Harvey

[pgardn]

When given facts and details, people dig in their heels.

Did man-caused climate change cause any given storm? Probably not.

Hurricanes get their energy from warm water in the oceans. Global warming means that ocean water is warmer. We have measured and quantified this effect.

Warmer water evaporates a bit more than colder water. Global warming means more water in the air. We have measured and quantified this effect.

Any given storm is going to be a bit more intense, and have a bit more rain than it would otherwise. It is around the edges that the effects will be increasingly felt. 7-10% more intensity usually doesn't mean much, but when you get tipping points such as "10 inches of rain in this area can be absorbed by a river system without flooding, but 11 inches will cause it to overflow its banks" that is where you get disasters.

These things will happen more frequently, and be worse than they would have otherwise.

Funny thing is that accepting the science on this is just the first step.

Taking steps to avoid future warming is where the people with their head in the sand really fail.

"Limiting fossil fuels is harmful to the economy", is easily disproved, and our reductions in CO2 emissions will not only cut our climate risks, but actively help our economy.

From a risk management standpoint, the net cost of mitigation is really low, even setting aside the variable costs associated with such events.

Shifting energy usage patterns will have costs, however balanced they will be by gains elsewhere.

Here is where the limitations of conservative "in the box" thinking are working against a solution:

The biggest losers will be energy companies that see themselves as primarily fossil fuel companies, and can't or won't adapt. Fossil fuel extraction is a trillion dollar industry, and they pay for a LOT of propaganda that people who are intellectually lazy and lack the key critical thinking skill of evaluating their own biases accept as truth.

I get the hangup on fossil fuels. The infrastructure is in place and makes things cheap. Future energy will not totally be without fossil fuels. What I don't get is the blatant denial. The slow meandering acceptance is not helpful. Yes, maybe we are warming but human contribution is tiny. Maybe the contribution is more significant but it's not reversible so... on and on..

It does not help when meteorologists and astrophysics types muddy the water with their own incorrect extrapolations. They are not the experts either nor is anyone on this board. But of all people they should know they are being disingenuous.

[boutons_deux]

What will you say when it is the individual farmer modifying their crops?

"GMOs are simply allowing much faster tailoring of crops to specific needs. "

"specific rentier capitalism needs for the PROFITS of BigChem"

farmers ain't gonna ever around with their own gene editing machines.

the "specific needs" of agriculture are to halt URGENTLY the denaturing, destroying the soil. ing chemicals don't improve human nutrition. All crops come from the soil, not from BigChem's poisons.

To put an even finer point on it, I read about one really advanced farmer, maybe even a TX farmer, saying irrigating crops with ALKALINE ground water already s up the crops that evolved with neutral or slightly acidic rain water. Some crops need an acidic soil to uptake a healthy contribution from the soil.

[pgardn]

Harvey was significantly weakened by the time it was in the Houston area. The fact that it lingered there for so long is why there is such epic flooding.

The Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed between 9-12k people.

This was when we basically put boats out in the water to try and send messages back in to Galveston that a storm was coming. There were no satellites. The lingering was predicted. We have had experience with horrendous flooding that lingers on a smaller scale in NO. Some of this could have been mitigated, some probably not.

We will get a fuller report in the future.

[RandomGuy]

Just out of curiousity, what are you basing this off of? Have you spoken with people actually in the city?

Direct personal experience with flood recovery.

You cannot stay in a stinking, moldy house with no power, temperature in the 90's and a lot of humidity. It is entirely untenable as shelter. Given the number of homes that I saw underwater that will be a LOT of housing destroyed. Once the water goes down, you need massive amounts of labor to clear out the damage. Many, many elderly people will be physically unable to do this for themselves.

I have not spoken to anyone in the city yet, merely paid attention to news. Houston does/did have a 10% vacancy rate for multifamily apartments that can absorb a good part of the need.

The rest is simply an off-the-hip estimate. Simple math suggests a massive need for shelter. A very large number like 7,600,000 means you start with a big constant, and the other factor, the unknown variable, i.e. the % of people needing shelter, does not have to be very large to mean that your ending total to be very large.

Initial official estimates tend to, in my experience, understate the magnitude of need, simply due to lack of solid information on which to base such estimates.

[pgardn]

"GMOs are simply allowing much faster tailoring of crops to specific needs. "

"specific rentier capitalism needs for the PROFITS of BigChem"

farmers ain't gonna ever around with their own gene editing machines.

the "specific needs" of agriculture are to halt URGENTLY the denaturing, destroying the soil. ing chemicals don't improve human nutrition. All crops come from the soil, not from BigChem's poisons.

