Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists

[Jingthing]

Reminder to the persistent skeptics. Bangkok sinking has a lot more factors than only global warming. It is sinking, nothing alarmist about that.

[LaoPo]

Water and Safety in The Netherlands:

Dikes in 2001: 3,585 Kilometers!* and 260 kilometers of natural dunes offering natural flood protection.

http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/...ns_and_answers/

A dike for Thailand of 100 kilometers would take a period of max 3-5 years to construct, possibly faster.

Note: I'm NOT talking a dike which would seal the entire Gulf but an open construction with bridges and sluices and locks and automated systems which can be closed in times of danger.

Of course, answering RickBradford, it would have an enormous impact to the environment in terms of altering natural sea flow and water circulation but not so dramatic that it will destroy all natural life.

Fish and sea animals will adapt overtime if the normal tidal "flows" will be left intact for most part but it's a question what is more important:

a Bangkok with 12-14 million people in it's area who can't live there anymore or the environment in the Gulf.

It's one choice out of two bad choices.

* Primary flood defences: 3,500 km in total, consisting of 1,430 km of river dikes, 1,017 km dikes around lakes, and 430 km dikes and 260 km dunes for coastal defense.

The lowest point in Holland, is 6,74m below average.

From: http://www.waterland.net/index.cfm/site/Wa...816FF/index.cfm

LaoPo

Edited January 16, 2010 by LaoPo

[Tejas]

It seems to me that it is possible that the Gulf will rise at the same time that rainfall will increase. So, the water will come from two sides: the Gulf of Thailand and the rivers emptying into the Gulf (first passing through Bangkok).

The cost of addressing this twin problem will be enormous. It will mean less money for infrastructure, health care, education, etc. It represents a "hidden cost" of continuing to embrace what amounts to an insane fossil fuel energy policy.

Of course, the problem is not specific to Bangkok. We could be talking about New Orleans, Miami, New York City, etc. Add up the total global cost of continuing to embrace an insane fossil fuel energy policy, and you get a very, very large number.

[brahmburgers]

Can Bangkokians do it? Yes, it's physically possible to build all sorts of very large things.

Is building a levee system to try and save Bangkok from serious floods sensible? No.

Thais have proven they're at the tail end of (rather than the vanguard of) large-scale water management projects.

They've proven it by being behind the 8 ball with the two major rivers which create borders between Burma and Laos (the Salween and Mekong, respectively). Their chiefs dough-headedly gave the ok to China (and others) to build several large dams which will adversely affect generations of Thais. When, years later, the Thais realize the folly of their earlier decisions, what can they do - petition the Chinese to tear down the dams?

There were a system of large irrigation pipes put in to service farms in Issan. Later, it was found the pumps couldn't move the water sufficiently - due to the insufficient grade (slope), and the head (height of water) not being sufficient, and sand/silt build-up in the pipes. It's a multi-million baht project sitting there doing nothing.

In my adopted town of Chiang Rai, a storm sewer was put it. It didn't have sufficient grade to drain. It was torn up and rebuilt. It didn't drain the 2nd time. It was torn up and rebuilt, and the 3rd time it worked. Also, there was a very tall water tower put in. It stands alongside a couple of government owned hills. Why didn't they build a ground level reservoir atop one of the nearby hills, rather than build a much more expensive tower nearby? I don't know. A tower is phallic and impressive, perhaps? Even the scaffolding on the tower came all the way up, 80 meters, from ground level. An innovative planner would have seen a way to secure it to the tower itself. As it happened, the scaffolding twisted around dangerously.

These are the same sorts of contractors, designers, engineers who Bangkokians would be entrusting with building a trillions of baht water management project.

Nothing can be done to mitigate the fact that Bkk is sinking. And nothing effective can be done to lessen rising sea levels. And certainly nothing can be done to cancel out the effect of tides or natural phenomena such as tsunamis and cyclones.

Face reality. Bite the bullet. If the tree is diseased and threatening to fall on your house, cut it down, and plant a few more trees in the process - further from your roof.

Edited January 17, 2010 by brahmburgers

[RickBradford]

Their chiefs dough-headedly gave the ok to China (and others) to build several large dams which will adversely affect generations of Thais.

At the risk of going O/T here, I wonder how much influence Thailand could have had on this decision, once the Chinese had made their minds up to do it.

