Ship of Fools: climate disasters or it's just weather

Thread: climate disasters or it's just weather Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020281

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The last thing people under water in Houston, Texas and Mumbai, India, and the planet needs is individual actions like taking a bus or recycling your plastic. We need a wholesale shift. It's radical. The fossil fuel economy can no longer factor out pollution and climate change. Or we can continue our delaying and let future generations pay and die.

Or as trumpy and a host of others say, don't worry it's just weather and a natural cycle. Which they promote, knowing they are lying.

I suggest that it will take a couple of thousand Houstons or Mumbais, and maybe 100 ir 200 million dead. Because we are not doing it. In the meantime, business as usual, make a buck and don't give a fuck, "predatory delay" (look it up), enjoy it while it lasts and to hell with the future.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Yep, I quite agree. And by the point that we wake up to the grim realities, it will be too late. I have a very dim view of our future. The best single thing for the planet would be for the infestation of humanity to disappear, or at least to suffer a global die-back (~25%) that would be completely without prejudice of race or class.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
The best single thing for the planet would be for the infestation of humanity to disappear, or at least to suffer a global die-back (~25%) that would be completely without prejudice of race or class.

Actually, the planet would stand a much better chance if the die-back were heavily concentrated in places where people are insisting on using more than their fair share of resources. The best thing I personally have ever done for the planet was not have children, as any children of mine would have been Americans, the worst offenders.

From what I've read, it sounds like the catastrophe in Houston comes from weather that has been somewhat exacerbated by climate change taking place in a city that has not planned well for weather. Houston is on a flat prairie with clay soil, so water doesn't drain well. On top of that, it's a hugely sprawling city. Here are some comparisons:

Houston: 667 square miles, 2.3 million people
Greater London: 607 square miles, almost 9 million people
NY City: 468 square miles, around 8.5 million people
Los Angeles: 502 square miles, just under 4 million people - so Houston sprawls more than LA, which is the icon for urban and suburban sprawl in the US.

Houston is massively over built, or at least over paved, and much of it is built on a flood plain. The National Wildlife Foundation sounded the alarm 19 years ago, in a big 1998 report that was born out of the huge floods in the midwest in 1993. Politico has a good discussion of that report, and the actual report is available from the NWF website. It pointed out that the point of the National Flood Insurance Program was to provide flood insurance in exchange for communities changing their building efforts by building in places where they wouldn't be repeatedly flooded. What had already happened by 1998 was that people got affordable flood insurance, but communities weren't forced to stop building in flood-prone areas, so the National Flood Insurance Program has ended up promoting building in flood-prone areas because it has provided cheap insurance.

The thing is, flood insurance is kind of stupid. You know exactly where flooding is going to take place; it's very predictable. Flood insurance should therefore be extremely expensive, because people only get it if they need it, so everyone with a policy will collect on it sooner or later if they just hold onto their property long enough. Flood insurance is like health insurance for a population entirely made up of elderly and sick people. Which explains why the National Flood Insurance Program is $25 in debt.

While I agree whole-heartedly with the OP that we need large-scale systemic change, even if people had gotten a clue clear back in the 70s and started serious efforts to address climate change, Houston would still have been a disaster just waiting to happen. So I think the US is probably well and truly fucked, because we aren't doing enough to address global warming, and simultaneously we have governmental stupidity on a monumental level: if we couldn't find ways to keep people from building homes in places that have for decades flooded on a regular basis, how the hell are we going to mitigate the effects of climate change when flooding gets even worse? The Dutch might survive, but Miami Beach is a goner.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

What I've never understood, is why after a repeatable natural disaster - people rebuild on the same place ? For example, if I were planning recovery in Houston - my automatic thought would be to landscape the bits that were badly flooded and build replacement residential and commercial properties on the side of the city opposite to the coast.

Or the first time San Fransico got levelled by an earthquake, I'd be thinking maybe build a new city not so close to the San Andreas fault.

Likewise in the UK, we don't seem to be making serious efforts to migrate population centres away from areas with really obvious increasing flood issues.

I mean, for example, wtf are we doing about London ? Are we just assuming we're going to keep rebuilding the Thames flood barrier till it's fifty feet high ?

[ 01. September 2017, 06:23: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Not building near a major fault line means not building anywhere in California, icluding the San Joaquin valley which produces a significant portion of the worlds food.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I agree [Tear]

But it's not just 'them' it's me too. I do the 'right' thing', environment wise, up to a point, and far more than others I know. But - as soon as it really impacts (e.g. choosing not to fly off on holiday with my friends next week) I fail completely.

If we all 'voted with our feet' big business and politicians would soon fall into line. But we don't.

My son has the smallest carbon footprint of anyone I know or have heard of. He lives in one room, cycles everywhere (he cycled home last month for a visit - he lives in Heidelberg!). He has the same mobile he had when he was 16. He only possesses one pair of shoes etc etc.

