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

[A_Traveller]

The video which is linked to herein, is a later version of the one earlier in this thread. It summarises well, the fundamental view that the causes and even the reality of 'Global Climate Change' in and of itself is irrelevant. The risk analysis perspective says the catastrophic risks {for humans,not the planet} outweigh the potential impact of costs expended preparing for something which doesn't happen. The other issue is that we have learnt that the climatic system term is a misnomer, it is a series of feedback loops governed by mathematical rules, which we only partially understand. What we do know with more clarity now is that the dynamics of the environment become turbulent very quickly, with extreme results.

I'd not seen these vids before, but I do think it's worth 10 minutes of your time. This is an updated version.

Regards

Edited May 25, 2008 by A_Traveller

[ThaiAdventure]

Phew...So much to reply to

The BIG question is what if the greenies are right? Did you look at this

It might be a gamble, but the risk vs reward is illustrated in this simple graph.

The greenies in the 1970's were worried about global cooling, now they are worried about global warming.

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

So which is it?

Yes I have seen the video. The reasoning (as eloquent as it is) is flawed in 2 main area's:

1. The warming is a man made disaster.

2. It is preventable.

There is a third scenario which is not accounted for in the video which is that the warming AND cooling phenomenom is a natural process and no amount of increasing taxes, diversion of resources or praying to gods will prevent. Instead of reducing emissions (or if we were were in fact cooling the environment as was percieved in the 70's...increasing the emissions would be the be the bizzar reciprocal arguement) we should be comfortable with the fact that the earth is ever changing and putting our efforts into adapting ourselves to live in whatever environment mother earth decides to dish out instead of trying to control the environment.

Um, true... BUT, we're in the process of stripping the earth of plant life, so we're taking a LOT of the potential CO2 reclaimers out of the system. The ocean can't increase it's capacity to convert CO2, that is, unless something is done to improve that aspect of the ocean's capacity to deal with the increases.

Ermm. Doesn't the fact that sea levels will be rising mean that there is more water and therefore the capacity to reclaim has increased? I must be missing something here.

If you really are thinking that global warming is still up to debate you are horribly misinformed.

Right. So lets just pack up shop and give all our assets to the moonies.

If you think that the World is just going to get warmer and the oceans are going to rise you are going to be in for quite a shock.

I think that is one thing that will happen.....just before temperatures plummet, the ice caps charge from the polar regions , 1/3 of the world is inhospitabl either because its desert or ice and the Baring straights along with the English Channel become plains again. The UK will definately be part of the EU then

Map 18000 years ago

Further, as a person who is in that scientific community I speak of, the effects of global warming are happening at a much quicker rate that anyone has predicted.

Who is that then?

Here's some more:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)

(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore

(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--

a London-based business that sells carbon credits)

(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate."

Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said,

" It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."

Jane Francis

I'm with Jane on this one.

.....Our planetary weather is governed by the temperature of the oceans and recent changes in weather patterns over the past fifteen years are a start, not an end.

Not entirely....

Does CO2 (or methane) also affect the solar wind? Is it a cause...or effect?

1. Anthropogenic (manmade) contributions to atmospheric CO2 represent approx. 3% increase (according to your figures) in what is just a brief moment in geological time. Given time, natural systems usually adjust to changes in inputs, but this is like taking up smoking at 2 packs a day.

I Fail to see the analogy or indeed how the 3% increase in CO2=40 ciggies. In terms of atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and other misc stuff) a 3% increase in CO2 equates to 0.0012 % change in CO2 levels (if my maths is right..please correct if not...but it's not much) so I'd be moaning if it was a pay rise!. Also, human lungs are not built to process cigarette smoke, the earth IS however built to deal with CO2.

Its concentration (CO2) varies seasonally and also considerably on a regional basis: in urban areas it is generally higher and indoors it can reach 10 times the background atmospheric concentration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

So. Not to worried about 3% increase when walking in my front door means there is a 1000 percent increase!

[A_Traveller]

^ I'll just point out one thing here, which is that 'Global Warming' is an inappropriate phrase, as I noted in passing. The issue is that destabilisation of the climate compared to the recent past does appear to be happening. The view of those who say that a program should be initiated, don't simplistically say 'cool down the planet'. What they say is we have to identify what is causing the turbulence {using the term mathematically} that we are seeing, and what measures must we as a global society take, to ameliorate it.