The real losers (regarding the Mekong) will be:

1. Cambodia, a large proportion of whose population rely for survival on the annual Mekong flood (see, Tonle Sap), and

2. Vietnam, whose Mekong Delta is also utterly reliant on sufficient flow from the Mekong for its existence. Silt from the Mekong pushes the land out, and the sea eats it back. Without that flow, the Mekong Delta will simply be eaten by the sea, along with 25 million people and most of Vietnam's rice production.

I'm sure Thailand could develop an adequate flood management scheme for Bangkok; whether it will, is another matter.

[RickBradford]

Well, at least Bangkok won't be sinking as a result of sea-level rise caused by melting Himalayan glaciers.

The IPCC has just admitted that its 2007 scare story about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 was based on a story in a British magazine, which itself was based on a single short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Mr Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 IPCC report, said on the weekend he was considering recommending that the claim about glaciers be dropped.

"If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, then I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments," Professor Lal said.

Oh, thanks heaps for that. Might have been better if you'd done some proper research in the first place instead of blindly peddling more alarmist rubbish. These people suffer from the Genesis Delusion -- they think they only have to say "Let there be Himalayan glacier melting" and there would be melting.

This is the 'settled science' we're supposed to be spending trillions of dollars to support?

Of course, as has been pointed out, Bangkok is sinking like a camel in quicksand anyway, so sea level rises are of relatively minor importance. Even less so now, it seems.

[teatree]

Bangkok may well be under threat of sinking, but we can all relax about the oceans rising - the AGW pseudo-science is unravelling before our very eyes:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6991177.ece

In a nutshell the whole scare comes from a telephone interview with an Indian scientist who SPECULATED that they may be in danger, 'New Scientist' made it into an article and the IPCC then based their report on the article. Peer review??? Scientific method???

Yet another huge blow to the credibility of the IPCC - how can people believe a word they say?

[RickBradford]

Snap!

The heartening thing is that the mainstream media worldwide are beginning to bring some balance to their coverage, after years of pandering to the Church of Climatology's agit-prop.

[Thai at Heart]

First the hockey stick, now the glaciers.

Are we seeing the unravelling of what could be the the biggest snake oil lie ever espoused?

I don't mind if we have to all get together to save the planet, keep water clean, use less fuel, recycle. There is nothing wrong with doing the right thing. It is simply a question of how much money I/We and governments should spend on doing it that is the issue.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[RickBradford]

Has anyone visited IPCC headquarters recently?

[Thai at Heart]

Has anyone visited IPCC headquarters recently?

But I did notice no solar panels on the roof.

[Scott]

Some seriously off-topic responses have been deleted and I suspect there will be more. Inflammatory posts are being deleted as well and will result in formal warnings. The topic is about Bangkok sinking. It's not about climate change and rising sea levels, although they are closely related.

[Scott]

For those wishing to discuss the more general issue of climate change and how it will affect Thailand, this thread is currently running:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Strange-Weat...ar-t329149.html

[thaihome]

Interesting report on the current state of flood control in Bangkok from the UN. Not exactly a primitive system. With the heavily, localized tropical rainfall that happens here, there is no way to stop localized flooding.

I do agree that a typhoon that would very usually move north through the Gulf of Thailand, combined with heavy rainfall in the upper central plains, could be a disaster.

The scenario of the tops of skyscrapers sticking up out of a flooded plain is ridiculous.

TH

[LaoPo]

Bangkok may well be under threat of sinking, but we can all relax about the oceans rising - the AGW pseudo-science is unravelling before our very eyes:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6991177.ece

In a nutshell the whole scare comes from a telephone interview with an Indian scientist who SPECULATED that they may be in danger, 'New Scientist' made it into an article and the IPCC then based their report on the article. Peer review??? Scientific method???

Yet another huge blow to the credibility of the IPCC - how can people believe a word they say?

Maybe the credibility of the IPCC was (deliberately) questioned under great pressure of the big countries; who knows?

The point is that the Himalayan Glaciers ARE melting with a focus on the Tibetan Plateau.

This gigantic plateau is the Water Tower for Asia and is the most important source for water to the surrounding countries, including Thailand.

