I won't be surprised if McCain offers to have all those 97000 Kiribatis made US citizens provided they vote Republican.Just Kidding.
Such calamities are more to come unless we get serious and start reducing global warming. However, it won't happen under Republican administration as they do not even believe that there such thing as global warming.
Posted by suresh at June 17, 2008 12:27 PMI hope the picture you're showing is at low tide, otherwise...the pic doesn't follow the story...where's the water for the lagoon? Seems like they're in a draught by the pic.
Sound the alarm...someone has drained the lagoon! The island is rising...
Posted by peter at June 17, 2008 12:45 PMever hear of tides, peter? you're smarter than that.
Posted by Turkana at June 17, 2008 12:53 PM“If we don’t do anything, Kiribati can certainly kiss us goodbye.”
That strikes me as bass-ackwards. From the story, it sounds like the world will kiss Kiribati goodbye.
Posted by bartcopfan at June 17, 2008 12:57 PMTurkana, I did mention the tide in the first line. Seems a drastic tide for the lagoon to empty so.
Posted by peter at June 17, 2008 01:04 PMyou need to spend more time at the beach, peter. yeah- the science is wrong, because they have low tides.
Posted by Turkana at June 17, 2008 01:08 PMKim Stanley Robinson, in his 2004 'science fiction' novel Forty Signs of Rain, wrote about the "League of Drowning Nations". Science fiction no longer, sad to say.
Posted by Leslie T at June 17, 2008 01:17 PMThe Maldives, in the Indian Ocean, have already built an artificial island higher than the rest of the country. As each natural island becomes uninhabitable, they can move to the new island. It's a pretty sad solution as residents are forced to abandon their home islands, but at least the country and culture will still exist.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 17, 2008 01:24 PMThe up side is it will make an interesting scuba theme park destination for cruise ships.
Bagley should lock up the underwater town map and compressed air concession while it's still cheap.
Posted by TIKI AL at June 17, 2008 01:25 PMThe same thing's happening to SE Louisiana.
Posted by Redstar at June 17, 2008 03:24 PMCA Pol Junkie: Glad to hear that, as I have a special affinity for the Maldives (honeymoon).
These atoll islands are all coral reefs -- as the ocean rises the coral should be able to adapt, but the islands themselves will become just sandbars. If the island can be built higher, the coral will rise around the island.
Posted by Anonny at June 17, 2008 04:18 PMever hear of tides, peter? you're smarter than that.
Evidence?
Posted by Anonny at June 17, 2008 04:19 PMThe Maldives have taken measures for another tsunami. Were you at Kuda Huraa, Landaa Giraavaru, or maybe Male?
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Lead by example, President Bush's Crawford Ranch Home's carbon footprint is a fraction of Albert Gore's.
Posted by peter at June 17, 2008 05:22 PMDid you know that the Gulf of Mexico once extended North into the North-Western parts of New Mexico?
It was many tens-of-millions of years before (anthropomorphic) global warming.
Posted by Bagley at June 17, 2008 06:06 PMSend your thank you notes to the Sierra Club.
Posted by Muck at June 17, 2008 06:35 PMever hear of tides, peter? you're smarter than that.
Evidence?
Posted by Anonny at June 17, 2008 04:19 PM
The evidence is that Peter and Bagley continue to make you folks look and sound quite foolish on a very regular basis.
"The evidence is that Peter and Bagley continue to make you folks look and sound quite foolish on a very regular basis."
Wrong again jj. People here are well read, intelligent, logical, objective, rationale, and extremely well informed especially about facts. More often than not, they chose to not respond to stupid and ridiculous posts by their inferiors. Have a nice evening.
ROTFLMAO
Has anyone told this character that the Pacific Ocean is COLDER than it has been in recent years?
Why is it that Al Gore (10% higher utility usage this year than last) won't even debate the issue with anyone? Especially now that he has royally screwed up our food supply.
I think I'll take my '66 GTO with the three carborators out for a ride tonight.
Are you really so gullible?
Good to know the lofty ones will have their noses above the waterline when the breakers come rushing in.
Posted by onar at June 17, 2008 08:42 PMSucks to be those guys
Posted by at June 17, 2008 09:01 PMIn fairness to Pete he did preface his statement with a low tide explanation. And you do have to admit that this was a poor picture selection...
Posted by Tex at June 17, 2008 09:11 PMWere you at Kuda Huraa, Landaa Giraavaru, or maybe Male?
We were on several islands. But our heart is on Nakatchafushi.
And the diving -- sharks, rays, barraccuda ... unmatched.
However, your distraction about Al Gore -- who gives a shit, other than people who have made up their mind about environmental issues before hearing any facts?
Are you really so gullible?
Ok, we've long ago identified you as a reverse logic thinker -- that is, you start with the conclusion and pick facts to match.
However, for anyone else reading who may have an open mind, consider the following.
There are over 10,000 scientists with Ph.D.s from accredited universities in a climate science discipline. We sometimes tend to be dismissive of Ph.D.s because in some disciplines they are handed out to anyone, but not in hard-core science. The years are long, the pay is average (if money is the desire you do better with a masters in engineering), and only the most intelligent and capable get through the process.
Of those over 10,000 climate scientists over 99.9% agree to the following:
* The evidence is overwhelming that the Earth's climate is warming.
