Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[Bearhawk07]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT

Bangkok - Global warming is not likely to cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise because the body of water is too far from melting glaciers, a leading Thai hydrologist claimed on Monday.

Recent forecasts by the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict a 40 centimetre rise in sea levels by the end of the century will cause flooding for up to 94 million Asians living in coastal areas, may not apply to the Gulf of Thailand, according to Suphat Vongvisessomjai, a former professor in water resources engineering at Bangkok's Asia Institute of Technology.

'The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand,' Suphat told The Nation newspaper. 'We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets.'

Suphat added that, in fact, recent research shows that the average sea levels along some coastal provinces on the gulf have declined 0.3 to 0.6 centrimetres over the past eight years.

The hydrologist, now an employee of Team Consulting Engineering, called on the public not to panic over the IPCC findings.

'The climate change panel did not deceive us or exaggerate. Its scientific findings are just based on the environment of their scientists, most of whom live in Europe,' he told the English-language daily.

Asia-Pacific news

LaoPo

I wonder why the European scientists forgot to calculate the distance to different places on the planet and factor it in to the equation. They probably believe that the surface level of any body of water, no matter how large, averages out. I wonder how far away from the glaciers you have to be before you are safe from the higher sea level phenomena?

We need to get some of these clear thinking Thai scientists into important and powerful international positions. Their conclusions seem to be more sabai sabai.

[JetsetBkk]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT ...

I wonder why the European scientists forgot to calculate the distance ...

Happy Birthday to this thread.

Any chance that we can talk about recent developments and NOT keep referring to the ridiculous original post which is now 2 years old?

[teatree]

The Sun is the driver of climate. Or is it just a coincidence that when that huge ball of nuclear fusion in the sky heats up, earth heats up, and when is cools Earth cools too?

'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers

By Pallab Ghosh

Science correspondent, BBC News

The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.

The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.

Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.

"There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News.

"At the moment, there are scientific papers coming out suggesting that we'll be going into a normal period of activity soon.

"Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."

In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice-age".

This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.

According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.

"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

"If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.

"If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."

'Middle ground'

Evidence from tree trunks and ice cores suggest that the Sun is calming down after an unusually high point in its activity.

Professor Lockwood believes that as well as the Sun's 11-year cycle, there is an underlying solar oscillation lasting hundreds of years.

He suggests that 1985 marked the "grand maximum" in this long-term cycle and the Maunder Minimum marked its low point.

"We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood.

"We would expect it to be more than a hundred years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."

He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.

And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

No-one knows how the centuries-long waxing and waning of the Sun works. However, astronomers now have space telescopes studying the Sun in detail.

According to Prof Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire, this current quiet period gives astronomers a unique opportunity.

"This is very exciting because as astronomers we've never seen anything like this before in our lifetimes," he said.

"We have spacecraft up there to study the Sun in phenomenal detail. With these telescopes we can study this minimum of activity in a way that we could not have done so in the past."

One of the marvelous things about you climate change sceptics, is that invariably you post a fair number of articles or links that dispel and sometimes disprove your own unscientific positions and expose yourselves to ridicule. This is one such instance and if you care to go back through this long thread, there are several other similar instances of you guys arguing against your own position earlier held. In this case, I suspect poor old Teatree didn't fully understand the article he was posting, so keen was he to feed his own prejudice (I am assuming at this point that you are a "he", but forgive me if you are female).

In case you are having trouble Teatree understanding this article, I'll simplify it for you. It's basically saying that while the sun appears to be going through a dimming or cooling phase, the earth's climate is continuing to get warmer, confounding expectations (and your earlier assertions).

NB from the article: He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."

In other words, man's polluting activity with fossil fuel emissions is even more significant than the effect of slight changes in sun spot activity observed by this group of scientists. C'mon, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than this if you want to convince anyone of your case.

Thanks for the laugh and great article.

I'm well aware of what the prof said and was expecting some kind of comment on that. You have to understand that it is all about spin. The mainstream media is full of it, twisting data and facts to suit their own agenda. This is one of the big problems in society today, where people let the BBC do their thinking for them.

