Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists

[RickBradford]

Why do you think the world's government are building a resort on the moon.

More well-informed reasoning from our friends in the Warmist church.

[JR Texas]

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.

Building a sea wall does seem critical. But it will be massively expensive. In addition, the water is moving in from two sides: Gulf of Thailand and the riverine system feeding it that first passes through Bangkok.

It is tragic that so much money will have to be wasted on this when it could have been prevented simply by reducing population numbers, engaging in massive conservation efforts, and moving away from our dependence on fossil fuel energy.

It is particularly tragic because developing world countries need all of the money they can get to address serious problems other than global warming and climate change.

And then you have too many ignorant people who, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, are not able to grasp the significance of global warming and climate change on the economies and social structures of the planet.

It is hard for me to be very optimistic about all of this.

[RickBradford]

And then you have too many ignorant people who, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, are not able to grasp the significance of global warming and climate change on the economies and social structures of the planet.

It is indeed very sad that these people exist, who still believe that dismantling the world economy is the only way to save the planet from an imaginary problem called "man-made global warming."

Bangkok may be sunk, but let's not condemn the rest of the world to futile and burdensome restrictions which would have no effect in solving what is in any case a complete non-event.

[Tigs]

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.

To Tejas

What a pompous arrogant statement. I have a good enough background in Sciences thank you very much. Where did I say that Global Warming does not exist? I said quite clearly that AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, it is not happening. Just what world of myths am I living in? Please elaborate I am intrigued. Point me to one bit of evidence that shows that Global Warming is taking place, and if you quote the IPPC or any of the fraudulent Scientists in the UK and India you are as foolish and arrogant as your statement above.

Lao Po

Do a bitof research, it will get rid of the funny faced smilies.

[ballpoint]

It is tragic that so much money will have to be wasted on this when it could have been prevented simply by reducing population numbers...

I'm intrigued, how do you go about simply reducing population numbers? A war? Mass culling of the poor, weak and useless? Compulsory sterilisation? Even China's one child policy is going to take years to start reducing the population significantly, if at all.

[LaoPo]

Lao Po

Do a bit of research, it will get rid of the funny faced smilies.

I blinked because I can't follow your statement:

"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"

Maybe it's me.

LaoPo

Edited January 20, 2010 by LaoPo

[Tigs]

Lao Po

Do a bit of research, it will get rid of the funny faced smilies.

I blinked because I can't follow your statement:

"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"

Maybe it's me.

LaoPo

The statements seem quite clear to me. I did make a mistake though sorry, the Antartic Ice field are actually 43% larger not 40%. There is 100 000 sq km more ice in the Antarctic than there was last year.

I will save you the research. Have a play on this site. Compare any years you like.

National Snow and Ice Data Center

Here you can see precisely how much or how little ice there has been at the two polar caps over many years. Check out the last 10 years or 20 years and then consider if we are experiencing Global Warming as the rogue scientists tell us. These images are constructed from satellite data. The site belongs to the University of Colorado.

In general, the Global Warmists are in the midst of the raptures of a new religion, their belief ignores all science, nothing will persuade them. They even think Polar Bears are dying out! 30 years ago there were about 5000 of the critters, since hunting bans were imposed, there are now 25000, so if they are dying it is because of food shortage, that's why they swim to look for it because there isn't enough to go around. Nothing to do with Global Warming.

Lots of more good information here.

Global Warming Hoax - Antarctic Sea Ice 1980 3.5 Mil Sqkm, in 2009 5.3 Mil sqkm. - Its never been colder for a long time.

[LaoPo]

Lao Po

Do a bit of research, it will get rid of the funny faced smilies.

I blinked because I can't follow your statement:

"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"

Maybe it's me.

LaoPo

The statements seem quite clear to me. I did make a mistake though sorry, the Antartic Ice field are actually 43% larger not 40%. There is 100 000 sq km more ice in the Antarctic than there was last year.

I will save you the research. Have a play on this site. Compare any years you like.

