Bangkok May Be Uninhabitable In Seven Years

[RickBradford]

I think the aspect of the man-made global warming scare which disappoints me most is the role of the environmental organisations -- Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth.

In the 1980s, they were actively against Big Business, suspicious of government motives, and diligent in searching for the truth themselves.

Now, they are big business, slavishly follow government climate diktats, and actively push 'solutions' like carbon trading regimes which will only benefit and enrich the likes of Deutsche Bank (who are pushing CAGW for all it's worth) and other opportunistic traders of (literally) hot air.

[mojo80]

So i was out the other day looking at condo's, i ask the property agent, what happens if sea levels rise in bangkok, his reply " you buy condo, high up." Classic

[kutjebu]

Amsterdam is 18 ft below sea level,so what are we talking.

[dobadoy]

I think the aspect of the man-made global warming scare which disappoints me most is the role of the environmental organisations -- Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth.

In the 1980s, they were actively against Big Business, suspicious of government motives, and diligent in searching for the truth themselves.

Now, they are big business, slavishly follow government climate diktats, and actively push 'solutions' like carbon trading regimes which will only benefit and enrich the likes of Deutsche Bank (who are pushing CAGW for all it's worth) and other opportunistic traders of (literally) hot air.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is when you find such naturally antagonistic groups all agreeing to the same thing - U.S. Russia (whose economic resurgence depends on oil exports) China (whose economic expansion depends on coal), the environmental ogranisations and most scientific bodies -, it could be that's because the evidence is overwhelming. On the other hand, I agree, we could listen to a few unemployed and amateur climate experts who trawl unsourced information from Google and believe its all a worldwide conspiracy theory, though to what end I'm still awaiting a decent answer.

[whybother]

Amsterdam is 18 ft below sea level,so what are we talking.

No it isn't. It's 2 metres (6-7 ft) above sea level.

edit: above, not below.

Edited September 19, 2010 by whybother

[canuckamuck]

I think the aspect of the man-made global warming scare which disappoints me most is the role of the environmental organisations -- Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth.

In the 1980s, they were actively against Big Business, suspicious of government motives, and diligent in searching for the truth themselves.

Now, they are big business, slavishly follow government climate diktats, and actively push 'solutions' like carbon trading regimes which will only benefit and enrich the likes of Deutsche Bank (who are pushing CAGW for all it's worth) and other opportunistic traders of (literally) hot air.

One aspect of the global warming hullabaloo that I look forward to is someday reminiscing about the fear mongering and being able to tell my kids I never fell for it. Of course no one will care because there will be another global crisis ongoing.

[RickBradford]

Another way of looking at it is when you find such naturally antagonistic groups all agreeing to the same thing - U.S. Russia (whose economic resurgence depends on oil exports) China (whose economic expansion depends on coal)

With the greatest respect, if you really think China agrees with the US on policies on global warming, you are naive to the point where I'd like to sell you the Grand Canyon for a million dollars.

[rubl]

Amsterdam is 18 ft below sea level,so what are we talking.

No it isn't. It's 2 metres (6-7 ft) above sea level.

edit: above, not below.

The lowest point in the Netherlands is in the 'Zuidplaspolder' and -6,76 m NAP (about 21 feet below NAP). NAP is the reference height all other height measures in the Netherlands relate to ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normaal_Amsterdams_Peil ). Interestingly enough it seems the EVRS (European Vertical Reference System) uses NAP as reference.

[Spee]

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.

You talk of Greenland and Antarctica as if they are bouyant objects and removal of a large weight will change their bouyancy. As they are fixed land masses, your thinking is quite delusional.

[ballpoint]

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.

You talk of Greenland and Antarctica as if they are bouyant objects and removal of a large weight will change their bouyancy. As they are fixed land masses, your thinking is quite delusional.

There is none so deluded as he who pours scorn on a proven scientific point. Continental crust "floats" on the semi molten magma. Any large weight placed on the crust, be it ice or a mountain range, causes the crust to sink, it's called isostasy. The average thickness of Antarctic ice is 7,000 feet, its shear weight is enough to actually push some of the land below sea level. Remove that ice and the land will rebound, much as the Great Lakes region of North America is still doing today following the removal of its last ice sheet.

[KRS1]

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?

the same way you can get a sunburn at -30.

[beleby]

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

would be a good place to start learning.

Err...no. That would actually be a terrible place to start "learning" because wikipedia can be edited by anybody, regardless of their knowledge or desire for honesty. William Connelly is well known for editing the GW articles on wikipedia thousands of times to the point where he has now been barred for doing so. He is a minor scientist and Green Party UK candidate who frequently deletes evidence or arguments he dislikes and edits in nonsense about far more qualified scientists that are GW sceptics.

