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

[Swelters]

Meanwhile........

Bangkok gets that sinking feeling

BangkokPost.com from Reuters reports

Thailand's best known disaster prognosticator said on Wednesday global warming will put Bangkok a metre under water in less than 20 years, adding: "You will need a motorboat instead of a car."

Smith Dharmasaroja, head of Thailand's National Disaster Warning Centre, told the Reuters news agency that rising seas and natural sinking will put Bangkok under water by 2025 - unless work starts now on a huge dyke to protect the capital.

"If nothing is done, Bangkok will be at least 50 centimetres to one metre under water," Reuters quoted Mr Smith as saying during an interview in Bangkok.

Mr Smith gained notoriety 12 years ago when he predicted Thailand was in danger of being hit by a tsunami. Largely dismissed as a crackpot and retired from government service with the Meteorological Department, he was brought back as a disaster expert after the 2004 tsunami, which killed more than 5,000 people in Thailand alone.

The problem, he says, is two-fold.

The city is subsiding at a rate of 10cm per year, partly due to excessive pumping of underground water.

Global warming is causing seas to rise and there is evidence of severe coastal erosion just downstream from Bangkok.

To avert disaster, Smith said, the city needed to construct a massive dyke to protect it from rising seas and increasingly violent storms.

"The system has to be started right now. Otherwise it will be too late to protect our capital city," he said.

Mr Smith, as usual, was scathing when asked about how authorities are facing the threat.

"The government does not pay any attention at all."

Over to you Swelters ?

OK, Smith is right about subsidence in Bangkok, groundwater pumping induced, it's been a problem of interest to none other than HM here for many years. I haven't followed the recent trends, I'm not sure about the 10 cm per year or the current projections for the future. It likely varies from place to place in the city.

Now returning to the original issue here, I don't know just what the best evidence is on the relative impact of sea level rise on Bangkok itself. My previous criticism of the cynical commentary here was based on the fact that the commentators all implicitly assumed that the Thai shoreline remains at constant elevation as sea level rises, whereas in fact the increased weight of the sea tends to bow the land adjoining the Gulf of Thailand upward, so the land rises as the sea level rises. In some areas this more than compensates for the sea level rise. Odd, but true.

The Thai scientist that started this whole discussion actually wrote a thoughtful scientific paper on this, but no one took the trouble to look at it, rather chose to mock a poorly written press summary as a typical blunder that the commentators clearly thought was characteristic of any Thai action.

Rise in sea level relative to the urban land area, if it occurs, will require improvement of the lower Chao Praya levee system, which is also being stressed by upstream influences. Last winter's high water made this clear enough. It can and probably will be done, at some considerable cost. But a purely random huge flood such as occurred in Bangkok in the 1920s might be a much worse scenario, much worse than New Orleans. This is what I would really worry about.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Swelters

[LaoPo]

But a purely random huge flood such as occurred in Bangkok in the 1920s might be a much worse scenario, much worse than New Orleans. This is what I would really worry about.

Yes, I said that before and I was there, but not in 1920 , there was another flooding in 1983:

" In 1983, Bangkok was hit by a severe flooding due to the heavy rain and inflow of excessive water from surrrounding area. The situation of flooding prolonged and made Bangkok under water for more than 3 months. The depth of flooding was 1 - 1.5 metre that almost ceased all activites in Bangkok. The event brought about a huge damage to the economy of Thailand. After the flooding, His Majesty King had suggested 5 methods in solving the problem of flooding in Bangkok, these are: '

from:

http://www.bma.go.th/bmaeng/body_flood_protection.html

It was not funny, I'll tell you, leaving the factory late at night, wading up to my waist through dark sois... and NO lights....brrrrrrr.

I walked into the lobby of the Jomtien Hotel at midnight, barefooted in my underpants...you should have seen the faces...

A couple of days or even weeks of rain upstream....a springtide in combination with a severe storm in the Gulf and Bangkok is in deep trouble, very deep.

It's not a question IF it will happen, but WHEN.

