"Bangkok Could be Underwater by 2030" - World Bank President

[attrayant]

I see nothing there to suggest that Bangkok could be under water in 16 years.

That's good - it means you've learned an important lesson: you won't see what you're not looking for.

[maisodni]

I see nothing there to suggest that Bangkok could be under water in 16 years.

That's good - it means you've learned an important lesson: you won't see what you're not looking for.

Wrong. If I walk outside into water up to my waist, I will see it - even if I was not expecting it, and was thus not looking for it. So - your comment is invalid. Poof! Gone.

I shall assume that you belong in the "Bangkok will be under water in 16 years" camp - until you state otherwise.

Over the past 19 years, I have frequently seen Bangkok flooded - sometimes up to mid-thigh, and usually during September. But - that flooding was always caused by the confluence of three factors:

1. High tide

2. High Chao Phraya river level (due to heavy rainfall up-country, during the previous few days)

3. Heavy rainfall on Bangkok

When these three conditions all exist, there is nowhere for the water to go. But - this "phenomenon" has existed for as long as Bangkok has existed.

MS

[3NUMBAS]

you are right and all the scientists with their date going back 40 years are wrong then.

hence the remarks from the experts but there will always be thickos who know better

[3NUMBAS]

thailand is no 3 and 7 on the charts here shown

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/20-countries-most-risk-sea-level-rise-20140924

Methods

For our global analysis, we used land elevation data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM); mean sea surface elevation data based on a 16-year record of satellite altimetry from the TOPEX/Poseidon mission; a global grid of mean annual maximum water level offsets developed by Merrifield et al. (2013); a global set of local sea level rise projections from Kopp et al. (2014); 2010 population data from LandScan; and national boundaries from GADM Version 2.0.

We believe this global sea level exposure analysis is the first to incorporate observed sea surface elevations, to factor in mean annual maximum water levels, to tie these to land elevations, and to use probabilistic local sea level rise projections.

We employed nearest neighbor approaches whenever spatial interpolation was required to match data layers. We counted as exposed all land below each water level assessed, regardless of connectivity to ocean at that level, so long as the land fell within a more broadly defined Low Elevation Coastal Zone within 10 vertical meters of the high tide line.

Thus we did not count inland depressions such as the Caspian Sea Depression, but did capture apparently isolated low-lying areas, which more accurate elevation data might prove connected.

SRTM data do not cover latitudes farther north than 60 degrees or farther south than 56 degrees, slightly diminishing our exposure estimates for Canada, Russia, and the world as a whole.

For our analysis of error over the U.S., we used lidar (laser-based) coastal elevation data from NOAA, and U.S. Census population data at Census block resolution. We excluded Rhode Island and Virginia from the analysis due to gaps in SRTM data.

Research report written by Benjamin Strauss, Vice President for Climate Impacts for Climate Central, and Scott Kulp, Senior Developer and Research Associate.

[Thongkorn]

And to think they Moved the Capital because they thought it a better place.

[NeverSure]

you are right and all the scientists with their date going back 40 years are wrong then.

hence the remarks from the experts but there will always be thickos who know better

40 years?

Let's talk about the ice age, and how man has no control over these events but rather it's probably something like sun spots or lack of them.

Before man could fight forest fires, lightning would start them and they would burn until the forest was gone, or until rains came. Talk about covering the earth with carbon and shielding it from the sun. Forests grow back quickly and amazingly as was proven when Mt. St. Helens blew in Washington State, USA temporarily devastating everything for many miles around. The ash fertilized the farm land in E. Washington State. The smoke circumnavigated the earth but rather than permanent damage, there was permanent improvement from forest cleansing, fertilizing and regrowth.

Man isn't 1/10th as knowledgeable as he pretends to be. But the "scientists" only get paid if people think they are smart.

It's about money. Always follow the money.

[CaptainTyphoon]

Corrected Current Sea Reduction River

Elevation ＝ Elevation － Level ×Ratio ＋Water Level

Lest we get too emotional about submergence of Bangkok, it is best to approach the issue from a scientific perspective.

I would say that it may not be such a good idea to encourage, through financial incentives, people to increase the number of autos they buy.

What happens with autos is that the more you drive them the more CO2 that comes out of the back.

This causes the oceans to both acidify and also to rise.

Then, when you kill off the mangroves in Bangkok, and also build where you should not, it can make the rising water with a rising acidity flood things.

Not very good if you live in Bangkok, I suppose.

On the bright side, there are lots of boats there, and people go to work by commuting in boats.

[CaptainTyphoon]

BKK sinking by 3 centimeters per year is super fast.

Break out the oars if something is not done to ameliorate this disaster.

Or, just move the city back a few kilometers.

[maisodni]

Well, let's do an "idiot check".

What would it take to raise earth's sea level by one meter?

