Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists

[Tigs]

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. It would be disingenuous, but feel free to do that if it makes you happy.

What on earth are you talking about. I have picked exactly the same trends as you. Now why have you moved dates to 1975 and 2005? does it give you a better trend? The dates by the IPPC and Al Gore were 1980 to present day 2009. you dont need any calculations, anybody with a modicum of intelligence can see that the lines display rate of increase between the years are almost identical. You are talking codswhollap. So you just miss a decade and bugger that throws out your calculations does it, so you invent a new set of parameters. You should work for the IPPC they need people just like you. way2muchcoffee! for sure

You can try to massage the data by picking individual years if you like. It would be disingenuous, but feel free to do that if it makes you happy.

Some contributors here beggar belief.

I had to add an edit as the more I think of your statement the more ludicrous it becomes. You are talking about 7 thousandths of a degree,!! just insane.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tigs

[way2muchcoffee]

Some contributors here beggar belief.

At least we agree on something.

Do the regression analysis and get back to us before you start hurling insults.

Edited January 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Tigs]

Some contributors here beggar belief.

At least we agree on something.

Do the regression analysis and get back to us before you start hurling insults.

Now you are talking rubbish! And it is you that seems to be trying to insult intelligence. 7 thousandths of a degree! And you change the dates to give you a better result. The trend from 1910 to 1940 and 1980 to 2009 are identical. Go on admit it! But I guess you can't because I suppose you are a 'warmist'. The belief beats all science and common sense.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Tigs

[way2muchcoffee]

Some contributors here beggar belief.

At least we agree on something.

Do the regression analysis and get back to us before you start hurling insults.

Now you are talking rubbish! And it is you that seems to be trying to insult intelligence. 7 thousandths of a degree! And you change the dates to give you a better result. The trend from 1910 to 1940 and 1980 to 2009 are identical. Go on admit it!

Number one. I made an honest mistake in my first calculation. I attributed the increase to 20 years when it was in fact 30. I admitted my mistake and performed the calculation again. Note that the numbers became closer by making this change. I have no agenda.

Number two. The trendlines are not the same. Any middle school student could tell you this at a glance.

Number three. I find you rude and borderline abusive. So feel free to insult me some more if that is how you take pleasure in life.

Edited January 21, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Tigs]

Number 1 agreed, so why did you then 'slide' the dates?

Number 2 Absolutely wrong

Number 3 Disagree, where? I take pleasure in life from simple debate with clear thinking objective people.

[LaoPo]

TIGS:

Correct; when I wrote that comment is was about the numbers from October in Wiki's list; the latter list, from IMF, I supplied is already from November 2009.

LaoPo

Edited January 21, 2010 by LaoPo

[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

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.

1. You're right; nobody knows yet but the Dutch and Belgians are the world's leaders in building dikes and other large water/sand projects; look at Dubai. They could make an estimate within a certain period of time They probably have a pretty accurate estimate already.

2. The worlds largest/longest dike so far, in South Korea, 33 Kms, was around US$ 3 Billion.

But what if a 100 km dike would even cost a staggering 25-30 $ billion to protect Bangkok....? WHAT would it cost if nothing was done ?

You tell me, but I tell you it would cost multiple times that amount.

You can't, like you say, simply move along the road; that's absurd. You can't abandon and move a city like BKK along the road.

3. One cannot compare building an Olympic stadium with constructing a dike (which is largely removing sand from the sea bottom to a dike-construction). forget comparing; it doesn't add up.

4. Bangkok and floods: like I mentioned before, Bangkok, 100 years ago had a mere six hundred thousand people whilst now we're talking about a Bangkok-Delta population of up to 20 million; in case a disaster happens like predicted we will see a total collapse from Hua Hin, around Bangok delta up to the south-east of Rayong.

Go figure.

Q: have you ever been in a serious flood in BKK...? I have.

If everybody would talk like you, NOTHING would ever happen.

LaoPo

[Thai at Heart]

1. You're right; nobody knows yet but the Dutch and Belgians are the world's leaders in building dikes and other large water/sand projects; look at Dubai. They could make an estimate within a certain period of time They probably have a pretty accurate estimate already.

2. The worlds largest/longest dike so far, in South Korea, 33 Kms, was around US$ 3 Billion.

But what if a 100 km dike would even cost a staggering 25-30 $ billion to protect Bangkok....? WHAT would it cost if nothing was done ?

You tell me, but I tell you it would cost multiple times that amount.