LaoPo

[brahmburgers]

Perhaps they'll mint a new amulet that will metaphysically raise the surrounding land mass in direct proportion to rising water levels. And while we're at it; another amulet that lessens the pull of the moon - therefore lessening high tides. And a thrice-blessed amulet #3 that precludes a freak typhoon from coming in to the Gulf of Thailand. Even if the Thai experts can skirt around the law of gravity and water seeking it's own level, the combined effect of targetted amulets should give enough protection to Bangkok.

If all else fails, can I apply to get salvage rights to the sunken city?

[Swelters]

Perhaps they'll mint a new amulet that will metaphysically raise the surrounding land mass in direct proportion to rising water levels. And while we're at it; another amulet that lessens the pull of the moon

Well, some folks just don't want to get it, they must just love Al Gore too much. But for those interested there's a good paper on this at:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten...text=ees_papers.

Thanks LadPrao for the very interesting story on the 1983 flood, I knew 1983 was very hot and a big El Nino but didn't know it was a big flood. I'd like to look into this more.

Swelters

[highdiver]

It was not funny, I'll tell you, leaving the factory late at night, wading up to my waist through dark sois... and NO lights....brrrrrrr.

I walked into the lobby of the Jomtien Hotel at midnight, barefooted in my underpants...you should have seen the faces...

LaoPo[/color]

wow it must have looked like this

[LaoPo]

That's a female Leo but I hope she wears -wet- underpants if she walks into the hotel lobby....

LaoPo

[John K]

LaoPo, I do agree things must be done, but as so eloquently put;

“It is hard to make someone understand when his salary depends on him not understanding.”

Bottom line is they will only move when the cost of doing the right thing is less than the cost of doing the wrong thing. That time is not that far off. Line up a bunch of category 5 hurricanes pointed at the USA and watch how fast policy changes.

[chownah]

the increased weight of the sea tends to bow the land adjoining the Gulf of Thailand upward, so the land rises as the sea level rises. In some areas this more than compensates for the sea level rise. Odd, but true.

Interesting concept....hard to believe that a one centimetre rise in sea level would make the shoreline rise more than one centimetre....got a link?

Chownah

[midas]

the increased weight of the sea tends to bow the land adjoining the Gulf of Thailand upward, so the land rises as the sea level rises. In some areas this more than compensates for the sea level rise. Odd, but true.

Interesting concept....hard to believe that a one centimetre rise in sea level would make the shoreline rise more than one centimetre....got a link?

Chownah

does this " theory " only apply to the Gulf of Thailand? Otherwise if the land is destined to rise

as sea levels rise- why are people worried regarding Chinese and Indian cities and why

are so many worried about some of the South Pacific and Indian Ocean Islands?

[chownah]

Well, some folks just don't want to get it, they must just love Al Gore too much. But for those interested there's a good paper on this at:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten...text=ees_papers.

Swelters

This link seems to not be working....I'm wondering if it contains the information I'm looking for.

Chownah

[Swelters]

Well, some folks just don't want to get it, they must just love Al Gore too much. But for those interested there's a good paper on this at:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten...text=ees_papers.

Swelters

This link seems to not be working....I'm wondering if it contains the information I'm looking for.

Chownah

Try this:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten...text=ees_papers

(a pdf file, takes a little time) or google: horton malay-thai holocene

The "bowing effect" indicated in my previous is not the general rule, I don't know it's relative impact on Bangkok per se, but it has a variable and significant effect on certain areas of the Gulf of Thailand shoreline. That's what the Thai guy's paper was all about. But why spoil the discussion by actually reading it?

Swelters

Edited May 9, 2007 by Swelters

[chownah]

Swelter,

Thanks for the link. After reading what I think is the relevant part (mostly at the very last of the article) it seems that the effect you describe is a real one but I don't have the background in the appropriate sciences to understand all that they are saying. I googled "hydrologic isostasy" and found some good stuff.

