BKk Submersion in the near future?

Time to activate their long standing proposal for capital relocation; to 

 Nakhon Nayok.

3 hours ago, MarkBR said:

Sea levels are rising , loads of data on that.  Bangkok is also sinking (on that you were correct).  The combination means Bangkok will need to relocate to somewhere.  Main question is where, with a subsidiary question as to the speed required.

I think the data showing sea levels rising significantly are probably fake.

Sure, there will be minor variations .......

 

But my childhood home on Shoreham beach is still there, and not flooded.

And all the super rich are still buying beach front homes.

And banks are still lending money for people to buy beach front homes.

Can't see banks taking any risks

44 minutes ago, thesetat said:

There have been many stories about this through the years to lend credence to this one. 

The implications of this activity accelerates the sinking state of Bangkok, as it is a low lying city built on the banks of the Chaophraya river. Experts have estimated that due to rising sea levels, parts of Bangkok may be submerged by 2030. Posted 7 years ago... http://www.thailand-real-estate-law-center.com/thailand-real-estate-attorney/bangkoks-massage-parlors-stealing-city-groundwater/

 

It said the committee found it would make more sense to build a strong system around Bangkok, which is thought to be sinking, and surrounding provinces, to protect them.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/2957518/sea-barrier-better-than-relocating-thailands-capital.

 

Thanks

 

I've known about the soapies up on Ratchada for many years as I live up there. They still exist and I heard nothing of them using city water although I guess that's possible.

 

Still, I do not think that even parts of Bangkok will be underwater in 4 years. I'm sure then what they will do is qualify it by saying...

 

Only monsoon season

 

During high tides

 

Depending on moon phase

 

When x, y, z ...

 

 

If it were going to be underwater in four years we would see some serious flooding now

1 minute ago, KhaoHom said:

 

Thanks

 

I've known about the soapies up on Ratchada for many years as I live up there. They still exist and I heard nothing of them using city water although I guess that's possible.

 

Still, I do not think that even parts of Bangkok will be underwater in 4 years. I'm sure then what they will do is qualify it by saying...

 

Only monsoon season

 

During high tides

 

Depending on moon phase

 

When x, y, z ...

 

 

If it were going to be underwater in four years we would see some serious flooding now

 

Time to take a big breath, then.

6 hours ago, webfact said:

According to The Guardian, Bangkok is subsiding by over a centimetre each year and could fall below sea level by 2030, posing a grave threat to millions of residents and jeopardising the Thai capital’s status as a major tourism and business hub.

2030 is 4½ year from now – so, Bangkok is only about 4-5 centimeters above sea level right now...

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

You don't need a new capital; half of the Netherlands is below sea level.

However you do need to look at the increase in intensity of storms with more energy within the climatic system, so what was useful in the past may not be useful in the future (this applies to Netherlands as well; although, I assume they have considered most of this already).  Studies have to ascern the costs of moving vs the costs o staying in same place.   It may not be viable for Bangkok to be the capital any long, this climatologists & quality engineers (not those paid to give politicians the answers they want), need to provide answers for.

Many cities are endangered worldwide: Miami being one of the first that to go due to high above current sea-level, but by the time it is going under the timescale will be too short to start work on saving other cities.

2 hours ago, edwinchester said:

The Dutch have managed that situation for hundreds of years. The Thais on the other hand seem unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions to either move the capital or lessen the impact of sealevel rise/land subsidence. 

Indeed and they still preparing for the rising sealevels, as Thailand only talks and wait. Not even has a plan

The sceptic will argue that anything we do could not possibly influence the climate, or effect the atmosphere. The planet is simply too large, and the population is too small to have any effect. Let the ships dump whatever they want into the ocean. The ocean is simply too large for anything we do to damage it. 

 

This frees them to buy as many plastic bottles as they please, drive filthy diesel vehicles, and behave as if nothing effects anything. 

 

It's not us. It is just a cycle. We are not responsible. 

I would guess in Europe the cost of a life is considered of consequence. Not here. And the will of the people likely carries greater weight. Not here. At least not under this useless non elected government. 

