Re: Battambang Rising...
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Re: Battambang Rising...
Good to get the latest news and pics and much appreciated but just one minor quibble...not a drop of rain that falls in Laos or Pursat is currently causing flooding in Battambang! The rains are all coming from the watershed of the Stung Sangke which is located to the west flowing from the hills along the Thai border.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
While backwater effects are a contributing factor, by far the main cause is the rains in the catchment. Identifying the rain in Pursat or Laos is the main reason for flooding in the Stung Sangke is like saying that the barriers in the middle of the road are causing Landcruisers to be wrecked (bless them!).CamSoze wrote:Well, theoretically they could increase flooding in Battambang. After all, they do contribute to water level at Tonle Sap Lake, where Stung Sangke flows into. Backwater effect causes higher water levels in the river when the lake water level is higher.
-
- Requiescat In Pace
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 13463
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:32 am
- Doctor Seuss
- Basement Dweller
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 pm
We will see much more of this in the future.
The governments blind policy of felling trees and destroying natural catchment areas is finally paying off. Everyone except the government seems to know that the forests they have been destroying prevent flooding, and their removal upsets the country's delicately balanced ecosystem...or perhap$ they know and just dont care...
I wait for The Other Side'S (TOSS) informed defence of the government on this one.
The governments blind policy of felling trees and destroying natural catchment areas is finally paying off. Everyone except the government seems to know that the forests they have been destroying prevent flooding, and their removal upsets the country's delicately balanced ecosystem...or perhap$ they know and just dont care...
I wait for The Other Side'S (TOSS) informed defence of the government on this one.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Actually you won't have to wait for him, I'll step into the breach...there is increasing evidence that there is only a small connection between upstream watershed land use and water availability or flooding downstream. For example, check out this linkDoctor Seuss wrote:We will see much more of this in the future.
The governments blind policy of felling trees and destroying natural catchment areas is finally paying off. Everyone except the government seems to know that the forests they have been destroying prevent flooding, and their removal upsets the country's delicately balanced ecosystem...or perhap$ they know and just dont care...
I wait for The Other Side'S (TOSS) informed defence of the government on this one.
http://www.forestryresearchprogramme.or ... anagement/
In addition, you might look at a UNESCO publication "The Hydrology of Moist Tropical Forests and Effects of Conversion: A State of Knowledge Review" that challenges similarly much of the "common knowledge" regarding the relationship between forests and water. Regarding flood flows, the basic conclusion is that it appears that deforestation will generally result in increased flood flows but the effects of changes in land use will be influenced by the natural conditions and by the methods used in altering them. However, by far the most influential factor in the peak flood flow and basin response will still be the magnitude of the climatological event.
The main issues identified were how the land was logged and husbandry afterwards, as the methods used during the logging and what is done with the land afterwards greatly affect how much erosion/sedimentation occurs, and the loss of biodiversity.
Of course there is the major issue of whose forest it was (loss of use by locals) and whether the funds made it into the government budget rather than individual's pockets. There will be no defense of what has happened in that respect from me.
-
- I've got internet at work
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:30 pm
Unfortunatly, this is not really a subject that i have enough knowledge of to reach any conclusions either way. JC seems to have answered Dr S for me, and J.C's final comment is really something which is not backed up with enough conclusive evidence for me to make a well informed opinion on. Yes i've seen some of the reports; but have not yet been given any reason to believe them over anything or anyone else in this country.
- Doctor Seuss
- Basement Dweller
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 pm
This was the point I was making.Jacked Camry wrote: Regarding flood flows, the basic conclusion is that it appears that deforestation will generally result in increased flood flows .
It's never stopped you before.The Other Side wrote:Unfortunatly, this is not really a subject that i have enough knowledge of to reach any conclusions either way.
Whenever you are short of opinions though you have admitted to use the thoughts of others instead.. remember this...
Still, the part I remember the most is this...The Other Side-Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:22 am wrote:The views are mine, and I stand by them. Some ... came on the advice of others, but the views which the wording represents are genuinly mine. That may help explain to a certain extent why there may be a conflict of the way i say things, and what i'm actually trying to say.
Ahh...The Other Side wrote: I too am getting bored of this, so this will be my last post.
-
- I've got internet at work
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:30 pm
No, the "..." that you skipped in your quote was in fact something along the lines of "polite wording", not "opinions".
I continued posting longer than expected because I got the impression from some of the other regular posters that they were appreciative of having an opposing opinion. Still, as you seem so desperate to avoid people who don't agree with your opinions, I shall leave as you ask.