For example the cooling issue described during the '70s {and often used to debunk the 'warmers'}, relates to thermolhaine changes, which are driven by the salinity. Put very simply & briefly the undersea conveyors {Gulf Stream etc.} have a major effect on climate, but are often ignored in general discussions. If the salinity of the water at critical points changes then the system can fail, or stutter. It is posited that such an event caused elements of the mini-ice age which gave us picturesque scenes of skaters on the Thames.

Now warming leading to increased run off, which leads to a change in critical salinity, which leads to change in the conveyors, which leads to a few degrees cooling. But guess what, they don't balance out.

Regards

[himachal]

Dear TA.

Please forgive my rather crude analogy. (I hoped you liked the salty chips one better!)

As for my maths, allow me to rephrase:

If CO2 from natural sources entering the atmosphere each year comes to 180 billion tons and we add another 6 billion tons each year, that's a 3% increase on total natural transfers of CO2 to the atmosphere, isn't it?

Regards, Himachal

[ThaiAdventure]

Dear TA.

Please forgive my rather crude analogy. (I hoped you liked the salty chips one better!)

As for my maths, allow me to rephrase:

If CO2 from natural sources entering the atmosphere each year comes to 180 billion tons and we add another 6 billion tons each year, that's a 3% increase on total natural transfers of CO2 to the atmosphere, isn't it?

Regards, Himachal

Not quite. 99.96% of the atmosphere is not CO2.

First of all, don't think of it as adding 6 billion tonnes. When you consider that estimates for the average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion tonnes it makes your head hurt and your calculator will run out of zeros. Instead think of it as our contribution (breathing, industrial emissions, farting etc) to the 186 billion tonnes is 3 %.

So.....

3% [(6/186)*100)=3.225%] is our contribution to the total CO2 alone not of all the gasses in the atmosphere. As the total CO2 (186 billion tonnes) represents only about 0.04% of all the gasses present (other largest contributers being nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21% Argon 1% THEN CO2 0.04%) then our 3% portion of CO2 is 3% of 0.04% = (3/100)x(0.04)=0.0012% of the total gasses in the atmosphere.( i.e about as much as a nats wart).

As an aside, if the CO2 increases, which gas or gases decrease? There's not a lot of info about on that. I'd be a lot more worried for the planet if the nitrogen increased by 3% and the Oxygen decreased. But I'm sure they will fit it in to disaster theory somehow and then we'll get the carbon nitrogen tax

[VegasVic]

A 'leading hydrologist' ?????

The scary thing is where he's leading us!!!

A few years from now when the people of Bangkok are knee deep in water, I am sure that the Thai government leading hydrologist will make a retraction of his current statement and admit that the gulf of Thailand was subject to the laws of physics after all

[Richard W]

Ermm. Doesn't the fact that sea levels will be rising mean that there is more water and therefore the capacity to reclaim has increased? I must be missing something here.

Two facts. (1) The volume won't increase much.

(2) The interaction takes place at the surface. You will get massive flooding before the surface are increases much.

Another fact to worry over - strange weather kills crops. Even if in the long term global warming improves weather, we are in for a rough ride - and some big players could also get very nasty. What happens when a nuclear power faces famine? And if Iraq is really about Iraqi oil, then...

[cali4995]

I was standing down at the beach the other day absolutely aghast at the

magnitude of the tidal variations? At one end of the cycle, the entire beach

has disappeared and the waves are lapping up against the concrete

retaining wall. At the other extreme, the water's edge appears to be 100m

away with the level so shallow boats can't get anywhere near the shore? Has

it always been this way? I'd like to see some photos from 10 years ago?

[jumnien]

My boat has 34" of draft. Will the rising sea levels help protect our boats from propeller hits against the rocks. It is so shallow in the Gulf, we sure could use a few feet of clearance.

[Galong]

I just finished reading this website that ThaiAdventure gave us as well as the links from this site.