A classic example of the kind of spin I'm talking about is when an ice shelf recently broke off in the Antarctic. It was all over the news. The experts who were interviewed said how this is yet another sign of global warming, sea levels will rise etc etc. But they managed to omit (and still do) that the Antarctic ice extent is at its highest ever level. It has actually grown by more than the Arctic has receded since records began! And all the time the general public just lap this nonsense up, believing without question what the someone tells them to.

The facts are that as the article said, the Sun has just gone through one of its most active periods on record, hence the warming we have had. More recently the Sun has cooled and this is leading to lower temperatures, last winter was one of the coldest if not the coldest on record. The Earth's climate is changing, has always been changing and will continue to change in the future. 'Change, this is a restless world'.

You have to look at the facts YOURSELF, and make up your OWN mind. People will believe almost anything they hear as long as it was on the news. I mean they have got us believing that Carbon is a pollutant! One of the building blocks of life, the very gas that humans exhale and plants breathe is a pollutant!

The power of the mainstream media to lead the sheep wherever they want to take them is truly amazing. Do yourself a favour and turn off the TV.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Within the last two months UBC was advising on the television that there would be occasional loss of signal due to SUNSPOTS although they called it something other than sunspots. But then this is Thailand and tend to run a bit behind the rest of the world.

[Duangta]

Bangkok emissions 'worse than London'

Published: 23/04/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Bangkok residents produce as much of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as New Yorkers, and more than Londoners, a UN-sponsored study has found.

The more carbon dioxide is released, the warmer the climate could become, which could put the city at increased risk of natural disasters, the study said.

The likely consequences for the city, already prone to flooding and land subsidence, will be "severe", according to the Bangkok Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009, released yesterday.

"Land subsidence, when combined with a rising sea level, could leave Bangkok under 50-100cm of water by 2025," the report said.

"Rising temperatures could also affect the flow of water in the Chao Phraya and Mae Klong rivers."

Both Bangkok and New York emitted 7.1 tonnes of CO2 a head in 2007, the report found.

Bangkok's emissions were higher than those of London's residents, who produced 5.9 tonnes a head.

The transport sector, responsible for almost 38% of CO2 released annually, is the largest contributor, particularly passenger vehicles.

The report was produced by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the Bangkok-based Green Leaf Foundation with support from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2, are primary contributors of warming temperatures.

The report says a warmer climate in Bangkok could also lead to increased heat-related diseases and the spread of diseases such as dengue fever. The city must take action to reduce the impact of climate change, said Park Young-Woo, regional director of the UNEP's regional office for Asia and the Pacific.

Options for making Bangkok a "climate-proofing" city include improving the public health infrastructure and disease surveillance and prevention programmes, creating early warning systems for extreme weather events, and implementing stricter zoning and building codes to minimise damage from storms and rises in sea levels.

BKK Post

[plachon]

Actually Plachon here is a classic example of a scientist refusing to let the truth get in the way of the ACC mantra. When you read this segment:

He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.

And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

You can clearly see the smoke and mirrors effect. Up until this point he has been using facts from his own studies, but then, when it is time to push the ACC spin. He uses 1900 as his watermark, even though the cooling should have began some time in the 1990's after the the high activity of the 1980's. And then he refers back to theoretical (much disputed) models of the IPCC to confirm his illogical conclusion. Think about it! A 0.7 degree increase during a century where the sun had been increasing in activity for 80% of the time confirms the role of the sun in heating, not the other way around.

If he was being scientific he would have given us the global temperature difference of the last 20 years which would be more in line with the observed decline in solar activity. But if he had done that, his evidence would have either proved nothing, or gone against ACC, and that is career suicide in today's science community. Without the ACC distraction these findings actually confirm what many are saying: That we have begun the slide towards a protracted cooling period, and probably this will continue for the next 200 years.

And of course you know "the truth" better than the experts who study the data day in, day out of their lives?

And of course, you can prove that the eminent astronomists quoted here are not "scientific" as you claim, and your "facts" are more trustworthy than theirs?