The doctor's warnings are - and I don't say this lightly given his credentials - utter, utter garbage. Polar bears numbers are increasing - due to hunting bans - and they have survived far warmer periods than this. No organisation or scientist in his right mind has predicted the kind of sea level rise he has predicted.Some have even suggest that a rise of three meters is impossible, let alone improbable. The disjointed waffle about disasters due to displacement of the Earth's crust coming from someone so well qualified leads me to believe he is either cracking up, pulling a deliberate hoax to see who swallows it or is receiving 'incentives' to disseminate such rubbish.

[whybother]

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.

You talk of Greenland and Antarctica as if they are bouyant objects and removal of a large weight will change their bouyancy. As they are fixed land masses, your thinking is quite delusional.

And your reply shows that you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[dobadoy]

Another way of looking at it is when you find such naturally antagonistic groups all agreeing to the same thing - U.S. Russia (whose economic resurgence depends on oil exports) China (whose economic expansion depends on coal)

With the greatest respect, if you really think China agrees with the US on policies on global warming, you are naive to the point where I'd like to sell you the Grand Canyon for a million dollars.

Rick, with equal respect, I think you're confusing disagreement over the details of how to tackle it with my point that there is agreement that it is a genuine problem.

[warfie]

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

Agreed

[nisakiman]

One aspect of the global warming hullabaloo that I look forward to is someday reminiscing about the fear mongering and being able to tell my kids I never fell for it.  Of course no one will care because there will be another global crisis ongoing.

Yes, when all this AGW stuff has been exposed as a sham, we'll be being harangued (and no doubt taxed) because of the dire consequences of the impending ice age!

[RKASA]

One aspect of the global warming hullabaloo that I look forward to is someday reminiscing about the fear mongering and being able to tell my kids I never fell for it. Of course no one will care because there will be another global crisis ongoing.

Yes, when all this AGW stuff has been exposed as a sham, we'll be being harangued (and no doubt taxed) because of the dire consequences of the impending ice age!

We already have a mass solar flare storm coming and have to start a Y2K type of "Program". Are you solar ready?

It may make other problems worse at the same time - already the Rain drops are bigger then last year.

Even my dog is smart enough to know this, he won't go out in the rain anymore.

[Thaddeus]

@Thaddeus:

There is no cut-off point.

Oh yes there is, top and bottom.

And I have noticed since I have been away that there has been the usual surge of 'oh no it isn't' v's 'oh yes it is' type posts on this subject.... it's a freaking pantomime <deleted>, and that is exactly what certain people want.

[Spee]

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.

You talk of Greenland and Antarctica as if they are bouyant objects and removal of a large weight will change their bouyancy. As they are fixed land masses, your thinking is quite delusional.

There is none so deluded as he who pours scorn on a proven scientific point. Continental crust "floats" on the semi molten magma. Any large weight placed on the crust, be it ice or a mountain range, causes the crust to sink, it's called isostasy. The average thickness of Antarctic ice is 7,000 feet, its shear weight is enough to actually push some of the land below sea level. Remove that ice and the land will rebound, much as the Great Lakes region of North America is still doing today following the removal of its last ice sheet.

As quoted from wikipedia:

"The rebound movements are so slow that the uplift caused by the ending of the last glacial period is still continuing."

Hence, movement of ice on and off massive land masses like Greenland and Antarctica is negligible in real time and only minutely measurable over several generations. Isostasy may be analogous to bouyancy, but it is hardly the same thing as an object floating in water.

And as others have correctly pointed out, the amount of sheet ice in places like Antarctica has actually increased over the past several years, not decreased. So in some of the "tin-foil hat" pretzel logic, this should cancel out any effect that might be caused to Bangkok.

For years in the 70's, all the chicken-little eco-wackos were making threats about the horrific consequences of global cooling. Curiously, in the 90's. the eco-wackos changed their tune and created hysteria over global warming. Now, any Earth scientist worth their salt readily acknowledges, the Earth is once again cooling and sea ice is increasing.

What none of the eco-wacko's want to acknowledge, and what real Earth scientists have known all along, is that the Earth warms and cools in direct correlation to the Sun's solar cycles, and has done so for centuries. The Earth has been cooling for the last several years, and will start warming again in a few more years, right on schedule.

[AmeriThai]

I would like to make two prediction which will not be refuted.

