Bangkok could be submerged in seven years warns economist

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

Let me get this straight.  This is an economics Dean at a Thai university giving advice on meteorological issues?  I guess I should consult a meteorologist for economic advice.

If you are an economist you need to do your research in order to understand how the economy will be affected - which is exactly what he's done.

 

Edited August 27 by kwilco

[kwilco]

12 hours ago, BritScot said:

How many times will it take for climate cult to be laughed out of every room in the world? How many times do these prediction have to fail before idiots see the lie? Over 30 prediction and not one has come true! The elites screaming the loudest all have beach front properties worth millions. Just ask yourself one question: can you get a 30 year mortgage in Bangkok, London, or beach fronts around the world? Wake up for god sake!!!

THanks for revealing yourself as a complete and utter */&*@%$ - only someone like that would think they are cleverer than the entire educated population of the planet - it's Dunning Kruger effect in its in the most extreme

[kwilco]

13 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

The Netherlands is for 25% under sea level and have been working on how to control this for a very long time.

So the 1 cm rise of the sea level per 3 years is something you can control but you DO need to work on it.

7 years for BKK is less than 3 cm rise, getting real scared now.

Bangkok has been offered and considered help fromNetherlands and if I remember correctly turned it down. Thailand has an inherent resistance for foreign help in a wide range of national problems. 

 

Of course every lowland flooding situation id different and the solutions will be different too....but all of them now are facing problems stemming from Climate change - even the Dutch. - the only difference there is they are more organised and prepared...

Edited August 27 by kwilco

[kwilco]

As I mentioned, some will remember the Bangkok and national flooding of 2011/12.It is predicted that this year could be a repeat as La Nina is also a factor....the truth is that Bangkok already IS flooding, it's not a prediction , it is a reality. The problem is perception - people think it will be a constant rise like filling up a bathtub. But in reality it will be a series of ups and downs over the next few yr=ears increasing in frequency and intensity. 

Form an economic point of view, land that is repeated underwater will become less and less valuable - as Honda demonstrated in 2011 the factory closed for 6 months. It eventually is being closed down....

 

just moving the "capital" is not a solution - the plains and delta on which Bangkok is built and developed will have to find a long term solution for the entire economy of the region. Meanwhile authorities, real estate agents, businesses and developers are keeping their heads in the sand (or rater mud) as an admitions without a planr could spell economic disaster for the nation.

[ExpatOilWorker]

Nakhon Sawan, it is getting closer.

 

[ianwheldale]

18 hours ago, hellohello123 said:

An economist predicting sea levels!?!

 

I guess i may have a chance of being a brain surgeon in Thailand

Bill Gates has set a trend😉

[KhunLA]

Been reading the same thing for 24 years ... 

[Skeptic7]

19 hours ago, retarius said:

It couldn't happen to a nicer place. My God but I loathe Bangkok...it is an evil, smelly, dirty, hot toilet that you feel sick even taking a dump in.

I read yesterday in the Guardian about Antartica where and iceberg the size of Britain cleaved off and is melting. They said it would raise sea levels by 10 to 30 feet (which I don't believe)  but even a 5 feet rise would re-contour the coastlines of the earth.

So gingers crossed that a modest and slow rise in sea levels to wipe this vile and evil travesty of a city off the face of the earth, and a let's have mass exodus of people to the North and North East so that house prices go up. 

❤️ LOVE BKK ❤️ ❗ 

[Lacessit]

17 hours ago, Dr Jon said:

Could be, but won't be.

Please post your qualifications in meteorology and thermodynamics that enable you to make such a confident statement.

[MarkBR]

21 hours ago, JoePai said:

Why not more the Capital to a higher area ?

Make Chiang Mai the capital

[Lacessit]

52 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Make Chiang Mai the capital

Thaksin territory, the Bangkok elites would never agree.

[Will B Good]

54 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Make Chiang Mai the capital

 

The air is better in Korat.....the elites would not move to Ching Mai for love nor new lungs.

[Grumpy one]

I guess it's time to think about advertising my property as, Soon to be water- front property   

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, Grumpy one said:

I guess it's time to think about advertising my property as, Soon to be water- front property   

 

 

Good idea...could see a significant jump in value...

