Hurricane Michael

retroponyretropony Myrtle Beach SCPosts: 331
Stay safe everyone in Florida and Georgia, and good luck to all of you. We've just recovered a bit in the Myrtle beach area, and this new storm is a monster. I can't even imagine a cat 4 coming through....
Washington DC 2008
Charlotte NC 2013
Greenville SC 2016
Wrigley 1 2018
«134

Comments

  • mfc2006mfc2006 PDX--->KCPosts: 31,094
    Be safe, everyone
    I LOVE MUSIC.
    www.cluthelee.com
    www.cluthe.com
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 5,649
    I have family and friends in Apalachicola. One of whom does her business on a houseboat.
    My guess is it's gone by this time tomorrow.

    Going to  try and head down there to help with clean up and recovery. 
  • cp3iversoncp3iverson Posts: 4,566
    Such a beautiful part of the country.  Some of those beaches are white sand/clear water like the Caribbean. Hope there’s no loss of life.  
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 5,649
    Such a beautiful part of the country.  Some of those beaches are white sand/clear water like the Caribbean. Hope there’s no loss of life.  
    I could walk for miles on St. George Island on an 80 degree day in February and hardly see anyone else.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 17,278
    Looks like it isn't as bad as they thought it could be, although the Weather Channel has reportedly lost two of their field correspondents after they were blown by winds across the 8th dimension.  
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,424
    I hadn't heard about Michael till now.  Good thoughts for our FL and GA friends!
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • hauntingfamiliarhauntingfamiliar Wilmington, NCPosts: 9,554
    My neighborhood was just destroyed by a slow moving Cat 1... we are not even close to recovering. Michael thrashing in out of nowhere at nearly a Cat 5... I can't even imagine the destruction. Peace be with Florida and Georgia. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,424
    My neighborhood was just destroyed by a slow moving Cat 1... we are not even close to recovering. Michael thrashing in out of nowhere at nearly a Cat 5... I can't even imagine the destruction. Peace be with Florida and Georgia. 
    I'm really sorry to hear that.  Are you and yours OK?
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,424
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,842
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 17,455
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    Remember when the repubs voted against funding for
    super storm sandy relief? Anyone here remember that? Deficits and all? 
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 5,649
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    Remember when the repubs voted against funding for
    super storm sandy relief? Anyone here remember that? Deficits and all? 
     
    Probably the same repubs that voted against increasing the budget for the V.A.
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 19,842
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    Remember when the repubs voted against funding for
    super storm sandy relief? Anyone here remember that? Deficits and all? 
     