For now...I don't understand where the uplift effect caused by the increased depth of ocean water will occur...not necessarily at or near the shoreline...but I don't know for sure. If its not at the shoreline then it won't halt ocean encroachment. Also, I'm wondering what the time lag is between the establishment of the deeper ocean and the continental uplift. The articles are always talking about long time frames (hundreds of years if not thousands) in their analyses....and....since it is obvious that the increase in water depth due to daily tides does not cause this effect (the land does not undulate noticeably with the high and low tidal cycles) it seems clear that there is at least some time lag between change in ocean depth and uplift...and...since we are talking about uplifting solid rock sitting on stiff lava or magma (I assume) it makes sense to my gut feeling that it may take quite awhile for the uplift to occur after the sea level is established....but I don't really know. This lag might mean that Bangkok would be flooded for awhile (maybe 50 to 100 years...just a wild a55 guess) before the land uplifts to save the day....how long can YOU tread water?

Anyway, interesting phenomena....and from what I have read (not much) it seems that scientists really don't have this one completely analysed yet....if you find some more info please post it.

Chownah

[Swelters]

Swelter,

Thanks for the link. After reading what I think is the relevant part (mostly at the very last of the article) it seems that the effect you describe is a real one but I don't have the background in the appropriate sciences to understand all that they are saying. I googled "hydrologic isostasy" and found some good stuff.

For now...I don't understand where the uplift effect caused by the increased depth of ocean water will occur...not necessarily at or near the shoreline...but I don't know for sure. If its not at the shoreline then it won't halt ocean encroachment. Also, I'm wondering what the time lag is between the establishment of the deeper ocean and the continental uplift. The articles are always talking about long time frames (hundreds of years if not thousands) in their analyses....and....since it is obvious that the increase in water depth due to daily tides does not cause this effect (the land does not undulate noticeably with the high and low tidal cycles) it seems clear that there is at least some time lag between change in ocean depth and uplift...and...since we are talking about uplifting solid rock sitting on stiff lava or magma (I assume) it makes sense to my gut feeling that it may take quite awhile for the uplift to occur after the sea level is established....but I don't really know. This lag might mean that Bangkok would be flooded for awhile (maybe 50 to 100 years...just a wild a55 guess) before the land uplifts to save the day....how long can YOU tread water?

Anyway, interesting phenomena....and from what I have read (not much) it seems that scientists really don't have this one completely analysed yet....if you find some more info please post it.

Chownah

My hunch is that the uplift is greater east and west of the Thai gulf than in the valley, but I don't pretend to have reached any conclusions, maybe this would be a good one to study a bit. I think's it's useful to think of the seemingly heavy rock as a variably dense melange floating on some viscous fluid of even greater density, which makes many land areas want to "bob up" (Eureka!) and if you start walking around or adding weight here and there it's like walking on a bed of floating logs. Teak logs. Many of the sarcastic posters to the early part of this thread were in fact exhibiting naive biblical fundamentalism (Thou art Al Gore, and upon this rock I shall build my Church) If you've ever seen the cathedrals of Mexico City you'll know where this leads.

Swelters

Edited May 12, 2007 by Swelters

[brahmburgers]

grasping at straws are we? I'm also not a geologist, though I try to stay abreast of science news. I can't see the weight of water having much to do with causing surrounding dry land mass. In the big picture of things (earth's crust, etc), water weight doesn't amount for much - and I've never heard of such a phenomena.

I think it's akin to the people who, for whatever reasons, don't want to acknowledge global warming, or those who acknowledge it's happening, but refuse to attribute a significant causal factor to human activity. Even without global warming, Bangkok would be subject to catastrophic flooding in the near future. Plans need to start to implement now - as regards preventative measures (which I think will be dubious effectiveness at best) or relocating. Relocating to higher ground makes much more sense to me - for more reasons than avoiding inevitable flooding. Bangkok is simply too big and badly planned of a city.

[tropo]

whatever sound logic seems to be applied here is flawed. the seas are indeed not level. differences up to two meters exist... that is a fact whether you believe it or not.

