Bangkok May Be Uninhabitable In Seven Years

[bkkjames]

I think we should enlist JT to do a poll on this one.

1. Yes, Bangkok will be 6 feet under

2. No, someone will fix the problem within 6 months of taking office.

3. Maybe, sounds good in theory but only during a slow news week on TV

4. No opinion. Don't have enough letters after my name to make a qualified judgement.

And my choice...

5. WGAF. The world is gonna end on Dec 21_2012 so let's have a beer.

Edited September 19, 2010 by bkkjames

[whybother]

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.

Are you suggesting that if the ice on Greenland and Antarctica melts, then Greenland and Antarctica will move? :S

If the ice on land melts, sea levels *will* rise. Winds will push water around, but will not stop it from rising. The land that the ice is on will probably lift, since there isn't the weight of the ice on there any more, but that won't stop the sea levels from rising.

Where is his thinking flawed? It may not be complete, but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Spee]

It may not be complete, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Of course it's not only wrong, but fundamentally flawed. There are places known in the world that were once thriving seaports, but are now ghost towns many kilometers away from and many meters above the nearest water. By your and his pretzel logic, such things should be impossible. Yet, to be sure they do exist.

[whybother]

It may not be complete, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Of course it's not only wrong, but fundamentally flawed. There are places known in the world that were once thriving seaports, but are now ghost towns many kilometers away from and many meters above the nearest water. By your and his pretzel logic, such things should be impossible. Yet, to be sure they do exist.

Sure there are local issues causing land movements where land will lift. An example I gave above is with the weight of the ice being lifted off Greenland and Antarctica. Other examples are where earthquakes cause land movements. And prevailing winds will cause other issues - for example, storm surges.

Generally speaking, what I stated above is correct. It is an unarguable fact that if all the land ice melted, global sea levels would rise.

Using your logic (?), where do you think the water would go?

[Indo-Siam]

I second nisakiman's conclusions, which come closest to matching my own. But - in addition to the sun being an overwhelming influence, I also believe that volcanic activity plays a big role. Volcanoes are an integral part of the earth's climate system - and always have been. For millions of years, huge volcanic eruptions have periodically occurred (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index for a list), and after every big one, the earth has cooled - sometimes significantly - and then it has ALWAYS warmed back up - until the next big eruption - when it again cools.

Looking at the list that I referenced, the last Category 7 volcano was Tambora in 1815, and the last Category 6 was Pinatubo in 1991. So - we are just in a normal warming interval until the next big volcano. Note that there are nine Category 8 volcanoes on the list - the last one happened 26,500 years ago. That's the blink of an eye in geologic time - but a thousand generations in human years. So - when will the next Category 8 occur? It would be interesting - we could go ice-skating on the klongs, and have snowball fights on Sukhumvit - while we awaited starvation from failed crops. Where will all the global warming alarmist be then?

CO2 - hah! That;s the stuff we all exhale. It's also the stuff that creates all plant material everywhere - every tree, flower, mushroom - and ultimately - everything that eats those things. CO2 is essential plant food. If you turn your back on the plant kingdom, it will always overrun you. Try keeping any outdoor space free of plants. They LOVE to suck up CO2 and create more green stuff - every chance they get. Thankfully, what they "exhale" is oxygen - which is wonderfully convenient for all of us.

In my lifetime, I have seen one great hoax - the HIV/AIDS panic - blossom - and suck up trillion of dollars to fund that industry. And now the second great one comes along - "Global Warming/Climate Change." In both movements, there have been small realities, transformed for industrial/political/economic reasons into huge mega-industries - based on justifying transfer of wealth. These industries have employed millions - all salaries paid by taxes on all the rest - including all of us. I wonder what the next "big lie" will be?

All we need is one big volcano, and the Climate Change harpies will vanish for a couple of generations.

Cheers!

IS

Edited September 19, 2010 by Indo-Siam

[KRS1]

This man worked on a single space project for NASA.

I spent 10 years working on numerous space projects for ESA (European Space Agency)

Given my background, I confidently predict that in 7 years, Bangkok will be overrun by ladyboys

Simon

PS - I am not attacking this man personally. I am simply questioning how his background qualifies him to make these statements

correction, Bangkok will be overrrun by 'British' ladyboy 'chasers'... they just keep coming in never ending waves.