    Probably the same repubs that voted against increasing the budget for the V.A.
    yep the same repubs that refused to hold a hearings on Garland or the same repubs that pushed through Kavanaugh yep those patriotic Senators ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • hauntingfamiliarhauntingfamiliar Wilmington, NCPosts: 9,554
    brianlux said:
    My neighborhood was just destroyed by a slow moving Cat 1... we are not even close to recovering. Michael thrashing in out of nowhere at nearly a Cat 5... I can't even imagine the destruction. Peace be with Florida and Georgia. 
    I'm really sorry to hear that.  Are you and yours OK?
    Thanks Brian :) Yes we are fine and our house and property only had some minor damage. We were extremely fortunate. The retention ponds in our neighborhood overflowed and flooded about 100 homes. Ours was about 6 houses away from the flooding. If a house wasn't flooded, it was smashed by a tree.. it looks like a junk yard/war zone here and the mosquitoes are the size of quarters.  However after looking at the destruction in Mexico Beach, FL I realize that my neighborhood's issues could be much worse. That town is gone.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,424
    brianlux said:
    My neighborhood was just destroyed by a slow moving Cat 1... we are not even close to recovering. Michael thrashing in out of nowhere at nearly a Cat 5... I can't even imagine the destruction. Peace be with Florida and Georgia. 
    I'm really sorry to hear that.  Are you and yours OK?
    Thanks Brian :) Yes we are fine and our house and property only had some minor damage. We were extremely fortunate. The retention ponds in our neighborhood overflowed and flooded about 100 homes. Ours was about 6 houses away from the flooding. If a house wasn't flooded, it was smashed by a tree.. it looks like a junk yard/war zone here and the mosquitoes are the size of quarters.  However after looking at the destruction in Mexico Beach, FL I realize that my neighborhood's issues could be much worse. That town is gone.
    Good to know you're OK!
    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    edited October 11
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    Yeah, that's about the size of it, unfortunately. I mean, people in these areas are eventually going to be forced to migrate, obviously. What stuns me is that development continues, and people are still buying properties in areas that will inevitably be under water or otherwise uninhabitable soon enough. I don't get it. Meanwhile, other places need to prepare for these migrations caused by climate change, but they aren't. As far as I can tell, nowhere is infrastructure being upgraded and built up more to accommodate the future, even though it's pretty predictable where populations are going to boom (and shrink), and housing density isn't being confronted in any kind of widespread responsible way.... Makes me very thankful that I chose not to have children.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,423
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    edited October 11
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 12,506
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I don't know, man: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    edited October 11
    dankind said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I don't know, man: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Well okay, lol, fair enough. Though I think an event that catastrophic, i.e. where the entire west coast basically just falls into the ocean one day, including along the san andreas and cascadia faults, is along the same lines as the Yellowstone Caldera blowing... It's pointless to even bother thinking about it, because the destruction is so widespread and devastating and covers such a vast area that to consider actually avoiding them is not even possible. I mean, if we're thinking that way, everyone in the USA and most of Canada should get the fuck out now before that blows, and it's more overdue than the big one on the west coast is. Everyone on Earth should just kill themselves now, actually. We're all doomed because of the inevitable asteroid. ;) (but btw, if the predicted death toll in that article is correct, I'm impressed. Only 13,000 dead?? That seems pretty reasonable, and recoverable. It's like that article is overstating its case but still telling the facts at the same time... I mean, 230,000 people were killed in the 2004 Tsunami, and most of those area are recovering too - they were not rendered permanently uninhabitable by that, barring a few tiny populated islands and peninsulas that are now permanently underwater).
    I'm more thinking about the places where it's actually possible to deal with and take action to avoid it, is of a size where long term migration away from it is realistic, and those places that are at risk of unlivable drought/heat and of unmanageable rising sea levels qualify (thus far). So the edges of Florida and the panhandle, certain areas in Louisiana, and unfortunately rather large swaths of southern California, Arizona, and a few other regions from those largely super dry and hot southern states. That's actually big migration that will be most disruptive IMO.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,423
    dankind said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I don't know, man: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Yeah, odds are Seattle is screwed in the next 50 years or so:https://www.tripsavvy.com/is-seattle-ready-for-a-major-earthquake-2965062



    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commetsPosts: 14,441
    PJ_Soul said:
    dankind said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I don't know, man: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Well okay, lol, fair enough. Though I think an event that catastrophic, i.e. where the entire west coast basically just falls into the ocean one day, including along the san andreas and cascadia faults, is along the same lines as the Yellowstone Caldera blowing... It's pointless to even bother thinking about it, because the destruction is so widespread and devastating and covers such a vast area that to consider actually avoiding them is not even possible. I mean, if we're thinking that way, everyone in the USA and most of Canada should get the fuck out now before that blows, and it's more overdue than the big one on the west coast is. Everyone on Earth should just kill themselves now, actually. We're all doomed because of the inevitable asteroid. ;) (but btw, if the predicted death toll in that article is correct, I'm impressed. Only 13,000 dead?? That seems pretty reasonable, and recoverable. It's like that article is overstating its case but still telling the facts at the same time... I mean, 230,000 people were killed in the 2004 Tsunami, and most of those area are recovering too - they were not rendered permanently uninhabitable by that, barring a few tiny populated islands and peninsulas that are now permanently underwater).
    I'm more thinking about the places where it's actually possible to deal with and take action to avoid it, is of a size where long term migration away from it is realistic, and those places that are at risk of unlivable drought/heat and of unmanageable rising sea levels qualify (thus far). So the edges of Florida and the panhandle, certain areas in Louisiana, and unfortunately rather large swaths of southern California, Arizona, and a few other regions from those largely super dry and hot southern states. That's actually big migration that will be most disruptive IMO.
    I think they make a case that there is work that could be done (move the schools?) but that people will not pay for it.
    Scary stuff when they put #s to it.  They outline why the Cascadia is so very different than the San Andreas.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    edited October 11
    PJPOWER said:
    dankind said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I don't know, man: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Yeah, odds are Seattle is screwed in the next 50 years or so:https://www.tripsavvy.com/is-seattle-ready-for-a-major-earthquake-2965062



