11 hours ago, Hardcastle P said:

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

"...great food...".

Nothing about Dutch food is great.

Who remembers these predictions

1960s Oil gone in 10 years

 

1970s Another Ice age in 10 years

 

1980s Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years

 

1990s The ozone layer will be gone in 10 years

 

2000 Ice caps will be gone in 10 years

 

None happened but all resulted in more taxes and this climate change nonsense is the same (Carbon Credits) This is just climate alarmism 

 

Electric vehicles are an impractical solution to an imaginary problem

16 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

I read this kind of topic already for several years, but I never read an article that states that the Government is making plans to find a new location for the capital. Indonesia however is already building a new capital for years, but in Thailand I suppose they will start when the water is in the streets, even in the dry season

They already making the infrastructure from Korat and around, so I wouldn’t be surprised the new Capital ending up between Chaiyaphum. These areas Known for tectonic stability which will be important as well a bit high land protected from flooding. 

16 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

I've read this kind of topic already for several years, but I never read an article that states that the Government is making plans to find a new location for the capital. 

 

Yes, when I travelled to Thailand in mid 1998, I saw lower Sukhumvit 1-2 feet under water. Nothing really has been done, or even planned since then against serious flooding...

15 hours ago, thesetat said:

Quite the contrary to what is suggested here. developers are trying to remake Bangkok rather than moving it. I read previously that they have chosen not to move the city because of the cost. I wonder if with the amount of rain that falls there why they have not researched ways to inject the floods underground to fill the losses that are making the city sink.. I do not know if that is a feasible option or if it would work. But given Bangkoks yearly flooding problem surely something can be done using that excess water to alleviate the sinking problem. 

Would pollute the ground water, with high pressure injections, not so different from what you read about fracking when producing gas. The geology is also not that solid so it would do any good by injection water, rather making it worse. 

 

When fracking the formation to extract gas from the casts trapped the gas, it is basically just braking up the formation an doing no good at all. Simple said. 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Brian Hudson said:

 

Who remembers these predictions

1960s Oil gone in 10 years

 

1970s Another Ice age in 10 years

 

1980s Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years

 

1990s The ozone layer will be gone in 10 years

 

2000 Ice caps will be gone in 10 years

 

None happened but all resulted in more taxes and this climate change nonsense is the same (Carbon Credits) This is just climate alarmism 

 

Electric vehicles are an impractical solution to an imaginary problem

I took a geology class in 1992, during which the professor discussed the concept of peak oil. He claimed that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. I also recall that in the 1970s, some people predicted we would run out of food due to population growth. However, apocalyptic predictions like these rarely come to pass.

Well let me see.  A centimeter a year means it will take 100 years for water to be an issue if they build a meter dike.  Heck, make it 2 meters and let the world go on.  

43 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

Well let me see.  A centimeter a year means it will take 100 years for water to be an issue if they build a meter dike.  Heck, make it 2 meters and let the world go on.  

It doesn't work like that. 30 cm higher need 120cm dikes, 50 cm higher needs 200cm higher dikes. 

 

There is moonfases, rotations surges and storms that will more than triple the need of barriers hight

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

It doesn't work like that. 30 cm higher need 120cm dikes, 50 cm higher needs 200cm higher dikes. 

 

There is moonfases, rotations surges and storms that will more than triple the need of barriers hight

 

But isn't the current setting accounting for surges etc?  In other words it will only INCREASE by that amount.  Maybe I'm off but there should be adequate protection against moonphases, rotations and storm surges as it stands so those will only increase by the new higher sea level.

9 hours ago, TedG said:

I took a geology class in 1992, during which the professor discussed the concept of peak oil. He claimed that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. I also recall that in the 1970s, some people predicted we would run out of food due to population growth. However, apocalyptic predictions like these rarely come to pass.

1970s Ice age coming ..... we'll all freeze to death.

2000s Global warming ..... we'll all die from the heat.

 

1990s Peak oil ....... we'll all die when we run out.

2010s Net Zero ...... we'll all die if we keep using oil.

 

It's only a matter of time before they start telling us the sea levels are reducing so much we'll all die from it.

