Hurricane Michael

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 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).

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.

PJPOWER said:

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.

There isn't any naivety in terms of the big one in the Northwest at all. Everyone in these areas are the opposite of naive about it. We're hyper-aware of it, and I have literally no sense of "it will not happen to me" where I live when it comes to the earthquakes. The big one is a common topic that people legitimately acknowledge will happen. That is why all the old schools are being rebuilt or upgraded. There are also annual earthquake drills all over the region. And most people have earthquake insurance on their homes now, if allowable. But my point is obviously that when the "danger zone" is literally the entire west coast, it's not at all reasonable to not build on it, just as it's not reasonable not to build in the danger zone for the Yellowstone supervocano. That would rule out several American states completely (And btw, they say there is a 3% - 14% chance that such an earthquake will happen in the next 50 years.... they in fact have no idea if it will be next week or 300 years from now, just like with Yellowstone). Also, such an event would be a one time thing, which isn't the case when you're talking about climate change related factors that make places no longer habitable.
However, I would say that perhaps there is some serious ostrich behaviour, or perhaps just plain old ignorance, when it comes to people buying waterfront condos in Miami still, despite clear signs that it's a terrible idea, permanently (as opposed to a recoverable disaster). And probably building any property on open coast anywhere. It is literally untenable land. I mean, that is a real, current event that you can actually observe, and they are still developing just for money, and still selling it all to suckers. As for naivety... I think you mean denial. Not the same thing. There isn't denial about the big one on the west coast as far as I can tell, but there is certainly plenty of denial about climate change here, just as there is pretty much everywhere. And that is so much worse than trying not to acknowledge a future earthquake, because denial of climate change actually keeps people and government from doing anything to negate the causes of it. 

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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! 

Whoa!

FTR, as far as I know he has no current plans to come to town, hahaha.

my2hands said:

*calls travel agent* 

Travel agent?!  Expedia! Travelocity! United.com!!!