Act Now To Stop Bangkok Sinking, Urge Scientists

[filingaccount]

Global ice mass is decreasing because? Not because it is getting cooler.

It is not about "belief". When you just look at the numbers you can draw a conclusion that temperatures are increasing globally, and as a result global ice mass decreases. Temperatures are not increasing because a measuring station (or all) is close to an air condition or isn't in the path of some wind (as observed by shrinking ice masses)

Temperature increases are real. (again, why temperatures are increasing is not the issue here.) Why argue observed facts?

Greenland 1992

Greenland 2002

I dont have a picture for 2009 but this graph shows the trend

As for Bangkok sinking... hasn't it been sinking for decades already and this is why we have continued floods even though measures are put in place and improved upon yearly?

[brahmburgers]

You show graphs like that (the Greenland maps, and the Arctic ice receding) and the global warming deniers will say something like, "ok, maybe there's some warming going on, but even it there is, there's no proof it's affected by the activities of people."

Actually, the deniers are roughly three categories:

A. Those that grudgingly admit there's a global warming trend, yet refuse to fathom that it can be exacerbated by activities of people, as mentioned above.

B. Those that insist it's all hype, and instead purport that global cooling is what's happening.

C. Those from A or B who insist that, regardless of global weather patterns, it's a conspiracy among scientists to get more funding and to form global tax systems (carbon credits, etc) which hurts big business and/or the poorest among us.

Personally, I can relate to some degree with item C, as once a trend gets set in motion, there are those who scheme about how they can 'milk' it for added funding and/or notoriety.

[RickBradford]

Why argue observed facts?

This is the kind of recycled nonsense that gets Warmists so widely and deservedly ridiculed.

The graph clearly states: "...using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 climate models."

In other words, not "observed facts" at all, but admittedly fudged computer programs of manipulated data -- the graph prominently shows "predictions" based on models from the Climategate Center at CRU and the equally busted GISS.

The observations end, I would guess, in 2007, when there was indeed a 30-year minimum in the extent of Arctic sea ice. Then, at the summer minimum in 2008 the extent of the ice was 12% up on 2007, and in 2009 it was another 12% up.

Also note that three weeks after the 2007 Arctic minimum, the Antarctic reached a 30-year sea ice maximum in early October 2007. No "global warming" there, then.

This is typical one-eyed Warmist dogma. When there are signs of warming in one place, they call it "global warming". When there's cooling in one place, they say we "must consider the global picture".

When there's a heatwave, they say it's "global warming". When there's a cold snap, they say it's just weather.

There is no skepticism about global warming any longer, it is complete refutation and disbelief of what is clearly total nonsense. And no amount of so-called "raw data pouring in from the world around us" is going to do anything to change that. The scientific community today is composed of agenda-driven, environmental alarmism and nothing more.

Edited January 24, 2010 by RickBradford

[filingaccount]

The graph clearly states: Red line == Observations.

The observations are worse than the estimates.

You do realize that ice mass goes up and down depending on seasons and other small differences, but the trend is clearly less ice mass over time. You do not reverse a trend by stating that ice mass is a little more over a period of one year. You clearly see ice mass increases happening quite often by looking at the graphs. Ice mass increases a little here and there, but overall, over time, total ice mass is decreasing.

Personally I do not care as to why, how or other reasons. The point is, that it is happening. It could be global warming, sun spot activity, human farts, aliens or even ghosts. Doesn't matter, don't care, the results are clear.

I am now going to sit back and be labeled a multitude of things that you probably think are bad things. Go ahead, it doesn't change observed facts.

Again, I do not care as to why, how or if it is any other reason behind it. Also, keep in mind global climate continually changes both short and long term. It never stays the same. It is interesting to me to see someone argue observed facts and I'd like to discuss with you more about it. I want to know why someone thinks that acknowledging global climate change is so horrible. The planet has existed 5 (+- a billion) billion years and since when was the climate always the same?

So, go ahead and do some more name calling. It makes me feel oh-so-special.

(As a side note: raw data has nothing to do with scientists. It is simple raw data. Scientists take this data and analyze it and publish papers and opinion. I don't look at what scientists publish nor say, I look at the raw data and draw my own independent conclusions. These conclusions I have not shared, nor do I think I will.)

[RickBradford]

Personally I do not care as to why, how or other reasons. The point is, that it is happening. It could be global warming, sun spot activity, human farts, aliens or even ghosts. Doesn't matter, don't care, the results are clear

.

