Cardude in Harvey bullseye

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Capt. Jon

Great statement! And since an algorithm is a set of rules we humans create to determine an outcome we are looking for its flawed from the start. It would take many hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of experience to write the rule set for a calculated outcome. We have no such experience. Once there is a consensus then science left the room! At best climate science is a SWAG!

Unfortunately, this topic has become more political than scientific, and more emotional than rational. For example, the IPCC has been much maligned, but I think the scientists have tried to present information fairly, even if the political managers of the IPCC tend to distort what the scientists have to say. For example, in the AR4 report, in the section on the "Physical Science Basis" for the report's conclusions the authors write this about the effect of clouds on climate:

"Since tropospheric and surface temperatures are closely coupled (see Section 3.4.1), these constraints predict a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity (RH) is close to unchanged."

They go on to acknowledge: "Confidence in modelled water vapour feedback is thus affected by uncertainties in the physical processes controlling upper-tropospheric humidity, and confidence in their representation in GCMs."

I translate this to mean that if water vapor in the form of clouds in the atmosphere are constant at all altitudes, then clouds are a positive feedback to solar radiation. However, since we don't actually know all that much about the effect of clouds on temperatures we can't be confident about their impact.

I'm not sure about you, but if you blow air over water, or wind through clouds you might observe cooling. The higher you go in the atmosphere, the more the cooling. However, clouds also keep heat in. So what is the balance here? Does increased warming, which causes increased evaporation and increased clouds cause more warming, or does it cause cooling and what is the balance. The IPCC says we have no clue but for the sake of modeling, they assume a positive feedback.

So, how many trillions should we spend pretending we know the answer to this question when the scientists say they don't know that answer? If you are deciding the issue on politics or emotion, I guess the sky is the limit. If you care about spending money wisely, you may feel differently.

[Mule]

Here, chew on this

https://apnews.com/d279b95b3eff430f88fed9c4c2a22fad

Now for you "free market" guys tell me how the free market 1. Let this happen and 2. how it will be fixed.

The national Flood Ins plan is a mess. People have been paying and have every right to be reimbursed. Maybe it will now be reformed. Houses that the system have paid out on time and time and time again are out there. Seems after the 2nd time a buy out is in order and the lot never to be built on again. One step would be to stop allowing ins co to escape liability due to flood and water damage. ALL houses should be insured for all, volcano, earth quake, helicopter dropping porcupines...everything. The first step is to not allow insurance companies to write the legislation, as they do now, then work from there.

Just remember when thinking about major corporations, especially pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, understand that the perfect working example of an oxymoron is "corporate morality".

BTW, I lived in Friendswood, from 73 to 86. I watched floods, floods and more floods. Houses were paid for with 2 floods, free and clear from the proceeds. 50 inches fell on my old house. I saw 23" in 12 hours in 1979.

[sbu22]

Lest we forget, Port Arthur, Beaumont, Orange are drowning even now. People in Houston who believed they "made it" when they retired last night woke up flooded this morning. Harvey was a nasty SOB. Just issued last advisory.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Mule

Here, chew on this

https://apnews.com/d279b95b3eff430f88fed9c4c2a22fad

Now for you "free market" guys tell me how the free market 1. Let this happen and 2. how it will be fixed.

The national Flood Ins plan is a mess. People have been paying and have every right to be reimbursed. Maybe it will now be reformed. Houses that the system have paid out on time and time and time again are out there. Seems after the 2nd time a buy out is in order and the lot never to be built on again. One step would be to stop allowing ins co to escape liability due to flood and water damage. ALL houses should be insured for all, volcano, earth quake, helicopter dropping porcupines...everything. The first step is to not allow insurance companies to write the legislation, as they do now, then work from there.

Just remember when thinking about major corporations, especially pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, understand that the perfect working example of an oxymoron is "corporate morality".

BTW, I lived in Friendswood, from 73 to 86. I watched floods, floods and more floods. Houses were paid for with 2 floods, free and clear from the proceeds. 50 inches fell on my old house. I saw 23" in 12 hours in 1979.

The link doesn't resolve to a web page, but it sounds like you are condemning free market solutions for the failure of a government program that has nothing to do with the free market. Or am I missing something?

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program

[dhays]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The link doesn't resolve to a web page, but it sounds like you are condemning free market solutions for the failure of a government program that has nothing to do with the free market. Or am I missing something?



https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program

I was able to read the article and it simply described what has been happening in Houston in regards to infrastructure for flood prevention. It sounds like the infrastructure has not kept up with development. I see that as a political failure, but for those that think that the market should be allowed to seek out its own level, it could be seen as a failure of the market.

When I built my current office building, I was a bit annoyed at the amount of money that I had to spend below ground for storm water control. The storm water design was based on the amount of hard surface on the property vs vegetation etc... It took a special engineer to design it, then a ton of money to build it. Only then could be build the building on top.

Since then we have had some massive rainstorms as well as the wettest winter in hx this last year. No problems with storm water on my property thanks to do requirements that I didn't like paying for at the time. This meant that runoff from my property didn't flood my neighbors down the hill. If my county had been politically controlled by the builders/developers as it had in the past, I would have avoided that cost and my neighbor would have had his business flooded.

