Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Persian Vol]

I'm calling BS

We didn't have a single triple digit day this summer

Look for a very very cold winter.
We are cooling down.

Weather in one area doesn't account for global temperatures. People basing climate change on their personal weather experiences provides a false notion on the reality of the global climate.

 

[McDad]

Of course not. You won't find any articles claiming such. And of course, no single weather event can be explicitly attributed to climate change. That's not how this works. However, this tragedy is undoubtedly made worse by the unusually warm waters in the gulf of mexico and 2+ feet of local sea level rise over the past century.

You should go correct a poster in the Harvey thread in the Pub.

 

[Obsessed]

Weather in one area doesn't account for global temperatures. People basing climate change on their personal weather experiences provides a false notion on the reality of the global climate.

That's the problem. There is no reality to it.

Mother Earth is going the Mother Earth. Humans be damned.

 

[BartW]

That's the problem. There is no reality to it.

Mother Earth is going the Mother Earth. Humans be damned.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'm calling BS

We didn't have a single triple digit day this summer

Look for a very very cold winter.
We are cooling down.

I hope so. I hate summer.

 

[Sin City Vol]

I'm calling BS

We didn't have a single triple digit day this summer

Look for a very very cold winter.
We are cooling down.

We broke the record for heat 3 days in a row this summer and had more consecutive days of triple digits than ever before...maybe it's a coincidence.

94% of scientist say smoking is harmful and causes cancer and no one doubts them..97% of scientist say global warming is real yet the right continues to deny it.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Weather in one area doesn't account for global temperatures. People basing climate change on their personal weather experiences provides a false notion on the reality of the global climate.

Also, people basing climate change on sometimes faulty and inconsistent findings provide a false notion on the reality of the global climate.

 

[Rifleman]

Of course not. You won't find any articles claiming such. And of course, no single weather event can be explicitly attributed to climate change. That's not how this works. However, this tragedy is undoubtedly made worse by the unusually warm waters in the gulf of mexico and 2+ feet of local sea level rise over the past century.

When people declare victory over the inability to correlate singular events to cc, it reminds me of a how a fellow student in a Biology 101 class explained to our brilliant professor that evolutionary biological processes were "just a theory' and actually, pathetically, thought he'd won the argument.

Complex events don't have singular catalysts, obviously.

The very word "climate", which derives from the Greek klima, has a denotative meaning of "inclination or slope". So the concept of a general influencing force is already built into its meaning.

Weather comes from the Old Norse vedr, meaning wind or storm literally, so a singular event.

So when people point out the weather and climate are two separate things, we are supposed to be impressed that they understand the most basic meaning of two words?

 

[LouderVol]

Taxpayers will pay a high price for loss of flood protection standards


Trump pulls the plug on flood risk management standard


Flood insurance splits GOP, spurs bipartisan dealmaking as deadline looms

Smooth move by Trump -- just in time for another unprecedented flooding event. Sadly I believe this is just another instance of him trying to erase anything Obama without considering the consequences.

We spend billions of dollars rebuilding severe repetitive loss properties (dozens of times in some cases) but neither the president nor Congress have the courage to stop wasting money. Studies show that every $1 spent on disaster mitigation saves $4 in post-disaster recovery. But everyone’s just concerned about looking out for number one, kicking the can down the road to save a buck today. Sounds familiar… :whistling:

Prayers to those affected by Harvey

right, because if this was still in the budget it would have stopped all the building in the area and everyone there would have had flood insurance. please.

I don't even think any flood maps or insurance covers 1000 year floods.

 

[hog88]

When people declare victory over the inability to correlate singular events to cc, it reminds me of a how a fellow student in a Biology 101 class explained to our brilliant professor that evolutionary biological processes were "just a theory' and actually, pathetically, thought he'd won the argument.

Complex events don't have singular catalysts, obviously.

The very word "climate", which derives from the Greek klima, has a denotative meaning of "inclination or slope". So the concept of a general influencing force is already built into its meaning.

Weather comes from the Old Norse vedr, meaning wind or storm literally, so a singular event.

So when people point out the weather and climate are two separate things, we are supposed to be impressed that they understand the most basic meaning of two words?

Nice word salad.

 

[PeterNincompoop]

right, because if this was still in the budget it would have stopped all the building in the area and everyone there would have had flood insurance. please.

I don't even think any flood maps or insurance covers 1000 year floods.