In using the word "level" it would seem that many have failed to consider that the earth is spherical (geoid) in shape and acted upon by several forces i.e. Rotational, Gravitational and Magnetic.

Taxexile included some interesting points:

"14. How much does sea level rise if all the world's ice melts?

To a first approximation, if all the floating sea ice in the world melted, there would be no change in sea level at all, as the floating ice will have displaced its own weight of water. However, if land ice melts, that will raise sea level. All the world's glaciers and small ice caps contain approximately 0.5 m of sea level equivalent between them, while the great Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contain approximately 7 and 61 m respectively. Consequently, if all the wolrd's ice melted in a very much warmer world, sea level would be approximately 70 m higher.

However, when land ice melts the distribution of the mass of water around the global ocean is by no means uniform. A large melting would result in a modification in the Earth's gravity field which would result in the sea level change being higher in some places than in others. "

Whether or not the sea level in Thailand can be affected by distant melting glaciers, and notwithstanding their attempt to explain it in the media, one significant fact remains:

There is no evidence that the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand has risen up until 2007.

Edited May 12, 2007 by tropo

[tropo]

I guess when you look at a globe the water will need to run uphill to fill the gulf and that will stop it from happening. I hope they don’t use the same logic with the nuclear plant they want to build.

I'm coming very late into this fascinating thread, and I'm sorry if I repeat anything someone else has already covered, but the way I see it, the problem lies in our limited understanding of how water sticks to a sphere (earth). Pour some water on an orange and see where it goes.

We're talking about "levels" because we only understand the behaviour of water in a flat (to our perception) enclosed area. i.e. a bathtub, a pond, small lake, swimming pool etc.

[rychrde]

However, when land ice melts the distribution of the mass of water around the global ocean is by no means uniform. A large melting would result in a modification in the Earth's gravity field which would result in the sea level change being higher in some places than in others. "

Hi

it is not the gravitational field that changes (ok locally maybe very slightly but not globally) but rather it is the effect of the Earth spinning that would cause unequal distribution of any ice melting to water. The Earth is not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid (flattened at the poles). Ignoring all other effects, the spinning would result in more water being concentrated near the equator. This was actually one of the major pieces of evidence that vindicated Newton's then-controversial theory of gravitation.

btw also "The total mass of water in the oceans equals about 50 percent of the mass of sedimentary rocks now in existence and about 5 percent of the mass of the Earth's crust as a whole." Enc Brit cache

interesting thread altho the physical forces described are effective in the region of 1000's of years. As the potential problems require solutions within a human lifetime any balancing effect in the distant future does not help us or our children. It also means nothing will be done until the disasters start to pile up as politicians do not act on theories but votes.

hydro-isostasy is like pouring water into a fish tank and you see the gravel at the bottom move to one side - that's all. Except much more slowly and with greater force of water pushing down on the mantle. [btw just mention this as a couple of recent posts seemed not to have understood the phenomenon] Nothing on this Earth is really all that 'solid'. Yes, banging your had against the wall feels hard but if the wall could talk it would ask you to stop it.

rych

[farangsay]

I guess when you look at a globe the water will need to run uphill to fill the gulf and that will stop it from happening. I hope they don’t use the same logic with the nuclear plant they want to build.

I'm coming very late into this fascinating thread, and I'm sorry if I repeat anything someone else has already covered, but the way I see it, the problem lies in our limited understanding of how water sticks to a sphere (earth). Pour some water on an orange and see where it goes.

We're talking about "levels" because we only understand the behaviour of water in a flat (to our perception) enclosed area. i.e. a bathtub, a pond, small lake, swimming pool etc.

Suggest you send your opinion ASAP to Suphat Vongvisessomjai.

He might be feeling a little foolish and isolated.

PS Have you really got a "flat" bathtub ?

