Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists

[shamus]

I think man will move if Bangkok floods, it's not like it will happen in 24 hours. Mankind will adapt as it always has when the climate changed. Because it did you know, happened before it has. - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/man-on-earth/4od#3017026

Because our records, which jingthing quotes, are unimaginably young in relation to our planet. How can you be so definite about your ideas when the experts who have created these models which are being used cant explain outcomes? This is not debatable. So your views are based on unreliable models and now the possibility of manipulated figures.

Please include references when you are quoting figures such as "9 out of 10 scientists...."

I'm not what jingthing would call a sceptic I just believe it would be irresponsible to ignore the sceptics because this is no who shot JFK, scientists who specialise in this field have concerns, they want questions answered. This is the bottom line for me. There are so many questions.

WHO THE hel_l would expect the sceptic point of view NOT to appear on a conspiracy theorists site, does this automatically make it rubbish??

See first scentence for relevance to topic, you moaners

Edited January 14, 2010 by shamus

[Jingthing]

There will always be questions until the end of time. The conclusions of the vast majority of mainstream scientists demands ACTION now. You will never get unanimous agreement on something like this until it is way too late. For God's sake man, even GW Bush accepted the science of man made climate change, he just didn't want to do much about it because he had nothing to gain from doing that.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[shamus]

Turning the TV off standby now

[Credo]

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If Bangkok is sinking, the oceans don't have to rise for the city to go underwater. Climate change and rising sea levels only changes the time frame.

[Jingthing]

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If Bangkok is sinking, the oceans don't have to rise for the city to go underwater. Climate change and rising sea levels only changes the time frame.

Yes, this is a special case, a perfect storm kind of scenario.

I agree Thailand has time to reorganize and move Bangkok. They will never have the money or political will to save it though.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If Bangkok is sinking, the oceans don't have to rise for the city to go underwater. Climate change and rising sea levels only changes the time frame.

Exactly, so let's leave the climate-drivel in the other thread...and yet go back to the topic at hand here.

[Jingthing]

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. If Bangkok is sinking, the oceans don't have to rise for the city to go underwater. Climate change and rising sea levels only changes the time frame.

Exactly, so let's leave the climate-drivel in the other thread...and yet go back to the topic at hand here.

Yes and no really. With the climate change happening this will happen MUCH faster, possibly impacting a lot of us who are here. So it IS relevant.

[TerraPosse]

This will not help added to the other factors

"A major Antarctic glacier has passed its tipping point, according to a new modelling study. After losing increasing amounts of ice over the past decades, it is poised to collapse in a catastrophe that could raise global sea levels by 24 centimetres."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1838...ref=online-news

I always thought that when something freezes it has more volume due to expansion? If the case, would the sea level not drop because of this

Guess I will ask for a refund on my elementary level uni education.

The glaciers in antarctica are sitting on a continent. They don't effect the sea level until they melt and the water flows into the sea, or until the break off and fall or move into the sea. I guess you had better ask for that refund after all.

He should send them rather a hefty donation for letting him pass with a degree.  I expect a GSCE pupil to get that one right. 

[RickBradford]

With the climate change happening this will happen MUCH faster, possibly impacting a lot of us who are here. So it IS relevant.

Unsubstantiated, alarmist, unrealistic, ignorant, ideological, unscientific, panic-stricken, brainwashed, fundamentalist foolishness.

The story of man-made global warming is over. In reality it never existed except in the minds and hearts of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed television networks and their misinformed, room-temperature IQ viewers and opportunistic eco-activists.

[Jingthing]

The story of man-made global warming is over.

Wishful thinking. Your mind is set about it. That's all.

Yes, there was a big Public Relations hit due to the so called climategate much ado about very little. The PUBLIC's attitude has changed against believing the theory. In the US, right wing pro American waste (America is by far the biggest offender) Fox News pounced on this and their propaganda machine went into overdrive. However, there is no evidence of any shift in the views of mainstream science. So if mainstream science is correct, the processes continue, so how do you reckon the "story" is over? Public opinion is important if there will ever be any hope of people consenting to take action about this. I never thought that was going to happen anyway, people are too selfish. Still, doesn't change the science and where we are headed. The objective scientific reality exists outside politics and human chatter.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[RickBradford]

So if mainstream science is correct, the processes continue, so how do you reckon the "story" is over?

Because the mainstream science doesn't believe the catastrophic man-made global warming scare either, despite the views that the hysterical and self-serving media might try to promote.

