There was so much quotable material flying around this week due to Hurricane Sandy, I could probably have a QOTW every day. But I thought this one was particularly well done:
It is true that Sandy was a human-caused disaster. We build cities on the coast. We don’t adequately protect them. We don’t heed evacuation warnings. That is where the blame lies for this one, not climate change.
See Eric Berger’s SciGuy column in the Houston Chronicle:
There will probably be fewer Sandy-like storms in the future
We saw that in the Tohoku quake as well. Footage recorded from smart people who heeded the tsunami warnings shows how cars, in traffic, being hit by the tsunami. People on the coast ignored it too. Many went back to their houses to pick up stuff, then they were hit.
Our problem is that we think we can violate the law of unintended consequences with impunity.
Wow. Common sense. A rare quality these days.
Isnt there a really old book that tells us not to build houses on sand? I doubt these people read that sort of book eh?
If he had common sense he would avoid the meaningless word “denialism”.
It is true that Sandy was a human-caused disaster. We build cities on the coast. We don’t adequately protect them. We don’t heed evacuation warnings. That is where the blame lies for this one, not climate change.
========
That quote cannot be disputed.
Chris Edwards says:
November 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Isn’t there a really old book that tells us not to build houses on sand?
Yes there is:
Matthew 7:25-27
New International Version (NIV)
25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Too true!
Reminds one of the human habit of building on flood plains then being very annoyed when expected seasonal floods wreck houses, infrastructure and even drown people!
Exactly. And ditto for fire codes which allow structures way to close. Ditto for electrical codes that do not encourage underground emplacement in storm drains. .Gas-lines that are not flexible and have area auto shutoff in the event of earthquakes, floods, fire, or pressure loss.
People actually pay extra for waterfront property.
And in Italy they apparently still build houses out of rocks that fall asunder during earthquakes.
I’m glad I live near the top of a hill, far from the local creek and well above it, with plenty of lower places for the water to go before it rises into my basement.
The even dumber habit is the government provides low cost flood insurance which just relieves the owners of responsibility of building in areas which are subject to frequent floods.
Part of the reason that we don’t heed storm warnings is that it is difficult to determine if the pro AGW crowd is hyping the storm warnings or if the warning is for real.
DaveW
Alexander K said on November 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm:
Here in central Pennsylvania along the Susquehanna River, including the West Branch, there are lots of towns built on historic flood plains, because the river was used for transportation so those flat spots were where settlements grew. It’s the same in many places in many states and many lands.
So lots of places have flood walls, surrounded by levees with floodgates that get closed when the river looks really bad, etc.
Some have something, but not enough. Harrisburg can be vulnerable. At Lewisburg, home of Bucknell University, there are low spots that are often flooded, as is the area directly across the river where there are some homes and a trailer park. Etc. For some it’s acceptable they’ll get flooded at some point, hopefully not too often. For those with mobile homes and RV’s, and some of those are the only homes of some people, moving if needed is just part of life.
There have lately been proposals floated for building more flood walls, protecting more areas. But they get shot down. The costs have grown considerably in the several decades since the last ones were built. Many areas would technically be classified as wetlands, there would be numerous environmental impact studies and reports demanded with matching lawsuits, etc.
Plus these days, if a proposal did get nearly ready to start, there would be a sighting of a single rare purple and green speckled salamander, identifying the proposed construction area as the sole habitat within hundreds of miles of this obviously endangered creature, thus the project would be killed off by a judge to avoid harming the unique habitat, even if said salamander matches those of a large non-endangered healthy population a few states over and it smells like some activist brought one in so it could be fortuitously “discovered” in time…
AGW Alarmism also allows the flouting of planning rules to be blamed on Climate Change – If you look at what has happened of late in places like Bangladesh there have been building on areas subject to storm surge and the authorities allow it.