Hmm, very interesting and thought-provoking. I now wonder if CO2 really is the issue or if we're perhaps going through a natural swing in temperatures like has happened so many times in the past. It is a greenhouse gas, but the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been higher during times when the earth was actually cooler or at least very similar to the present period.

On the other hand, a few degrees can have a massive impact. I wonder how accurate the reading methods are when scientists study past climate changes... if it's very accurate, then that's one thing. If it's kinda accurate, that opens a whole other dimension of possibilities.

Interestingly, in the 70s there was the thought that we were heading for another ice age, just a few decades later it's suddenly global warming...hmmm.

Now, I still believe wholeheartedly that we MUST stop pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. There has to be consequences for doing so.

However, the underlying (over-riding) most dangerous thing that we're doing to this small planet is out of control population growth. Finite resources cannot support an infinite amount of consumers.

Your thoughts?

[A_Traveller]

Interestingly, in the 70s there was the thought that we were heading for another ice age, just a few decades later it's suddenly global warming...hmmm

See my post above re thermolhaine changes.

Regards

[Galong]

Interestingly, in the 70s there was the thought that we were heading for another ice age, just a few decades later it's suddenly global warming...hmmm

See my post above re thermolhaine changes.

Thanks A_Traveller.

I think that the one thing we can be sure of is that we don't know for sure (100%) whether we're directly responsible for climate change or only partially responsible. Perhaps we're not responsible at all, but I think that's pushing it a bit.

Being a Nature Loving, Tree Hugging type, I'd tend to blame the human race, but I also consider myself to be at least a bit open-minded and now question some of my previous convictions.

I think that the systems involved in such a vast arena known as GLOBAL weather patterns is so complicated that our feeble minds can't really diagnose the entire mutually supporting/co-dependent systems involved. Throw in a dash of premeditated beliefs and it only gets worse. It's like that annoying Rubic's Cube. You get one side lookin' good and then see how screwed up the other sides still are... Doh!

So, my only conclusion is that we must cut back on energy consumption and hope that that make a positive change.

[himachal]

^{_{Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice}}

^{_{By David Shukman}}

^{_{Environment correspondent, BBC News}}

A Canadian expedition found the new cracks

Breaking news: Thai government denies existence of cracks in Arctic runway.

Moves to have journalist dismissed.

[himachal]

Dear TA.

Please forgive my rather crude analogy. (I hoped you liked the salty chips one better!)

As for my maths, allow me to rephrase:

If CO2 from natural sources entering the atmosphere each year comes to 180 billion tons and we add another 6 billion tons each year, that's a 3% increase on total natural transfers of CO2 to the atmosphere, isn't it?

Regards, Himachal

Not quite. 99.96% of the atmosphere is not CO2.

First of all, don't think of it as adding 6 billion tonnes. When you consider that estimates for the average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion tonnes it makes your head hurt and your calculator will run out of zeros. Instead think of it as our contribution (breathing, industrial emissions, farting etc) to the 186 billion tonnes is 3 %.

So.....

3% [(6/186)*100)=3.225%] is our contribution to the total CO2 alone not of all the gasses in the atmosphere. As the total CO2 (186 billion tonnes) represents only about 0.04% of all the gasses present (other largest contributers being nitrogen 78%, oxygen 21% Argon 1% THEN CO2 0.04%) then our 3% portion of CO2 is 3% of 0.04% = (3/100)x(0.04)=0.0012% of the total gasses in the atmosphere.( i.e about as much as a nats wart).

As an aside, if the CO2 increases, which gas or gases decrease? There's not a lot of info about on that. I'd be a lot more worried for the planet if the nitrogen increased by 3% and the Oxygen decreased. But I'm sure they will fit it in to disaster theory somehow and then we'll get the carbon nitrogen tax

Dear TA

Now I am really losing confidence in my mathematical capabilities. None of my teachers told me that

6 BILLION TONS EVERY YEAR equals a 'nats wart'. I agree that CO2 makes up a small proportion of the atmosphere (hardly debatable, I think) - however, I thought we were talking only about transfers of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally controlled by various systems and processes. But now those systems are being asked to deal with extra CO2. It takes time for them to adjust to doing that. In the meanwhile, this extra CO2 is preventing heat radiation from escaping into space. Ergo: the earth warms up. Exactly how much of the global warming that REALLY IS HAPPENING is due to this has long been debated, but to deny that human activity has any effect is, well....