3 hours ago, Briggsy said:

There have been several proposals to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok dating back a long time. 

 

Here's one from 6 years ago but the proposal was put forward a lot further back than that.

 

https://mgronline.com/specialscoop/detail/9620000090649

 

(It's in Thai but it is Thailand)

Yes they talk, but don't do anything...It will take years to create a new capital, and if we all see how slowly they are on Rama II road it will take even several decades to make it, but Thailand never thinks ahead, only when their are getting wet they will take action, far too late.. And than we don't even talk about the coast resorts of Pattaya, Hua Hin, Cha Am Pranburi etc...I am living about 15km from the sea, but I told my partner, maybe we will get a house on the beach after several years

10 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

However you do need to look at the increase in intensity of storms with more energy within the climatic system, so what was useful in the past may not be useful in the future (this applies to Netherlands as well; although, I assume they have considered most of this already).  Studies have to ascern the costs of moving vs the costs o staying in same place.   It may not be viable for Bangkok to be the capital any long, this climatologists & quality engineers (not those paid to give politicians the answers they want).

Many cities are endangered worldwide: Miami being one of the first that to go due to high above current sea-level, but by the time it is going under the timescale will be too short to start work on saving other cities.

What would be the cost of moving 10 million people and all the city's businesses?

 

 

Property prices will now shoot up as Thais attempt to recoup perceived future losses.

3 hours ago, Briggsy said:

There have been several proposals to move the capital to Nakhon Nayok dating back a long time. 

 

Here's one from 6 years ago but the proposal was put forward a lot further back than that.

 

https://mgronline.com/specialscoop/detail/9620000090649

 

(It's in Thai but it is Thailand)

Thaksin wanted to study to built a new capital already in 2003... 22 years later nothing, really nothing has happened. And do they really believe that Suvarnabhumi will be spared?? It is built on a swamp already....

4 hours ago, MarkBR said:

 The combination means Bangkok will need to relocate to somewhere.  

No, it doesn't. There are ways to protect the city from flooding.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I think the data showing sea levels rising significantly are probably fake.

Sure, there will be minor variations .......

 

But my childhood home on Shoreham beach is still there, and not flooded.

And all the super rich are still buying beach front homes.

And banks are still lending money for people to buy beach front homes.

Can't see banks taking any risks

The super rich can afford sea walls. The ordinary Joe can't. Have you checked out property insurance for beachfront homes lately.

 

Can't see banks taking any risks? Were you in a cave during the GFC?

 

I'm reminded of Alan Bond. He said if you owe a bank $1 million, you've got a problem. If you owe $100 million, the bank's got the problem.

 

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The super rich can afford sea walls. The ordinary Joe can't. Have you checked out property insurance for beachfront homes lately.

 

Can't see banks taking any risks? Were you in a cave during the GFC?

 

I'm reminded of Alan Bond. He said if you owe a bank $1 million, you've got a problem. If you owe $100 million, the bank's got the problem.

 

Recent studies indicate that some low-lying islands in the Pacific, such as Tuvalu, are actually gaining mass rather than shrinking due to rising sea levels. Research conducted by the University of Auckland found that Tuvalu's land area increased by 2.9% between 1971 and 2014, with 74% of its islands growing in size despite rising sea levels

2 hours ago, Hardcastle P said:

They had advice from the Dutch after the 2011 great food but totally ignored it.

That's an AN myth.

In 2011 the government officially invited Dutch experts like Adri Verwey and Tjitte Nauta to join top level discussions with the PM and government agencies. Both Dutch and Swiss experts were involved and were asked to be by the Thai government (confirmed by the British Ambassador at the time). It wasn't advice that was given and ignored, it was advice that was asked for, and many long term projects were launched off the back of it.

https://www.dutchwatersector.com/news/dutch-experts-helped-thai-authorities-to-combat-bangkok-floods?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Thailand has since signed many MOUs with the Dutch on water management.