To put an even finer point on it, I read about one really advanced farmer, maybe even a TX farmer, saying irrigating crops with ALKALINE ground water already s up the crops that evolved with neutral or slightly acidic rain water. Some crops need an acidic soil to uptake a healthy contribution from the soil.

The above would not even be a problem with no till farming.
Why don't you expand on this? There are bigger issues in farming.

[boutons_deux]

Trump Just Said He Saw Harvey Devastation ‘Firsthand,’ Immediately Got Exposed

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

After witnessing first hand the horror & devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey,my heart goes out even more so to the great people of Texas!
8:12 AM - Aug 30, 2017


Andrew Beatty of French news agency Agence France-Presse quickly took to Twitter to refute the president’s claim:

Follow
Andrew Beatty
✔@AndrewBeatty

I traveled with the President yesterday. Personally, I would not claim to have seen Harvey's horror and devastation first hand. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/902881712010653697 …
8:43 AM - Aug 30, 2017

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/08/3...got-exposed-2/



Did Trash LIE? So disappointing

[AaronY]

Trump Just Said He Saw Harvey Devastation ‘Firsthand,’ Immediately Got Exposed

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

After witnessing first hand the horror & devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey,my heart goes out even more so to the great people of Texas!
8:12 AM - Aug 30, 2017


Andrew Beatty of French news agency Agence France-Presse quickly took to Twitter to refute the president’s claim:

Follow
Andrew Beatty
✔@AndrewBeatty

I traveled with the President yesterday. Personally, I would not claim to have seen Harvey's horror and devastation first hand. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/902881712010653697 …
8:43 AM - Aug 30, 2017

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/08/3...got-exposed-2/



Did Trash LIE? So disappointing

Crucify em boo! Send his ass directly to the tree of woe!

[AaronY]

Seriously though boo.. take in a movie or something

[pgardn]

Direct personal experience with flood recovery.

You cannot stay in a stinking, moldy house with no power, temperature in the 90's and a lot of humidity. It is entirely untenable as shelter. Given the number of homes that I saw underwater that will be a LOT of housing destroyed. Once the water goes down, you need massive amounts of labor to clear out the damage. Many, many elderly people will be physically unable to do this for themselves.

I have not spoken to anyone in the city yet, merely paid attention to news. Houston does/did have a 10% vacancy rate for multifamily apartments that can absorb a good part of the need.

The rest is simply an off-the-hip estimate. Simple math suggests a massive need for shelter. A very large number like 7,600,000 means you start with a big constant, and the other factor, the unknown variable, i.e. the % of people needing shelter, does not have to be very large to mean that your ending total to be very large.

Initial official estimates tend to, in my experience, understate the magnitude of need, simply due to lack of solid information on which to base such estimates.

Seriously i have experinced the inability to get dry for 3 days in freshwater and heat. One will start getting all kinds of fungal infections. Our skin was not made to handle this, especially city dwellers. We have the wrong bacterial and fungal flora to counter act the constantly wet skin. New fungus and bacteria get established and basically start feasting on skin. It's horrible.

[RandomGuy]

I get the hangup on fossil fuels. The infrastructure is in place and makes things cheap. Future energy will not totally be without fossil fuels. What I don't get is the blatant denial. The slow meandering acceptance is not helpful. Yes, maybe we are warming but human contribution is tiny. Maybe the contribution is more significant but it's not reversible so... on and on..

It does not help when meteorologists and astrophysics types muddy the water with their own incorrect extrapolations. They are not the experts either nor is anyone on this board. But of all people they should know they are being disingenuous.

As time goes by, and more infrastructure is built for renewables, the cost will continue to come down.

Fossil fuels require a constant stream of matter extraction, and supply chain, and cost, that simply is not there for renewables.

We are already starting to see the head of this trend, and that will continue. There will always be an "energy mix" of various sources of energy, yes. For a long time we were worried about "peak supply", but we may have seen "peak demand", which is certainly suggested by data.

We will be saved by the free market here, but that free market got a huge head start from people who recognized the risk that CO2 emissions represent.

People like DarrinS and Wild Cobra will not be viewed kindly by history.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously i have experinced the inability to get dry for 3 days in freshwater and heat. One will start getting all kinds of fungal infections. Our skin was not made to handle this, especially city dwellers. We have the wrong bacterial and fungal flora to counter act the constantly wet skin. New fungus and bacteria get established and basically start feasting on skin. It's horrible.