My error - I misled myself that you were attributing the ice loss to "man-made global warming", whereas you are in fact a neutral observer in this.

Variations in Arctic Ice cover are due to what is known as the Arctic Oscillation. That, at least, is the view of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The AO is a natural pattern of climate variability. It consists of opposing patterns of atmospheric pressure between the polar regions and middle latitudes. The positive phase of the AO exists when pressures are lower than normal over the Arctic, and higher than normal in middle latitude. In the negative phase, the opposite is true; pressures are higher than normal over the Arctic and lower than normal in middle latitudes.

Over most of the past century, the Arctic Oscillation alternated between its positive and negative phases. Starting in the 1970s, however, [check your graph - RB] the oscillation has tended to stay in the positive phase, causing lower than normal Arctic air pressure and higher than normal temperatures in much of the United States and northern Eurasia.

Hence, warm air from the tropics is drawn north, raising temperatures over the Arctic, and melting the ice.

My point about the graph (and the reason I mistook you for a Warmist) is that the projections made by models created by CRU and GISS are utterly fanciful -- nobody even knows what causes the AO (some scientists see a link with solar activity), so to pretend to know what it might do in future is laughable.

What are we going to do about it? Nothing. We would be very arrogant if we thought we had the power to affect what the planet (or even the solar system) has in store for our weather and climate.

Edited January 24, 2010 by RickBradford

[dumball]

Man oh man , not another 99 pages of useless drivel going no place in particular again , Bankok is SINKING so what is going to be done about it ? Or what should be done about it or whatever , the global climate thing has already been done to death and it went ?????????????

[Zolt]

You've got to see the bright side of this: I always wanted to visit Venice.... but soon I won't need to!

[zzaa09]

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

Which theory? The End or The Beginning?

[Thai at Heart]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7003622.ece

There is fundamental uncertainty in climate change, science tsar says

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

All good I say.

If all the assumptions for sea levels rising are based on the hockey stick, in all probability Bangkok will be around for quite a long time to come.

[churchill]

Bangkok Sinking? - The Impact of Climate Change and Global Warming on Thailand’s Capital

A talk and panel discussion with Professor Cor Dijkgraaf and Dr Anond Snidvongs

8pm Mon, February 1, 2010

Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand

Penthouse, Maneeya Center Building

518/5 Ploenchit Road (connected to the BTS Skytrain Chitlom station)

Patumwan, Bangkok 10330

Tel.: 02-652-0580-1

Fax: 02-652-0582

E-mail: [email protected]

Web Site: http://www.fccthai.com

http://fccthai.com/items/212.html

[churchill]

Nirmal Ghosh hears experts warn that the city is unprepared for climate change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN BANGKOK

GOVERNMENT policies and regulations in Thailand still "do not take climate change into consideration at all" despite the clear risk to Bangkok, according to Dr Anond Snidvongs, one of the country's foremost experts on climate change modeling.

Most designs and plans for infrastructure and buildings, remain based on the premise that "everything is constant" he said at a panel discussion at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT) last Monday.

Dr Anond, director of SEA START — a research unit dedicated to predicting the impact of climate change in south east Asia — pleaded for an open and wide debate and exchange of ideas on how to secure Bangkok against the imminent risks posed by the combined forces of sea level rise, land subsidence and extreme storms.

With him on the panel was Prof Cor Dijkgraaf, an expert in urban planning currently based in Rotterdam in the Netherlands — a country below sea level that survives only because of its extensive system of dikes.

Prof Dijkgraaf drew some interesting comparisons between the Netherlands and Bangkok. And he had some interesting old pictures as well — of parts of old Bangkok under water decades ago before the city’s drainage system was upgraded.

If Bangkok wanted to prevent similar scenes in the future, "you have to start thinking of this now," he said.

"You can do all the research, make all the calculations, but if there's no political will you can't get it done. You have to ask if you can afford not to take measures to avoid the cost of doing nothing in the coming years," said Prof Dijkgraaf.

Much of Bangkok is at sea level or about 1 metre above it, and the land is steadily subsiding in nearby coastal zones, and in parts of the city itself. At the same time the level of the sea is rising. In a worst case scenario within the next 40 years, vital installations and tens of thousands of homes and offices and factories will face major floods.

While listening to Dr Anond I recalled the fund-raising dinner for prachatai.com which I had attended in December 2009, where Governor of Bangkok MR Sukhumbhand Paribatra had spoken about the challenges of the future.

I went back to the recording and sure enough he had mentioned climate change and the threat to Bangkok.

"For Thailand the most worrying problem a the moment is rising sea level which will definitely accelerate the rate of coastal erosion," he said.

MR Sukhumbhand said Thailand has lost 113,000 rai (around 45,000 acres) of coastal land over the last 30 years. In the province of Samut Prakarn alone, a few miles south of Bangkok, land loss had been to the tune of 10,000 rai (around 4,000 acres).

I remembered travelling in a boat in the area with Dr Anond in 2007, purring along through water several metres deep where a road had once been, complete with the telephone poles sticking up out of the waves.

Disturbingly, MR Sukhumbhand continued to say: "By 2050... large parts of Bangkok will be under water. We need a combination of short term and longer term measures (for drainage and coastal defence), which of course require massive investment — which we have not even begun to do."

At the FCCT, Dr Anond made another interesting observation — that the rate of subsidence of part of the coast, both on the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman sea, had increased after the December 2004 earthquake that had created the devastating Asian tsunami.

Up to 1.16 million buildings in Bangkok — 900,000 of them residential — were at risk from the worst case scenario of a coincidence of land subsidence, sea level rise and a storm surge, he said — and "ongoing efforts are not enough" to cope.

Proposed measures to deal with it include a large storage dam, a barrage across the mouth of the Chao Phraya river, storm surge barriers across the upper Gulf of Thailand, and diversion channels.

"Even in the scientific community we don't believe we have sufficient certainty to advise on what to do and what not to do," he acknowledged.

"But people in Bangkok need to start thinking of the future."

http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2010/2/4/bangkok-sinking

[bkkjames]

"Up to 1.16 million buildings in Bangkok — 900,000 of them residential — were at risk from the worst case scenario of a coincidence of land subsidence, sea level rise and a storm surge, he said — and "ongoing efforts are not enough" to cope"

Exactly, if they all sink while the sea level rises and a category 4 tropical storm hits Bangkok, we are doomed.

But I could also add without my expert university degree in this field that if a 8.0 earthquake hit we will be doomed as well.

Coincidence? Sounds like a chapter out of the twilight zone but keeps some people busy I guess.

[Tanaka]

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.

you can group me as a conspiracy theorist and the majority who are given their opinions will listen to you

Correctomundo!

Anyone who believes the 911 attack was an inside job (the US attacking itself, etc.) is basically certifiable. Yes it is obvious how some factions did profit from that, but it simply did not happen that way. Lots of people also don't believe man has walked on the moon.

And you state this as a fact. Based upon what? Your theories or can you refer to more so called experts who can without doubt verify what you say? You see, contrary to what you seem to believe, thoughts do not become facts just because you say so! I understand if this is hard for you to comprehend but maybe you can ask one of your "experts" to help you digest this.

[RickBradford]

.... can you refer to more so called experts who can without doubt verify what you say?

He doesn't need to "verify" anything.

It is up to the people who come up with fantastic notions like the US attacking itself, to verify (as if they could) their extreme position.

Put another way, you have to prove the positive assertion that the US attacked its own territory; people who disagree with you don't have to prove the negative assertion, any more than they have to prove that the earth is not controlled by extra-terrestrial purple lizards.

I hope this is not too hard to comprehend.

[ThailandTommy]

The problem is here and it is to stay! Man has to take some of the blame, however (without trolling the web) I think I am right that since the creation of earth hasn't there been various periods of ice, drought, flooding, 'plate' movement/drifting? All these are natural occurrences that resulted in the place we call earth.

The more man's capabilities and knowledge have expanded the more aware we have become. The fact is that Thailand is one of the countries that will be affected the most.

As for the Thai's actually doing something about it? I doubt it! The local Government in Prachubkirikhan has been made aware of the fact that reclamation of land lost to the rising sea level is urgently required.

That was three years ago, the beach is vanishing at about 1 meter a month, and absolutely nothing has been done.

As for building a multi million dollar dyke/dam? That will/cannot happen unless someone funds it! It doesn't bear thinking about the corruption if they see a 'pot' that size.

You will end up with a few bamboo fences held together by mud and a rapidly diminishing budget.