I suspect that BB is correct, and that there is some subsidence below the island.
I found James' argument interesting. "Tectonic plate movement is sinking New Orleans."
Contrary to his assertion, there are dikes all around New Orleans. Then the water is pumped out. When that happens, the ground dries out, shrinks, and sinks. We see the same thing in the Sacramento Delta in Calif, where ground level is now 10' to 20' below sea level, when 150 years ago, it was all swampland at sea level.
5 decades ago, in Hartford Ct, they were building an interstate. Part of it went over land that was very wet. What they did was drill "sand drains" - holes 30-40-50' deep, 18" in diameter, and fill them with sand. Then they piled 20' of sand on top to compress the ground. That forced the water out of the ground, into the 'sand drains' and up into the overlaying sand, and the ground level sank several feet. Had they not done that, the interstate road would have sunk from the weight.
When you drive on a road, and come to a bridge, often you notice that there's a bump, up onto the bridge, then down again when you get to the other side. The bridge supports are sunk to solid ground, but the roadbed leading to the bridge compresses over time, causing that bump on each side.
Nothing to do with the islands, but I find it interesting anyway. It's my guess, as I first stated, that the earth mantle on which the island sits is subsiding slightly. You can see something slightly similar in Yellowstone National Park.
The land is not as stable as most people believe. Islands might sink or rise depending on a number of factors.
Contrary to Linlyons explanation, New Orleans was built on the Mississippi Delta. The Delta is formed by sediments depositing on it for millions of years. That sediment sinks because weight on a tectonic plate will force it down and therefore New Orleans is sinking. In addition, groundwater is extracted which caused further sinking. There are probably other reasons too. They also restricted accumulation of sediment that caused additional apparent sinking. I doubt that surface drying is a significant factor. The momentum of the sinking didn't stop just because of modern interference.
People always expand their habitats into places that are marginal. Putting your homes too near the ocean or on flood plains is a recipe for disaster. There have always been tragedies from floods in these types of areas. It isn't anything new and it certainly isn't from our emissions of CO2.
The Island is sinking. This story of rising sea-levels impacting this island has been around for a while and has since been exposed as a fraud/lie. I'm really surprised that the Alarmists are making another go at it.....desperation maybe??
" It should be noted, that the Carteret islands are built entirely on a base of coral that sits atop of an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual course of events, such islands eventually subside simply due to the underlying volcanic rock being worn away and not replenished. The Carteret islands are a classic example of such coral islands in their final stage of existence. Interestingly, Charles Darwin was the first to propose such a system of creation and submergence".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Is...
"Fred Terry, the director of the United Nations Development Project on Bougainville, said the destruction of reefs in the Carterets with dynamite might be the cause (of flooding on Carteret Islands)"
The seas are rising by about 3 mm/year. When you warmers start pretending that a sinking island is caused by sea level rises, please tell me how you have any more credibility that the worst among the "deniers".
And BTW, it is not like you and the skeptics share the same burden. YOU are asking for people to make costly changes to thier lifestyles. You hold the burden. A lie or misrepresentation from you side is far worse.
The City of New Orleans is sinking too. There was never a dike built around the city and a massive pumping system to pump the water inside the city into the Mississippi delta when it was founded.
But an ignorant AGW cultist would be very quick to claim that New Orleans is below sea level because of global warming.
Islands get destroyed mainly by man, construction can cause erosion, using groundwater, even overfishing as coral atols are built by the parrot fish, corals grow the parrot fish eats the coral by grinding it, and defecates coral sand, some of which gets washed inshore, healthy coral can grow up to 1cm per year, much faster than sea level.
I am certain that if all the people left that Island and it's vicinity it would grow
How much have the ocean's risen since 1620? ... or even 1492?
4 inches? 6 inches?
How do you cypher the causes away from coastal erosion?
Satellite readings from space are from 1798. Ooops! 1978.
Is science that "up" on things since 1978 (36 years)?
Your link says it's from 2009. LMFAO!!!!!
You might consider deleting the sptudity (stupidity) of this question before someone complains to Y/A.
From your link : http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-resp...
" ... Update: Please note that this story is from 2009. ... "
Looks like Al Gore scared them out. ROTFLMAO!!!!
Sea levels are rising, without question. Those who deny it are just...well...in denial.
Even though sea level rise will likely be much more serious than "skeptics" admit, or even that the 2007 IPCC report, which only considers the effect of thermal expansion, and not ice melt on sea level, the island is probably sinking.
Hey Dook
Flying Deloreans don't leave tracks.