[zakk9]

I went to Ban Khun Samut Chin yesterday. I don't if that's a result of rising sea levels, removal of mangrove forest or a combination, but it's for sure scary. A couple of kilometers of Thailand disappeared in 30 years or thereabouts. Bangkok is for sure in the danger zone.

[Spee]

It is an unarguable fact that if all the land ice melted, global sea levels would rise.

It's an unarguable fact that if the Earth crashed into the Sun, everyone on Earth would die. One silly and irrational statement deserves another. What's your point?

[Thaddeus]

All we need is one big volcano, and the Climate Change harpies will vanish for a couple of generations.

All we need is one really big volcano like Lake Toba any there may not be any future generations.

[whybother]

It is an unarguable fact that if all the land ice melted, global sea levels would rise.

It's an unarguable fact that if the Earth crashed into the Sun, everyone on Earth would die. One silly and irrational statement deserves another. What's your point?

If you actually read the posts, we were talking about the possibility of global warming causing 6m sea level rises, and the comment was made that there wasn't enough ice to cause sea levels to rise that much.

There is enough land ice for sea levels to rise 60 metres, if it all melted. During the last ice age, sea levels were 120 metres lower.

THAT'S MY POINT.

Anything useful to add?

[RickBradford]

There is enough land ice for sea levels to rise 60 metres, if it all melted.....Anything useful to add?

Most of the Antarctic ice sheet exists at temperatures around -30C.

If the earth ever gets nearly warm enough to start melting that, sea level rise will be the least of our worries.

The whole melting ice-sheet scare is just another flatulent piece of we're-all-doomed-and-it's-all-our-fault idiocy.

Edited September 19, 2010 by RickBradford

[whybother]

There is enough land ice for sea levels to rise 60 metres, if it all melted.....Anything useful to add?

Most of the Antarctic ice sheet exists at temperatures around -30C.

If the earth ever gets nearly warm enough to start melting that, sea level rise will be the least of our worries.

The whole melting ice-sheet scare is just another flatulent piece of we're-all-doomed-and-it's-all-our-fault idiocy.

Why is it melting now? How did all the ice melt since the last ice age?

I'm not suggesting that it will ALL melt, but isn't some of it happening already?

[RickBradford]

There is enough land ice for sea levels to rise 60 metres, if it all melted.....Anything useful to add?

Most of the Antarctic ice sheet exists at temperatures around -30C.

If the earth ever gets nearly warm enough to start melting that, sea level rise will be the least of our worries.

The whole melting ice-sheet scare is just another flatulent piece of we're-all-doomed-and-it's-all-our-fault idiocy.

Why is it melting now? How did all the ice melt since the last ice age?

I'm not suggesting that it will ALL melt, but isn't some of it happening already?

No. Antarctic ice is at its greatest extent in 30 years. It's growing, not melting.

Edited September 19, 2010 by RickBradford

[whybother]

No. Antarctic sea ice is at its greatest extent in 30 years.

Of the 2 Antarctic ice sheets, one is stable and the other is losing mass.

The Greenland icesheet, which also exists at temperatures around -30 C, is melting at record levels.

[RickBradford]

The Greenland icesheet, which also exists at temperatures around -30 C, is melting at record levels.

Can you explain how ice can melt at -30C?

Edited September 19, 2010 by RickBradford

[whybother]

The Greenland icesheet, which also exists at temperatures around -30 C, is melting at record levels.

Can you explain how ice can melt at -30C?

It's melting. I don't actually need to explain how.

Can you explain how ice sheets are reducing if they aren't melting?

Ice has been melting since the last ice age. Are you suggesting that it's suddenly stopped?

Edited September 19, 2010 by whybother

[SailingHome]

The shifting axis is no big deal. Magnetic North, shifts by about 24 miles per year, and at that rate, should be at the northern shores of Siberia in a few hundred years, so what. Why should shifting magnetism affect global climate?

Maybe you want an answer to that: In this case, it is not the magnetic change (which is caused by the internal flow of iron-rich magma.) This is the actual tilt of Earth. Earth wobbles causing the seasons. Each eqinox, Earth ends up a little more or less of a tilt. THe more it tilts in one direction, the further the Sun can reach for a "summer" effect and vice versa. Yep, weather patterns will change dramatically. The magnetic movement is more likely to affect atmospheric conditions (lightning, clouds, rain, ...)

