Bangkok Could Be Underwater In 15 Years

[sriracha john]

Bangkok could be underwater in 15 years

Bangkok and its surrounding provinces will be underwater within the next 15 to 20 years unless barriers are constructed along the capital's Chao Phrya River, the National Disaster Warning Centre warned in a report on Monday. Smith Thammasaroj, chairman of the centre, said that Thailand's capital faces a watery future thanks to global warming that will lead to higher sea tides and heavier rainfall. Bangkok, Thailand's capital since 1782, is connected to the Gulf of Thailand by the Chao Phrya River, which flows down from the country's northern region. "The way to prevent the situation is to start building a permanent water barrier along the Chao Phrya River to prevent water overflowing into Bangkok and its adjacent provinces," said Smith.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/b...s.php?id=114503

[chownah]

I predict that Bangkok will be under water within the next 12 months!!!

Chownah

[toptuan]

"The way to prevent the situation is to start building a permanent water barrier along the Chao Phrya River to prevent water overflowing into Bangkok and its adjacent provinces,"

Sounds like another New Orleans in the making. Wake up, civil engineers. Surely, there must be a hydrologist you can consult first?

Edited November 27, 2006 by toptuan

[sriracha john]

I predict that Bangkok will be under water within the next 12 months!!!

Chownah

All 11 million residents should definitely move North where it's dry. The North has a higher altitude, more space and nice people... so to the North it is for all... definitely.

[chownah]

Yeah, north to Ayuthaya!!!

Chownah

[HarryHacker]

I predict that Bangkok will be under water within the next 12 months!!!

Chownah

All 11 million residents should definitely move North where it's dry. The North has a higher altitude, more space and nice people... so to the North it is for all... definitely.

Don't worry about us in BKK, you just better hope your neighbours don't move north.

[tuky]

I predict that Bangkok will be under water within the next 12 months!!!

Chownah

All 11 million residents should definitely move North where it's dry. The North has a higher altitude, more space and nice people... so to the North it is for all... definitely.

We, being south of bangkok can expect to be flooded sooner right? I mean if you look at the map the water will only go up so do you think this might be the time to invest in scuba gear? Also, will the fishing be better?

I do worry about the Sriracha Tiger Zoo, the last thing we need is a heap of crocs escaping again, how long did it take them to round them up last time? 12 months?

[farangsay]

Earlier this year my eldest sent me a book to read (State of Fear by Crichton).

It opens with scientists generating artificial tsunamis. I thought this an

interesting choice as he knows well I was in Patong that Dec 26th.

What was more interesting was the underlying theme of the book.

On the surface it was about a group of James Bond style villains

trying to generate a real tsunami to promote the "global warming"

industry. At the same time a counter theme suggesting the whole

issue is bullsh*t.

Now maybe Crichton is pitching for the job of "environment advisor"

to GWB , or he has a point to make.

My jury is still out.

[Rinrada]

I always wear my Mae West when I use the underground system,especially from Silom to Asoke......get a lot of funny looks but M.P.Rai . we all know that it makes sense...yeah

Problem is all that rubber starts to smell after a while.....

so ...when did you say the floods are expected?

[on-on]

Earlier this year my eldest sent me a book to read (State of Fear by Crichton).

It opens with scientists generating artificial tsunamis. I thought this an

interesting choice as he knows well I was in Patong that Dec 26th.

What was more interesting was the underlying theme of the book.

On the surface it was about a group of James Bond style villains

trying to generate a real tsunami to promote the "global warming"

industry. At the same time a counter theme suggesting the whole

issue is bullsh*t.

Now maybe Crichton is pitching for the job of "environment advisor"

to GWB , or he has a point to make.

My jury is still out.

For whatever reason, Crichton has it out for science when it comes to AGW. He's been giving speeches on the topic for a while and SOF was his latest foray into the area. His views are doctrinaire political conservative on the issue in a world where literally every major scientific body (and the vast majority - like 99.99% - of scientists who study the issue) is in agreement, from the IPCC to the NAS and Royal Society and on. I haven't exactly figured out why Crichton himself decided to take up the luddite torch, but there it is.

The truly unfortunate part of the work he does, to me, is that he's aiding the people who perpetuate the idea that scientists have the same ethics and motivations as politicians, which is patently false in my experience (and also probably the reason why we have actual scientific advances constantly while politics continues to devolve and decay, heh - three cheers for peer review). Quite the contrary, the AGW debate really is politics attacking science and nothing more at all. There's essentially no scientific controversy (by which I mean none as opposed to that represented in various media outlets), there's just the general scientific care taken in stating opinions (to the best of our knowledge, based on all available data) which is misused by political folks to imply some kind of mass uncertainty or controversy. Similar kinds of folks dispute speciation and evolutionary theory because, hey, they eyeball sure looks complex, so how could it have evolved? Then they erect statues of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden (this is another favorite topic of mine) and declare the Earth to be 6,000 years old.

Having participated in a number of these debates on other forums, but not read SOF, I'll just drop a critique of the case made in the book (I have enjoyed other Crichton works, but won't be reading SOF as I know his views well from his speeches). It's a good site, well-respected and, most importantly, quite well sourced to serious scientific bodies as opposed to shady political think tanks and what not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74#more-74

As to whether Bangers will be under water, there's probably not a ton of peer reviewed study on that exact topic, so I assume most of the scientific community would answer, "I have no idea." If it is, though, my commute to Soi Convent will be a lot shorter!

[opothai]

thirty years ago the scientists said we were entering a cold period leading to the next ice age,

things are changing but how fast nobody really knows as it is unchartered territory.

also the biggest and most damaging emmissions are coming from the arctic tundra's, as the ground is thawing they are emmitting mega tons of carbon monoxide, and this can not be stopped.

[Mighty Mouse]

If this prediction comes true, Patpong Road will be very interesting with mermaids strutting their stuff on chrome poles.

[on-on]

thirty years ago the scientists said we were entering a cold period leading to the next ice age,

things are changing but how fast nobody really knows as it is unchartered territory.

I just want to jump on this one because it's a bit of a misnomer. Thirty years ago this particular kind of climate science was just emerging and the first real data was beginning to show up and a few scientists out of many predicted a potential massive change. The various kinds of media (news, tv, movies, etc) picked up on it the same way they do on anything sensationalist and blew it way out of proportion. Today, every major scientific body in the world, with a great deal more study and data are agreeing on a carefully crafted statement that is foreboding, but less dramatic. It's crucial for people to understand this distinction I think, because it's the difference between disaster movie headlines and real scientific consensus (the latter of which is important and the former of which is distracting).

lso the biggest and most damaging emmissions are coming from the arctic tundra's, as the ground is thawing they are emmitting mega tons of carbon monoxide, and this can not be stopped.

Below is a good article on the topic of methane hydrates in ocean pockets and permafrost. It's not so dramatic yet, but it could potentially be. However, it's worth noting that unlike AGW and the effect of CO2 and man-made emissions, there is no universal statement (that I am aware of) regarding the release of this methane. So far as I know, there are a variety of opinions both on how much there is and what the release rate would be, though the science of what would happen given a certain amount and release rate is fairly solid.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...global-warming/

[Travel2003]

Bangkok could be underwater in 15 years

Smith Thammasaroj, chairman of the centre, said that Thailand's capital faces a watery future thanks to global warming that will lead to higher sea tides and heavier rainfall.

I have read several articles for years stating more or less the same.

However, global warming being a part of it is of course true, but not the main reason.

Global warming is working slowly.

The main reason (statet in all the articles) is actually all the klongs that have been filled (converted into roads, etc) over the years.

The main river can not cope with all the water masses comming down from the northern regions later in the year.

rgds

Sailor

[soi lurker]

Right, collect as many animals as you can and i will start building the ark....

[Scott]

Well, finally, I am able to afford some beachfront property!

By the way, it doesn't exactly make sense to build walls along the Chao Praya River. If the problem is caused by global warming, then the water would creep up into the city anyway. If, as one poster mentioned, it is caused by excessive run off due to rain and the lack of khlongs etc, then the situation will not really be one where BKK is under water, but where it will have more severe flooding.

[john b good]

It will be under water if the following eventuates.....(and a lot of other places as well)

Massive ice shelf 'may collapse without warning'

1.00pm Wednesday November 29, 2006

The Ross Ice Shelf, a massive piece of ice the size of France, could break off without warning causing a dramatic rise in sea levels, warn New Zealand scientists working in Antarctica.

A New Zealand-led ice drilling team has recovered three million years of climate history from samples which gives clues as to what may happen in the future.

Initial analysis of sea-floor cores near Scott Base suggest the Ross Ice Shelf had collapsed in the past and had probably done so suddenly.

The team's co-chief scientist, Tim Naish, told The Press newspaper the sediment record was important because it provided crucial evidence about how the Ross Ice Shelf would react to climate change, with potential to dramatically increase sea levels.

"If the past is any indication of the future, then the ice shelf will collapse," he said.

"If the ice shelf goes, then what about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? What we've learnt from the Antarctic Peninsula is when once buttressing ice sheets go, the glaciers feeding them move faster and that's the thing that isn't so cheery."

Antarctica stores 90 per cent of the world's water, with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet holding an estimated ""30 million cubic kilometres""

In January, British Antarctic Survey researchers predicted that its collapse would make sea levels rise by at least 5m, with other estimates predicting a rise of up to 17m.

Dr Naish, a sedimentologist with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, said one day the drilling team retrieved a core of 83m, far greater than expected, which contained climate records spanning about 500,000 years.

"We're really getting everything we've dreamed of. What we're getting is a pretty detailed history of the ice shelf," he said.

"You go from full glacial conditions to open ocean conditions very abruptly. It doesn't surprise us that much that the transition was dramatic."

Scientists knew from the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf in 2002 that expanses of ice could collapse "extremely quickly".

Once dating of the sample was completed, researchers would be able to look at what the ice shelf was doing during periods when scientists knew from other evidence that it was 2degC to 4degC warmer than today, Dr Naish said.

- NZPA

Edited November 30, 2006 by john b good

[Mighty Mouse]

When Bangkok is flooded, can you imagine how good the fishing will be from the top of this building?

[zink]

Here is Bangkok after sea level has risen by 5 meters: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.9421,100....amp;m=5&t=1

(note the area around the new airport, maybe they should consider express boat route to the city center?)

[monkey woods]

Also, will the fishing be better?

Oh, definitely. You'll be able to catch crocodiles, tuna and the odd shark, all from the comfort of the roof of your home which, by then, will have been almost totally submerged.

Lots of luck.