[john donson]

just turn in your motosay for a jetski ?

[stupidfarang]

23 hours ago, milesinnz said:

Funny, I would have expected such an article from a meteorologist.. But hey, this is Thailand.. maybe economists study meteorology ???... I am looking forward to an economic assessment by a meteorologist...

Makes sense, economic assessment is made to determin the effects on a country by differant means, floods, inflation, industry, population and in bkks view how it is sinking.

 

From a quote in 2023 "Considering the rise in sea level in local waters near Bangkok is about 1.2 centimetres per year, if nothing is done to protect Bangkok's shoreline, the waterline will slowly creep further inland by about 1.3 kilometres every year," the president of the Thailand Global Warming Academy said.

 

I did read in the last year the rate of sinking has become faster, but cannot remember by how much.

 

 

[MarkBR]

55 minutes ago, stupidfarang said:

Makes sense, economic assessment is made to determin the effects on a country by differant means, floods, inflation, industry, population and in bkks view how it is sinking.

 

From a quote in 2023 "Considering the rise in sea level in local waters near Bangkok is about 1.2 centimetres per year, if nothing is done to protect Bangkok's shoreline, the waterline will slowly creep further inland by about 1.3 kilometres every year," the president of the Thailand Global Warming Academy said.

 

I did read in the last year the rate of sinking has become faster, but cannot remember by how much.

 

 

Also, storm surge and storm reach increase.  Low-lying Bangkok not a good place to buy property, unless on stilts and stormproofed.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, MarkBR said:

Also, storm surge and storm reach increase.  Low-lying Bangkok not a good place to buy property, unless on stilts and stormproofed.

 

 

 

Anything above the second floor (third floor?) could shoot up in value.

 

 

Venice copes.

 

 

[ryxyz]

The reason a certain former prime minister was considering moving the capital closer to his political base before the coup that ousted him.

[ourmanflint]

19 hours ago, sandyf said:

Garbage. Bangkok is sinking approx 3cm per year and currently the average height above sea level is around 5 feet.

Irrespective of any change in sea levels, Bangkok could be at sea level within 50 years, without any island ever being affected.

The Greenpeace report was about sea level rising not Bangkok sinking. Thanks for changing the goalposts

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, ourmanflint said:

The Greenpeace report was about sea level rising not Bangkok sinking. Thanks for changing the goalposts

 

To be fair I would say he was adding to it.....

 

Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, is facing significant threats from rising sea levels, subsidence (the gradual sinking of the ground), and other environmental challenges. Experts have warned that parts of Bangkok could be at or below sea level as early as **2030** to **2050** if current trends continue.

### Key Factors Contributing to the Threat:
1. **Land Subsidence**: Bangkok is sinking by an estimated 1-2 centimeters per year, largely due to the over-extraction of groundwater. This subsidence is compounding the effects of rising sea levels.

2. **Rising Sea Levels**: Due to climate change, global sea levels are rising, which increases the risk of flooding in low-lying coastal cities like Bangkok. The combination of subsidence and sea-level rise puts Bangkok at significant risk.

3. **Flooding and Infrastructure**: Bangkok already experiences regular flooding during the monsoon season. Without significant infrastructure improvements and flood defenses, the situation could worsen dramatically in the coming decades.

 

[BritScot]

11 hours ago, kwilco said:

THanks for revealing yourself as a complete and utter */&*@%$ - only someone like that would think they are cleverer than the entire educated population of the planet - it's Dunning Kruger effect in its in the most extreme

Very arrogant.  Let's start with your "entier educated population" which shows your a rather uneducated sheeple. The only thing im interested in is scientific data and my own eyes. There is also the elephant in the room that not one, zero, nada, zilch of the climate disaster predictions has come true. Example is the great lakes were supposed to have dried up a few years ago but instead recorded their highest levels in recorded history. Ice caps gone, infact they are some times growing in some areas and these area are simply ignored. Try listening to real climate scientist's with no skin in the Hoax. Try the founder of green piece. The term " global warming/global boiling was debunked several years ago and the cult changed their narrative to "climate change" yes the thing that's been going on since the beginning of time. Ice ages, Co2 levels 3 times higher than now (I suppose the dinosaurs didn't have electric cars). More CO2 = more plant growth which = more O2 = bigger herbivores which = bigger carnivores.  The big shiny thing in the sky effects climate 97 percent plus and we specs effect climate less than 1%. One large volcano spews out in minutes what man produced in years. Here is a concept for you! What is on the earth stays here all that changes are forms, example iron ore becomes iron but eventually will go back to iron ore in time... Try thinking for yourself and ask simple questions! But, once in the Hoax Cult you never leave as the reality of stupidity is a hard cross to carry...