    We are all beyond aware of this shit on the west coast. What I'm saying is that it's a recoverable situation long term, i.e. wouldn't render the region permanently uninhabitable for future generations (despite that New Yorker article - I feel like that makes it sound that way, but I don't think that's actually the case at all). I'm not suggesting there won't be mass destruction. We all know there will be, and that it will suck. That's why everyone in my office keeps an emergency backpack filled with water packets and first aid gear and masks and food blocks and shit under their desks. I've actually added extra shit to mine, and when there is an earthquake it will take exactly one second for me to grab it as I'm diving under my desk. When I'm buried under the rubble in an air pocket, hopefully, lol, I'll have my pack with my water, no matter what! And if I get out of that, my family has a meet up plan so we can flee the city to relatives in the interior, with provisions, at least until the food riots end.
    But even here on that fault, I'm way more worried about Yellowstone. Now that will be permanent destruction for millions and millions, and it will cool down the entire earth dramatically - we're all fucked in the end, haha. But still, don't fucking buy property that floods every year and will be underwater in 10 years, FFS! ;)
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    edited October 11
    PJ_Soul said:
    dankind said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I don't know, man: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
    Well okay, lol, fair enough. Though I think an event that catastrophic, i.e. where the entire west coast basically just falls into the ocean one day, including along the san andreas and cascadia faults, is along the same lines as the Yellowstone Caldera blowing... It's pointless to even bother thinking about it, because the destruction is so widespread and devastating and covers such a vast area that to consider actually avoiding them is not even possible. I mean, if we're thinking that way, everyone in the USA and most of Canada should get the fuck out now before that blows, and it's more overdue than the big one on the west coast is. Everyone on Earth should just kill themselves now, actually. We're all doomed because of the inevitable asteroid. ;) (but btw, if the predicted death toll in that article is correct, I'm impressed. Only 13,000 dead?? That seems pretty reasonable, and recoverable. It's like that article is overstating its case but still telling the facts at the same time... I mean, 230,000 people were killed in the 2004 Tsunami, and most of those area are recovering too - they were not rendered permanently uninhabitable by that, barring a few tiny populated islands and peninsulas that are now permanently underwater).
    I'm more thinking about the places where it's actually possible to deal with and take action to avoid it, is of a size where long term migration away from it is realistic, and those places that are at risk of unlivable drought/heat and of unmanageable rising sea levels qualify (thus far). So the edges of Florida and the panhandle, certain areas in Louisiana, and unfortunately rather large swaths of southern California, Arizona, and a few other regions from those largely super dry and hot southern states. That's actually big migration that will be most disruptive IMO.
    I think they make a case that there is work that could be done (move the schools?) but that people will not pay for it.
    Scary stuff when they put #s to it.  They outline why the Cascadia is so very different than the San Andreas.
    There is a big movement to upgrade or rebuild all older schools that aren't up to snuff in metro Vancouver right now to withstand a devastating event. Up here we are indeed willing to pay for it. That is too bad they're not so willing in all places with that problem.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 25,424
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I think Seattle is a good example of a ticking time bomb.  The Puget sound is crisscrossed with fault lines, Mt Rainier is could blow its top wrecking big-time havoc and the area could be hit my a tsunami if an earthquake happens off shore. 


    "Love and only love will break it down"
    -Neil Young
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.





  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    brianlux said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I think Seattle is a good example of a ticking time bomb.  The Puget sound is crisscrossed with fault lines, Mt Rainier is could blow its top wrecking big-time havoc and the area could be hit my a tsunami if an earthquake happens off shore. 


    Yeah, we've already been though this, lol. But again, all shitty but all ultimately recoverable from everything I know about it (which is a lot, since I live here).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • lolobugglolobugg BLUE RDGE MTNSPosts: 7,795

    Really concerned about friends and family in Alabama, Georgia and Florida.  My parent's house was damaged during this hurricane. A tree fell into their utility room.  I know a lot of folks in rural North Florida and I predict that the death toll with be in greater than originally expected once they make it in to some rural areas. A lot of older homes in that area that couldn't withstand the 100+ mph gusts.


    Sad and devastating... I wish more folks would've evacuated.

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446

    1995- New Orleans, LA

    1996- Charleston, SC

    1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN

    2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN

    2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA

    2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)

    2006- Cincinnati, OH

    2008- Columbia, SC

    2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Ved- Atlanta, GA x 2

    2010- Bristow, VA

    2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Ved- Chicago, IL

    2012- Atlanta, GA

    2013- Charlotte, NC

    2014- Cincinnati, OH

    2015- New York, NY

    2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA

    2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY

    2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2

  • my2handsmy2hands Posts: 16,035
    PJ_Soul said:
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    Yeah, that's about the size of it, unfortunately. I mean, people in these areas are eventually going to be forced to migrate, obviously. What stuns me is that development continues, and people are still buying properties in areas that will inevitably be under water or otherwise uninhabitable soon enough. I don't get it. Meanwhile, other places need to prepare for these migrations caused by climate change, but they aren't. As far as I can tell, nowhere is infrastructure being upgraded and built up more to accommodate the future, even though it's pretty predictable where populations are going to boom (and shrink), and housing density isn't being confronted in any kind of widespread responsible way.... Makes me very thankful that I chose not to have children.
    When are we going for that coffee? Lol
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 44,252
    my2hands said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    brianlux said:
    Just got time today to read up on this one.