That's why farts are warm

regards

[Khun Jean]

Furthermore, as Canadianvisitor pointed out, there is a whole load (far more than we have ever released to the atmosphere) of methane, and CO2, currently locked in permafrost. It's a timebomb.

'Locked in permafrost'. Manmade? i don't think so.

Probably a volcano that put out more co2 and other very poisonous gasses than man could make in a million years driving their cars and running their factories.

Maybe we should stop breathing, it is a major contributor to co2. It is probably the chinese and indias faults. They are with to many people. Culling a few billion will restore the blance.

[himachal]

Furthermore, as Canadianvisitor pointed out, there is a whole load (far more than we have ever released to the atmosphere) of methane, and CO2, currently locked in permafrost. It's a timebomb.

'Locked in permafrost'. Manmade? i don't think so.

Probably a volcano that put out more co2 and other very poisonous gasses than man could make in a million years driving their cars and running their factories.

Maybe we should stop breathing, it is a major contributor to co2. It is probably the chinese and indias faults. They are with to many people. Culling a few billion will restore the blance.

Dear Khun Jean

Humbly request that posts be read carefully before quoting them and replying.

Enjoy your culling, and don't forget to breathe!

regards, Himachal

[PeaceBlondie]

It is not just that we might gain one or two billion more humans in this century. The problems compound when they all want motorcycles cars, air conditioners, and beef. That cannot happen, especially since the greatest casualty of the Cold War was red-hot Communism..

[nomoretalksin]

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2008/2008-05-23-01.asp

Global Warming Sticker Shock

WASHINGTON, DC, May 23, 2008 (ENS)

- If global warming continues unchecked, by 2100, New York City will feel like Las Vegas does today and San Francisco will have a climate comparable to that of today's New Orleans. In 2100, Boston will have average temperatures like those in Memphis, Tennessee today. These higher temperatures will be uncomfortable financially as well as physically, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Tufts University, commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC.

Over the next 100 years, global warming will increase the average temperature across most of the United States by 13 degrees

Fahrenheit and by 18 degrees in Alaska, the report estimates.

"Some important impacts are priceless, so the real situation is worse than the numbers can convey," said the report's lead author, Frank Ackerman. "But the numbers, for those impacts we can put prices on, are bad enough. Climate change is on a collision course with the U.S. economy, long before the end of the century, unless we act now."

Heat waves will become more commonplace across the United States if no action is taken to limit climate change. (Photo credit unknown)

The Tufts researchers present two ways of estimating the costs of inaction on climate change.

A comprehensive estimate based on state-of-the-art computer modeling finds that doing nothing on global warming will cost the United States economy more than 3.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, by 2100. That amounts to $3.8 trillion annually in today's dollars.

On the other hand, a detailed, bottom-up analysis finds that four categories of global warming impacts - hurricane damage, real estate losses, increased energy costs and water costs - will add up to a price tag of 1.8 percent of GDP by 2100. That's almost $1.9 trillion annually in today's dollars.

Dan Lashof, director of NRDC's Climate Center, said, "The longer we wait, the more painful and expensive the consequences will be. This report's findings are undeniable - we must act now."

"The Climate Security Act currently in the U.S. Senate is our best opportunity to set a concrete limit on global warming pollution and provide an accompanying market that rewards companies for making real reductions," Lashof said.

Also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill for its authors - Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman and Virginia Republican Senator John Warner - the bill was introduced last October and approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in December 2007. It is expected to be debated in the full Senate in early June.

The bill would impose emission limits on electric utility, transportation, and manufacturing industries under a national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.

Polluters would mostly be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit. The cap would get tighter over time, until by 2050, emissions would be reduced to 63 percent below 2005 levels. Presently, greenhouse gases emitted in the United States are not subject to regulation.

"Many economic models have attempted to capture the costs of climate change for the United States," the report states. "For the most part, however, these analyses grossly underestimate costs by making predictions that are out of step with the scientific consensus on the daunting scope of climatic changes and the urgent need to reduce global warming emissions."

