CSNbbs

(01-03-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? you think.

Well, wealthy people tend to inhabit "beachfront" property. I gave examples of Malibu and the Hamptons. Poorer people tend to be "off the beach", I would think.

(01-03-2020 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020 05:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020 05:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-02-2020 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this more of a problem for rich people?

More to lose. Duh. You tell me - who is more affected by a rise in sea levels - the guy with the five million dollar beachfront mansion or the homeless sleeping in a shelter two blocks away.

Who is more affected - the guy who owns the dockside properties at the port, or the guy who commutes there to work?

Quote:How many rich people live in coastal communities versus poor people? What is the cutoff for your evaluation?

No idea. but I know who has the most to lose. And I know who has the ears of politicians more.

You tell me your cut off. We will see if I agree.

I would argue that poor people have far more to lose, as they do not have the same type of resources to recover than wealthy individuals do. You're right that wealthy people have more $ at risk, but absolute $ is not the way people evaluate risk and vulnerability.

The wealthy people you mention - the home owner, the marina owner - they're likely able to weather a storm better than an hourly worker with little to no savings.

Anywhere between 87 and 126 million people live in coastal communities - are you trying to tell me that all of those people are rich and wealthy?

I just don't get why you're so fixated on thinking that coastal vulnerability is only a wealthy person's problem. Do you think earthquakes in California are the same thing?

Where did you get the ONLY? And the ALL? I don't remember claiming that. I think that came out of your head, not mine. That's what happens so often with you - you hear what you want to hear and expect me to defend it.

Yep, a rich person might lose a lot of $$$, but a poor one might lose everything they have. Thing is, I don't think a 2-3 inch in sea level rise is going to threaten many poor people's homes, unless they are in a flood plain, but it may affect a rich guy's business of it is at a port and his home if it is oceanside. I threw out Malibu and the Hamptons as examples of places that have rich people's home that would be affected, maybe, by a tiny rise in sea level. But 400 feet, that would take the ocean back up to
Waco. I would really be concerned by a rise of that magnitude, even over thousands of years.

My point is that the rich guys are the ones donating big $$ to campaigns, and so they have the ears of politicians, while the poor guys have zero influence. And the poor ones can usually move a lot easier than the rich ones. You try sellong a 5M house quickly. Lot easier to just load the family car and leave that rental behind.

I wonder, are you just arguing because it is me?

Still wondering where you got the ALL and the ONLY.

Because you continue to only focus on the affect of sea level rise on wealthy individuals, while minimizing or ignoring the affect on those who aren't wealthy...

I'm arguing with you that other populations have a heck of a lot to lose too, and you seem to be very dismissive of that.

But to the point you tried to clarify, why does it matter if wealthy individuals are the one's lobbying for sea level rise preparedness? Are you worried that the actions taken will leave out vulnerable communities since they have less of a seat at the table?

(01-03-2020 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? you think.

Well, wealthy people tend to inhabit "beachfront" property. I gave examples of Malibu and the Hamptons. Poorer people tend to be "off the beach", I would think.

But what is the point of differentiating? Are the risks in coastal communities substantially different between beach front property and off beach property?

(01-03-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 11:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know of one single place in this country where beach-front is not more expensive than 'off the beach'... In fact, if rising sea levels make current beach-front properties uninhabitable, the next row of homes gets significantly more expensive than they were... etc etc etc
Comparing rising sea levels to earthquakes is apples:oranges because you can't define the PHYSICALLY impacted areas.... and earthquakes happen in moments, while rising sea levels would take years or even decades.

Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? That is not how to differentiate what areas/properties will be affected by rising sea levels. You need to understand local topography, locations of waterways and wetlands, and local bathymetry to start. It is much more than just beach front property that will be affected by rising sea levels. You can see how beach front property is not the only property affected by rising sea levels by looking at aerials taken following the storm surge generated by hurricanes.
And you're totally off the mark in terms of comparing the effects of sea level rise and earthquakes on populations as being apples to oranges. First of all, you seem to only be thinking of the immediate effect of sea level rise, without considering the compound effects when coupled with other natural disasters (like hurricanes). So, like earthquakes, sea level rise will have immediate impacts in many instances, because it will exacerbate impacts. Second, I don't know why you say you can't define the physically impacted areas. Both types of hazards have physical footprints that can be defined.
If anything, look at academic work in the realm of hazard analysis and disaster probabilities, specifically with respect to compound events, to understand that these issues are not as apple to oranges as you think.

