[Lore]

Gradual in the norm is tens of thousands of years not in several decades.

I love it when people believe all the bad stuff is going to come down all around them and not affect them in the least.

[Lore]

.
And of course the transition will be gradual...just as it has been for decades. Again do some research: the Texas coastline has been slipping into the GOM from long before the fossil fuel age. The coast highway from near Houston towards the La state line was closed decades ago when much of the small amount of remaining land was washed away by a series of hurricanes. Again look at a f*cking" map and see the OFFSHORE coastal barrier islands that were once the Texas coastline a few thousand years ago. Coastal barrier islands that are currently sliding very slowly into the GOM as they have been for tens of thousands of years. But the Texas situation is rather mild compared to the Rockman's home town of Nawlins. It's been sinking below sea level for millions of years and continues doing so today. Again I refer folks to study "geosynclines": noun, Geology: a portion of the earth's crust subjected to downward warping during a large span of geologic time. Perhaps folks should get off their political talking points and focus a bit more on geography if they wish to have an adult conversation. LOL.

And I mention NYC because the thread evolved from raining in Houston to talking about disruptions due to sea level rising. Please try to stay up with the conversation. LOL.

And again, I don't know what you're talking about here old buddy since what you're saying has nothing to do with Houston's future flood problems. As the maps quite clearly indicate Houston is in for a world of deep water.

[dohboi]

"I love it when people believe all the bad stuff is going to come down all around them and not affect them in the least."

Nicely put. I've seen this syndrome in other similar contexts. I think it boils down to some kind of macho bullsh!t version of denialism. But maybe there are other elements involved, too.

[AgentR11]

Gradual in the norm is tens of thousands of years not in several decades.
I love it when people believe all the bad stuff is going to come down all around them and not affect them in the least.

I love it when people believe I can't manage to walk faster than sea level rise encroaches. But whatever makes yall happy; believe Houston is doomed; that some magic will make the sea rise up and destroy buildings that are already sitting at 150+ ft above MSL within the 30-50 yr lifespan of those buildings.

SLR is incredibly slow compared to building depreciation.

That said; with the limit on posting interval, I can't match the pace of the Choir Party. Being outnumbered, and prohibited from going toe-to-toe with all comers kinda kills this forum for me. So tally ho! Sing the hymn with no fear of matched opposition.

Just kinda sad to lose interest like this; been here so long. But if I'm just going to be drowned out by numbers, I don't see much point.

[dohboi]

Ahwwwhww, the poor, oppressed, victimized agent.

We all pity your sad pathetic plight greatly, I'm sure.

I think if you whine and whine some more, you'll certainly make your case seem much, much stronger!!

Whining, after all, especially from conservatives, is such a touching thing to see...

For the umpteenth time, slr seems to happen gradually, but extreme events happen suddenly.

And the events are getting more and more extreme and more and more frequent.

Thanks, though, for at least admitting that the dams (or whatever R wants to call them) could potentially break at some point and that such an event would be a major tragedy for the area. Perhaps we should just leave it at that, so you don't end up too distressed and whiny about your sad, sad, victimized position here.

[Lore]

Gradual in the norm is tens of thousands of years not in several decades.
I love it when people believe all the bad stuff is going to come down all around them and not affect them in the least.

I love it when people believe I can't manage to walk faster than sea level rise encroaches. But whatever makes yall happy; believe Houston is doomed; that some magic will make the sea rise up and destroy buildings that are already sitting at 150+ ft above MSL within the 30-50 yr lifespan of those buildings.

Well, if you were to live so long, you'd be walking with most Houstonians to a place like Wisconsin.

SLR is incredibly slow compared to building depreciation.

Just the opposite. We all know how fast real estate can be deprecated after the last bubble. And as I've repeatedly said, when banks and insurance companies can no longer offer loans on property that will become worthless at the end of term, the game is up.

Flint, Michigan is a good example. What's a home worth there right now when you can't even drink the water? Likewise only an idiot would spend good money on property that will be going under water.

[AgentR11]

The two dams listed above, Addicks and Barker are now releasing their water. Eventually they'll be giant, mostly empty mud pits.... Water that would have hit downtown Houston in the course of a day, will pass harmlessly down the bayou over the course of a month maybe. They're at record storage, and I'm to lazy to do the math for exactly how long the release will take. But it will be quite a while.

[AgentR11]

Here is planning, in progress, for future flood control and storm remediation efforts that will be built in the not too distant future:

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/194722/me ... uper-storm

The study itself costs some millions and is split 50/50 between state and federal. The combination of projects it suggests will go to engineers, state, and federal officials who will spend BILLIONS of dollars building what is honestly, an iterative, adaptive response to climate change; though no Texas official (other than our official climate guy, who has a "hall pass" as it were) will say anything with the words "climate change" in it.

You don't have to say the words or publicly acknowledge something to coordinate and construct massive adaptation efforts. Here, you just say, "flooding", or "hurricane"; and that is perfectly sufficient justification.