National Snow and Ice Data Center

Here you can see precisely how much or how little ice there has been at the two polar caps over many years. Check out the last 10 years or 20 years and then consider if we are experiencing Global Warming as the rogue scientists tell us. These images are constructed from satellite data. The site belongs to the University of Colorado.

In general, the Global Warmists are in the midst of the raptures of a new religion, their belief ignores all science, nothing will persuade them. They even think Polar Bears are dying out! 30 years ago there were about 5000 of the critters, since hunting bans were imposed, there are now 25000, so if they are dying it is because of food shortage, that's why they swim to look for it because there isn't enough to go around. Nothing to do with Global Warming.

Lots of more good information here.

Global Warming Hoax - Antarctic Sea Ice 1980 3.5 Mil Sqkm, in 2009 5.3 Mil sqkm. - Its never been colder for a long time.

1. I can't see how the the Antarctic Ice cap is now 43% larger than in 1980 and having reduced with 7% at the same time, also since 1980. That is truly amazing. Care to explain?

2. Your stats seem to be conflicting with NASA's Earth Observatory: Conclusion:

excerpt:

"Since 1979, satellites have provided a consistent continuous record of sea ice. Through 2008, annual average sea ice extent in the Arctic fell by about 4.1 percent per decade relative to the 1979–2000 average. The amount of ice remaining at the end of summer declined even more dramatically—over 11.1 percent per decade."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page5.php

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page4.php

I will let the -conflicting- experts decide and let's go back on topic about a sinking Bangkok which is pretty far away from Antarctica.

LaoPo

[Tigs]

Lao Po

Please read my statement carefully. I have said the Antarctic Ice fields have increased by 43% (The Antarctic is the South Pole), I then say the Arctic has reduced by 7% since 1980 (The Arctic is the North Pole)

[LaoPo]

Lao Po

Please read my statement carefully. I have said the Antarctic Ice fields have increased by 43% (The Antarctic is the South Pole), I then say the Arctic has reduced by 7% since 1980 (The Arctic is the North Pole)

OK, understood; normally people speak indeed about the North Pole and Antarctic but maybe people which make it their interest say Arctic to the North Pole?

Anyway, that doesn't explain the enormous difference in the numbers supplied by you (source) and NASA, does it?

Well, we'll better leave it since this is about Bangkok, sinking.

LaoPo

[Tigs]

Lao Po

Please read my statement carefully. I have said the Antarctic Ice fields have increased by 43% (The Antarctic is the South Pole), I then say the Arctic has reduced by 7% since 1980 (The Arctic is the North Pole)

OK, understood; normally people speak indeed about the North Pole and Antarctic but maybe people which make it their interest say Arctic to the North Pole?

Anyway, that doesn't explain the enormous difference in the numbers supplied by you (source) and NASA, does it?

Well, we'll better leave it since this is about Bangkok, sinking.

LaoPo

I gave you a link to the source.

[LyceeIceCream]

Now waiting for the "Al Gore lied" conspiracy theorists.

Why are you waiting for them? Oh! you think this post proved him right or something? He is bending over backwards to enact a worldwide carbon tax. We are carbon based life forms...you would have to pay to breath you dumbass. Trying searching youtube for H.A.A.R.P. and learn something instead of trying to discredit others out of fear 40 year old virgin! hahaha

[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.

To Tejas

What a pompous arrogant statement. I have a good enough background in Sciences thank you very much. Where did I say that Global Warming does not exist? I said quite clearly that AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, it is not happening. Just what world of myths am I living in? Please elaborate I am intrigued. Point me to one bit of evidence that shows that Global Warming is taking place, and if you quote the IPPC or any of the fraudulent Scientists in the UK and India you are as foolish and arrogant as your statement above.

Lao Po

Do a bitof research, it will get rid of the funny faced smilies.

My statement was not even directed at Lao Po (a person whose views I respect). There was nothing arrogant about it. It was appropriate given who it was actually directed to.

There is no need to direct any person to the literature as that has been done repeatedly. The scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming.