I have couple of questions:
1) How big a rise in sea level are we actually anticipating?
2) What areas are actually going to be meaningful impacted by such a rise?

I keep hearing about how many millions of people live in coastal areas that are going to become uninhabitable. I am struggling to understand how and why. I mean 5-6 million people live in a coastal area around Houston. Houston itself ranges from about 40 to 70 feet above sea level. If sea levels rise 6 inches, Houston will then be between 39-1/2 and 69-1/2 feet above sea level. I fail to see how that will be uninhabitable. Houston has flooding issues, to be sure, but they relate more to poor drainage and land subsidence than to sea level.

I do think there are places that a rise of a few feet would totally inundate, like the beautiful Maldives. Therefore, I think we should do things to address the issue, and I have proposed several. Desalinization of sea water to replace ground water and alleviate subsidence strikes me as a major one--and to alleviate other water issues in California, where the mayor metro areas are either on the coast or near or below sea level. Flooding the Qattara Depression and Lake Eyre could both absorb at least some sea water. And using desalinized sea water to stock the headwaters of the Niger could turn the southern half of the Sahara into productive agricultural land, thus increasing CO2 consumption.

(01-03-2020 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 11:22 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know of one single place in this country where beach-front is not more expensive than 'off the beach'... In fact, if rising sea levels make current beach-front properties uninhabitable, the next row of homes gets significantly more expensive than they were... etc etc etc
Comparing rising sea levels to earthquakes is apples:oranges because you can't define the PHYSICALLY impacted areas.... and earthquakes happen in moments, while rising sea levels would take years or even decades.

Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? That is not how to differentiate what areas/properties will be affected by rising sea levels. You need to understand local topography, locations of waterways and wetlands, and local bathymetry to start. It is much more than just beach front property that will be affected by rising sea levels. You can see how beach front property is not the only property affected by rising sea levels by looking at aerials taken following the storm surge generated by hurricanes.
And you're totally off the mark in terms of comparing the effects of sea level rise and earthquakes on populations as being apples to oranges. First of all, you seem to only be thinking of the immediate effect of sea level rise, without considering the compound effects when coupled with other natural disasters (like hurricanes). So, like earthquakes, sea level rise will have immediate impacts in many instances, because it will exacerbate impacts. Second, I don't know why you say you can't define the physically impacted areas. Both types of hazards have physical footprints that can be defined.
If anything, look at academic work in the realm of hazard analysis and disaster probabilities, specifically with respect to compound events, to understand that these issues are not as apple to oranges as you think.

I have couple of questions:
1) How big a rise in sea level are we actually anticipating?
2) What areas are actually going to be meaningful impacted by such a rise?

I keep hearing about how many millions of people live in coastal areas that are going to become uninhabitable. I am struggling to understand how and why. I mean 5-6 million people live in a coastal area around Houston. Houston itself ranges from about 40 to 70 feet above sea level. If sea levels rise 6 inches, Houston will then be between 39-1/2 and 69-1/2 feet above sea level. I fail to see how that will be uninhabitable. Houston has flooding issues, to be sure, but they relate more to poor drainage and land subsidence than to sea level.

I do think there are places that a rise of a few feet would totally inundate, like the beautiful Maldives. Therefore, I think we should do things to address the issue, and I have proposed several. Desalinization of sea water to replace ground water and alleviate subsidence strikes me as a major one--and to alleviate other water issues in California, where the mayor metro areas are either on the coast or near or below sea level. Flooding the Qattara Depression and Lake Eyre could both absorb at least some sea water. And using desalinized sea water to stock the headwaters of the Niger could turn the southern half of the Sahara into productive agricultural land, thus increasing CO2 consumption.

If you go back to my original post on this topic, you will see I was talking about the comparative panic over a few inches of sea level rise when the world has successfully weathered rises of 400 feet in the past. I connected the panic to people with money lobbying their representatives to do something about it. Lad has resisted this.

yes, the world is changing, as it has for billions of years. For the first time, it is changing for an industrialized society.

(01-03-2020 12:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 12:13 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? you think.

Well, wealthy people tend to inhabit "beachfront" property. I gave examples of Malibu and the Hamptons. Poorer people tend to be "off the beach", I would think.

But what is the point of differentiating? Are the risks in coastal communities substantially different between beach front property and off beach property?

