involves science and joe's cautioned me on that endeavor.

It was not IN the article just like the truth was not IN the information we have been told. The fact that this island was ONCE submerged... with global warming and the vast increases in sea level... but it SOMEHOW RE-EMERGED during the rising waters... is PROOF of the lie.

We have been TOLD global warming was man made and real. We now discover the scientists lied to protect their grants and tell the government what it asked for. NOT the scientific truth. Science has been ruined for decades. No longer truth be known for truth's sake. But yo, here are your numbers mister government grant man... i'm SURE you will be pleased! They're JUST WHAT YOU ASKED FOR!!

WOW!! Now that's science!

joe, explain to danwill why there's seashells in the Rockies. I'll wait here.

It is a matter of millions upon millions of years. The planet has gone through quite a few changes in this time. Unfortunately, what is happening recently (in geologic time) is ALL man-made. It is happening faster than it has ever happened before. It is happening so fast that many species are not going to be able to adapt and that man's economy will suffer (the last time, when it happened gradually, we didn't have cities of millions living in low lying areas and didn't have our infrastructure so centralized). When seashells were deposited in the Rockies, mankind didn't exist. Most people lack a sense of time. As far as the planet is concerned, humans have only been here a few seconds compared to the planet's millions of years of existence. We take ourselves way too seriously! The next time seashells are deposited in the Rockies, mankind will probably be extinct.

Climate changes. That's what it does. Climate change is normal. The lack of climate change is abnormal. Sea levels have been far higher (thousands of feet) and they have been far lower.

However, a couple inches of water does not completely submerge an island up to 6 ft in elevation.

I guess this is a perfect exmple to use as a dividing line in whether you are a global warming "believer" or not.

If you think that a 2" rise in water can submerge a 6 ft island, then you are just the type of person who would believe in man made global warming.

Marcel,

great catch!

yes D, there are indeed seashells in the Rockies, it's just that it took a few hundred million years for them to get there, not to mention that the Rockies weren't always mountains.

they were a seabed before the mountains were uplifted by geologic actions, hence the seashells.

Ron, Climate change is used to describe many different aspects of climate including average surface temperature, but also preciptation patterns and storm intensity as well as upper atmosphere temperatures The rise in sea level is associated with the sufrace warming aspect of climate change due to thermal expansion of ocean water and input from melting ice. Sometimes people prefer using the more limited and more accurate term global warmning to refer to the surface warming aspect of climate change. This should not be difficult to understand.

Hey Joe, it really doesn't matter how much data is accumulated by NASA, NOAA, National Geographic, or the thousands of explorers and photographers around the planet who are documenting what is happening. There will be a large group of double digit IQ fools who will never be convinced of reality. While I feel it might be a lost cause to continue to educate these fools, as a environmental scientist, I feel it is my duty to persevere. Keep up the good fight my brother.

Wow! joe really has this line of BS down pretty good. almost too good if you ask me. it's like he's been programed. Will kool-aid do that to you? I can't get over his use of big words. It don't mean a thing, joe! Until your island goes unerwater you don't have a thing to worry about.

It kind of sounds like Joe has been college educated rather than programmed. People who use "big words" rather than non-sensical slogans such as "kool-aid" (which actually refers to the ignorant, programmed, religious, fanatical followers of Jim Jones who all committed suicide because their god Jim said so) are much smarter than than the fools who have not bothered to educate themselves.

I, myself, am a educated elitist who feels that people who have an IQ of less than 90 should have no say as to what happens with politics (the laws and policies that people live by). It's a shame that we all didn't evolve past the stage of being Neanderthal fools.

Yes you are correct, we elitist liberals only hope that you uneducated neadrathalic conservative slobs would all just drop dead. The world would be a much better place as a result. It really is a shame that intelligent people have to live with those who believe in raving idiots such as Glen, Ann and Rush. Hopefully the politics of hate, prejudice, greed and entitlement will pass away with the passing of those far-right ideologues such as Strum, Trent, W, Newt, Cheney, McCarthy, etc... and all of their ilk. People of hate and prejudice; book burners of all sorts; those of narrow minds, have no place in the future of mankind.

Hello! You think 2 inches of water rise can completely submerge an island with up to a 6 foot elevation.

Rightfully, your college degree should be revoked.

Maybe this case is the perfect litmus test.