* The predominant cause of the warming is almost certainly man-made activities, with CO2 levels being the main factor.
* Because of lag times, if CO2 levels remain constant the warming will continue for decades until the Earth reaches a new climate equilibrium.
* The nature of the new equilibrium can only be approximated -- tipping points (such as the thawing of the methane fields in the Siberian frozen tundra) make it impossible to predict.
* CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rapid rate, and will maintain or accelerate the warming trend.
On the other side of the global warming debate are a small handful of self-designated experts. Very, very few of these have climate science education (I've yet to find one). Many have scientific pedigrees in other fields. Prominent among this small number of global warming deniers are a group of professional skeptics -- those who have lent their professional skepticism to such arguments as denying that tobacco causes cancer, or pretty much any other position that big industry would pay them to take.
And, yes, it's about pay. Although people like John Stossel and James Inhofe have accused climate scientists of lying about global warming for money, in fact it is the professional skeptics who are raking it in. Anyone with even a hint of a scientific pedigree who will deny global warming is guaranteed quite a payday from a number of organizations who receive their main funding from companies like ExxonMobile.
Furthermore, if you trace the arguments of the professional skeptics over the past 10-15 years, the pattern is clear. The *reasons* for denying global warming are fluid -- new reasons are commonly invented annually -- but the conclusions are constant. In the 1990s they argued that Hansen's temperature projections were too high. In the early 2000s, when Hansen was proven correct, they lied about Hansen's projections, then started to argue that satellite temperature data were more accurate. When satellite data were corrected for a proven mathematical error, suddenly the skeptics decided that satellites were wrong, and began cherry-picking spots on Earth where the temperatures were slightly lower as proof that the whole theory was wrong.
In other words, the paid skeptics are paid liars. The scientific community has studied this topic to a degree much greater than almost any topic in history, and they are as close to united as it is possible for such a large group to be.
Posted by Anonny at June 17, 2008 10:02 PMWhy on earth don't they just build up the island? Our civilization now has the ability to move large amounts of soil, and the island is surrounded by a seabed of fertile soil, so what's the big deal?
Posted by Mike at June 18, 2008 09:40 AMMike, the big deal is that the entire infrastructure and ecosystem are based on the current level of the islands. You basically have to re-build every building and every road at the higher elevation and then wait decades for the ecosystem to recover. It's extremely disruptive and very expensive, especially for a small poor country.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 18, 2008 10:43 AMSo let the "rich" countries spend $45 trillion on the whim of "man made global warming." We still can't make it rain, but, yeah, we can make it warmer. Yet the ski slopes were open around Aspen last weekend. And there was fresh snow in Olympia State Park and the Cascades.
Science degrees in core analysis, sun spots don't count for much to Anonny.
Posted by peter at June 18, 2008 12:33 PMpeter, you have no idea how loudly you are proclaiming your own willful ignorance.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at June 18, 2008 12:53 PMYet the ski slopes were open around Aspen last weekend. And there was fresh snow in Olympia State Park and the Cascades.
Hey, it was cold today, therefore global warming must be a myth. Brilliant.
Science degrees in core analysis, sun spots don't count for much to Anonny.
Look, peter, you'll do a lot for your cause if you can get your positions straight. Your first statement, about it being cold in Aspen, is part of the "the Earth is not warming" argument. Your mention of sun spots is part of the "okay, it's warming, but it's temporary due to sun spots" argument.
Which is it, dude? You can't have it both ways.
Although it IS worth noting that the global warming denial industry HAS tried to have it both ways. First they argued that warming was a myth. Now most are arguing "okay, it's real, but temporary". 10 years from now it will be "okay it's real, and permanent, but it's the environmentalists fault that it wasn't addressed faster."
And how, peter, if you really believe that the Earth is not warming, do you explain the actions of your esteemed leader regarding the thawing of the Artic? While Cheney's oil industry buddies continue to fund the anti-global warming disinformation campaign, they are also lobbying Cheney to stake a claim in the Artic before the Russians, Canadians, and Nordic countries claim it all. The Artic is thawing, in case you haven't heard, because the Earth is warming. And the oil companies hope that there will be new oil fields under the Artic Sea. All of the countries that border the Artic are sending military missions there this summer to reinforce their claims on those previously inaccessible oil fields.
Or are all those stories about the Artic just more examples of the biased liberal media?
Posted by Anonny at June 18, 2008 03:57 PM"spend $45 trillion on the whim of "man made global warming.""
It's the man made part I disagree with. The earth is warming...sure...that we did this...nope. It's part of nature. It's happened before without the greenhouse gas contribution by man. Shouldn't we be warmer than 1998 now? We haven't done anything to slow the greenhouse gases growth and yet we're cooler. The Chinese and Indians have accelerated their production and we're cooler. Seems to me that there's more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere now than there was in 1998. If it's the gas, then we should be warmer.
When placing the results of the more than 3 thousand underwater sensors in climate change models, the results are startling different. Project Argo and satellite Aqui have provided much more info on our climate, many of the "man made" crowd don't want to insert findings from those projects because it screws up their results. It's science not wanted by them. That should concern you. Temps of the oceans matter. The activity of the Sun matters...a calming Sun doesn't provoke higher temps...an active one does.
Posted by peter at June 19, 2008 03:52 AMFor more information on climate change visit
http://discover-planet.blogspot.com/