I think the difference is, the people who own and live in beach front property have political clout.

Quote:Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? That is not how to differentiate what areas/properties will be affected by rising sea levels. You need to understand local topography, locations of waterways and wetlands, and local bathymetry to start. It is much more than just beach front property that will be affected by rising sea levels. You can see how beach front property is not the only property affected by rising sea levels by looking at aerials taken following the storm surge generated by hurricanes.

Well no ****. I'm speaking generally and you're noting that topography on every area is different. Being able to defeat a sweeping generalization by noting that it's a sweeping generalization for which there are exceptions doesn't remotely change the fact that those generalizations are still, generally true.

[quote]And you're totally off the mark in terms of comparing the effects of sea level rise and earthquakes on populations as being apples to oranges. First of all, you seem to only be thinking of the immediate effect of sea level rise, without considering the compound effects when coupled with other natural disasters (like hurricanes). So, like earthquakes, sea level rise will have immediate impacts in many instances, because it will exacerbate impacts. Second, I don't know why you say you can't define the physically impacted areas. Both types of hazards have physical footprints that can be defined.[quote]

No, no no.

You can't compare episodes like quakes and hurricanes to 'gradual changes' like rising sea levels. You also can't predict the epicenter of a quake and you can't predict the landfall of a hurricane for next year, but you absolutely can model and predict the impact of a 2 inch rise in sea levels using topographical maps.

There would be almost no difference in our ability to predict the impact of a Hurricane or quake today using todays sea levels and our ability to predict them 10 years ago or ten years hence (other than improvements in the modeling which is not what we're discussing) based on the sea levels at that time. Sure, the areas affected will be different, but it's more like the impact of a 6' storm surge versus a 6.1 foot storm surge... and our ability to be within 0.1 of predicting a storm sure is vastly less than our ability to model it at all.

You also can't compare storm surge to rising sea levels... again, because storm surge is episodic and has lots of unknown factors... It's also fundamentally different from slowly rising sea levels both in magnitude and 'why'.

I can't explain well the differences between storm surge and rising sea levels, but they are somewhat like the difference between a desert slowly encroaching on farm land over a year or more versus a sand-storm wiping one out in a matter of an hour.

[quote='Hambone10' pid='16585883' dateline='1578078548']
[quote]Why differentiate between beach front and "off the beach"? That is not how to differentiate what areas/properties will be affected by rising sea levels. You need to understand local topography, locations of waterways and wetlands, and local bathymetry to start. It is much more than just beach front property that will be affected by rising sea levels. You can see how beach front property is not the only property affected by rising sea levels by looking at aerials taken following the storm surge generated by hurricanes.[/quote]

A distinction without a difference. I'm speaking generally and you're noting that topography on every area is different. Well no ****.

Storm surge is different as it reverses the 'natural' flow of waters such that up-river water has no place to go and is forced back upon itself. That isn't the case with tides (the better example of the sort of rising water levels we're discussing)

[quote]And you're totally off the mark in terms of comparing the effects of sea level rise and earthquakes on populations as being apples to oranges. First of all, you seem to only be thinking of the immediate effect of sea level rise, without considering the compound effects when coupled with other natural disasters (like hurricanes). So, like earthquakes, sea level rise will have immediate impacts in many instances, because it will exacerbate impacts. Second, I don't know why you say you can't define the physically impacted areas. Both types of hazards have physical footprints that can be defined.[quote]

No, no no.

You can't compare episodes like quakes and hurricanes to 'gradual changes' like rising sea levels. You also can't predict the epicenter of a quake and you can't predict the landfall of a hurricane for next year, but you absolutely can model and predict the impact of a 2 inch rise in sea levels using topographical maps.

There would be almost no difference in our ability to predict the impact of a Hurricane or quake today using todays sea levels and our ability to predict them 10 years ago or ten years hence (other than improvements in the modeling which is not what we're discussing).

You also can't compare storm surge to rising sea levels... again, because storm surge is episodic and has lots of unknown factors... It's also fundamentally different from slowly rising sea levels both in magnitude and 'why'.

I can't explain well the differences between storm surge and rising sea levels, but they are somewhat like the difference between a desert slowly encroaching on farm land over a year or more versus a sand-storm wiping one out in a matter of an hour.
[/quote]

We should just stop this conversation because we're obviously on very different pages if you just typed "I can't explain well the differences between storm surge and rising sea levels."

