Is the flooding in Ho Chi Minh City getting worse year by year?

As every city develops, areas that were once covered by vegetation are paved over. Ground that could once absorb water like a sponge becomes impermeable and contributes to the runoff problem. It is going to remain a problem until some major drainage work is done. While I worked in the engineering department for my city I've seen massive structures built to address this sort of problem. We have tunnels you can drive a tractor-trailer truck through. Dallas has immense tunnels that can carry the equivalent of a small river. Saigon is only 63' above sea level. There's not a lot of elevation to work with. It is going to be interesting to see how the government of Saigon handles this problem.

Jim-Minh wrote:

Saigon is only 63' above sea level. There's not a lot of elevation to work with. It is going to be interesting to see how the government of Saigon handles this problem.

The storm drain was upgraded on the main street that our apartment was on.  The replacement was a 6 inch pipe.      The city engineers seem to have no concept of what is needed.

At the current rate of sea level rise, the Sai Gon River should be about 6 inches higher in 50 years.

THIGV wrote:

Jim-Minh wrote:

Saigon is only 63' above sea level. There's not a lot of elevation to work with. It is going to be interesting to see how the government of Saigon handles this problem.

The storm drain was upgraded on the main street that our apartment was on.  The replacement was a 6 inch pipe.      The city engineers seem to have no concept of what is needed.

At the current rate of sea level rise, the Sai Gon River should be about 6 inches higher in 50 years.

Imagine if they cleaned all the stormwater pipes out and not just the manholes. They could also encourage people to collecti some of the rain by installing small water tanks on the roofs.

The rate of sea-level rise is about 2.85 mm per year. That increase has been constant since the last ice age. The rise over the last 10 years has been the same 2.85 mm per year.
Saigon may have to employ some of the new tunnel-boring technologies. That's probably the smallest impact way of getting that job done.
Rainwater collection would be a good way for the Saigonese to get cleaner, pathogen-free water. There are techniques for automatically dumping the first portion of the dirty/dusty/contaminated water.

Future map of the United States by Gordon-Michael Scallion MATRIX INSTITUTE



Just ran across this prediction for the US. Here's one for Southeast Asia.


Source: https://www.dw.com/

That map is ridiculous. The lowest elevation in Nevada is 2000 ft. and your map shows it to all be underwater. This is a joke, right?
The global warming people will really like this.

I think Jim-MInh and I see climate change differently but I have to agree that map is ridiculous.  All of Utah is underwater while most of Florida survives?

THIGV wrote:

Jim-Minh wrote:

Saigon is only 63' above sea level. There's not a lot of elevation to work with. It is going to be interesting to see how the government of Saigon handles this problem.

The storm drain was upgraded on the main street that our apartment was on.  The replacement was a 6 inch pipe.      The city engineers seem to have no concept of what is needed.

At the current rate of sea level rise, the Sai Gon River should be about 6 inches higher in 50 years.

I'm seeing a lot of pipe replacement here in Nha Trang, looks to be 6 inch but not sure what for. I love it when my street floods

Jim-Minh wrote:

As every city develops, areas that were once covered by vegetation are paved over. Ground that could once absorb water like a sponge becomes impermeable and contributes to the runoff problem. It is going to remain a problem until some major drainage work is done. While I worked in the engineering department for my city I've seen massive structures built to address this sort of problem. We have tunnels you can drive a tractor-trailer truck through. Dallas has immense tunnels that can carry the equivalent of a small river. Saigon is only 63' above sea level. There's not a lot of elevation to work with. It is going to be interesting to see how the government of Saigon handles this problem.

Yep, I knew it was going to be a problem in my neighborhood when they drained some nearby swamps and are now building a slew of houses on that "land". Don't they have any engineers that forsee such problems here? That said, that is just an issue specific to my neighborhood. I see the main road in my district has the same issues it has always had even though they raise it up every year with more gravel etc. In fact the water seems to be several centimeters higher year by year.

They should have either forbid the swamp owners from selling/developing their land or compensated them with government funds not to develop.

