Bangkok Flooding: Expert Doubts City's Rainfall Claims

[webfact]

UTCC: Bangkok residents believe flood devastation will reoccur this year

BANGKOK, 28 September 2012 (NNT) – Most Bangkok residents are not confident in the government’s flood management measures, believing that flood devastation will reoccur this year; according to The University of Thai Chamber of Commerce (UTCC)'s survey.

The Center for Economic and Business Forecasting (CEBF) of the UTCC has revealed the results of its survey on people’s opinions toward the flood preparation, which suggested nearly half of the respondents were very worried that they would be in for another flood devastation this year.

According to the poll, residents in Bangkok and its vicinities believed they would face as severe flooding as the one they did last year. They saw that the government’s flood preparation was ineffective, and asked the authorities to assign only one central agency to be in charge of announcing warnings and receiving complaints.

The CEBF also revealed people’s opinions on product prices, saying 60% of them saw a slight rise in the prices, while one-third of them felt that the prices remained unchanged. Most also agreed with the price-pegging policy, but said the government could raise consumer product prices gradually, if necessary, to assist many people on low incomes.

-- NNT 2012-09-28

[zakk9]

So it rains more than "normal". Big surprise. This has been predicted by researchers for a couple of decades already, and it will increase. It's one of the most obvious results of global warming. Unfortunately, politicians and most of the bureaucrats listen mostly to their own voice, so a very predictable development almost always comes as a surprise to them. I remember when they started using areas in the central provinces as overflow reservoirs to spare Bangkok. Doing that on a grand scale happened as little as 10 years ago. Now, it's like it has happened forever. If the current weather trend continues, and I'm quite sure it will, I don't think I will live in Bangkok in 25 years from now.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to bring up the man made global warming/cooling/climate change nonsense.

In a few years when there's a drought, no doubt that will be blamed on AGW. And when there is a cold snap in the north that will have been caused by AGW too. And when it's hottter than normal too.

Whatever the weather - hotter, cooler, drier wetter, calmer, windier etc etc etc - the finger always points to AGW.

Unusual weather events have always happened and always will. In fact the only constant with regards to climate is CHANGE.

Oh dear. You don't read much, no? The polar ice in the Arctic is melting. It's well documented and photographed. A new low was reached again this year. Practically all glaciers are melting and it's going one way only. None are increasing. The ocean temperatures are increasing, which is one of the reasons for the increased rainfall. That's well documented as well.

Whatever the reasons for these developments are, they seem to be non-reversible for the time being, and we're not talking short cycles. Data is available for 100 years or more back. You can of course close your eyes and claim that it isn't happening, but that won't help much.

The biggest problem is that there hasn't been a similar development during historic times, so it's difficult or impossible to predict the outcome. The ice on Greenland might melt, but nobody knows that. The speed of the development might increase or decrease, but nobody knows that either. At the moment it seems to be increasing.

There's a film being released in November, a result of several years of photographic research in the Arctic. Those who have seen it says it's an eye opener. Those who made it say that they couldn't have made the film starting today, since much of what they've filmed have simply disappeared in the meantime.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/chasingice/

[noob7]

Well, I live in one of the richest and most technologically advanced cities in the world, Singapore. We don't have to worry about run-off from other parts of the 'country' (the city IS the country). And we get we floods in our central shopping district after heavy downpours. I was in Bangkok last weekend and the amount of rain (esp. on Monday) looked to be heavier and more sustained than the rains that caused the flooding you see below. There are limits... everywhere

Yep, there are. Only in some areas, there are a lot more, b/c of 'as long you can blame someone/thing else'.

[khunken]

The rain in BKK has been far heavier than last year - certainly in my area (On Nut). I think the mainly road flooding is in no way comparable to what many people experienced last year, mostly outside BKK.

The BMA are probably fighting a losing battle against blocked drains with the assorted refuse that people here throw onto the street while the city police extort money from tourists in lower Sukhumvit for dropping a ciggy butt.

Mr Royol, who seems to come from the Plod school of 'water-pushing thought', would be better off resolving the flooding of houses, shops, etc in Sukhothai & other areas which is a far greater problem than minor floods in BKK.