(01-03-2020 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]We should just stop this conversation because we're obviously on very different pages if you just typed "I can't explain well the differences between storm surge and rising sea levels."

Yes, we should stop because you're arrogant and rude.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

We're on different pages because you don't know the difference between the two and I don't feel like taking the time to educate someone so proud of their ignorance. I put it on myself in an effort to not insult you.

(01-04-2020 01:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]We should just stop this conversation because we're obviously on very different pages if you just typed "I can't explain well the differences between storm surge and rising sea levels."

Yes, we should stop because you're arrogant and rude.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

We're on different pages because you don't know the difference between the two and I don't feel like taking the time to educate someone so proud of their ignorance. I put it on myself in an effort to not insult you.

Thanks Ham. What makes my responses arrogant and rude, but you’re friendly and humble?

What makes you an expert in these topic areas and one who can “educate someone so proud of their ignorance?”

(01-04-2020 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 01:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-03-2020 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]We should just stop this conversation because we're obviously on very different pages if you just typed "I can't explain well the differences between storm surge and rising sea levels."

Yes, we should stop because you're arrogant and rude.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

We're on different pages because you don't know the difference between the two and I don't feel like taking the time to educate someone so proud of their ignorance. I put it on myself in an effort to not insult you.

Thanks Ham. What makes my responses arrogant and rude, but you’re friendly and humble?

What makes you an expert in these topic areas and one who can “educate someone so proud of their ignorance?”

Here is a quick blurb about a study focusing on the impacts of sea level rise on other processes, which is what I was talking about: https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/mov...r-islands/

Definitely not conflating the two...

Edit:

And this is what I am taking about:

Quote: As a result of global sea level rise, storm surges that occur today are eight inches higher than they would have been in 1900. By 2100, storm surges will happen on top of an additional 1 to 8 feet of global sea level rise as compared to the year 2000. 1

https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal/storm-surge

(01-04-2020 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: As a result of global sea level rise, storm surges that occur today are eight inches higher than they would have been in 1900. By 2100, storm surges will happen on top of an additional 1 to 8 feet of global sea level rise as compared to the year 2000. 1

https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal/storm-surge

1 foot to 8 feet? Wow, that's not very precise. That's the kind of stuff that causes people to question at least the more outlandish projections. It really makes one wonder, do they have any idea what they are talking about?

(01-04-2020 03:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: As a result of global sea level rise, storm surges that occur today are eight inches higher than they would have been in 1900. By 2100, storm surges will happen on top of an additional 1 to 8 feet of global sea level rise as compared to the year 2000. 1

https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal/storm-surge

1 foot to 8 feet? Wow, that's not very precise. That's the kind of stuff that causes people to question at least the more outlandish projections. It really makes one wonder, do they have any idea what they are talking about?

I haven't read the report they cite, but I wouldn't be surprised if the variability is primarily related to assumptions of warming - there will be more sea level rise if global mean temps rise higher. So it could be that the 1 ft rise is under a +1 C scenario and the 8 ft rise under a +2 C scenario.

So likely less about model precision and more about the uncertainty in emissions and thus warming trends.

(01-04-2020 03:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: As a result of global sea level rise, storm surges that occur today are eight inches higher than they would have been in 1900. By 2100, storm surges will happen on top of an additional 1 to 8 feet of global sea level rise as compared to the year 2000. 1

https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal/storm-surge

1 foot to 8 feet? Wow, that's not very precise. That's the kind of stuff that causes people to question at least the more outlandish projections. It really makes one wonder, do they have any idea what they are talking about?

I haven't read the report they cite, but I wouldn't be surprised if the variability is primarily related to assumptions of warming - there will be more sea level rise if global mean temps rise higher. So it could be that the 1 ft rise is under a +1 C scenario and the 8 ft rise under a +2 C scenario.
So likely less about model precision and more about the uncertainty in emissions and thus warming trends.

But here's the problem. We have all this hype based on so much of the world becoming uninhabitable, probably based on the 8 feet scenario, but we don't know, it could be 1 foot, and that would be a vastly different outcome.

We are supposed to believe that this is all settled science, when nobody knows whether it will be 1 foot or 8 feet (or no feet). It just comes across as a lot of hyperbole.