And your qualifications in this field are?

[Tigs]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT ...

I wonder why the European scientists forgot to calculate the distance ...

Happy Birthday to this thread.

Any chance that we can talk about recent developments and NOT keep referring to the ridiculous original post which is now 2 years old?

Well as the thread title happens to be

Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims "Too far away from melting glaciers"

and the 'original ridiculous post' as you put it happens to be rather humorous then that is what we are discussing. If you want to start a general thread on global warming or recent developments, you are entirely at liberty to do so. Edited April 23, 2009 by Tigs

[canuckamuck]

Actually Plachon here is a classic example of a scientist refusing to let the truth get in the way of the ACC mantra. When you read this segment:

He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.

And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

You can clearly see the smoke and mirrors effect. Up until this point he has been using facts from his own studies, but then, when it is time to push the ACC spin. He uses 1900 as his watermark, even though the cooling should have began some time in the 1990's after the the high activity of the 1980's. And then he refers back to theoretical (much disputed) models of the IPCC to confirm his illogical conclusion. Think about it! A 0.7 degree increase during a century where the sun had been increasing in activity for 80% of the time confirms the role of the sun in heating, not the other way around.

If he was being scientific he would have given us the global temperature difference of the last 20 years which would be more in line with the observed decline in solar activity. But if he had done that, his evidence would have either proved nothing, or gone against ACC, and that is career suicide in today's science community. Without the ACC distraction these findings actually confirm what many are saying: That we have begun the slide towards a protracted cooling period, and probably this will continue for the next 200 years.

And of course you know "the truth" better than the experts who study the data day in, day out of their lives?

And of course, you can prove that the eminent astronomists quoted here are not "scientific" as you claim, and your "facts" are more trustworthy than theirs?

And your qualifications in this field are?

I can certainly question the way he uses data from a 110 year period to make a conclusion about the last 20. Especially when he arrived at a nonsensical and illogical deduction.

[CrossBones]

Come on! - Land can rise and fall and sea levels are not "level"

Ah ha- thats true because actually the land is floating on the water so if the ice melts the land will float higher and still be above the water!

[JetsetBkk]

Within the last two months UBC was advising on the television that there would be occasional loss of signal due to SUNSPOTS although they called it something other than sunspots. But then this is Thailand and tend to run a bit behind the rest of the world.

I think they call it "Sun outage" but that is merely when the sun moves "behind" the satellite - as viewed by your receiver - thereby swamping the satellite's signal with its own radiation.

I don't see why it doesn't occur with other satellites and in other countries.

Nothing to do with sunspots and I doubt if a hotter or cooler sun makes any difference either.

[JetsetBkk]

Well as the thread title happens to be

Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims "Too far away from melting glaciers"

and the 'original ridiculous post' as you put it happens to be rather humorous then that is what we are discussing. If you want to start a general thread on global warming or recent developments, you are entirely at liberty to do so.

Unfortunately, the original post does somewhat help the CC believers in extracting the urine from the CC non-believers! But I agree, it is quite humorous.

As for starting another, I don't see that happening unless it's Thailand related, so it would probably be another daft one!

[plachon]

Actually Plachon here is a classic example of a scientist refusing to let the truth get in the way of the ACC mantra. When you read this segment:

He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.

And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

You can clearly see the smoke and mirrors effect. Up until this point he has been using facts from his own studies, but then, when it is time to push the ACC spin. He uses 1900 as his watermark, even though the cooling should have began some time in the 1990's after the the high activity of the 1980's. And then he refers back to theoretical (much disputed) models of the IPCC to confirm his illogical conclusion. Think about it! A 0.7 degree increase during a century where the sun had been increasing in activity for 80% of the time confirms the role of the sun in heating, not the other way around.

If he was being scientific he would have given us the global temperature difference of the last 20 years which would be more in line with the observed decline in solar activity. But if he had done that, his evidence would have either proved nothing, or gone against ACC, and that is career suicide in today's science community. Without the ACC distraction these findings actually confirm what many are saying: That we have begun the slide towards a protracted cooling period, and probably this will continue for the next 200 years.