For its model, the report's authors referred to "The Economics of Climate Change," a report commissioned by the British government and released in 2006, also known as the Stern Review after its author, Sir Nicholas Stern.

"We used a revised version of the Stern Review's model to provide a more accurate, comprehensive picture of the cost of global warming to the U.S. economy," Ackerman and his colleagues explain. Global warming is already melting sea ice and glaciers that will contribute to sea level rise. Sea level is expected to rise 23 inches in 2050 and 45 inches by 2100 , with grave impacts expected for the low-lying coastal communities of the southeastern United States.

By 2100, an estimated $360 billion per year will be spent on damaged or destroyed residential coastal real estate in the United States as a result of the rising sea levels, the Tufts report shows.

The effects of climate change will also be felt in the form of more severe heat waves, hurricanes, droughts, and other erratic weather events and in their impact on our economy's bottom line.

"Curbing global warming pollution will require a substantial investment, but the cost of doing nothing will be far greater," the authors conclude. "Immediate action can save lives, avoid trillions of dollars of economic damage, and put us on a path to solving one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century."

To read the full report, "The Cost of Climate Change," click here.

Unquote

Still doubting on "abnormal global climate change & rising sea levels with global consequences, even for us or our kids?" ?

Nice reading above too; some posters really know a lot on this topic, still learning myself

[nomoretalksin]

^{_{Vast cracks appear in Arctic ice}}

^{_{By David Shukman}}

^{_{Environment correspondent, BBC News}}

A Canadian expedition found the new cracks

Breaking news: Thai government denies existence of cracks in Arctic runway.

Moves to have journalist dismissed.

Sinking after-news:

Commerce Minister Mingkwam (or better Mingk-nam) want's to declare whole Bangkok "Floating Market" and get global copyright & patent on name

once the city will be within the next view decades under water, with 23-45inches (read above) levels, leaving residence no other chance, then using water-tuk-tuks.

This will boost our floating economy, he stated to "Not-The-Nation" this Monday

Serious: Guys still wanna invest near the coastline, rivers etc. after reading above??

Edited May 26, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[PeaceBlondie]

Dateline, May 26, 2080: Today in Thailand, the Prime Minister announced, from the seaside town of Chiang Mai......

[ThaiAdventure]

I just finished reading this website that ThaiAdventure gave us as well as the links from this site.

Hmm, very interesting and thought-provoking. I now wonder if CO2 really is the issue or if we're perhaps going through a natural swing in temperatures like has happened so many times in the past. It is a greenhouse gas, but the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been higher during times when the earth was actually cooler or at least very similar to the present period.

On the other hand, a few degrees can have a massive impact. I wonder how accurate the reading methods are when scientists study past climate changes... if it's very accurate, then that's one thing. If it's kinda accurate, that opens a whole other dimension of possibilities.

Interestingly, in the 70s there was the thought that we were heading for another ice age, just a few decades later it's suddenly global warming...hmmm.

Now, I still believe wholeheartedly that we MUST stop pumping chemicals into the atmosphere. There has to be consequences for doing so.

However, the underlying (over-riding) most dangerous thing that we're doing to this small planet is out of control population growth. Finite resources cannot support an infinite amount of consumers.

Your thoughts?

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

Now I am really losing confidence in my mathematical capabilities. None of my teachers told me that

6 BILLION TONS EVERY YEAR equals a 'nats wart'.

lol..I had some very novel teachers

I agree that CO2 makes up a small proportion of the atmosphere (hardly debatable, I think) - however, I thought we were talking only about transfers of CO2 to the atmosphere.

I thought we were talking about climate change

It's important to get things in perspective. If the politicians told you that there was a 0.0012% being added to the atmosphere and therfore your tax was going up, evryone would be up in arms. But to say we are adding billions of tonnes to the atmosphere gets peoples attention.

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally controlled by various systems and processes. But now those systems are being asked to deal with extra CO2. It takes time for them to adjust to doing that. In the meanwhile, this extra CO2 is preventing heat radiation from escaping into space. Ergo: the earth warms up. Exactly how much of the global warming that REALLY IS HAPPENING is due to this has long been debated, but to deny that human activity has any effect is, well....