Edited August 28 by BritScot
Missing detail.

[Imkah]

On 8/27/2024 at 12:37 PM, hellohello123 said:

An economist predicting sea levels!?!

 

I guess i may have a chance of being a brain surgeon in Thailand

Sorry, no chance of a career change I´m afraid.  The economist is quoting a report and commenting on the possible economic consequences if sea levels keep rising.  Maybe a brain surgeon could help you understanding content before reacting? 

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, BritScot said:

Very arrogant.  Let's start with your "entier educated population" which shows your a rather uneducated sheeple. The only thing im interested in is scientific data and my own eyes. There is also the elephant in the room that not one, zero, nada, zilch of the climate disaster predictions has come true. Example is the great lakes were supposed to have dried up a few years ago but instead recorded their highest levels in recorded history. Ice caps gone, infact they are some times growing in some areas and these area are simply ignored. Try listening to real climate scientist's with no skin in the Hoax. Try the founder of green piece. The term " global warming/global boiling was debunked several years ago and the cult changed their narrative to "climate change" yes the thing that's been going on since the beginning of time. Ice ages, Co2 levels 3 times higher than now (I suppose the dinosaurs didn't have electric cars). More CO2 = more plant growth which = more O2 = bigger herbivores which = bigger carnivores.  The big shiny thing in the sky effects climate 97 percent plus and we specs effect climate less than 1%. One large volcano spews out in minutes what man produced in years. Here is a concept for you! What is on the earth stays here all that changes are forms, example iron ore becomes iron but eventually will go back to iron ore in time... Try thinking for yourself and ask simple questions! But, once in the Hoax Cult you never leave as the reality of stupidity is a hard cross to carry...

QED!

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, ourmanflint said:

The Greenpeace report was about sea level rising not Bangkok sinking. Thanks for changing the goalposts

This was the point in question, which cannot be assumed to be the case.

"If Bangkok is submerged by the sea, then every island in Thailand would have also been at least partially submerged by then as well. "

 

There was no link to any goalposts, only hearsay.

At the end of the day it makes little difference to Bangkok if the water goes up or the ground goes down, same outcome. Both are underway and can only be mitigated.

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, BritScot said:

Very arrogant.  Let's start with your "entier educated population" which shows your a rather uneducated sheeple. The only thing im interested in is scientific data and my own eyes. There is also the elephant in the room that not one, zero, nada, zilch of the climate disaster predictions has come true. 

 

I wanted to write a post like this, but just couldn't be bothered because facts seems to see people being accused of being on the fringes of being a denier or brainwashed... 

 

So here is your posted - with my points added (applogies for the plagiarism). 

 

Examples: 

- Great lakes were supposed to have dried up a few years ago but instead recorded their highest levels in recorded history. 

(Agreed)

 

- Ice caps gone, infact they are some times growing in some areas and these area are simply ignored.

(Completely agree - Areas of glacier growth and ice-cap growth are never mentioned in MSM)

 

- Try listening to real climate scientist's with no skin in the Hoax.

(Their complex understanding is too difficult for many to comprihend, its easier to believed dumbed down simplicity of the alarmism - In 2006 sea-levels will rise by 20 ft in the near future [Al Gore] )

 

- The term " global warming was debunked several years ago and the cult changed their narrative to "climate change" yes the thing that's been going on since the beginning of time.

(Completely agree - the shift change was quite amusing for those of a sceptical mind and ignored by the convinced)

 

- Ice ages, CO2 levels 3 times higher than now (I suppose the dinosaurs didn't have electric cars).

(Agreed- Miocene (5-23.5 Million Years ago) = 400-500ppm / Oligocene (23.4-35. Million Years ago: 500-1000 ppm) 

- More CO2 = more plant growth which = more O2 = bigger herbivores which = bigger carnivores. 