No, if it was still in the budget Houston would still be in the dire situation it currently is, because A) as you mentioned, it was a 1000 year flood with enormous amounts of rain and, B) no one has cared enough to look at the big picture beyond, can we profit to, should we profit. Houston is the worst area of the country for flooding, and they have no zoning laws. So for years, it's continued to sprawl out, putting concrete over natural wetlands. Wetlands that wouldn't have been able to stop all the rain they got from Harvey, but it would've helped to divert it better than sprawling concrete did. Nobody likes unnecessary government regulation, but sometimes it's necessary because it's good for the long term of our country, and it doesn't need to be stripped away just to undo what the last guy did. Besides, with the rebuilding that will be needed there, some of the regulations should be there to try and prevent future flooding, rather than doing it the same way we've always done.

https://qz.com/1064364/hurricane-ha...ed-urban-development-and-wetland-destruction/

 

[McDad]

No, if it was still in the budget Houston would still be in the dire situation it currently is, because A) as you mentioned, it was a 1000 year flood with enormous amounts of rain and, B) no one has cared enough to look at the big picture beyond, can we profit to, should we profit. Houston is the worst area of the country for flooding, and they have no zoning laws. So for years, it's continued to sprawl out, putting concrete over natural wetlands. Wetlands that wouldn't have been able to stop all the rain they got from Harvey, but it would've helped to divert it better than sprawling concrete did. Nobody likes unnecessary government regulation, but sometimes it's necessary because it's good for the long term of our country, and it doesn't need to be stripped away just to undo what the last guy did. Besides, with the rebuilding that will be needed there, some of the regulations should be there to try and prevent future flooding, rather than doing it the same way we've always done.

https://qz.com/1064364/hurricane-ha...ed-urban-development-and-wetland-destruction/

Not needed. Insurance providers are the world's best assessors of risk. Give them leeway to declare certain zones uninsurable. Let the free market guide decisions.

 

[hog88]

Not needed. Insurance providers are the world's best assessors of risk. Give them leeway to declare certain zones uninsurable. Let the free market guide decisions.

Precisely! The federal government shouldn't be in the insurance business.

 

[Mick]

Not needed. Insurance providers are the world's best assessors of risk. Give them leeway to declare certain zones uninsurable. Let the free market guide decisions.

Does this principle apply to the Health insurance too?

 

[McDad]

Does this principle apply to the Health insurance too?

Yes. A health insurance company should be able to declare people as unisurable.

 

[Mick]

Yes. A health insurance company should be able to declare people as unisurable.

You are consistent. Your stats check out.

 

[McDad]

You are consistent. Your stats check out.

I think this is the first time my stats have been verified.

May i use you as a future reference?

 

[Mick]

I think this is the first time my stats have been verified.

May i use you as a future reference?

Of course. I may not agree but you have integrity.

 

[PeterNincompoop]

Not needed. Insurance providers are the world's best assessors of risk. Give them leeway to declare certain zones uninsurable. Let the free market guide decisions.

Precisely! The federal government shouldn't be in the insurance business.

McD, while I see the point you're trying to make, did they not already have that leeway under the current free market that has overseen the destruction of nearly 25,000 acres (about 10,000 hectares) of natural wetland infrastructure, mostly in Harris County (Houston) between 1992 and 2010, costing the region the ability to handle nearly four billion gallons (15 billion liters) of storm water?

Also, did either of you read the article? It's not about the government being in the insurance business, it's about how unchecked development has radically worsened the problem they are currently facing. Are you guys against building codes in earthquake prone areas too? Having preventative plans puts cost upfront to help with keeping disaster assistance cost lower when a situation like this arises. Having no zoning laws or not requiring companies who destroy public wetlands to mitigate the ecological effects, by creating new wetlands elsewhere, is exactly what is putting the federal government in the insurance business right now.

 

[McDad]

McD, while I see the point you're trying to make, did they not already have that leeway under the current free market that has overseen the destruction of nearly 25,000 acres (about 10,000 hectares) of natural wetland infrastructure, mostly in Harris County (Houston) between 1992 and 2010, costing the region the ability to handle nearly four billion gallons (15 billion liters) of storm water?

Also, did either of you read the article? It's not about the government being in the insurance business, it's about how unchecked development has radically worsened the problem they are currently facing. Are you guys against building codes in earthquake prone areas too? Having preventative plans puts cost upfront to help with keeping disaster assistance cost lower when a situation like this arises. Having no zoning laws or not requiring companies who destroy public wetlands to mitigate the ecological effects, by creating new wetlands elsewhere, is exactly what is putting the federal government in the insurance business right now.

Check my stats, Peter.

Seriously, i do not know about Houston or how they have managed (mismanaged) development. All i know, is when i am interested in a property one of the first people i call is my insurance agent. If insurance companies deem something uninsurable and it is developed, tough cookies. If wetlands were a priority, the government of Houston should have taken steps to declare it a nature preserve or something. I do not want the same government who cannot see the value of wetlands to be the same government in charge of directing development.

Are building codes necessary: No. Other methods could be devised to ensure safety of buildings. I hope building inspectors have come a long way since my father dealt with them. He found them to be generally ignorant about construction and often corrupt (asking for bribes and hush money).

 

[PeterNincompoop]

Check my stats, Peter.