Let's make some assumptions (and I am hoping that none of these are controversial):

1. The earth's surface is 30% land, 70% water.

2. The radius of the earth at sea level is approximately 6,371 km.

3. When water freezes, its volume increases by 9.05%.

4. The formula for calculating volume of sphere is V = 4/3 pi r3 (volume = four thirds times pi times radius cubed).

So - to achieve a one meter rise in the water level of the 70% of the earth's surface that was covered by water, you would need to increase the volume of water sufficiently to achieve a 70 cm rise in water level for the entire sphere, if there was no land. Basically, 100 cm of water would "pile up" in the water portion of earth's surface, if you took a land-free surface that was 70 cm deep, and inserted land covering 30% of that surface, thereby displacing water.

So - if you do the calculations (using 3.14159 for pi) - the volume of earth is 1,083,206,001,900.013 cubic km. If you increase earth's radius by 0.7 meters (from 6,371.0000 km to 6,371.0007 km) - the new volume of earth is 1,083,206,358,944.881 cubic km.

You need to add 357,044.868 cubic km of water, to raise sea level by one meter.

To get that volume of water, you need to melt 389,357.428 cubic km of ice

389,357.428 cubic km of ice divided by 86 years (until year 2100) means that during each year for the rest of this century, a net volume of roughly 4,527.4 cubic km of ice needs to melt and not turn back into ice.

So - is 4,527 cubic km a lot of ice?

Well, the highest volume of ice recorded in the Arctic since 1979 was 32,951 cubic km in April 1979, and the lowest volume recorded was 3,787 cubic km in September 2012.

You can see the full series for volumes of Arctic ice at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt the volume of ice is listed for each month of each year, in thousands of cubic km.

Total arctic ice volume for the most recent data month (August 2014) was a paltry 8,150 cubic km.

But - wait a minute! If the TOTAL remaining Arctic ice is a measly 8,150 cubic km - how can earth possibly have a net decrease of 4,427 cubic km each year for the next 86 years? If the math is correct, ALL remaining Arctic ice would be gone by 2016 at that melt rate - having only increased ocean level by - a whopping 1.42 cm. (when you use the cube root calculator at http://www.csgnetwork.com/cuberootcubecalc.html to calculate the cube root of 258,596,604,595, it gives you the radius of earth at 6,371.00001 km).

The calculation is: 8,150 cubic km of ice (all the ice there is) is 7,474 cubic km of water.

Add 7,474 cubic km to 1,083,206,001,900.013 cubic km.- the current volume of earth - then solve for the new radius of earth

V = 4/3 pi r3 r = cube root of V/pi/4 x 3 = cube root of (1,083 206,009,373.648 / pi / 4 x 3) = cube root of 258,596,604,595 = 6,371.00001 km = 1 cm - and then adjust for 30% land, and sea level rises by 1.42 cm.

ALL arctic ice melting and never coming back would raise sea level by 1.42 cm.

But - there is also Antarctic ice. That ice sheet happens to growing year on year - to all time record levels. It has total volume of 26,500,000 cubic km of ice, or 24,300,779 cubic km of water. If it all melted, it would increase sea level by 4.76 meters.

So - all the attention being given to the Arctic ice sheet is much ado about nothing, as far as sea level change is concerned. Looking at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png, it has been growing for the last couple of years anyway.

MS

[CaptainTyphoon]

Well, let's do an "idiot check".

What would it take to raise earth's sea level by one meter?

Let's make some assumptions (and I am hoping that none of these are controversial):

1. The earth's surface is 30% land, 70% water.

2. The radius of the earth at sea level is approximately 6,371 km.

3. When water freezes, its volume increases by 9.05%.

4. The formula for calculating volume of sphere is V = 4/3 pi r3 (volume = four thirds times pi times radius cubed).

So - to achieve a one meter rise in the water level of the 70% of the earth's surface that was covered by water, you would need to increase the volume of water sufficiently to achieve a 70 cm rise in water level for the entire sphere, if there was no land. Basically, 100 cm of water would "pile up" in the water portion of earth's surface, if you took a land-free surface that was 70 cm deep, and inserted land covering 30% of that surface, thereby displacing water.

So - if you do the calculations (using 3.14159 for pi) - the volume of earth is 1,083,206,001,900.013 cubic km. If you increase earth's radius by 0.7 meters (from 6,371.0000 km to 6,371.0007 km) - the new volume of earth is 1,083,206,358,944.881 cubic km.

You need to add 357,044.868 cubic km of water, to raise sea level by one meter.

To get that volume of water, you need to melt 389,357.428 cubic km of ice

389,357.428 cubic km of ice divided by 86 years (until year 2100) means that during each year for the rest of this century, a net volume of roughly 4,527.4 cubic km of ice needs to melt and not turn back into ice.

So - is 4,527 cubic km a lot of ice?

Well, the highest volume of ice recorded in the Arctic since 1979 was 32,951 cubic km in April 1979, and the lowest volume recorded was 3,787 cubic km in September 2012.

You can see the full series for volumes of Arctic ice at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/PIOMAS.2sst.monthly.Current.v2.1.txt the volume of ice is listed for each month of each year, in thousands of cubic km.

Total arctic ice volume for the most recent data month (August 2014) was a paltry 8,150 cubic km.