Early December a Dutch Correspondent in Shanghai, Bert van Dijk, from a serious Dutch Financial daily -Het Financieele Dagblad- wrote and article about the Tibetan Plateau, after he visited the area himself, called Bye Glaciers, Bye Nomads*

The Himalayan Tibetan glaciers are feeding a large number of streams, but also underground reservoirs which result in the later large rivers such as the Yangtze and Yellow River; the Glaciers are the sources -water tower- of ALL major Asian rivers (but one, the Ganges), also in SE Asia and thus Thailand as well.

Van Dijk traveled to Yushu -see link- one of the most uninhabited places of the plateau and spoke to people and saw the results of the melting glaciers himself.

Hundreds of lakes are drying out every year; streams and small rivers dry up and the speed at which this happens is very worrying.

According to Chinese Meteorological scientists, the temperature on the plateau, since 1961 (almost 50 years ago!); LP decreased every 10 years with 0,32C;

That means on a short term, overflowing rivers and serious floods but on the long term drying up rivers, lakes and streams and thus the water supplies for billions of people! We're talking 60% of the world population here.

Nomads signaled that it rains much more than before which they consider as a blessing for their cattle but for the long term it's a disaster since the rains will stop. Another example is that there is more snow falling (of course...) in China than ever before, causing lots of troubles but this, like the rains, will fade away over time also when the glaciers will continue to melt with the same speed as they do now.

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

* For those who can read Dutch: http://blogs.fd.nl/files/tibetaanse-plateau.pdf

Conclusion: Thailand's water problems and connected enormous agricultural related system (and work force of some 50% of total Thai labor) will face difficult periods.

How that will effect "sinking Bangkok"..I have no idea but I think the effects will be gigantic.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

About controlling serious flooding in Bangkok, coming from upstream:

There is only one major step that could be taken and that is:

Room for the river

The Dutch describe this as follows, being the low delta from three majors rivers, The Rhine, The Meuse (from France) and The Schelde, from Belgium:

"What is 'Room for the River'?

Instead of continuing to raise and reinforce dikes, the government is looking at the potential of giving water more room. In 2000, the Cabinet choose 'Room for the River' as its point of departure for a new approach to flooding - a turnabout in the way the Netherlands deals with water. This can involve, for instance, lowering forelands, moving dikes inland or designating floodplains to temporarily retain water during high water situations. For more information, see:

http://www.waterland.net/index.cfm/site/Wa...83F65/index.cfm

In other words, upstream, somewhere in Thailand along the river, large pieces of land have to be "sacrificed" in order to prevent Bangkok from serious flooding when the large water masses can't stream into the Gulf anymore because of exceptional weather like a storm, exceptional tides or a typhoon....which was never expected in that area but occurred anyway.

Remember the Tsunami? that wasn't expected in Phuket region as well.

There is NO other way to control the river and in Thailand's case, building dikes along the river over such huge lengths is an impossible task.

LaoPo

[teatree]

Bangkok may well be under threat of sinking, but we can all relax about the oceans rising - the AGW pseudo-science is unravelling before our very eyes:

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6991177.ece

In a nutshell the whole scare comes from a telephone interview with an Indian scientist who SPECULATED that they may be in danger, 'New Scientist' made it into an article and the IPCC then based their report on the article. Peer review??? Scientific method???

Yet another huge blow to the credibility of the IPCC - how can people believe a word they say?

Maybe the credibility of the IPCC was (deliberately) questioned under great pressure of the big countries; who knows?

The point is that the Himalayan Glaciers ARE melting with a focus on the Tibetan Plateau.

This gigantic plateau is the Water Tower for Asia and is the most important source for water to the surrounding countries, including Thailand.

Early December a Dutch Correspondent in Shanghai, Bert van Dijk, from a serious Dutch Financial daily -Het Financieele Dagblad- wrote and article about the Tibetan Plateau, after he visited the area himself, called Bye Glaciers, Bye Nomads*

The Himalayan Tibetan glaciers are feeding a large number of streams, but also underground reservoirs which result in the later large rivers such as the Yangtze and Yellow River; the Glaciers are the sources -water tower- of ALL major Asian rivers (but one, the Ganges), also in SE Asia and thus Thailand as well.

Van Dijk traveled to Yushu -see link- one of the most uninhabited places of the plateau and spoke to people and saw the results of the melting glaciers himself.

