[Newfie]

Ghung,
I Tom Ibon to be talking to the select few on this board. We should strive for clarity as the world devolves around us. That's what I heard anyway.

[dohboi]

N wrote: "I think denial will rule, at least for the early stages, until some significant disasters occur."

I tend to agree, but I do wonder just how bad the disaster has to be. Sandy, apparently, wasn't enough. The constant barrage of 100 year, 500 year, and 1000 year rainbomb deluges don't seem to be enough. The endless and deep CA drought, worst in at least 1000 years there, doesn't seem to be enough...

What will it take?

G wrote: "Relocating a small village or town pales in significance to relocating billions of people, and moving $trillions in infrastructure, out of the flood zones."

But that's exactly why it is worth looking at how the gov is handling these early cases. It may throw some light on how they may approach these larger inevitable dislocations, don't you think?

[Newfie]

Doh,
As we speak I'm working a job where at least one site was under water during Sandy. The site has triple redundant power, but NO acknowledgement of water ingress. Site was designed to be ground mounted. Obviously we will address the issue but was Sandy enough? Clearly not always.

I think Bloomsbergs grand plans to harden NYC have been dropped or sharply curtailed.

[KaiserJeep]

The long term impacts of the earthquake insurance meddling I described earlier are completely clear after 27 years. The insurance market in California has shrank and many insurance companies have abandoned this market. I don't happen to believe that these changes came about because of the financial risk these companies were under, or the risk of huge payouts. There is an insurance superfund (privately financed and managed) that kicks in in every major earthquake and hurricane. The Superfund protects individual insurance companies and they all share the cost of maintaining this fund.

Not to mention, in any major disaster the state governor simply declares an emergency, FEMA kicks in, and if the annual FEMA budget is inadequate due to the scale of disaster, Congress throws Federal money at the state. The rising water levels are NOT disasters, NOT floods, and the people are not getting assistance from state or local governments, either.

As for Newtok, I did spend a year nearby at Port Clarence, AK in the early 1970s. Those Inuits were nomads then, living on the ice and hunting seals and other marine mammals, and camping on the land only in Summer, taking salmon and whales. Newtok came about after the white man gave them religion (Lutheran missionaries and Jesuit priests), a new diet that included sugar and alcohol, insulated homes with satellite TV and central heating, and marriage/jealousy/STDs. In the process, the native culture was destroyed, and by the 1980s was effectively gone. But it's not like Newtok is unique or unusual, the Summer camps of the Inuit were always right on the beach, because they walked everywhere, carrying or dragging all their possessions. Most tellingly, they are not white people who vote.

[GHung]

G wrote: "Relocating a small village or town pales in significance to relocating billions of people, and moving $trillions in infrastructure, out of the flood zones."

But that's exactly why it is worth looking at how the gov is handling these early cases. It may throw some light on how they may approach these larger inevitable dislocations, don't you think?

There's sure to some value in that, Doh, but it's my assessment that it won't be long before government won't be able to handle these dislocations in any way the present would find acceptable. In other words, folks will be increasingly on their own as large-scale social safety nets become a thing of the past. Indeed, that may be what these early cases reveal, especially as to how the general public, still relatively comfortable in their lives, will react.

I think that immigration is a pretty good analogue in some respect. What used to be the country of...

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

.... now has a large segment of it's population who essentially want to round up 11 million people, put them on cattle cars, and shove them across the border. Says a lot. It's pretty insane; the same folks who protest at any suggestion of population control are advocating population-control-by-other-means.

I don't think they'll be agreeable to helping pay for the relocation of millions due to sea-level rise. Besides, that would be an admission of guilt, born of decades of denial. The government will be impotent to do anything on any scale that matters. These early cases may well be the lucky ones. That's my take, anyway.

[dohboi]

Good points, G, but recall that we basically put an entire population (not millions, but thousands) in cattle cars and shipped them off during WWII, namely Japanese, and Japanese Americans. Similarly and with much more deadly effect with Native Americans from the South and elsewhere.

So shipping unwanted populations off is sadly at least as American, historically, as is the inscription on the foundation of the Statue of Liberty--one of many ways that we have and do betray our ideals with our actions, over and over.

"These early cases may well be the lucky ones."

That is, indeed, very likely the case.