Then when the obvious happens and the vulnerable buildings get swept away with loss of life and infrastructure, the governments that allowed this to happen by bad planning simply blame Climate Change and BINGO! – they can claim more money to build the same vulnerable places all over again.
Oh! – and what happens when anyone dares to question this stupidity?
The AGW Alarmist crowd usually have no answer to the truth of the situation and so as well as using the term Denialist – they tend to sprinkle in terms like “Racist” as well because those people asking the awkward question “just do not care!”
The hills along the coast of Japan are dotted with old stone slabs saying “Houses below this marker are at risk from tsunamis” and “When an earthquake hits, head for the hills. Don’t go back for your valuables.”
They are largely ignored.
Not many cities built on mountains. When our hunter-gatherer ancestors took up farming the most productive and easily worked land was on river banks in the flood plain area. Old habits die hard.
Chris Edwards: Isnt there a really old book that tells us not to build houses on sand? I doubt these people read that sort of book eh?
I prefer “The Three Little Pigs”, there’s better advice in there, what with the tale referring to houses being blown down.
But reference to fairy tales of any kind adds nothing to a rational debate.
It might seem stupid to build houses on the coast in storm areas. But the likelihood of getting hit by a storm in any year on the North East coast is very remote according to the 2009 report “New York City Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan”. Should we instead abandon the North East Coast for Florida? But Florida and the Gulf of Mexico has greater risk of storm damage. California perhaps? With the strong likelihood of an earthquake I will take my risks elsewhere.
There are many parts of the world where people are at risk from natural disasters. Many, like Japan and China have huge population densities. It is the sort of high cost, low probability event we take out insurance for. Further, we also take precautions. In the Japanese earthquake of last year, the death toll was remarkably low considering the magnitude and duration of the quake.
This was because buildings had been constructed to withstand the shaking. Compare the death toll to much smaller earthquakes in less developed countries.
What is needed in these events is to get a perspective, and looking at both both the magnitude and frequency of events. Furthermore, we need to look at the likelihood that a particular event is attributable to climate change. The principles to do this are laid out here.
On a closer reading … it looks like he is bailing out (due to obvious contrary evidence) of the “CAGW means more stronger hurricanes” belief and replacing it with “CAGW means less stronger hurricanes” belief. The CAGW part of the original belief stays in.
Not much of a change. 🙁
Or am I missing something here?
To the person who preferred the three little pigs to the Bible: Please check how much of the Bible has been proven accurate by archaeology and parallel historical accounts; check how little has been disproven; then think on the quote, “The fool says in his mind, There is no God.” Think also on why there are computer hackers, burglars, and looters, even though the people who commit these things know they are wrong, and tell us why those people do what they do, and how they know they are wrong. The article is correct: Most of the dangers to humans from natural events come from human choices, not the events.
We live on an active planet. Nowhere is 100% safe. Enjoy life whilst you can. hope for the best, plan for the worst.
Not only do people live in flood plains and then are surprised when they get flooding, but their response to a storm is at times less than intelligent. It’s sad that in my area most deaths “due” to Sandy were by CO poisoning from generators. Why are people running these things? To watch TV of course.
Richard111 says:
November 4, 2012 at 12:34 am
Not many cities built on mountains. When our hunter-gatherer ancestors took up farming the most productive and easily worked land was on river banks in the flood plain area. Old habits die hard.”
Before cheap and abundant sources of energy like fossil fuels, humans had to live near waterways for ease of transportation, harnessing the energy of flowing water to grind their grains, and exploit the fertile flood plains. Now that we have fossil fuels to allow easy travel anywhere and fertilization of barren lands, we still have the desire to build homes right at the edge of the mean high tide line. Why?
When I foolishly lived near a river prone to flooding, it was for the beautiful scenery and the daily ability for fishing. But the yearly hassle of flooding, ruined furniture carpeting and drywall, and the inconvenience of occasional evacuation taught me a lesson. Now I live on the upper leeward side of a hill. Still pretty scenery but no more easy fishing. But no more flooding and even at the peak of Sandy I stood in my yard with a burning candle. The boundary layer was calm even though the tops of the trees were swirling and snapping off.