And of course you know "the truth" better than the experts who study the data day in, day out of their lives?

And of course, you can prove that the eminent astronomists quoted here are not "scientific" as you claim, and your "facts" are more trustworthy than theirs?

And your qualifications in this field are?

I can certainly question the way he uses data from a 110 year period to make a conclusion about the last 20. Especially when he arrived at a nonsensical and illogical deduction.

It's only nonsensical and illogical to those that refuse to accept that climate change is occurring; the earth is getting warmer; that it is being exacerbated by human activity; and that changes in solar activity is not as dominant an influence as some of the sceptics have been maintaining.

And by the way, sorry to be pedantic, but the word you are looking for above was "benchmark" and not "watermark". I understood with what you meant though, but disagreed with your conclusion that there is anything amiss in the astonomer's analysis. You must also bear in mind that this is only a soundbite news article and you should go to the source, before you make any hard and fast conclusions about the overall study findings. At the moment you are complaining that it does not fit in with your beliefs, not that you can prove anything wrong with the conclusions of the study.

[canuckamuck]

Look, it's simple. if you measure the temperature of a pot of water and then put a fire under it for 8 minutes and then let it cool for 2. You would be wrong to use the current temperature VS. the starting temperature to claim that it still getting warmer and your conclusion would be wrong. You need to either show a chart of regular intervals, or at least give the temperatures for the time frame in question, which in this case would be the last 2 minutes.

Saying it is hotter today than it was in 1900and therefore we are still warming is not scientific reasoning. He needs to show the difference from 1985 to 2009, or he is just manipulating statistics. The sun's peak was 1985 not 1900.

Edited April 26, 2009 by canuckamuck

[teatree]

A good example of how the 'CO2 is a deadly poison' fraud is being perpetuated was done in the TV show Penn & Teller. They managed to get hundreds of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban the terrible chemical Dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is water.

[yabaaaa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...-ever-told.html

The Maldives arent going underwater anytime soon either. Done from real studies not a computer simulated load of twaddle, The Ipcc brigade didnt like it and ripped up a tree which was evidence.

[andyww]

There wont be a problem. If the Gulf of Thailand starts to rise, the government will announce a crackdown, and everything will be fine.

[Thakkar]

Of the 33 major deltas studied, 24 were found to be sinking.

Possibly the worst affected is the Chao Phraya, the river that flows through Bangkok.

'Millions at risk' as deltas sink

By Richard Black

Most of the world's major river deltas are sinking, increasing the flood risk faced by hundreds of millions of people, scientists report.

Damming and diverting rivers means that much less sediment now reaches many delta areas, while extraction of gas and groundwater also lowers the land.

Rivers affected include the Colorado, Nile, Pearl, Rhone and Yangtze.

About half a billion people live in these regions, the researchers note in the journal Nature Geoscience.

They calculate that 85% of major deltas have seen severe flooding in recent years, and that the area of land vulnerable to flooding will increase by about 50% in the next 40 years as land sinks and climate change causes sea levels to rise.

"We argue that the world's low-lying deltas are increasingly vulnerable to flooding, either from their feeding rivers or from ocean storms," said Albert Kettner from the University of Colorado in Boulder, US.

"This study shows there are a host of human-induced factors that already cause deltas to sink much more rapidly than could be explained by sea level alone."

Most of the at-risk river basins are in the developing countries of Asia, but there are several in developed nations as well, including the Rhone in France and the Po in Italy.

The Po delta sank by 3.7m during the 20th Century, mainly from methane extraction, the researchers say.

Sinking feeling

The researchers drew on data from various space missions including the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, an 11-day project run from the shuttle Endeavour in 2000, and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometers (Modis) carried on two Nasa satellites.

Combined with historical records and measurements of sea level rise, this allowed the team to view how fast land was sinking in some deltas, and to look at the various factors that might be responsible.

Of the 33 major deltas studied, 24 were found to be sinking.