I admire him, but I could not live like that.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
Yep, I quite agree. And by the point that we wake up to the grim realities, it will be too late. I have a very dim view of our future. The best single thing for the planet would be for the infestation of humanity to disappear, or at least to suffer a global die-back (~25%) that would be completely without prejudice of race or class.

South East Asia are already suffering the grim realities.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
The thing is, flood insurance is kind of stupid. You know exactly where flooding is going to take place; it's very predictable. Flood insurance should therefore be extremely expensive, because people only get it if they need it,

I live near a flood plain. It floods regularly. There are no buildings on it, so no problem. Five years ago, the Council proposed building upsteam on high ground. Many people feared that this would increase the run-off into the flood plain area and that the historic flood limits would be exceeded. At the protest meeting I asked a Council representative if the Council would undertake to indemnify anyone whose house was beyond the historic flood line, if they now flooded. I was told my question was irrelevent as the existing flood line wouldn't be breached.

In Jan 2016 I spent an anxious couple of hours trying to get all my books and papers upstairs whilst the flood waters crept up my street and whilst the lights flickered as the electricity sub station flooded. Fortunately it didn't reach my house, and we'd already moved our car to higher ground before the water reached our driveway.

The Council say that Jan 2016 was a "once-in-two-hundred year flood" and nothing to do with the increased run-off from the new-build.

I would be very unhappy if flood insurance was made more expensive. We knew exactly where flooding was going to take place when we bought our house, i.e. on the historic flood plain and not beyond it. We wouldn't have bought this house if we thought there was any danger of flooding.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In most cases it's a question of poor planning. When it comes down to it, category 4 hurricanes moving up the Gulf of Mexico to landfall in Texas and Louisiana are not unusual. High pressure systems over the continental US are not uncommon. Put the two together and you get storm systems trapped along the coastal zones of Texas and Louisiana with subsequent very heavy rain. Even without the impact of anthropogenic climate change such storms were bound to happen, and that should have been factored into building regulations and zoning.

We do tend to build our urban areas with the intent to move rain water out of them as fast as possible - which often means moving it to somewhere that isn't able to cope with very large influxes of water. Which leads to flood plains overfilling, or sewage treatment plants unable to cope and flushing to the sea. A simple requirement that all new construction, and major refurbishment of existing buildings, includes rainwater harvesting for functions such as flushing the toilet. Which holds rain water in lots of small reservoirs where it does no harm, slows the release of that water into rivers reducing flood risks down stream, and saves considerable electricity by reducing the need to pump mains water all over the place (eg: in Scotland, the largest single user of electricity is Scottish Water pumping water to service the needs of the central belt, and to a lesser extent other parts of Scotland). Somehow I doubt that the new housing that NEQ mentioned was built with rain water harvesting, and almost certainly wasn't a requirement imposed by the council.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I saw an article which argued that a major cause of the unprecedented rainfall was a rise in the Gulf of Mexico sea temperature, allowing much more water-vapour to be sucked up by the storm, then deposited. Pretty hard to argue that climate change has nothing to do with that.

But climate change doesn't have much to say about Houston being, historically, a high risk flood area, except that it increases further the risks which were already there.

The more general point about relocation may also to apply to the low-lying areas of East Anglia (where I live in the UK), which are also significant farming areas. We're about 50 feet above the flood plain, so not directly affected; nor is most of the town and road system around it. But it could become pretty coastal some time in the next 30-40 years.

I'm glad the Bangladesh floods were also brought up. The scale of the disaster there is worse than Houston. Monsoon flooding is distressingly common there, but not on this scale.

More generally, it is the destablising impact of climate change which is the biggest source of concern. Minimising or denying the human contribution to this climate destabilisation just gets in the way of serious consideration of short and long term remedies.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Rainwater harvesting is strictly regulated in Texas. The manual (pdf) runs to 88 pages.

[ 01. September 2017, 08:46: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Rainwater harvesting is good - I do it myself and get a chunk knocked off my water bill as a result. But flooding is a local phenomenon, and its predictability varies by location.

It's common in planning to allow development in areas where the flood return period is greater than 100 years. Increasingly, the problem is that the long-run records are becoming less and less useful for determining that figure. Meteorological events are becoming more extreme.

Another general observation, raised by Ruth and Boogie is that of paving over. The first problem that introduces is that it changes the flood hydrograph, making the peak flow that much higher. The concrete and the drains transport the water away very quickly so it all hits the river/stream at around the same time, where once it would have had to percolate its way there. The general advice on good practice now is to insist on porous hard surfaces wherever possible, such as drives. Where it isn't possible (e.g. roofing) then take the drained water away to a purpose designed soakaway, not a surface water drain.

