Talk:Carteret Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Melanesia
Oceania Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Terry source

Is there a source for this: "However, 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)." I can't find it Albatross2147 23:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There was some POV stuff in this that I either removed or moved into a new section on "disagreements on the causes of flooding". Mahonia 00:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

the guardian article calls these islands the "Carteret Atolls." pages should definately be merged, and perhaps moved to Carteret Atolls. --naught101 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 islands, one Atoll. I visited them last year see (www.starr.tv) The articles could definitely be merged. The Islanders themselves refer to their home most often as the "Carteret Islands" not Carteret Atoll. The plural of Atoll "S" in the Guardian article seems to be a gramatical error. There is only one atoll in the Carterets group, though there are 3 more Atolls in the same province.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipstarr (talk • contribs)

Based on what Pipstarr has said about how the inhabitants refer to their atoll/islands, I think the article should be titled Carteret Islands and Carteret Atoll should redirect. I am merging the two articles accordingly. --Takver 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ties to Global Climate Change?

I believe in the notion of human-induced global climate change, but I'm having a difficult time understanding the supposed ties between global warming and the submergence of these islands. I assume that if the cause is global warming, the rising seas would be due to melting ice caps, etc., and that this would most likely be coming from Antarctica, as that would be the nearest icecap location for the Carteret Islands.

No, the putative cause of sea level rise due to global warming is primarily due to thermal expansion. The rise due to ice melting is estimated to be only about 0.3 mm/yr (about just over an inch per century). -- Securiger 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

However, what I do not understand is why the sea levels are apparently not rising in other locations, such as in Australia or New Zealand, which the water would have to pass by before reaching the Carteret Islands. I have heard no indication that the sea levels are rising in Australia, which is something that should be obvious, given the many seaways and canals which are monitored regularly for boating purposes in places like Australia's eastern Gold Coast. Over time, a gradual increase in the average sea level would be apparent, even in light of changing tides, ocean swells, etc. If there are reliable reports of rising sea levels in Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere in Oceania, these should probably be referenced in this article.

Your question is completely reasonable. The total sea level rise during the last 100 years is estimated to be about 20 cm (8 inches). Since this is far less than normal sea level variation it cannot possibly explain the problems on the Carterets. -- Securiger

My main point is that if this theory were true, I do not understand the physics behind why the water from the icecaps would completely bypass a continent and inexplicably bunch up around the Carteret Islands, instead of being more evenly distributed.

Perhaps there is something more subtle going on here that is not fully explained in the article. If there is, this mechanism needs to be explained more clearly in the article. If there isn't, the article needs to point out that this theory does not mesh with physics and is, therefore, physically impossible. --DavidGC 04:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think from my understanding that because these islands are so low in height that any slight change will affect them more than say a continent like Australia that rises many hundreds of metres out of the water. The reason, because storm swells will do more damage to low lying islands in the middle of the ocean, when there is an increase in water level. Of course the water will rise everywhere else as well, but shall do less damage in the high water surges. Get a more complete picture and ask questions over at Climate warming. Nomadtales 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Nomadtales, that doesn't make sense. It might have proportionally more effect on a smaller land mass, but not in absolute terms. That is, mountaintops in Australia might be safe, but if seashore communities in the Carterets are being flooded, then seashore communities in Australia should be, too. The fact that no such effect is observed is explained simply by the fact that total sea level rise due to global warming, so far to date, is far too small to cause flooding anywhere it doesn't occur anyway, because the increase is much smaller than common natural variations such as tides. -- Securiger 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1.5 metres?

I wonder if anyone could explain the following puzzle to me. Our article claims that the highest point on the Carterets is 1.5 m above sea level. When not otherwise qualified, "sea level" normally means mean sea level. However, normal variation in sea level is commonly of the same order if not more. Typical tidal range for oceanic islands is about 0.6 m, increasing up to about 0.9 m twice a month (hence, peaking 0.3 to 0.45 m above MSL.) On top of this, swell is rarely less than 0.8 m in amplitude and commonly reaches 2.2 m even in calm weather, or much more when driven by distant storms. Local wave height can then be added on top of that. Consequently, any island with a peak elevation of 1.5 m above MSL could expect to be completely overtopped by waves several times a week even in fairly calm weather. That's just the highest point; most of the island's area is at a lower elevation, and will be submerged must more often. And it doesn't take a full blown storm to completely submerge such an island, a tropical depression during a spring tide will suffice. Yet full blown tropical storms do occur there, often, and in fact full blown typhoons occur once every couple of years. During a strong tropical depression or tropical storm, such an island will be completely underwater -- several metres underwater during the biggest waves.

In short, nevermind 20 cm sea level changes, I don't see how such an island could be inhabitable at all. Can anyone explain this? -- Securiger 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Relocation of the inhabitants

This is not the first island whose inhabitants have been relocated. In 1930 the inhabitants of St. Kilda, NE Atlantic) were relocated to the Scottish mainland. The reasons were not rising sea-level, but the increasing age of the islanders and the growing marginality of their existence. Hence the remark on rising sea level has been inserted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Papua New Guinea?

The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project, an Australian government initiative, have documented sea-level rise in the Papua New Guinea region at approximately 6.2mm per year.[1]

The above was removed because the source does not mention Carteret, and Papua New Guinea is on a different tectonic plate. [1] The shore's sea levels can not be compared. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. Steric or even ENSO-related sea level, which is what the SPSLCMP study was measuring, is unrelated to what tectonic plate the Carterets are on. Can you please state whether your objection to the new material has further substance, or if it is based on a personal bias? Thanks. Arjuna (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I share a concern that the language be cautious and not prematurely state that the evidence is definitive, because it isn't. At the same time, 1. the story is out there; 2. regional tidal gauge data are suggestive; and 3. it is consistent with IPCC projections. You may or may not disagree with the IPCC (I don't know where you're coming from), but these are the facts. I acknowledge that there is also legitimate reason to suspect that subsidence and/or erosion may be at least equally likely, but this isn't about OR, it's about what's known. Let's try to find neutral language that indicates these facts. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Flooding can be caused by many things and a sinking island is not the same cause as rising sea level. The height of the land of an island is affected by many factors (see Sea level). Tectonic movement is one thing which can change the height of an island. Measurements on an island which is on a different tectonic plate are not directly applicable to Carteret, which is also separated by two oceanic trenches from the geologic structures of Papua New Guinea. Indeed, the "Estimation of current plate motions..." external link has different movement numbers for Carteret and Port Moresby in Table 1. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There also was no source to indicate that the islanders' problems were caused by a regional rise of 7 millimeters (the thickness of four Quarter (United States coin).) -- SEWilco (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bouganville conflict

A little more description is needed about "the prolonged Bouganville conflict"; the link goes to a disambiguation page. Should it point to the World War II event? -- SEWilco (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)