Doug UK says:
November 3, 2012 at 11:09 pm
AGW Alarmism also allows the flouting of planning rules to be blamed on Climate Change
====================================================================
Bloomburg believes in CAGW. He believes sea level is rising. He endorses Obama because of his alleged belief in CAGW.
As mayor of New York for 11 years, he has done NOTHING to protect Lower Manhatten from the presumed rising tide. It cannot be rationalized that he blames CAGW and yet did nothing to prepare.
There’s also an old story about building your house out of wood: “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house in.”
Ah, sorry, Bertram: you beat me.
Richard111 says:
November 4, 2012 at 12:34 am
Not many cities built on mountains. When our hunter-gatherer ancestors took up farming the most productive and easily worked land was on river banks in the flood plain area. Old habits die hard.
________________________________
Actually the Woodland Indians that occupied the land I now own were not that dumb. My land rises over 100 feet beyond the river’s 100 yr flood plain. That is where I built my house and that is where I have found handfuls of Indian artifacts from various time periods. (Identifed by and donated to N.C. state traveling museum) You farm the flood plain but you live up the hill away from the mosquitoes and water moccasins. Since the women do the farming and water carrying the guys are not ‘inconvenienced’
If you know what you are looking at it is pretty easy to identify a flood plain and make sure you are not making camp on it.
Actually we r not out of the woods just yet. Likely to x0ontinue evry autumn until 2020
@ Gail. That’s a matter of topography: the flood plain may be tens of miles wide.
@ “Dr Ware”
Nice try at hijacking the thread, troll.
The Jamestown, VA settlers in early 1600s knew very well to stay away from the ocean. They traveled well into the Chesapeake Bay & settled a protected, elevated river peninsula that could also be defended (even from wolves). Settling near the coast would have been insanity to them.
Bertram Felden says:
“But reference to fairy tales of any kind adds nothing to a rational debate.”
Yea, valuable lessons could never be communicated via a story. /sarc
There is a theory that the Mound-building Indians built their mounds to have high ground on the flood plains. It didn’t require UFO’s or heavy equipment. If everyone just transported three basketfuls of dirt a day, each person moves a thousand baskets a year. In a decade you had a pretty big pile of dirt, and a dry place in the floods, while harvesting from the richest soil. (Unfortunately some of those various societies apparently grew too dependant on corn and didn’t get enough meat; skeletons got smaller with time, and then the Little Ice Age stressed them out. However some were still around when the Spanish showed up.)
People have waterfronts because the sea provides both food and easy transport. It is simply too much work to roll your fishing boat down from the hills every morning. However the fishmen up in Maine were pretty smart, when it came to sensing when a big blow was coming, and finding a good hide-out for their boats.
People are gamblers by nature. Some get bored without a challange, and climb risky mountains and put themselves in danger just for the fun of it. Others gamble on the stock market. Still others live by the sea.
However there are some reasonable steps that could be taken to lessen the damages of superstorms. The NYC subways should have had floodgates put in years ago.
Gail Combs says:
November 4, 2012 at 5:12 am
Of course the other reason to live on a ridge was that it was easier to defend. It was not only floods that could kill you.
Sleepalot says: @ November 4, 2012 at 5:43 am
@ Gail. That’s a matter of topography: the flood plain may be tens of miles wide.
________________________________
They had that figured out too.
What we see in modern times is what I ran into. As a northerner I was denied permission to build on my 100+ acres because it was “All flood plain” I had to get a letter from the USGS stating where the 100 yr flood plain actually was on my survey map and that my proposed site was 100 ft above that elevation.