But everything has its limits. Once the ground is 100% saturated, you might as well have paved it over anyway, and you are then looking at sacrificing land to serve as arroyos/wadis/bourns etc. and I'm pretty sure that you would have been in need of these for the Houston event. If it's too flat or if the land is not available, then the outcome is inevitable.

Beyond that, as Ruth says in her excellent post, building in flood plains is a big no-no. The clue is in the title.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I've never understood, is why after a repeatable natural disaster - people rebuild on the same place ? For example, if I were planning recovery in Houston - my automatic thought would be to landscape the bits that were badly flooded and build replacement residential and commercial properties on the side of the city opposite to the coast.

It's instructive to look at places like Bengal, or Bangladesh, where catastrophic flooding happens often enough that you would think people would move away. Why don't they? Because land is supremely valuable there. The very poorest are forced to the margins, where it's dangerous and floods a lot. And, because they're poor, they live day to day. There are not the assets, to think about five years from now. Tomorrow is tough enough. So, they settle and plant crops and hope to make it good before the next calamity.

You can also see this, alas, in the US. Why do the poorer districts in the Gulf flood worse? Because the rich people grabbed all the higher, safer property, and the poor went where they could.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

You can also see this, alas, in the US. Why do the poorer districts in the Gulf flood worse? Because the rich people grabbed all the higher, safer property, and the poor went where they could.

.. and the poor stay because they are tied to jobs/community etc, and moving would involve an investment that they don't have.

and even those in the middle classes are in the position where their major asset is their house and the land it is on, and after a flood is never a great time to sell.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can see this driver in my own family. My daughter may be moving to Houston. A clever girl, what will be her first housing priority? A house that did not flood last week, because if it stayed dry last week it's probably good for a while. (And this is completely setting aside the issues of hidden mold, shoddy renovation, property values, etc.)
How many other people in Houston are thinking this exact same thought? A vast number, I bet, because people are not stupid. Which means the value of houses that did not flood last week will be far, far greater than houses that were ten feet under. Can my daughter afford it? Unclear, but she is in a financial position to have options. There are people who clearly cannot afford it. They're the ones who are moving back into houses that were gunwale under last week.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Ruth - Your point about those who consume resources extravagantly is well taken. My thought on that is that as much as consumption behaviour might be modified, the shear weight of numbers globally renders behaviour modification a minor addressing of the problem. My picking-a-figure-out-of the-air model of indiscriminate plague (or whatever) is that it would preserve the genetic diversity of surviving humanity. Were wealth and resources to interfere with and distort the die-back, the collective genetic profile of the survivors would be preponderately of European and east Asian stock. That narrowing of the genetic spectrum would not, in the long term, be salutary.

Excuse me. Time to sharpen my scythe.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

None of this is on target. We keep burning FF (fossil fuels). We cannot continue. Don't say there's no choice. We are predators, killing the future of our children.

Sure each of us can do a wee bit of recycling and carbon reduction. But it won't do.

Have a read. I had read the twitter feed and lived a night of nightmares. It was put into an article. Happy people are from Hell: Predatory Delay

500,000 cars destroyed in Houston - owned ones, not in dealerships - but they will get new ones.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Nobody here is saying there is no choice. They are simply picking up on a tangent about Houston and managing inundation which is probably close to running its course.

So far as the main point of your OP is concerned, correct me if I am wrong, but we had this thing called the Paris Agreement which of course Trump has kicked into the long grass. My impression is that the rest of the world is not abandoning it but is pressing ahead. Will it be enough? I don't know but I suspect it will be touch and go.

One thing won't solve any problems though and that is running around like a headless chicken. If you have ideas for doing something internationally beyond Paris, then lets hear 'em.

So far as individual actions are concerned, then no, recycling carrier bags will feature nowhere detectable on the list, but such things are valuable far more for inculcating a habit of thought. The danger here is of turning this into a problem that somebody else needs to solve, thereby absolving me from taking any more part in it. I'm just pointing that out BTW, not making any accusations.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Actually, I would say choice is a factor. As Brenda C and Chris S have noted, this discussion is to a large degree an example of privilege. Having a choice about where you live is a function of wealth-- the poor have increasingly fewer viable options. They also have a much reduced ability to plan long term-- much of their resources are tied up in daily survival, making these long term investments in, say, higher ground, impossible. The intersection of climate change and income inequality is significant, and has to be factored into any such discussion.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Keep talking. I am feeling that there is no hope and continue to feel very discouraged. Another causative thread for my pessimism is that one of my kids is doing research and was in Yellowknife and points north in the NWT, well north of 60 and 70°. Permafrost is melting. Methane being released. Far more potent than CO2. Cruise ships in the Northwest Passage. Ecofucking tourists. The temps in the Arctic are already 3-5°C up (up to 8°F). There's going to be a burp. The boreal forest is on fire all across western Canada. Smoke gets in your eyes.

