Cardude in Harvey bullseye

I read all this talk about flood areas and flood plains and building in areas subject to flood and yet there are very few places, if any, in the country not at risk of a flood. Floods happen along rivers and they happen inland where there are no rivers. Even desert areas have been subject to floods on occasion. And, if we're suddenly going to say don't build where floods are a potential, then what about tornadoes, and hurricanes, and earthquakes, or droughts?

I understand having building standards based on location. For instance, earthquake standards in San Francisco, Hurricane standards in Miami, Flood standards in Slidell. I believe there are perhaps a few places where lakes are used for flood control that their shores shouldn't allow building. There are areas where standards for new construction need to be changed. But it is impossible and undesirable to say we're not going to build in any area that has the potential of natural disasters.

sbu22 said:

My favorite is the 5 ton military surplus wrecker, owned and manned by 3 Israeli Defense Force vets (yamalkas and all), operating effectively as a high water rescue vehicle.

Click to expand...

I'd love to find that article

roguewave said:

I'd love to find that article

Click to expand...

They were shown on the Weather Channel.

Between family members and ourselves we have probally 10 properties (some homes, some commercial) in Houston. Most all are water damaged. When things settle down, it will be time to roll up your sleeves and go to work. It's what you do...

roguewave said:

Between family members and ourselves we have probally 10 properties (some homes, some commercial) in Houston. Most all are water damaged. When things settle down, it will be time to roll up your sleeves and go to work. It's what you do...

Click to expand...

Have your properties suffered damage the last two years?

Seevee said:

Art,

Good point, and climate change will happen. So what can we do? Lots of things, but we don't need to rebuild all the house nor put absurd rules in place to make housing prohibitive (and it's heading that way).

I'd rather see folks have the option of making reasonable repairs and additions to improve their property than to do nothing and let it go downhill, and that's not a small problem.

And, yes, over time we will have to deal with climate changes, and just water rising could be a major issue. Probably not in our lifetime, but will happen... unless the next ice age starts up somehow.

Click to expand...

Previous multi thousand year phase of humans owning Earth has been layered with uncontrolled, helter skelter, do-as-you-please antics. Nothing really wrong with that - Cause, after all ...civilization was recently [few thousand years ago] in its cave dwelling infancy. We're just now emerging out of childhood... becoming mid teens! What an inventive party our last couple hundred years have been. We became pass-out drunk on the inventive successes we developed and utilized.

The next phase of human race "ownership" ... regarding this beautiful planet we live on:

Humanly-assisted "positive prone" manipulation of climate temperatures and weather conditions by atmospheric content regulations that help stabilize Earth's seasons, storms and temperatures.

Earth is our "House". We can control its environmental conditions... and we need to if we want civilization to prosper for thousands of years longer.

We've already controlled many environmental conditions... however we did so by blind actions that created "negative prone" manipulation. That is what greatly assisted Earth's climate and ecosphere to become tenuous at best for continued long term life giving environmental opportunities.

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.

That's it in an nut shell folks! Grin and bear it. We can accomplish assistance for maintaining Earth's "Natural Living Conditions"... and, this all will have resoundingly great results. But, it will take some clear actions as well as work... for many decades into the future. Much employment will be created and new global industries will spring up.

When I'm free to let you all know more about what I have and do I'll open things up. Currently other persons and I are strictly held in trade secret abeyance.

BandB said:

Have your properties suffered damage the last two years?

Click to expand...

No, not the last 30 years

I don't remember what the weather was like a thousand years ago. I do remember the scientists and the media getting all worked up, back in the seventies, about the coming ice age that should have been here by now.

I don't know if the current increase in global temps is a result of mans actions or just a natural fluctuation. That said I wouldn't mind if we cutback on the release of CO2 into the air. I kind of prefer plain old O2.

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.

Pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them faster than they are regenerated is not sustainable no matter what causality of climate change you subscribe to.

Bigsfish said:

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.

Click to expand...