HTH

[Tigs]

WhyBother

Rick is correct, and sometimes I feel like 'why bother'. Further back in the thread I already stated that since 1981 the Arctic ice cap has only diminished by 7% and the Antarctic has grown by over 45% where is the melting? The media coverage of collapsing ice cliffs in the arctic is just utter sensationalist rubbish. greenland is experiencing a warming phase but it will grind to a halt. The earth warms and cools in cycles and there is absolutely nothing, nada, zero, zilch we can either do about it or influence it. Apart from buying extra warm clothing or extra cool clothing depending on where you are.

Climate cooling and warming is all connected to the Northern hemisphere salt drift. It is a cycle.

Imagine at the North pole, all that water freezing, of course the salt in it does not freeze, and that drifts down with an enormous pressure, billions of tons. The path of this 'conveyer belt' of salt runs South of Greenland, down the eastern coast of the USA, into the deep south and then curves around up through the Indian ocean, South of Africa and back up the middle of the Atlantic. As the salt is making its journey towards the North it comes nearer the surface of the sea. This conveyor belt causes a significant current (ask any submariner who has been through it) and that current near the surface cause airflow, warm air flow. The warm air has a significant effect on the Global Climate and helps keep the climate very mild all the way up the West Coast of the British isles. However, because the air is warming it causes an increase in temperature at the North Pole, this means not as much Sea Ice is forming, which means not as much salt is drifting downwards to create the current, therefore the conveyor belt stops, the warm air stops, and the sea ice starts freezing again because there is no warm air (this is normally quite severe as in an Ice Age). If you could track one piece of salt in this process it would take 2000 years for it to make its journey from the North pole to the Indian Ocean back around up to the Atlantic. It is a very slow but unimaginably powerful process.

I was told this 20 years ago by a Scientist from the far North in one of those 'not a lot of people know this' moments. Everything he said has rung true and is now published. he is still a poor albeit amazingly intelligent and diligent Scientist, whilst the less scrupulous have made millions by joning the band waggon of 'death and doom and its all man kinds fault' merchants.

We are hurting Mother Earth badly and we must must clean up our act, of that there is no doubt. Like you I guess I love Thailand and the seafood here, but I genuinely doubt that my two toddler children will be able to enjoy the Fruits de la mer when they are adults. Now that will be the direct result of Human interventions, however the climate is nothing to do with us, and those that think man made CO2 is to blame are a sandwich short of a picnic.

Edited to add

JETTABUG

Everyone is getting too hung up on the 'tilt' of the earth. There has been NO significant change in precessional wobble of the Earth for over 26 000 years and that still remains the case. We are however due another change but that has not happened yet.

You are getting mixed up with terms

Each eqinox, Earth ends up a little more or less of a tilt. THe more it tilts in one direction, the further the Sun can reach for a "summer" effect and vice versa. Yep, weather patterns will change dramatically. The magnetic movement is more likely to affect atmospheric conditions (lightning, clouds, rain, ...)

Atmospheric conditions in Science are much much further up in the atmosphere than you think. Lightning, cloud and rain is a 'weather phenomenon' and Magnetic movement of the poles should not have direct effect on either cloud formation or rainfall.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Tigs

[RickBradford]

Let's put this ice-cap myth to bed, and move on, shall we?

As the climate has warmed over the past 130 years or so, the margins at the ends of both Greenland’s and Antarctica’s ice caps have melted a bit. Climate theory predicts that increased precipitation in the much larger middle of these ice caps will be in the form of snow, which will turn into ice and counterbalance some, most or all of the melt around the edges.

Even the scaremongers at the IPCC say it would take thousands of years of steadily rising temperatures to melt all this.

Also, the bulk of Greenland’s ice cap sits in a basin that the ice itself helped to create. It isn’t going anywhere. Nor is the vast majority of ice in Antarctica, although the thin peninsula that points to South America has been judged to be at grave risk in studies that date back to the 1930s – long before global warming was of much concern.

Anything else is just activist or political scaremongering.

[w11guy]

<br />Isn't Holland below sea level? Is there geological evidence to support his earth-quake claims? Isn't Bangkok the #2 most polluted city city in the world and already considered uninhabitable?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Bangkok's pollution has been cleaned up greatly in the last decade or so and it is nowhere near being the most polluted city in the world. In fact it is almost on a par with some major Western cities. According to Time magazine, these are the 10 most polluted cities.

# Linfen, China

# Tianying, China

# Sukinda, India

# Vapi, India

# La Oroya, Peru

# Dzerzhinsk, Russia

# Norilsk, Russia

# Chernobyl, Ukraine

# Sumgayit, Azerbaijan

# Kabwe, Zambia

Bangkok is very habitable. And it'd getting better. Public transport and housing has improved tremendously over the last decade.