Possibly the worst affected is the Chao Phraya, the river that flows through Bangkok. In some years, parts of the delta have sunk relative to sea level by 15cm (six inches).

This is significantly more than the global rate of sea level rise as a consequence of climate change (1.8-3.0mm per year).

The flow of sediment down to the Chao Phraya delta has been almost entirely blocked, the researchers report - by taking water out for irrigation, damming the river, and directing the main flow through just a few channels.

Normally, this sediment would add to the height of the land, a process known as aggradation.

Taking water from aquifers for drinking, industry and agriculture is also compacting the ground, making it sink.

As the ground falls and sea level rises, people become more vulnerable to inundation during storms.

"Every year, about 10 million people are being affected by storm surges," said Irina Overeem, another of the study team from the University of Colorado.

"Hurricane Katrina may be the best example in the US, but flooding in the Asian deltas of the Irrawaddy in Burma and the Ganges-Brahmaputra in India and Bangladesh have recently claimed thousands of lives as well."

The team identifies the Mekong and the Pearl River delta near Hong Kong as places where similar disasters are likely in future.

[email protected]

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/scie...ure/8266500.stm

Published: 2009/09/21 12:25:45 GMT

© BBC MMIX

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT

Bangkok - Global warming is not likely to cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise because the body of water is too far from melting glaciers, a leading Thai hydrologist claimed on Monday.

Recent forecasts by the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict a 40 centimetre rise in sea levels by the end of the century will cause flooding for up to 94 million Asians living in coastal areas, may not apply to the Gulf of Thailand, according to Suphat Vongvisessomjai, a former professor in water resources engineering at Bangkok's Asia Institute of Technology.

'The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand,' Suphat told The Nation newspaper. 'We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets.'

Suphat added that, in fact, recent research shows that the average sea levels along some coastal provinces on the gulf have declined 0.3 to 0.6 centrimetres over the past eight years.

The hydrologist, now an employee of Team Consulting Engineering, called on the public not to panic over the IPCC findings.

'The climate change panel did not deceive us or exaggerate. Its scientific findings are just based on the environment of their scientists, most of whom live in Europe,' he told the English-language daily.

Asia-Pacific news

LaoPo

Leading Thai hydrologist. Smart man this one. What's he going to come up with next? You can't drown in the Chao Phraya river because it is full of silt?

Yes, I have to admit I struggled to keep a straight face when I saw this. But then the guy is an output from the Thai education system as I understand it, so as a leading Thai hydrologist he probably only knows that water is wet - well 'wet-ish'. Except on *really* hot days. :D

[heykki]

15 pages of comments from people who don't know anything about science bashing someone who does Nobody even seemed to understand what he said, but it instantly became popular to start bashing about Thai education due to this.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

15 pages of comments from people who don't know anything about science bashing someone who does Nobody even seemed to understand what he said, but it instantly became popular to start bashing about Thai education due to this.

Any point in suggesting he should have been more careful with his words?

Seriously, Thais say many completely moronic things, who's to blame a guy/gal for taking this one and thinking it is moronic?

No wait! read again...

Cancel that. It *is* completely moronic.

What a blunder. I thought I had made a mistake but looking again, I can see I was right after all.

Phew!, that's a relief.

[aussiejosh]

Come on! - Land can rise and fall and sea levels are not "level"

Ah ha- thats true because actually the land is floating on the water so if the ice melts the land will float higher and still be above the water!

<deleted> gave you that idea? youtube "island being formed" then tell me if you think land is simply floating on water.

[Gulfsailor]

I don't like to go into the debate about what is causing global warming, but here just some interesting facts on the melting of large bodies of ice:

1) Greenland; There is a very thick layer of ice on the land, melting it will cause sealevels to rise

2) Northpole; Floating ice, will only produce a very small rise in sealevels (because freshwater ice is floating on saltwater a small level increase will be seen)

3) Southpole; The antarctic peninsula is melting, however this is only a very small part of the whole southpole. There are no indications that the rest of the antarctic area is melting. However, since this is ice on land, it will influence sealevels greatly.