[rychrde]

forgot to add this theory link [if already posted, sorry, havent seen it]

http://www.earthscape.org/r3/cronin/cronin08.html

mmm... water doesn't 'stick' to the earth - altho there is a small attractive effect - it is gravity that keeps the water, and us, stuck here. As a thought experiment, switch off gravity but keep the globe rotating and all the water will flood out into space... and us with it!

rych

[tropo]

forgot to add this theory link [if already posted, sorry, havent seen it]

http://www.earthscape.org/r3/cronin/cronin08.html

mmm... water doesn't 'stick' to the earth - altho there is a small attractive effect - it is gravity that keeps the water, and us, stuck here. As a thought experiment, switch off gravity but keep the globe rotating and all the water will flood out into space... and us with it!

rych

Ok, my point was missed. I'll try again.

Although we all know the earth is a sphere, we can't see or comprehend the movement of water "held" to a sphere. We only think of water as a flat level surface within an enclosed environment.

[rychrde]

forgot to add this theory link [if already posted, sorry, havent seen it]

http://www.earthscape.org/r3/cronin/cronin08.html

mmm... water doesn't 'stick' to the earth - altho there is a small attractive effect - it is gravity that keeps the water, and us, stuck here. As a thought experiment, switch off gravity but keep the globe rotating and all the water will flood out into space... and us with it!

rych

Ok, my point was missed. I'll try again.

Although we all know the earth is a sphere, we can't see or comprehend the movement of water "held" to a sphere. We only think of water as a flat level surface within an enclosed environment.

I don't understand what you don't understand.

Physicists understand very well how water is 'held' to a sphere - gravity. In the orange example, the orange does not have much of a gravitational field compared to whole planet, so the water is attracted to the planet and not the orange, so falls to the ground. In zero gravity the water would coallesce into spheroid globules pretty much like the orange.

the geosphere is, however, a complex place with many other forces at work on a local level, but the big brother of them all is gravity.

rych

[tropo]

I don't understand what you don't understand.

Yes, that's for certain.

Again, the average non-physicist does not view, or think of the world as a sphere when they discuss water levels and that is why most consider the assertion that high water levels will not reach the Gulf of Thailand as absurd.

We're discussing things on a different level here. I'm talking about the average person's PERCEPTION of reality, whereas you are attempting to give a lesson in physics.

Even though you appear to have grasped the laws of physics in understanding how water "sticks" to the earth, when you walk around your own personal world, you still see everthing around you as flat. You don't consider that a person living on the opposite point of the globe to you is standing upside down in relation to you.

[tropo]

I guess when you look at a globe the water will need to run uphill to fill the gulf and that will stop it from happening. I hope they don’t use the same logic with the nuclear plant they want to build.

I'm coming very late into this fascinating thread, and I'm sorry if I repeat anything someone else has already covered, but the way I see it, the problem lies in our limited understanding of how water sticks to a sphere (earth). Pour some water on an orange and see where it goes.

We're talking about "levels" because we only understand the behaviour of water in a flat (to our perception) enclosed area. i.e. a bathtub, a pond, small lake, swimming pool etc.

Suggest you send your opinion ASAP to Suphat Vongvisessomjai.

He might be feeling a little foolish and isolated.

PS Have you really got a "flat" bathtub ?

I have not given an opinion as to whether or not I agree with the assertion that high water levels will not reach the Gulf of Thailand. All I'm saying is that things are not always as they might seem and what's considered absurd by many may not be so dumb afterall.

Can you grasp that?

Farangsay said:

Quote:

"PS Have you really got a "flat" bathtub ?"

??

[chownah]

Rychrde,

You posted, "hydro-isostasy is like pouring water into a fish tank and you see the gravel at the bottom move to one side"

I really think you are mistaken. I think that hydro-isostasy deals with the effects of pressure from a static body of water while your example, if I understand it correctly, has more to do with the dynamic forces of moving water as it is poured into or onto a bed of gravel.

Do you have some link I could look at that supports your views on this?

Chownah

[rychrde]

Rychrde,

You posted, "hydro-isostasy is like pouring water into a fish tank and you see the gravel at the bottom move to one side"

I really think you are mistaken. I think that hydro-isostasy deals with the effects of pressure from a static body of water while your example, if I understand it correctly, has more to do with the dynamic forces of moving water as it is poured into or onto a bed of gravel.