I know that was meant as some level of a shot but while he might have been a bit over dramatic for the tastes of some, I basically agree with the primary meaning of Art's post, and I'm not from San Francisco. I did visit there once for a brief period but I had these views before that. So why does mine make sense? I feel strongly we must find a way to peacefully co-exist with the environment and treat it better. We've actually made progress in some areas during my lifetime but lost ground in others, so it's a continuing battle. We are polluting our rivers less and our air less. Had smog controls not been put in place, the air in most of our cities would be killing more of us today. As humans we impact the environment and when we do so negatively then we need to find ways to do so positively to reverse that.

Storms such as Harvey should make us think as temperatures of the seas and the air do play a role. How much, I don't know. However, when we get storms like never before, we need to think is this just a 1000 year random event or have we made created conditions making such a storm possible?

The decisions we made 40 years ago have protected the air of our cities today. The decisions we make today will impact life 40 years from now. I still intend to be around enjoying things then.

Baker said:

They are doing what they were designed to do. THe problem is that they were never designed to handle this sort of pressure. The Addicks Dam is the one with the "uncontrolled release". That means it is just wide open with no metered release. It is supposed to be that way until Sept. 20!!!! IOW, you will have to suffer the coverage of flooding for at least another 3 weeks. Hopefully they were overestimating that. I did hear this morning that there is a small "anomaly" with the damn. One of the gate structures is leaking and potentially compromising the damn...

Click to expand...

Anomaly, eh? Hope the pressure drops before nature demonstrates the erosive power of water

BandB said:

Storms such as Harvey should make us think as temperatures of the seas and the air do play a role. How much, I don't know. However, when we get storms like never before, we need to think is this just a 1000 year random event or have we made created conditions making such a storm possible?

The decisions we made 40 years ago have protected the air of our cities today. The decisions we make today will impact life 40 years from now. I still intend to be around enjoying things then.

Click to expand...

I'm all for a clean environment.

That said, I would like to see proof, not defacto science, that the temperature changes are human influenced and not natural cycles. In the '70s we had a period of extreme cooling and unusually cold winters (Chesapeake Bay completely froze for weeks). Were we responsible for that? All I'm saying is that tracking trends in no way proves a cause and effect relationship. Show me the science of cause.

Ted

kev_rm said:

Pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them faster than they are regenerated is not sustainable no matter what causality of climate change you subscribe to.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, we have around 500 years+ of hydrocarbons still available, and I expect that long before then alternative energy technologies will be sufficiently developed so that these reserves will last a great deal longer than that, if we need them to, which I doubt.

Fans of tinkering with atmospheric components, a.k.a. carbon sequestration schemes might do well to read Dr. Bjorn Lomborg's papers on the economics of same. Using the UN's own numbers he demonstrates that even if every such scheme described in the Paris Accords were adhered to, in addition to extended commitments to 2100 the impact on average global temps would be around 1/5th of a degree, yet cost trillions. He is a greenie who thinks the vast sums of money proposed to be through away accomplishing nothing be spent on greening the Sahara which would absorb any excess carbon civilization produces. The Israelis have shown this is quite possible and can be done for a fraction of the cost of the regulatory boondoggles many seem to prefer.

O C Diver said:

I'm all for a clean environment.

That said, I would like to see proof, not defacto science, that the temperature changes are human influenced and not natural cycles. In the '70s we had a period of extreme cooling and unusually cold winters (Chesapeake Bay completely froze for weeks). Were we responsible for that? All I'm saying is that tracking trends in no way proves a cause and effect relationship. Show me the science of cause.

Ted

Click to expand...

Ted, there are computer models that demonstrate human causation. Of course, those models are by definition based on what the UN calls "simplifying assumptions" because we lack the computing power to model the atmosphere at a level of granularity that is needed to describe a chaotic system. One of those simplifying assumptions is an estimated value of how sensitive the atmosphere is to a doubling of CO2. Since none of the models' predictions match observational reality, that value is either wrong, or negative feedbacks are not adequately addressed in the models. Probably a combination of both, but the idea that this is "settled science" is a political, not a scientific statement because no honest scientist would say that failed predictive models describe reality. And, 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.