But that is not the subject of this thread. The spammers, however, want that to be the subject.

The spammers have know nothing about science as far as I can tell. I gave good advice: learn something prior to posting.

In fact, the spammers may be children posing as adults.

[RickBradford]

The scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming.

That is a blatant falsehood which has been repeatedly exposed.

Even the Climategate conspirators don't believe it and never have believed it

We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

With just months until the Kyoto Climate Conference, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an e-mail [October 9, 1997: email 0876437553] from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:

"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

"I would like to weigh in on two important questions—

"Distribution for Endorsements—

"I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

"Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!"

This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple.

There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

[RJJ]

Maybe they could just build a massive glass dome over the top of Bangkok.

Imagine the air quality then...

Edited January 21, 2010 by RJJ

[churchill]

NOT good news !

The UN climate convention says nations signing up to the accord reached at last month's summit will not have to do so by the deadline of 31 January.

The "Copenhagen Accord" asks countries to send figures by the end of the month on how much they will curb emissions.

But amid uncertainty over who is going to sign up, climate convention head Yvo de Boer said the deadline was "soft".

He said the Copenhagen summit had not delivered the "agreement the world needs" to address climate change.

His comments will come as a disappointment to campaign groups, who would like to see a firm timetable for further talks and political moves pursued through the year.

There is also some concern in "green" circles about the election of Republican Scott Brown to succeed Democrat Edward Kennedy as Massachusetts Senator.

The window of opportunity we have to come to grips with this issue is closing faster than it was before

Yvo de Boer

Some campaigners fear this will delay, weaken or derail the progress through the Senate of the Boxer-Kerry bill on limiting carbon emissions, and could induce wavering supporters of the legislation to jump ship.

Earlier in the week, North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, a Democrat opposed to the draft bill, predicted that the Senate "will not do a climate change bill this year, but we will do energy".

Mr Brown has spoken against measures to cap US greenhouse gas emissions. One Greenpeace campaigner described his election as "definitely bad news".

However, Alden Meyer from the Union of Concerned Scientists told BBC News it did not necessarily signal major problems ahead for the legislation.

"It was already clear that we would need some Republicans [to support the bill], because some Democrats have said they wouldn't support cap-and-trade anyway," he said.

Basic positions

It appears that despite any uncertainty over domestic legislation, the US will send in its commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the UN climate convention secretariat by the end of the month.

This coming weekend, the BASIC group of Brazil, China, India and South Africa are due to consider their response.

As developing countries, the four will not commit to emission cuts but are supposed, under the accord, to detail what measures they will take to curb emissions growth.

There were signs that despite playing a leading role in writing the accord, they might decide not to endorse it. But sources now predict that all four will send in their plans, though they might not be as ambitious as the intentions they revealed before Copenhagen.

The EU has also indicated it will submit figures and support the accord, even thought it falls short of the "minimum ambition" the bloc was looking for in Copenhagen.

However, many other countries are known to have grave doubts about offering any endorsement of what they regard as a fundamentally flawed document; and at the end of the Copenhagen summit, several, including Bolivia, Cuba and Tuvalu, indicated they would not support it.

Mr de Boer described the accord as a "political letter of intent".

He said that policymakers were now in a "cooling-off period" before beginning discussions on what they might want from this year's UN climate summit, to be held in Mexico at the end of the year.

"The window of opportunity we have to come to grips with this issue is closing faster than it was before," he said.

[email protected]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8471593.stm

[LaoPo]

"Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists"

I kindly call upon the posters to let this thread not end in an endless debate about global warming, please!

This topic is about the serious threat to Bangkok, it's delta and in fact the whole country, population and economy as well as the steps that are to be taken or to be extended to prevent the city from further "sinking".

Global warming is a world problem and this is a local, Thailand related serious problem.

LaoPo

Edited January 21, 2010 by LaoPo

[Thai at Heart]

"Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists"

I kindly call upon the posters to let this thread not end in an endless debate about global warming, please!