That's why farts are warm

I'm not denying we as a race have an impact. I'm just saying that of all the things we are doing to the environment thats probably the least of our worries. Yes the "systems" do have to deal with extra CO2 (and are) but our contribution to the "systems" CO2 (thats seems to be backed up by the maths) is like urinating in a swimming pool. The only question up for debate is how much can we urinate in the global swimming pool before it all goes yellow! From historical figures....quite a lot. But be comforted by the fact that before that happens we will have leeched the earth of natural resources, polluted all the rivers so we all grow breasts, irradiated unpopular governments and made the 1% of the total people with 99% the total wealth even wealthier...AT MY EXPENSE!

Being a captalist and not a greenie....that makes me furious

Sinking after-news:

Commerce Minister Mingkwam (or better Mingk-nam) want's to declare whole Bangkok "Floating Market" and get global copyright & patent on name

once the city will be within the next view decades under water, with 23-45inches (read above) levels, leaving residence no other chance, then using water-tuk-tuks.

This will boost our floating economy, he stated to "Not-The-Nation" this Monday

I almost believed it

[nomoretalksin]

Dateline, May 26, 2080: Today in Thailand, the Prime Minister announced, from the seaside town of Chiang Mai......

nice one

Robin Hood (alia peace blondie) can you please make sure Thailand is meanwhile until 2080 not totally robbed by the current goverment?

And please reserve a small ankering place for my klong-tuk-tuk at Chiang Mai promenade, and make sure still some

trees are standing up south of Thailand

Edited May 26, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[ThaiAdventure]

Nomoretalksin

I'll see your global warming scaremongering and raise you Widescale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

[tuftymorgan]

Words fail me so

will have to suffice.

[nomoretalksin]

Nomoretalksin

I'll see your global warming scaremongering and raise you Widescale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

Thanks for link! Intersting, but let's try to focus on statistic, which not only cover a view years (or 1 year)

Anyhow nice to get a cold ice-cream from you, to cool down a bit while also reading your other (as well from others) interesing posts above.

************* to Thaiadventure***************************

WOW! Your avantar makes me laugh each time I look at it. Sanuk! Is this supposed to be "Snowhite and the wolf"?? he he Where did you get that? Is that sort of an Asian comedy film?

*******************************************************

Back to topic:

"Rising Sea Levels and/or global disturbing climate changes"

(global warming seams to be wrong expression after looking at above link)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304044,00.html

Thai Official: Bangkok Will Be Underwater in 20 Years

KHUN SAMUT CHIN, Thailand

At Bangkok's watery gates, Buddhist monks cling to a shrinking spit of land

around their temple as they wage war against the relentlessly rising sea.

Pic copyright AP

Water crashes into the Wat Khun Samut Chin Buddhist temple during high tide near Bangkok, Thailand.During the monsoons at high tide, waves hurdle the breakwater of concrete pillars and the inner rock wall around the temple on a promontory in the Gulf of Thailand. Jutting above the water line just ahead are remnants of a village that has already slipped beneath the sea. Experts say these waters, aided by sinking land, threaten to submerge Thailand's sprawling capital of more than 10 million people within this century.

Bangkok is one of 13 of the world's largest 20 cities at risk of being swamped as sea levels rise in coming decades, according to warnings at the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting held here. "This is what the future will look like in many places around the world," says Lisa Schipper, an American researcher on global warming, while visiting the temple. "Here is a living study in environmental change."

"If the heart of Thailand is under water everything will stop," says Smith Dharmasaroja, chair of the government's Committee of National Disaster Warning Administration. "We don't have time to move our capital in the next 15-20 years. We have to protect our heart now, and it's almost too late." The arithmetic gives Bangkok little cause for optimism. The still expanding megapolis rests about 3½ to 5 feet above the nearby gulf, although some areas already lie below sea level.

But the city, built on clay rather than bedrock, has also been sinking at a far faster pace of up to 4 inches annually as its teeming population and factories pump some 2.5 million cubic tons of cheaply priced water, legally and illegally, out of its aquifers.

