Talk:Lohachara Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Show Me The Data[edit]

Are we SURE that it disappeared due to global warming? What are the data? Are there any other possible explanations for the data? What are the assumptions upon which the claim rests?

I agree! Article states as fact without citing official sources. The subject island is located in a RIVER DELTA, which as anyone that lives in southern Louisiana knows is CONSTANTLY moving and creating and destroying islands in the delta. The quotes of global warming in these subject articles appear to be assumption. ZeLonewolf 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just read some of the articles, and they clearly cite the Jadavpur University study (The Telegraph and Yahoo articles, for example). I'm putting it back in, since the justification for removing it in the first place no longer holds. MaskedEditor 09:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: it appears that the article has made the connection "vanishing island" therefore "rising seas" therefore "global warming". While "rising seas" -> "global warming" is a fair connection, "disappearing island" -> "rising seas" is not, especially for a delta island. Disappearance can be due to tidal forces, sinking land due to water tables, etc. Recommend "rising seas" and "global warming" references be replaced with the more neutral "natural forces" since no one can seem to come up with an authoritative explanation. ZeLonewolf 14:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited article from The Independent says "global warming". Press or not, it allows us to use the term here. -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Like it or not, folks, global warming is going to be considered at least an element in this. Find a source showing why this isn't related to global warming, or accept the existing sources as-is. — ceejayoz talk 01:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype is correct - use of "global warming" satisfies the verifiability standard. If you want it excluded, you need to cite something that shows there is a legitimate controversy, or show that The Independent isn't a reliable source. Also, "naturally occuring" is not unbiased, as it implies human behavior was not a cause. I'm removing that part... MaskedEditor 09:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit![edit]

I had held out hope that this sort of thing wouldn't happen before the major countries of the world agreed to reduce carbon emissions. Our irresponsibility here in the United States is starting to affect the entire world in horrifying ways. Wandering Star 17:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just America; much of the Western world should share the blame. --Planetary 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.indianjungles.com/291006a.htm

this indicates that it was due to erosion because of climate change and not global warming. There is a serious issue.. but the writer of the article that is claiming it as global warming often does so in alarmist or misleading ways.

The article already mentions that other islands there have disappeared due to other causes. The global warming bit is cited. I don't see the "serious issue" in the article.--Planetary 04:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
global warming is a type of climate change, they are not mutually exclusive MaskedEditor 00:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the link excplicitly says "global warming". It's best to use the term that the sources provide.--Planetary 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Paragraph[edit]

The second paragraph needs to be reworked, as quite a bit of it is not directly relevant and/or gives the false impression that there is legitimate debate over why the island no longer exists. MaskedEditor 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is missleading[edit]

To state that: "Lohachara was the first inhabited island to disappear due to global warming" is extremely misleading.

While we can agree that global warming could be considered at least one factor here, it is a stretch to state that Lochachra is in fact the first inhabited island to disappear due to global warming. Something like: "It is possible that Lohachara was the first inhabited island to disappear due to global warming" would be more appropriate.

Curiously the Independent article doesn't mention when Lochachra actually disappeared. It seems that it was about 22 years ago. It is clear form the refugee statement in the article.

http://www.indianjungles.com/291006a.htm

Another point to consider is IPCC's third review that states that there was no acceleration in sea level rises in the 20th century.

According to this BBC article the temple on the island of Sagar had to be moved during the British rule i.e. before the global warming:

Every winter, Sagar hosts the great Hindu festival, the Gangasagar Mela. Tens of thousands of devotees pray at the temple of the great sage, Kapil Muni. The original temple was devoured by the sea during British rule. A new one had to be built several kilometres inland, but now the sea is closing in on that as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3102948.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.15.28 (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

