Printable View
How should "we" deal with extreme weather conditions that are becoming more frequent and/or impacting more people?
edit: Fuzzy and Lewk could turn this into a "perfect storm", but it's an overly broad question for a reason. "We" doesn't mean just the US. ;)
By preparing for them? :noob: The Cornfields had the coldest winter in over 4 decades. We've had at least 4-5 feet of snow (and there are inches of ice everywhere because of a 2-day thaw the other week), and the daily low has consistently stayed around 10F (with about 2 weeks of under 0F) for the last 2 months. No mass panics. No increase in car accidents. Only minor bus delays. College hasn't been closed yet and schools have closed for only 2 days. Preparation: a hard concept.
Okay, "preparation" is reasonable. Your Illinois "cornfields" are accustomed to cold weather, ice and snow, as part of the Great Lakes region. And they have plenty of municipal/state resources to deal with that weather, even when it becomes "extreme".
That doesn't mean much for southern states or traditionally 'warmer' places that don't plan (or prepare) for the same wintry conditions....even though they're occurring with greater frequency. At what point does "preparation" for 100-year storms, or once-in-a-decade "extreme" weather become failed policy?
Are you telling me the south didn't have snow for 40 years? I find that hard to believe. Everyone should be prepared for weather conditions that are at least semi-possible. The problem with not preparing for a "100-year storm" is that you're going to get really screwed in that one year.
That's not what I said, but you actually made my point -- that southern US states routinely have some degree of wintry weather, but don't "prepare" for it very well. They treat snow or ice as isolated, rare, or unexpected "extreme" weather events....even though it happens every year. The citrus industry knows that first hand.
It seems to me there's a lot of "weather denial" going on, and it's not limited to the US.
*Isn't there a current debate in the UK about their recent floods...and whether "extreme" weather is to blame, or "extreme" policies?*
edit @ Lewk -- you've been very opinionated about people living in high-risk, 'extreme weather' areas. Mostly from the Insurance Industry perspective. Do you still believe that private insurance is the best way to tackle the problems between "extreme weather", where people live and work, and public policy?
I don't see too much extreme weather here in The Netherlands, or Turkey for that matter.
Here in Belgium it's just regular shitty weather, mostly. Rain and wind, yay. Beats floods and snowstorms, at least!
I appear to have some snow in my yard...
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
While you're right in one hand, let's not forget that experience is also a big part of the equation. For example, drivers from areas with a lot of snow and cold each year know to drive more careful (and how), and have winter tires (or even snow chains), whereas in the south most people probably don't know how to drive in snow, and don't have winter tires, etc. You can only prepare so much. My only car crash was in snow, mostly because the driver was inexperienced in driving in snow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Plus it might be a problem that local governments (who are over here responsible for clearing the roads etc) have been pushed to save money, and the "100-year-storm" preparations are among the first axed, because chances are good it won't happen for a few years. Of course snow is hardly a once in a hundred years thing. Over here the railway gets a lot of flak every year when there's snow and they have delays, and the excuse 'it's rare weather' doesn't really hold when it's once or twice a year, for a few days. On the other hand, part of the problem is that people simply expect everything to run just as fast as usual, while if you're realistic and account for slight delays due to the weather, things are usually fine.
But generally speaking, yes, it's mostly preparation. Especially if the weather has been predicted for a few days, which ought to be enough time to get ready, if the preparations are in place
No one does this, because its extremely impractical, otherwise most states would have their citizens living under ground because of tornadoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
When it ices and snows like this all you need is one driver who doesn't understand the inner workings of a car to try to hard to get up a hill, blow the engine, throw oil and thus fire everywhere, and bam, road closed for hours.
Its snowed in tampa in my lifetime, but fuck you if you think I own snow tires or chains.
Here in the UK we're having extreme weather caused by an horrific phenomenon known as "winter". ;)
Seriously though shit weather happens from time to time, there is nothing happening now that hasn't happened in the past. Nothing unprecedented. Preparation is the key. What winds me up nowadays is when people blame anything and everything on "climate change" - when its just bog standard shitty weather. 2 years ago we were in a drought and housepipe bans were put in place with reservoirs going dry after 2 drier than normal winters (must be climate change), then its been heavily raining with 2 wetter than normal winters (must be climate change). No its variance and we simply have shitty weather in England sometimes, we're known for it.