A few years later a “good ole’ boy” inherited about 1000 ac (mostly flood plain) and wanted to sell it off as 10+ ac buildable lots thereby skirting the subdivision codes. There are now several houses built in the area where I saw a minimum of three feet of standing water after Hurricane Frances hit the area in 2004. That was just before I bought the land. I hiked down towards the Cape Fear River and found the area flooded a good 1/2 mile from the normal river bank. Great farmland but as my geology prof said, Only a fool builds IN the river and the flood plain IS the river it just doesn’t use it often.
The person approving the building site has not changed since 2004.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/#comment-190
I have been able to prove that this current fit is correct by analyzing all data on maxima since 1942 from the Elmendorf Air Force base in Anchorage. It gives me the same (blue) curve going downwards from 1972 to 1942 as well.
This means that we are currently hovering at the bottom of the curve, at a maximum cooling rate for the next 8 years or so. We also have the normal polar-equator differential and autumn differential. It is therefore likely that a few more of these type of storms will happen, and they will happen soon.
Whilst I agree with the bible quotes here, we also have to think smart, (pray and work) seeing as perhaps we did not build on rock.
New York, certainly, with so many inhabitants has to do more to protect itself by building floodgates or do something to prevent flooding again.
Chris Edwards says:
“Isnt there a really old book that tells us not to build houses on sand?”
Actually, the people already knew that to build on sand was foolish. That knowledge was being used to illustrate the foolishness of not following wise teachings such as the Golden Rule.
Brady says:
November 4, 2012 at 2:25 am
On a closer reading … it looks like he is bailing out (due to obvious contrary evidence) of the “CAGW means more stronger hurricanes” belief and replacing it with “CAGW means less stronger hurricanes” belief. The CAGW part of the original belief stays in.
Not much of a change. 🙁
Or am I missing something here?
=========
From a previous article: “The bottom line is that climate change is unquestionably having an effect on the weather around us by raising the average temperature of the planet. This is producing warmer temperatures and very likely increasing the magnitude of droughts. However, it is a big stretch to go from there to blaming Sandy on climate change. It’s a stretch that is just not supported by science at this time.” Extreme weather in Texas caused by global warming. NYC – not so much.
Science Question: (shocking, I know)
Beach erosion has been a long-cited problem. As we can see in New Jersey footage, about 5 feet of additional sand is now covering seaside property in some spots, some got less while some more.
Have we seen the natural method of beach replenishment? Was there a long-lasting net gain? Or was this the ocean edge getting pushed farther inland and what we saw was the pile-up, it was a net loss when over?
Do they still give out Federal funds to northern cities for snow removal and remediation?
Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg has endorsed Barak Obama as the candidate with the better chance of stopping climate change:
River front property is the same thing. People buy that kind of land at a premium price (but I sure don’t know why) then continue to struggle with rules and regulations preventing them from doing anything about their constantly wet basement, wet fields, eroding river bank, ice jams and floods. And if they own it long enough they end up having the river go dry from drought, or change course somewhere up stream and then the river is on someone else’s property. Better to buy dry land and sink a well nice and deep. Much cheaper.
As mortals, we are all doomed. You can’t blame climate change for that either.
Hu McCulloch says:
November 4, 2012 at 10:07 am
Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg has endorsed Barak Obama as the candidate with the better chance of stopping climate change:
“Our Climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in NYC and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be eough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action. (NYTimes 11/2/12, p. 1)”
=========================================================================
So the way combat CAGW is for the Government to give away free gas? Or is endorsing Obama the way to get free gas just before election day?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/department_of_defense_setting_up_XK9Cli2PXUEFWZC0d8abMM
(PS Don’t misunderstand me. I’ve no objection to the people getting help. Just the politics involved.)
PS Gail, glad you’re back.
Gunga Din says:
November 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Seconded!!
Who needs skeptics when we have our alarmist friends?
Just like
and back in the real world
There is an interesting quote from Kevin Trenberth in the article.
(emphasis mine)
Now would this be the same Kevin Trenberth who just 12 months ago was advocating that we reverse the null hypothesis?