How is it misleading? There is nothing in any of the articles to indicate that there is a controversy over whether or not global warming caused it. All the controversy I have seen on this talk page stems entirely from individuals, who for undisclosed reasons, seem to be unwilling to accept the Jadavpur University study. MaskedEditor 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. You won't see much controversy from all the people who accept a single study on a subject. If there is a study stating there is an airplane tattoo on the cheek of Ben Franklin on every penny, you won't hear much from those who agree. (SEWilco 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Has anyone even seen the study? The reference used is the Independent article not the study. This is the newspaper singled by the out by the Labour-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) for continuous global warming alarmism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.15.72 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There is no study with "Lohachara" in the title on the university's web site nor on the ocean group's site. No press releases on the university's web site either. Google doesn't find Lohachara in the university's web pages. (SEWilco 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It is actually there - but it appears the website has not been updated recently. It is under Projects -> Ongoing -> "Vulnerability assessment in climate change scenario : A pilot study in ecologically fragile Sundarbans island system" MaskedEditor 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that is the study. There are several other titles which may be relevant, assuming the unidentified study is listed at all. Many universities put press releases and research studies on their web sites, but that school doesn't seem to do such things. (SEWilco 04:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Given that at least one of the articles references the study as a "vulnerability assessment", and all of them cite Dr. Hazra, I think it seems likely. In any event, this study has been cited by multiple reputable news organizations (i.e., not just the Independent), so nobody has really presented any compelling argument for doubting that this report exists. MaskedEditor 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between the case at hand and your analogy, in that the study is motivated by a desire to explain a phenomenon (the island disappearing), rather than whatever would motivate someone to do a study on your example. This difference is significant because presumably enough academics care about an inhabited island disappearing that they would correct any misguided studies. MaskedEditor 12:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My example mentions nothing about motivation for studying pennies. As for academics, first they have to get the study and do their own study. Assuming they bother, if the existing studies already have the correct information. (SEWilco 21:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That's my point - there really is nothing to motivate studies on the topic you gave in your hypothetical, much less responses to studies done. You won't hear much from those who agree, nor will you hear much from those who disagree - which is different from the case at hand, where, if there is a legitimate debate over why the island has disappeared, somebody would likely have spoken up. MaskedEditor 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody likely would have completed and published a study within days of scattered press reports of an unidentified study? Or are you referring to that rumored study being a reply to the other studies of the area? (SEWilco 04:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The press reports are not scattered - they are naturally more concentrated in Indian news sources. And it doesn't really matter that the study wasn't properly sourced in the news, as those in the field will be able to find it regardless (small community). And sure, there hasn't been time to complete any response study but I don't think this gives Wikipedia contributors free reign to posit their own unsupported alternative theories. I think the proper thing to do here would be to give deference to the articles and the study and, if you want, a) indicate that the study was recently reported to the Union government to be included in their second national communication to the UNFCCC, so it is unclear yet whether there is a legitimate scientific debate over this issue, and/or b) note that the West Bengal government disagrees with the study (as mentioned in some of the articles). MaskedEditor 07:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph's October 30th story only says that the number of islands was counted and the team's report will be sent to the UNFCCC. We don't know what else the report says, so we don't know if that report is relevant to Lohachara or if it consists of only one single number. We don't know what reports are being referred to, nor what their content is. (SEWilco 07:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If you look at the Yahoo / India Express story, it says: "An annual 3.14 mm rise in sea level at Sunderbans due to climate change is eating away 12 islands on the delta, says a study by a group of scientists from Jadavpur University." Furthermore, even if we were only to look at The Telegraph's story, while it is technically possible to read the article to mean that the report was only on the number of islands, this seems like an unrealistic reading. If your point is that it is possible the report to the UNFCCC is different from the study being cited in the articles, then my response would be that this isn't really an important issue - my previous point was just that you can make note of the fact that the study or studies were recently published, so it's unclear whether there is a legitimate scientific debate over the issue. That said, I find it unlikely that the articles are referring to two separate sources. MaskedEditor 09:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was recently published are newspaper stories. We don't know if the studies which the newspapers are referring to have been published. (SEWilco 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Advected?[edit]

While copy-editing the article for spelling mistakes I found a word advected, which is probably a typo. I am afraid, the sentence didn't provide any clue about the actual intended word/meaning. Please correct/replace the word or provide a meaning here if correct. Thanks! --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 03:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up advect. Moved horizontally by a fluid. (SEWilco 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Advect means to transport something (in this case sediment, although it could be salt, pollutants, momentum, etc) by fluid motion, as opposed to mixing of the property by diffusion (molecular or turbulent). Advection includes vertical motion, but is generally horizontal in oceans and rivers because the vertical velocities of the water are much smaller than horizontal velocities. Essentially, advect has the same meaning as convect, but convect is used almost exclusively for heat. -- Promethus6 07:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original newspaper source[edit]

This article needs to quote the original newspaper source. I still don't have the actual report, but the "The Independent" article appears to be a distorted version of the story run in the Hindustan Times.

The following quote is from the January 7, 2007, Hindustan Times

Hazra also blamed human interference for excessive soil erosion. "The mangrove cultivation was extensively damaged till 1990s by humans but not much effort went into its re-plantation," he said. In addition, the upstream dams on Ganga and Bhramaputra reduced enough fresh water to the mangrove wetland and salinity increased in Sunderbans due to excessive sea flooding causing huge damage to the vegetation, said a Greenpeace campaigner.

What this means is that humans, not global warming, are directly responsible for the loss of these islands

  • First for cutting the mangroves
  • Second for changing the salinity so that new mangroves might not grow

I have produced a page showing before and after data - proof that the sand from these islands simply moved from one side of the channel to the other. (This is quite common in river deltas.) Funny that the "Global Warming" hype did not say anything about new islands being produced because of "rising sea levels".

Q Science 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a total non story![edit]

It's an island in a river delta. Sea level rise has nothing to do with it. Look at the current satellite photo on Google Maps and compare to the map linked in the article. Sure, that island has disappeared, but there are several new islands that weren't on the map, as well as a HUGE increase in size of the sandbank/island immediately to the NW, which is shown as a dotted line on the map. The very fact that the map has dotted lines shows that landmasses are constantly shifting here.

I cannot believe the media printed this garbage without elementary factchecking! 143.252.80.100 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I can believe it. FX (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lohachara Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lohachara_Island&oldid=1203734968"