Slashdot Mirror
NC Planners May Be Barred From Using Speculative Sea Level Rise Predictions
ideonexus writes "Republicans in North Carolina are floating a bill that would force planners to only consider historical data in predicting the sea-level rise (SLR) for the state as opposed to considering projections that take Global Warming into account. NC-20, the pro-development lobbying group representing twenty counties along the NC coast, is behind the effort and asserts that the one-meter prediction would prohibit development on too much land as opposed to SLR predictions of 3.9 to 15.6 inches." Scientific American has an acerbic take on the bill.
That's public sector planners. Insurance companies will use whatever sources they think are reasonable, so some of this to-be-planned development may be hard to insure.
How about passing a law that also states that insurance companies are forbidden to use that data as well. I can totally see them raking folks over the coals on insurance premiums for building in the "One meter zone".
Wouldn't this force such developments to require flood insurance that would be backed by FEMA, thus pushing the cost onto the federal government and tax payers in the rest of country?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
This bill seeks to do for the state what should be done through Engineering guidelines.
A sea-level rise estimate would have to take in to consideration all sorts of issues, not the least of which is potential for Tsunamis, Storm surges, and the like.
This is what happens when lawyers write technical documents...
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
An actual law to prevent looking forward. For North Carolina Republicans, the entire world is in the rear view mirror.
We did this a lot in AD&D. DISBELIEVE!
Works for illusions. Not so good for actual dragons...
That decree should obviously came toghether with another one forbiding the sea to rise faster than the hystorical average. By not passing that second decree, the legislators are letting people endanger their buildings.
Rethinking email
There have been people that have wanted to ban development on barrier islands for many years.
It sounds like the R's are passing this bill to prevent the Ds from back dooring this policy.
Personally I think if someone lives somewhere that the house is destroyed every 30 years or so their insurance payment is equal to their 30 year mortgage payment. This should be true on barrier islands and in Santa Barbara canyons. Then it's just an informed decision.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A range of 0.2 - 2.0 is 1.1 +/- 90% or so. Not 1000%.
Remember Fukishima? Their problem was that they didn't go back far enough with their historical data when they designed their tsunami wall. Now, in what amounts to the same thinking, people do not want to overstate any possibility of water levels going too high for the sake of the almighty dollar. So when the ocean levels rise, or a 'once-in-a-lifetime' hurricane swells the sea up high enough, will those who support these lower levels be responsible for the cost?
If only these annoying science-based predictions could be reined in, we won't have to worry about the North Carolina outer banks washing away...
I always consider the geography when looking for a house. River valley, probably a flood plain. Dense bush nearby, forest fire risk. Steep slopes, too prone to landslides. Silt bed in an earthquake zone, well, let's just say that I want a chance of survival. The thing is, after taking out the crazy risks, there are still plenty of places to live.
Problem is, homeowners want something scenic. Developers want something cheap to build upon. City planners are more concerned about tax revenues. If they want to accept the risks, fine. It's their homes and their lives.
Just don't make the wiser folks pay for it when the disasters ultimately strike.
Indiana attempted to do something like this in 1887.
(yes, AGW "alarmism" is scientific consensus today; go cry to Jesus in a corner)
Is the belief that AGW will increase the frequency and intensity of hurricanes also scientific consensus? Oh, I forgot, that turned out to be a testable prediction which effectively embarrassed the alarmists after they got smacked down by Mother Nature herself, who refused to follow those complex empirically derived models in which Al Gore and others placed so much faith. As a result, scientific consensus leans _against_ that particular alarmist position. Quite ironic, too, since it was basically the basis of the cover art for Al Gore's movie.
Based on the trends of both the scientific community and wider society toward very healthy skepticism toward AGW alarmism, I am more likely to be laughing at this point than "crying in a corner". :D
Nah. 1 meter is around the consensus projection.
IPCC is saying "around" 59cm now. Which is a HUGE difference.
It may be lower
MAY?
You'd have to show evidence that sea level increases were actually accelerating, which they are not - despite predictions over the past several years they would be. Since those projections were wrong then, what suddenly makes them so trustworthy now?
in the case of Republicans, the scenario you want to believe.
Why do the Democrats get a pass? They are picking 1M out of THIER ass simply to prevent development in some areas.
The Republicans are at least saying, look, here is a clear trend line, it has been roughly on this path for decades, why not look at that as a baseline for predictions until a theory comes along that starts DEMONSTRATING otherwise? The Republicans seem to be the only ones presenting a way to come up with a reasonable estimate devoid of guesswork and hyperbole.
The most annoying thing about the global warming cultists such as yourself is that you continue to ignore what happens in reality, and dismiss all attempts at reasonable and rational estimates for future change in favor of your own scare-mongering huge numbers. All while draping yourself in the false flag of "science" which you refuse to listen to or practice.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That gives me an idea. The North Carolina legislature can easily create a space exploration industry in the state (boosting economic development and creating plenty of jobs.) All they need to do is to pass legislation outlawing gravity for all vehicles designated as "space vessels" inside a region designated by lines extending from the center of the Earth through the borders of the state out into space. Want to launch something to the ISS? Just put it in a trash bag and formally state "I dub this trash bag to be a space vessel." Zip, up into space it goes. Simple as that.
Republicans wanted this looking forward to base projections on reality, not on fantasy.
I have a grease-fire on my stove. Based on the fact that my house has historically not been on fire, I will do nothing about said grease-fire, and will legislate that everyone ignore experts' "wild fantasy predictions" that the house may indeed burn down.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Sure, let's just use historical data from the last 112 years, and make sure we don't account for any differences between what we know will happen next year moving forward, and what happened in the past.
Earth's population is continuing to rise, exponentially, but we can only forecast linearly, I'm sure that can't affect anything much anyway. More cars, pollution, waste, etc. won't change any of that.
Several of the hottest years on record have happened since 2000, but I'm sure they won't get any hotter moving forward. For some unknown reason, it got really hot recently, but it will cool down again because there are temperature cycles and stuff, and therefore it can't get any hotter. Even though temperature records are being shattered all over the place, it will not keep getting warmer, and any projections based on that are not reality, because Rush Limbaugh told me so.
Republicans understand everything and just inherently KNOW that the sea level rise will only happen at the same rate it has risen since 1900. And under NO circumstances can people prepare for anything else. Being prepared is wasteful and unnecessary because it costs rich people more money, when the government can just bail everyone out when they're wrong. What's most important is to believe that the climate will not change any differently than what is has done in the past. And while nobody can predict what the climate will do accurately, republicans know what it won't do. It's called reality.
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
If they want to develop on it, that's fine. The problem is (unless I'm missing something) forcing insurers to not use this new estimate in setting their premiums, or even being able to refuse to insure people in those locations. If people want to develop a place with zero insurance, that's fine, but don't make the rest of us pay for the damages when reality conflicts with your fantasies. Worse, since most flood insurance is run by the government, that means all of us (meaning everyone in the country) is paying for the mess when one of these places is destroyed.
I wouldn't even go that far. They should charge the people for the rescuing, or if it's because of a stupid State law, the state should be billed.
Here in Arizona, we now have a law called the "stupid hiker law". Yes, that's really what it's called. The problem is that so many stupid people would go hiking in our desert mountain parks in or near the city of Phoenix, and would do so with little or no water, improper footwear, etc., and then would get in trouble and need a helicopter to come rescue them. Basically, it was a lot of either dumb students or other out-of-towners who would think it's cool to go "hiking" in flip-flops and a small water bottle, in the middle of the summer with 115-degree heat. When the hiking trail has an elevation of 1000 feet or more, the inevitable result is heatstroke and dehydration. So they made this law so that these morons get billed for the (very expensive) rescues they called in.
The same should go for anyone who needs to be rescued because they built too close to the water. That goes for tsunami victims too. We know all about tsunamis and their devastating effects now, so there's no excuse for any place to not be prepared for one.
0.2m - 2m is 1.1m +/- 0.9m.
Its not an "error margin of 1,000%", which doesn't even make sense.
A wide margin of uncertainty from a model doesn't make the output a WAG.
The historical record is a fact, but using it to predict the future always involves constructing a model. If its not based on some kind of actual science (like the existing models, which are based on the historical data about sea level rise and the historical data about other figures which have a scientifically demonstrated relationship to sea level rise), then it is simply a guess, and not even an educated one.
That's a noble sentiment. Unfortunately, the specific position you are opposing is government operating based on intelligent application of facts, and the one you are supporting is government action based on baseless speculation about the relation of past events to future behavior of a system. So, your specific position is diametrically opposed to the general principle you offer to justify it.
Instead, they should simply pass legislation that forbids the sea from rising. On penalty of fines or whipping. Problem solved.
Bet the R's that if sea level is above x meters in 20 years, then single-payer health insurance is implemented and taxes go up 5% on the rich. Let's see if they want to put their money where their mouth is. You can only lie about the future until it comes.
Table-ized A.I.
But what about road access to your property, utilities, etc? Eventually, your house is going to be a few hundred yard offshore. And perhaps become a hazard to navigation. You could build structures on sleds and move them as the land erodes. But then how will you handle property rights? My land isn't moving yet but your is. You're not dragging your house onto my property (IOW, stay off my lawn!).
Disaster relief aside, once developers have planted a house and run, its the local, state and eventually federal government that has to step in and mitigate the slower effects of shore movement. Look at how many people scream when their lovely beach starts to erode and insist that 'somebody' do something about it. 'Somebody' being all us taxpayers.
Have gnu, will travel.