This is either an emergency or it isn't.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Rainwater harvesting is strictly regulated in Texas. The manual (pdf) runs to 88 pages.

Just to be clear, that document isn't a regulation manual.

quote:
The scope of this manual is to serve as a primer in the basics of residential and small-scale commercial rainwater harvesting systems design. It is intended to serve as a first step in thinking about options for implementing rainwater harvesting systems, as well as advantages and constraints.

I've not done more than skim it, but much of it would be useful elsewhere, not just Texas.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
we had this thing called the Paris Agreement which of course Trump has kicked into the long grass. My impression is that the rest of the world is not abandoning it but is pressing ahead. Will it be enough? I don't know but I suspect it will be touch and go.

Not "had this thing called the Paris Agreement", we have it. Just because one stupid windbag, in denial of 30 years of clear scientific evidence, has decided he doesn't like it doesn't stop it from going ahead. As you say, every other nation that had signed up is going ahead. And, a lot of the individual States in the US will proceed with their own programmes of greening their economy regardless of the Federal government backing out of an international treaty. In Scotland, we easily met the target of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 42% by 2020 (ie: we got there 4 years early) and the current proposals of a 90% cut by 2050 is not especially ambitious. The ambitious plans, but achievable with some effort, are zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.

quote:
So far as individual actions are concerned, then no, recycling carrier bags will feature nowhere detectable on the list, but such things are valuable far more for inculcating a habit of thought. The danger here is of turning this into a problem that somebody else needs to solve, thereby absolving me from taking any more part in it.

Indeed, we need the actions of everyone doing a little bit, and a little bit more each year. Until living sustainably is seen as normal not weird.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Rainwater harvesting is strictly regulated in Texas. The manual (pdf) runs to 88 pages.
Just to be clear, that document isn't a regulation manual.
quote:
The scope of this manual is to serve as a primer in the basics of residential and small-scale commercial rainwater harvesting systems design. It is intended to serve as a first step in thinking about options for implementing rainwater harvesting systems, as well as advantages and constraints.
I've not done more than skim it, but much of it would be useful elsewhere, not just Texas.

You are, of course, right. But only on one hand.

On the other are the penalties when you don't follow the guidance, and the hurdle of making sure your water butt complies with 88 pages of 'primer'.

How many regs does the UK have? None that I'm aware of. Rain falling on my property is mine. I pay the water company to port away what I don't keep.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

On the other are the penalties when you don't follow the guidance, and the hurdle of making sure your water butt complies with 88 pages of 'primer'.

How many regs does the UK have? None that I'm aware of. Rain falling on my property is mine. I pay the water company to port away what I don't keep.

Aren't most of the actual regulations to do with things like backflow prevention valves for dual water systems that prevent your catch tank from contaminating the municipal water supply?

Not operating a mosquito farm might be a regulation, too.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

An external tap (for a hosepipe) needs a single-check valve - and most external taps have one which is integral.

But there's nothing regarding catching rainwater, as far as I know. Some houses are built with, or have retrofitted, greywater systems for flushing or recycling fresh water. Perhaps there's something there.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As Brenda C and Chris S have noted, this discussion is to a large degree an example of privilege. Having a choice about where you live is a function of wealth-- the poor have increasingly fewer viable options. They also have a much reduced ability to plan long term-- much of their resources are tied up in daily survival, making these long term investments in, say, higher ground, impossible. The intersection of climate change and income inequality is significant, and has to be factored into any such discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Keep talking. I am feeling that there is no hope and continue to feel very discouraged. Another causative thread for my pessimism is that one of my kids is doing research and was in Yellowknife and points north in the NWT, well north of 60 and 70°. Permafrost is melting. Methane being released. Far more potent than CO2.

These points were discussed in Paragraphs 24-26 of the Pope's Encyclical in May of 2015. Along with warnings concerning potable water and the need to consider the affects on the lives of people. From Paragraph 48:

quote:
The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation. In fact, the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet: “Both everyday experience and scientific research show that the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest”.[footnote omitted] For example, the depletion of fishing reserves especially hurts small fishing communities without the means to replace those resources; water pollution particularly affects the poor who cannot buy bottled water; and rises in the sea level mainly affect impoverished coastal populations who have nowhere else to go. The impact of present imbalances is also seen in the premature death of many of the poor, in conflicts sparked by the shortage of resources, and in any number of other problems which are insufficiently represented on global agendas.