Do you have some link I could look at that supports your views on this?

Chownah

ok, I wondred after writing if anyone would pick me up on that! :-)

The important thing is the force the water exerts on whatever is underneath it (pressure is related to force). In an ocean that increased force is due to the increased mass of water. In a familiar home environment there is no way to simulate that extra level of water mass. But force is also related to motion, so in my example to illustrate the increased force I pour the water 'forcefully' rather than letting it trickle in.

And yes, in isostasy I think the theory assumes hydrostatic forces, altho as the ocean floor moves, albeit over thousands of years, one could consider it as hydrodynamics... just fast forward the motion very quickly.

the link I gave before has a very long text on paleoclimatology, inc isostasy.

rych

[chownah]

rychrde,

I tried the link but you need to log in so I could not read it.

chownah

[rychrde]

really? this link here...

http://www.earthscape.org/r3/cronin/cronin08.html

strange, I can see without any logins, altho now you mention it the earthscape.org website does require registration, and can find no google cache of the pages. I don't know what to suggest. Making my own copy and posting that would contravene copyright. Their website security must be crap if some people can see the pages and some cannot.

[rychrde]

I would imagine few (prob none) of us are professional hydrologists or climatologists. The scientists themselves are dealing with a complex moving target, and we hope the models will improve with time. It is fun, however, to have a technical thread for those of us interested in the issues. But what I find surprising is why the engineer decided to voice this opinion. Anything to do with climate and its human repercussions is highly political.

Dr Suphat Vongvisessomjai works for TEAM Consulting Engineering (www.teamgroup.co.th). One of their specializations is environmental impact studies. One of their projects was the Suvarnabhumi Airport Hotel. One of their current projects is Study and Installation of Telemetering System for Flood Forecasting and Warning in Phetchaburi River Basin. Surely instilling a little urgency in the 'rising sea levels' debate would be in their interest. Perhaps this is indeeda soft sales pitch for some more government contracts. Don't panic about the sea levels, let us concentrate on the Bangkok problem. "In Bangkok, for example, extraction of water from groundwater aquifers has resulted in accelerated land subsidence (i.e., a relative rise in sea level) of around 20 mm/yr since 1960, compared with an earlier trend of about 3 mm/yr (see IPCC 1996, WG II, Section 9.3.1)" Dr Suphat Vongvisessomjai was quoted as saying, "Careful analysis rather than panic is in order". Translated as "give us some more contracts please!"

This may not be such a bad thing. "Major difficulties in determining regional sea-level trends for Tropical Asia relate to the limited amount of historical tide-gauge data [...] For instance, only one station in the region (Bombay) is included in the list of stations with records exceeding 75 years..."

And btw, the good Dr also said "The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand. We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets [for sea levels to rise]," which has caused general mirth around here . Perhaps he should get a map out and look at the world's 3rd largest reservoir of ice - the Himalayas.

Anyway, interesting sales pitch, and amusing thread.

rych

[midas]

And btw, the good Dr also said "The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand. We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets [for sea levels to rise]," which has caused general mirth around here . Perhaps he should get a map out and look at the world's 3rd largest reservoir of ice - the Himalayas.

Anyway, interesting sales pitch, and amusing thread.

rych

So does this mean that according the theory that Swelters has i.e that land will rise

as the sea level rises - that accordinlgy the Himalayas will also rise ?

[rychrde]

And btw, the good Dr also said "The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand. We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets [for sea levels to rise]," which has caused general mirth around here . Perhaps he should get a map out and look at the world's 3rd largest reservoir of ice - the Himalayas.

Anyway, interesting sales pitch, and amusing thread.

rych

So does this mean that according the theory that Swelters has i.e that land will rise

as the sea level rises - that accordinlgy the Himalayas will also rise ?

correct!

but for a different reason

ok am tired of posting physics lessons