You can't, like you say, simply move along the road; that's absurd. You can't abandon and move a city like BKK along the road.

3. One cannot compare building an Olympic stadium with constructing a dike (which is largely removing sand from the sea bottom to a dike-construction). forget comparing; it doesn't add up.

4. Bangkok and floods: like I mentioned before, Bangkok, 100 years ago had a mere six hundred thousand people whilst now we're talking about a Bangkok-Delta population of up to 20 million; in case a disaster happens like predicted we will see a total collapse from Hua Hin, around Bangok delta up to the south-east of Rayong.

Go figure.

Q: have you ever been in a serious flood in BKK...? I have.

If everybody would talk like you, NOTHING would ever happen.

LaoPo

I am simply trying to rationalise spending an enormous amount of money to rectify 100 years of mistakes in city planning when planning to move from the lowest areas might be the best answer. No one in their right mind would have built Bangkok the way it is, in the place that it is. Unfortunately a lot of people looked the other way as it turned into this sprawling mass with no planning and services that cannot serve it's 20mn or so people. Start planning to move and build something better.

Before they start building the dam_n to beat all damns, please could TOT bury all the phone lines? Likewise EGAT with the electricity?

I have been in a couple of floods in Bangkok, be they serious or not it doesn't really matter. It always floods somewhere in Bangkok. I saw what they did to the people up country a couple of years ago to save Bangkok too. For which they paid something ridiculous like 100baht per rai compensation.

[bkkjames]

I don't want to get off topic, so I was a bit concerned about posting this. But it is on topic.

Global warming and climate change are real (no real debate going on about this and it is not the subject of this thread).

[As an aside, I respectfully suggest that posters interested in the topic of this thread ignore those who want to hijack it.]

Having said that, an expensive solution has been proposed. It is way too costly and will negatively impact other government spending.

What possible solution is there? Well, people are bringing lawsuits against oil/energy companies now (see links below which are anything but spam).

And that is the solution: make those responsible for this environmental tragedy pay for all of the measures necessary to address it.

Bangkok and other low lying cities could bring a massive, collective lawsuits against those responsible: oil and energy companies.

A few examples of recent lawsuits and related links:

Groundbreaking Lawsuit Accuses Big Oil of Conspiracy to Deceive Public About Climate Change

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/3/groun...uses_big_oil_of

Civil Conspiracy Lawsuits Filed Against Climate Change Deniers

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20091206/civi...-change-deniers

The Coming Global Warming “Scopes” Trial

Recent Climate Lawsuits Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/07/glo...rming-in-court/

For Peru's Indians, Lawsuit Against Big Oil Reflects a New Era - Outsiders, NGOs and High-Tech Tools Help Document Firms' Impact

http://patagonia-under-siege.blogspot.com/...gainst-big.html

Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You Can!

Source: http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002353/s...ms-yes-you-can/

Big Oil Going The Way Of Big Tobacco?

Source: http://bexhuff.com/2008/06/big-oil-going-t...-of-big-tobacco

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

First Global Warming Lawsuit Against US Polluters a Success

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fi...mate-change.php

Courts Are Open for Climate Change Lawsuits against Power Companies

Source: http://www.internationallawoffice.com/News...25-d725987b458d

US rules greenhouse gases 'hazards'

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...3433211121.html

Landmark Global Warming Lawsuit Settled

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.c...isplay/id/17634

First Global Warming Lawsuit Against US Polluters a Success

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/fi...mate-change.php

Eskimos file lawsuit against oil companies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews...-companies.html

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skepti...ies-exxonmobil/

Transition from oil to renewable energy 100 years away, says Exxon Mobil

Oil giant claims ‘no viable alternatives’ will emerge in the next century.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/st...ys-exxon-mobilt

Climate change sceptics and lobbyists put world at risk, says top adviser

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...cientist-watson

Why do you keep posting these in anything related to weather JR?

Edited January 22, 2010 by bkkjames

[Thai at Heart]

Bangkok and other low lying cities could bring a massive, collective lawsuits against those responsible: oil and energy companies.

I think the odds of this type of thing succeeding are absolutely zero. In fact I would reckon that the might be a greater chance of the people of worlds developed nations rising up and storming the UN buildings and beating Ban Kee Moon over the head with xeroxed carbon trading contracts.

[LaoPo]

I am simply trying to rationalise spending an enormous amount of money to rectify 100 years of mistakes in city planning when planning to move from the lowest areas might be the best answer. No one in their right mind would have built Bangkok the way it is, in the place that it is. Unfortunately a lot of people looked the other way as it turned into this sprawling mass with no planning and services that cannot serve it's 20mn or so people. Start planning to move and build something better.