I'm in the North-West and we haven't been affected by flooding but down south in Somerset and other counties there's been massive flooding and the Thames has burst its banks in places. Its long been known that there's flood plains there and the Somerset Levels are partially reclaimed land and at high risk of flooding. But a few years ago the Environment Agency decided it was not going to dredge the rivers in that area in order to encourage some flooding to promote biodiversity. This is said to be based on an EU Directive but I must stress that I DO NOT blame the EU for this, I blame the idiots who work in the UK's Environment Agency. Guess what, when we've had higher than normal rain this year there has been flooding as encouraged rather than prevented. Out of control flooding. If you're going to build on a flood plain try and prevent not encourage flooding. :rolleyes:
The alternative is quite simple: Don't build on flood plains. Don't live on flood plains. Don't buy a home on flood plains.
Well I do absolutely. I couldn't count the amount of times I've heard sob stories from idiots who've got a house on a flood plain, got flooded and then cried to the media how unfair it is because they have no insurance as the insurance company wouldn't cover them as they're on a known flood plain. Hey genius who's fault is that? Get away from the flood plain you fool. If I got told that I wouldn't be able to get insurance as the company fully expects the house to be flooded I wouldn't move there in the first place, or would try to move away. Don't move onto a flood plain then curse your luck/the government/the world for your own dumb choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Incidentally when we bought our house we did a survey on the property which checked for things like that. It was mandatory in order to get a mortgage. First house we surveyed got a red flag because of the fact a power pylon went overhead - not something that bothered me but the surveyor said it was a risk as if the power pylon came down the power company would have every right to knock down what would our fencing and do whatever it takes to restore the power line. Also it might damage the value of the house on resale as people are worried due to scare stories that it may cause cancer (not that it does, just the scare stories that it might is enough to devalue it) - as a result we didn't buy that property. We did ask the owner to reduce the asking price to what our surveyor said it was worth but he refused so no deal. Had we exchanged and any of the risks happened it would have been our responsibility and nobody elses. A flood plain was a red line for me that no matter the value I'm not interested in that under any circumstances.
Heard one moron moaning on the BBC this year that they weren't expecting a flood as it hasn't flooded in that area for eight years and now his stuff is ruined and he has no insurance. Eight years. Not eighty, not one in a hundred, its not even a decade since the last flood. Why do you think the insurance company said no?
If the worst that happens is a road closure that's not exactly the end of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
On the other hand, one cold summer also doesn't mean it's all a hoax :p It's just generally a bad idea to base your idea of something like global warming based on local anecdotal incomplete evidence. That said, even if it's weather that has happened before in the UK, if it consistently occurs more frequently over a longer period than it used to historically, that could be an indication something has influenced it, which might be global warming. I'm not a climatologist, so I don't know, but the weather and climate are obviously connected.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Aye, that's just stupidity. You could claim ignorance, but if your insurance company informed you they don't insure you for that because the risk is too high.. Well, I don't feel sorry for you. On the other hand, our water protection here is rated between a flood once in 250 years and once in 1250 years (for rivers), and between one in 2.000 years and one in 10.000 years for sea floods (depending on the economic importance of the area), which makes it a bit more understandable to be pissed if your house is flooded :pQuote:
I'm in the North-West and we haven't been affected by flooding but down south in Somerset and other counties there's been massive flooding and the Thames has burst its banks in places. Its long been known that there's flood plains there and the Somerset Levels are partially reclaimed land and at high risk of flooding. But a few years ago the Environment Agency decided it was not going to dredge the rivers in that area in order to encourage some flooding to promote biodiversity. This is said to be based on an EU Directive but I must stress that I DO NOT blame the EU for this, I blame the idiots who work in the UK's Environment Agency. Guess what, when we've had higher than normal rain this year there has been flooding as encouraged rather than prevented. Out of control flooding. If you're going to build on a flood plain try and prevent not encourage flooding. :rolleyes:
The alternative is quite simple: Don't build on flood plains. Don't live on flood plains. Don't buy a home on flood plains.