Yup. First thing they teach you in the army, take care of your feet, and keep them dry as you can.

[boutons_deux]

Seriously though boo.. take in a movie or something

Seriously, G F Y

[AaronY]

Lmao.

[AaronY]

Just give the politics a rest for like an hour. Watch a fast and furious movie or something

[pgardn]

As time goes by, and more infrastructure is built for renewables, the cost will continue to come down.

Fossil fuels require a constant stream of matter extraction, and supply chain, and cost, that simply is not there for renewables.

We are already starting to see the head of this trend, and that will continue. There will always be an "energy mix" of various sources of energy, yes. For a long time we were worried about "peak supply", but we may have seen "peak demand", which is certainly suggested by data.

We will be saved by the free market here, but that free market got a huge head start from people who recognized the risk that CO2 emissions represent.

People like DarrinS and Wild Cobra will not be viewed kindly by history.

Texas is the largest producer of wind energy in the world. It's here and will grow. In the meantime it will be interesting to see which renewables are the most proficient in which places.

That being said I look forward to the reports of the wind turbines on our coast. Initial reports are that they are up and working but power lines were/are the weak link. Solar panel fields.... Probably would not fare to well. We will see.

[pgardn]

Yup. First thing they teach you in the army, take care of your feet, and keep them dry as you can.

And the crotch and underarms in high humidity. This is just flat out miserable. It's the skin that's covered and constantly wet.

[DarrinS]

People like DarrinS and Wild Cobra will not be viewed kindly by history.

[Blake]

Direct personal experience with flood recovery.

You cannot stay in a stinking, moldy house with no power, temperature in the 90's and a lot of humidity. It is entirely untenable as shelter. Given the number of homes that I saw underwater that will be a LOT of housing destroyed. Once the water goes down, you need massive amounts of labor to clear out the damage.

Yeah I've seen walls completely covered in black mold from water damage.

Those homes are shot. They'll need to be completely gutted to be livable.

[boutons_deux]

"massive amounts of labor to clear out the damage."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5446965

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hu...t-paid-n417571

Cleaning up after Harvey will be excellent illegal immigrant bait so Abbot, Patrick, CBP can trap the workers.

[AaronY]

"massive amounts of labor to clear out the damage."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5446965

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hu...t-paid-n417571

Cleaning up after Harvey will be excellent illegal immigrant bait so Abbot, Patrick, CBP can trap the workers.

Maybe talk take the dog for a walk or something if you don't like movies. Do a round of golf or something

[Blake]

Cleaning up after Harvey will be excellent illegal immigrant bait so Abbot, Patrick, CBP can trap the workers.

I'm sure they'll wait until after the work is done

[Pavlov]

"massive amounts of labor to clear out the damage."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5446965

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hu...t-paid-n417571

Cleaning up after Harvey will be excellent illegal immigrant bait so Abbot, Patrick, CBP can trap the workers.

They're not going to be able to rebuild anything without a lot more immigrants. If the feds don't make some new Bracero program all of southeast Texas is going to become a de facto sanctuary region.

[Thread]

Trump president, not Clinton.

Time has actually moved forward for the rest of the world old man.
But you rest comfortably while kneeling and rotting.

He mopped the in' floor with her in' ass.

[boutons_deux]

They're not going to be able to rebuild anything without a lot more immigrants. If the feds don't make some new Bracero program all of southeast Texas is going to become a de facto sanctuary region.

Fed judge just blocked TX sanctuary law that was to start 1 Sep

[RandomGuy]

They're not going to be able to rebuild anything without a lot more immigrants. If the feds don't make some new Bracero program all of southeast Texas is going to become a de facto sanctuary region.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-act...203259306.html

Trump order undermines rebuilding better for future floods

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two weeks before Harvey's flood waters engulfed much of Houston, President Donald Trump quietly rolled back an order by his predecessor that would have made it easier for storm-ravaged communities to use federal emergency aid to rebuild bridges, roads and other structures so they can better withstand future disasters.

Now, with much of the nation's fourth-largest city underwater, Trump's move has new resonance. Critics note the president's order could force Houston and other cities to rebuild hospitals and highways in the same way and in the same flood-prone areas.

"Rebuilding while ignoring future flood events is like treating someone for lung cancer and then giving him a carton of cigarettes on the way out the door," said Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental and climate change law at Columbia University. "If you're going to rebuild after a bad event, you don't want to expose yourself to the same thing all over again."