If you believe 2" of water rise can cover 6 FEET of land, then you are just the type of person the proponents of global warming need.

Ryan, 2 inches rise in mean sea level can be the difference between an island with average elevation 6' above mean sea level being submerged in a storm and not, for example, with a combined tide/surge of 5'9"..... You are really one ignorant person.

Joe mota - so now you admit that it was submerged by a storm and not global warming.

It took you a while, but eventually you got it.

Funny, the article does not say that the picture was taken during a storm.

I guess it would ruin the propaganda value.

"Drowning out the people who are thinking"? Meaning... you?

What is the evidence for "sea level rise"? I'm assuming, of course, that the ocean is not yet lapping at your front porch in New Mexico, so I'm just wondering what your evidence is that it's even happening (esp. since you admit that you don't know why it is but are simply willing to surmise an anthropogenic cause for it).

I like your comments Dave, but as you can see there are still people asking for "your evidence". They deny all evidence put out by the scientific community worldwide, but listen to the rant and rave of others against global warming/climate change as if it were factual evidence supporting their rants and raves.

Semper Fi

Many of us who were trained to follow orders, were also trained to think for ourselves. We only progressed in rank by our ability to learn all things scientific and integrate this knowledge with our orders. This mental ability is what the teams respect above all. Robots tend to not generally be chosen for command. As one who is privy to satdat, I have to say there is a serious global climate problem.

Semper Fidelis!

A 2" rise in water covers an island up to 6 feet in elevation.

It's blamed on Global warming.

How much more evidence do you need of fraud?

I've heard of stretching the truth, but 2" of water doesn't stretch to 6 feet.

But it's not just one island.The Solomon,Marshall and Cook Islands as well as Fiji are also seeing the effects of rising water.New Zealand is even taking in a yearly quota of people from Tuvalu as they are being slowly driven from their island.I would turn your question around.Why are so many islands sinking?

You presumed the answer to my question - is it true that many islands ARE sinking? If so, then maybe there is an issue, but I've not seen persuasive evidence of it (I'm aware that a number of low lying areas and islands have asserted it, as a basis for aid or increased immigration quotas, but the water levels at Hobart are the same as in the 1790's...).

So, accept that I'm not being argumentative, but do cite a reliable source for the proposition that sea levels are rising - and not just the transient type of "mid-ocean bump" one gets, for instance, with "El Nino".

Just a note - notwithstanding Hansen's role in suppressing data from NASA which did not comport with his belief in AGW, I figured that NASA would have the most accurate data on sea level rise, so I checked and it's not there. Well, actually, it IS there - the seas have been rising ever since the end of the prior Ice Age, but it's leveled off (and done so at a level fully 6 meters below the average for interglacial periods) when, according to AGW advocates, it should be accelerating. This is not highly persuasive evidence for global warming related sea level rise and fairly compelling evidence that it is not secondary to man's activity.

Hey oldefarte, If you will read the NASA, NOAA data just a little more carefully, you will realise that adaptive aspects cause the graphs to have a jagged line rather than a smooth upward or downwards curve. I can't ever recall seeing a ecological/environmental graph that wasn't a jagged line. It is the long-term curve that counts rather than the short-term curve. Ice core data shows a fairly strong overall heating and melting curve since the beginning of the industrial age. Anecdotal data seems to be even more convincing.

Well,Oldefarte,sinking or rising the effect is the same.Islands losing ground to water.Inhabitants losing their homes.

New Moore is No More, so there should be no more arguing, but there will be.

Well done, SJC.

Almost all of the islands that are sinking have seen very large population increases. They use much more groundwater than rainfall can replinish. They begin to see salt water incursion.

The freshwater sits like an upside down bubble. As the salt rushes in to replace the freshwater that is being pumped out, it can kill or stiffle the vegetation near the shore. That leads to erosion and loss of land.

But most importantly, it leads to subsidence where the ground compresses due to a lack of water (or oil or gas) in the pores of the sub-soil.

Areas near Galveston lost several feet that way before groundwater and oil drilling were more carefully controlled.

So you could say it was caused by man's activity, but not by Global Warming.

Oh please no, don't give them any ideas. They've drained us dry as it is.

Actually, the pictures of his Hawaii vacation prove that he can swim like a fish. It's nice to now have a president who can not only think well and speak well, but who also looks good in a swimsuit. I'm still waiting for the walk on water/water into wine thing. After all, he's just a guy.