Yes, there are still plenty of narcissists out there who need to feel important by pretending they are unselfishly Saving the Planet, but they're going to have to find a new horse to ride in 2010 to replace the utterly busted fraud that that is "man-made global warming."

[TAWP]

O-M-G...JT, are you trolling or just unable to see that any sensible argument over the real situation here in BKK - that would be the same even if no climate change-issue was raised! - is forever lost if you cannot take your argument over to the other thread?

[teatree]

No worries. The skeptics don't believe in modeling and projections. For them to believe, the thing has to collapse on them personally.

There is no reason to believe them. None of the models predicted the current cooling trend, they predicted exponential warming in line with exponential increase in CO2. Well, the CO2 is indeed increasing exponentially but temperature is not (it is currently FALLING after having gone through quite a long plateau) tell me which climate model predicted this.

The IPCC does not even take into consideration the fluctuations in the Sun's output in its climate models. How can you take these people seriously?

[LaoPo]

Let's try to keep this thread on the more specific topic of Bangkok and the surrounding provinces. There are plenty of other threads for whistling in the dark about global warming; the subsidence of Bangkok is a real, demonstrated, and much shorter-term phenomenon- involving, as the OP mentions, geological as well as oceanographic factors.

The ones who say it will not happen forget about what happened in New Orleans and other places in the world.

I wrote before that the Bangkok area needs only one combined disaster and that is excessive floods coming from the North, together with a huge Typhoon/tornado/storm (whatever you want to call it) blowing enormous water masses TOWARDS Bangkok and the river delta.

It will cause such an enormous disaster that it will be incomprehensible for most.

Electricity, water systems...EVERYTHING will fail to work for long periods of time and large areas of greater Bangkok and far beyond will be inaccessible for aid workers and troops for long periods.

Within 1 or 2 weeks people will have no access anymore to water and food because trucks cannot reach large areas.

On top of that I haven't read anything yet (maybe missed it?) about the melting glaciers on the Tibet Plateau, the origin of the most important rivers in Asia. This will also cause rivers to dry out in the long run and will make the Gulf of Thailand even more vulnerable, meaning that it doesn't even need a large storm to blow massive water walls into the river delta, with the same effect as described before.

I have been in serious floodings in Bangkok before, water up till my waist whilst street lights were out. Not very comfortable I tell you.

Bangkok, 100 years ago had a mere 350,000 people; now the city is bursting out of it's corners with 8 Million people and Metro BKK like 12 million people, all of them producing and consuming whilst the protection of the city area didn't cope with reality.

It's not IF...but when.

The ONLY way is building water controlling systems in the form of dikes combined with a group of locks and sluices. Costly? sure, but how much would it cost to see a Bangkok under water for a long time ?

I live in a country where a large part of the country is BELOW sea level.

Bangkok is still above sea level but it's about time the Thai government starts working on it and make decisions.

Yeah..I know...TIT.

LaoPo

[brahmburgers]

Do you believe humans have the ability to alter climate change? Just a yes or no would suffice.

Of course humans have the ability to alter or effect the climate. If all of the world's nuclear weapons were launched and exploded this would cause drastic changes to the climate. That is one dramatic example, albeit unrealistic (hopefully), and probably unrelated. The question is how much are the cumulative and combined actions of humans doing so at present. The answer to that question is not yet known.

In 2006, the numbers were nearly 30 billion tons of carbon emissions (CO2) by people worldwide. source URL That's 4.4 tons per person on average. That's carbon that would ordinarily be locked up in fossil fuels or other places. That's more CO2 than volcanoes or methane emissions from oceans.

Who says that 30 billion tons of CO2 annually will not effect this planet's weather?

As for the OP re; Bkk, whether or not climate was changing noticably, or whether or not humans, with their toxifying habits are a factor, the fact would still remain that Bkk's days are numbered. Perhaps it will last several years or perhaps one to two decades, but even the rosiest outlook predicts serious flooding in the near future.

Devoting gargantuan funding to try and allay the problem is like Hans brinker putting a trillion dollar finger in to the dike and hopping it will hold back the full forces of mother nature.

[RickBradford]

Who says that 30 billion tons of CO2 annually will not effect this planet's weather?

Nobody that I know denies that increased CO² affects climate, tending to warm the planet. That's not the question.

The questions are:

1. How much and how quickly will the effects be felt -- rapid and catastrophic, or mild and gradual [Mild and gradual]

2. Will the effects be good or bad? [Good in some places, bad in others]

3. Will forcing humanity to drastically limit CO² emissions have any noticeable effect on this process. [Almost none.]

As to your Bangkok scenario, that looks very plausible -- do you know of any good sources for records about past floods and mitigation measures? Thanks.

