| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Another thoughtful response? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mac said: | Quote: | Hmm, sudden change of subject? No acknowledgement that climate change has added to the surge and rainfall? Over 30 inches at Swansboro. So let’s change the subject to TV commentators?
|
I will stand with your research, which has been posted ad nauseum:
| Quote: | Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense. |
This not so horrific storm went from cat 4 to cat 1 as it hit the coast. The only big deal is the slow movement, which is the big issue and why there is so much rain and the impending disaster. Does climate change cause hurricanes to move slower? Also contributing to the rain amounts is the track of the storm, which still continues to pull moisture off ocean with it's circulation and proximity to the coast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | Mac said: | Quote: | Hmm, sudden change of subject? No acknowledgement that climate change has added to the surge and rainfall? Over 30 inches at Swansboro. So let’s change the subject to TV commentators?
|
I will stand with your research, which has been posted ad nauseum:
| Quote: | Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense. |
This not so horrific storm went from cat 4 to cat 1 as it hit the coast. The only big deal is the slow movement, which is the big issue and why there is so much rain and the impending disaster. Does climate change cause hurricanes to move slower? Also contributing to the rain amounts is the track of the storm, which still continues to pull moisture off ocean with it's circulation and proximity to the coast. |
No, you ignored the part or the research I posted that indicated that surge and rainfall is worse. Typical of the death of critical thinking is the selection of only part of the evidence.
I doubt that the slow movement of either Florence or Harvey had much, if anything, to do with climate change. Hotter water int he hurricane track means more water evaporates to later fall as rain. But I've seen no research that linked track to climate change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 940
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fortunate that Florence lost strength before making landfall and spared the state from wind damage, but the rain. 30-40+ inches will pose big problems for a long time.
Factory hog farms are a big business in N.C. with one billion $ anually for the people of NC.Over 8 million hogs in the state produce 9.5 million of tons of sewage a year. Most of this sewage is stored in open lagoons. From an Environmental case study:
http://umich.edu/~snre492/statter.html
Perhaps this practice will be outlawed. I and many others certainly hope so.
How many will be sickened, and how many homeowners will end up with polluted wells? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, what’s a little pig shit if you can eat barbecue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe you guys will get lucky and the rain will cause enough flooding to drown all those hogs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's not just pig shit, it's coal ash. Pollution courtesy of Republicans, who fought Obama efforts to actually regulate coal ash.
| Quote: | | Rains from Hurricane Florence impacted Duke Energy Corp.'s coal ash landfill at the now-closed L.V. Sutton Power Plant, causing an uncertain amount of the disposed waste to enter Lake Sutton, which runs into the Cape Fear River. Duke has initially estimated that the storm washed 2,000 cubic yards of coal ash from the landfill, but a company spokeswoman said it is unlikely the waste entered the river. (The Wall Street Journal) |
For Techno, who can't seem to read anything to the left of the Wall Street Journal and doesn't comprehend development politics in the Carolinas:
By The Pew Charitable Trusts
Connecting state and local government leaders
| Quote: | SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
Despite their vulnerability to both climate change and hurricanes, North and South Carolina have put in place a series of policies and laws that favor coastal developers and property owners.
This article was originally published by Stateline, an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, and was written by Rebecca Beitsch.
As Hurricane Florence rages on the Carolina coast, scientists say they’ve been trying to warn state leaders for years that climate change could have devastating effects on the fragile coastline.
With the hurricane expected to wreak havoc, officials ordered the evacuation of more than a million people.
Despite their vulnerability to both climate change and hurricanes, North and South Carolina have put in place a series of policies and laws that favor coastal developers and property owners.
North Carolina made headlines in 2012 for passing a bill instructing its Coastal Resources Commission to redo a 2010 report that predicted a 39-inch sea level rise by the year 2100.
That report was targeted by the Legislature and NC-20, an economic development group for North Carolina’s 20 coastal counties that sought “responsible science concerning sea level rise.”
“The new Legislature, along with this NC-20 group, thought this report would kill off tourists and kill our coastal economies and convinced them to throw it in the trash, which they did,” said Stanley Riggs, a former professor of marine and coastal geography who worked on the 2010 report and the later version requested by the Legislature.
When the commission redid the report five years later, it looked 30 years ahead instead of 90, warning legislators the state needed to prepare for up to a 6-inch sea level rise based on existing gauge rates.
That controversy followed other efforts by lawmakers that drew less notice but also have affected the coastline’s resiliency.
The Surfrider Foundation, a coastal protection group that puts out an annual beach report card, gave unimpressive grades to most of the Southeast. Florida got a D, Georgia got an F, and North Carolina got a D-plus. South Carolina led the pack with a C.
South Carolina got better marks for its policies on beach erosion, but according to the 2017 report card, the state has done little in response to studies that have warned of rising sea levels. This year, the Legislature and governor sided with landowners along the coast by doing away with the more restrictive development rules in place.
The law came in response to building restrictions proposed by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control that would have limited development past a certain point on the beach. State Sen. Chip Campsen, a Republican, told The State he wrote the bill because the setbacks were not based on good science.