Hundreds of lakes are drying out every year; streams and small rivers dry up and the speed at which this happens is very worrying.

According to Chinese Meteorological scientists, the temperature on the plateau, since 1961 (almost 50 years ago!); LP decreased every 10 years with 0,32C;

That means on a short term, overflowing rivers and serious floods but on the long term drying up rivers, lakes and streams and thus the water supplies for billions of people! We're talking 60% of the world population here.

Nomads signaled that it rains much more than before which they consider as a blessing for their cattle but for the long term it's a disaster since the rains will stop. Another example is that there is more snow falling (of course...) in China than ever before, causing lots of troubles but this, like the rains, will fade away over time also when the glaciers will continue to melt with the same speed as they do now.

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

* For those who can read Dutch: http://blogs.fd.nl/files/tibetaanse-plateau.pdf

Conclusion: Thailand's water problems and connected enormous agricultural related system (and work force of some 50% of total Thai labor) will face difficult periods.

How that will effect "sinking Bangkok"..I have no idea but I think the effects will be gigantic.

LaoPo

ANY change in climatic patterns can be pinned on AGW. If it gets hotter, cooler, wetter, drier, windier, calmer etc etc etc, whatever changes occur can be put down to AGW. That is the genius of the whole scam.

The fact is that the climate has been changing since the dawn of time and it will continue to do so without any help from man.

Glaciers melting? Yes, they have been melting for at least 150 years as the world has been coming out of the little ice age and well before there was any major industrial output of CO2.

[shamus]

Try not to think about this from a human, compassionate perspective, see a bigger picture...

Sea levels rise, some major cities are ruined, mass migration occurs in some places, many people live but food shortages resulting from the massive loss of farm land leads to many many deaths and a major cut in the world population...

Would this be a better basis to try to live within 'our' means or are we 6,797,300,000 (as of today) capable of saving the planet without a mass loss of earth's population?

Just a thought

Before the angry mob arrive I'd like to state that I still have questions and doubts on man-made climate change and by living within our means I am not talking about emissions, rather about consumption.

Edited January 19, 2010 by shamus

[astral]

Bangkok is not alone in this dilemma, London is also sinking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6231334.stm

To try and avert catastrophe the Thames Barrier was built between

1974 and 1982 at cost of 534million UK pounds (27 billion baht)

with another 100 million pounds to strengthen river defences.

The Thai project is only just being discussed...............

I fear Bangkok residents will be swimming before anything real happens

I remember Silom road under 20cm of water in 1985...............

not fun.

[LaoPo]

..20 cms on Silom road; there were even heavier floods before but I can't recall the year when I was wading through water up till my waist on Sukhumvit Soi 25/27 in my underwear; but I do recall walking into the lobby of the Montien at Surawongse RD at midnight, still in my -wet- underwear, barefooted, with briefcase asking for my keys

You should have seen the guests in the lobby.

Many still don't understand how serious the problem is; maybe this article from UNESCO will help a little to wake up ?:

"The Chao Phraya basin is the most important basin in Thailand. The Basin covers 30% of Thailand's land area, is home to 40% of the country's population, employs 78% of its work force, and generates 66% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The total population of the Chao Phraya basin was 23.0 million inhabitants in 1996."

23 million in 1996....how many would that be now?

http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/case_stud...aya/index.shtml

LaoPo

[Tigs]

It may be prudent, for the survival of what is essentially a good thread, to put some matters to rest.

Man made Co2 is having no effect on Global Warming. Nada, zero, zilch! Billions of dollars have been made by rogue scientists who have perpetuated a blatant lie. The chairman of the IPPC, Patchari - the train engineer (you couldn't make it up), is going to find himself in deep poo soon. It appears the Indian government for a start are going to charge him with fraud and conflict of interests (ie he has made millions from his claims of AGW).

It is the biggest scam since JC, probably the biggest ever, and has been engineered with a ruthless beauty and grace.

This is a must read for probably most on this thread, it won't take long.

35 Inconvenient Truths - The errors in Al Gores Movie

Here is an eye opening article from a guy in Austrailia

Coal Driven Power Stations and Carbon Dioxide

This article appeared in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin (Queensland, Australia) on 22.12.09

To the Editor:

I thought I should clarify. I am now retired and in excellent health at age 69. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you with any information you may require.

Terence Cardwell

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

The Editor

The Morning Bulletin

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example.