[LaoPo]

As to your Bangkok scenario, that looks very plausible -- do you know of any good sources for records about past floods and mitigation measures? Thanks.

Like this?

http://www.asiaoceania.org/abstract/hs/58-HS-A1448.pdf

http://office.bangkok.go.th/environment/pdf/mitigation.pdf

There are many more; the problem is that the Bangkok flooding problems are known to every ministry and present as well as previous governments and much has been written, discussed about etc. etc. but nothing has been decided yet to start building prevention systems in case the unavoidable comes.....and then..it will be too late.

It's like the Tsunami, scientists and meteorologists warned about a possible tsunami and yet...nothing happened. We know the outcome with so many casualties.

BUT...in the case something happens to Bangkok the drama would be tenfold and apart from casualties the financial damage will be of mind boggling proportions.

Nobody, at this stage can even imagine the enormous problems:

Without electricity nothing functions; no gas/petrol, no internet, airport out of order, shops out of supplies..the list is long.

LaoPo

[RickBradford]

Thanks!

[brahmburgers]

It's like the Tsunami, scientists and meteorologists warned about a possible tsunami and yet...nothing happened. We know the outcome with so many casualties.

Actually, very few, if any scientists warned of a possible tsunami in the Andaman Sea because they weren't looking there - that region does not have a geologic history of tsunamis. There's been talk of one solitary Thai climatologist who made some prior mention, but that's all I've heard. Before the big event, there were barely any Thais who knew the word tsunami. How does this relate to Bangkok's inevitable flooding? Not sure, other than denial and ignorance are rife in all such scenarios.

Most likely scenario is Thailand's leaders will dump gargantuan amounts of money and resources in trying to keep Bangkok dry. To them it's a no-brainer. The concept of abandoning most portions of Bangkok and/or moving the center of Thailand to higher ground is anathema to Thais. It's similar to the Americans quixotic efforts to save New Orleans - though saving Bangkok would be a much tougher and larger row to hoe, and would eventually fail, probably withing ten to twenty years of initial infrastructure expenses.

Our grandkids will look at a vista of what was once Bangkok, which has become a large shallow bay, with the tops of some building skeletons sticking up, and a massive berm encircling - with standing water inside and outside the levee. Fish and sea creatures will like it, as it will afford a multitude of breeding/residing nooks - though it might take many years for the filth of a city to get flushed out. If/when Bkk is abandoned, care should be taken to deal with gas/fuel/chemical reservoirs left behind. All potential toxic emission breaches should be drained and cleaned before leaving. It won't be good enough to simply try to seal things up, as that won't work for the long term. Indeed, the whole city should be dealt with like the US's EPA deals with toxic dump sites. I'm not saying that as a particular verbal assault against Bkk, but as a matter-of-fact reality what modern cities are about. The same could be said of Shanghai or Dacca or Miami, or any of the other dozens of giant cities that will become flooded in the coming decades.

[LaoPo]

It's like the Tsunami, scientists and meteorologists warned about a possible tsunami and yet...nothing happened. We know the outcome with so many casualties.

Actually, very few, if any scientists warned of a possible tsunami in the Andaman Sea because they weren't looking there - that region does not have a geologic history of tsunamis. 1. There's been talk of one solitary Thai climatologist who made some prior mention, but that's all I've heard. Before the big event, there were barely any Thais who knew the word tsunami. 2. How does this relate to Bangkok's inevitable flooding? Not sure, other than denial and ignorance are rife in all such scenarios.

Most likely scenario is Thailand's leaders will dump gargantuan amounts of money and resources in trying to keep Bangkok dry. To them it's a no-brainer. The concept of abandoning most portions of Bangkok and/or moving the center of Thailand to higher ground is anathema to Thais. It's similar to the Americans quixotic efforts to save New Orleans - though saving Bangkok would be a much tougher and larger row to hoe, and would eventually fail, probably withing ten to twenty years of initial infrastructure expenses.

3. Our grandkids will look at a vista of what was once Bangkok, which has become a large shallow bay, with the tops of some building skeletons sticking up, and a massive berm encircling - with standing water inside and outside the levee. Fish and sea creatures will like it, as it will afford a multitude of breeding/residing nooks - though it might take many years for the filth of a city to get flushed out. If/when Bkk is abandoned, care should be taken to deal with gas/fuel/chemical reservoirs left behind. All potential toxic emission breaches should be drained and cleaned before leaving. It won't be good enough to simply try to seal things up, as that won't work for the long term. Indeed, the whole city should be dealt with like the US's EPA deals with toxic dump sites. I'm not saying that as a particular verbal assault against Bkk, but as a matter-of-fact reality what modern cities are about. The same could be said of Shanghai or Dacca or Miami, or any of the other dozens of giant cities that will become flooded in the coming decades.