[MaxLee]

Stubborn Stupidity is what makes Thai politicians save face at the sacrifice of millions of their own civilians.

Giving out the truth of information is like losing face. But that face saving stubbornness is gonna drown Thailand slowly...

[RickBradford]

Oh dear. You don't read much, no? The polar ice in the Arctic is melting. It's well documented and photographed. A new low was reached again this year.

The ice in the Antarctic is growing. It's well documented and photographed. A new high was reached again this year for the time of year, nearing an all-time high.

I'm sure you read a lot, but if your reading consists of Greenpeace press releases recycled by hapless lazy journalists, you're unlikely to learn anything new.

For example:

1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

[zakk9]

Oh dear. You don't read much, no? The polar ice in the Arctic is melting. It's well documented and photographed. A new low was reached again this year.

The ice in the Antarctic is growing. It's well documented and photographed. A new high was reached again this year for the time of year, nearing an all-time high.

I'm sure you read a lot, but if your reading consists of Greenpeace press releases recycled by hapless lazy journalists, you're unlikely to learn anything new.

For example:

1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

I don't think I've read a Greenpeace press release in all my life. I have read articles by a number of scientists on both sides of the fence though, although those who think that there is no global warming seem to diminish in numbers. What is the most impressive is the solid evidence represented by numbers and by photos taken on regular intervals through years. One can of course claim that photos and numbers lie, but it doesn't seem very likely.

[Thai at Heart]

My understanding is that the problem is not the rain that falls here in BKK (and, brother did it rain last night!!) yet it is all the rain that falls in the central region and then has to make it's way downstream via the floodplain that BKK sits in the middle of. Heavy rain here in BKK only produces localised flooding for a short while. It also causes massive traffic snarl ups, nearly 3 hours to get home last evening. Not fun!

Not helped if the chao praya is filled to busting though.

[atyclb]

It seems like a normal year for rainfall. Amazing they think they can fool everyone and say it is a record year for rain.

Just another (as expected) record year for incompetence.

[RickBradford]

@zakk9

I don't think I've read a Greenpeace press release in all my life.

Well, if you read The New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times (US), The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age (Australia), The Guardian, The Independent (UK) you have read Greenpeace press releases, slightly altered by the churnalists to make it look like original work.

... those who think that there is no global warming seem to diminish in numbers.

Actually, almost nobody thinks there is no global warming -- a gradual temperature rise has been recorded for at least 150 years. What is in dispute is whether man's activities are having a significant impact on the rate of warming.

One can of course claim that photos and numbers lie, but it doesn't seem very likely.

Numbers can easily be made to lie, as is proved by financial fraud scandals every month.

In climate 'science', altering the data is the rule rather than the exception - the NOAA does it, the NIWA was recently hauled into court for doing it, and the people involved in the ClimateGate scandal seemed to do little else.

Oddly enough, every single piece of data manipulation (aka rewriting of history) has been in the direction of advancing the notion that the world is warming quicker than before, or that sea levels are rising faster than before.

As for pictures not lying, you only have to reference the Ursus Bogus scandal, where Science magazine photoshopped an image of a forlorn polar bear on an isolated ice floe, in an article demanding that "[A]ll citizens should understand some basic scientific facts." The irony of them using a fake image to back up a statement about scientific truth, is considerable.

It is the constant dissembling and dishonesty of these climate 'scientists' and the organisations for which they work, as much as the science itself, that causes many people to be thoroughly skeptical of any of their alarmist predictions.

[ResX]

If you assume you have fortified your defence aginst floods this year, let me tell you the weakest link that you have. Central region. There is where the battle will be deadly fought this year and you are at the very big disadvantages. It means BKK is almost for sure has to take the burden of losing it.

Over the last one year too much attention was put to the defence system in the north. The odd that the floods could beat the north defence, by today, is about 1 in 2000. This odd will become bigger by day depends upon the reserve storages of those two dams in the north. The lower the reserves the higher the odd the dams will be beaten.

I would say overwhelming odd in favour of the two dams in the north was achieved by sacrificing the defence capabillity of the dams in the central region to prepare themselves for the same battle. The odd that central region can be beaten this year probably >25%. In flood control terminology, this odd is very big.