The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.

Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who haven't got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost. As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand. The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story)

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated. Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity. Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years. To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;

If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal. Australia emits 1 percent of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years. Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent. Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the government wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures. That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc. How ridiculous it that.

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous.

Cripple and even closing some smaller business.

T.L. Cardwell

It never ceases to amaze me that if the globe is in fact heating up why scientists do not start looking at that very large yellow hot thing in the sky.

Jinthing

It may sadden you to hear that when you quote CO2 being at 380ppm or thereabouts, the readings were supplied by a scientist who was based in Hawai, - next to an active volcano, but Al, and the IPPC thought it would fit in just fine, so much so that they still use his measurements. Now living next to an active volcano wouldn't skew your results would it?

Globalis Warmanitis

Globalis Warmanitis is a serious disease infecting hundreds of millions. The symptoms start slowly, even one or two of the early warning signs are cause for concern. If you have a family member or friend experiencing these symptoms, act quickly and get professional medical attention. They could be the result of early onset Globalis Warmanitis. Symptoms should be treated as an emergency, as the progress of the disease is rapidly approaching a tipping point. Serious end stage physical symptoms have been reported, including; dizzyness, blurred vision, urge to paint protest signs, hysteria, hot flashes, confusion, dementia, spontaneous nudity (leading to frostbite) and eventually psychosis.

If you have any of these early warning symptoms, please contact The Air Vent immediately for guidance. All inquiries are kept 100 % public, guidance will be handled in a tough love manner by Dr. Id – B.S….M.D.

End stage symptoms include:

1. Belief in the unbiased truth of government funded science.

2. Belief that snow is a significant sign of global warming

3. Belief that drops in global temperature are falsified by the guys drawing the squiggly lines.

4. The absolute knowledge that every credible scientist believes in CO2 global warming

5. A deep warm feeling that the UN IPCC has our best interests at heart

6. Knowledge of the complex science which shows that the sun does NOT heat the earth.

7. Belief that big energy wants global warming to go away, because sales of expensive renewable energy are not in their best interest.

8. Understanding the reasons why Al Gore deserved his Nobel Prize.

9. Belief that legislation of the right kind can regulate global temperature.

10. The belief that the earth has remained at the same temperature, unchanged for thousands of years.

If you, your family or friends are experiencing any of these symptoms, take heart because Dr. Id – B.S.M.D is here to help. Together we can stop this pandemic before it’s too late.

Bangkok may sink but it wont be due to rising sea levels.

Did you know that there is currently 40% more ice in the Antarctic than there was in 1980. Did you know that the Arctic ice cap has only reduced by 7% since 1980.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Tigs

[LaoPo]

Did you know that there is currently 40% more ice in the Antarctic than there was in 1980. Did you know that the Arctic ice cap has only reduced by 7% since 1980.

LaoPo

[Tejas]

Did you know that there is currently 40% more ice in the Antarctic than there was in 1980. Did you know that the Arctic ice cap has only reduced by 7% since 1980.

LaoPo

To Tigs: It really would be productive is some posters learned something about science in general and climate science/global warming in particular.

Global warming and climate change are real. No reasonable person is debating whether or not they are real. You seem to be living in a world of myths.

Now, back to the topic. I agree that it would be far too costly, especially for a third world country like Thailand, to spend most of its revenues on a massive dam to protect Bangkok from rising waters.

Diverting the river might help.

Perhaps some large lakes could be constructed to hold some of the water.

Maybe a major canal project could be undertaken to move some of the water to dry areas (providing there are dry areas).

Actually, this is shaping up to be a real disaster, and a very costly one at that.

The place to look for answers is probably the Netherlands.

[RickBradford]

No reasonable person is debating whether or not they are real.

Actually, millions of reasonable people are debating exactly this subject, in newspapers, on television, in government and in academic journals worldwide.

It is only the unreasonable people who refuse to accept a debate. It seems fairly clear which group you belong to.

If it's settled, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't settled.

[Thai at Heart]

Did you know that there is currently 40% more ice in the Antarctic than there was in 1980. Did you know that the Arctic ice cap has only reduced by 7% since 1980.

LaoPo

To Tigs: It really would be productive is some posters learned something about science in general and climate science/global warming in particular.