(Agreed - more plant growth / greater crop production - its more complex than that though, but fundamentally, yes).

 

- The big shiny thing in the sky effects climate 97 percent plus and we specs effect climate less than 1%.

(Agreed - amazing what an impact the moon has on the earth !!!  - less, laughing at climate alarmists here).

 

- One large volcano spews out in minutes what man produced in years.

(not on a yearly basis though - on average man produces more CO2 than volcanoes, though a Volcanoe of such size to spew out more CO2 than mans contribution would also have 'other impacts' and lead to partial extinction events - due to excess dust in the atmosphere, place the earth into a global winter type scenario).

 

- What is on the earth stays here all that changes are forms, example iron ore becomes iron but eventually will go back to iron ore in time...

(Heat escapes - we / the earth is slowly cooling)

 

- Try thinking for yourself and ask simple questions!

But, once in the Hoax Cult you never leave as the reality of stupidity is a hard cross to carry...

 

(Man is impacting the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere - i.e. from about 280ppm (pre-industrial revolution) to about 415ppm today - measured at Antarctica...

... but, what I want to know is how much Atmosphric CO2 was present in habitable portions of the earth pre-industrial revolution and now). 

 

 

 

There is a lot more to ask and answer - but the issue is so politicised and so many studies funded with a political or personal agenda its impossible to know the true facts.

 

As has already been written on this thread - I'd prefer to do my own tests and believe my own eyes.

 

 

 

[kwilco]

Climate deniers remind me of "Flann O'Brien - The Third Policeman's Theory of the molecules" except without the genius or humour

The arguments presented by climate change deniers are not just misguided or stupid; they are dangerous. They rely on misinformation, cherry-picking data, and outright falsehoods to deny a reality that is already affecting millions of people worldwide. The science is clear: climate change is real, it is driven by human activities, and it requires immediate action. Denial and delay only serve to exacerbate the problem, putting our future at risk. It’s time to move beyond these tired and discredited arguments and focus on the solutions we need to protect our planet and future generations

 

Great Lakes Water Levels: The claim that the Great Lakes were "supposed to have dried up" but instead reached their highest levels is a gross misrepresentation of climate science. No credible climate model predicted that the Great Lakes would dry up in a few years. In reality, climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events, leading to both severe droughts and intense rainfall. This variability can result in fluctuating lake levels, exactly as observed. The current high levels are consistent with increased precipitation driven by a warming atmosphere. Mischaracterizing this as a failure of climate science is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive.

 

Ice Caps and Glaciers: The notion that ice caps are "growing" is an outright distortion of the truth. While it's true that some specific areas may see temporary increases in ice mass due to short-term local conditions, the overwhelming global trend is one of significant ice loss. The Arctic is warming at more than twice the global average rate, leading to record lows in sea ice extent. The Antarctic is also losing ice, with the ice shelves thinning and the glaciers retreating at alarming rates. These losses contribute to rising sea levels, which is a critical and undeniable threat to coastal communities worldwide. Cherry-picking isolated cases of growth and ignoring the broader context is a tactic used to mislead and confuse.

 

Listening to Real Climate Scientists: Dismissing the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists as part of a "hoax" is not only baseless but also dangerous. These experts have dedicated their careers to understanding the Earth's climate system, and their findings are backed by decades of rigorous research, peer-reviewed studies, and empirical data. The claim that their work is too "complex" for the public to understand is a patronizing attempt to discredit legitimate science. It’s not that the science is too complex—it's that climate deniers are unwilling to accept the reality it reveals.

 

"Global Warming" vs. "Climate Change": The assertion that the term "global warming" was "debunked" and replaced with "climate change" is a cynical attempt to confuse the issue. "Global warming" refers specifically to the increase in Earth's average surface temperature due to greenhouse gas emissions. "Climate change," on the other hand, encompasses the broader range of effects caused by this warming, including shifts in weather patterns, more frequent and severe storms, and changes in ecosystems. This terminology shift is not about deception but about accurately describing the complex reality of what's happening to our planet.