A. The sun will super nova

B. I won't be here when it does.

Sorry, but your first prediction is way off and clesrly wrong. The Sun doesn't have enough mass to explode as either a nova or a supernova. However, it'll eventually swell up, expelling its material with solar winds, possibly large enough to engulf the Earth. Whether it'll actually reach the orbit of Earth or not won't matter because it'll still render the planet into a barren, lifeless, uninhabitable rock before it gradually shrinks back down to become a white dwarf star. Fortunately though, long before the world becomes a celestial cinder, we'll all be gone.

http://www.universetoday.com/18795/will-the-sun-explode/

[bikersiam]

at least we won't freeze to death , like they do in the cold counries , have a happy life

[souvenirdeparis]

You guys rock; feels like the it - turns- around -the-sun controversy is being re-enacted , it's thrilling . Too bad I can't keep four lines in perspective more than two seconds at a time, then of course I keep forgetting what side I'm on .

Ihaven't seen the latest of the thread yet. I'll catch up asap because I love it anyway.

I found this :

@Dick Bradford

""

... 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.""

Man already had strong coal emissions back then ; London had the dreaded coal-induced smog .It is late for me and I'm not one 100% sure of your meaning there, but surely the effects are the same if the greenpeace people don't attach themselves to rails with chains , aren't they ?

Greenpeace was said to be USSR funded ( is in Finland)

they never questioned the Russians submarine dumps in Barents?

I traced an old school buddy who turned politician and has respnsibilities with sustainable growth at the a Left party ; ir came as a shock, since he exactly has my own lack of scientific background, plus never used to showed interest on such matters (plus, he used to advocateradical far-righr solutions social-wise).

more tomorrow.

[whybother]

As quoted from wikipedia:

"The rebound movements are so slow that the uplift caused by the ending of the last glacial period is still continuing."

Hence, movement of ice on and off massive land masses like Greenland and Antarctica is negligible in real time and only minutely measurable over several generations. Isostasy may be analogous to bouyancy, but it is hardly the same thing as an object floating in water.

You're the one that went off on a tangent and compared the land lift to an object floating in water, and said my logic was "delusional". Now you're agreeing with me.

It takes a long time for the ice to melt, and it takes a long time for the land to lift.

You gave an example of land lift yourself ... or did the sea level drop by a couple of metres at that one location (permanent, not tidal), but not anywhere else in the world - if that's the case, please explain to me using your "logic" how that can happen.

And as others have correctly pointed out, the amount of sheet ice in places like Antarctica has actually increased over the past several years, not decreased. So in some of the "tin-foil hat" pretzel logic, this should cancel out any effect that might be caused to Bangkok.

What has actually been pointed out is that one of two main ice sheets in Antarctica is increasing due to snowfall. This snowfall is actually due to warming since it was actually too cold to snow there previously. The other ice sheet on Antarctica is reducing slightly. The ice sheets on Greenland are melting "at record rates". And other glaciers on land are also melting at record rates.

The earth has been warming and sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. It will continue until there is some tipping point that throws it the other way and there is another ice age. Until that point, sea levels will rise, and Bangkok will be affected - and it won't take much for Bangkok to be affected. I'm not saying that this will all happen in 7 years, but it is happening slowly.

Now, which of your other statements do you want to retract?

[RickBradford]

@souvenirdeparis

... 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.""

Man already had strong coal emissions back then ; London had the dreaded coal-induced smog .It is late for me and I'm not one 100% sure of your meaning there,

My meaning there was that even though we were pumping CO2 into the atmosphere back then, the world was in a cooling phase which lasted until around the mid-1970s, and so the big worry back then was global cooling, not global warming.

In 1974, a CIA report wrote:

"The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally called the Neo-Boreal or Little Ice Age."

"Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. as it becomes more apparent to the nations round the world that the current trend is indeed a long-term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to insure a secure supply of food resources. Assessing the impact of climate change on major nations will, in the future, occupy a major portion of the intelligence community's assets."

Back then, the debate was over and the science was settled -- we were in for disastrous cooling.

When the world moved into a warming phase and the cooling scare fell apart, lots of people switched sides and climbed aboard the global warming bandwagon, which has only become a 'concern' over the last 25 years or so.

Edited September 20, 2010 by RickBradford

[Thaddeus]

I think the aspect of the man-made global warming scare which disappoints me most is the role of the environmental organisations -- Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth.

In the 1980s, they were actively against Big Business, suspicious of government motives, and diligent in searching for the truth themselves.

Now, they are big business, slavishly follow government climate diktats, and actively push 'solutions' like carbon trading regimes which will only benefit and enrich the likes of Deutsche Bank (who are pushing CAGW for all it's worth) and other opportunistic traders of (literally) hot air.

One aspect of the global warming hullabaloo that I look forward to is someday reminiscing about the fear mongering and being able to tell my kids I never fell for it. Of course no one will care because there will be another global crisis ongoing.

Yep, I still get a giggle looking back at the Millennium Bug crisis.

