Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: JoeKitchen on May 28, 2018, 08:21:33 pm
-
I noticed an interesting topic posted here today from another member of this forum and did not initially respond due to the holiday's busy schedule. During my travels today, I brought this story up with two other people, who are both ardent environmentalists, only to get responses I certainly was not expecting. I came home today wanting to share those responses only to find the topic was closed by the author, but I will not be deterred.
Now one can use this story as a blatant example of the problems associated with climate change. But we need to ask ourselves, is it really, or would that conclusion stem from a bias obscuring our cause and effect analysis?
Although I do believe in climate change, I do not necessarily attribute it to the cause of all environmental disasters.
The first person I brought this story up with was my soon to brother in law, who is an architect and lived in MD. We had an extremely brief conversation and his take was that this is a great example of poor city and county planning and the fact that the city is located between two hilly areas. This was the extent of our conversation before food was served.
Later on, I was speaking to my brother, who is as far to the left as you can possibly be, works in politics in PA, and often is ready (without any thought) to attribute any severe weather event to climate change. So when he too attributed this more to poor planning, I was initially surprised.
From what he read and heard from other environmentalists, this situation is due to over development of land up hill of the city. The elevated sections of the city have been paved over with traditional concrete and asphalt producing very little ground absorption and severe run-off as a result.
So, although it is daunting that Ellicott City is experiencing more flooding today then yesterday, we need to make sure that we do not blind ourselves from the effects of over-development and just automatically attribute flooding to climate change.
It is certainly caused a bit form both over-development and climate change, but which one has had the greater effect? It perhaps may be best to get a landscape architect's and environmental engineer's opinion on this before coming to any personal conclusions.
-
From what he read and heard from other environmentalists, this situation is due to over development of land up hill of the city. The elevated sections of the city have been paved over with traditional concrete and asphalt producing very little ground absorption and severe run-off as a result.
That has definitely been the cause of some local flooding here. The city is now trying to scale back some paving and has been adding holding ponds with controlled release to try and mitigate all the new land that's been developed. In another problem, there is talk about towns on the Mississippi delta being submerged as oceans rise. Maybe to some degree, but two other major factors are the channelization of the river which inhibits the build of silt/land in the delta, and oil & gas pumping offshore which seems to have caused some of the nearby land to actually sink. Things are often more complicated than a simple answer gives.
https://www.livescience.com/4186-real-reason-louisiana-sinking.html
There was another discovery that Lake Superior is losing some of its depth. Environmentalists quickly blamed increased temperatures causing less winter ice cover, leading to more evaporation. That may be a contributing factor, but the main cause was recently determined to be the earth's crust below the lake beginning to rebound from all the weight. I.e., the water isn't getting lower, the lake bottom is getting higher. :)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0380133094711588
Kent in SD
-
They say that in 2016 in Ellicott City they had a once every 1,000-year flood and just two years later they got another. Good example of the poor planning, overdevelopment and prioritizing short term tax income over the long term sustainability.
It happens everywhere. Ray has pointed out this lunacy happening also in Australia.
https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/warming-climate-will-put-millions-more-at-risk-from-river-flooding/
-
They say that in 2016 in Ellicott City they had a once every 1,000-year flood and just two years later they got another. Good example of the poor planning, overdevelopment and prioritizing short term tax income over the long term sustainability.
It happens everywhere. Ray has pointed out this lunacy happening also in Australia.
https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/warming-climate-will-put-millions-more-at-risk-from-river-flooding/
Absolutely.
As far as climate change goes, I think we have to be a little more patient to see its real effects. That's a train still coming down the track.
In the mean while, most flooding events we see around the world are not so much poor planning as a combination of no planning and greed.
When you log upstream of cities, or pave over catchment areas above urban centres, what can you expect?
The floods I've seen date from land clearance in the 1980s. YMMV. Cheap money hasn't helped either I guess.
-
I bet that the planning regulations needed to guard against these things are probably viewed by many as government red tape that needs to be removed. Who needs those pesky regulations.
The spring of 2017 brought major flooding to many areas near Ottawa Canada. One developed spit of land near Rockland saw damage to many homes, and not just basement flooding but main floor as well. I drive past that spot frequently and often thought that it was odd that people would be permitted to build there, and most of the houses were constructed recently, say, in the last 20-25 years judging by their appearance. During the floods, local news reports dug up photos from the previous worst flood and it only happened 40 years ago, well within the memory of many people living in the area.
You wouldn't think that it would be necessary to keep re-learning the same lessons. I guess nobody is reading the archives.
-
I bet that the planning regulations needed to guard against these things are probably viewed by many as government red tape that needs to be removed. Who needs those pesky regulations.
My small city is surrounded on three sides by a small Western-sized river as it loops around. In spring the snowmelt can be awesome! Instead of building dikes all along the river, the city has denied all building permits to the flood plain, and bridges have to be wide and tall enough to not impede flood water. The land has been put to use as soccer fields, first rate bike paths, and other recreational activity. It does flood from time to time but in the ~30 years I've lived here there's been no damage. Just muddy bike trails. :)
Kent in SD
-
Simple and effective1
-
Although I do believe in climate change, I do not necessarily attribute it to the cause of all environmental disasters.
What you say is true - climate change is not the cause of all evil! But let me point out that it is inappropriate to say you "believe" in climate change. It's like saying you "believe" in gravity, evolution, or the heliocentric solar system.
-
Peter's got a good point. Climate is always changing. Where "belief" comes in is when a group with a political agenda uses always changing climate to promote a religious belief in coming catastrophe that only government action can prevent.
-
I noticed an interesting topic posted here today from another member of this forum and did not initially respond due to the holiday's busy schedule. During my travels today, I brought this story up with two other people, who are both ardent environmentalists, only to get responses I certainly was not expecting. I came home today wanting to share those responses only to find the topic was closed by the author, but I will not be deterred.
Now one can use this story as a blatant example of the problems associated with climate change. But we need to ask ourselves, is it really, or would that conclusion stem from a bias obscuring our cause and effect analysis?
Although I do believe in climate change, I do not necessarily attribute it to the cause of all environmental disasters.
Hi Joe,
You are correct. Isolated cases like this cannot directly be linked to Climate Change. They are 'just' weather events. Only if there is an emerging pattern of similar events, perhaps with increasing intensity, it adds to the probability of it being part of a larger scale change.
The first person I brought this story up with was my soon to brother in law, who is an architect and lived in MD. We had an extremely brief conversation and his take was that this is a great example of poor city and county planning and the fact that the city is located between two hilly areas. This was the extent of our conversation before food was served.
Later on, I was speaking to my brother, who is as far to the left as you can possibly be, works in politics in PA, and often is ready (without any thought) to attribute any severe weather event to climate change. So when he too attributed this more to poor planning, I was initially surprised.
This is often one of the factors that do affect (local) climate change as well, a change in land-use. Sometimes dramatically by deforestation or the planting of different crops, sometimes in over-paving parts of the soil that could otherwise absorb some of the rainfall. In addition, one might be creating "Heat-island" effects. In my community, we are preparing for expected (and already observed) more intense rainfall events, by e.g. de-coupling roof gutters from dumping the rainwater in the sewer system, but leading it into intermediate storage tanks and in unpaved gardens instead. This year alone, we've locally had three days with an amount of rain in one day, that would normally only fall in weeks/a month, and it's not even the end of springtime.
From what he read and heard from other environmentalists, this situation is due to over development of land up hill of the city. The elevated sections of the city have been paved over with traditional concrete and asphalt producing very little ground absorption and severe run-off as a result.
So, although it is daunting that Ellicott City is experiencing more flooding today then yesterday, we need to make sure that we do not blind ourselves from the effects of over-development and just automatically attribute flooding to climate change.
Correct, there are multiple factors at play.
It is certainly caused a bit form both over-development and climate change, but which one has had the greater effect? It perhaps may be best to get a landscape architect's and environmental engineer's opinion on this before coming to any personal conclusions.
A lot depends on the local circumstances, but watch for the trends over 11-year or longer multi-decadal periods, and it soon becomes apparent if Climate Change is to blame (and thus human burning of fossil fuel).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Peter's got a good point. Climate is always changing.
But never before at the change rate we are witnessing now.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Peter's got a good point. Climate is always changing. Where "belief" comes in is when a group with a political agenda uses always changing climate to promote a religious belief in coming catastrophe that only government action can prevent.
I feel the need to comment on this post.
In other (climate change) discussions, you have indicated many times what a waste of time it was for (Alan Goldhammer, among others) to start those threads. You often make comments about what a waste that thread and others were, and you sometimes do so from the shelter of other unrelated threads. Even in threads that were started with the stated purpose of only posting scientific links for info purposes, even in those threads, you persisted in making condescending remarks without ever presenting rebuttal science.
And now YOU enter this fray and make an exaggerated off-topic condescending remark.
-
But never before at the change rate we are witnessing now.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks, Bart. You just illustrated what I was talking about. You're not really witnessing anything. You're getting "data" from questionable sources and results from questionable computer algorithms that generate pretty graphs. Those are what you're "witnessing." The real question is what political bias is behind what you're witnessing.
-
I feel the need to comment on this post.
In other (climate change) discussions, you have indicated many times what a waste of time it was for (Alan Goldhammer, among others) to start those threads. You often make comments about what a waste that thread and others were, and you sometimes do so from the shelter of other unrelated threads. Even in threads that were started with the stated purpose of only posting scientific links for info purposes, even in those threads, you persisted in making condescending remarks without ever presenting rebuttal science.
And now YOU enter this fray and make an exaggerated off-topic condescending remark.
Yeah, Robert. I'm a really mean guy, especially when I'm dealing with political bullshit.
-
Peter's got a good point. Climate is always changing. Where "belief" comes in is when a group with a political agenda uses always changing climate to promote a religious belief in coming catastrophe that only government action can prevent.
Don't be any dumber than you have to, Russ. I should have said "anthropogenic climate change."
And what is this "group with a political agenda?" Is it the thousands of expert climate scientists who meet once a year on the moon to plot the takeover of the world? Do you have any idea how silly you sound? 99% of scientists don't give a rat's ass about political power.
Given that you don't have a clue about the science involved, or how science works in general, I suggest you stay out of these discussions to avoid making a (further) fool of yourself.
-
In other words, Peter, you believe there's a "scientific consensus" that our changing climate bodes disaster for the future. It may be that 99% of scientists don't give a rat's ass about political power, but, if you know anything at all about science you'd know you need evidence upon which to base that kind of estimate, and there's no such evidence around.
In the eighties, when I was doing software engineering I was approached at least monthly by a group claiming to represent the vast majority of scientists. Just off hand I don't remember what their program was at the time. I think it had something to do with nuclear weapons. But whatever their program was, they wanted me to join with them in their political actions.
All I can say about that is that anyone who believes there's such a thing as "scientific consensus" is a good deal dumber than I am.
-
Thanks, Bart. You just illustrated what I was talking about. You're not really witnessing anything. You're getting "data" from questionable sources and results from questionable computer algorithms that generate pretty graphs. Those are what you're "witnessing." The real question is what political bias is behind what you're witnessing.
I'm witnessing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbE5fcnFVs
(And yes, it is also measurable where I live).
And annual record high temperatures for one central weather station located in my country:
http://weergegevens.nl/extremes_y.aspx?station=260&extreem=TG&order=1&country=3&iscomplete=False&include=True
and the decadal records (almost all of which are record highs rather than lows):
http://weergegevens.nl/extremes_dec.aspx?station=260&extreem=TG&order=1&maand=1&decade=1&country=3&iscomplete=True&include=True
Politics play no role in objective observations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I still don’t get what all the argumentation is about? Especially for you materialist/naturalists. The species Homo sapiens is altering the ecosphere. The “planet” will survive. Whether Homo sapiens does or not is of little (actually no) significance other than it being the preference of any given species. And preference is surely too strong a word in a world/universe in which all effects are merely results of previous events equally determined by previous events, and so on, back to the Big Bang. All this discussion is much like fleas arguing over whose dog it is.
Rand
-
All this discussion is much like fleas arguing over whose dog it is.
We only have one dog, and it looks like it's developing an allergic reaction that slowly kills large numbers of us.
A risk better avoided before it becomes unavoidable, or unaffordable to turn around.
Cheers,
Bart
-
We only have one dog, and it looks like it's developing an allergic reaction that slowly kills large numbers of us.
A risk better avoided before it becomes unavoidable, or unaffordable to turn around.
Cheers,
Bart
Other than your very natural preference that humans don’t go extinct, what difference does it make to a completely indifferent universe, where life itself is an accident of unguided events. Honest question.
Rand
-
Other than your very natural preference that humans don’t go extinct, what difference does it make to a completely indifferent universe, where life itself is an accident of unguided events. Honest question.
Rand,
Humans (some of them anyway) are a pest. Best gotten rid of, (after I'm long gone from 'natural' causes).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Rand,
Humans (some of them anyway) are a pest. Best gotten rid of, (after I'm long gone from 'natural' causes).
Cheers,
Bart
That’s my point. From the naturalist/materialist point of view it doesn’t matter. In fact, nothing matters except what our individual “selfish” genetic makeup prompts for no particular reason.
Rand
-
Other than your very natural preference that humans don’t go extinct, what difference does it make to a completely indifferent universe, where life itself is an accident of unguided events. Honest question.
Rand
Well, yes. Of course the universe will survive, so will the earth. Nature has rendered extinct lots of species, there's nothing special about ours from that point of view. All of these various issues about the environment are all about our species' survival. That should be the prologue in any discussion; we just mostly leave it unsaid, probably because it's tacitly assumed. WE need clean air and water. We are at the top of evolutionary chain (at the moment) and are dependent on what's underneath.
There are only three places to put our garbage, in the air, in the water, and in the ground. Whichever we choose, it's still here with us, so we should be more careful what we do, for our own good.
-
We are at the top of evolutionary chain . . .
This is arguable in terms of both numbers and total biomass. Springtales, and bacterium SAR-11 are kings by this measure. Our sense of superiority is delusion.
We kid ourselves. We've developed tool use, language, etc., but if the universe is accidental, uncaused, and indifferent then these oddities of random mutation and natural selection are meaningless. Evidence of survival success/dominance is quantitative and better measured by biomass and numbers.
Rand
-
This is arguable in terms of both numbers and total biomass. Springtails, and bacterium SAR-11 are kings by this measure. Our sense of superiority is delusion.
Correct, and let's not forget ants, and in particular cockroaches (which can withstand levels of radioactivity that would kill humanoids, as far as I've been told).
However, I refuse to help cockroaches (of any political persuasion), to speed up our destruction.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sorry I am late in replying as I have been in airports or on planes for the past 17 hours after our nice holiday in Spain came to an end. I originally posted the Ellicott City link on a thread that I started and then locked down for reason that you can see in my final post to the very short thread. We live about 20 miles away from Ellicott City and it has been around for a long time. Yes, it now has been hit by two catastrophic flood events in two years primarily because of unique weather systems that hung over the city for a considerable period of time dumping huge amounts of rain fall. Most storms we get in the spring or summer are quite transient but this year several other communities were also hit by flooding by similar storms (Frederick Maryland, about 15 miles west was hit two weeks ago. Yes these are unique weather events and anyone who took the time to read the Washington Post article will note that the weathermen writing it did not attribute this to climate change.
Ellicott City has some unique geographical features that made it susceptible to such flooding but ironically the city survived for a lot of years without anything like what happened in 2016 and 2018. I don't know if it was on the list of flood prone areas prior to 2016 that is kept by the government for the purposes of figuring out whether they should provide flood insurance (private insurers will not do so). The city is an old railroad town and there is a particularly nice museum there.
-
Correct, and let's not forget ants, and in particular cockroaches (which can withstand levels of radioactivity that would kill humanoids, as far as I've been told).
However, I refuse to help cockroaches (of any political persuasion), to speed up our destruction.
Cheers,
Bart
This is exactly what we may be doing. Do bacteria (in general) thrive best in cold, or warm conditions? Perhaps we’re just a cooperative host, making changes that are in the best survival interests of the dominant species.
Rand
-
All I can say about that is that anyone who believes there's such a thing as "scientific consensus" is a good deal dumber than I am.
It's 97% consensus actually.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm
-
That's close enough to fit my criterion, Peter. Or to put it another way, it's close enough for government work.
By the way, that cigar looks good. Used to love 'em. When I was mayor and having a work session, if wussy people showed up I didn't really want to talk to I'd light up the biggest stogie I had. They'd usually bail out.
-
That's close enough to fit my criterion, Peter. Or to put it another way, it's close enough for government work.
By the way, that cigar looks good. Used to love 'em. When I was mayor and having a work session, if wussy people showed up I didn't really want to talk to I'd light up the biggest stogie I had. They'd usually bail out.
When I read your statement that 97% - and these are published climate scientists - is not a consensus, I slapped my forehead so hard that I gave myself a concussion.
And I am afraid that your story about cigars and being mayor falls right in line with your approach to climate change - if you don't want to hear it, ignore it or chase the speaker away. I have always thought that elected officials should listen to all constituents. But no, not you.
-
You may have slapped your head too hard, Peter.
-
Decision time about whether to rebuild:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/ellicott-city-will-rebuild-but-difficult-decisions-lie-ahead/2018/06/01/48bdde66-64ed-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.16a1dde0f45f
-
Decision time about whether to rebuild:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/ellicott-city-will-rebuild-but-difficult-decisions-lie-ahead/2018/06/01/48bdde66-64ed-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?utm_term=.16a1dde0f45f
I recall there was similar indecision when Cyclone Tracy demolished the city of Darwin on the North Australian coast on Christmas day, 1974. I was employed there during that period, but was fortunately on holiday when the cyclone struck.
The destruction was so widespread and devastating there were questions being raised as to whether it was practical, economical and sensible to rebuild the city because severe cyclones had been a regular occurrence in the area since records began, and had destroyed the city, or caused severe damage, on a number of previous occasions.
http://www.darwinstorms.com/cyclones/
However, a decision was eventually made to rebuild the city using new building codes which would ensure that the structures could withstand the worst cyclones on record that had passed through the city, which were category 4.
Ellicott city seems to be in a similar situation with regard to its vulnerability to flooding. Doing a search, I came across the following record of previous floods.
http://www.preservationmaryland.org/historic-context-ellicott-city-flood/
"Floods in Ellicott City
1768
1817
1837
1868 – Patapsco flooding, killed 43 people, destroyed 14 homes
1901
1917
1923
1942
1952 – September 1
1972 – July 12, Hurricane Agnes, 14.5 ft
1975 – September 30, Hurricane Eloise, Hurricane Eloise
1989 – September 22, flood
2011 – September 7, Tropical Storm Lee
2016 – July 30
2018 – May 27 "
"The Baltimore Sun wrote in 2012, “that Ellicott City has come in for an inordinate amount of disasters from floods, fires and railroad wrecks since its founding in 1772.
The unincorporated town of 68,000 has endured at least four major floods, according to the Maryland Historic District’s web site, including a pair in the 1970s, another in 1923 and one in 1868 that “wiped out most of early industry in the valley sparing only the flour mill.”
Ellicott City’s geography makes it particularly vulnerable, said Jason Elliott, a National Weather Service hydrologist.
The historic city lies at the bottom of a hill where several streams converge before entering the Patapsco River, making it susceptible to flooding."
In Australia, there is a major distinction between 'flash flooding' and 'riverine flooding' for insurance purposes. Many folks who do not read the fine print of their insurance policy, have assumed that because they are covered for ' general' flooding, that must also include riverine flooding, but it often doesn't because riverine flooding is more predictable and therefore the insurance is more expensive if the property is situated near a river which has previously flooded on many occasions.
Climate change might be a contributing factor in these instances, but not the main factor.
-
A lot depends on the local circumstances, but watch for the trends over 11-year or longer multi-decadal periods, and it soon becomes apparent if Climate Change is to blame (and thus human burning of fossil fuel).
Cheers,
Bart
First, in response to your post, and others, I do believe in man-made climate change.
However, looking at the 11-year trends, one must not only take into consideration climate change in regards to this flooding, but also the decrease in water absorbing land due to development, so it is not so easy just to blame climate change.
It's similar to the current wild fires that have become much more intense over the years here in the USA. Which is more to blame, climate change or the Smoky Bear Effect?
(The Smoky Bear Effect being that since we have been so good, for about a 100 years, at controlling forest fires, that would have happened about once every 20 years naturally, the amount of fuel that has built up in most USA forests is immense. Thus, when a fire finally occurs, it is just that much more intense and destroys everything including old growth trees that would have survived less severe fires.)
These are complicated questions. I am sure both climate change and the other mitigating factors play a role, but which is the bigger evil. Are we ignoring solutions that could bring much more immediate results because we are too focused on climate change as the cause?
-
Other than your very natural preference that humans don’t go extinct, what difference does it make to a completely indifferent universe, where life itself is an accident of unguided events. Honest question.
Rand
Who wants to live in a universe that has no purpose? Where we come from nowheres and are going nowheres? Ecclesiastes addressed this issue. You might want to read him.