(01-04-2020 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: As a result of global sea level rise, storm surges that occur today are eight inches higher than they would have been in 1900. By 2100, storm surges will happen on top of an additional 1 to 8 feet of global sea level rise as compared to the year 2000. 1

https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal/storm-surge

1 foot to 8 feet? Wow, that's not very precise. That's the kind of stuff that causes people to question at least the more outlandish projections. It really makes one wonder, do they have any idea what they are talking about?

I haven't read the report they cite, but I wouldn't be surprised if the variability is primarily related to assumptions of warming - there will be more sea level rise if global mean temps rise higher. So it could be that the 1 ft rise is under a +1 C scenario and the 8 ft rise under a +2 C scenario.
So likely less about model precision and more about the uncertainty in emissions and thus warming trends.

But here's the problem. We have all this hype based on so much of the world becoming uninhabitable, probably based on the 8 feet scenario, but we don't know, it could be 1 foot, and that would be a vastly different outcome.

We are supposed to believe that this is all settled science, when nobody knows whether it will be 1 foot or 8 feet (or no feet). It just comes across as a lot of hyperbole.

I think that’s only because you’re looking for a simple answer to a very, very complex problem. The science is settled in the sense that we understand the primary processes and forcings, but it’s not settled in the sense that there is a single number that we can point to. But even in more settled science there is still uncertainties and +/- applied to almost every “answer” a researcher finds.

(01-04-2020 04:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2020 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal/storm-surge

1 foot to 8 feet? Wow, that's not very precise. That's the kind of stuff that causes people to question at least the more outlandish projections. It really makes one wonder, do they have any idea what they are talking about?

I haven't read the report they cite, but I wouldn't be surprised if the variability is primarily related to assumptions of warming - there will be more sea level rise if global mean temps rise higher. So it could be that the 1 ft rise is under a +1 C scenario and the 8 ft rise under a +2 C scenario.
So likely less about model precision and more about the uncertainty in emissions and thus warming trends.

But here's the problem. We have all this hype based on so much of the world becoming uninhabitable, probably based on the 8 feet scenario, but we don't know, it could be 1 foot, and that would be a vastly different outcome.
We are supposed to believe that this is all settled science, when nobody knows whether it will be 1 foot or 8 feet (or no feet). It just comes across as a lot of hyperbole.

I think that’s only because you’re looking for a simple answer to a very, very complex problem. The science is settled in the sense that we understand the primary processes and forcings, but it’s not settled in the sense that there is a single number that we can point to. But even in more settled science there is still uncertainties and +/- applied to almost every “answer” a researcher finds.

So it's not settled science. Actually, I agree that there are things that are settled science. But predictions of what is going to happen in 2120 are not settled science, because they cannot be, until 2120 at the earliest.

Doubling down on being a jerk isn't helpful to you Lad. It only demonstrates that you take no responsibility for your bull****

You're damn right I responded to your insults in kind.

I do find it telling that when I say I can't explain it to you, after acting as if you are intellectually superior to me, you don't bother to try and explain your position yourself but instead provide a link. I could have done the same but i find it intellectually lazy to let someone else argue my point for me.

FTR, there is nothing I don't already know about storm surge contained in that link. The only difference between what I know and your link is that these guys predict 1-8 FEET of rise in the next 80 years.

It's obviously not remotely this simple, but the Rice campus has flooded significantly over the years as a result of storm surge. According to Maplogs, the campus is 46 feet above sea level.

If you continue to choose to believe that they are 'the same', then I can't help you.

Now if you're arguing that a hurricane happening with the ocean 8 feet higher would be far more devastating... well no **** Sherlock. That's not at all what you said.

(01-06-2020 02:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Doubling down on being a jerk isn't helpful to you Lad. It only demonstrates that you take no responsibility for your bull****

You're damn right I responded to your insults in kind.

I do find it telling that when I say I can't explain it to you, after acting as if you are intellectually superior to me, you don't bother to try and explain your position yourself but instead provide a link. I could have done the same but i find it intellectually lazy to let someone else argue my point for me.

FTR, there is nothing I don't already know about storm surge contained in that link. The only difference between what I know and your link is that these guys predict 1-8 FEET of rise in the next 80 years.

It's obviously not remotely this simple, but the Rice campus has flooded significantly over the years as a result of storm surge. According to Maplogs, the campus is 46 feet above sea level.

If you continue to choose to believe that they are 'the same', then I can't help you.