I might be wrong with the draw down plans for the dams in the central region. One thing for certain is little was mentioned about draw down plans for dams in central as if they are not as equal important. At least such plans were not treated equally important as the plans for the dams in the north.

In the north, you can assume you will win the one sided fight this year. In central most likely you are going to be beaten dearly. Overall, you can't be beaten as bad as you were in the 2011. The most likely scenario is the level of casualty is about 1/10th of the last year's level.

[Anon999]

So it rains more than "normal". Big surprise. This has been predicted by researchers for a couple of decades already, and it will increase. It's one of the most obvious results of global warming. Unfortunately, politicians and most of the bureaucrats listen mostly to their own voice, so a very predictable development almost always comes as a surprise to them. I remember when they started using areas in the central provinces as overflow reservoirs to spare Bangkok. Doing that on a grand scale happened as little as 10 years ago. Now, it's like it has happened forever. If the current weather trend continues, and I'm quite sure it will, I don't think I will live in Bangkok in 25 years from now.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to bring up the man made global warming/cooling/climate change nonsense.

In a few years when there's a drought, no doubt that will be blamed on AGW. And when there is a cold snap in the north that will have been caused by AGW too. And when it's hottter than normal too.

Whatever the weather - hotter, cooler, drier wetter, calmer, windier etc etc etc - the finger always points to AGW.

Unusual weather events have always happened and always will. In fact the only constant with regards to climate is CHANGE.

So you don't believe all the scientific evidence that supports the fact that certain activities carried out by man contribute or influence climate change? Can provide us with the links to the research that you've read that supports your beliefs?

If you care to cast your mind back to the ice age you will find that climate change has been an ongoing feature of Mother Earth. The contribution of man to that is relatively small and cannot be blamed on thousands of years of 'global warming'.

[teatree]

So it rains more than "normal". Big surprise. This has been predicted by researchers for a couple of decades already, and it will increase. It's one of the most obvious results of global warming. Unfortunately, politicians and most of the bureaucrats listen mostly to their own voice, so a very predictable development almost always comes as a surprise to them. I remember when they started using areas in the central provinces as overflow reservoirs to spare Bangkok. Doing that on a grand scale happened as little as 10 years ago. Now, it's like it has happened forever. If the current weather trend continues, and I'm quite sure it will, I don't think I will live in Bangkok in 25 years from now.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to bring up the man made global warming/cooling/climate change nonsense.

In a few years when there's a drought, no doubt that will be blamed on AGW. And when there is a cold snap in the north that will have been caused by AGW too. And when it's hottter than normal too.

Whatever the weather - hotter, cooler, drier wetter, calmer, windier etc etc etc - the finger always points to AGW.

Unusual weather events have always happened and always will. In fact the only constant with regards to climate is CHANGE.

So you don't believe all the scientific evidence that supports the fact that certain activities carried out by man contribute or influence climate change? Can provide us with the links to the research that you've read that supports your beliefs?

I'll give you a few pointers for you to reseach by yourself if you like.

1 The correlation between CO2 and temperature. The ice core data clearly shows that temperature goes up first and then after a lag of several hundred years CO2 increases. Al Gore showed the data on a graph in his sci fi film to illustrate the how closely they follow but very sneakily failed to mention that temperature drives CO2. From memory he skirted round the actual science by saying that the relationship was 'complicated'. Temperature has historically driven CO2, this is absolute fact that nobody disputes, go and have a look at the graph.

2 The warming that we have experienced over the last 30 or so years is nothing unusual. Take a look at historic data and you will see clear, regular warming and cooling trends. There is a 30 year (approx) cycle - 30 years warming...30 years cooling...30 years warming...30 years cooling. We have just come to the end of a 30 year warming trend (the start of which was when the the 1st sat data for the arctic was made available...could that be why we are at 'record' low levels?).

There are other, longer term cycles. For example the climate has been warming for the last couple of hundred years or so after having come out of 'The Little Ice Age', a period of very cold weather.