 

Historical CO2 Levels: Referencing ancient periods with higher CO2 levels to downplay current climate change is a blatant misuse of historical data. Yes, CO2 levels were higher millions of years ago, but those periods were characterized by completely different environmental conditions, including significantly higher temperatures and vastly different ecosystems. The rapid rise in CO2 levels today, caused by human activity, is occurring on an unprecedented timescale, giving ecosystems and human societies little time to adapt. This rapid change is driving the current climate crisis and cannot be dismissed by pointing to geological epochs where the world was unrecognizable compared to today.

 

 CO2 and Plant Growth: The simplistic argument that "more CO2 = more plant growth" is a dangerous oversimplification. While CO2 is a key component of photosynthesis, the benefits of increased CO2 are limited and come with significant drawbacks. Elevated CO2 levels can lead to lower nutritional value in crops, disrupt ecosystems, and exacerbate water stress. Moreover, the benefits of increased plant growth are overshadowed by the severe impacts of climate change, including more frequent droughts, floods, and extreme weather events that threaten food security globally. The idea that more CO2 is purely beneficial ignores these critical consequences.

 

The Sun’s Role in Climate: Claiming that the Sun is responsible for 97% of climate change and downplaying human influence is a gross distortion of scientific understanding. While the Sun is indeed the primary source of energy for Earth, the changes in solar output are not sufficient to explain the rapid warming observed in recent decades. The scientific consensus is clear: the current warming trend is primarily driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This increase traps more heat, leading to global warming. Attempts to blame the Sun are a deliberate attempt to distract from the real issue—our reliance on fossil fuels.

 

Volcanic CO2 Emissions: The idea that a single volcanic eruption can emit more CO2 than human activities is factually incorrect. On a yearly basis, human activities release far more CO2 than all volcanic eruptions combined. The average annual CO2 emissions from human activities are about 100 times greater than those from volcanoes. Moreover, large volcanic eruptions often result in a temporary cooling effect due to the release of aerosols, which reflect sunlight away from the Earth. This cooling effect is temporary and does not negate the long-term warming caused by human CO2 emissions. Misrepresenting volcanic activity as a significant contributor to climate change is a common tactic used to minimize the impact of human actions.

 

Conservation of Matter and Earth’s Cooling: The claim that "what is on the earth stays here" and that the Earth is "slowly cooling" ignores the critical difference between physical matter and energy balance. While matter is conserved, the form and distribution of matter can change dramatically, with significant impacts on the climate. For example, carbon that has been stored in fossil fuels for millions of years is now being released into the atmosphere as CO2, contributing to the greenhouse effect. As for Earth's long-term cooling, this is a natural process occurring over geological timescales, but it has no bearing on the rapid warming caused by human activities. The Earth is not "cooling" in any relevant sense; it is warming at an unprecedented rate due to our actions.

 

Thinking for Yourself: Critical thinking is vital, but it must be informed by evidence and scientific reasoning, not conspiracy theories or politically motivated skepticism. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the conclusion that human activities are the primary driver of recent climate change. Disregarding this evidence in favor of unfounded claims is not "thinking for yourself"—it is willful ignorance. The consequences of climate change are real, and ignoring them will only lead to greater harm for future generations. True critical thinking involves engaging with the evidence, understanding the science, and taking responsibility for the future.

 

Politicization of Climate Science: While it’s true that the issue of climate change has become politicized, this does not undermine the validity of the science. The consensus among scientists is based on decades of research and is not swayed by political agendas. In contrast, much of the climate denial movement is driven by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, such as fossil fuel companies and their political allies. These groups have a clear agenda to discredit science and sow doubt in the public’s mind to prevent action on climate change. It is crucial to recognize this for what it is: a strategy to protect profits at the expense of our planet’s future.

[stupidfarang]

19 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

 

Anything above the second floor (third floor?) could shoot up in value.

 

 

Venice copes.

 

 

Higher price if has a balcony and a tying point for your boat

[Ultrathai]

I lived in Bangkok in 2010 and it was approximately 1.5 meters above sea level.   Fifteen years later Bangkok is still 1.5 meters above sea level.

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, Ultrathai said:

I lived in Bangkok in 2010 and it was approximately 1.5 meters above sea level.   Fifteen years later Bangkok is still 1.5 meters above sea level.

Not for much longer.....

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-29/global-warming-typhoon-gaemi-wind-speed-rainfall-intensified/104286880