"...vanishing beneath the waves".  Who writes this swill?  I know, AI, and more's the pity.   They may move some government offices but Bangkok isn't going anywhere.  

On 7/16/2025 at 6:27 AM, thesetat said:

Quite the contrary to what is suggested here. developers are trying to remake Bangkok rather than moving it. I read previously that they have chosen not to move the city because of the cost. I wonder if with the amount of rain that falls there why they have not researched ways to inject the floods underground to fill the losses that are making the city sink.. I do not know if that is a feasible option or if it would work. But given Bangkoks yearly flooding problem surely something can be done using that excess water to alleviate the sinking problem. 

Would be interesting to know what steps the developers are taking.
Re-making "the Venice-of-the-East"?

 

Might be cheaper and simpler if they initiated a move.  A lot of money for the construction industry to offset some of the losses from sinking.  The future of mega-cities is in any case questionable.

Same war cry for the last 30 years, and probably for the next 30 as well!

11 hours ago, Brian Hudson said:

 

Who remembers these predictions

1960s Oil gone in 10 years

 

1970s Another Ice age in 10 years

 

1980s Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years

 

1990s The ozone layer will be gone in 10 years

 

2000 Ice caps will be gone in 10 years

 

None happened but all resulted in more taxes and this climate change nonsense is the same (Carbon Credits) This is just climate alarmism 

 

Electric vehicles are an impractical solution to an imaginary problem

Let's take a good look at those predictions:  

1.  In 1960 all oil was pumped in temperate or desert areas, there was no fracking or offshore oil wells.  If we look at oil production from on-shore non-arctic oil wells, production did peak in 1975 and has been going down since then.  The increase in oil production has all come from offshore wells, arctic wells and fracking.

 

2.  Was anyone actually saying that?  

 

3.  Acid rain in Europe and N. America (the world's biggest crop producing areas) has been greatly reduced due to the retiring of coal-fired plants and the shift to cleaner-burning natural gas.  

 

4.  In the late 1980's CFCs were banned.  Since then the ozone layer depletion has stopped and it has actually begun to repair itself.

 

5.  The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has declined to the point were major shipping companies are starting to use the sea routes that go north of Canada & Russia.  Routes that would have been unthinkable 3 years ago.

 

These disasters have been avoided or put off because of laws passed due to 'woke climate alarmism', or technological advancements by oil or shipping companies.   If we had simple ignored them, the world would be much worse off than it is today.

The only major threat to sea levels is the Thwaites Ice Shelf, which contains enough ice to raise global sea levels to 65cm and quickly in a few years or decade.

It has already crossed an irreversible critical threshold, retreating, shedding and melting inward at the rate of 10-20meters per year. eventually it will break off, though the timescale is uncertain - likely decades to centuries rather than years.

 

Bangkok will be fully underwater in a few decades, that is certain and undisputed. Could be 90 years or as soon as 30 years.

 

Floods that happens now are due to erosion, national deforestation and accumulated rain fall without the drainage a forest used to provide. 

On 7/16/2025 at 12:45 PM, josephbloggs said:

That is an AN myth. Completely untrue.

See my earlier post.

Not really. After the big Bangkok floods years ago help is been offered but waved away...

18 hours ago, BeastOfBodmin said:

Do you mean decline in house prices? If so, that might be a good thing on the average (assuming enough jobs remain to pay people to live in the cheaper housing).

 

The problem is if the government leaves, then all the embassies leave.  Businesses that work with the government leave.  Will they be able to protect the palaces and the temples and keep it a turist hub.  When businesses leave, that means fewer people needing accommodations.

 

It would also be interesting to see how many of the Elite stay and how the schools do.

 

2 minutes ago, Richardsamui said:

Not really. After the big Bangkok floods years ago help is been offered but waved away...

No. Help was asked for, and accepted. And projects implemented on the back of it.  Here an interview with Dutch water experts telling people exactly what they did here in 2011.

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/30403751

And the rest of my earlier post that you ignored:

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 with Dutch input. 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.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

No. Help was asked for, and accepted. And projects implemented on the back of it.  Here an interview with Dutch water experts telling people exactly what they did here in 2011.

https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/30403751

And the rest of my earlier post that you ignored:

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 with Dutch input. 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.