The company I worked for at the time made a heap of money checking all our clients computer systems for Y2K compliance, while knowing at the time that they wouldn't have a problem at all.

When this crisis dissipates like the morning mist, don't worry, there will be another one waiting in the wings.

[brahmburgers]

I've heard (sorry don't have firm sources, but one of them was Nat'l Geographic, which takes it data from orthodox sources) - that Antarctic and Polar regions are each losing an average of bout 50 cubic miles of ice each year, which is not being replaced. That, and dramatically receding glaciers in various regions indicates to me that GW is happening. To what extent it's exacerbated by human activities is debatable. Personally, I believe people activities contribute to large extent.

[Spee]

Until that point, sea levels will rise, and Bangkok will be affected - and it won't take much for Bangkok to be affected. I'm not saying that this will all happen in 7 years, but it is happening slowly.

Now, which of your other statements do you want to retract?

Just because you are retracting, doesn't mean I will. I've said nothing that warrants retracting.

You continue to rely upon false global warming/sea is rising religious arguments, with no discussion of what may or may not be occurring with ASEAN land masses such that upon which Bangkok rests and there's nothing I can do to change it. Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion. I leave you to yours.

[brahmburgers]

One aspect of the global warming hullabaloo that I look forward to is someday reminiscing about the fear mongering and being able to tell my kids I never fell for it. Of course no one will care because there will be another global crisis ongoing.

Yep, I still get a giggle looking back at the Millennium Bug crisis. The company I worked for at the time made a heap of money checking all our clients computer systems for Y2K compliance, while knowing at the time that they wouldn't have a problem at all. When this crisis dissipates like the morning mist, don't worry, there will be another one waiting in the wings.

Yes, the Y2K thing elicits a sigh from me also. Even while it was the rage, and great for selling newspapers - all through 1999. However, not all forewarnings are worthy of giggles.

No one predicted the Indian Ocean tsunami of a few years ago, except (after the fact) there was a mention of one Thai scientist who supposedly had made a peep of a prior mention. No one predicted fuel-filled airliners crashing in to NYC skyscrapers - though there were a few faint prior indications (Arabs studying to fly 747's in Florida, who only wanted to study about flying solo - and didn't give a hoot about any other aspects of flying).

Sometimes warnings are hype, whereas other times it behooves the general public to take heed. That's part of why we have brains - to try and discern between real and fake threats. Interesting that professional psychics (my wife was one also) aren't able to predict the most dire events, even though they take money to predict all sorts of petty personal things. Psychics do a lucrative business in a hyper-superstitious country like Thailand - yet it's all smoke and mirrors a.k.a. hocus pocus.

[whybother]

Just because you are retracting, doesn't mean I will. I've said nothing that warrants retracting.

You continue to rely upon false global warming/sea is rising religious arguments, with no discussion of what may or may not be occurring with ASEAN land masses such that upon which Bangkok rests and there's nothing I can do to change it. Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion. I leave you to yours.

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.

You talk of Greenland and Antarctica as if they are bouyant objects and removal of a large weight will change their bouyancy. As they are fixed land masses, your thinking is quite delusional.

As quoted from wikipedia:

"The rebound movements are so slow that the uplift caused by the ending of the last glacial period is still continuing."

Hence, movement of ice on and off massive land masses like Greenland and Antarctica is negligible in real time and only minutely measurable over several generations. Isostasy may be analogous to bouyancy, but it is hardly the same thing as an object floating in water.

<snip>

I point out that there are land movements due to reducing ice, and you call it delusional.

Then you state exactly what I was saying. I call that a retraction.

I've kept the same line all along. If you want to point out where I have made a retraction, please do so.

edit: sea levels are rising. Ice sheets, glaciers, and permafrost is melting. It's been happening since the last ice age. I'd like to see your argument against that.

I haven't been discussing the cause of it. It's just that you are so anti-GW, that you can't have a rational discussion about anything related to it.

Edited September 20, 2010 by whybother

[whybother]

Yep, I still get a giggle looking back at the Millennium Bug crisis. The company I worked for at the time made a heap of money checking all our clients computer systems for Y2K compliance, while knowing at the time that they wouldn't have a problem at all. When this crisis dissipates like the morning mist, don't worry, there will be another one waiting in the wings.

Yes, the Y2K thing elicits a sigh from me also. Even while it was the rage, and great for selling newspapers - all through 1999. However, not all forewarnings are worthy of giggles.

<snip>

Not all Y2K warnings were pointless. If nothing was done, then some computer systems would have failed or at least produced incorrect results.

Sure, it was probably over hyped (as man made global warming is now) but that doesn't mean nothing should be done about it.