
There is a story in the Daily Mail cited by the GWPF which talks about subsidence due to groundwater extraction. For example, North Jakarta Indonesia has sunk four meters in the last 35 years, with other parts of the city also affected, and the impact of subsidence combined with heavy rain and high tides can be seen in the photo at right.
The gist of the study is that in some cities, subsidence is now exceeding sea level rise.
It is something to think about and cite the next time there is an alarming story about sea level “inundating” some city with a coastal flood.
Here are some excerpts and an abstract:
Forget global warming and melting polar caps – groundwater extraction is causing cities to SINK beneath sea level
- Ground is dropping up to 10 times faster than the sea level is rising in coastal megacities, a new study says
- Scientists at Deltares Research Institute in Utrecht studied subsidence in five coastal cities, including Jakarta, New Orleans and Bangkok
- North Jakarta has sunk four metres in the last 35 years – a fall of 10 to 20cm per year and experts have called on governments to take action
- Land subsidence is contributing to larger, longer and deeper floods
- Total damage due to subsidence worldwide is estimated at billions of dollars a year and is set to increase
I located the abstract for the research:
Sinking coastal cities
Dr. Gilles Erkens, Deltares | Utrecht University
G. Erkens, Deltares Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands and Faculty of Geoscience, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, T. Bucx, Deltares Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
R. Dam, Deltares Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
G. de Lange, Deltares Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
J. Lambert Deltares Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Abstract
In many coastal and delta cities land subsidence now exceeds absolute sea level rise up to a factor of ten. A major cause for severe land subsidence is excessive groundwater extraction related to rapid urbanization and population growth. Without action, parts of Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok and numerous other coastal cities will sink below sea level. Land subsidence increases flood vulnerability (frequency, inundation depth and duration of floods), with floods causing major economic damage and loss of lives. In addition, differential land movement causes significant economic losses in the form of structural damage and high maintenance costs. The total damage worldwide is estimated at billions of dollars annually. As subsidence is spatially different and can be caused by multiple processes, an assessment of subsidence in delta cities needs to answer questions such as: what are the main causes, how much is the current subsidence rate and what are future scenarios (and interaction with other major environmental issues), where are the vulnerable areas, what are the impacts and risks, how can adverse impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, and who is involved and responsible to act? In this study a quick-assessment of subsidence is performed on the following mega-cities: Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, Dhaka, New Orleans and Bangkok. Results of these case studies will be presented and compared, and a (generic) approach how to deal with subsidence in current and future subsidence-prone areas is provided.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

I thought sea level increase was 2-3.3mm/yr for the past century. Where do they get 10?
It’s a trade off…..there’s just as many tide gauges showing no sea level rise at all…or showing sea levels falling
Like temperatures…it’s hard to find without adjustments
Another good post zeroing in on New Orleans… http://pesn.com/2005/09/23/9600175_Rebuild_Energy_Systems_Not_NewOrleans/
> The river is moving away from the city. The city is sinking
> because of its weight, because no upbuilding by new muck
> for many decades, because of being cut off from the fresh
> water, because it is sliding off a cliff (the Continental Shelf),
> and because the Oil and Gas Industry is extracting oil out
> from under it. It is a city that for all intents and purposes
> is now Sea domain. Spend the money on developing
> alternative energy solutions instead.
It goes into a lot of detail, including the history.
Steve Keohane:
From various orifices of their persons. There has not been such a rate as 10 mm/yr during the last eight thousand years or more, and probably never even at half that rate. In fact, there is presently no rise in SL, according to gauges on the Gulf coast (NOAA data)- the SL trend has been flat for the last sixteen years or so, according to these.
how can adverse impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, and who is involved and responsible to act?
======
reparations…..who do we sue
There is another part of that subsidence equation that contributes to sea level rise. In 2010 sea level dropped by almost 7 mm and the heavy precipitation in Australia was considered the main cause. Such an explanation is definitely feasible because when more water stays on the land then less goes into the oceans. The same loss of ground water that now causes subsidence and sinking cities, quickly goes into the ocean adding to sea level rise. Likewise the degradation of 505 of our wetlands, and most of our rivers and streams has also caused much less water to remain on the land, and that lost water has contributed to rising sea levels.
Good article on New Orleans – I have relatives there, visit it frequently. Most of south Louisiana is part of a sinking basin; that’s why the Mississippi flows there, after all. (water is gravity’s dog; it follows it everywhere) Before the great flood control projects started in the 1930’s (after the disastrous 1927 floods) the land remained in a rough balance – the basin would sink about 1/8 inch per year (but that’s a foot every 100 years), but the floods which came every spring deposited at least that much new soil in the area.
Now the Army Corps of Engineers has put a stop to all that with the flood control systems, and a place with a lot of land that is only 2 or 3 feet above sea level is sinking at the rate of a foot a century. Not to difficult to see how that is going to turn out. Of course, the answer is just to tear down the levees and let it flood again each year like it used to, but the politicians don’t seem to like that idea much, either.
One of the things discovered about draining swampland, which happened in a lot of the wards in N.O. which have never been rebuilt; once those places are dried out the soft soil beneath them compacts, and what you thought was going to be about sea level ends up being 10 – 15 feet below sea level, with big levees all around it. Not too difficult to predict what’s going to happen to those spots whenever the hurricane blows through.