The closer is also very Texas Compatible:
"including potential shoreline degradation, storm damage risk reduction, environmental restoration and protection as well as related improvements along the Texas Gulf Coast to ensure that preservation of the Texas coastal region is balanced with the growth and needs of industries that fuel commerce and power the nation.”

Iterative.
deal with 1 foot of SLR/subsidance at a time.
over and over, hundreds of times. Works like a champ.
creates tons of jobs, insures no sustained disruption in cargo and hydrocarbon handling.
facilitates natural process of building depreciation, abandonment, re purposing,and new construction on higher ground (of which Houston will never run out of).

[dohboi]

http://www.climatenexus.org/historic-ho ... -signature

Historic Houston Floods Bear Classic Climate Signature

Heavy rains and flooding in Houston have taken six lives and put much of the city under water. Dozens of schools, roads and freeways were closed after rainfall dumped more than a foot of water. More storms are predicted across the region, posing the threat of renewed flooding.

The record-breaking rainfall driving Houston’s deadly floods parallels the trend toward more extreme rainfall in our warming world.

Houston has seen a 167 percent increase in heavy downpours since the 1950s.

The nearly 10 inches of rain recorded at Houston’s airport during this flood was the highest one-day April rainfall since airport record-keeping began, and was also the second highest one-day record in any month...

How many records have to be broken how many times in how many places for some folks to wake up and realize that something has gone horribly, horribly awry with the planet's climate?

Thanks for that info, A. I hadn't realized that TX also has a de facto (near) ban on officials using the term GW, but somehow I'm not too surprised. The right likes to beat up on people for being supposedly 'politically correct' for not using obnoxious and offensive terms of various sorts. But really, it's the political and religious Right that has had the longest and most consistent record of censoring speech of various sorts, in this country, anyway. /OT random comment.

[AgentR11]

I'm trying not to engage in conversation in general because of the post / edit / timer-limit; but I likely won't be back for another hour, so I will comment this caveat. We need to be REALLY REALLY careful when drawing any climactic assertions based upon a record that is so short. Stick with the models; they show modest increase in temps, a substantial increase in rainfall, and somewhere between 1 -3 ft of sea level rise over the coming century.

Surprisingly, or maybe not so because concrete, steel, and money are involved; while Texan's won't say the words, "Climate Change"; they most certainly will spend billions of dollars building structures, modifying land use regs, and making properties uninsurable mitigating the impacts predicted by Climate Change models.

As to the ban, its a voter imposed and enforced one. Don't for a second believe that there are more than a very small handful of morons in Texas government that don't understand Climate Change. You don't appropriate billions of dollars for concrete and dirt work just because. You do it because the models say hundreds of billions of dollars of value will be lost if you don't. If Texas voters decide the words "Climate Change" are no longer associated with religion hating, family wrecking, maniac taxing and regulating liberals; then it'd be like a magic wand waved, and those words and "IPCC" would instantly start appearing in real documents.

Of course the Texas solution remains the same, magic words or no. More concrete. More dirt work. There is no problem that can not be solved with more concrete. LOL.

[dohboi]

"1 -3 ft of sea level rise over the coming century"

Much higher and faster than that now...predictions of sea level rise rising faster are rising so fast we're drowning in bewilderment!!

It's even weirder and creepier to me if people who know about GW all decide that they can't say the word...just bizarre. But then TX is a strange and wondrous place. I miss Molly Ivins' wonderful reportage on various absurd Texasisms.

Among many others:

I dearly love the state of Texas, but I consider that a harmless perversion on my part, and discuss it only with consenting adults.

Good thing we've still got politics in Texas - finest form of free entertainment ever invented.

[AgentR11]

per accepted model, ipcc. 0.11 in/yr or so. outlier, doomer cases, to which we emotionally ascribe or have a hunch about are unsuitable for the making of appropriations / mitigations decisions.

my choice to be a Houstonian at 250+ ft msl obviously indicates my natural doomer instincts. but i can't ask people to spend billions based on my instinct.

[Lore]

The IPCC predictive melt of the global ice caps is based on the current rate which is not indicative, even by their own assessment, of what we will get.

[dohboi]

https://www.facebook.com/CosmosUpp/phot ... =3&theater

[AgentR11]

Either you believe in using peer-reviewed, consensus accepted science for policy decisions effecting appropriations, or you don't.

Hard money, requires hard science.

[PeakOiler]

Just looked at the weather radar map for Houston. At he time of this post, it is raining heavily again. (Lots of yellow and red on the map, right over downtown Houston). Perhaps we can expect to hear/read more about water rescues later today or tonight. Stay tuned.

[dohboi]

How 'bout a whole book by arguably one of the world's top climate scientists: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002Z8 ... TF8&btkr=1

We are heading into seeing storms the likes of which have not been known since long before humans evolved.

Try getting ready for those!

[Lore]

Either you believe in using peer-reviewed, consensus accepted science for policy decisions effecting appropriations, or you don't.

Hard money, requires hard science.

I do believe in the peer-reviewed science.

