PowerSwitch

The first of many. Jakarta is going to be one of the first major cities to succumb to rising sea levels (and sinking, in this case).

https://www.firstpost.com/world/indones ... 31411.html

UndercoverElephant wrote:The first of many. Jakarta is going to be one of the first major cities to succumb to rising sea levels (and sinking, in this case).

https://www.firstpost.com/world/indones ... 31411.html

What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960. The US capital was once in Philly. Burma, South Africa, Nigeria, Bolivia, all moved their capitals.

The first of many...come on...bad enough that peak oil was faux oil field and geology pimped as knowledge, you shouldn't do the same thing with basic facts.

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:The first of many. Jakarta is going to be one of the first major cities to succumb to rising sea levels (and sinking, in this case).

https://www.firstpost.com/world/indones ... 31411.html

What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960. The US capital was once in Philly. Burma, South Africa, Nigeria, Bolivia, all moved their capitals.

The first of many...come on...bad enough that peak oil was faux oil field and geology pimped as knowledge, you shouldn't do the same thing with basic facts.

He meant the first capital to move due to rising sea levels, but of course you knew that yet still chose to post a disingenuous response.

careful_eugene wrote:

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:The first of many. Jakarta is going to be one of the first major cities to succumb to rising sea levels (and sinking, in this case).

https://www.firstpost.com/world/indones ... 31411.html

What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960. The US capital was once in Philly. Burma, South Africa, Nigeria, Bolivia, all moved their capitals.

The first of many...come on...bad enough that peak oil was faux oil field and geology pimped as knowledge, you shouldn't do the same thing with basic facts.

He meant the first capital to move due to rising sea levels, but of course you knew that yet still chose to post a disingenuous response.

You might not know this, but as a technical writer myself, and someone who assumes others are writing words as to be understood THE WAY THEY WISH, no, I do not assume UE meant "gee if you could only read my mind you would know I meant first because of climate change".

So no, silly me, I didn't figure that clairvoyance was necessary to understand what was written.

And further, if we are trying to be explicit here, what also wasn't mentioned are all the prior capitals of civilizations lost during the massive sea level increase when the continental ice sheets melted. For all any of us know, the capital of the Bering Strait Land bridge peoples (now under 150m of water) moved to Peru and built Machu Picchu.

As with all things where we assume that only what humans know or have discovered in the past century of two matter, for the record, THERE IS MORE. We just haven't discovered it yet. Now run along and pretend someone else was being disingenuous, rather than just thorough.

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:

careful_eugene wrote:

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote: What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960. The US capital was once in Philly. Burma, South Africa, Nigeria, Bolivia, all moved their capitals.

The first of many...come on...bad enough that peak oil was faux oil field and geology pimped as knowledge, you shouldn't do the same thing with basic facts.

He meant the first capital to move due to rising sea levels, but of course you knew that yet still chose to post a disingenuous response.

You might not know this, but as a technical writer myself, and someone who assumes others are writing words as to be understood THE WAY THEY WISH, no, I do not assume UE meant "gee if you could only read my mind you would know I meant first because of climate change".

So no, silly me, I didn't figure that clairvoyance was necessary to understand what was written.

And further, if we are trying to be explicit here, what also wasn't mentioned are all the prior capitals of civilizations lost during the massive sea level increase when the continental ice sheets melted. For all any of us know, the capital of the Bering Strait Land bridge peoples (now under 150m of water) moved to Peru and built Machu Picchu.

As with all things where we assume that only what humans know or have discovered in the past century of two matter, for the record, THERE IS MORE. We just haven't discovered it yet. Now run along and pretend someone else was being disingenuous, rather than just thorough.

What colour are the walls in your Mum's basement and when was the last time you saw daylight?

Jakarta is not suffering from rising sea levels. It is sinking because of excessive groundwater abstraction.

Don't forget about Australia. It has also moved its capital from Sydney in the colonial era to Melbourne at federation and then to Canberra. Interestingly, the move to Canberra, one of the reasons for moving was to be further from the sea, as well as a compromise choice somewhat midway between Melbourne and Sydney. The worry in the 1910s and 1920s was the capital could be attacked either by naval artillery or by naval aviation and an inland 'bush' capital was thought to be safer. At 578 metres (or 1896 feet if you prefer) there are no chances of Canberra being flooded by rising sea levels.