Perhaps it is time to re-print the Encyclical and get our political "leaders" (in a very loose sense of the term) to actually read it?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Agreed, Hedgehog. It is a remarkable Encyclical.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Actually, I would say choice is a factor. As Brenda C and Chris S have noted, this discussion is to a large degree an example of privilege. Having a choice about where you live is a function of wealth-- the poor have increasingly fewer viable options. They also have a much reduced ability to plan long term-- much of their resources are tied up in daily survival, making these long term investments in, say, higher ground, impossible. The intersection of climate change and income inequality is significant, and has to be factored into any such discussion.

I would see rebuild and potential moving of people in a disaster as a function of the state. That might mean a need to compulsorarily purchase land and build social housing.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Someone asked why people rebuild in the same place.

Because the insurance companies require it.

They pay less if you decide to build elsewhere.

Some people accepted the lesser amount and moved, but most couldn't afford that.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Rainwater harvesting is strictly regulated in Texas. The manual (pdf) runs to 88 pages.
Just to be clear, that document isn't a regulation manual.
quote:
The scope of this manual is to serve as a primer in the basics of residential and small-scale commercial rainwater harvesting systems design. It is intended to serve as a first step in thinking about options for implementing rainwater harvesting systems, as well as advantages and constraints.
I've not done more than skim it, but much of it would be useful elsewhere, not just Texas.
You are, of course, right. But only on one hand.

On the other are the penalties when you don't follow the guidance, and the hurdle of making sure your water butt complies with 88 pages of 'primer'.

How many regs does the UK have? None that I'm aware of. Rain falling on my property is mine. I pay the water company to port away what I don't keep.

What penalties? What makes you think that rainwater harvesting is regulated any more strictly in Texas than where you live? I didn't see anything about regulation in the manual you linked to; according to their FAQ on rainwater harvesting the Texas Water Development Board's seems mostly concerned with the safety of systems that are connected to a public water supply system. Otherwise it's all encouragement, promotion, and tax incentives.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Should officials whose actions kill people because they deny science be charged?

I think there's something to the idea. We might also see about suing oil companies which knew and then hid the science. #Exxonknew for 40 years.

In the meantime, it's the hottest day ever in San Francisco says one of my friends. But there's nothing to it, get back into your cars.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Similar to what Alan said about storms being normal, I think we need to be cautious about treating Harvey, horrifyingly tragic as it was, or the floods in Bangladesh or a hot day in SF (friends say they've had a run of hot days this week) as proof of climate change. Best to look at trends. Which prove the point... frighteningly so.

I do not see an appetite in government here for punitive measures. The problems are for the future, they live for adulation now. And they get donations from coal companies. But I agree with the sentiment...and the need for better town planning.

I fear when the heat really turns up and rivers dry up, the current migrant "crises" will seem like a trickle. And we in the industrialised countries are to blame.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

np--

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think there's something to the idea. We might also see about suing oil companies which knew and then hid the science. #Exxonknew for 40 years.

Welcome to dealing with Big Tobacco. Similar problems.

"Inside The Tobacco Deal" (Frontline, on PBS).

quote:
FRONTLINE tells the inside story of how two small-town Mississippi lawyers declared war on Big Tobacco and skillfully pursued a daring new litigation strategy that ultimately brought the industry to the negotiating table. For forty years tobacco companies had won every lawsuit brought against them and never paid out a dime. In 1997 that all changed. The industry agreed to a historic deal to pay $368 billion in health-related damages, tear down billboards and retire Joe Camel.

If you remember the CEOs of 6 (?) Big Tobacco companies telling Congress, "I believe tobacco is not addictive", that was related to this.

quote:
In the meantime, it's the hottest day ever in San Francisco says one of my friends. But there's nothing to it, get back into your cars.

Just FYI: I know you're not blaming SF. But many San Franciscans don't have cars--if for no other reason, because there isn't enough parking (especially residential), and what there is, is very expensive. We take public transportation, walk, bike, rollerskate, skateboard, even tap-dance and skip. And tourists sometimes Segway.

"List of U.S. cities with most households without a car" (Wikipedia).

"SF’s Car Contradiction: While More People Choose Not To Drive, Number Of Cars Registered In SF Continues To Rise" (SF Appeal).

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...
In the meantime, it's the hottest day ever in San Francisco says one of my friends.

We've just had the coldest summer in 24 years. What's your point?

There were hurricanes and floods before this climate change era in which we are living. One thing that is different is the media coverage.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

More extremes. You make the point.

"80 percent of Exxon Mobil’s research and internal memos acknowledged that climate change was real and caused by humans. However, 80 percent of the company’s newspaper ads regarding climate change questioned this fact".

Crimes against humanity. They continue to lie and fund and profit.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

In the meantime, it's the hottest day ever in San Francisco says one of my friends. But there's nothing to it, get back into your cars.

115 in L.A. 115.

[Mad]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Climate change has caused the water in the Gulf of Mexico to be seven degrees above the 30-year average. That caused flooding in much of the US midwest this year.