Climate guru James Hansen warns of much worse than expected sea level rise

The current rate of global warming could raise sea levels by “several meters” over the coming century, rendering most of the world’s coastal cities uninhabitable and helping unleash devastating storms, according to a paper published by James Hansen, the former Nasa scientist who is considered the father of modern climate change awareness.

The research, published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, references past climatic conditions, recent observations and future models to warn the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will contribute to a far worse sea level increase than previously thought.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -scientist

[AgentR11]

I'm going to try this, one more time. This is not denial of SLR, its a statement that yall don't seem to understand much about construction, fixed assets, and building depreciation.

IPCC numbers are currently stated to be +0.11 in/yr. On the other hand, I don't think Hanson is being overly ridiculous about "several meters within the century"; though his position is still OUTSIDE of the consensus view.

So how do we get from +0.11 in/yr (equivalent to 0.28m /century) ( current, factual, observed rate); to a 2100 date with say +3 meters. Obviously its not linear. This is a *GOOD* thing for building depreciation and industrial/commercial business decisions.

So... why?

Lets look at your building lifecycle.

Site selection
construction
occupancy
remodel
occupancy
abandonment / replacement / demolition

This generally happens over a cycle of 30-50 yrs depending on the durability/use of the building, but 30yrs is a perfectly reasonable, and economically justifiable lifespan.

Why?

net PV. the decision about the buildings, cost, earnings, etc; are analyzed in terms of net present value. Present value basically acknowledges that the $100 you make or spend 30 yrs from now is worth no where near as much to you, right now, as the $100 you spend or make today.

So while the ice melt and SLR accelerate; the value of the building decelerates almost in lock step. To put perfectly bluntly; it flat does not matter that a thirty year old building is inundated; it would only matter if you did some really high dollar remodel just before inundation; but you can no longer insure nor get financing for properties/remodel which have a realistic likelihood of being inundated soon.

Thus, once a building is within the flood plain, which is periodically, (and in Texas harshly), redrawn to account for climate/subsidence/water drainage changes; its cycle is over; and its lifespan will come to an end very shortly, whether it gets flooded or not.

So by the time SLR actually EATS the building?

no one will be there.
no industrial capacity will be dependent on it.
the activity will have moved years before.

Hansen's paper(1) is compatible with, and supportive of this process. At each point in time going forward, the change in the rate (ie, acceleration) is smooth and known, and produces a knowable level for MSL, and thus, a knowable flood plain map. At no point, even with Hansen's numbers, will a new, high value, 30-50 yr building be constructed in a location which will be inundated by SLR and storm surge; during its 30 yr economic life.

SLR is not a step function. It is a smooth curve. And that makes all the difference in the world as far as buildings, siting, life cycle... As long as the rate is knowable over the course of the very near term (5-10yrs) at each stage in the time line, the decisions made with regard to facility construction and flood plain maps will be appropriate. (eg, known fast rate is better than unknown modest rate)

BTW, this does not imply a lack of wailing and nashing of teeth on TV when a building does get eaten, it only means that the accountants, bankers, and insurers; real estate moguls and company CEOs won't really care. Unless one of them was dumb enough to self-fund a reconstruction project in the flood plain. For them... their professional life expectancy likely just went to zero.


1Hansen, J., Sato, M., Hearty, P., Ruedy, R., Kelley, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Russell, G., Tselioudis, G., Cao, J., Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., Tormey, B., Donovan, B., Kandiano, E., von Schuckmann, K., Kharecha, P., Legrande, A. N., Bauer, M., and Lo, K.-W.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3761-3812, doi:10.5194/acp-16-3761-2016, 2016.

[dohboi]

Thanks for the careful analysis, A. And I really mean it.

But I would ask you to consider two possibilities:

1) PV, which may have made sense in an age of relative abundance, will make less and less sense going forward. We are, after all, talking about more than just Houston getting inundated and battered with ever worsening storms. Everywhere on every coast in the world will be looking for building materials and the energy to build with them and the experienced labor...So that future $100s suddenly looks pretty darn precious.

2) As I keep saying, it's not just global sea level rise, bad as that can be.

A)Local sea level rise rates can be much higher (or lower) than the global average. The entire east coast of North America, iirc, is going to be on the high end. So estimates like those recently published in Insurance Journal of "3 meters or 9 feet by 2050-2060" you can move that up by a couple decades (or add another meter or so to those dates) for many locations. http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 405089.htm

B) Storms. We are going to have ever-more-intense storms going forward. Inundations from the sky will bring the kind of flooding we saw in this storm and much worse. At the same time, it some storms, there will be ever higher surges from the sea--up to 40 feet surges were recorded for Haiyan.

So it's not just gradual (even if non-linear) sea level rise we're talking about. This 'background' rising threat will be punctuated by storms like none we've ever seen.

And of course, it's not just infrastructure we are (or should be) talking about. Actual people actually live and work in those buildings and houses. They will die. Should we just factor in PV accounting and write them off for a tax deduction?

Maybe Agent should call all the families of those who died in the last storm and assuage their grief with the comforting thought that storms like this won't have a long-term negative effect on the infrastructure of their beloved city?!