Surfrider nicked North Carolina for allowing the rebuilding of structures in hazardous areas and said its response to the 2010 report “severely delayed and hindered the use of sound scientific studies in planning for sea level rise. It also prevented drafted sea level rise policies and land use planning guidelines from being approved by the state.”
A report from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, a nonprofit supported by property insurers, also criticized two recent changes North Carolina has made. In 2015, state regulators ended a requirement that storm shutters be permanently installed on some buildings. In 2013, the state lengthened the time to adopt new building codes from three years to six, ensuring “the state residential code will always be one or two cycles behind the latest national model codes,” the insurance institute said.
Orrin Pilkey, a professor emeritus of earth and ocean sciences at Duke University, has been issuing public warnings about sea level rise for years. The gentle slope of the eastern part of the state means a one-foot rise could send water inland as far as 10,000 feet, he says. That topography can be especially dangerous in inland, rural parts of the state, where heavy rains near areas with a concentration of pig and chicken farms risk “the collapse of earthen lagoons containing hog manure, coal ash or other types of waste,” according to a McClatchy news report.
But it’s coastal development that has Pilkey most concerned.
“This time of urban renewal at the time of sea level rise is nothing short of madness,” he said. “Past hurricanes in the Carolinas, especially here [in North Carolina], have basically been urban renewal projects. After the storm, instead of learning from it, there’s tendency to rebuild buildings and build them bigger and better than ever before. So our coastal line is more dangerous than before, and I fear that could happen again here.”
Pilkey said the shorter timetable of the 2015 report helps greenlight roads and structures that will outlast the report’s 30-year time frame but that are unlikely to outlast encroaching waters.
But Jessica Whitehead, a hazards adaptation specialist for North Carolina Sea Grant, which helps facilitate research on coastal issues, said the Legislature’s request for a new report is often mischaracterized as stopping coastal communities from planning for the future or forcing them to ignore sea level rise. The second report also studied the coastline by region to estimate the rise in specific areas, even if on a shorter timetable.
Though 30-year predictions are more accurate than longer-term ones, she said, most plans for residential and commercial building and new infrastructure will outlast that timetable.
“A lot of those infrastructure-based services have to look past 30 years,” Whitehead said. “And if you build a house now, it’s probably going to be there in 30 years, it’s just going to take 30 years to pay off.”
Riggs said despite his displeasure with the Legislature’s decision after the first report, he stayed on to work on the second report to make sure it was scientifically sound. But he criticized development on an unstable set of barrier islands.
“We let development go on as if this is Raleigh or Charlotte. This land isn’t permanent, it moves. This whole pile of sand moves with every storm with sea level rise, and it’ll continue to move for hundreds of years. And we’ve tried to engineer it like it’s Raleigh, like it’s a rock, but it’s not. It’s sand.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | | Ah, what’s a little pig shit if you can eat barbecue. |
I take it you're a vegan then, or better yet on a PBWF diet?
_________________
The universe is made up of proton, neutrons, electrons, and morons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mac said: | Quote: | | For Techno, who can't seem to read anything to the left of the Wall Street Journal and doesn't comprehend development politics in the Carolinas: |
You may want to go back and re-read my post, but since your comprehension seems to be lacking, I will make it easy and post it again. I know what big brother wants developers to do, or should I say not do. I just don't agree. My only issue is with the federal government’s National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP.
What I posted earlier.
| Quote: | Here's where liberal and conservatives see things differently - Keep "big brother" out of it. If developers want to build/invest and buyers want to buy along the coast, fine with me. Their choice along with the risks. I had a choice about living in Wilmington NC and chose not to.
However, the BIG issue for me is the Government funded flood insurance that many must buy (required with most mortgages), plus those that just elect to buy it to minimize risk. It's costing taxpayers millions/billions? to pay off claims by people that chose to live in a high risk area. Some have rebuilt many times in the same place all funded with our tax dollars. I say, keep the government out of the flood insurance business, if private companies want to offer the insurance - great.
The government perpetuates the problem by funding and offering/requiring flood insurance. People should be held accountable for the risks that THEY take without "big brother" looking over their shoulder.
|
Maybe California should stop all construction on or near earthquake faults?
Maybe California should stop all new home construction and disallow all rebuilding of homes in fire prone areas.
Maybe California should stop all costal building within the range of moderate tsunamis?
Maybe California can solve their water shortage problem by reducing their agriculture?
Maybe California could actually fund their $374 billion shortfall in their governmental retirement fund if they got rid of their illegals.
| Quote: | The shortfall for California’s three statewide retirement systems has increased about 36 percent. Add in local pension systems and the total debt has reached at least $374 billion. That works out to about $29,000 per household.
It’s actually much worse than that. Those numbers are calculated using the pension systems’ overly optimistic assumptions about future investment earnings. |
| Quote: | | Illegal Immigration Costs California $30.3 Billion A Year—17.7 Percent Of State Budget |
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/02/21/costs-illegal-immigration-california/
You can argue the above points, but my point is that all states have their issues, which is their own responsibility to manage as they see fit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