This compacts the layers of clay and causes the land to sink. Everyone — the government, scientists and environmental groups — agrees Bangkok is headed for trouble, but there is some debate about when. Anond, who heads the Southeast Asia START Regional Center, believes total submersion may not be imminent, but Smith disagrees.

"You notice that every highway, road and building which has no foundation pilings is sinking," says Smith. "We feel that with the ground sinking and the sea water rising, Bangkok will be under sea water in the next 15 to 20 years — permanently."

Once known as the "Venice of the East," Bangkok was founded 225 years ago on a swampy floodplain along the Chao Phraya River.

But beginning in the 1950s, on the advice of international development agencies, most of the canals were filled in to make roads and combat malaria. This fractured the natural drainage system that had helped control Bangkok's annual monsoon season flooding.

"It's the only city in the world where a car has collided with a boat," says Smith, recalling a deluge where residents commuted by rickety boats down roads flanked by high-rises.

As head of Thailand's meteorological department in 1998, Smith warned with little success that the country's southwest coast could face a deadly tsunami. He was proven right.

He urges that work start now on a dike system of more than 60 miles — protective walls about 16 feet high, punctured by water gates and with roads on top, not unlike the dikes long used in low-lying Netherlands to ward off the sea.

The dikes would run on both banks of the Chao Phraya River and then fork to the right and left at the mouth of the river.

Anond, an oceanographer who studied at the University of Hawaii, says other options must also be explored, including water diversion channels, more upcountry dams and the "monkey cheeks" idea of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The king, among the first to alert Bangkokians about the yearly flooding, has suggested diverting off-flow from the surges into reservoirs, the "cheeks," for later release into the gulf.

"There is no one single solution to respond to climate change," says Anond, whose team is putting forward recommendations based on several scenarios. "We have to start doing something about this right now."

click here to continue to read: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304044,00.html

Unquote

So the leading Weather etc. expert in Thailand who predicted the Tsunamie, says only 15-20 years until Bangkok is under water (if no dike is been build, which would be needed to start now). Any other predictions regarding Thailand, Bangkok, Down South etc. found?

Edited May 27, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[jumnien]

Well, if Sondi L. and Samak can kiss and make up quickly, we can get the PAD started on building the dykes and finally doing something constructive for Thailand!

[nomoretalksin]

Well, if Sondi L. and Samak can kiss and make up quickly, we can get the PAD started on building the dykes and finally doing something constructive for Thailand!

nice to hear a positiv solution/idea from you (without complaining about other valuable Thai institutions ).

Maybe our sunrise will be endless!

Serious, you are right: The politicians are planing their mega-projects always excluding this problem! unfort.

Edited May 27, 2008 by nomoretalksin

[jumnien]

Most Thais are so sick of Bangkok politics they would welcome it being under water!

[Thai at Heart]

Nomoretalksin

I'll see your global warming scaremongering and raise you Widescale Global Cooling

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monit...rticle10866.htm

Thanks for link! Intersting, but let's try to focus on statistic, which not only cover a view years (or 1 year)

Anyhow nice to get a cold ice-cream from you, to cool down a bit while also reading your other (as well from others) interesing posts above.

************* to Thaiadventure***************************

WOW! Your avantar makes me laugh each time I look at it. Sanuk! Is this supposed to be "Snowhite and the wolf"?? he he Where did you get that? Is that sort of an Asian comedy film?

*******************************************************

Back to topic:

"Rising Sea Levels and/or global disturbing climate changes"

(global warming seams to be wrong expression after looking at above link)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304044,00.html

Thai Official: Bangkok Will Be Underwater in 20 Years

KHUN SAMUT CHIN, Thailand

At Bangkok's watery gates, Buddhist monks cling to a shrinking spit of land

around their temple as they wage war against the relentlessly rising sea.

Pic copyright AP

Water crashes into the Wat Khun Samut Chin Buddhist temple during high tide near Bangkok, Thailand.During the monsoons at high tide, waves hurdle the breakwater of concrete pillars and the inner rock wall around the temple on a promontory in the Gulf of Thailand. Jutting above the water line just ahead are remnants of a village that has already slipped beneath the sea. Experts say these waters, aided by sinking land, threaten to submerge Thailand's sprawling capital of more than 10 million people within this century.