When I was a little kid and my mom would take me to the beach I used to build elaborate sand castles with multiple moats, walls etc. I would insist that this time I would be able to hold back high tide, but I would eventually always have to admit defeat. I think once things become serious enough, they will have to abandon some sections of the city. When I see the conditions of some of the public hospitals and schools here, I can't imagine where the money would come from to do what the Dutch have done.

Jim-Minh wrote:

That map is ridiculous. The lowest elevation in Nevada is 2000 ft. and your map shows it to all be underwater. This is a joke, right?
The global warming people will really like this.

I think this map takes into consideration data from a major west coast earthquake, the ongoing pole shift and perhaps an asteroid landing in the Pacific.

johnross23 wrote:

Jim-Minh wrote:

That map is ridiculous. The lowest elevation in Nevada is 2000 ft. and your map shows it to all be underwater. This is a joke, right?
The global warming people will really like this.

I think this map takes into consideration data from a major west coast earthquake, the ongoing pole shift and perhaps an asteroid landing in the Pacific.

From a Forbes article about the unscientific map:

"Gordon-Michael Scallion was a futurist, teacher of consciousness studies and metaphysics and a spiritual visionary. In the 80′s he claims to have had a spiritual awakening that helped him create very detailed maps of future world, all stemming from a cataclysmic pole shift.  The result, while not based on any science,
nonetheless provides a vivid and compelling picture of an Earth ravaged by flooding."

NYSTEACHER wrote:

They should have either forbid the swamp owners from selling/developing their land or compensated them with government funds not to develop.

Standard practice in the US is for the developer to do a hydraulic impact study and not only do the design work and install an adequate drainage system for his development but also pay for the modifications to the existing drainage system downstream from his development.

You could knock me over with a feather if it works that way in Vietnam.

THIGV wrote:

I think Jim-MInh and I see climate change differently

I have always viewed climate change with a grain of salt, but I now have a good reason to do so. I never knew exactly what terms went into the climate model. I didn't know how the proponents of global warming determined it is humans that are responsible for the rise in global temperature that has been reported.

I didn't know that space weather - the effect of the sun, the effects of cosmic and gamma rays, high-energy X-rays, the effects of the sun and extra-solar high-energy protons and electrons, ARE ALL ENTERED INTO THE CLIMATE MODEL AS A CONSTANT. It is anything BUT a constant. The energy that the earth receives from space can vary by factors of thousands to one, and it is massive. And because it is carried in the equations as a constant means it is all attributed to human activity. That is just plain wrong. But it is great if you want to blame everything that is going on as the fault of human activity.

There are dozens of good reports on the causes of climatic activity but the best I have seen so far is this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
Watch it with an open mind.

The "climate change crisis" is a political hit job...

THIGV wrote:

At the current rate of sea level rise, the Sai Gon River should be about 6 inches higher in 50 years.

Perhaps not. Princeton, Harvard, Yale, NASA, and the UN, all decided to radically modify the effects of space weather in their models. Space weather has, until now, been factored into our climate model as a constant. Well, it isn't a constant and it affects our weather hundreds to ten thousand times more than was previously thought. Our future may be very much cooler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8pgBscpmo

Climate change alarmists drive me nuts. When you look at the entirety of the available data and not just the cherry-picked bits that fit your own notion of reality, there is exactly bugger all indication of man-made climate change on a global scale. Nada.

OTOH there is an almost exact correlation between Earth's climate and solar activity, and plenty of good physics explaining the causes.

It's a racket to guilt-trip the gullible into forking over more money to governments.

The irony is that if humans were responsible for global warming, we should congratulate ourselves for it... we know that in every period of history where the climate was warmer, plant and animal life flourished. Energy is king in any ecosystem, more energy = more life.

Anyway, solar physicists say we're entering a solar minimum and can expect cooler temps for the next century or two, I tend to trust solar physicists more than anyone with a vested interest in wringing more tax out of me.

"What if the earth hasn't stopped warming since the last ice age?"

Question posed to me by a US Forest Ranger in a redwood grove near Crescent City, California.

Talk amongst yourselves...

Brick23 wrote:

Climate change alarmists drive me nuts. When you look at the entirety of the available data and not just the cherry-picked bits that fit your own notion of reality, there is exactly bugger all indication of man-made climate change on a global scale. Nada.