He actually did walk on water. They have the documents to prove it in Hawaii.

However, they are not being released to the public.

Gee X576 you're a real winner with that one.

NH Tom, if you're really interested, NASA has info on sea surface level measurments on their web site. It's more complicated than you might think.....Of course, they only put men on the moon and satellites in space, so they may not be as smart about these things as Rush Limbaugh, who spent part of a year in college.

Scientists have been accounting for the changes in mean sea level for a long time.

Tom, there are effects of changing sea level along the New England coast. The southern coast of Nantucket is steadily eroding, especially in the area around 'Sconset on the southeastern corner. The outer arm of Cape Cod is steadily dwindling as it tries to retreat west from the North Atlantic, but on the Massachusetts Bay side water has been slowly but steadily rising. Of course all of the areas I mentioned are piles of glacial debris left behind after the last glacial retreat, and were originally a series of low inland hills 12,000 years ago as sea level started to rise with large scale ice melt. These areas are subject to advanced erosion even before they would be covered by water, such that Nantucket could be a low-tide shoal within several hundred years even assuming low rates of sea level rise.

And sea level in different areas can vary as a result of the coriolis effect from the earth's rotation, so that water can pile up on the western side of oceanic basins in the northern hemisphere. The Gulf Stream defines a ridge of water as it flows northward along the American east coast, as high as 1 - 2 meters off of part of Florida. This can all be imaged by satellites. I'm honestly not sure what's the accepted standard for "sea level", given the amount of water piling in oceanic basins.

There are quite a few aspects involved. The earth is constantly changing due to tectonics, erosion, climate change, pollution, gravity, solar infusion, population density, glacial melting, sea ice depletion, deforestation, aquifer depletion, greenhouse gasses, etc.... Only a whole bunch of scientists from a whole bunch of different disciplines with a whole bunch of extremely powerful computers will, hopefully, be able to advise our world leaders (who won't listen anyway) as to what to do in able to see to it that the planet continues to survive us @!$%#s.

So how does that NASA formula go?

A 2" rise covers a 6 foot island.

I guess a 20" rise would cover a 60 foot high island.

See, that's why we have to leave the science to the experts. Regular people would just think that 20" of water wouldn't even cover a 2 foot island. But of course the Gov't has special rulers and yardsticks that we wouldn't be able to handle.

Ryan, is this your attempt at humor? not funny. 3rd grade stuff.

You are so right. Even a 3rd grader knows that 2" of water isn't going to cover a 6 foot high island.

So when our global Warming Scientists finally get up to the third grade level, they will be able to catch their mistake.

Ryan, #4.6 has your answer.

It can be surprising what a few MM's can do. The planet is in a fine balance. Upsetting it by just a little bit can have extreme consequences. Slight temperature differences have allowed the pine borer beetle to destroy millions of acres of pines in the Rockies. A few degrees of temperature and slight changes in oceanic CO2 levels are destroying coral reefs all over the planet. Migration patterns of many species are radically changing. What's next? What will the results be in the long run? WE are doing this. WE should start thinking about it.

Sir Thinksalot: Have you thought a lot about the concept that the pace of rising oceans is not going to stay at 5mm per year? But is going to do what the article already told us. That is, it is going to increase? So that in 5 years the Indian ocean is not going to rise 5 mm per year, but 10 mm per year. And twenty years from now it will be 15 mm per year. And in 50 years it will be at 30 mm per year.

Try not to attempt thinking so much. You will have less headaches that way.

And just think, if a 2" rise can cover a 6ft high island, maybe 20" could cover a 60ft high island.

Right????

Actually it does seem that many parts of the Himalayas (as well as many other ranges) are shrinking by fractions of inches a year. Gravity is inexorable. Mountains have mass and are effected by gravity and tectonics. Just like the old saying "He who is not busy being born is busy dying", mountain ranges are no exception. This fact, however, in no way discounts rising sea levels due to melting land-based glaciers. There are many factors at work on this planet. Scientists study these things, fanatics tend to scream the black and white of what they don't understand about scientific phenomena due to political concerns. Without any understanding of all of the sciences involved, the vast majority of the unwashed are just opinionated fools.