Before they start building the dam_n to beat all damns, please could TOT bury all the phone lines? Likewise EGAT with the electricity?

I have been in a couple of floods in Bangkok, be they serious or not it doesn't really matter. It always floods somewhere in Bangkok. I saw what they did to the people up country a couple of years ago to save Bangkok too. For which they paid something ridiculous like 100baht per rai compensation.

Oh, but I agree with your logic about those 100 previous years but the point is that Bangkok/Government have to make a few choices, all of them bad choices...and expensive choices.

LaoPo

[teatree]

I don't want to get off topic, so I was a bit concerned about posting this. But it is on topic.

Classic warmist hypocrisy - complaining about the thread being 'hijacked' by people who don't believe in AGW but then continuing on your spamming spree.

It's clear why the debate is over in your mind and yet has only really just begun in many many scientists'.

All the skeptics want is for the issue to be fully debated. Why can't the 'warmers' do the same? This intolerance of any doubting of AGW is the exact opposite of how science should function - there needs to be vigorous debate.

I know its been an awful few months for the bedwetters, but just screaming out 'the debate is over' whenever someone disagrees just smacks of desperation.

[LaoPo]

I don't want to get off topic, so I was a bit concerned about posting this. But it is on topic.

JR Texas..I beg you to stop posting those lengthy posts with countless links which very few members will read.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone on board here to read ALL those links and then answer to your post and it will disturb and distract this topic:

Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists

A few weeks ago another topic was closed by the Mods, a topic* which ran for 2 1/2 years in the NEWS section and which was also about Global Warming and I suspect it was closed because of such lengthy posts with countless links as well and many from you also, ending up in a debate without any goals.

Debating is one thing but posting so many links is raping a thread.

Sorry, but I couldn't answer differently.

Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims, "Too far away from melting glaciers"

* http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Gulf-Thailan...-W-t117475.html

LaoPo

[RickBradford]

it will disturb and distract this topic

That, of course, is his only reason for posting them.

[Tejas]

it will disturb and distract this topic

That, of course, is his only reason for posting them.

When a poster makes an important statement, others want to know where he/she got the information. Posting links to that specific information is not a distraction at all. It is a responsible post.

[bkkjames]

it will disturb and distract this topic

That, of course, is his only reason for posting them.

When a poster makes an important statement, others want to know where he/she got the information. Posting links to that specific information is not a distraction at all. It is a responsible post.

Well if you have been watching carefully the same long list of websites have been posted and re-posted in just about every topic from weird weather in Thailand, Bangkok's sinking and so on. Just surprised it hasn't shown up in one of the mexican food topics yet.

[teatree]

it will disturb and distract this topic

That, of course, is his only reason for posting them.

When a poster makes an important statement, others want to know where he/she got the information. Posting links to that specific information is not a distraction at all. It is a responsible post.

Scientists using selective temperature data

Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

http://www.canada.com/technology/Scientist...8634/story.html

[NoBS]

Sorry.........you posted a link to support your statement. I think that is no longer allowed on TV. No BS.......it appears that is the case. So the science behind the statements must now be hidden. Why? No idea.

[bkkjames]

Sorry.........you posted a link to support your statement. I think that is no longer allowed on TV. No BS.......it appears that is the case. So the science behind the statements must now be hidden. Why? No idea.

JR is that you mate? Like the new avatar.

[RickBradford]

What it shows is that, just like in Britain at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature data records have been grotesquely distorted by activist scientists in order to exaggerate the appearance of late 20th century global warming.

They achieved this – with an insouciant disregard for scientific integrity which quite beggars belief – through the simple expedient of ignoring most of those weather station sited in higher, colder places and using mainly ones in warmer spots. Then, they averaged out the temperature readings given by the warmer stations to give a global average.

For example, to recalibrate temperatures in cold, mountainous Bolivia, they chose one spot a few hundred kilometers to the west (Peruvian coast) and one a similar distance to the east (Amazon rainforest), and averaged them. Lo and behold, Bolivia was shown to have "warmed".

Thus, exactly the scary “climate change” they needed to persuade bodies like the IPCC that AGW was a clear and present danger requiring urgent pan-governmental action.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think?

Jingthing, if you can bear to open this link you will find a very long list of your "anti-scientific types".

Only problem is that they are eminent scientists.