Houston was built on a large swamp area that was drained over the years. Its soil is made up of mostly clay. It also has very lax zoning regulations (practically none). And just a few days before Harvey the Trump administration canceled all flood mitigation programs put in place by the Obama administration,

On top of all this Houston has a very large portion of the chemical refining industry in the US. 1/4 of all petroleum products for the US are produced in the Houston area. It is not all that unusual to have heavy industry right next to low-income residential areas as well.

Flood insurance is a federal program in the US. The average cost per house is around $100 per annum. The only people that are required to get flood insurance are those who have mortgages within the 100-year flood plain When we are talking about a 500-year flood, though, you can see why so few people actually had flood insurance.

Not only that, but the West Coast is tender dry with hot temperatures lasting through this next week. We hope by next week things will start to cool down. I have lived in the western United States most of my life. I cannot recall ever having such a long hot dry season or as many wild fires.

In spite of Trump saying the US is withdrawing from the Paris agreement many of the states are actually on track to meet the goals of the agreement. But the Paris Agreement will not be the end all. There will have to be other agreements down the pike to reduce CO2 output.

Just the other day I heard a program that said it is quite possible for everyone to get off fossil fuel dependency by 2040. I know a number of European governments have made this a goal. That is only 23 years away! But even then, it will take another 40 years for CO2 levels to stabilize and start going down. That is three generations. That means my grandson's grandchildren just may see coolor temperatures return.

In the meantime, it is going to be a wild and bumpy ride.

[ 03. September 2017, 20:58: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I am somewhere in the middle of this conflagration: West Coast wildfires

[ 03. September 2017, 22:34: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Sorry Gramps, it's more like 3000+ years and we are not going backwards yet, so more than that.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...
In the meantime, it's the hottest day ever in San Francisco says one of my friends.
We've just had the coldest summer in 24 years. What's your point?

The point is that local variations in the pattern are expected. Whether climate change will affect any particular location, and what that impact will be, is specific to that location. The average global effect is to warmer temperatures.

quote:
Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. NASA climate data

The current trend in global temperature is distinctly hockey-stick shaped.

quote:
There were hurricanes and floods before this climate change era in which we are living. One thing that is different is the media coverage.

Another thing that is different is the frequency and severity of hurricanes and floods. Add to that increasing numbers of people living in storm and flood prone areas, often very poor with housing and infrastructure not designed to cope with such storm events. And, deforestation and concreting over of upper reaches of catchments resulting in faster transfer of rainwater to river systems.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...
In the meantime, it's the hottest day ever in San Francisco says one of my friends.
We've just had the coldest summer in 24 years. What's your point?

There were hurricanes and floods before this climate change era in which we are living. One thing that is different is the media coverage.

Global warming will cause some regions to be colder and wetter.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would see rebuild and potential moving of people in a disaster as a function of the state. That might mean a need to compulsorarily purchase land and build social housing.

Yeah, and the problem is that this form of state intervention is anathema to a large number of people in America and probably even more so in Texas.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would see rebuild and potential moving of people in a disaster as a function of the state. That might mean a need to compulsorarily purchase land and build social housing.
Yeah, and the problem is that this form of state intervention is anathema to a large number of people in America and probably even more so in Texas.

A tragedy.

Right now there's another hurricane incoming (Irma). Currently over the Atlantic but running at strength 3 for now. The NHC don't forecast (publicly) beyong the 5-day mark, but I've just been looking at the ECMWF mid-range forecast (their model has hitherto had the best record of predicting hurricane tracks over this period). They have it raking along the north coast of Cuba, then turning north to hit the tip of Florida. Then raking the east coast of Florida to come ashore in S. Carolina.

They also have it explosively deepening as it does so. Apparently the waters in this region are particularly warm at present. Of course, this far out there is huge potential for error, but if you are anywhere near this track, do please keep an eye open and take appropriate precautions.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Is it a tragedy? Don't we need to get beyond that? The climate is an angry beast and we are poking it with our fingers, then we get all misty, teary-eyed and prayerful when it bites then off.

Been in central British Columbia this week. Smoke billowing from 2 fires within view. Looks like hell. Meanwhile to the south, all of Washington state is a fire emergency. Burn baby burn.

This climate thing is either an emergency or it ain't.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

The tragedy I was referring to is that of state intervention in respect of moving people and building social housing being anathema.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Then I'm with you. My bad to misunderstand. Sorry.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
We've just had the coldest summer in 24 years. What's your point?

There were hurricanes and floods before this climate change era in which we are living. One thing that is different is the media coverage.

The point is that the extra energy in the atmosphere leads to greater chances of extreme weather events at both ends of the scale. Hurricanes and floods aren't new, but they will hit with increased prevalence.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Hurricane Irma. All over the news this morning. Bigger than Harvey. Biggest ever recorded. Hitting Carribean islands this morning.

