Hurricane Michael

retropony

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....

mfc2006

Be safe, everyone

Bentleyspop

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. 

cp3iverson

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.  

Bentleyspop

cp3iverson said:

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 P

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.  

brianlux

I hadn't heard about Michael till now.  Good thoughts for our FL and GA friends!

hauntingfamiliar

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. 

brianlux

hauntingfamiliar 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?

brianlux

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

josevolution

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

They are shit out of luck .

Halifax2TheMax

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

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? 
 

Bentleyspop

Halifax2TheMax said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

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.

josevolution

Bentleyspop said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

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 ...

hauntingfamiliar

brianlux said:

hauntingfamiliar 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.

brianlux

hauntingfamiliar said:

brianlux said:

hauntingfamiliar 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!

PJ_Soul

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

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.

PJPOWER

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. 

PJ_Soul

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.

dankind

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

PJ_Soul

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.

PJPOWER

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

F Me In The Brain

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.

PJ_Soul

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!

PJ_Soul

F Me In The Brain said:

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.

brianlux

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. 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/earthquakes-big-one-cascadia-seattle-geology-science/

PJ_Soul

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. 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/earthquakes-big-one-cascadia-seattle-geology-science/

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).

lolobugg

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.

my2hands

PJ_Soul said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

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_Soul

my2hands said:

PJ_Soul said:

josevolution said:

brianlux said:

Just got time today to read up on this one.

https://www.apnews.com/b4a51136559d44f589319ecfbf6f11a9

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

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! 

PJPOWER

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. 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/earthquakes-big-one-cascadia-seattle-geology-science/

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.