Now for the part where it get interesting for Thailand; First of all sealevels are not level! Large bodies of mass attract water, resulting that the water levels near Greenland and the poles are actually higher than around the equator. If, however these bodies lose mass due to melting, their gravitational pull will get less and the actual rise in sealevel will be seen on parts furthest away from that body. So when Greenland melts, sealevels will significantly go down in North america and Northern Europe, wheres the levels will rise a lot in areas on the Southern hemisphere and around the equator. The same happens if the antarctic melts, again raising sealevels around the equator and in this case the Northern hemisphere. No matter where it melts, Thailand is F#@%ed all the time!

The current scientific data suggests that only Greenland and the Northpole are melting at such a rate that it will cause rising sealevels, meaning that there is no threat of rising sealevels at the Northern hemisphere (due to the gravitational pull), but that the problems will occur around the equator and south of that.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

Come on! - Land can rise and fall and sea levels are not "level"

Ah ha- thats true because actually the land is floating on the water so if the ice melts the land will float higher and still be above the water!

If that's the case then I hope they don't build the proposed sodding great big canal down south. Some of the southern states and Malaysia might just... drift off somewhere.

Edited September 23, 2009 by KevinBloodyWilson

[heykki]

"The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by between 19 cm (7.5 inches) and 59 cm by the end of this century." (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.htm)

I guess the guy was very well informed about the reality. Even in the worst case scenario, 59 cm, Thailand would be hardly affected, little enough to justify what the Thai hydrologist said.

Also, who ever suggested that the sea level rise is even in all places? The following link might give you some idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea...hange_trend.jpg

Edited September 23, 2009 by heykki

[apetley]

"The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by between 19 cm (7.5 inches) and 59 cm by the end of this century." (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.htm)

I guess the guy was very well informed about the reality. Even in the worst case scenario, 59 cm, Thailand would be hardly affected, little enough to justify what the Thai hydrologist said.

Also, who ever suggested that the sea level rise is even in all places? The following link might give you some idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea...hange_trend.jpg

If sea levels rise 59cm, combined with the slow sinking of the land, the annual flooding in Bangkok will be catastrophic and the place will become virtually uninhabitable.

[cyb]

"The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by between 19 cm (7.5 inches) and 59 cm by the end of this century." (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.htm)

I guess the guy was very well informed about the reality. Even in the worst case scenario, 59 cm, Thailand would be hardly affected, little enough to justify what the Thai hydrologist said.

Also, who ever suggested that the sea level rise is even in all places? The following link might give you some idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea...hange_trend.jpg

If sea levels rise 59cm, combined with the slow sinking of the land, the annual flooding in Bangkok will be catastrophic and the place will become virtually uninhabitable.

Very true Petley.

Much of Thailand is barely above sea level, Some as little as one metre or below.

[heykki]

That 59 cm was the world average, of course we could already see from the picture that it is unevenly distributed. You guys ought to check this out about sea level rising in this area (just to show how much land actually will be covered if things go unpredicted):

https://www.cresis.ku.edu/research/data/sea...t_Asia_1to6.jpg

[KevinBloodyWilson]

"The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by between 19 cm (7.5 inches) and 59 cm by the end of this century." (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.htm)

I guess the guy was very well informed about the reality. Even in the worst case scenario, 59 cm, Thailand would be hardly affected, little enough to justify what the Thai hydrologist said.

Also, who ever suggested that the sea level rise is even in all places? The following link might give you some idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea...hange_trend.jpg

If sea levels rise 59cm, combined with the slow sinking of the land, the annual flooding in Bangkok will be catastrophic and the place will become virtually uninhabitable.

Exactly right. Bangkok is sinking by about 6cm a year due to draining the aquifer it sits on. And don't get all excited about the proposed 80km sea wall, remember who is going to build it.