[dobadoy]

I can only hope its the translator who is to blame, but honestly, people who make such specific predictions about earthquakes and tsunamis show themselves up as being either ignorant or mere publicity seekers.

He worked with NASA did he? Doing what? Making the tea?

[dobadoy]

1981 the Arctic ice cap has only diminished by 7% and the Antarctic has grown by over 45% where is the melting? The media coverage of collapsing ice cliffs in the arctic is just utter sensationalist rubbish. greenland is experiencing a warming phase but it will grind to a halt. The earth warms and cools in cycles and there is absolutely nothing, nada, zero, zilch we can either do about it or influence it. Apart from buying extra warm clothing or extra cool clothing depending on where you are.

You sound very confident and knowledgeable.

What I want to know is how come all the respected scientific authorities the world over, with access to real empirical data, don't agree with you? Is it that "they are all consipiring to lie to the public so they can get their research grants?"

Edited September 19, 2010 by dobadoy

[w11guy]

What this guy doesn't say is what his definition of uninhabitable is. Even if BKK was under water it would still be habitable for some people. They would adapt, travel on boats, etc. How does he know this will happen in 7 years and not 6 or 8? 7 years is a very precise time. I can't see how BKK can go from habitable to uninhabitable in such a short space of time.

Global warming may be true (at the moment), but the earth has always warmed up and cooled down. That's what the earth does. Even if man has cause some extra warming, it's not of any consequence because the earth will eventually cool down and one day we will have an ice age. That's just the way it is. There isn't anything we can do about it.

Imagine if all these know it alls were around when the UK was still connected to Europe. They would have insisted that we built a huge dam so that we could stop the English Channel forming. The geology of the world is constantly changing and has been for billions of years. Some people think we can just suspend nature so that the world stays the same temperature for the rest of eternity.

We should stop polluting the world so that we havea better place to live, not because we want to cool the world down a bit.

Most people should be more worried about the food they eat. The food they eat will kill them via cancer or heart attack long before they are likely to suffer an effects of global warming.

Edited September 19, 2010 by w11guy

[dobadoy]

No. Antarctic ice is at its greatest extent in 30 years. It's growing, not melting.

And the source of this graph is...

[w11guy]

<br />Isn't Holland below sea level? Is there geological evidence to support his earth-quake claims? Isn't Bangkok the #2 most polluted city city in the world and already considered uninhabitable?<br />

Another way to compare bkk pollution. Certainly nowhere near as polluted as many people on here often claim.

So which cities were the most and least polluting? Because the authors compared the cities in units that are unfamiliar to most people -- carbon dioxide equivalents -- we're presenting the cities, from least to most polluting, along with how they compare to the median emissions, expressed in percentage difference.

1. Barcelona: -60%

2. Geneva:-26%

3. London: -9%

4. Prague: -5%

5. New York City: (median)

6. Bangkok: +2%

7. Cape Town: +9%

8. Toronto: +9%

9. Los Angeles: +23%

10. Denver: +103%

BKK is by no means a clean city, but it's not as bad as some make out. There are 100s, if not 1000s, of more pollued places in the world.

[w11guy]

<br />

<br />No. Antarctic ice is at its greatest extent in 30 years. It's growing, not melting.<br /><br /><img src="http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s17/brock_blither/Global%20Warming/s_plot_hires1.png" /><br />

<br /><br />And the source of this graph is...<br />

I agree with this guy. The papers like sensationalist healdlines, so if you look at this graph the papers will just pick the down years and print a headline on page 1 saying ice has melted in last year, blah, blah, blah. They won't mention the up years. And most reporters have no specific training in anything. They will just print what they are told. Well that bit's not true. They will only print it if it's sensationalist. So tell them that BKK will be uninhabitable in 500 years time and they will tell you to stop bothering them. Tell them it will happen in 7 years and you will be their best friend, because you just got them a great headline. Most of what the papers write is what PR companies and others tell them. Most reporters don't have the intelligence to find out the facts for themselves.

Edited September 19, 2010 by w11guy

[Odysseus221]

Judging by his name, he is an expert who cannot be ignored by Thais.

