Sea rises, island disappears

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,617
Reaction score
9,617
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
1) Old news, there was a huge thread on this two weeks ago

2) could just be erosion.

3) Terry Pratchett handled the story better in "Jingo"

4) Area is in the Ganges Delta. Water flow from that creates and destroys Islands all the time. Much as what happens with the Mississippi
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
An uninhabited island in the Bay of Bengal, which had long been claimed by both India and
Bangladesh, completely disappeared when it was submerged by the rising sea level which ended the dispute over ownership.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...r-Disputed-island-disappears-under-rising-sea.
Oceans are not rising any faster then before the supposed Global Warming scare started. I wonder where all that supposed melting ice went?
Don't look at me! I don't have it!
 

Zoom-boing

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
7,800
Points
350
Location
East Japip

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
1) Old news, there was a huge thread on this two weeks ago

2) could just be erosion.

3) Terry Pratchett handled the story better in "Jingo"

4) Area is in the Ganges Delta. Water flow from that creates and destroys Islands all the time. Much as what happens with the Mississippi
And the Chesapeake. Funny how those estuaries are...been engulfing and creating islands for centuries. But, let the ignorants peddle the fear with it while the rest of us just chuckle.
 

Zoom-boing

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
25,764
Reaction score
7,800
Points
350
Location
East Japip
1) Old news, there was a huge thread on this two weeks ago

2) could just be erosion.

3) Terry Pratchett handled the story better in "Jingo"

4) Area is in the Ganges Delta. Water flow from that creates and destroys Islands all the time. Much as what happens with the Mississippi
And the Chesapeake. Funny how those estuaries are...been engulfing and creating islands for centuries. But, let the ignorants peddle the fear with it while the rest of us just chuckle.
:eusa_shhh:
 
OP
MaggieMae

MaggieMae

Reality bits
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
24,043
Reaction score
1,635
Points
48
An uninhabited island in the Bay of Bengal, which had long been claimed by both India and
Bangladesh, completely disappeared when it was submerged by the rising sea level which ended the dispute over ownership.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...r-Disputed-island-disappears-under-rising-sea.
Problem solved.


The link says:

Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Sorry the link didn't work, but since it's "old news" anyway, I'm sure everyone already saw it somewhere.
 
OP
MaggieMae

MaggieMae

Reality bits
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
24,043
Reaction score
1,635
Points
48
An uninhabited island in the Bay of Bengal, which had long been claimed by both India and
Bangladesh, completely disappeared when it was submerged by the rising sea level which ended the dispute over ownership.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...r-Disputed-island-disappears-under-rising-sea.
Oceans are not rising any faster then before the supposed Global Warming scare started. I wonder where all that supposed melting ice went?
If some was at your doorstep, you'd know.
 
OP
MaggieMae

MaggieMae

Reality bits
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
24,043
Reaction score
1,635
Points
48
Okay, I expected only naysayers to jump in. Don't worry, be happy.

Of course that was just one little old island nobody lived on. But it was a tad more troubling last year when the governments of Italy and Switzerland had to hold an emergency meeting because the border between the two countries got moved by Mother Nature. Switzerland has expanded its border at Italy's expense because of melting glacial ice in the Alps.

There's all sorts of sources for that story (also old), so I'll let you choose your own.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Natural Borders do that.

There was a story during the Johnson Administration where the Rio Grande changed course after a flood and took up a chunk of Mexico. We wound up paying the mexicans for the dirt.

It does seem to be a regular occurrence.

Ocala Star-Banner - Google News Archive Search

more from a forum posting elsewhere

Not really, Mixcoatl.
The Rio Bravo ( Grande for the americans ) moved once it's course on the Chamizal area ( Juarez / El Paso )



Rio Bravo only limits the border between Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas with Tejas.

The rest of the border were delimited during the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty and later the Gadsen Purchase of 1853.



http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/ nbc1.html

CHAMIZAL DISPUTE. The Chamizal dispute between Mexico and the United States was a boundary conflict over about 600 acres at El Paso, Texas, between the bed of the Rio Grandeqv as surveyed in 1852 and the present channel of the river. About 100 acres of the tract fell within the business district of the city. The dispute was based on the interpretation of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgoqv of 1848 and the Treaty of 1884.qv These agreements specified that the boundary should be down the middle of the river along the deepest channel, regardless of any alterations in the banks or channels. The Treaty of 1884 also provided that the alterations had to result from such gradual natural causes as the erosion of alluvium and not from the cutting off of land by floods or sudden changes in the river's course. This provision followed the long-established doctrine of international law that when changes in the course of a boundary river are caused by a deposit of alluvium, the boundary changes with the river, but when changes are due to avulsion, the old channel remains the boundary.