[KaiserJeep]

My take is very similar to GHung's except that I believe that rising sea levels don't result from manmade CC, but are the inevitable natural consequences of the planet continuing to withdraw from the Pleistocene glacial period and approaching the next Climatic Optimum. Not an emergency, and no need for angst. I mean, the Dutch used dikes and windmills to cope with this problem since the Middle Ages - we can do better than that.

As for my personal plans - I am buying beachfront property on Lake Michigan, most likely next year. That lake happens to be 577 feet of elevation above the Atlantic ocean, and the recent "1000 year floods" caused a dramatic 1.3" increase in water levels, because the Great Lakes water levels are regulated by the locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway system - the extra rain increased the flow through the lock bypass channels, but otherwise made no difference. They are also the largest bodies of fresh water in the world, and living on the shores of these lakes moderates the average temperature extremes both Summer and Winter by about 8 degrees F.

I am making plans to survive CC, by moving North and settling on the shores of a huge fresh water supply that moderates the temperature variations and keeps the shoreline water table high. There are no nearby oil shales, oil or gas wells, or coal mines - the search for and fracking for FF's will not ever impact this area. It is some of the most productive farmland and dairy lands in the country, food is cheap. They grow a lot of corn and E85 fuel is currently $1.79 per US gallon, and not likely to get a lot higher any time soon. There are constant breezes at the shore, and both wind and solar power are available and dependable.

All this I have thought through, even though I believe that CC is a natural and not man-made phenomenon, and that conventional oil peaked worldwide in the late 1980s, and the present FF glut is a temporary phenomenon caused by a worldwide recession and unconventional sources of oil and gas.

The world is after all, what you make of it. If you believe in your manmade CC fantasy, make plans to survive and prosper in that scenario. If you object to taxes that bail out foolish folks who insist on living in earthquake zones, flood zones, the Florida peninsula, the Mississippi delta region, Tornado Alley, or Atlantic barrier islands, then retire or at least find a lifestyle that minimizes your taxable income.

You are, after all, Homo Sapiens Sapiens - time you started behaving that way.

[dohboi]

"My take is very similar to GHung's except that I believe that rising sea levels don't accept fundamental science, affirmed by every established scientific body on the planet...

(Fixed that for! ya )

[Plantagenet]

As for my personal plans - I am buying beachfront property on Lake Michigan, most likely next year. That lake happens to be 577 feet of elevation above the Atlantic ocean, and the recent "1000 year floods" caused a dramatic 1.3" increase in water levels, because the Great Lakes water levels are regulated by the locks of the St. Lawrence Seaway system - the extra rain increased the flow through the lock bypass channels, but otherwise made no difference. They are also the largest bodies of fresh water in the world, and living on the shores of these lakes moderates the average temperature extremes both Summer and Winter by about 8 degrees F.

I am making plans to survive CC, by moving North and settling on the shores of a huge fresh water supply that moderates the temperature variations and keeps the shoreline water table high. There are no nearby oil shales, oil or gas wells, or coal mines - the search for and fracking for FF's will not ever impact this area. It is some of the most productive farmland and dairy lands in the country, food is cheap. They grow a lot of corn and E85 fuel is currently $1.79 per US gallon, and not likely to get a lot higher any time soon. There are constant breezes at the shore, and both wind and solar power are available and dependable.

All this I have thought through....

Sounds like a good plan. Good to see your little grey cells are functioning so well.


A cozy wind-powered doomstead on the shores of Lake Michigan? Sounds nice.......

[Hawkcreek]

I meet snowbirds from Michigan all the time, down in the southwest. They are all bitching about the winters back home and enjoying the BBQ at their campsites.
All that fresh water gets hard when it is 20 degrees below zero outside.
But to a 4 season Californian (Fire, flood, earthquake, and drought), that will seem like heaven, I'll bet.

[Hawkcreek]

Ibon said; "So this would instantly overnight crash the coastal property market."

Fine with me. I grew up going to fairly pristine southeastern beaches that only had a few shacks on them. All gone now, replaced by major developments with many detrimental consequences. It's my opinion that these newer developments should not only be held fully responsible for their own insurance, but should be required to post bonds for the inevitable deconstruction and clean-up costs as they are forced to move.

Again, I'm tired of paying for clean-up and reconstruction every time another storm hits the Carolina coast. These were for-profit enterprises that I didn't benefit from, and shouldn't be required to subsidise in any way. Just another reason I work to minimise my tax liability in a legal manner, primarily by minimising my taxable income.

Total agreement with you on this.