3 Have a look at the research by people like MIT's Richard Lindzen or by Henrik Svensmark. The latter inspired a study by CERN that indicated that much, if not most, of the warming over the last 30 years is down to the relative activity of the sun - basically, when the sun is more active less clouds are produced leading to more energy hitting earth and therefore warming (why was this not headline news throughout the world? If it had proven AGW it would have been..hmmmm).

That should be enough to get you started. You may also want to ask yourself why you have not heard a peep out of the media about the Antarctic being at record high levels but are constantly bombarded with news of record lows in the Arctic. How does this relate to the importance of doing your own research and not being fed 'facts' by the BBC, CNN and The Guardian?

Edited September 30, 2012 by teatree

[zakk9]

So it rains more than "normal". Big surprise. This has been predicted by researchers for a couple of decades already, and it will increase. It's one of the most obvious results of global warming. Unfortunately, politicians and most of the bureaucrats listen mostly to their own voice, so a very predictable development almost always comes as a surprise to them. I remember when they started using areas in the central provinces as overflow reservoirs to spare Bangkok. Doing that on a grand scale happened as little as 10 years ago. Now, it's like it has happened forever. If the current weather trend continues, and I'm quite sure it will, I don't think I will live in Bangkok in 25 years from now.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to bring up the man made global warming/cooling/climate change nonsense.

In a few years when there's a drought, no doubt that will be blamed on AGW. And when there is a cold snap in the north that will have been caused by AGW too. And when it's hottter than normal too.

Whatever the weather - hotter, cooler, drier wetter, calmer, windier etc etc etc - the finger always points to AGW.

Unusual weather events have always happened and always will. In fact the only constant with regards to climate is CHANGE.

So you don't believe all the scientific evidence that supports the fact that certain activities carried out by man contribute or influence climate change? Can provide us with the links to the research that you've read that supports your beliefs?

I'll give you a few pointers for you to reseach by yourself if you like.

1 The correlation between CO2 and temperature. The ice core data clearly shows that temperature goes up first and then after a lag of several hundred years CO2 increases. Al Gore showed the data on a graph in his sci fi film to illustrate the how closely they follow but very sneakily failed to mention that temperature drives CO2. From memory he skirted round the actual science by saying that the relationship was 'complicated'. Temperature has historically driven CO2, this is absolute fact that nobody disputes, go and have a look at the graph.

2 The warming that we have experienced over the last 30 or so years is nothing unusual. Take a look at historic data and you will see clear, regular warming and cooling trends. There is a 30 year (approx) cycle - 30 years warming...30 years cooling...30 years warming...30 years cooling. We have just come to the end of a 30 year warming trend (the start of which was when the the 1st sat data for the arctic was made available...could that be why we are at 'record' low levels?).

There are other, longer term cycles. For example the climate has been warming for the last couple of hundred years or so after having come out of 'The Little Ice Age', a period of very cold weather.

3 Have a look at the research by people like MIT's Richard Lindzen or by Henrik Svensmark. The latter inspired a study by CERN that indicated that much, if not most, of the warming over the last 30 years is down to the relative activity of the sun - basically, when the sun is more active less clouds are produced leading to more energy hitting earth and therefore warming (why was this not headline news throughout the world? If it had proven AGW it would have been..hmmmm).

That should be enough to get you started. You may also want to ask yourself why you have not heard a peep out of the media about the Antarctic being at record high levels but are constantly bombarded with news of record lows in the Arctic. How does this relate to the importance of doing your own research and not being fed 'facts' by the BBC, CNN and The Guardian?

What does it mean that "Antarctic being at record high levels"? Source please.

Glaciers that have existed for at least thousands of years are melting at an increasing speed. Some are already gone. How does that relate to a 30 year cycle? Ocean areas in the Arctic that have been covered by ice as long as humans have observed them are now open water. How does that relate to a 30 year cycle?

I don't claim that the ice on Greenland will necessarily melt, and if it happens, I can't even claim that it's a result of human activity, although it certainly seems to be a possibility. But if it happens, and if the water that would be a result of that doesn't by the touch of magic fall as snow in the Antarctic, anything living on this earth will be in for some dramatic change, and Bangkok will be one of the cities that will be changed first, first due to the increased rainfall that some of us believe that we already see, and then by a rise in ocean levels.