    What is going to happen to these states if this keeps happening year after year?  It just seems to be getting worse down there. :frowning:

    They are shit out of luck .
    Yeah, that's about the size of it, unfortunately. I mean, people in these areas are eventually going to be forced to migrate, obviously. What stuns me is that development continues, and people are still buying properties in areas that will inevitably be under water or otherwise uninhabitable soon enough. I don't get it. Meanwhile, other places need to prepare for these migrations caused by climate change, but they aren't. As far as I can tell, nowhere is infrastructure being upgraded and built up more to accommodate the future, even though it's pretty predictable where populations are going to boom (and shrink), and housing density isn't being confronted in any kind of widespread responsible way.... Makes me very thankful that I chose not to have children.
    When are we going for that coffee? Lol
    Just as soon as you get to town! 
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 4,423
    edited October 11
    PJ_Soul said:
    brianlux said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I think it is due to the whole “it’ll never happen to me” ideology.  I’ve thought the same thing about places like Seattle that are ticking catastrophic earthquake time-bombs...or those that build houses in lava flow areas in Hawaii.  Anywhere you live, there is a chance of some kind of natural catastrophe, but some places are way more likely to experience them than others.   
    Developers don’t care.  It always blows my mind when I see new construction going up on 50 year flood plains or lake beds essentially...but people always seem willing to buy those properties.  They have got to be either naive or in denial. 
    Well Seattle isn't a good example (but agree it seems very odd to build on predictable lava flow areas). It is impossible to say that you should avoid living in/building on all places that will ever suffer a natural disaster. That's not realistic or reasonable. Places on earthquake faults can generally recover and carry on, since the events are temporary and rare. Modern cities on faults can prepare well enough to basically ensure that they won't be rendered forever uninhabitable after the big one (however unpleasant that is in the relative short term). Their building codes are all extremely rigorous when it comes to earthquake friendly structures, and Seattle is not even on open coast, so wouldn't even be totally destroyed in the unlikely event of a big Tsunami. Sure, there will likely be a shitload of destruction if the quake is big enough, but it won't be something that the city can't get over. Same with Vancouver. Same goes for places that just see more than their share of tornadoes or what have you. 

    The same can not be said of cities and regions that are going to simply end up under water, like Miami and a really big portion of Florida and Louisiana (nor will a place like Richmond, which is part of metro Vancouver, which will supposedly liquefy and sink into the ground and underwater in the event of a huge earthquake). And like you, say places that are built on lake beds that are going to fill in, lol. California and some of the other southern states will also just be fucked from drought and heat. Cities can't continue to survive without an adequate and sustainable water source, nor if the climate there is simply too hot for people to tolerate on a day to day basis. This is also obviously a huge upcoming problem in certain parts of the Middle East. My point is, there are some more predictable/inevitable natural disasters that can be dealt with. Recovery is completely feasible. But permanent changes in the landscape/climate that render places permanently uninhabitable are a completely different story.

    ... I am curious to see what governments start doing with desalinization project though, as water sources... I'm afraid those will really take off, which will help places in permanent drought, but will almost certainly wreak even more havoc on the ocean's ecosystem.

    I think Seattle is a good example of a ticking time bomb.  The Puget sound is crisscrossed with fault lines, Mt Rainier is could blow its top wrecking big-time havoc and the area could be hit my a tsunami if an earthquake happens off shore. 


    Yeah, we've already been though this, lol. But again, all shitty but all ultimately recoverable from everything I know about it (which is a lot, since I live here).
    I understand what you are saying about places being ultimately recoverable.  My point was that it is naive to build somewhere with as great of odds of a cataclysmic disaster like Seattle is predicted to face over the next 50 years.  If I had a choice to move somewhere where there was a very high likelihood of losing my life to a major event (such as building a house in a 50 year flood plain or on a ticking time bomb earthquake fault, or  next to a not-so-dormant volcano), or somewhere with no immediate predictions of catastrophe, I’d choose the latter.  There is definitely a level of “it will not happen to me” or denial of the odds or magnitude of such events that plays into people living in places like Seattle.  That, or they are just flat out naive about it altogether.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.