Is Holland doomed also? London too?

9 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

 

The problem is if the government leaves, then all the embassies leave.  Businesses that work with the government leave.  Will they be able to protect the palaces and the temples and keep it a turist hub.  When businesses leave, that means fewer people needing accommodations.

 

It would also be interesting to see how many of the Elite stay and how the schools do.

 

 

Anything's possible.

 

Consider Australia and Canada, with their capitals of Canberra and Ottawa, remote from other larger cities and commercial centers.

5 hours ago, Callmeishmael said:

Let's take a good look at those predictions:  

1.  In 1960 all oil was pumped in temperate or desert areas, there was no fracking or offshore oil wells.  If we look at oil production from on-shore non-arctic oil wells, production did peak in 1975 and has been going down since then.  The increase in oil production has all come from offshore wells, arctic wells and fracking.

 

2.  Was anyone actually saying that?  

 

3.  Acid rain in Europe and N. America (the world's biggest crop producing areas) has been greatly reduced due to the retiring of coal-fired plants and the shift to cleaner-burning natural gas.  

 

4.  In the late 1980's CFCs were banned.  Since then the ozone layer depletion has stopped and it has actually begun to repair itself.

 

5.  The amount of sea ice in the Arctic has declined to the point were major shipping companies are starting to use the sea routes that go north of Canada & Russia.  Routes that would have been unthinkable 3 years ago.

 

These disasters have been avoided or put off because of laws passed due to 'woke climate alarmism', or technological advancements by oil or shipping companies.   If we had simple ignored them, the world would be much worse off than it is today.

 

Looks like you are not looking at most of those predictions, rather only your preferred mystery list. The predictions in the post that you replied to were either wrong or have not come to pass. Your notes on historical oil production are incorrect - there was offshore drilling before well 1960 in the Caspian and N. America. 

On 7/16/2025 at 10:21 PM, TedG said:

However, apocalyptic predictions like these rarely come to pass.

Never come to pass.

I knew it was you stalking me Liverpool ,😄

23 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Anything's possible.

 

Consider Australia and Canada, with their capitals of Canberra and Ottawa, remote from other larger cities and commercial centers.

Yeah but Montreal and Toronto aren't sinking.  Yes there will still be people living here but it will not be the same.

24 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

Yeah but Montreal and Toronto aren't sinking.  Yes there will still be people living here but it will not be the same.

 

Not the places I mentioned but no matter.

 

The point is that these smaller national capitals can and do exist separately from larger cities within their countries

Sensationalised reporting doesn't help the climate issue, just gives ammunition to deniers. Yes, sea level is rising (currently at about 3 mm per year). This rise is not uniform, there are many factors which affect local sea level, from crustal movements (which can be up or down), thermal expansion and changes to ocean currents. 

 

The real problems are that a small increase in sea level means an increase in coastal erosion, especially where the coast line is not hard rock - hence the temple now surrounded by the sea. For Bangkok, the issue currently is more to do with flood water - heavier rainfall and the slowly rising sea level means that drainage is an ever increasing issue.

3 hours ago, rickudon said:

Sensationalised reporting doesn't help the climate issue, just gives ammunition to deniers. Yes, sea level is rising (currently at about 3 mm per year). This rise is not uniform, there are many factors which affect local sea level, from crustal movements (which can be up or down), thermal expansion and changes to ocean currents. 

 

The real problems are that a small increase in sea level means an increase in coastal erosion, especially where the coast line is not hard rock - hence the temple now surrounded by the sea. For Bangkok, the issue currently is more to do with flood water - heavier rainfall and the slowly rising sea level means that drainage is an ever increasing issue.

 

Heavier rainfall than what?

 

https://www.tmd.go.th/en/ClimateChart/annual-mean-rainfall-in-thailand-mm

 

Doesn't mean you have to get more rain overall - Just more likely to get more in one go - that is what causes the problems. In some areas. e.g. Isaan, trend seems to be less rain, although this year has been an exception so far