1. correct; there was only one who warned for a Tsunami.

2. correct; it doesn't relate other than denial and no follow-up and non-action.

3. Wow, your scenario is quite harsh but not impossible but I would opt for a combination of dams/dikes and sluices and locks like the massive Delta Construction works in The Netherlands; the expertise is there; now it's just the politicians and money.

But, Thailand has enormous reserves and they could just start andf pay for it; a lot cheaper than a sinking Bangkok

But...TIT.

LaoPo

Edited January 16, 2010 by LaoPo

[Jingthing]

A more radical proposal is to build a massive dike, around 100km long, right across the Gulf of Thailand from Hua Hin to Pattaya.

Does anyone here know what a dike like this would actually look like? (Calling all Dutchmen.) For example at the beach resorts, how far from the shore would the dike be? If close in wouldn't it basically ruin at least the visual aspect of going to the beach? Why is the proposal to make it so big? If the only area under threat in the near future Bangkok or is there a connection to making it so big to also protect the entire areas including Pattaya and Hua Hin?

[LaoPo]

A more radical proposal is to build a massive dike, around 100km long, right across the Gulf of Thailand from Hua Hin to Pattaya.

Does anyone here know what a dike like this would actually look like? (Calling all Dutchmen.) For example at the beach resorts, how far from the shore would the dike be? If close in wouldn't it basically ruin at least the visual aspect of going to the beach? Why is the proposal to make it so big? If the only area under threat in the near future Bangkok or is there a connection to making it so big to also protect the entire areas including Pattaya and Hua Hin?

I suppose the latter.

It would be more logical to build such a dike closer to Bangkok via (view: west to east) Laem Phak Bia (see map link*) and the island of Ko Sichang/Tha Thewawong on the east side.

BUT....if such a dike would be built via those locations, other parts of the Gulf would become a danger zone, like Hua Hin/Cha-Am and on the east coast Pattaya cs which are -partly- lowlands as well IMO. Is that correct?

I'm not an expert, but there are special Institutes in Holland for water management and control of which His Royal Highness Crown Prince Willem-Alexander is an expert and member, traveling around the world to promote water management systems on a large scale.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=...432343&z=10

Don't forget: such a large construction would not have to be closed at all times; special large sections could let the gulf, although on a smaller scale, do it's work with the tides.

In Holland they also have special -controlled- large sections which only will be closed in dangerous weather conditions, but IF it happens they are prepared.

Those so called DELTA* construction works were built after the 1953 disaster where the dikes broke during a rare combination of factors: an extremely heavy storm, combined with a so called "spring tide" and river-floods coming from Switzerland, Germany and France where the rivers couldn't dispose of the enormous amounts of water; result: the dikes broke and many people died.

The agricultural land couldn't be used for many years after because the salt water spoiled the soil.

*

Flood controls in The Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control...n_coastal_areas

AND: if a dike of 33 kms in S Korea could be built, why not a dike of 100 kms? The difference here was that the government wanted to create farmland and a freshwater lake instead controlling possible disasters.

South Korea - Saemangeum seawall

http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=...mp;t=h&z=11

LaoPo

[Jingthing]

Would a dike ruin the beach resorts? OK, Pattaya is ruined already but you get the idea.

[siggie2]

Would a dike ruin the beach resorts? OK, Pattaya is ruined already but you get the idea.

Jing,

You forget one thing,the bigger the project,the more money invested and more to cream off by the hungry government officials

[LaoPo]

Would a dike ruin the beach resorts? OK, Pattaya is ruined already but you get the idea.

I don't think so but it depends on WHERE the dike would "end" near Pattaya/Jomtien but that's my personal opinion. Yes, many things will change but also for the better.

Sewage systems would have to be controlled and not dumping in the gulf anymore.

LaoPo

[DP25]

Look at a map of Gulf of Thailand. Sounds like they're just giving approximate locations. Building straight across the bight from Hua Hin would put it south of Jomtien. You wouldn't see anything from either beach.

[LaoPo]

Look at a map of Gulf of Thailand. Sounds like they're just giving approximate locations. Building straight across the bight from Hua Hin would put it south of Jomtien. You wouldn't see anything from either beach.