[KevinBloodyWilson]

I don't like to go into the debate about what is causing global warming, but here just some interesting facts on the melting of large bodies of ice:

1) Greenland; There is a very thick layer of ice on the land, melting it will cause sealevels to rise

2) Northpole; Floating ice, will only produce a very small rise in sealevels (because freshwater ice is floating on saltwater a small level increase will be seen)

3) Southpole; The antarctic peninsula is melting, however this is only a very small part of the whole southpole. There are no indications that the rest of the antarctic area is melting. However, since this is ice on land, it will influence sealevels greatly.

Now for the part where it get interesting for Thailand; First of all sealevels are not level! Large bodies of mass attract water, resulting that the water levels near Greenland and the poles are actually higher than around the equator. If, however these bodies lose mass due to melting, their gravitational pull will get less and the actual rise in sealevel will be seen on parts furthest away from that body. So when Greenland melts, sealevels will significantly go down in North america and Northern Europe, wheres the levels will rise a lot in areas on the Southern hemisphere and around the equator. The same happens if the antarctic melts, again raising sealevels around the equator and in this case the Northern hemisphere. No matter where it melts, Thailand is F#@%ed all the time!

The current scientific data suggests that only Greenland and the Northpole are melting at such a rate that it will cause rising sealevels, meaning that there is no threat of rising sealevels at the Northern hemisphere (due to the gravitational pull), but that the problems will occur around the equator and south of that.

Are you serious? The gravitational pull of Greenland means the water is deeper there? How about Australia? And Asia?

in any event I think you'll find that the gravitational pull of the sun (the same one that makes the Earth apple-shaped and not spherical, will pull the water down to between the tropics. Also that well-known maker of tides, the moon will have an effect though Idon't know where the orbit is for the moon - I should look it up really.

I am not doubting you, but I would love to know where the stuff about Greenland attracting all the water came from because it just doesn't sound right at all. Can you point me to it or are you ((after all) having a laugh?

[cyb]

I don't like to go into the debate about what is causing global warming, but here just some interesting facts on the melting of large bodies of ice:

1) Greenland; There is a very thick layer of ice on the land, melting it will cause sealevels to rise

2) Northpole; Floating ice, will only produce a very small rise in sealevels (because freshwater ice is floating on saltwater a small level increase will be seen)

3) Southpole; The antarctic peninsula is melting, however this is only a very small part of the whole southpole. There are no indications that the rest of the antarctic area is melting. However, since this is ice on land, it will influence sealevels greatly.

Now for the part where it get interesting for Thailand; First of all sealevels are not level! Large bodies of mass attract water, resulting that the water levels near Greenland and the poles are actually higher than around the equator. If, however these bodies lose mass due to melting, their gravitational pull will get less and the actual rise in sealevel will be seen on parts furthest away from that body. So when Greenland melts, sealevels will significantly go down in North america and Northern Europe, wheres the levels will rise a lot in areas on the Southern hemisphere and around the equator. The same happens if the antarctic melts, again raising sealevels around the equator and in this case the Northern hemisphere. No matter where it melts, Thailand is F#@%ed all the time!

The current scientific data suggests that only Greenland and the Northpole are melting at such a rate that it will cause rising sealevels, meaning that there is no threat of rising sealevels at the Northern hemisphere (due to the gravitational pull), but that the problems will occur around the equator and south of that.

Are you serious? The gravitational pull of Greenland means the water is deeper there? How about Australia? And Asia?

in any event I think you'll find that the gravitational pull of the sun (the same one that makes the Earth apple-shaped and not spherical, will pull the water down to between the tropics. Also that well-known maker of tides, the moon will have an effect though Idon't know where the orbit is for the moon - I should look it up really.

I am not doubting you, but I would love to know where the stuff about Greenland attracting all the water came from because it just doesn't sound right at all. Can you point me to it or are you ((after all) having a laugh?

I understand a little of what gulfsalior is saying. Correct me if i am wrong, In relation to gravitational pull the area around greenland has a volume of water levels greater than lets say australia.

So when the ice sheet melts it's pull on the ocean relaxes and the water moves away.

So in effect the sea level would fall and rise respectively in other places, Higher in the areas further away from it?