Harvey became a big event because it stalled. It was not a particularly strong storm, and it did not create that much rain, but what was different is that it sat in one spot for days and sucked moisture off the gulf and dropped it on east Texas. For days.

It is very unusual for a tropical system to sit like that, especially partially over land. When I hear "climate change" being used to partially explain the damage from the storm, it makes me shake my head. Damage came from the stall.

Best of luck to all those in the middle of that storm. My prayers go to them.
May God Bless you all.
Portuguese

kev_rm said:

Pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them faster than they are regenerated is not sustainable no matter what causality of climate change you subscribe to.

Click to expand...

Agreed. IMHO,it`s due to the world exceeding its population capacity and creating unsustainable demands on Earth for food, products, etc. Again IMHO, it`s an issue for people,not Governments, to resolve.
No idea whether this has any relationship to the current US flood disaster.

Bigsfish said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm a NYer / LIender ... living in SF.

I and my associates work on facts, not assumptions.

Laws of physics rule our day - every day!


BTW - I've been a registered Republican all my life!

BandB said:

I know that was meant as some level of a shot but while he might have been a bit over dramatic for the tastes of some, I basically agree with the primary meaning of Art's post, and I'm not from San Francisco. I did visit there once for a brief period but I had these views before that. So why does mine make sense? I feel strongly we must find a way to peacefully co-exist with the environment and treat it better. We've actually made progress in some areas during my lifetime but lost ground in others, so it's a continuing battle. We are polluting our rivers less and our air less. Had smog controls not been put in place, the air in most of our cities would be killing more of us today. As humans we impact the environment and when we do so negatively then we need to find ways to do so positively to reverse that.

Storms such as Harvey should make us think as temperatures of the seas and the air do play a role. How much, I don't know. However, when we get storms like never before, we need to think is this just a 1000 year random event or have we made created conditions making such a storm possible?

The decisions we made 40 years ago have protected the air of our cities today. The decisions we make today will impact life 40 years from now. I still intend to be around enjoying things then.

Click to expand...

Thank You!

Higher water levels and warmer temperatures do increase the danger of storms like Harvey. How much it impacted it by increasing the moisture carried, I don't know. I'll leave that to the scientists to evaluate. However, here's a thought for everyone. Sandy would not have flooded Manhattan a hundred years earlier when the sea level was one foot lower.

Now, here's an interesting article for consideration in how you protect Houston and South Texas or New Orleans. Most of the Netherlands is below sea level and Amsterdam is nearly 7' below. They had a devastating flood in 1953. They have taken steps to prevent a repeat.

Holland has solved this problem; why can't the US? (opinion) - CNN

Seevee said:

BandB,

Sounds fair, but if the policy includes flood and there's no choice, then one is stuck with it.

And, requirements for insurance can be governmental and lenders. I'm totally against govt requirements, but the lenders have the right to require it, but feel it should only be on the building, not the land (however, it doesn't affect me).

I could argue options for the homeowner that wants reasonable coverage without going bizerk.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any gov requirement for flood insurance. Some insurance policies require it as a pre-prequisite. And mortgages typically require insurance. But you can choose to participate in all that or not. It's up to you.

twistedtree said:

I'm not aware of any gov requirement for flood insurance. Some insurance policies require it as a pre-prequisite. And mortgages typically require insurance. But you can choose to participate in all that or not. It's up to you.

Click to expand...

It's required if you're in a special high risk flood area and seeking a mortgage from a federally regulated or insured lender.

twistedtree said:

I'm not aware of any gov requirement for flood insurance. Some insurance policies require it as a pre-prequisite. And mortgages typically require insurance. But you can choose to participate in all that or not. It's up to you.

Click to expand...

If your mortgage is insured by the SBA, Dept of Ag, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. and the project is in a flood zone, it is federal law.

https://www.fema.gov/faq-details/Flood-Insurance-Requirement

kev_rm said:

Pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and burning them faster than they are regenerated is not sustainable no matter what causality of climate change you subscribe to.