Now if you're arguing that a hurricane happening with the ocean 8 feet higher would be far more devastating... well no **** Sherlock. That's not at all what you said.

Rice University has not flooded significantly over the years as a result of storm surge. I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong there. It's flooded due to sever rainfall events that have occurred within the watershed.

Compound flooding from hurricanes and major storms in the TX-GC region does occur and has been the leading reason why many coastal communities experienced flooding outside the 100-yr floodplain during these storms. And the compound flooding hazard is why I keep harping on how beach front properties are not the only areas affected by sea level rise.

But the research I've been around found that the compound flooding we've experienced in Houston does not translate up to Rice University. If anything, Rice didn't flood during Ike or Harvey, but did during some of the holiday storms, where storm surge wasn't present. I can reach out to the researcher I worked with to get details on where the compound flooding effect was observed during Ike if you would like (not sure if they have evaluated Harvey).

And I did try and explain my position to you, and you clearly didn't understand what I was saying. That was obvious because you thought I was trying to argue that storm surge and sea level rise were the same things. I tried to go our separate ways because you didn't seem to want to understand my position, but then you fired back with some vitriol.

I find it odd that you're trying to school me in a topic I spent multiple years in school around, and have continued to be surrounded by post-graduation. I'm certainly not an expert (I'll gladly let my wife take the title), but I know more than enough to understand that storm surge and sea level rise are different.

(01-06-2020 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Rice University has not flooded significantly over the years as a result of storm surge. I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong there. It's flooded due to sever rainfall events that have occurred within the watershed.

Well, I was there when one happened. The basements of several buildings had standing water... the hospitals had flooded levels... and if by severe rainfall, you mean rainfall associated with storm surge from a Hurricane, then you're correct.... in part because storm surge keeps upstream water from being able to flow down. Otherwise, I'll stand by my personal experience and knowledge. I was there when it happened at Rice.

Quote:Compound flooding from hurricanes and major storms in the TX-GC region does occur and has been the leading reason why many coastal communities experienced flooding outside the 100-yr floodplain during these storms. And the compound flooding hazard is why I keep harping on how beach front properties are not the only areas affected by sea level rise.

No ****. As I said numerous times, just because something isn't true 100% of the time doesn't mean that it isn't true often enough to be a good example for discussion. Clearly anything below the rising sea level is effectively at risk and lots of beach-front is on a cliff... but generally speaking, the statement holds true. You're arguing just to argue... as if it invalidates the point because it isn't true 100% of the time.

Quote:But the research I've been around found that the compound flooding we've experienced in Houston does not translate up to Rice University. If anything, Rice didn't flood during Ike or Harvey, but did during some of the holiday storms, where storm surge wasn't present. I can reach out to the researcher I worked with to get details on where the compound flooding effect was observed during Ike if you would like (not sure if they have evaluated Harvey).

You're still doing it!

As I said, I experienced it, before you were born I suspect... not meant as an insult just a frame of reference. Maybe they redirected the upstream water differently (like flooding Katy) in order to protect the med center. Other parts of Houston certainly flooded during Ike and Katrina... many of which wouldn't be similarly effected by even an 8 foot rise in sea levels. You can keep arguing, but you really can't get away from that very simple fact. You and your paper say (essentially) that if you want to know the impact of an 8 foot rise in sea levels, look at flooding maps of an 8 foot storm surge for a start. If you don't think that's what they say, then I guess we can disagree on that. I believe that if you want to know the effects of a gradual rise of 8 feet over 80 years, you look at a topographical map and 'cover' anything less than 8 feet above current sea levels that you can reasonably guess a 'path' to.

Quote:And I did try and explain my position to you, and you clearly didn't understand what I was saying. That was obvious because you thought I was trying to argue that storm surge and sea level rise were the same things. I tried to go our separate ways because you didn't seem to want to understand my position, but then you fired back with some vitriol.

I quoted you... you said what I quoted. If that wasn't what you meant, that's fine... but you wrote it. As to firing back with vitriol, I can quote where you fired first as well. Again, own your own bull**** and stop trying to make other people responsible for your errors, while making pedantic corrections to theirs.

Quote:I find it odd that you're trying to school me in a topic I spent multiple years in school around, and have continued to be surrounded by post-graduation. I'm certainly not an expert (I'll gladly let my wife take the title), but I know more than enough to understand that storm surge and sea level rise are different.