But - wait a minute! If the TOTAL remaining Arctic ice is a measly 8,150 cubic km - how can earth possibly have a net decrease of 4,427 cubic km each year for the next 86 years? If the math is correct, ALL remaining Arctic ice would be gone by 2016 at that melt rate - having only increased ocean level by - a whopping 1.42 cm. (when you use the cube root calculator at http://www.csgnetwork.com/cuberootcubecalc.html to calculate the cube root of 258,596,604,595, it gives you the radius of earth at 6,371.00001 km).

The calculation is: 8,150 cubic km of ice (all the ice there is) is 7,474 cubic km of water.

Add 7,474 cubic km to 1,083,206,001,900.013 cubic km.- the current volume of earth - then solve for the new radius of earth

V = 4/3 pi r3 r = cube root of V/pi/4 x 3 = cube root of (1,083 206,009,373.648 / pi / 4 x 3) = cube root of 258,596,604,595 = 6,371.00001 km = 1 cm - and then adjust for 30% land, and sea level rises by 1.42 cm.

ALL arctic ice melting and never coming back would raise sea level by 1.42 cm.

But - there is also Antarctic ice. That ice sheet happens to growing year on year - to all time record levels. It has total volume of 26,500,000 cubic km of ice, or 24,300,779 cubic km of water. If it all melted, it would increase sea level by 4.76 meters.

So - all the attention being given to the Arctic ice sheet is much ado about nothing, as far as sea level change is concerned. Looking at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1_CY.png, it has been growing for the last couple of years anyway.

MS

Excuse me, but I think the required calculations have been done, checked, rechecked, and redone, MANY times, by MANY scientists, from MANY countries, who are religious and who are not, who are of one race and who are of another race.

Remember too, that the BKK risk of being under water is caused by the sinking of the land, and not just by the rise of sea level.

When the land goes down,

And when the see goes up, then you have some hitherto dry areas which become very moist.

[CaptainTyphoon]

thailand is no 3 and 7 on the charts here shown

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/20-countries-most-risk-sea-level-rise-20140924

Methods

For our global analysis, we used land elevation data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM); mean sea surface elevation data based on a 16-year record of satellite altimetry from the TOPEX/Poseidon mission; a global grid of mean annual maximum water level offsets developed by Merrifield et al. (2013); a global set of local sea level rise projections from Kopp et al. (2014); 2010 population data from LandScan; and national boundaries from GADM Version 2.0.

We believe this global sea level exposure analysis is the first to incorporate observed sea surface elevations, to factor in mean annual maximum water levels, to tie these to land elevations, and to use probabilistic local sea level rise projections.

We employed nearest neighbor approaches whenever spatial interpolation was required to match data layers. We counted as exposed all land below each water level assessed, regardless of connectivity to ocean at that level, so long as the land fell within a more broadly defined Low Elevation Coastal Zone within 10 vertical meters of the high tide line.

Thus we did not count inland depressions such as the Caspian Sea Depression, but did capture apparently isolated low-lying areas, which more accurate elevation data might prove connected.

SRTM data do not cover latitudes farther north than 60 degrees or farther south than 56 degrees, slightly diminishing our exposure estimates for Canada, Russia, and the world as a whole.

For our analysis of error over the U.S., we used lidar (laser-based) coastal elevation data from NOAA, and U.S. Census population data at Census block resolution. We excluded Rhode Island and Virginia from the analysis due to gaps in SRTM data.

Research report written by Benjamin Strauss, Vice President for Climate Impacts for Climate Central, and Scott Kulp, Senior Developer and Research Associate.

8 million people exposed is relatively not many.

[meand]

The proposition of the OP was that some supposed intelligent adult proclaimed that Bangkok could be under water 16 years from now. Read the title.

A small handful of people replying to the post stayed on that subject. I was happy to mock that specific 16 year prediction as richly as it deserved, - and then presented some evidence to support my position. Recent, strong, well-supported evidence.

So - anyway - some other "deep thinkers" here seem compelled to draw the thread off into discussions of psychology and delusional group-think. Those comments seemed wildly off topic. I guess they are driven by the obsessions of "one trick ponies". They certainly have nothing to do with the absurd proposition that Bangkok will "be underwater" in 16 years. You could even say - they waste the time of people actually interested in gaining insight into the topic of the discussion thread.

Cheers!

MS

I actually agree with you. 16 years is a short time frame. Nobody ever knows, but we saw much of bangkok underwater not too long ago. You see, that is how this stuff happens. It doesn't just magically disappear underwater one day. So, the signs are already there.

"Group think" is proposed as the reason people like you deny that anything bad (ie flooding) can happen to the planet as a result of human actions. It seems very relevant. Cheers!

[Krataiboy]

You guys are looking at this all wrong. Ever heard of Venice, Italy? Wouldn't Bangkok be fun if it were like Venice italy? The buildings are already shophouse style with multi stories. It wouldn't be a problem to lose the first floor or two. Then we flood the streets and introduce gondolas.

it would be like this, but for all the streets.

Just for your info, before it got concreted over, Bangkok was known as the Venice of the Orient. Guess why.