Those are the types of codes and regulations that are not popular on the part of builders and developers. It is in that area that Houston has generally failed over years. Back when those flood control reservoirs that are now at risk were built, they were way outside of the city. Development has been allowed to surround them, creating huge areas of hard surface without the infrastructure to control the runoff.

So is that a free market or government failure?

[healhustler]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I'm sure it would increase everyone's confidence in the science if climate scientists weren't continually caught fiddling with the data to make it point to a desired conclusion.

Elegantly put, but we would not want to deprive the "experts" of a book or movie deal. The ego of man is at work in many dimensions here, not the least of which is the tendency to believe we are more relevant than we really are. A single asteroid strike or volcanic eruption could easily change our environment and perspective, and it wouldn't need the time of an industrial revolution to do it. I agree that consciousness and responsibility need to evolve, but the earth (as a dynamic living thing) may not be invested in it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bigsfish

Art

I was reading what you wrote above and when I reached "Human race is at a turning point. Either we own up to the need for us to "inventively" work alongside [in coincidence with] Earth's inherent nature conditions for maintaining life-giving eco-systemic properties or else we will likely perish."

I looked back to see where you are and when I read San Fransico it all made sense.

[Seevee]

Geeze,

With all this global warming and the oceans rising perhaps we won't go aground.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Seevee

Geeze,

With all this global warming and the oceans rising perhaps we won't go aground.

Didn't even work for Noah. Genesis 8:4.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by BruceK

Those fond of impenetrable language, especially from Government, might enjoy "Utopia". Try www.abc.com.au and search for it. It`s satire from the mythical "Nation Building Authority", which well knows all Govt wants is an amazing project to announce (an "announceable") in terms as devoid of meaning as possible, knowing that actually building anything would be deemed failure.

"Yes, Minister!"

And eventually "Yes, Prime Minister!"



-Chris

[Mule]

The point I was trying to make, poorly I might add, is that free market does not present an answer to all of the problems of society, and often it is the problem.

Our reluctance to level appropriate taxes, even to maintain the gifts the WWII generation gave us much less build on the example they gave us is the problem. Be it highways, rail, water and sewage, communications, electrical grid we boomers have not measured up. The loudest hue and cry is "job killing regulations and high taxes" can be heard as our infrastructure crumbles. In the 1950's the highest tax bracket was 90% and when Reagan led the charge for tax reform (not for the middle class in a positive way) there was a 70% bracket on the books as the middle class had far, far more generous deductions.

Houston is the current glaring example of not investing in America at a substainable level as the drumbeat of "government is bad" and therefore not trusted. With the bipartisan bad behaviour of our politicians, that has a basis in fact, sadly I might add.

Answers? Got me.

Additional information

https://www.citylab.com/environment/...magine/538356/

[cardude01]

I look at climate change using Pascal's Wager. It's possible the data could be wrong and the earth isn't on a long-term permanent warming trend, but a rational person should behave as though the trend is real and attempt to reverse it.

If the trend was inaccurate, then you have still made the world a better place by reducing your carbon footprint, so no harm done. If the warming trend is correct and we continue to party like it's 1999, then the earth is truly doomed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[Seevee]

Originally Posted by Mule

The point I was trying to make, poorly I might add, is that free market does not present an answer to all of the problems of society, and often it is the problem.

Our reluctance to level appropriate taxes, even to maintain the gifts the WWII generation gave us much less build on the example they gave us is the problem. Be it highways, rail, water and sewage, communications, electrical grid we boomers have not measured up. The loudest hue and cry is "job killing regulations and high taxes" can be heard as our infrastructure crumbles. In the 1950's the highest tax bracket was 90% and when Reagan led the charge for tax reform (not for the middle class in a positive way) there was a 70% bracket on the books as the middle class had far, far more generous deductions.

Houston is the current glaring example of not investing in America at a substainable level as the drumbeat of "government is bad" and therefore not trusted. With the bipartisan bad behaviour of our politicians, that has a basis in fact, sadly I might add.

Answers? Got me.

Additional information

https://www.citylab.com/environment/...magine/538356/

Mule,

You make a good point, but the main problem is controlling our government which is almost impossible. You can tax the hell out of everyone and give it ALL to the government and they won't get the job done. We spend WAY too much money on handouts, entitlements to the unentitled, overbearing rules and just waste (could go on and on). And that needs to stop. We didn't have all that waste in the 50s and even with the higher brackets, one could provide for a family of 4 with one job and own a house and a new car... hard to do that today.

The MAIN purpose of government is to protect us and they are doing a lousy job. Fortunately the new administration looks like a MUCH better option, building back our military and improving infrastructure and putting people back to work.

Anyone can predict disasters and eventually be right, but doesn't mean we can prevent them. We should minimize the disaster for the bulk of us. We can put plans in to minimize the 100 year event, and it will probably take 100 years to get there... and at what cost? We have already substantially increased building standards... to the point that a lot of homes are not affordable, so we will have to live in a smaller home. Some of the codes are stupid... like a huge foundation for a garage. So what if the garage falls off every 100 years.