Bangkok is one of 13 of the world's largest 20 cities at risk of being swamped as sea levels rise in coming decades, according to warnings at the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting held here. "This is what the future will look like in many places around the world," says Lisa Schipper, an American researcher on global warming, while visiting the temple. "Here is a living study in environmental change."

"If the heart of Thailand is under water everything will stop," says Smith Dharmasaroja, chair of the government's Committee of National Disaster Warning Administration. "We don't have time to move our capital in the next 15-20 years. We have to protect our heart now, and it's almost too late." The arithmetic gives Bangkok little cause for optimism. The still expanding megapolis rests about 3½ to 5 feet above the nearby gulf, although some areas already lie below sea level.

But the city, built on clay rather than bedrock, has also been sinking at a far faster pace of up to 4 inches annually as its teeming population and factories pump some 2.5 million cubic tons of cheaply priced water, legally and illegally, out of its aquifers.

This compacts the layers of clay and causes the land to sink. Everyone — the government, scientists and environmental groups — agrees Bangkok is headed for trouble, but there is some debate about when. Anond, who heads the Southeast Asia START Regional Center, believes total submersion may not be imminent, but Smith disagrees.

"You notice that every highway, road and building which has no foundation pilings is sinking," says Smith. "We feel that with the ground sinking and the sea water rising, Bangkok will be under sea water in the next 15 to 20 years — permanently."

Once known as the "Venice of the East," Bangkok was founded 225 years ago on a swampy floodplain along the Chao Phraya River.

But beginning in the 1950s, on the advice of international development agencies, most of the canals were filled in to make roads and combat malaria. This fractured the natural drainage system that had helped control Bangkok's annual monsoon season flooding.

"It's the only city in the world where a car has collided with a boat," says Smith, recalling a deluge where residents commuted by rickety boats down roads flanked by high-rises.

As head of Thailand's meteorological department in 1998, Smith warned with little success that the country's southwest coast could face a deadly tsunami. He was proven right.

He urges that work start now on a dike system of more than 60 miles — protective walls about 16 feet high, punctured by water gates and with roads on top, not unlike the dikes long used in low-lying Netherlands to ward off the sea.

The dikes would run on both banks of the Chao Phraya River and then fork to the right and left at the mouth of the river.

Anond, an oceanographer who studied at the University of Hawaii, says other options must also be explored, including water diversion channels, more upcountry dams and the "monkey cheeks" idea of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

The king, among the first to alert Bangkokians about the yearly flooding, has suggested diverting off-flow from the surges into reservoirs, the "cheeks," for later release into the gulf.

"There is no one single solution to respond to climate change," says Anond, whose team is putting forward recommendations based on several scenarios. "We have to start doing something about this right now."

click here to continue to read: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304044,00.html

Unquote

So the leading Weather etc. expert in Thailand who predicted the Tsunamie, says only 15-20 years until Bangkok is under water (if no dike is been build, which would be needed to start now). Any other predictions regarding Thailand, Bangkok, Down South etc. found?

Prataet Isaan comes to mind

[ThaiAdventure]

Thanks for link! Intersting, but let's try to focus on statistic, which not only cover a view years (or 1 year)

Anyhow nice to get a cold ice-cream from you, to cool down a bit while also reading your other (as well from others) interesing posts above.

Au contrare. statistics be damed, the historical data goes back 100's of thousands of years

anyhoo. It was just making the point that you can find alarmist articles for everything.

************* to Thaiadventure***************************

WOW! Your avantar makes me laugh each time I look at it. Sanuk! Is this supposed to be "Snowhite and the wolf"?? he he Where did you get that? Is that sort of an Asian comedy film?

*******************************************************

see full Japanese advert here:

"If the heart of Thailand is under water everything will stop," says Smith Dharmasaroja, chair of the government's Committee of National Disaster Warning Administration

Actually, Thailand would be better off than many. Thier rice fields in the North should remain untouched and that would be a far bigger asset for Thailand than a few property moochers in BKK. Just means the bottom floor of the skyscapers become boat parks instead of car parks