Well I do absolutely. I couldn't count the amount of times I've heard sob stories from idiots who've got a house on a flood plain, got flooded and then cried to the media how unfair it is because they have no insurance as the insurance company wouldn't cover them as they're on a known flood plain. Hey genius who's fault is that? Get away from the flood plain you fool. If I got told that I wouldn't be able to get insurance as the company fully expects the house to be flooded I wouldn't move there in the first place, or would try to move away. Don't move onto a flood plain then curse your luck/the government/the world for your own dumb choice.
Incidentally when we bought our house we did a survey on the property which checked for things like that. It was mandatory in order to get a mortgage. First house we surveyed got a red flag because of the fact a power pylon went overhead - not something that bothered me but the surveyor said it was a risk as if the power pylon came down the power company would have every right to knock down what would our fencing and do whatever it takes to restore the power line. Also it might damage the value of the house on resale as people are worried due to scare stories that it may cause cancer (not that it does, just the scare stories that it might is enough to devalue it) - as a result we didn't buy that property. We did ask the owner to reduce the asking price to what our surveyor said it was worth but he refused so no deal. Had we exchanged and any of the risks happened it would have been our responsibility and nobody elses. A flood plain was a red line for me that no matter the value I'm not interested in that under any circumstances.
Heard one moron moaning on the BBC this year that they weren't expecting a flood as it hasn't flooded in that area for eight years and now his stuff is ruined and he has no insurance. Eight years. Not eighty, not one in a hundred, its not even a decade since the last flood. Why do you think the insurance company said no?
edit: And only if circumstances don't change, of course. If government policy on flood protection changes, rivers are moved, etc., then it's not really your fault anymore. Similarly I don't feel sympathy for people who move next to a school/airport and then complain about the noise, but if you live somewhere and one is built next to you, you have a right to complain.
There's also a trade-off between the cost of preparation and the expected cost of the damages caused by not being prepared. No one is saying governments need to spend a fortune on events that are highly, highly unlikely. But snow is not highly unlikely. It falls every so often. It wouldn't kill anyone to have a few snow plows ready. Heck, they have snow plows here that are simply attached to normal vans. The cost is minimal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The purchase, storage and maintenance of snow equipment is not a minimal cost. Not when its used a couple of days and sits collecting dust and rust for 1000.
And how much does it cost to clear up car accidents and make up for lost business from people not going to work and not going to shop?
Likely as much as our gas boycotts costs a few years ago :noob:
Climate change probably is occuring but every bad winter or good summer or anything other than the mean is not climate change. Its just the climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
If its once per 250 years you shouldn't struggle to get insurance on that.Quote:
Aye, that's just stupidity. You could claim ignorance, but if your insurance company informed you they don't insure you for that because the risk is too high.. Well, I don't feel sorry for you. On the other hand, our water protection here is rated between a flood once in 250 years and once in 1250 years (for rivers), and between one in 2.000 years and one in 10.000 years for sea floods (depending on the economic importance of the area), which makes it a bit more understandable to be pissed if your house is flooded :p
Agreed. But then there's normally (and rightly) compensation schemes for those who are affected then. Compensation should be applied before, at or around the time of the change and then its settled - don't complain all the time afterwards.Quote:
edit: And only if circumstances don't change, of course. If government policy on flood protection changes, rivers are moved, etc., then it's not really your fault anymore. Similarly I don't feel sympathy for people who move next to a school/airport and then complain about the noise, but if you live somewhere and one is built next to you, you have a right to complain.
I agree with your general sentiment (though for something that happens every few years, it's not crazy to think states and municipalities should be prepared), but seriously? Snow tires and chains? I've lived in cold or coldish cities my entire life and I've never had either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That being said, snow removal equipment and salt trucks aren't exactly one purpose. In Chicago, they regularly convert garbage trucks and dump trucks for this purpose - it means you only need the kits, not the whole vehicle. Similarly, salt keeps indefinitely and doesn't need maintenance. I don't doubt that there's costs associated with this, but they might be offset by the gains to be had from preventing utter chaos (and voter anger). In Tampa, maybe not worth it, but in the Carolinas, it probably is.