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/30403751?utm_source=chatgpt.com

They have since spent billions of dollars on water management projects. If you have been in Thailand any period of time you would  know this and can clearly see the improvements in infrastructure, especially in and around Bangkok.

I see this Dutch myth on here all the time, perpetuated by people who just believe what they are told on their bar stools.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The super rich can afford sea walls. The ordinary Joe can't. Have you checked out property insurance for beachfront homes lately.

 

Can't see banks taking any risks? Were you in a cave during the GFC?

 

I'm reminded of Alan Bond. He said if you owe a bank $1 million, you've got a problem. If you owe $100 million, the bank's got the problem.

 

Well, I've done my bit, achieved net zero.

Maybe you should try helping instead of just talking?

 

Looking at your map of sea level rise, 6" in one place, 8.4" in another place, isn't the sea the same level from pole to pole?

44 minutes ago, ikke1959 said:

Indeed and they still preparing for the rising sealevels, as Thailand only talks and wait. Not even has a plan

Rubbish.

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Well, I've done my bit, achieved net zero.

Maybe you should try helping instead of just talking?

 

Looking at your map of sea level rise, 6" in one place, 8.4" in another place, isn't the sea the same level from pole to pole?

No you have not. You are breathing in oxygen, and exhaling carbon dioxide.

 

I was one of the first people in Australia to have solar panels on my roof, feeding back into the grid. That was 30 years ago.

 

The sea level rise is not uniform, it is governed by the topography of the coastline. Anyone who has lived in north-western Australia, with 10 metre tides, knows that.

Just in time for the Inaugural F1 Grand Prix then. Verstappen will be saving a set of Inter-mediates .

Just now, mancub said:

Just in time for the Inaugural F1 Grand Prix then. Verstappen will be saving a set of Inter-mediates .

Do they have F1 regattas?

Oh, that's bad news.

But starting to do something in 2029 is early enough in Thailand😂

3 hours ago, edwinchester said:

The Dutch have managed that situation for hundreds of years. The Thais on the other hand seem unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions to either move the capital or lessen the impact of sealevel rise/land subsidence. 

 

They have but Bangkok and surrounds has a coast that was formerly mainly mangrove swamp - low elevation soft mud and sand - not a great foundation for dikes and with no existing high sand dunes to help, as the Dutch have. To protect Bangkok, it looks like that a huge area to the south would have to be contained in the northern part of the Bight of Bangkok.  

8 hours ago, webfact said:

Bangkok, already infamous for its snarled traffic and severe flooding, now faces an even more alarming future - potentially vanishing beneath the waves within a decade if climate change and unchecked development continue at their current pace

Excellent, I'll look forward to touring Bangkok on a jet ski... not a rental I might add.

19 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

No you have not. You are breathing in oxygen, and exhaling carbon dioxide.

 

I was one of the first people in Australia to have solar panels on my roof, feeding back into the grid. That was 30 years ago.

 

The sea level rise is not uniform, it is governed by the topography of the coastline. Anyone who has lived in north-western Australia, with 10 metre tides, knows that.

 

Better to differentiate between tidal ranges and sea-level variations.

5 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Excellent, I'll look forward to touring Bangkok on a jet ski... not a rental I might add.

Houseboat.😆

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

What would be the cost of moving 10 million people and all the city's businesses?

Huge, I would imagine.   Shanghai will also face problems, which at 21million has an even bigger problem.

5 hours ago, MarkBR said:

Sea levels are rising , loads of data on that.  Bangkok is also sinking (on that you were correct).  The combination means Bangkok will need to relocate to somewhere.  Main question is where, with a subsidiary question as to the speed required.

Yes, i recently did a study myself, where I downloaded all the tide gauge data from all over the world, and did a trend line. Its rising about 1.1 mm per year (+- 0.8mm), with huge variations all over the globe. And its not accelerating, as some people are claiming.  So with todays speed, it would take several hundred years for one meter increase in sea level. Not exactly alarming 🙂

4 minutes ago, MarkBR said:

Houseboat.😆

Nah, I have no desire to reside in BKK, but a trip into town now and again is manageable.

My God why do people believe this rubbish???