School you? I've admitted 100 times that I'm not an expert here... and when I said I can't explain it well to you, you were an arrogant prick in response. Seems you're the one trying to school people.

The only thing I'm schooling you in is to own your bull****, stop making meaningless arguments as if the defeat the entire premise (merely because you don't agree with them) and accept the consequences of your comments.

Class dismissed

(01-07-2020 10:46 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Rice University has not flooded significantly over the years as a result of storm surge. I'm sorry, but you are just flat out wrong there. It's flooded due to sever rainfall events that have occurred within the watershed.

Well, I was there when one happened. The basements of several buildings had standing water... the hospitals had flooded levels... and if by severe rainfall, you mean rainfall associated with storm surge from a Hurricane, then you're correct.... in part because storm surge keeps upstream water from being able to flow down. Otherwise, I'll stand by my personal experience and knowledge. I was there when it happened at Rice.

Ham, you weren't at Rice when it was flooded due to storm surge, because that has never happened.

Take for example the flooding from TS Allison, which filled the basements of the Med Center and was the largest rainfall event in Houston until Harvey. The flooding it caused around Rice was due to the massive amount of rain it dropped upstream of the Med Center, not because of any effects that storm surge had on reducing the ability of the watershed to drain the water. The compounding effect of storm surge does NOT effect the entire watershed, it only effects a certain portion of it, which changes given the conditions (amount of storm surge, amount of rain, duration of rain, location of rain, etc.).

Also, the term "rainfall associated with storm surge" doesn't really make sense. Rainfall is associated with the hurricane, not the storm surge. Storm surge and rainfall have compound effects as I've been saying. When I say sever rainfall, I'm talking about the rate and total amount that falls over a given area/watershed.

Quote:Compound flooding from hurricanes and major storms in the TX-GC region does occur and has been the leading reason why many coastal communities experienced flooding outside the 100-yr floodplain during these storms. And the compound flooding hazard is why I keep harping on how beach front properties are not the only areas affected by sea level rise.

No ****. As I said numerous times, just because something isn't true 100% of the time doesn't mean that it isn't true often enough to be a good example for discussion. Clearly anything below the rising sea level is effectively at risk and lots of beach-front is on a cliff... but generally speaking, the statement holds true. You're arguing just to argue... as if it invalidates the point because it isn't true 100% of the time. [/quote]

Look, I started this line argument because all OO kept referencing when talking about sea level rise was how it would affect wealthy landowners on the beach. I tried to make it clear that those were not the only populations affected by sea level rise, and tried to explain why far more people than just wealth beach owners would be affected.

Quote:But the research I've been around found that the compound flooding we've experienced in Houston does not translate up to Rice University. If anything, Rice didn't flood during Ike or Harvey, but did during some of the holiday storms, where storm surge wasn't present. I can reach out to the researcher I worked with to get details on where the compound flooding effect was observed during Ike if you would like (not sure if they have evaluated Harvey).

You're still doing it!

As I said, I experienced it, before you were born I suspect... not meant as an insult just a frame of reference. Maybe they redirected the upstream water differently (like flooding Katy) in order to protect the med center. Other parts of Houston certainly flooded during Ike and Katrina... many of which wouldn't be similarly effected by even an 8 foot rise in sea levels. You can keep arguing, but you really can't get away from that very simple fact. You and your paper say (essentially) that if you want to know the impact of an 8 foot rise in sea levels, look at flooding maps of an 8 foot storm surge for a start. If you don't think that's what they say, then I guess we can disagree on that. I believe that if you want to know the effects of a gradual rise of 8 feet over 80 years, you look at a topographical map and 'cover' anything less than 8 feet above current sea levels that you can reasonably guess a 'path' to. [/quote]

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across here or what simple fact am I trying to get away from.

But this is another reason I think we're on different pages. I wasn't trying to argue that the effect of an 8-ft sea level rise is equal to an 8-ft of storm surge. I was arguing multiple points.

1) Primarily that sea level rise will affect more than just those with beach front property. I can see how you might have been confused when I said you could look at the effects of storm surge to understand that more than just beach front property would be affected. My point with that was not to indicate that you can treat the two as the same thing, but rather that these coastal flooding events do not just affect those directly on the beach (which is what was the main focus of the argument).

2) That sea level rise will increase the effect of storm surge, and in ways that aren't 1:1, but in ways that compound.

I deleted the rest of the comments because I don't think they advance anything.