WRONG! EXPERTS ARE ALWAYS IGNORED WHEN PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LISTEN. IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE, EXPERTS ON THE MIDEAST WERE IGNORED. RECENTLY AS AN EXPERIENCED PROPERTY MANAGER DEALING WITH FELLOW VILLAGE PERSONS, I WAS IGNORED IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY PLACED PEOPLE WHO SIMPLY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN: THEY WANT CONTROL IN THEIR ARROGANCE. IF THE WORLD DOESN'T RESPECT EDUCATION, WHY NOT CLOSE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

[Tigs]

1981 the Arctic ice cap has only diminished by 7% and the Antarctic has grown by over 45% where is the melting? The media coverage of collapsing ice cliffs in the arctic is just utter sensationalist rubbish. greenland is experiencing a warming phase but it will grind to a halt. The earth warms and cools in cycles and there is absolutely nothing, nada, zero, zilch we can either do about it or influence it. Apart from buying extra warm clothing or extra cool clothing depending on where you are.

You sound very confident and knowledgeable.

What I want to know is how come all the respected scientific authorities the world over, with access to real empirical data, don't agree with you? Is it that "they are all consipiring to lie to the public so they can get their research grants?"

Well thanks, and yes I am very knowledgable. Also, the thing is that what I have said IS in agreeance with all the 'respected authorities' all over the world. For the purpose of Carbon tax fraud, do not include as respected the IPCC, NASA or any other Government sponsored organisation. Of the 2500 'respected Scientists' who allegedly supported the IPCC documents most have threatened legal action in a bid to remove their names from the list of supporters. IPCC documents and research were never peer reviewed, they are a scab on the side of Science, and the Chairman of IPCC Dr Pachauri (a train engineer, I kid you not!), has made millions from the IPCC publishings and the shares he holds in major Indian energy firms that have been advantaged by his 'findings'. He should go to jail for 50 years.

What real empirical data are you talking of? The REAL empirical data or the data used by IPCC, that has been manipulated and doctored to display what they want us to see, the data in which they conveniently did not include the siberian land mass (quite big really, and quite important data), and the data indicating global warming from observation stations all over the world based in inner cities where the effect of urban heating from concrete is huge, or maybe the data on the massive increase of atmospheric CO2 taken exclusively from an observation station on...the side of a volcano in Hawai...you could not make it up I tell you. You have been duped, hook line and sinker. bye the way the data from siberia indicates that Anthropogenic Global Warming is fiction, which it is, that's why it was not included.

[souvenirdeparis]

thank you all for the great science lesson , especially Whybother and the wet tennis ball comparison , the part about magnetic change due to iron core, and the salt stream saga ; knew about the Gulf Stream change, but nothing so salty.

Some of you guys are great teachers , enjoy wan A-tit.

[whybother]

<br />Let's put this ice-cap myth to bed, and move on, shall we?<br /><br />As the climate has warmed over the past 130 years or so, the margins at the ends of both Greenland's and Antarctica's ice caps have melted a bit. Climate theory predicts that increased precipitation in the much larger middle of these ice caps will be in the form of snow, which will turn into ice and counterbalance some, most or all of the melt around the edges. <br /><br />Even the scaremongers at the IPCC say it would take thousands of years of steadily rising temperatures to melt all this.<br /><br />Also, the bulk of Greenland's ice cap sits in a basin that the ice itself helped to create. It isn't going anywhere. Nor is the vast majority of ice in Antarctica, although the thin peninsula that points to South America has been judged to be at grave risk in studies that date back to the 1930s – long before global warming was of much concern.<br /><br />Anything else is just activist or political scaremongering.<br />

You say it's an ice cap myth, and then you say the ice caps ARE melting. What exactly is the myth?

As glaciers from Greenland to Kilimanjaro recede at record rates, the central ice cap of Antarctica has steadily grown for the past 11 years, partially offsetting rising seas due to the melt waters of global warming, researchers said Thursday.

The vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet — a 2-mile-thick wasteland of ice larger than Australia, drier than the Sahara and as cold as a Martian spring — increased in mass every year between 1992 and 2003 because of additional annual snowfall, an analysis of satellite radar measurements showed.

"It is an effect that has been predicted as a likely result of climate change," said David Vaughan, an independent expert on the ice sheets at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, England.

In a region known for the lowest temperatures recorded on Earth, it normally is too cold to snow across the 2.7 million squares miles of the ice sheet. Any additional annual snowfall in East Antarctica, therefore, is almost certainly due to warmer temperatures, four experts on Antarctica said.