Global warming and climate change are real. No reasonable person is debating whether or not they are real. You seem to be living in a world of myths.

Now, back to the topic. I agree that it would be far too costly, especially for a third world country like Thailand, to spend most of its revenues on a massive dam to protect Bangkok from rising waters.

Diverting the river might help.

Perhaps some large lakes could be constructed to hold some of the water.

Maybe a major canal project could be undertaken to move some of the water to dry areas (providing there are dry areas).

Actually, this is shaping up to be a real disaster, and a very costly one at that.

The place to look for answers is probably the Netherlands.

But the issue is, is "Mr Cardwell" telling the truth or not? It isn't relevant to say, go off and learn something, when people are quoting what appear to be considered relevant sources.

The scientific hypothesis should if true, be able to refute what he is saying.

Bangkok is always going to be have a problem simply because it shouldn't be where it is to the scale that it is. It is built in a river delta flood plain. History, recent and ancient would propose that most cities built in such places become inundated periodically. Add in the combined weight of the modern construction, and things sink.

Therefore, sit still and wait to get flooded or move, because I doubt there is anything man can do in the very long term to economically save a city like Bangkok. I am not sure too many people would really miss it on the whole in its current form.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[thaihome]

About controlling serious flooding in Bangkok, coming from upstream:

There is only one major step that could be taken and that is:

Room for the river

...

There is NO other way to control the river and in Thailand's case, building dikes along the river over such huge lengths is an impossible task.

LaoPo

They already do this. When the river gets too full, they divert it into agricultural areas outside Bangkok. Of course the farmers get really upset.

Floods a Burden Borne by the Poor

BANGKOK, Nov 20 2006 (Asia Water Wire) – While relief operations are underway for the inundated provinces of central Thailand, debate goes on as to how government policies have impacted on rural farmers living in flood-affected areas.

In mid-October, in a bid to avert flooding in Bangkok following heavy rains, Royal Irrigation officials began diverting an overflow from the Chao Phraya river to the rice fields in the central provinces of Thailand. Among these, Ayutthaya, Nakhon Pathom and Suphan Buri are said to be the worst-hit. According to ‘The Nation’, 1.38 million rai (2.2 billion square kilometres) of land have been sacrificed.

TH

Edited January 20, 2010 by thaihome

[Tejas]

What about constructing some very large lakes (to store water) like you see in most Western countries. Would that help? Or would it only be a temporary fix? I am guessing it would only be temporary. But this is a hot climate and evaporation would drop the water table on the lakes each year.

[ableguy]

OK, unlike you my ears are very much open and yeah the buy yer bride comment was unneccessary. You have the ability to annoy me even though I know nothing about you. This is not a good sign for you, anyway back to the point...

Global temperatures have not risen in 10 years, why jingthing? You 'know' man made climate change is real, educate me please

We have historical evidence of enforced migration due to climate change from times before industrialisation. - youtube - man on earth

And one final question then I'm done - Do you think humans have the ability to stop the supposed climate change that's such a threat to our existence when humanity contributes less than 3% of co2 in the atmosphere?

Ladies please!

[ableguy]

OK, unlike you my ears are very much open and yeah the buy yer bride comment was unneccessary. You have the ability to annoy me even though I know nothing about you. This is not a good sign for you, anyway back to the point...

Global temperatures have not risen in 10 years, why jingthing? You 'know' man made climate change is real, educate me please

We have historical evidence of enforced migration due to climate change from times before industrialisation. - youtube - man on earth

And one final question then I'm done - Do you think humans have the ability to stop the supposed climate change that's such a threat to our existence when humanity contributes less than 3% of co2 in the atmosphere?

Ladies please!

[earlbrownuk]

Their needs to be built a sea wall, and this is common sense, as many countries around the world use sea walls.

The world sea levels are rising, and this is not a conspiracy theory. Look at the ice caps on the mountains, that once laid, gone. The south and north pole are shrinking.

The US and China are the two major Carbon Dioxide pollutioners in the world, and they won't adhere to it so why should we.

50 Years is just a rough estimate, could be 25 years, could be 100 years, but it will happen.

Why do you think the world's government are building a resort on the moon. Top secret, which 2 news companies tried to pursue.

It's time to start moving inland, in any country. Better now than later when all the prices get pushed up. If you own property on the coastal areas, sell.