The sea level is virtually the same as it was when the Pilgrims landed. Go to Plymouth Rock and see for yourself.
There are artists conceptions of the sea level portion of the Thames in the 1400s. The sea level is the same then as it is today.
So which do you choose? Island sinking or sea level rising? To a logical scientific mind it could only be that the island is sinking.
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/first-official-climate-change-refugees-evacuate-their-island-homes-for-good.html
A fake photo, a photoshopped revision of a picture taken of Al Gore's butler in front of his beach mansion. Note the tell-tale tracks of his time machine in the background.
Sea-level rise is one of the most feared impacts of any future global warming, but public discussion of the problem is beset by poor data, misleading analysis, an overreliance on computer model projections, and a
failure to distinguish between global and local sea-level change—all of which has led to unnecessary and unjustified alarm.
ACCELERATION OF SEA-LEVEL RISE. The IPCC’s 2007 report projected global sea level was likely to rise by somewhere between 18 and 59 cm by 2100, and at an accelerating rate. Since then, several semi-empirical model analyses have predicted sea-level rises for the twenty-first century might even exceed one meter. However, multiple analyses of tide gauge and satellite records make it clear rates of global rise around 10 mm/y do not, and are not likely to, occur. Nearly all sea-level records show either a steady state of
rise or a deceleration during the twentieth century, both at individual locations and for the global average. Though it is only an inadequate 20 years long, the satellite radar altimeter record also displays a recent deceleration of sea-level rise.
DROWNING ATOLLS. On October 17, 2009, members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba
gear and used hand signals to conduct business at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the
purported threat of global warming to oceanic
atolls and islands. In contrast, observational and field evidence from a wide geographic range of
low-lying ocean islands show low rates of sea- level rise consonant with the tide gauge global
average. An oceanic atoll represents a dynamic sedimentary system sustained by broken coral
detritus. Atoll integrity is jeopardized when subjected to human environmental pressures such
as sand mining, construction project loading, and rapid groundwater withdrawal, all of which cause
local lowering of the ground surface. It is these processes in combination with episodic natural
hazards such as king tides and storms, not sea-level rise, that provide the alarming footage of marine flooding on Pacific Islands that from time to time appears on television news.
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a...
Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations
Abstract
The history and development of our understanding of sea level changes is reviewed. Sea level research is multi-fascetted and calls for integrated studies of a large number of parameters. Well established records indicate a post-LIA (1850-1950) sea level rise of 11 cm. During the same period of time, the Earth's rate of rotation experienced a slowing down (deceleration) equivalent to a sea level rise of about 10 cm. Sea level changes during the last 40-50 years are subjected to major controversies. The methodology applied and the views claimed by the IPCC are challenged. For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth's rate of rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels. Best estimates for future sea level changes up to the year 2100 are in the range of +5 cm ±15 cm.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/conte...
Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6148.pdf
Tropical Pacific spatial trend patterns in observed sea level: internal variability and/or anthropogenic signature?
Abstract. In this study we focus on the sea level trend pattern observed by satellite altimetry in the tropical Pacific over the 1993–2009 time span (i.e. 17 yr). Our objective is to investigate whether this 17-yr-long trend pattern was different before the altimetry era, what was its spatio-temporal variability and what have been its main drivers. We try to discriminate the respective roles of the internal variability of the climate system and of external forcing factors, in particular anthropogenic emissions (greenhouse gases and aerosols). On the basis of a 2-D past sea level reconstruction over 1950–2009 (based on a combination of observations and ocean modelling) and multi-century control runs (i.e. with constant, preindustrial external forcing) from eight coupled climate models, we have investigated how the observed 17-yr sea level trend pattern evolved during the last decades and centuries, and try to estimate the characteristic time scales of its variability. For that purpose, we have computed sea level trend patterns over successive 17-yr windows (i.e. the length of the altimetry record), both for the 60-yr long reconstructed sea level and the model runs. We find that the 2-D sea level reconstruction shows spatial trend patterns similar to the one observed during the altimetry era. The pattern appears to have fluctuated with time with a characteristic time scale of the order of 25–30 yr. The same behaviour is found in multi-centennial control runs of the coupled climate models. A similar analysis is performed with 20th century coupled climate model runs with complete external forcing (i.e. solar plus volcanic variability and changes in anthropogenic forcing). Results suggest that in the tropical Pacific, sea level trend fluctuations are dominated by the internal variability of the ocean–atmosphere coupled system. While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing, it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is stillhardly detectable.
http://www.clim-past.net/8/787/2012/cp-8...