This is good reading.

On a wider point - Some people will never listen, the angry mob, the no matter whats. The cheif architect for the twin towers says the building was designed to take such an impact, the pilotsfor911truth members (some have over 10 years service in the marines) who say it would be physically impossible for a plane to have hit the pentagon. This world is a system of smokescreens, look back to Bush Snr and the money he made from his health system investments and subsequent policies making him vast profits, the Bush's being close family friends with the Bin Ladens. God bless freedom of information and no I don't believe it ALL.

But now I've given you these examples you can group me as a conspiracy theorist and the majority who are 'given' their opinions will listen to you

Duly grouped.

[shamus]

A lot of people don't accept the theories of Darwin, even now. Note there is a remarkable overlap of those anti-scientific types with the global warming skeptics. Why do you think?

Jingthing, if you can bear to open this link you will find a very long list of your "anti-scientific types".

Only problem is that they are eminent scientists.

This is good reading.

On a wider point - Some people will never listen, the angry mob, the no matter whats. The cheif architect for the twin towers says the building was designed to take such an impact, the pilotsfor911truth members (some have over 10 years service in the marines) who say it would be physically impossible for a plane to have hit the pentagon. This world is a system of smokescreens, look back to Bush Snr and the money he made from his health system investments and subsequent policies making him vast profits, the Bush's being close family friends with the Bin Ladens. God bless freedom of information and no I don't believe it ALL.

But now I've given you these examples you can group me as a conspiracy theorist and the majority who are 'given' their opinions will listen to you

Duly grouped.

Thanks, my last post did make me seem a bit that way. Point I was trying to make is I dont agree with politicians and policy makers having a vested interest in industries for which they have some influence. It's just wrong, you must see that??

[1FU2]

Given the cost of addressing the problems created by global warming and associated climate change, an earlier poster came up with a solid solution: Bring a collective lawsuit against the people responsible for this mess--the energy companies.

It appears that type of action is already being taken worldwide. I think cities that are being negatively impacted by flooding and certainly future flooding should cooperate on this issue.

Take it to them just like an earlier generation did against the tobacco companies. Make them pay.

[RickBradford]

That you again, JR?

Nice avatar.

[thaiozy]

I reckon they have started working on it, by removing the ground level bizzar in Lupini park & replacing it with the tallest building (should give them plenty of time)

[dumball]

Typical logical thinking by whom ? Hmmm , let me think now , we seem to have a problem with our exotic city sinking , nah , just those idiot foreigners showing jealousy for what we have . Thai know best , city will never sink , build a humungous edifice weighing millions of tons , we will show them how stupid they are , sinking(?) , HRUMP !!!

Footnote : Builder forgot to mention , inflatable rafts will be located in a special closet in all accomodations , a guide to safe swimming practises will be located on the inside of closet doors .

[Garry9999]

Supreme Master Ching Hai: We should not emphasize the worst effect of global warming but we should begin to focus on how to prevent this. We have to turn to the opposite direction, which is in the best interest of Thai people and the world.

That is, to live a compassionate lifestyle, to be a vegetarian, better even, vegan, meaning no animal products whatsoever so that the benevolent atmosphere will envelope our planet and of course Thailand.

With protection and blessing from Heaven, we create a shield around us, around our planet by a very compassionate, powerful, benevolent atmosphere. That is the only protection that is safe and everlasting.

[LaoPo]

it will disturb and distract this topic

That, of course, is his only reason for posting them.

When a poster makes an important statement, others want to know where he/she got the information. Posting links to that specific information is not a distraction at all. It is a responsible post.

A responsible post.....Oh really? Tell me honestly Tejas, did YOU read ALL of those 16 links our friend JR Texas supplied in his last message?

I have no objections writing messages and posting links since we all do that, but to post a message with 16 links is absurd as nobody will read them.

JR Texas did so on many occasions before in previous topics and not only disturbs the thread but the discussion also and another important thread about global warming and the gulf of Thailand was CLOSED....likely just because of this kind of posting behavior; but I'm just guessing here.

But, that topic had more than 300 posts in last December alone by 40 different posters!

IF he wishes to contribute to the discussion let him write a thoughtful message with one or two links, but 16 is killing a thread.

I see this topic already degrading...

Just my own opinion.

LaoPo

[richard10365]

haha...it all won't matter if the 2012 theorist are correct.

[brahmburgers]

Is there a Thai company near Bkk which makes large barges or arks?

I could think up a pretty good marketing campaign for them.