For a city like Bangkok, it's rather uninteresting if this is a natural development or something that humans created. If you're under water, you get wet, and if nothing is done to prepare for that, more people will suffer.

[teatree]

(Reply to zakk9. It won't let me quote you because there are too many sub quotes so I have just pasted your post and replied to it)

What does it mean that "Antarctic being at record high levels"? Source please.

Exactly the same as when you read a headline saying that the Arctic is at record low levels - there is more ice at the Antarctic than at any other time in 'history'. I say 'history' because the data only goes back just over 30 years for both Antarctic and Arctic and is pretty meaningless when climate is something measured by hundreds and thousands of years. I only post it to counter the Arctic paranoia and highlight the tunnel vision of the media and government towards the Arctic. The Arctic being at a 30 year low and the Antarctic being at a 30 year high oesn't actually mean a lot.

Here are some links to skeptic websites that link data from the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

http://sunshinehours...ds-set-in-2012/

http://stevengoddard...me-record-high/

Glaciers that have existed for at least thousands of years are melting at an increasing speed. Some are already gone. How does that relate to a 30 year cycle? Ocean areas in the Arctic that have been covered by ice as long as humans have observed them are now open water. How does that relate to a 30 year cycle?

And those glaciers will have reduced in size and expanded many, many, many times over thousands of years, in reaction to the various warming and cooling cycles. There is also anecdotal evididence (newspaper reports, reports from mariners being able to cross areas of the Artctic that were previously blocked by ice etc) of the Arctic being in the same kind of condition it is today as it was many years ago. Remember, when you hear 'record low Arctic ice' it really only means Arctic ice at 30 year low.

I don't claim that the ice on Greenland will necessarily melt, and if it happens, I can't even claim that it's a result of human activity, although it certainly seems to be a possibility. But if it happens, and if the water that would be a result of that doesn't by the touch of magic fall as snow in the Antarctic, anything living on this earth will be in for some dramatic change, and Bangkok will be one of the cities that will be changed first, first due to the increased rainfall that some of us believe that we already see, and then by a rise in ocean levels.

For a city like Bangkok, it's rather uninteresting if this is a natural development or something that humans created. If you're under water, you get wet, and if nothing is done to prepare for that, more people will suffer.

Edited October 1, 2012 by teatree

[zakk9]

Have you been living under a stone or something? Research on the ice in the polar areas have been going on for well over a hundred years. Scientists travelled extensively to those areas to, among other things, register climate and ice levels.

[Thai at Heart]

In the other paper, there is a headline about the Dems claming some kind of conspiracy over blocked drains in Bangkok.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. They are genuinely claiming that concrete blocks found in a sewer in Bangkok had been put there as a way to smear the BMA.

Now to be honest, considering that they claim to have been assiduously cleaning these bloody things for months, one would have to wonder how unknown to the local government someone managed to place said sand bags and concrete blocks into the system, and why it took an emergency team of inmates to go in there and discover such a cunning plan. Of course, there is not a single picture of the event, despite even inmates apparently all having unfettered access to mobile phones these days.

I suppose the hundreds of tonnes of plastic, water hyacinth, shopping trolleys and all the other crap floating around in the sewers has been dropped there in the last few days after they have cleaned it all as a cunning plan to cause a blockage.

I am all for political mud slinging, but has it really come to the fact that, we didn't notice that someone had blocked up the system because we were too busy scratching our ass to get the job done in the first place.

[teatree]

Have you been living under a stone or something? Research on the ice in the polar areas have been going on for well over a hundred years. Scientists travelled extensively to those areas to, among other things, register climate and ice levels.

No, the 'record low levels' you hear in the headlines are from the satellite data which began in 1979.

How can a few, or even a thousand scientists possibly travel the whole surface area of the Arctic (have you any idea how big this area is?) every day of the year to register its size? What did they do, put down a giant piece of tracing paper and follow the outline of the ice? Think about it logically.

Ok then, what was the total ice extent of the Arctic on the 1st of October 1912? Surely there are records of this if what you say is true.

Look at the data from places like the NOAA and you will see the data starts in the late 70's.

Edited October 1, 2012 by teatree