Small-scale subsidence has occurred due to ground water withdrawal while large-scale subsidence has been the result of petroleum extraction, the most spectacular examples being the Baldwin Hills dam collapse of 1963 and the sinking of the Long Beach Harbor by several meters, since alleviated through water injection. (Mayuga, M.N., Geology and Development of California’s Giant-Wilmington Oil Field, in Geology of Giant Petroleum Fields, Tulsa: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 14, pp. 176-180, 1970)
At least AGW and CO2 are not the culprits responsible for subsidence, … correct?
If the ground dips by 6 mm and the sea dips by 3mm then the sea rises by 3 mm relative to the ground. So which guages can be trusted to measure real sealevel rise due to anyeal increased volume of seawater?.
It amazes me how most people believe in sea-level rise instead of the city sinking!
Well d’uh. New Orleans…and Shanghai…are on deltas. The Mississippi Delta is the biggest sediment sink on the the North American Continent, and its rates of subsidence will easily outstrip any puny sea level changes. IT’S WHAT DELTAS DO. This comes as no surprise whatsoever. But try telling that to the Gristers, the ClimateProgressers, the SKS’ers, etc. Katrina’s effects were, and will remain, the product of AGW, in their books and propaganda.
Tide gauges in Shanghai show the same thing…a rapid sea level rise. WRONG…….
Man, the stupid hurts.
University of Colorado global sea level rise data, easily accessible at climate4you.com, shows about 65 mm in the past 21 years, or about 3.1 mm per year; clearly not 10 mm/year.
The SF Bay Area initially had no land below sea level but now it does (landward of the levees) due to ground water extraction and compaction of former wetland soils. Amazing thing about this is some of the affected areas are in tectonic uplift (although others – e.g. valley floors – are generally in subsiding basins).
This is another reason (besides population growth) we’re going to have to adopt large scale desalination to supply fresh water in the future instead of extracting groundwater. Israel seems to be the leader in this technology — see here and here .
@Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:09 am
Desal was called for here in UK somewhere in the 70’s I think. Because it would be cheaper to do then than later…obviously, and clean water was required. Nope..it was totally ignored. I lived near the biggest Desal project in the world – Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, built approx 1981 by Consultants Weir Group Glasgow UK and a German Constructor (who else).
Somebody told me sometime ago on a blog comment that if I wanted Desal water, each glass of would cost the same as that of a fine wine. It would indeed if the Gov run the project and take forever at massive cost overrun. Thats for known/old technology of course.
In the Oman they suck the water so fast the plants die…from salt water ingression.
Jakarta’s population comes in at about 10,000,000. Suburbanstats.org lists the population of The Big Easy as about 344,000. This is a mega-city??
It is about time this aspect is getting some attention. I understand why they have left out subsidence. It confuses too many and muddles the message that CO2 is the one and only culprit. If this gets wide play, people are going to start asking questions. Just like natural variability. It gets way too messy having to explain those oscillations.
.J. Hawkins says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:37 am
Jakarta’s population comes in at about 10,000,000. Suburbanstats.org lists the population of The Big Easy as about 344,000. This is a mega-city??
It was, or at least moreso, before Katrina. Estimates are that over 1/2 of the residents have permanently left. The value is the proximity to those of us in the US as a nearby example that we can relate to more easily than Jakarta.
> Jakarta’s population comes in at about 10,000,000.
> Suburbanstats.org lists the population of The Big
> Easy as about 344,000. This is a mega-city??
Speaking of *SUBURBAN* stats, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans lists the 2013 population of “City and Parish of New Orleans” at 378,715. The Metro area (including the suburbs), is listed as 1,240,977. I don’t know if people outside of North America are familiar with the concept of suburbs.
What’s Archimedes principle, Landrise and Land-sinking? And above all: How come so many never learnt what every 7th grader around the world is supposed to have been taught and learnt to understand?
“James at 48 says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:06 am”
In Newark (CA), near the salt ponds, one subject that kept coming up was saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifers…not sure if this study addresses that, but continuing to draw down the water table will cause more problems than just (relative) sea level rise…
Another reason to not dump fresh water into the ocean (in California)…
D.J. Hawkins says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:37 am
Jakarta’s population comes in at about 10,000,000. Suburbanstats.org lists the population of The Big Easy as about 344,000. This is a mega-city??
===
Citypop
http://www.citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html
has Jakarta at 26,800,000, and New Orleans below one million [at 01 April 2014].
FWIW
Auto
About time somebody worldwide caught up with the going-down of the problem. Texas has mis-managed it in the past, but started regulating it as early as 1975!
The 10 feet (>2500 millimeters!) of subsidence in Baytown is summarized below
In fact, in the critical areas along Galveston Bay, the land surface has sunk as much as 10 feet since 1906! Experts have been studying the subsidence phenomena for almost 100 years, and with each hurricane we have weathered, we’ve seen subsidence and flooding problems worsen.
One dramatic example of this was in the Brownwood subdivision, a coastal community of Baytown where almost continual flooding due to subsidence caused the area to eventually be abandoned.
See also more plots:
http://mapper.subsidence.org/
from this web site, where additional maps and data are available.
http://www.hgsubsidence.org/
JimS says:
May 1, 2014 at 9:32 am
At least AGW and CO2 are not the culprits responsible for subsidence, … correct?
….. never know ….. 🙂