Seriously, i do not know about Houston or how they have managed (mismanaged) development. All i know, is when i am interested in a property one of the first people i call is my insurance agent. If insurance companies deem something uninsurable and it is developed, tough cookies. If wetlands were a priority, the government of Houston should have taken steps to declare it a nature preserve or something. I do not want the same government who cannot see the value of wetlands to be the same government in charge of directing development.

I'm not trying to be combative, but I'll ask again, did you read the article?

The previous administration implemented the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard in January of 2015. 10 days before Harvey hit land, our current administration signed an executive order rolling back various environmental rules in order to streamline approvals for infrastructure projects. One of them was an Obama-era order that established a federal infrastructure standard to reduce the risk of flooding damage.

Also, the previous administration had greatly expanded the number of wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act. In February, the Trump administration said it would repeal Obama’s decision, meaning a lot more wetlands would lose that protection. To get a permit under the Clean Water Act, developers who build in protected wetland areas must submit paperwork showing they’ve completed mitigation measures. In 2015, Texas A&M and non-profit research group HARC analyzed a sample of permits issued from 1990 to 2012 in the greater Houston area. They found that in fewer than half of the cases had the developers submitted complete paperwork, and in two thirds of the cases, there was no documentation that any type of mitigation had happened. Another study by the same two groups looked at a dozen projects that had obtained permits, and found that only two of them had successfully offset wetland destruction, seven were partially successful, and three were complete failures. The CWA was established in '72, and has been largely ignored (at least in Houston) in favor of the free market, so now the federal government is in the insurance business...again.

I'm not against the free market, but when we blindly believe in it as being perfect and let it go unchecked, we'll spend several more billions of dollars on the back end cleaning up the mess...again. My whole stance is that not all government regulations are bad. Plenty are, but wiping them off the books just because it was the last guy in office that implemented them doesn't mean we should.

 

[McDad]

I'm not trying to be combative, but I'll ask again, did you read the article?

I didnt. There is zero percent chance it changes my perspective.

I'm not against the free market, but when we blindly believe in it as being perfect and let it go unchecked, we'll spend several more billions of dollars on the back end cleaning up the mess...again.

I feel EXACTLY the same about government.

 

[PeterNincompoop]

I didnt. There is zero percent chance it changes my perspective.

Good to know that studies done by an agricultural institution as to how we could be better prepared for similar future events, that could potentially save the inept government billions of dollars in disaster relief on top of the trillions of dollars of debt we already have, have no effect on your perspective. I'd ask you what it's like to know it all, but there's no sense in continuing in this circle, have a great day.

 

[LouderVol]

No, if it was still in the budget Houston would still be in the dire situation it currently is, because A) as you mentioned, it was a 1000 year flood with enormous amounts of rain and, B) no one has cared enough to look at the big picture beyond, can we profit to, should we profit. Houston is the worst area of the country for flooding, and they have no zoning laws. So for years, it's continued to sprawl out, putting concrete over natural wetlands. Wetlands that wouldn't have been able to stop all the rain they got from Harvey, but it would've helped to divert it better than sprawling concrete did. Nobody likes unnecessary government regulation, but sometimes it's necessary because it's good for the long term of our country, and it doesn't need to be stripped away just to undo what the last guy did. Besides, with the rebuilding that will be needed there, some of the regulations should be there to try and prevent future flooding, rather than doing it the same way we've always done.

https://qz.com/1064364/hurricane-ha...ed-urban-development-and-wetland-destruction/

I am actually all for zoning. I believe most people should be. Denser cities and more pristine countryside actually makes both sides happy imo. Believe me that I hate sprawl more than most. However that isn't the matter at hand. Trumps cuts had zero to do with this disaster as was first implied; also it is very doubtful whether these cuts will have any impact.

if there were any zoning there would be setbacks to any place of water, including said wetlands. However pretty much any zoning that actually deals with these places always has clauses to allow. other wise you would see zero building along the coastline. moving the wetlands doesn't really help if you are building on the coast, because you are still pushing the water that comes in further into shore. and as far as pushing the water one way or the other the exact locations of these new wetlands can have a dire impact if the implications aren't fully studied or known. ie: areas that never flooded suddenly getting flooded. again which I doubt trump's cuts have messed any with.

 

[LouderVol]

Are building codes necessary: No. Other methods could be devised to ensure safety of buildings. I hope building inspectors have come a long way since my father dealt with them. He found them to be generally ignorant about construction and often corrupt (asking for bribes and hush money).

they are still the same. some are anyway. thankfully in big cities you can find good ones with the bad.

also the building codes aren't set by the government. the industry has written them and the state just makes them part of the law. there are always amendments and redaction's but I would say the states are typically removing more lines than adding. Cali and Florida are probably big exceptions. oh and NC, they wrote a whole new code, but from my understanding it is actually pretty good.