We can't afford to protect ourselves from everything. There might be a thought in putting up strong stilts and putting mobile homes on top.... and when the storm hits, it blows the home off, throw it away and put a new one up. Every 100 years, that might be a better solution, at half the price.

Food for thought....

[Mule]

On your second paragraph the facts seem to not support your hope:

Rolling back infrastructure flood drainage regulations. Hummm....

https://www.theguardian.com/business...e_iOSApp_Other

The Houston Chronicle is conservative and 1 of the three largest newspapers in Texas and they are exposing 20 Texas lawmakers for participating in Political Grandstanding with their Sandy vote.

AP FACT CHECK: Texas GOP misstates Sandy aid package - Houston Chronicle

Here is another from a different source that delves into the aforementioned about Sandy showing the Texas Rattler, Cruise, shaking his tail. The stories match.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...on=us_politics


Each of these articles point to less than favorable behaviour of the ones in power.

Forget not Katrina. The US Navy has and is showing up for this one..good. Katrina did not even get the commitment we gave Thailand for the Tsunami.

I have no real hope for better.

[dhays]

Oh never mind....

[MurrayM]

How many climate change nay-sayers here enjoy shellfish, crustaceans, fish that eat plankton, or fish that eat fish that eat plankton?

The oceans absorb about 1/3 of the carbon in the atmosphere which is altering the ph of the oceans...search 'ocean acidification' for more information.

Not a good prognosis for Humanity in general considering how many people rely on the oceans for a large part of their diet, but maybe you'll take a greater interest if it affects your sport fishing?

[BandB]

Concern for those in the South Texas area, may we add the Arkema chemical plant with the predicted explosion and mile and a half evacuation area and the shut down of the Beaumont water system.

As to Houston, here's hoping that they don't just rebuild as it was but do some enhanced zoning and flood control. This was predictable in the eyes of many, even if perhaps not at this magnitude. Growth of business had been the priority over protection against flooding. The Guardian wrote in June that it wasn't a matter of "if" but a matter of "when." Houston has experienced tremendous growth and built that largely on being friendly to the oil and gas industry. They must balance that now with protecting against future floods. Perhaps some thought they were but now it's clear more must be done. This is no longer a 400 year flood. It's now current, this year, today. Possible and possible, perhaps even likely, to be repeated if change isn't made. It doesn't require a hurricane. For all those concerned about the cost of flood control, we now have the cost of not having it to compare against.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by cardude01

I look at climate change using Pascal's Wager. It's possible the data could be wrong and the earth isn't on a long-term permanent warming trend, but a rational person should behave as though the trend is real and attempt to reverse it.

If the trend was inaccurate, then you have still made the world a better place by reducing your carbon footprint, so no harm done. If the warming trend is correct and we continue to party like it's 1999, then the earth is truly doomed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

Pascal's wager is not the best paradigm for the current debate on what to do about fossil fuel usage. Pascal reasoned that since if God exists and he didn't accept Him, his loss would be infinite since he would lose heaven, while if he did believe in God and He didn't exist his loss would be nothing, since permanent death would be his lot regardless of what he believed in. Therefore, it makes no sense not to believe in God.

With Manmade Global Warming, many are proposing that we spend $trillions to get, at least according to peer reviewed journals and the UN, nearly no change in the climate "just in case" the theory turns out to be correct. That is the polar opposite of Pascal's wager. Just sayin....

[BandB]

Amazing how little rain 4 to 5 inches now seems. We're in TN now. Here are the latest rainfall forecasts through Saturday from NOAA's Weather Prediction Center:

3 to 5 inches of rain is forecast from eastern Arkansas to northern Mississippi, western/central Tennessee, western/central Kentucky and southern Ohio.

6 to 10 inches could locally fall from western Tennessee and northern Mississippi to southwest Kentucky.

In Nashville, 4 to 5 inches of rain and flash flood warnings. Normally that wouldn't alarm people except those here all remember a year ago when they had tremendous damage from floods.

[sbu22]

Mule - I guess it depends on your perspective. Cruz , et al, objected to, in a small sampling: $150 million for fishery disaster areas in Mississippi and Alaska; $20,000 for a new car for the Inspector General of the Justice Department; $10.8 billion for the Federal Transportation Administration; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.

In addition, these hard hit Sandy damage areas got:

$33.2 million Nevada (including: $25 million for rural Nevada; $1.5 million for Truckee Meadows; and $725,000 for Tahoe Regional Planning);

$16.8 million for W.VA ( including: $2.5 million for the Greenbrier River Basin; $325,000 for the Parkersburg and Vienna Riverfront Park; and $150,000 for Island Creek at Logan);

$12.9 million New Mexico (including $5 million for central New Mexico; $250,000 for Santa Fe; and $180,000 for the Southwest Valley, Albuquerque).

The issue was to strip the bill to the essentials for Sandy recovery - not to lard on unrelated costs that should stand (or not stand) on their own merit. These jokers do this all the time - add unrelated crap spending to essential spending legislation. These guys deserve accolades, not disdain.