OTOH there is an almost exact correlation between Earth's climate and solar activity, and plenty of good physics explaining the causes.

It's a racket to guilt-trip the gullible into forking over more money to governments.

The irony is that if humans were responsible for global warming, we should congratulate ourselves for it... we know that in every period of history where the climate was warmer, plant and animal life flourished. Energy is king in any ecosystem, more energy = more life.

Anyway, solar physicists say we're entering a solar minimum and can expect cooler temps for the next century or two, I tend to trust solar physicists more than anyone with a vested interest in wringing more tax out of me.

It's not just about global warming, which is why we have to get out of fossil energy, but also about the fact that many millions of people are dying of bad air.
Even fake news?

If the same thing can be obtained almost free of charge from renewable energy sources, it is very stupid not to rely on renewable energy sources.
Only those who want to earn money with oil and coal are against renewable energy resources.
Personally, I am glad when I can show my middle finger to the resource-rich empires that can blackmail the rest of the world with their fossil resources because I can do without their shitty oil and their shitty coal.

Coal-fired power plants release lots more radioactivity than all the American nuclear reactors combined. A 1 GW coal-fired power plant burns enough coal every day to fill a train 100 cars long. That releases thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the air every day, plus lots of radon plus tons of particulates.
Today's space weather:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dar1AHfmRho

AkaMaverick wrote:

It's not just about global warming, which is why we have to get out of fossil energy, but also about the fact that many millions of people are dying of bad air.
Even fake news?

If the same thing can be obtained almost free of charge from renewable energy sources, it is very stupid not to rely on renewable energy sources.
Only those who want to earn money with oil and coal are against renewable energy resources.
Personally, I am glad when I can show my middle finger to the resource-rich empires that can blackmail the rest of the world with their fossil resources because I can do without their shitty oil and their shitty coal.

I agree renewables should be used and further invested in, but right now they don't cut it for our energy needs. Nuclear does, but the issue is getting sane engineering decisions past the cost-cutting bean counters.

Several people on this thread seem to be non-believers in human activity as the reason for global warming.  At the same time some of you have correctly pointed out that there are other negatives to fossil fuels, especially coal.  We could argue all day as to the cause but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the polar ice caps are melting. 

Even if one thinks this will be reversed some time in the future and the ice caps will grow again as part of a cyclical pattern, the ocean water levels now do bear on the original question of whether parts of HCMC will be negatively impacted.  Off course we are not talking Q12, Phu Nuan, Go Vap, Huyen Binh Chan or similar areas, but we all know places that are perilously close to the water table even as it is today.  They flood with any significant rain because the water can't move downward.  Any increase in water levels, no matter how small, will only make things worse.

what about all them cows etc farting huge amounts of Methane into the atmosphere on a daily basis, what we gonna do about that then??

moscowmetro wrote:

what about all them cows etc farting huge amounts of Methane into the atmosphere on a daily basis, what we gonna do about that then??

Well, what do you think? Eat less meat!
Then the problem with the intensive deforestation of the rainforest would also be defused.

AkaMaverick wrote:

moscowmetro wrote:

what about all them cows etc farting huge amounts of Methane into the atmosphere on a daily basis, what we gonna do about that then??

Well, what do you think? Eat less meat!
Then the problem with the intensive deforestation of the rainforest would also be defused.

But there is a problem there too, my better half is Vegan & the gasses that she releases into the atmosphere on a daily & nightly basis are equal to if not more than any cow I think. So if we all go vegi god help the o zone! Its complexed issue I think.

AkaMaverick wrote:

moscowmetro wrote:

what about all them cows etc farting huge amounts of Methane into the atmosphere on a daily basis, what we gonna do about that then??

Well, what do you think? Eat less meat!
Then the problem with the intensive deforestation of the rainforest would also be defused.

The cows will continue to breed. If you stop eating them there will be a greater amount of them. You cant cull them because the activists will have a heart attack.

This is admittedly getting off topic but cattle have been substantially genetically modified by selective breeding efforts of humans.  If simply allowed to run wild, their numbers would be reduced by predation while natural selection would favor smaller quicker individuals.  Within a few generations, they would be a lot less of them and they would be a lot smaller.