Click to expand...

Hydrocarbons will outlast me so why should I care? The air will be breathable as long as I'm around so it shouldn't concern me. I live in an area that will likely benefit from climate change so I'm going to drive my big SUV around as much as possible to hurry it along. I should probably continue to live my life as I see fit without regard to what affect it may have after I am dead and gone.

Art said:

Previous multi thousand year phase of humans owning Earth has been layered with uncontrolled, helter skelter, do-as-you-please antics. Nothing really wrong with that - Cause, after all ...civilization was recently [few thousand years ago] in its cave dwelling infancy. We're just now emerging out of childhood... becoming mid teens! What an inventive party our last couple hundred years have been. We became pass-out drunk on the inventive successes we developed and utilized.

The next phase of human race "ownership" ... regarding this beautiful planet we live on:

Humanly-assisted "positive prone" manipulation of climate temperatures and weather conditions by atmospheric content regulations that help stabilize Earth's seasons, storms and temperatures.

Earth is our "House". We can control its environmental conditions... and we need to if we want civilization to prosper for thousands of years longer.

We've already controlled many environmental conditions... however we did so by blind actions that created "negative prone" manipulation. That is what greatly assisted Earth's climate and ecosphere to become tenuous at best for continued long term life giving environmental opportunities.

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.

That's it in an nut shell folks! Grin and bear it. We can accomplish assistance for maintaining Earth's "Natural Living Conditions"... and, this all will have resoundingly great results. But, it will take some clear actions as well as work... for many decades into the future. Much employment will be created and new global industries will spring up.

When I'm free to let you all know more about what I have and do I'll open things up. Currently other persons and I are strictly held in trade secret abeyance.

Click to expand...

?..... Then why mention it? Matter of fact can you put the above in plain English?

What does "Humanly-assisted "positive prone" manipulation of climate temperatures and weather conditions by atmospheric content regulations that help stabilize Earth's seasons, storms and temperatures" mean?

Heck, I'm an engineer and I cannot de-cipher that paragraph.

dhays said:

Hydrocarbons will outlast me so why should I care? The air will be breathable as long as I'm around so it shouldn't concern me. I live in an area that will likely benefit from climate change so I'm going to drive my big SUV around as much as possible to hurry it along. I should probably continue to live my life as I see fit without regard to what affect it may have after I am dead and gone.

Click to expand...

Just curious, but if we spend a few trillion reducing average global temperatures by 1/5th of one degree by 2100 and those trillions aren't spent on education, healthcare, disease research, or eliminating malnutrition should you care about that?

Cost to eliminate malaria worldwide: $8.5 billion https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25551454

Cost to eliminate malnutrition over the next 10 years: $70 billion http://www.bread.org/blog/ending-malnutrition-what-cost

Cost of tax payer subsidies for wind power in the U.S. since 2007: $176 billion Wind Energy Subsidies: Billions and Billions of Your Tax Dollars | National Review

Capt. Jon said:

?..... Then why mention it? Matter of fact can you put the above in plain English?

What does "Humanly-assisted "positive prone" manipulation of climate temperatures and weather conditions by atmospheric content regulations that help stabilize Earth's seasons, storms and temperatures" mean? Tax it?

Heck, I'm an engineer and I cannot de-cipher that paragraph.

Click to expand...

That would be the opposite of "negative prone" manipulation. I think.

Delfin said:

Ted, there are computer models that demonstrate human causation. Of course, those models are by definition based on what the UN calls "simplifying assumptions" because we lack the computing power to model the atmosphere at a level of granularity that is needed to describe a chaotic system. One of those simplifying assumptions is an estimated value of how sensitive the atmosphere is to a doubling of CO2. Since none of the models' predictions match observational reality, that value is either wrong, or negative feedbacks are not adequately addressed in the models. Probably a combination of both, but the idea that this is "settled science" is a political, not a scientific statement because no honest scientist would say that failed predictive models describe reality. And, 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.

Click to expand...

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!

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.