harrowgate Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 There's absolutely no-chance that the Thais will abandon their capital. They'll just start to build everything off the ground. Seems like they've already got started with the BTS. A return to stilted house in Bangkok? a dam site better than the Western housing estate clones they're throwing up in Bang Bua Tong. The Bangkok folk are a river people by history, they'll take back to the boat with ease. By looking at the patterns of flooding over the past few years it looks to me like Thailand may be looking at the last few years of a completely non-flooded kingdom at any one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 A capital city doesn't have to be the same city as a nation's biggest commercial city. Many international examples of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 "Bangkok To Be Submerged Under Water In 50 Years: International Experts" I have a feeling these International Experts are off by 50 years. Are you blind or something? This is a plot by the international bankers to buy the land cheap. The best investment to day for the next 6 months is real estate in Bangkok just watch who is buying The rich of the riches and who is selling is the poor Yes I am one of those looking to buy It's more about the farm land in the central region and less or not at all about Bkk. Guess who was setup by the corporate globalists and got rich? Not on his own ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 There's absolutely no-chance that the Thais will abandon their capital. It doesn't necessarily have to be a total withdrawal. Parts of the city may be able to be saved efficiently. The rest left to the forces of man and nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teatree Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 A nice piece of propaganda for the 'warmists'. Sadly, there is not a weather event on Earth that that isn't pinned on global warming these days. Even though the term 'global warming' is totally Orwellian - temperatures have remained stable for over a decade now (and that's using 'enhanced' warmist data) and are set to drop over the next couple of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolf99 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Unless I live to see 90, which is unlikely, looks like I'll miss the party. Anyone remember the movie Water World? Horrible movie, but Bangkok will adapt and the people will find a way to live there. Why would they bother? What's so special about it? We will all have to live somewhere. Pattaya with an extra 12mill people, you ready for that? Bring it on...half of the Bangkokers are down in Pattaya already.... International experts - have used Satellite measuring from thousands of Kilometers above the earth surface to find that globally (they think) sea levels are rising about 2 - 3mm per year. This is a guess. How accurate can you get hitting a moving target i.e. waves from that distance. B*llocks I say. If you have a small garden in a country where it rains a lot ( I had one is Scotland ) and you have 2 kids and their friends playing in it daily and a wife walking in and out with Laundry. you will notice where they have been, as the ground gets compacted down and down. When it rains puddles form. Amazing stuff this. So build a modern concrete jungle on a flood plain add cars, trains, buses and 12 million people plus 30 million tourists (TAT figures) and hey it might just start to sink a bit. Then have an aged irrigation and drainage system blocked with millions of plastic bags, Polystyrene food boxes, dead bodies and BINGO you get... Global warming to blame it all on............... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammered Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 A capital city doesn't have to be the same city as a nation's biggest commercial city. Many international examples of that. Remember the years and various different governments about the move to a new parliament? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryfrompattaya Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 "Bangkok To Be Submerged Under Water In 50 Years: International Experts" I have a feeling these International Experts are off by 50 years. Are you blind or something? This is a plot by the international bankers to buy the land cheap. The best investment to day for the next 6 months is real estate in Bangkok just watch who is buying The rich of the riches and who is selling is the poor Yes I am one of those looking to buy It's more about the farm land in the central region and less or not at all about Bkk. Guess who was setup by the corporate globalists and got rich? Not on his own ... So you know about his meeting in with Julies Goldberg and Alan Cantor the power behind all corporate globalists. Can you tell when and where this took place or was this a lucky guess by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w11guy Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Unless I live to see 90, which is unlikely, looks like I'll miss the party. Anyone remember the movie Water World? Horrible movie, but Bangkok will adapt and the people will find a way to live there. Why would they bother? What's so special about it? They won't both because it's special but because they don't have a choice. Not many people can give up their home and start afresh somewhere else without any money. Bangkok will slowly decay. Those that can move will and the poor will be stuck here. in 50 years time it could be a huge slum with massive amounts of disease. But this depends on whether the government and others do something to protect it. There is lots that can be done, but it costs money and someone has to care enough. Property prices are likely to be very depressed over the next few years. Who would want to buy a property that's likely to be under water soon? The more Bangkok floods, the more people will leave and the cheaper property will get. But parts of the city could still be saved. I can't imagine that Bangkok would ever be completely abandoned. It's difficult to move 12 million people. Where would they go? But number could dwindle over time. Look at New Orleans. It was devastated, but people still choose to live there. Edited November 8, 2011 by w11guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w11guy Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) To be honest I really couldnt care less, 50 years time I would have been dead 20 years according to avg statistics But it's not going to be ok for the next 50 years and then suddenly be under water. If nothing is done it will get progressively worse and won't be worth living here in even a few years time. But it depends to a large extent on the weather. We could have a few drier years and then all the floods would be forgotten. Bangkok has been flooding for decades, but it's still here and getting bigger, not smaller. Venice does fine even though it's mostly flooded. Edited November 8, 2011 by w11guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I'm following the manipulations of these corporate globalists for years. The CFR including his lawyer firm are under immense pressure in the States right now. People waking up there. some good reading here http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com Of course there are many other sources too. But that for later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svenivan Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 The Burmese are smarter than the Thais and they have already moved their capital from a swampy area to higher ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julemanden Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 "Bangkok To Be Submerged Under Water In 50 Years: International Experts" I have a feeling these International Experts are off by 50 years. Are you blind or something? This is a plot by the international bankers to buy the land cheap. The best investment to day for the next 6 months is real estate in Bangkok just watch who is buying The rich of the riches and who is selling is the poor Yes I am one of those looking to buy Good luck ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiChai Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Dutch have kept the sea back for hundreds of years, so the Thais could do it if motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Dutch have kept the sea