Trump's action is one of several ways the president, who has called climate change a hoax, has tried to wipe away former President Barack Obama's efforts to make the United States more resilient to threats posed by the changing climate.

The order Trump revoked would have permitted the rebuilding to take into account climate scientists' predictions of stronger storms and more frequent flooding.

Bridges and highways, for example, could be rebuilt higher, or with better drainage. The foundation of a new fire station or hospital might be elevated an extra 3 feet (about 1 meter).

While scientists caution against blaming specific weather events like Harvey on climate change, warmer air and warmer water linked to global warming have long been projected to make such storms wetter and more intense. Houston, for example, has experienced three floods in three years that statistically were once considered 1-in-500-year events.

The government was still in the process of implementing Obama's 2015 order when it was rescinded. That means the old standard — rebuilding storm-ravaged facilities in the same way they had been built before — is still in place.

Trump revoked Obama's order as part of an executive order of his own that he touted at an Aug. 15 news conference at Trump Tower. That news conference was supposed to focus on infrastructure, but it was dominated by Trump's comments on the previous weekend's violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Trump didn't specifically mention the revocation, but he said he was making the federal permitting process for the construction of transportation and other infrastructure projects faster and more cost-efficient without harming the environment.

"It's going to be quick, it's going to be a very streamlined process," Trump said.

Asked about the revocation, the White House said in a statement that Obama's order didn't consider potential impacts on the economy and was "applied broadly to the whole country, leaving little room or flexibility for designers to exercise professional judgment or incorporate the particular context" of a project's location.

Obama's now-defunct order also revamped Federal Flood Risk Management Standards, calling for tighter restrictions on new construction in flood-prone areas. Republicans, including Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, opposed the measure, saying it would impede land development and economic growth.

Revoking that order was only the latest step by Trump to undo Obama's actions on climate change.

In March, Trump rescinded a 2013 order that directed federal agencies to encourage states and local communities to build new infrastructure and facilities "smarter and stronger" in anticipation of more frequent extreme weather.

Trump revoked a 2015 Obama memo directing agencies developing national security policies to consider the potential impact of climate change.

The president also disbanded two advisory groups created by Obama: the interagency Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience and the State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

Obama's 2015 order was prompted in part by concerns raised by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper after severe flooding in his state two years earlier. Hickenlooper was dismayed to learn that federal disaster aid rules were preventing state officials from rebuilding "better and smarter than what we had built before."

The "requirements essentially said you had to build it back exactly the way it was, that you couldn't take into consideration improvements in resiliency," Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said Tuesday. "We want to be more prepared for the next event, not less prepared."

Bud Wright, the Federal Highway Administration's executive director during George W. Bush's administration, said this has long been a concern of federal officials.

He recalled a South Dakota road that was "almost perpetually flooded" but was repeatedly rebuilt to the same standard using federal aid because the state didn't have the extra money to pay for enhancements.

"It seemed a little ridiculous that we kept doing that," said Wright, now the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' executive director.

But Kirk Steudle, director of Michigan's Department of Transportation, said states can build more resilient infrastructure than what they had before a disaster by using state or non-emergency federal funds to make up the cost difference.

"That makes sense, otherwise FEMA would be the big checkbook," he said, referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "Everybody would be hoping for some disaster so FEMA could come in and build them a brand new road to the 2020 standard instead of the 1970 standard."

Even though Obama's order has been revoked, federal officials have some wiggle room that might allow them to rebuild to higher standards, said Jessica Grannis, who manages the adaptation program at the Georgetown Climate Center.

If local building codes in place before the storm call for new construction to be more resilient to flooding, then federal money can still be used to pay the additional costs.

For example, in Houston regulations require structures to be rebuilt 1 foot (30 centimeters) above the level designated for a 1-in-100-year storm. And in the wake of prior disasters, FEMA has moved to remap floodplains, setting the line for the 1-in-100-year flood higher than it was before.


--------

FEMA just did that for San Marcos. Process was pretty good from my end, although it appears I may now be forced to by flood insurance. Looked at their map, and it looks like their modeling didn't take into effect some of the stuff that the developer did for our neighborhood (filling up higher after FEMA did their initial LIDAR readings), so our neighborhood will appeal.

I haven't bought it voluntarily, because our current neighborhood very specifically didn't flood in 2015, which was the worst flooding in our city's history. At this point, I have reconsidered that, and will buy the insurance either way. My only concern is getting my risk priced correctly.