I think the eco-terrorists will lose a lot of their steam as the 2020 election gets closer. The liberals have got more trouble than global warming, especially with temperature increases going flat. And now Hillary is finding more communists than did Eugene McCarthy. What a circus.
We still need to quit burning coal. Angela Merkel and Japan did the world a great disservice by shutting down their reactors. Millions of tons of CO2 and pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere since the Fukushima Daiichi incident.
Molten-salt reactors are coming soon but they can't come quick enough. MSRs are inherently safe and they burn their own waste See:
LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

Jim-Minh wrote:

I think the eco-terrorists will lose a lot of their steam as the 2020 election gets closer. The liberals have got more trouble than global warming, especially with temperature increases going flat. And now Hillary is finding more communists than did Eugene McCarthy. What a circus.
We still need to quit burning coal. Angela Merkel and Japan did the world a great disservice by shutting down their reactors. Millions of tons of CO2 and pollution have been pumped into the atmosphere since the Fukushima Daiichi incident.
Molten-salt reactors are coming soon but they can't come quick enough. MSRs are inherently safe and they burn their own waste See:
LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

I will never understand why the right-wing extremists are all for nuclear power, against environmental protection, against new energies, against immigrants, and so on.
I don't think it's about the matter anymore but only about satisfying the own voter base.

Nuclear power does not only leave the radiating garbage to the next generations but is also economically a big fraud.
If the costs for the deconstruction were calculated correctly, the kilowatt price would be much higher.

Secondly, nuclear power plants generate only profits for few, while decentralised renewable energies create many more jobs and not just Make a few people rich.

But typically right-wing conservatives only think how to make money fast. They don't give a shit of their voters. Only their own greed counts.

You'll get what you deserve in 2020.
If things go wrong, you can again scold the previous government. As usual.

Maybe Saigon will become the Venice of SE Asia and the 20 million scooters will be replaced with 20 million jet-skis.

The cows (where are all the cows in Vietnam anyway?) can all find a hill somewhere and fart there.

Brick23 wrote:

Maybe Saigon will become the Venice of SE Asia and the 20 million scooters will be replaced with 20 million jet-skis.

The cows (where are all the cows in Vietnam anyway?) can all find a hill somewhere and fart there.

More like 10 million.

In Hanoi there are already loud thoughts to ban the motorbikes from the city in the medium term.
But without an affordable alternative this is hard to imagine.

Electric motorbikes would certainly be the best solution.
But first the power grid would have to be extended. Or the government spend everybody a small solar panel.

The cows (where are all the cows in Vietnam anyway?) can all find a hill somewhere and fart there.

Saw some scrawney looking ones wondering on the road to Da Lat once. But think pigs must blast off copious amounts of gas too!

SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION.
During & after the WW2 some cars ran on pig shit. Saw a program on some Africa country where they are cooking by cow shit gas cos no forrest left to cut down. I watched a Shawn The Sheep vidio once & an alien powered his space ship on sheep shit, so there must be a future for man kinds power needs there & remember the old saying......where there,s muck there,s brass! Surprised no one has latched on.

THIGV wrote:

This is admittedly getting off topic but cattle have been substantially genetically modified by selective breeding efforts of humans.  If simply allowed to run wild, their numbers would be reduced by predation while natural selection would favor smaller quicker individuals.  Within a few generations, they would be a lot less of them and they would be a lot smaller.

You should visit the centre of Australia, wild horses and camels out of control and have to be culled. These are wild animals that come from a line of animals that were used for farming and transport in years gone by.

AkaMaverick wrote:

I will never understand why the right-wing extremists are all for nuclear power, against environmental protection, against new energies, against immigrants, and so on.
I don't think it's about the matter anymore but only about satisfying the own voter base.

Nuclear power does not only leave the radiating garbage to the next generations but is also economically a big fraud.
If the costs for the deconstruction were calculated correctly, the kilowatt price would be much higher.

Secondly, nuclear power plants generate only profits for few, while decentralised renewable energies create many more jobs and not just Make a few people rich.

But typically right-wing conservatives only think how to make money fast. They don't give a shit of their voters. Only their own greed counts.

You'll get what you deserve in 2020.
If things go wrong, you can again scold the previous government. As usual.

By what mental gymnastics do you conflate "conservatives" with "extremists" while knowing what either of these words mean?

Politicians are all liars and thieves. To imply that only one side are greedy sociopaths is to play into their game... they keep us divided for the express purpose of robbing us all while we're busy squabbling over trivialities.

<<< akamaveric  Nuclear power does not only leave the radiating garbage to the next generations but is also economically a big fraud.
If the costs for the deconstruction were calculated correctly, the kilowatt price would be much higher. >>>

It's not hard to tell you didn't watch the video. Molten salt reactors can burn the waste of the light-water counterparts and the waste is only 3% to 5% of the total fuel load as opposed to 97% of their counterparts. What's left is only dangerous for 300 years.
They can't melt-down like Chernobyl or explode like Fukushima Daiichi. They operate at temperatures high enough to convert CO2 back into useful fuels. Then the lower-grade heat can be used to distill water. MSRs hold tremendous promise for the whole world. China and India and America have invested billions of dollars in the technology.
It is coming whether you like it or not. It is safe, non-polluting, and cheap.

California is decommissioning Diablo Canyon and decommissioning its natural gas power plants. It is estimated that electricity will cost $1 per KWH soon after.

France is almost 100% powered by nuclear energy. French electricity sells for 1/3 the cost of its German counterpart.

I get bad flatulence after eating pickled cabbage, could I be installed as an alternative power source.

France is almost 100% powered by nuclear energy. French electricity sells for 1/3 the cost of its German counterpart.


Ah yes, but how much of its cost is subsidised by the government I wonder. France is as near you will ever get to a true comunist society & many things are heavily subsidised,  thats why there is so much social unrest there because the benifits they get are un sustainable & many governments have tried to cut back un successfully.
But, going back 15 years I moved to France to live & I remember then the elect bill was like scarey compaired to my bills in Scotland & I dont think the UK at that time had a high % nuclear power generation but did have loads of cheap gas from NS.
I think its scarey just to think about some of these 3rd world countries having access to Nuc power, just think about the people who will operate them & maintain them. I cant even get a competant electrician to wire in my new shower safely.

Jim-Minh wrote:

France is almost 100% powered by nuclear energy. French electricity sells for 1/3 the cost of its German counterpart.

I don't know how it's solved in France.
But in other countries, the nuclear power companies have to pay all the time into a decommissioning and disposal font that has to be used for decommissioning and disposal.
According to current estimates, for example, the dismantling and disposal of the 5 Swiss nuclear power plants and the interim storage facility costs around CHF 25 billion.

However, certain countries do not set aside any reserves. Thus the taxpayer counts the dismantling.

The nuclear power plant operators earn a lot of money and can offer electricity cheaply because the taxpayer pays for the dismantling.

But that and the radiating waste do not bother the proponents of nuclear power. According to the motto: Devil may care.

Jim-Minh wrote:

I think the eco-terrorists will lose a lot of their steam as the 2020 election gets closer.

We just had elections in Switzerland.
The Greens have gained enormously.

Very interesting from a study on the vote is:
The Greens and Democrats had the highest proportion of voters with university degrees. The majority of the right-wing and centre-right parties voter have only junior high school qualifications.

This result does not surprise me at all and would probably also apply to other countries.

AkaMaverick wrote:

Jim-Minh wrote:

I think the eco-terrorists will lose a lot of their steam as the 2020 election gets closer.

We just had elections in Switzerland.
The Greens have gained enormously.

Very interesting from a study on the vote is:
The Greens and Democrats had the highest proportion of voters with university degrees. The majority of the right-wing and centre-right parties voter have only junior high school qualifications.

This result does not surprise me at all and would probably also apply to other countries.

Doesn't surprise me either - modern universities are cesspits of socialist/Marxist conformity where any sign of independent thought in a student will get them vilified and abused.

Not that a degree in LBGBTOMGWTFHEEBEEGEEBEEBBQ Studies is worth anything anyway.

Today I identify as IDGAF and guess what, maggots, I don't care about my pronoun