Has Trenberth now reversed his position on reversing the null hypthosis?
There may be hope for the field if Trenberth has had a change of heart.
Berger is no skeptic. He’s a Mann deciple. Literally.
Did anyone read the ridiculous post he linked to at the bottom? The one by someone called David Roberts? This guy is decrying when sensible people tell the alarmists not to get their panties in a wad and say that everything is caused by global warming. He calls them “scolds.”
Are not all these things dishonest? So basically he’s saying that you should allow people to spew dishonest alarmism without calling them on it, because there’s a war on, dammit!
I’m from Houston and Eric Berger is a fervent CAGW believer. He’s just a somewhat honest one. You can get that if you read the whole post. At one point he says that strong storms WILL increase, just not till the end of the century. So, basically, global warming isn’t causing stronger storms YET.
You should see the ridiculousness he posted after climategate….
Almost all of the power outages affecting millions of people most fundamentally came from one simple fact: not burying power lines underground unlike what is already done anyway for pipes. IIRC, there were 100000+ downed power lines reportedly, such as trees falling over and bringing them down. Changing pre-existing infrastructure could be far more expensive than worthwhile, but this kind of power disruption is avoidable in principle if any localities ever really strongly desired to prevent it.
i live very near to the LA River, which is totally canalized, but which could still theoretically flood out.
fortunately, i live on the uphill side, so all the rest of The Valley would have to flood, like totally, for me to be in it, for sure. %-)
Not exactly:
@Red Seewun: Thanks for the morning chuckle. That was good. Like, for sure.
Roger Knights: In a bit of pro-active CYA, he or TPTB commissioned the following 2011 study, which frowns on preventative measures, because they provide “a false sense of security” (because they can’t protect against the worstest case) and thus amount to “disaster by design.” Instead, low-lying New York should pick up and move, reverting their spaces back to parkland. Dig it:
By that logic, we shouldn’t require cars to have seatbelts, buildings to have fire extinguishers or fire escapes, etc., etc.—Roger Knights
”Abound” is a giveaway that the authors’ hearts are imbued with warmist alrmism. This report’s recommendations (mostly “move”) are largely based on accepting warmist projections of a 1-meter sea level rise by 2100. Further, based on nature of the the paragraph that sneeringly rejected “Regional Mega-Engineering,” I suspect that this report’s recommendations reflect current environmentalism’s knee-jerk rejection of man’s large-scale defiance of nature in the form of levees, surge barriers, etc.—i.e., a belief that such a stance is never justified and amounts to an affront to Gaia. The Dutch have told “mother nature” where to get off, and we should too, in this instance. (“This I know—Mother Nature is a maniac.”—Laurence Janifer, epigraph to You Sane Men.)—Roger Knights
Isn’t it backwards to say “climate change causes a change in the weather”? Surely it’s a consistent, systematic change in one’s weather that shows your climate is changing. It’s like claiming a full glass of water caused your faucet to turn on.
If one’s climate already includes things like nor’easters and hurricanes, does a change in frequency or intensity really qualify as climate change? I’d think we’d reserve that nomenclature for say, if the Northeast US went from four seasons to a seasonal monsoon, or to a desert arid climate. Is a bit more rain and wind really “climate change”?
@Bertram Felden says: November 4, 2012 at 1:44 am
Be careful with rationality or hyper-rationality, after all cAGW is perfectly rational but it’s not proven by science. The theory of relativity was very irrational when it was postulated yet it was true. Only a closed mind judges the unknown as irrational.
Tewkesbury in England has been flooded recently in 2007 and 2012. The Abbey which is probably more than 500 years old can be seen to be located on a small mound which is not flooded. Obviously the builders of the Abbey realised the dangers of flooding and built on safe ground.
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/pictures/Aerials-Tewkesbury-flooding/pictures-15960348-detail/pictures.html