True...but on the other side (Hua Hin/Cha-am) they would and the Royal Palace would have a view on the dike construction I suppose.

http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=...432343&z=10

LaoPo

Edited January 16, 2010 by LaoPo

[brahmburgers]

When people mess with mother nature on such a large scale, there are inevitable trade-offs, or worse. As mentioned earlier, the Dutch, even with their wealth and their expertise, had a catastrophe in the early 1950's. With rising sea levels worldwide, they're bound to have problems again, regardless of how much money and expertise they devote to trying to save their lower-than-sea-level little country.

Venice and New Orleans have larger resources than Bangkok, but they're also fighting a losing battle. St. Mark's Square in Venice: when it first flooded, several years ago, it was a big deal. Now it floods often, and it's accepted. Plus, many native Venetians are getting fed up and leaving for dryer ground.

Building dikes is not the solution. Dikes will get overwhelmed - it's inevitable. It might take 2 years or ten years or, if we're really lucky, maybe 20 years, ....but the combination of high tides, high rivers and/or high waves/high winds, will be what does it. When dykes fail, they often keep flood water in, rather than allowing it to flow out.

Also, whenever you restrict the movement of water, as dikes and levees do, you also exacerbate pollution. The few organisms that grown proliferantly in stagnant water are not pleasant.

[RickBradford]

With rising sea levels worldwide, they're bound to have problems again

Even the alarmist IPCC's official best estimate is that sea levels will rise about 30 centimeters over the next century. Not exactly a terminal crisis, especially put alongside estimates of 2-5cm per year for subsidence in Bangkok.

A dyke across the Gulf of Thailand would cause enormous environmental damage in terms of altering natural sea flow and water circulation.

As was pointed out earlier, the only beneficiaries would be the usual well-connected suspects with their hands in the till; the losers, as always, the Thai taxpayers.

But given the inevitable behind-the-scenes bickering about who gets which bit of the icing off the cake, it will never go ahead in any meaningful timeframe. Dead in the water, as it were.

[LaoPo]

1. When people mess with mother nature on such a large scale, there are inevitable trade-offs, or worse. As mentioned earlier, the Dutch, even with their wealth and their expertise, had a catastrophe in the early 1950's. With rising sea levels worldwide, they're bound to have problems again, regardless of how much money and expertise they devote to trying to save their lower-than-sea-level little country.

2. Venice and New Orleans have larger resources than Bangkok, but they're also fighting a losing battle. St. Mark's Square in Venice: when it first flooded, several years ago, it was a big deal. Now it floods often, and it's accepted. Plus, many native Venetians are getting fed up and leaving for dryer ground.

3. Building dikes is not the solution. Dikes will get overwhelmed - it's inevitable. It might take 2 years or ten years or, if we're really lucky, maybe 20 years, ....but the combination of high tides, high rivers and/or high waves/high winds, will be what does it. When dykes fail, they often keep flood water in, rather than allowing it to flow out.

Also, whenever you restrict the movement of water, as dikes and levees do, you also exacerbate pollution. The few organisms that grown proliferantly in stagnant water are not pleasant.

Interesting points Brahmburgers!

1. "people mess with nature".....WE (and forefathers) messed with Mother Earth on a large scale already and the only ones able to do something about it are present and next generations.

The Dutch learned a hard lesson on February 1, 1953 indeed and created the largest ever man-made construction on earth to fight future disasters and control the sea and rivers and -unfortunately- will have to do so for ever since the country is below sea-level for a large part* see image.

Netherlands below sea level.

2. That's incorrect; Venice are about to build large constructions to avoid future floodings and will succeed!

3. I'm sorry but disagree; it would take specialized water management engineers to explain but if Holland didn't have it's present dikes, more than 3,500 (!!!) kilometers* in fact (rivers included) , it would have been flooded centuries ago and all dry parts (see image again) would be covered with water now, since long.

In your option a dike will fail after it's built; but dikes need constant repair and control and of course if you build a dike and walk away, thinking it's OK, you're waiting for a disaster to happen.

It's like a house: if you finished it, it looks beautiful....let it be for 10 years, return and see what happened; maintenance is the word, constantly.

We can't let the water have control over us; we control the water!

The Dutch water management institutes also have a cooperation with many countries in Asia and SE Asia, including Thailand:

http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?iNodeID=132

* and..if the Dutch with a small population can build dikes with a length of 3,500 kms..can the Thai do the same for a dike of 100 km with a population of 66 million?

Sure they can !

The OP topic is called:

Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists and if they have to build a dike to prevent Bangkok from flooding and sinking: build the bloody dike!

LaoPo

Edited January 16, 2010 by LaoPo