I think we are all totally in agreement with this. But that is not the point of this line of inquiry, it is not about what we disagree or agree with, it is about trying to prognosticate the macro shifts that will happen in the economy, culture and physical environment. It not about what any of us wish for.

We need to improve on cultivating a more clinical and detached objectivity when anticipating the future. Model yourself a bit more like mother nature, the ultimate objective arbiter of our fate!

In reference to this topic it is not hard to imagine that at some point the government will no longer be able to back up the insurance industry, the rates will skyrocket, the banks wont issue mortgages without insurance. These pressures elevate to the point where the market abandons coastal properties. This will happen with intense storms of more frequency as sea levels slowly rise.

It is good to see that six words of mine (4 or them real small) could provoke such a great response. Keep it up.

[KaiserJeep]

I meet snowbirds from Michigan all the time, down in the southwest. They are all bitching about the winters back home and enjoying the BBQ at their campsites.
All that fresh water gets hard when it is 20 degrees below zero outside.
But to a 4 season Californian (Fire, flood, earthquake, and drought), that will seem like heaven, I'll bet.

The world, it is getting warmer, although the root cause may be debateable, and does not matter in the slightest at any rate. The temperatures you describe are on the Great Plains, and I was born and raised there. My kid went to school in Wisconsin, and decided never to come back to California.

The silliness around here gets really deep sometimes. People bitching and moaning all the time about AGW, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and overshoot population.

As if people don't have brains to cope with their problems, and even to make plans to avoid problems. CC, be it natural or manmade, is as they say, a Darwinian opportunity. Think your way out of your problems, or think about how to avoid them entirely, or whimper and die.

The world is what it is. Deal with it. My way is to anticipate and avoid most problems, and to minimize others. But the majority around here prefers to screech about CC.

Reality, what a concept, especially for a bunch of AGW fanatic keyboard queens.

[Newfie]

Thats right KJ, the action is in the verb. It's what you do that matters.

But I'm an old man, so my challenges are limited. We hope to give our kids a leg up. They can't hear the message yet. We are waiting for a "learning opportunity."

In the meantime we are enjoying our life and life style.

[Hawkcreek]

The silliness around here gets really deep sometimes. People bitching and moaning all the time about AGW, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and overshoot population.

Careful KJ - people may start looking at your word count in your posts and decide that all you do is bitch and moan about your fellow keyboard queens.
Sometimes it is better to let people know that a lot of what you say is just your opinion, not the un-questionable words of a superior being.

[dohboi]

"The world, it is getting warmer..."

Hurray, we can agree on something, KJ. (And nice use of topic-comment syntactic structure! https://books.google.com/books?id=-GrpD ... sh&f=false)

Perhaps you are starting to take tiny steps towards accepting the reality that very basic physics and the overwhelming scientific consensus has made clear.

Let us know if you have any questions about things as they start to become clearer to you. Just out of curiosity, do you have any favorite alternative explanations for the warming?

[SeaGypsy]

Ghung,
I Tom Ibon to be talking to the select few on this board. We should strive for clarity as the world devolves around us. That's what I heard anyway.

F@ck guys for the third time, the frontier village was saved because if it wasn't there would be nothing there to say who owns it. Not a thing to do with climate change policy, all geopolitics. You are all blabbering on.

[Newfie]

Sea,

Massive disconnect there I think. I've no clue how you got there.

[Newfie]

A relevant news bit.

AMTRAK haggling and sueing to recoup insurance claims due to Sandy.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/domes ... 1629C?il=0

[SeaGypsy]

It's flipping obvious. Look at where the two places in the OP are on a map. Now if all the coastal villages west of Anchorage are allowed to fail & be abandoned, what makes this region part of the USA? Nobody will move there, no Americans anyhow. Ok, so now it's empty of American citizens, who or what holds up American sovereignty across this vast, inhospitable, but abundant with resources region? What moral or ethical claim does the US hold over this region, now or in that future? By sustaining a population there, even a tiny aboriginal one, an imperative is maintained. Abandoning it reduces the statement of claim to the point where if Japan, China, Russia are hungry enough, they may just decide hey nobody there, lots of fish, let's go. None of which applies to Florida. Ask anyone involved in frontier military planning if it's a good idea to abandon western Alaska.

[SeaGypsy]

A relevant news bit.

AMTRAK haggling and sueing to recoup insurance claims due to Sandy.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/domes ... 1629C?il=0

The disconnect is all yours, I have been responding to the OP, the rest of you have turned this into another thread about coastal insurance.