Too warm here. Forecasted high is 29°C when it should be 15. And the magazine I have in front of me is full of car adverts. What destruction and loss of life is required? The Holocaust didn't stop Rwanda.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

There have always been exceptional weather events. And there has always been climate change. So what we need to do is map trends (eg the apparently increasing number of ferocious storms) and see how human activity (eg the burning of petrochemicals) exacerbates natural cycles.

To me the evidence is irrefutable. As others have said, what is needed is radical change - which some nations seem to utterly refuse to do. And millions of small individual acts do, I think, make some difference.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

To me the evidence is irrefutable. As others have said, what is needed is radical change - which some nations seem to utterly refuse to do. And millions of small individual acts do, I think, make some difference.

Unfortunately that's a lie. The majority of small actions are so small that even with millions of them they still add up to nothing.

quote:
Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting off fossil fuels, these reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll
achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply.
“But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, it’ll add up to a lot?”
No.

the late Professor David MacKay in Without Hotair, chapter 19

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy quoting the late Professor David MacKay:
Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting off fossil fuels, these reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll
achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply.
“But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, it’ll add up to a lot?”
No.

the late Professor David MacKay in Without Hotair, chapter 19
This is a great link. Thanks.

[ 06. September 2017, 17:02: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

With respect to the late Professor MacKay, the question of whether lots of people doing a little will have a big impact depends to an extent on what that little is.

[It also depends on when that little is done - but that boat has long since sailed, we've known for 30 years that burning fossil fuels was affecting the global climate and if we'd all done a little bit then then the effect now would be substantial]

As an example, take housing which is a significant contributor to our carbon foot prints. Just across the road from where I'm currently sitting the local college has a demonstration ultra-low carbon house used for teaching their construction students (and, visited by lots of other people). This has thick, extra insulated walls, triple glazing, ground source heat-pump and underfloor heating, solar panels, rain water harvesting ... the works. The construction has a larger carbon cost than conventional construction, but almost zero running costs means it will have the same total carbon cost as a conventional construction in about 5 years. Given that we tend to keep houses for decades, even centuries, the long term impact is enormous. Is building housing to this standard a big or little step? In terms of cost, this four bed house (in 2008) cost just under £100k to build, when a similar house without all the low carbon features would have cost somewhere around £97k. So, the cost is just an extra £2000 or so, which is lost in the fluctuations of the housing market - thus, building ultra low carbon housing is a small step that if everyone made the decision to only buy new houses that met that criteria would have a very large impact.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
thus, building ultra low carbon housing is a small step that if everyone made the decision to only buy new houses that met that criteria would have a very large impact.

I think (I might be over-reaching here, but) the point the good professor is making is that the market sucks at delivering this kind of change.

What is actually required in this particular case (and many other cases) is government intervention. Change the building regs so that only low-carbon houses are built from now on. And then devise a rolling plan to either retrofit or demolish existing housing stock and bring it up to code. That, and only that, would make a big enough difference.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Anyone know why they name hurricanes which kill people happy gentle names like "Irma" and "Harvey". Sounds like they're an old married couple who pat dogs and wave at the neighbours. No,they should call them things like "Destructo Climatechange Denial Donald" and "Climate Storm Fucking Kill You Melanoma".

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Well, when the US started naming them, only women's names were used. It was a great day when men were allowed to share trouble-making blame, too!
[Biased]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Anyone know why they name hurricanes which kill people happy gentle names like "Irma" and "Harvey".

Mt pet rabbit is called Harvey. While he certainly makes me happy, "gentle" is not a phrase I would associate with him! "Avatar of furniture destruction" perhaps, and that's far more appropriate for a hurricane.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The Lord's Ways are covfefe ↄ⃝ .

Hurricane Irma is headed for trumpy's house.
[Killing me]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Lord's Ways are covfefe ↄ⃝ .

Hurricane Irma is headed for trumpy's house.

Will he learn from this?

Nope [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Anyone know why they name hurricanes which kill people happy gentle names like "Irma" and "Harvey". Sounds like they're an old married couple who pat dogs and wave at the neighbours. No,they should call them things like "Destructo Climatechange Denial Donald" and "Climate Storm Fucking Kill You Melanoma".

Hurricanes are named from a list established by the World Meteorological Organization. Each hurricane basin has its own list. The lists for the North Atlantic/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico are on a six year rotation, so in 2023 we'll probably see a Hurricane (or Tropical Storm) Arlene again. Names of particularly destructive hurricanes (e.g. Katrina, Andrew, Camille) are retired and replaced on the list with another name beginning with the same letter.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I daresay 'Destructo Climatechange Denial Donald' will boast that his properties have been damaged more bigly and expensively than those of the poor, brown, Bad Hombres... [Mad]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I daresay 'Destructo Climatechange Denial Donald' will boast that his properties have been damaged more bigly and expensively than those of the poor, brown, Bad Hombres...