This topic is about the serious threat to Bangkok, it's delta and in fact the whole country, population and economy as well as the steps that are to be taken or to be extended to prevent the city from further "sinking".

Global warming is a world problem and this is a local, Thailand related serious problem.

LaoPo

I fear that in many ways similarly to global warming, most people feel that they have more pressing problems than worrying about when Bangkok finally sinks into the sea.

I for one really do believe that whilst efforts should be made to improve the infrastructure and amenities in Bangkok, it is truly beyond being saved as a capital city. It has very little to offer its residents in terms of quality of life. There isn't enough money in Thailand to change the sewers or the drains, to further alleviate flooding problems.

I would start planning to move most of the governmental departments and services to a green field site somewhere else.

[filingaccount]

Point me to one bit of evidence that shows that Global Warming is taking place..

Actual measured global temperatures. These numbers are not estimates, just raw numbers in graph form. How you interpret them, is up to you, but it clearly shows temperatures increasing. Why? Again, we all like to theorize.

[brahmburgers]

lifted from Wikipedia

.....more recent satellite data, which measures changes in the gravity of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years. Another recent study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the east Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. This was largely due to acceleration of ice streams such as Pine Island Glacier. These results agree closely with the gravity changes.

BB's comment: .....doesn't sound like 43% recent gain in ice cover as someone on this thread asserted.

It is tragic that so much money will have to be wasted on this when it could have been prevented simply by reducing population numbers...

I'm intrigued, how do you go about simply reducing population numbers? A war? Mass culling of the poor, weak and useless? Compulsory sterilisation? Even China's one child policy is going to take years to start reducing the population significantly, if at all.

I can't speak for JR, but a non-alarmist might interpret his remark in a more benign fashion. "Reducing population numbers" could apply to Bangkok, in the sense of people moving away to more habitable places. I doubt it means that a latter day Vlad The Impaler would be needed to organize citizens line up to get impaled upon 4 meter long sharpened bamboo spikes.

In the bigger picture of things (and this is BB's opinion), overpopulation is the 6,000 pound woolly mammoth in the kitchen that most people pretend isn't there (I keep stepping in mammoth crap and brushing up against the shaggy beast, but it's too non-PC to tell anyone there's a mammoth in this small room).

Each person contributes, on average, 5 tons of CO2 annually. Multiply that by 6.5 billion, and that's a lot of gas, ....much more than our fast receding forests can gobble up.

If the genie gave me one wish, I would wish for the Pope to stop telling his flock to multiply and overwhelm the earth. My message to young men everywhere: wear a condom or get your tubes tied. Same for women of child bearing ages (ok, just the tubes tied for them). This one species has propagated itself way way waaaaaaay beyond the carrying capacity of this one small planet. Lessening overpopulation will be the #1 issue of the 2nd half of the 21st century.

Edited January 21, 2010 by brahmburgers

[churchill]

"Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists"

I kindly call upon the posters to let this thread not end in an endless debate about global warming, please!

This topic is about the serious threat to Bangkok, it's delta and in fact the whole country, population and economy as well as the steps that are to be taken or to be extended to prevent the city from further "sinking".

Global warming is a world problem and this is a local, Thailand related serious problem.

LaoPo

I agree but if this has not already been posted ? should add to the debate -

Bangkok Assessment Report on Climate Change 2009

http://www.adaptationlearning.net/reasearc...ate-change-2009

[Fishbucket]

Not suprised with all them underground structures, and evermore concrete above ground.

[Tigs]

Filingaccount

Thank you for posting the graph below. Some points.

Point me to one bit of evidence that shows that Global Warming is taking place..

Actual measured global temperatures. These numbers are not estimates, just raw numbers in graph form. How you interpret them, is up to you, but it clearly shows temperatures increasing. Why? Again, we all like to theorize.