AGW is happening. Without a basic understanding of ALL of the different variables involved, most laymen should just bow out of the conversation (that includes ALL politicians without at least a BS in some sort of earth science program).

cjcold - no scientist has been able to accurately predict the weather years into the future. There are too many variables. We don't even know all the variables.

Climate changes. That's what it does. It did it long before we were here and likely long after.

But if the scientific position is that a 2" rise in water level can cover a 6 ft high island, then we should be alot more worried about our educational standards.

Oh no please no more change, Nobama has given way to much of that to us already. And soon that's all were going to have left in our pockets. Buddy can you spare a dime.

And that rate of change is itself changing--increasing. A standard fallacy of the deniers is to advocate that, since something has changed, one can ignore the magnitude of that change.

Now, let's all turn our attention to the AGW denier's sky-is-falling dire predictions of the entire economy of the US collapsing if Cap and Trade is passed, when in fact the CBO has already found that a 15% cut in CO2 from 1998 levels imposes less than a 0.5% efficiency cost. While accusing environmentalists of being "chicken littles," it appears that the deniers fall into that camp much moreso.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10018/03-12-ClimateChange_Testimony.pdf, figure 2

.

whether the changes in sea level are due to natural change, or are augmented by human activity, there is nothing we puny humans are going to be able to do to reverse that trend, so why argue about it ??? ---- the photo in this article has obviously been altered in some way, or was taken during an unusually high tide ---- that tree would not survive for very long if subjected to continual salt water.

Unless it was a mangrove tree which needs salt water to live.

look at the pix --- it's not a mangrove tree.

ronpaul - Don't forget you are talking to true believers. No fact or logic need apply.

I noticed the same thing about the tree. This is typical "evidence" of global warming. But then they act like we should all accept the fact that a 2" rise in water level can cover a 6ft island.

Maybe in that alternate universe where 2" is greater than 6 feet, there is man made global warming.

I thought the interesting point the author was trying to make was that the dispute over this island is being made moot because the island is disappearing beneath the Bay of Bengal. that may be why the author didn't explain in detail which factor, subsidence of the land or rising sea level, was more to blame. No need to bring in your childish arguments against climate change.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I guess the title "RISING SEAS SETTLE FIGHT OVER ISLAND" isn't very specific. Who's to say he was talking about a sea on earth.

But really. We just caught yet another bit of phony propaganda from the Warmers.

It's pretty common these days. I guess it always happens when you try to make facts fit an assertion.

But it's really hard to stretch a 2" rise in water level to cover a 6 foot high island.

Have another glass of kool-aid!! Your getting there. Deanna meet, Joe Mota.

Hey, hey, not watch what your saying, there are some people on this thing that believe Al Gore and have probably sent him money. Truth all goes so far around here, freedom of speech offends some people.

i agree --- i live at sea-level in a coastal town, and have witnessed no difference in my lifetime.

Mangrove destruction is a greater threat to the Bay of Bengal than "global warming." If there is nothing to hold the deposited sediments together (i.e., mangrove roots) the deposits will eventually wash away. This "island" was little more than a spoil bank. By way of example, without mangroves, there would be no Florida Keys. If you even think of cutting down mangroves in Florida, about five goverment agencies will come down on you like the wrath of God.

Hey Don, 6 feet in 2 decades? You, like many other deniers really have no concept of time or what the science is all about. Do some research instead of just being a reactionary to what you "think" and have been told scientists are saying. Why are you twisting and putting a idiotic spin to what the scientists are actually saying? Sea levels are rising faster than even the most pessimistic scientists predicted, but they never predicted 6 feet in 2 decades. You have been watching too many movies instead of reading scientific journals.

Sedimentary rock? You need to study a little geology! There is more than sediment involved there.

Hey Cjcold, since you obviously know the secret, "Sedimentary rock? You need to study a little geology! There is more than sediment involved there.", why don't you tell us. Don is absolutely correct about the compression of sediments. Your generalization implies you have the answer. What is it? While you are at it, can you explain why there have been heating and cooling cycles throughout history, with man nothing more than a spark in God's eye? I can guess that dinosaur flatulence may be one, so let's skip that one. Anyone with a brain can see that all of those big ole dinosaurs farting would cause a problem. How did the other cycles occur? I am anxiously waiting for your learned response. If you need to take a moment and review the Oscar winning, Al Gore documentary I will wait. So, what is it?