The river continually shifted south between 1852 and 1868, with the most radical shift in the river occurring after a flood in 1864. By 1873 the river had moved approximately 600 acres, cutting off land that was in effect made United States territory. Eventually the land was settled and incorporated as part of El Paso. The controversy started in 1895, when Mexico made a claim for the putative owner of the land, Pedro I. García, whose title dated to 1827.

In 1910, in an effort to determine proper title to the land, Mexico and the United States agreed on rules of arbitration. A third member, a Canadian, was added to the International Boundary Commission (later the International Boundary and Water Commissionqv) to complete the task. The tribunal was to decide whether or not the change in the river's course had been gradual, whether or not the boundaries set by treaties in 1848 and 1853 were fixed, and whether or not the 1884 treaty applied. Mexico claimed that the boundary had never changed and therefore that the Chamizal was technically Mexican territory, while the United States claimed that the 1884 convention applied, that the boundary was the result of gradual erosion, and that the property therefore belonged to the United States.

The commission met on June 10, 1911, in El Paso. According to its proposed settlement, the part of the disputed tract lying between the riverbed, as surveyed in 1852, and the middle of the river in 1864 was declared United States territory; the remainder of the tract was declared part of Mexico. Since this decision divided the Chamizal (Spanish for "Chamiza Thicket") between the two countries, the United States considered that the proposal did not conform to the terms of the arbitration and refused to accept it. Mexicans regarded the American refusal to accept the verdict as evidence of unwillingness to negotiate in good faith on matters that did not meet United States interests.

Between 1911 and 1963 several more initiatives were undertaken by different presidential administrations to solve the Chamizal debate. One suggested compromise was that the United States would forgive Mexico's default on the Pious Fund of the Californias, which was intended for the perpetual support of missions and spread of Christianity in California, in exchange for El Chamizal. Other proposed compromises included exchange of other territory along the Rio Grande for the Chamizal, direct purchase of the tract, and inclusion of the Chamizal in the Rio Grande Rectification Project.qv

The entire tract was under the jurisdiction of the United States and the state of Texas. No suits for delinquent taxes were contested, on the grounds that the property was in disputed territory and therefore not subject to taxation. In fact, aside from the question of guaranteed titles to the land in the tract, no distinction was made between it and the rest of El Paso. The dispute continued to affect Mexico-United States relations adversely until President John F. Kennedy agreed to settle it on the basis of the 1911 arbitration award. It was hoped that settlement of the dispute would strengthen the "Alliance for Progress" and solidify the Organization of American States.

The dispute was formally settled on January 14, 1963, when the United States and Mexico ratified a treaty that generally followed the 1911 arbitration recommendations. The agreement awarded to Mexico 366 acres of the Chamizal area and seventy-one acres east of the adjacent Cordova Island.qv Although no payments were made between the two governments, the United States received compensation from a private Mexican bank for 382 structures included in the transfer. The United States also received 193 acres of Cordova Island from Mexico, and the two nations agreed to share equally in the cost of rechanneling the river. In 1964 President Adolfo López Mateos and President Lyndon B. Johnsonqv met on the border to end the dispute officially. On September 17, 1963, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama introduced in Congress the American-Mexican Chamizal Convention Act of 1964, which finally settled the matter. In October 1967, Johnson met with Mexican president Gustavo Díaz Ordaz on the border and formally proclaimed the settlement. See also BANCOS OF THE RIO GRANDE and BOUNDARIES.
Water moves dirt.
 
Last edited:

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
45,446
Reaction score
6,138
Points
1,830
If an uninhabited spit of an island disappears does anyone really care?
 
OP
MaggieMae

MaggieMae

Reality bits
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
24,043
Reaction score
1,635
Points
48
An uninhabited island in the Bay of Bengal, which had long been claimed by both India and
Bangladesh, completely disappeared when it was submerged by the rising sea level which ended the dispute over ownership.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...r-Disputed-island-disappears-under-rising-sea.
Oceans are not rising any faster then before the supposed Global Warming scare started. I wonder where all that supposed melting ice went?
Oh but they are. Note that some of the reporting data here predates the Great Liberal Hoax of Global Warming.

Coastal Zones and Sea Level Rise | Climate Change - Health and Environmental Effects | U.S. EPA
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,751
Reaction score
9,447
Points
2,030
Sorry I'm late to the party. My first thought was the island compacted and sunk into the bay. It is the best possible anwer to the question. I suppose earthquake activity may have lowered the bay in at area as well. To suggest it is a sea level rise is foolish. When you add water to one side of the glass what happens? You just have more water on one side? lol
 
OP
MaggieMae

MaggieMae

Reality bits
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
24,043
Reaction score
1,635
Points
48
Baruch Menachem said:
Water moves dirt.
Of course, and erosion has been a natural process probably since Genesis. But we're talking about SEA levels here, not rivers or brush (Del). About 70% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top