It is a known recorded fact that about 100 years ago the world finished a mini ice age and started its route back to 'normal' as we would hope for. Your graph should go back another 60 years as it becomes quite interesting. World temperature is known to be affected by Solar Variations and significant meteorological activities such as El Nino. Your graph does indeed indicate a warming trend, but can you explain the warming trend between 1910 and 1940? Green house gases had not accumulated in the atmosphere at that time. Al Gore and the IPPC knew this so they tried to convince us that the rate of increase was now greater than it had ever been and the prime reason was CO2. They quote 1980 to present day and there is indeed a rapid rate of increase, but wait a moment, between 1910 and 1940 we experienced the SAME rapid rate of increase?? How can that be? (There was a similar rate of increase in the mid 19th century) No Green House gases but the same rate of increase. Further more if it were green house gases why is there a leveling off in temperatures between 1950 and 1975? If it were green house gases it would have continued to rise. After a recent study however, it has been decided that modern temperature indications cannot possibly be accurate due to the Follies displayed by the organisations collecting the data. Another review is now under way to try and ensure temperature readings are accurate. Look below and remember that these temp gauges measure in 10ths of a degree, and in warming trends we are discussing 10ths of a degree.

Global warming is measured in tenths of degrees. The temperature stations shown below are not the exception, but the rule. They represent rural areas AKA trees, brush, grass and small towns. Official organizations and the media use the temperature stations below for everything from scientific global warming studies to reporting local weather. Official organizations include NASA, NOAA, NCDC, UK Met Office, CRU and etc.

Let's thank Anthony Watts for his work and remember to support the project at Surfacestations.org where most of the stations are being documented.

Aside from the air conditioner exhaust and the building blocking the wind, behind the photographer is a paved runway. Photo By Russ Steele, documentation of Petaluma CA on Surfacestations.org.

Applicants for sewer construction permits in Aberdeen, WA step off the paved driveway to read this sign that heats up the thermometer above that is not cooled by the wind that is blocked by the structure in the background. Photo by Gary Kobes, documented on Surfacestations.org.

Here is a picture I took of a temperature station in Lewiston, Maine. The temperature station is shielded from the wind on three sides. Blacktop surrounds the station on two sides and it is in the vicinity of that big air conditioning exhaust and barbecue in the background. I was standing on a paved driveway when I took the picture. This is the only location that is not rural; the town is listed as population 40,000.

The next temperature station does not appear to be in a windless area as it is on top of an asphalt roof attached to a metal pipe next to an air conditioning exhaust. Roseburg, OR

Photo by George Taylor, documented on Surfacestations.org.

The air-conditioning exhausts or the rock pavement may not affect the next temperature station as much as the jet exhaust on the day of the air show at Lovelock, NV. Photo by Anthony Watts, documented at Surfacestations.org.

The next photo may end up being the poster child for Global Warming on trash day. Photo by Russ Steele, documented on Surfacestations.org.

At this Lodi, CA power station, the temperature station is between a paved driveway and hot exhaust fans. Photo by Anthony Watts, documented at Surfacestations.org.

© Kristen Byrnes

The fact is that CO2 is a trace gas.

Gas Name

Chemical Formula

Percent Volume

Nitrogen

N2

78.08%

Oxygen

O2

20.95%

* Water

H2O

0 to 4%

Argon

Ar

0.93%

* Carbon Dioxide

CO2

0.0360%

Neon

Ne

0.0018%

Helium

He

0.0005%

* Methane

CH4

0.00017%

Hydrogen

H2

0.00005%

* Nitrous Oxide

N2O

0.00003%

* Ozone

O3

0.000004%

The red asterix indicates variable gases

Are we seriously falling for the story that a gas that composes 0.0360% of the earths atmosphere is responsible for Global Warming? As I keep saying, there is a very large yellow hot thing up in the sky which is reaching a 11000 year high in terms of activity. It is cyclic and there is nothing we can do to stop the Sun doing what it wants. I agree whole heartedly it is time to clean up our act and get rid of pollution, but CO2 IS NOT a pollutant!

Does it not make you even a little suspicious that Al Gore, who started this frenzy off has already made $1 Billion on Carbon Credits? He couldnt have made money out of the Sun, nor could he have made money out of the real greenhouse gas, Methane.