back for hundreds of years, so the Thais could do it if motivated. Last time I checked, the culture of the Netherlands is massively different than the culture of Thailand in almost all ways you could possibly imagine. Seriously, if you had to bet your own money, would you bet that Thais will solve this problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaiChai Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Guess you could read between the lines of my post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robanywhere Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Bangkok will (must) adapt, as have all the great cities under siege by the sea.... New Orleans, Venice (Italy), and areas of the Netherlands It just depends on what solution will be chosen.... Great historical port cities have always been established at the mouths of rivers due to river transport commerce, and are usually victims of flooding and delta-switching (or avulsion) , natural processes that are difficult to avoid. For example, New Orleans (and US Corp of Engineers) has been fighting avulsion with massive levees for years... now you actually look UP at the Mississippi when you are in New Orleans.... The Netherlands of course is famous for reclaiming below sea level land... and keeping it dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKvampire Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Dont you just love it when the scientific fact of climate change causing a huge increase in natural disasters occurs the deniers are out ,usually they come from the loopy right from that mass consuming and contributor to the problem country in the northern hemisphere west of the atlantic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awohalitsiktoli Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Dont you just love it when the scientific fact of climate change causing a huge increase in natural disasters occurs the deniers are out ,usually they come from the loopy right from that mass consuming and contributor to the problem country in the northern hemisphere west of the atlantic I am guessing that the Koch Brothers are feeding them something that kills brain cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie3 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 A nice piece of propaganda for the 'warmists'. Sadly, there is not a weather event on Earth that that isn't pinned on global warming these days. Even though the term 'global warming' is totally Orwellian - temperatures have remained stable for over a decade now (and that's using 'enhanced' warmist data) and are set to drop over the next couple of decades. Whether global warming and sea level is an issue or not, (from memory) the plate that Bangkok sits on is tipping to the east at a greater rate than the 'alleged' sea level rise. So Pattaya may not be the best option for a long term property investment or land for the grandchildren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Dutch have kept the sea back for hundreds of years, so the Thais could do it if motivated. Last time I checked, the culture of the Netherlands is massively different than the culture of Thailand in almost all ways you could possibly imagine. Seriously, if you had to bet your own money, would you bet that Thais will solve this problem? Culture is one thing. Survival is another. The Thais can play this flood game foolishly only because the ambient/water temperatures at this latitude will allow it. The Thais would solve this problem if they were at 53 degrees latitude with an ambient temperature of 10 C, (as is Amsterdam today) or they would die in large numbers of exposure and hypothermia. Edited November 8, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teatree Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Dont you just love it when the scientific fact of climate change causing a huge increase in natural disasters occurs the deniers are out ,usually they come from the loopy right from that mass consuming and contributor to the problem country in the northern hemisphere west of the atlantic I am guessing that the Koch Brothers are feeding them something that kills brain cells. Why don't you just call climate skeptics 'smelly poo heads' and be done with it? How about coming up with some facts that support your point of view and leave the name calling for the school playground. Resorting to calling people crazy, stupid, kooky etc usually means someone has lost the argument and has very little to go with apart from the same tired old rhetoric. Edited November 8, 2011 by teatree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erobando Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Even if the sea did rise by 29cm, how would that put Bangkok under water? Most of Bangkok is higher than that. Rising sea levels would effect the wetland areas in Bangkhuntien but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakman Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Even if the sea did rise by 29cm, how would that put Bangkok under water? Most of Bangkok is higher than that. Rising sea levels would effect the wetland areas in Bangkhuntien but that's about it. Bangkok is sinking 1.5 to 5.3 cm each year, if you believe these numbers. By 2050 (40 years from now, assuming no changes in water extracted from the aquifer) Bangkok will have sunk 60 to 212 cm (23 to 83 inches), far outstripping the over estimated sea level rise. The sea level has actually receded for the last two years as the planet has cooled. The claim of "global warming" is sinking Bangkok is an attempt to raise funds from the world. Bangkok would do better by pumping cleaned excess (and stop pumping out water from the aquifer) water into the aquifer stopping or raising Bangkok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze01 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 By 2050 the world as we know it today will change drastically. Rising sea levels is only one aspect of the shift. How about 9,000,000,000 people vying for an ever lessening supply of food, potable water and fossil fuels. Things that make you go hmm. Interesting times indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) solution number one, two and ... Edited November 8, 2011 by elcent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacnl2000 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 solution number one, two and ... Due to overpopulation I love to see more bumper cars having large rubber bumpers all around. Those cars only require amusement park physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awohalitsiktoli Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 By 2050 the world as we know it today will change drastically. Rising sea levels is only one aspect of the shift. How about 9,000,000,000 people vying for an ever lessening supply of food, potable water and fossil fuels. Things that make you go hmm. Interesting times indeed. I totally agree with what you said. Even now, I am seeing water hoarding in Jomtien-Pattaya. Imagine what it will be like in the future with two billion more people on the planet and the effects of climate change much worse than today. The posts by those who reject science (and who insist on calling themselves skeptics which they are not) are hilarious At first I thought they were joking, but apparently they are serious. Given how they "think," I am sure it is not possible to persuade them with scientific facts, so I will not bother to do so. The Koch brothers, who probably don't believe a word of what they are funding those who reject science to say, are having a good laugh too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softgeorge Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 That still leaves 49 yrs 51 weeks before we have to worry about working out an action plan. So moving right along, what's next on the agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) there are tons of madmen around. One here is even the science and technology Czar of Obama. Be warned!!! We are nearer to the point as you might think. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. This happens already in the USA One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. PLEASE READ IT AND THEN COME BACK WITH YOUR OPINION - this is serious! http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ Edited November 9, 2011 by elcent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now