IJ

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

BTW, thanks for the latest Epithet for the Egregious Emperor.... [Snigger]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My pet rabbit is called Harvey...

Is he six feet tall and invisible?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Sections of this article talk over and expand on some of the points raised by myself and others in this thread.

A lot of municipal governments rely on property taxes to fund local spending, and so have a built in bias to 'preserve' property values, even when amounts to denying the problem (waterfront property amounts for some of the most valuable property in many places). Similarly many representatives have their campaigns funded by real estate moguls.

The following quote describes the inevitable outcome as poorer communities are left behind, and those who afford to get out. The picture looks much like the Rust Belt as epitomised by the decline of Detroit.

quote:
Eventually, those who can will leave the coast. ..... In Florida, Hauer projects that 2.5 million people will have to leave their homes by that date.

Perhaps some of the ravaged coastal cities will become sources of scrap. High-quality housing stock in dying coastal cities might be worth disassembling by scavengers in search of bricks, copper pipe, slate tiles, windows, doors, and old-growth hardwood lumber to sell to inland construction markets. We’ve seen that pattern in the Rust Belt: for much of the 1990s St. Louis’s top export was old bricks bound for the booming Sunbelt where its rubble was repurposed as patios bought on credit.

[ 09. September 2017, 14:25: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
My pet rabbit is called Harvey...
Is he six feet tall and invisible?

Haha, no. Good reference though [Big Grin]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Just a question here from an ignorant Brit:

We've known for decades that places like Kansas (Wizard of Oz) has tornadoes, etc, etc - they weren't caused by climate change in the 1930s were they? Anyway, back to my question:

Why, in these hurricane/tornado prone areas do Americans live in wooden houses?
We see on the TV these wrecked places with matchwood everywhere. Is it because they can be easily rebuilt after a storm, or is it simply that a brick house would be just as vulnerable and wooden ones are cheaper?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Poverty. Bricks cost more than wood, and take specialized skill to lay. Wooden construction is more or less open to anyone with a hammer. Also, assuming that you do not live in an area with natural lumber or a brick industry (Kansas qualifies on both counts) any building materiel has to be hauled in from somewhere else. And wood is lighter and easier to manage than bricks.
It has been postulated, not entirely facetiously, that tornadoes are attracted to mobile home communities. This is because the TV always shows wrecked mobile home parks. But the reason for this is the visual nature of TV. You need a picture of wreckage. The brick or even wooden homes held up, but the mobile homes are trashed. Mobile homes, BTW, are the final resort of the poorer person; you can buy a reasonable mobile home for $25K or so.

[ 11. September 2017, 16:25: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why, in these hurricane/tornado prone areas do Americans live in wooden houses?
We see on the TV these wrecked places with matchwood everywhere. Is it because they can be easily rebuilt after a storm, or is it simply that a brick house would be just as vulnerable and wooden ones are cheaper?

In many of the places most prone to hurricanes building codes are fairly relaxed, both in content and enforcement. Houston, in particular, is known for its relative lack of zoning and minimal building standards. In good weather this allows faster economic growth. In a hurricane . . . well, we've all seen the footage.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We see on the TV these wrecked places with matchwood everywhere. Is it because they can be easily rebuilt after a storm, or is it simply that a brick house would be just as vulnerable and wooden ones are cheaper?

Cost has something to do with it - also frame based construction techniques allow large parts of the houses to be prefabbed off-site and then assembled on site, which cuts overall build time.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Why, in these hurricane/tornado prone areas do Americans live in wooden houses?

Even if you live in Tornado Alley, the chances of your house getting a direct hit from a tornado are fairly small (tornadoes aren't all that big). So it doesn't need to be very much cheaper to build in timber-frame rather than brick or concrete to make it rational on a community scale to build with timber and accept the rebuild costs.

In all the big hurricanes, most of the damage is caused by flooding, not high winds. So I suppose the extent to which it's rational to build a more robust house in a hurricane zone depends on whether it's proof against 15-foot storm surges and rivers that are trying to get in your bed rather than staying in their own. If you have to knock it down anyway, because of mould, or flood-weakened foundations, having sturdy walls isn't an advantage.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Interesting article in the Guardian today, talking about the last year. Record temperatures, record winds, record rain, record hurricanes, record droughts in some areas, but don't worry, it's not caused by human activity, it's just random. And the fact that we're heading for an increase of 3.5 degrees in global temperatures - don't worry, Trump has it under control.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/11/threat-climate-change-hurricane-harvey-irma-droughts

[ 11. September 2017, 17:21: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0