BB

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone on the internet. If you are looking for scientific data that is unbiased it is the last place to look. I could go on Wiki now and re-edit what you have just quoted so that it reads something different. Look at the link I posted within the last 24 hours for an independent University that does not receive Global Warming Grants. It is the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. Run by Scientists I might add. As long as records have been kept there has not been as much Ice in the Antarctic as there is now. - Fact!

Bangkok won't sink, calm down everyone. Why are humans alarmists by nature? It is what gives governments power.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tigs

[LaoPo]

I fear that in many ways similarly to global warming, most people feel that they have more pressing problems than worrying about when Bangkok finally sinks into the sea.

I for one really do believe that whilst efforts should be made to improve the infrastructure and amenities in Bangkok, it is truly beyond being saved as a capital city. It has very little to offer its residents in terms of quality of life.

There isn't enough money in Thailand to change the sewers or the drains, to further alleviate flooding problems.

I would start planning to move most of the governmental departments and services to a green field site somewhere else.

I beg your pardon ?

Thailand has one of the largest FOREX reserves, # 12 in the WORLD in fact, with a staggering US$ 139,8 BILLION. No money ?

They are even leading BEFORE countries like: Italy, Switzerland, France, MaLaysia, UK, the USA (!)

Check your facts Thai at Heart: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/802P816.pdf ***

IF the Thai government wants to prevent Bangkok from disasters, THERE IS MONEY!

If they WANT to spend that money on their own capital is something else.

*** and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...#External_links

LaoPo

[Tigs]

I fear that in many ways similarly to global warming, most people feel that they have more pressing problems than worrying about when Bangkok finally sinks into the sea.

I for one really do believe that whilst efforts should be made to improve the infrastructure and amenities in Bangkok, it is truly beyond being saved as a capital city. It has very little to offer its residents in terms of quality of life.

There isn't enough money in Thailand to change the sewers or the drains, to further alleviate flooding problems.

I would start planning to move most of the governmental departments and services to a green field site somewhere else.

I beg your pardon ?

Thailand has one of the largest FOREX reserves, # 12 in the WORLD in fact, with a staggering US$ 139,8 BILLION. No money ?

They are even leading BEFORE countries like: Italy, Switzerland, France, MaLaysia, UK, the USA (!)

Check your facts Thai at Heart: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/802P816.pdf ***

IF the Thai government wants to prevent Bangkok from disasters, THERE IS MONEY!

If they WANT to spend that money on their own capital is something else.

*** and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...#External_links

LaoPo

They are even leading BEFORE countries like: Italy, Switzerland, France, MaLaysia, UK, the USA (!)

From your link France $152 Bill, Italy $142 Bill, Switzerland $162 Bill

Check your facts Thai at Heart (Insert LaoPo): http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/802P816.pdf ***

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tigs

[way2muchcoffee]

Actually the rates are not the same. From 1910 to 1940 there was a 0.4 degree Celsius increase. That's 0.013 degrees per year. From 1980 to 2000 there was a 0.6 degree Celsius increase. That's 0.03 degrees per year. The rate over the last two decades is 2.25 times the rate in the early to mid 20th century.

[Thai at Heart]

I fear that in many ways similarly to global warming, most people feel that they have more pressing problems than worrying about when Bangkok finally sinks into the sea.

I for one really do believe that whilst efforts should be made to improve the infrastructure and amenities in Bangkok, it is truly beyond being saved as a capital city. It has very little to offer its residents in terms of quality of life.

There isn't enough money in Thailand to change the sewers or the drains, to further alleviate flooding problems.

I would start planning to move most of the governmental departments and services to a green field site somewhere else.

I beg your pardon ?

Thailand has one of the largest FOREX reserves, # 12 in the WORLD in fact, with a staggering US$ 139,8 BILLION. No money ?

They are even leading BEFORE countries like: Italy, Switzerland, France, MaLaysia, UK, the USA (!)