I would like to leave you with one final thought though:
Even if you don't agree with my original post (entitled "money"), I doubt many of you would debate this:
The country is currently in the most stable state it's been in over 35 years. You can put this down to whatever unproven theories you want, but the current government are the only people who can provide that stability. There are no other possible candidates who could smoothly handle the transition of power, or who could do the job any better. Therefore we need to accept that the current government, are the future of this country. If we can accept that this is the case, then I’d suggest that rather than trying to find faults (which one could spend a million years doing with any government), we should focus on the positives, and try to work
with, not against them.
I would suggest that rather than surround them with a bombardment of constant criticism, to which they will simply turn their backs (as many of you have done to my criticisms), you should attempt to find things which you think they have done well. Tell them that they have done well, and ask them to do more of it. If you are more complementary to good things that people do, they will be much more receptive to your criticisms.
So, for the last time:
Goodbye.
I continued posting longer than expected because I got the impression from some of the other regular posters that they were appreciative of having an opposing opinion. Still, as you seem so desperate to avoid people who don't agree with your opinions, I shall leave as you ask.
I would like to leave you with one final thought though:
Even if you don't agree with my original post (entitled "money"), I doubt many of you would debate this:
The country is currently in the most stable state it's been in over 35 years. You can put this down to whatever unproven theories you want, but the current government are the only people who can provide that stability. There are no other possible candidates who could smoothly handle the transition of power, or who could do the job any better. Therefore we need to accept that the current government, are the future of this country. If we can accept that this is the case, then I’d suggest that rather than trying to find faults (which one could spend a million years doing with any government), we should focus on the positives, and try to work
with, not against them.
I would suggest that rather than surround them with a bombardment of constant criticism, to which they will simply turn their backs (as many of you have done to my criticisms), you should attempt to find things which you think they have done well. Tell them that they have done well, and ask them to do more of it. If you are more complementary to good things that people do, they will be much more receptive to your criticisms.
So, for the last time:
Goodbye.
- Doctor Seuss
- Basement Dweller
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 pm
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Thing is though, it isn't really that relevant, certainly not to the point you made which was that the deforestation was the primary cause of the flooding in Battambang. It most assuredly was not - the size of the rainfall event was.Doctor Seuss wrote:This was the point I was making.Jacked Camry wrote: Regarding flood flows, the basic conclusion is that it appears that deforestation will generally result in increased flood flows .
The point regarding flood flows above applies only to minor flooding, not the major events. During major events in tropical regions, the magnitude of the rain is such that the ground and surface vegetation becomes quickly saturated and everything else becomes runoff. Even if you coated the earth with a giant sponge, it wouldn't make a difference. That is the point.
- Doctor Seuss
- Basement Dweller
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 pm
I understand what you are trying to say, but you are taking very narrow minded view. I agree, floods are not just caused by run off.It most assuredly was not - the size of the rainfall event was.
The point regarding flood flows above applies only to minor flooding, not the major events. During major events in tropical regions, the magnitude of the rain is such that the ground and surface vegetation becomes quickly saturated and everything else becomes runoff. Even if you coated the earth with a giant sponge, it wouldn't make a difference.
Deforestation not only affects the interception and soil storage of flood waters. It also contributes to the change of ground and air temperature that directly affects rainfall (hence increased rainfall). Trees breath and interact with the atomsphere as well as the environment. Taking them away must have consequences.
(Stay tuned for my next article. "PM plans flooding")
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
I don't believe I am taking a "narrow minded view", rather one that is based on the current research. This is supported by the two references I pointed you to. There may be some relationship between ground cover and small local rainfall events, however there has not been any evidence published that I am aware of demonstrating it to be the case. In the case of major events, they are the result of tropical storms that form over the seas and have nothing to do with local vegetation conditions.Doctor Seuss wrote: I understand what you are trying to say, but you are taking very narrow minded view. I agree, floods are not just caused by run off.
Deforestation not only affects the interception and soil storage of flood waters. It also contributes to the change of ground and air temperature that directly affects rainfall (hence increased rainfall). Trees breath and interact with the atomsphere as well as the environment. Taking them away must have consequences.
(Stay tuned for my next article. "PM plans flooding")
I am not advocating cutting down the forest by any means. I believe that the issues need to be debated based on the facts, rather than popular myth. The myth of "cutting trees leads to floods" is widely held and there is no evidence that I know of the sub-tropics or tropics to support it. If you know of some, I'd be pleased to hear of it.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 16 Replies
- 3855 Views
-
Last post by khmerhit
Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:27 am
-
- 0 Replies
- 1463 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Thu Aug 13, 2020 1:30 pm
-
- 3 Replies
- 2488 Views
-
Last post by logos
Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:07 pm