I spent a night in Jakarta. Waiting for the hotel bus at the airport the grime on the concrete floor of the terminal pick-up area was almost welded on. The litter situation is a sight to behold. The hotel bus driver had lots of female 'friends' that he wanted me to meet but I settled for buying a bottle of water from his favourite shop. I think Indonesia are making the right decision to move. Supposedly due to water abstraction in the Northern suburbs of Jakarta, which are the ones facing the sea, the land is sinking around 25cm per year in parts. There is a good Deutsche Welle TV program about this. Don't discount the rising sea levels as well but I don't think the seas are rising 25cm per year. 0.1cm perhaps.

careful_eugene wrote: What colour are the walls in your Mum's basement and when was the last time you saw daylight?

I did my best to explain why I don't read into someone's words concepts/beliefs/words that aren't there.

I had no expectation that you would understand it, but I try anyway. You have a nice day!

Shouldn't it be extraction not abstraction?

UndercoverElephant wrote:The first of many. Jakarta is going to be one of the first major cities to succumb to rising sea levels (and sinking, in this case).......

RGR, it seems pretty clear to me what he was saying and that was that Jakarta will be the first of many capitals to have to move because of rising sea levels and also sinking, in this case.

Now if you had only read the thread title you might have been deceived.

kenneal - lagger wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:The first of many. Jakarta is going to be one of the first major cities to succumb to rising sea levels (and sinking, in this case).......

RGR, it seems pretty clear to me what he was saying and that was that Jakarta will be the first of many capitals to have to move because of rising sea levels and also sinking, in this case.

Now if you had only read the thread title you might have been deceived.

Interesting. Did you read the article?

First full paragraph.

article wrote: Indonesia will move its capital to the eastern edge of jungle-clad Borneo island, President Joko Widodo said Monday, as the country shifts its political heart away from congested and sinking megalopolis Jakarta.

Huh. Certainly sinking is mentioned. How about a better paragraph explaining the dangers they are avoiding?

article wrote: He said the studies determined that the best site is between two districts, North Penajam Paser and Kutai Kertanegara, an area that has minimal risk of disasters such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, forest fires, volcanic eruptions or landslides in the seismically active nation.

Did you see a single mention in the article that it was moving because of rising sea levels? It must be in there, in bold somewhere, and I just missed it?

Tell you what, I'll stick to what was written, not just by the poster who misrepresented the article, or misrepresented that other countries have also moved their capitals...did I mention that was in the article as well? So much for being able to say the first about anything, right?

article wrote: Indonesia is not the first Southeast Asian country to move its capital.

Myanmar and Malaysia have both moved their seat of government. Elsewhere in the world, Brazil, Pakistan and Nigeria are among the nations that have also shifted their capital cities.

How about I do my best to read what was written, both the inaccurate representation of the article, read and compare that to the article itself, to determine if I'm being sold a bill of goods by a true believer or not? Worked pretty good for me during the peak oil scare 15 years ago, and in terms of this article, seem to have worked pretty good as well!

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:.................What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960. The US capital was once in Philly. Burma, South Africa, Nigeria, Bolivia, all moved their capitals.
............

If we are being picky, as you are as usual, non of those capitals have moved because of a sinking feeling so your post was not as accurate as you would like to make yourself out to be.

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960.

Oh how I wish there was a "block" function on this forum. You are such a waste of space.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
What are you talking about, the first? Brazil has done it twice, , most recently in 1960.

Oh how I wish there was a "block" function on this forum. You are such a waste of space.

And a "like" function would be good on occasion.

vtsnowedin wrote:Shouldn't it be extraction not abstraction?

Arguably, yes. In UK English "abstraction" is the legal term for theft when the stolen property is not a physical article that can be produced as evidence or returned to its rightful owner.

If someone steals a bottle of drink, the stolen bottle may be produced as evidence. If a large item like a truck is stolen then photographic or other evidence of the theft can be produced.

If however gas or electricity is stolen, then that type of theft is called "abstraction" because the stolen electricity or gas cant be produced as evidence.