Check your facts Thai at Heart: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/802P816.pdf ***

IF the Thai government wants to prevent Bangkok from disasters, THERE IS MONEY!

If they WANT to spend that money on their own capital is something else.

*** and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...#External_links

LaoPo

And since none of us here know exactly how much it would cost to save Bangkok from impending flood we don't know whether there is enough money. Enough/sufficient is also weighed against the economic cost of doing so. I would believe that to build the necessary levees, water diversion systems, flood barriers, sewers and drains would be money not particularly well spent. I wasn't implying that Thailand has no money, I was implying that it probably doesn't have enough to prevent Bangkok from flooding if it is indeed sinking. This then presumes that you may want to spend 25% of your national forex stash to combat mother nature, when you could simply move up the road.

I am curious if anyone could hazard a guess how much it would cost simply to put the drains that are already in existence up to standard and prevent flooding now? 10bn? 20bn? Bear in mind, building the Olympic stadiums in London is costing about 12 bn USD lets say and 99% of that work is above ground.

I would hazard that to be able to prevent floods in Bangkok would probably represent the most expensive civil engineering feat in the world. This would not also mean that it would be successful.

They have had floods for 100's of years in Bangkok, it's in a flood plain. No amount of money is going to prevent the periodic inundation of Bangkok. If indeed Bangkok is sinking, I would presume that this would mean it will only get worse, particularly as the city continues its rapacious expansion with ring roads and moobhans raised only a metre or two above the standing water line.

[way2muchcoffee]

This then presumes that you may want to spend 25% of your national forex stash to combat mother nature, when you could simply move up the road.

I am curious if anyone could hazard a guess how much it would cost simply to put the drains that are already in existence up to standard and prevent flooding now? 10bn? 20bn? Bear in mind, building the Olympic stadiums in London is costing about 12 bn USD lets say and 99% of that work is above ground.

I would hazard that to be able to prevent floods in Bangkok would probably represent the most expensive civil engineering feat in the world. This would not also mean that it would be successful.

How much would it cost to rebuild an entire metropolis? All businesses, government buildings, schools, museums, national treasures, homes, apartments, condos, roads, all necessary infrastructure, etc?

Edited January 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Tigs]

Point me to one bit of evidence that shows that Global Warming is taking place..

Actual measured global temperatures. These numbers are not estimates, just raw numbers in graph form. How you interpret them, is up to you, but it clearly shows temperatures increasing. Why? Again, we all like to theorize.

Way2muchcoffee

Actually the rates are not the same. From 1910 to 1940 there was a 0.4 degree Celsius increase. That's 0.013 degrees per year. From 1980 to 2000 there was a 0.6 degree Celsius increase. That's 0.03 degrees per year. The rate over the last two decades is 2.25 times the rate in the early to mid 20th century.

I actually said 1980 to present, not to 2000.

If you are going to try and be smart then make sure you are smart!

in 1980 the temp you are referring to was 0.08C above the datum, in 2000 it was 0.35 deg above the datum that is an increase of 0.27C! Would you like me to go on? If you go to present date it is 0.5C above datum, between 1980 and 2009 (29years) the increase is 0.42C between 1910 and 1940 (30 years) it was 0.4C. Questions?

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tigs

[way2muchcoffee]

You do not take an individual year when examining trends. You go by trendlines. Nevertheless, you are right I missed nearly a decade.

So from 1910 to 1940 it is still 0.013 degrees per year. From 1975 to 2005 it becomes 0.02 degrees per year. Still 1.5 times the rate in the mid to early 20th century.

You can try to massage the data by picking individual years if you like. That would be wrong on many levels, but feel free. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over this. It is visibly clear that the slope of the best fit line over the last two decades is significantly higher than from 1910 to 1940. One needs only hold a ruler up to the monitor to see the difference. If you really want, do it properly. Take all the data points in each 30 year span and do a linear regression analysis on the two sets of data. It shouldn't take more than about 20 minutes. I have no inclination to do so.

Edited January 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee