Bangkok May Be Uninhabitable In Seven Years

[souvenirdeparis]

Vladimir Poutine was visiting an international scientists' camp working on climate in Siberia last week (Siberia being very sensitive to warming, since frozen tracks turn into mud etc)

He addressed them and said something like ' we don't know whether global warming is man-made or not as yet" ; he was rebuked by a female scientist who told him he wasn't up to- date, it definitely is man -made . It's been known for some time that rate of warming doesn't match rate of increasing sun activity this time .

What puzzles me is the part about shift in axis ( he doesn't seem to talk magnetic axis) ; I have suspected for a few years that a change in the mass of water could cause such( if it melts, it will flow somewhere else , towards the Equator) ; depending on there's more water to melt North or South, it would make BKK tip under or over present level. As I see more water down south,( which presently is on rock and not already floating on to add suspens)

the result would rather be BKK raising northward away from the sea by this phenomenon alone.

[RKASA]

Send his stuff here, we can check back later.

Dennis Miller's Time Capsule Accountability Project

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y2LzGDV5Y8

[sirchai]

I like the cartoon picture of trees, looks like he is addressing scholl children!

[/quote)

Amazing facts about an amazing country. Pratheet Thai........

[tomyummer]

Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking? I'm going to start buying up land in Saraburi immediately. On that 7th year I'll be sittin' on beachfront property!

[Sabre]

Well I suppose he's putting his money where his mouth is as most of us will still be alive in 7 years to see if he's right or wrong.

In seven years time who is going to remember or care?

It's sad that scientists these days feel that the only way they will get attention is if they make the scariest predictions.

Well guess what, one day the sun is going to die, and in the process it will evolve into a 'red giant' and envelop the earth in fiery doom. This is scientific fact. Pretty scary right?

I just pity the polar bears.

[Tigs]

Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking? I'm going to start buying up land in Saraburi immediately. On that 7th year I'll be sittin' on beachfront property!

Yes and dr Art-ong is selling it all

[AmeriThai]

Is anyone thinking what I'm thinking? I'm going to start buying up land in Saraburi immediately. On that 7th year I'll be sittin' on beachfront property!

We've got some land in the province of Saraburi. Hadn't thought about it as beachfront property though. Hmmm. Might need to think about stocking up on beach umbrellas, inner tubes and banana boats.

[waza]

I'm going to stay out of the global warming discussion, but like many in here I was taken aback by the 7 year prediction. Whoa, what's up with this guy, I thought, but then I realized the guy knows human psychology. People need something to understand. Attaching a milestone to the timeline let's regular people like me get a feel for the situation. The use of a date, focuses attention. It's done regularly in public health when people need hope. For example, when the H1N1 pandemic was starting, there was panic in some countries. When will a vaccine be ready, how long until the flu his the big cities and people drop dead? The public health agencies gave a timeline to calm the public and to help otheragencies plan and respond. I think it's the same thing here with the 7 years. it's a nice number, impressing the need for action, but not too low as to encourage denial or cause panic.

Just my opinion, but I think it puts the number in perspective. I don't think anyone would pick the number in the office pool as to when Bangkok goes under.

Hmmm interesting theory. I think that the core of what he ways is correct, by his understanding. However, I believe he needed to sensationalise the information in order to be published.

[elliss]

Personally, I'd say its been uninhabitable for quite some time already.

khap :jap:

[nisakiman]

I think that most people are aware that there has been a general trend of global warming over the last century or so, which will probably peak sometime in the next fifty years or so. This has going on to a greater or lesser extent for millenia, dictated predominantly by sunspot activity. Humans certainly haven't helped the situation by decimating forests - the lungs of the planet, or by pumping out all sorts of toxic effluents polluting the atmosphere. People are, however becoming more environmentally aware. Take London, for instance. 50 years ago, it was a smog ridden atmospheric soup. Now the air is clean and breathable.So yes, we have been experiencing a slight warming of the planet. This has many positive aspects, insofar as it brings a lot more land into food cultivation mode.

But AGW? just a scaremongering scam to bleed more taxes out of the global populace and provide lucrative positions for an army of jobswoths The politicians love it.. How to pluck a goose with the minimum amount of hissing. Induce a guilt trip, convince people they are to blame and extracting taxes becomes much easier ("Think of your children...")

I've posted this quote before, but it bears re-posting.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

[waza]

I think that most people are aware that there has been a general trend of global warming over the last century or so, which will probably peak sometime in the next fifty years or so. This has going on to a greater or lesser extent for millenia, dictated predominantly by sunspot activity. Humans certainly haven't helped the situation by decimating forests - the lungs of the planet, or by pumping out all sorts of toxic effluents polluting the atmosphere. People are, however becoming more environmentally aware. Take London, for instance. 50 years ago, it was a smog ridden atmospheric soup. Now the air is clean and breathable.So yes, we have been experiencing a slight warming of the planet. This has many positive aspects, insofar as it brings a lot more land into food cultivation mode.

But AGW? just a scaremongering scam to bleed more taxes out of the global populace and provide lucrative positions for an army of jobswoths The politicians love it.. How to pluck a goose with the minimum amount of hissing. Induce a guilt trip, convince people they are to blame and extracting taxes becomes much easier ("Think of your children...")

I've posted this quote before, but it bears re-posting.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

Hmmm interesting post. If you are right then all we have to loose is money,(in the form of extra tax). However, if you are wrong at best the next generation will be the first to have a lower living standard than their parents. At worse they will have a hard time surviving with the limited resources, (food, clean water ect) I for one, am not willing to bet my childrens and grandchildrens future on it. Are you?

Edited September 18, 2010 by waza

[philliphn]

Good, good, good.

Perhaps it will fllush out the sewers no more pong!

[jsflynn603]

ไม่เป็นไร

no big deal....

Isn't that the Thai way?

[canuckamuck]

Hmmm interesting theory. I think that the core of what he ways is correct, by his understanding. However, I believe he needed to sensationalise the information in order to be published.

Scientists shouldn't be sensationalizing data. Because the media turns around and adds to the hype, and then the next scientist has to reach even further to get noticed. Somewhere along the line, science became a popularity contest and the ethics and standards on which it was founded have become a minor detail. Today falsification is for the other guy, it is more important is to be politically astute

[ukrules]

Isn't the solution to global warming air conditioning, it always solves it for me ?

So what if the earth gets hotter or colder, it's been doing this since the start of time.

There's been global warming on mars and venus too. Apparently it's something to do with the sun, who would ever have thought of it : Heat coming from the sun is making things hotter.

[OzMick]

Vladimir Poutine was visiting an international scientists' camp working on climate in Siberia last week (Siberia being very sensitive to warming, since frozen tracks turn into mud etc)

He addressed them and said something like ' we don't know whether global warming is man-made or not as yet" ; he was rebuked by a female scientist who told him he wasn't up to- date, it definitely is man -made . It's been known for some time that rate of warming doesn't match rate of increasing sun activity this time .

What puzzles me is the part about shift in axis ( he doesn't seem to talk magnetic axis) ; I have suspected for a few years that a change in the mass of water could cause such( if it melts, it will flow somewhere else , towards the Equator) ; depending on there's more water to melt North or South, it would make BKK tip under or over present level. As I see more water down south,( which presently is on rock and not already floating on to add suspens)

the result would rather be BKK raising northward away from the sea by this phenomenon alone.

If all the floating ice in the polar ice caps was to melt, the sea level would not change at all. A floating object displaces its own weight of water - melting ice would simply fill in the hole. Bad news for the polar bears though.

[whybother]

Vladimir Poutine was visiting an international scientists' camp working on climate in Siberia last week (Siberia being very sensitive to warming, since frozen tracks turn into mud etc)

He addressed them and said something like ' we don't know whether global warming is man-made or not as yet" ; he was rebuked by a female scientist who told him he wasn't up to- date, it definitely is man -made . It's been known for some time that rate of warming doesn't match rate of increasing sun activity this time .

What puzzles me is the part about shift in axis ( he doesn't seem to talk magnetic axis) ; I have suspected for a few years that a change in the mass of water could cause such( if it melts, it will flow somewhere else , towards the Equator) ; depending on there's more water to melt North or South, it would make BKK tip under or over present level. As I see more water down south,( which presently is on rock and not already floating on to add suspens)

the result would rather be BKK raising northward away from the sea by this phenomenon alone.

If all the floating ice in the polar ice caps was to melt, the sea level would not change at all. A floating object displaces its own weight of water - melting ice would simply fill in the hole. Bad news for the polar bears though.

He's not actually saying it's about the ice melting that causes Bangkok to go under.

If the theory is that the earth's axis has shifted, that will mean the earth spins around a different point. Because of the spinning, the water moves towards the equator - not all of it, obviously, but more there than at the poles, similar to how the sun and moon effect the tides. Imagine spinning a wet tennis ball, water sprays out from the ball perpendicular to the axis of the spin.

I am not saying that this is happening - I'm just *trying* to explain what I think souvenirdeparis is questioning.

IMO, the OP is talking about the magnetic axis, which is likely to affect weather patterns. If it was the actual spin axis changing, it wouldn't just move the water around, but it would also cause the earth's crust to move as well, giving a "2012" (movie) scenario.

[kennalder]

Warning that temperatures would rise by approximately 4 degrees Celsius, Ajong said polar bears would be extinct in less than 10 years and the seas would rise by six metres.

Surely in 10 years he means 6cm. Where would all the water come from for 6m? Even if all the ice at the North pole melted, it would not affect sea levels because it is floating. That leaves mostly the antarctic to supply the water. I haven't done the precice math, and don't believe I need to. With the oceans covering roughly 2/3 of the earths surface, to get a 6m rise in their level you would have to have every piece of land (including the tropics), under around 12m of ice, and it would all have to melt in the next 10 years. The whole article seems to be full of exaggerations, makes me wonder about his qualifications. More exaggerations?

[straedearts]

I can't say whether Bangkok will have its traffic problems eliminated by liberal application of sea water or not

The price of snorkle's would go up! Buy now and SAVE

Edited September 19, 2010 by straedearts

[whybother]

Warning that temperatures would rise by approximately 4 degrees Celsius, Ajong said polar bears would be extinct in less than 10 years and the seas would rise by six metres.

Surely in 10 years he means 6cm. Where would all the water come from for 6m? Even if all the ice at the North pole melted, it would not affect sea levels because it is floating. That leaves mostly the antarctic to supply the water. I haven't done the precice math, and don't believe I need to. With the oceans covering roughly 2/3 of the earths surface, to get a 6m rise in their level you would have to have every piece of land (including the tropics), under around 12m of ice, and it would all have to melt in the next 10 years. The whole article seems to be full of exaggerations, makes me wonder about his qualifications. More exaggerations?

Actually, I believe that maths have been done.

If all the ice on land (Antarctica, Greenland, all the glaciers everywhere) melted, it would easily raise sea levels by 6 metres.

- a good explanation of where all the ice is (just the first one I came across): http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

[junkofdavid2]

he doesn't need to make himself important.

This is his CV:

Well then, the old man doesn't need "importance", he just desperately needs "attention"!

[kennalder]

Warning that temperatures would rise by approximately 4 degrees Celsius, Ajong said polar bears would be extinct in less than 10 years and the seas would rise by six metres.

Surely in 10 years he means 6cm. Where would all the water come from for 6m? Even if all the ice at the North pole melted, it would not affect sea levels because it is floating. That leaves mostly the antarctic to supply the water. I haven't done the precice math, and don't believe I need to. With the oceans covering roughly 2/3 of the earths surface, to get a 6m rise in their level you would have to have every piece of land (including the tropics), under around 12m of ice, and it would all have to melt in the next 10 years. The whole article seems to be full of exaggerations, makes me wonder about his qualifications. More exaggerations?

Actually, I believe that maths have been done.

If all the ice on land (Antarctica, Greenland, all the glaciers everywhere) melted, it would easily raise sea levels by 6 metres.

- a good explanation of where all the ice is (just the first one I came across): http://www.johnstons...waterworld.html

Thanks for that link. I stand corrected. There is indeed enough ice to raise sea levels significantly higher than 5-6m. If it all melted! I'm sticking with 6cm over the next 10 years. That is probably not even likely, but I will hedge a little since I was so wrong earlier.

Edited September 19, 2010 by kennalder

[rodcourt49]

So far there have been two significant changes to the Earth.

Only two eh ..... he's done some in-depth research hasn't he.

..he's only reporting what NASA allow him to say all set and done..so much condlicting info..ocean levels rising from 1 metre to 6 metres..a case of pick a number!!

[Xangsamhua]

Intriguing interview with Dr Art-ong in Singapore last year in which he talks a bit about his views on ocean level rise (about 2.00 - 4.00 on the video) and then about his spiritual/philosophical/paraphenomenal views.

http://vdo.palungjit...g-Jumsai-4-of-8

I don't have sufficient knowledge to have a view on the scientific arguments and am quite agnostic regarding his spiritual beliefs and experiments, but find him "interesting", I guess because he was the most impressive speaker at the UNESCO conference I attended in Bangkok in 2004. He was talking about his school and humanist education, not at all about science.

I can see from the videoclip that he would be dismissed as an amiable (but perhaps dangerous) eccentric by the mainstream scientific community

[rodcourt49]

Warning that temperatures would rise by approximately 4 degrees Celsius, Ajong said polar bears would be extinct in less than 10 years and the seas would rise by six metres.

Surely in 10 years he means 6cm. Where would all the water come from for 6m? Even if all the ice at the North pole melted, it would not affect sea levels because it is floating. That leaves mostly the antarctic to supply the water. I haven't done the precice math, and don't believe I need to. With the oceans covering roughly 2/3 of the earths surface, to get a 6m rise in their level you would have to have every piece of land (including the tropics), under around 12m of ice, and it would all have to melt in the next 10 years. The whole article seems to be full of exaggerations, makes me wonder about his qualifications. More exaggerations?

..It's the ice above the water level that is going to melt that will give the extra displacement..the ice cubes in the glass of water will not create more water, but the ice cubes you drop in will..yes?

Edited September 19, 2010 by rodcourt49

[brahmburgers]

Here's the solution:

Convince Thai ladies that dark skin is beautiful and sexy.

When they stop spending half their money on whitening creams ...take all the surplus creams and apply them over Bangkok. Could possibly add the confiscated bottles of shampoo at Swampy airport to the mix.

Voila, sunscreen for Bkk. Or, as the Rotor Rooter jingle writer might say, "away go troubles down the drain."

[GeorgeO]

Personally, I'd say its been uninhabitable for quite some time already.

As long as the airport isnt affected,Bangkok can drown in its own vermin for all i care.

If there is any truth in what this "expert" is saying, then given the fact that Suvarnabhumi (the Ratchadewa swamp) is barely inches above sea level, I suspect that it will be the first to go!

[Spee]

Wouldn't it be nice to go through a whole week without some b.s. FUD journalism?

[creck]

Warning that temperatures would rise by approximately 4 degrees Celsius, Ajong said polar bears would be extinct in less than 10 years and the seas would rise by six metres.

Surely in 10 years he means 6cm. Where would all the water come from for 6m? Even if all the ice at the North pole melted, it would not affect sea levels because it is floating. That leaves mostly the antarctic to supply the water. I haven't done the precice math, and don't believe I need to. With the oceans covering roughly 2/3 of the earths surface, to get a 6m rise in their level you would have to have every piece of land (including the tropics), under around 12m of ice, and it would all have to melt in the next 10 years. The whole article seems to be full of exaggerations, makes me wonder about his qualifications. More exaggerations?

..It's the ice above the water level that is going to melt that will give the extra displacement..the ice cubes in the glass of water will not create more water, but the ice cubes you drop in will..yes?

The icecubes you drop in are extra water - of course the level rises

The icecobes that are floating are not extra; they already displace thier weight of water; when they melt they exactly replace that. QED the level does not rise

The ice currently on land in the antartic and greenland will raise the level

Edited September 19, 2010 by creck

[Spee]

The icecubes you drop in are extra water - of course the level rises

The icecobes that are floating are not extra; they already displace thier weight of water; when they melt they exactly replace that. QED the level does not rise

The ice currently on land in the antartic and greenland will raise the level

So goes the one-dimensional thinking that is both ubiquitous, illogical and of course, incorrect.

Seas, land and wind are each dynamic systems in their own right. You postulate that water is dynamic but land and wind are static thereby proving that your thinking is hopelessly flawed, q.e.d.