I would agree that expensive purpose-built equipment like snow melters should not be a major priority for municipalities in balmier climates.
Sure, but a trend in the weather (over multiple years/decades) is - so if statistically significantly more storms occur, that can be related to climate change. It's not proof an sich, but climate change can cause storms to occur more frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
On the contrary, large environmental disasters are (like terrorist attacks) excluded from most policies. In fact, a quick google tells me that between 1953 and 2012 it was completely impossible to insure against that.Quote:
If its once per 250 years you shouldn't struggle to get insurance on that.
our insurance industry likes to call them "acts of god"
we're not working under the assumption that these locations have zero equipment are we? Cause there is a huge difference between having nothing and not having enough to canvas a city and its connected communities in 4 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Winter is a season. ;) According to your Environmental Agency, your floods are related to "extreme rain" and the Thames breaching its banks. Plus chalk in your soil that's saturated to capacity, and causing ground-flooding.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This thread is about extreme weather events, not "climate change". ;) England also had heavy rains and flooding in '02 and '07, but this time around it's winter rain (not spring) rain. True, some are 'normal' variances, or trends that can be expected....but it's also true that magnitude and frequency are changing. BBC has some nice historical charts, and articles discussing the "new normal".Quote:
Seriously though shit weather happens from time to time, there is nothing happening now that hasn't happened in the past. Nothing unprecedented. Preparation is the key. What winds me up nowadays is when people blame anything and everything on "climate change" - when its just bog standard shitty weather. 2 years ago we were in a drought and housepipe bans were put in place with reservoirs going dry after 2 drier than normal winters (must be climate change), then its been heavily raining with 2 wetter than normal winters (must be climate change). No its variance and we simply have shitty weather in England sometimes, we're known for it.
Quote:
I'm in the North-West and we haven't been affected by flooding but down south in Somerset and other counties there's been massive flooding and the Thames has burst its banks in places. Its long been known that there's flood plains there and the Somerset Levels are partially reclaimed land and at high risk of flooding. But a few years ago the Environment Agency decided it was not going to dredge the rivers in that area in order to encourage some flooding to promote biodiversity. This is said to be based on an EU Directive but I must stress that I DO NOT blame the EU for this, I blame the idiots who work in the UK's Environment Agency. Guess what, when we've had higher than normal rain this year there has been flooding as encouraged rather than prevented. Out of control flooding. If you're going to build on a flood plain try and prevent not encourage flooding. :rolleyes:
Living on higher ground doesn't mean much, the flooding will affect everyone in your country, indirectly. I'm not familiar with how your gov't agencies work together, how choices are made between biodiversity and infrastructure -- or whether Austerity was the defining factor. Cameron is saying today that money is no object, we'll spend whatever we need to spend, but is getting flak for not having spent money on prevention (preparation) when it could have made a difference.
It only sounds simple to focus on topographic 'flood plains'. In reality it's more complicated, because now there are 'flood zones', and places that never flooded before (even after heavy rain events).Quote:
The alternative is quite simple: Don't build on flood plains. Don't live on flood plains. Don't buy a home on flood plains.
And if they built there 100 years ago? What about new flood zones that expand beyond previous 'flood plains' due to man-made decisions? Should the private insurance industry be setting the price for proximity to the Thames or tributaries, including businesses -- or does that include a federal/national flood insurance program?Quote:
Well I do absolutely. I couldn't count the amount of times I've heard sob stories from idiots who've got a house on a flood plain, got flooded and then cried to the media how unfair it is because they have no insurance as the insurance company wouldn't cover them as they're on a known flood plain. Hey genius who's fault is that? Get away from the flood plain you fool. If I got told that I wouldn't be able to get insurance as the company fully expects the house to be flooded I wouldn't move there in the first place, or would try to move away. Don't move onto a flood plain then curse your luck/the government/the world for your own dumb choice.<snip>
There's only so much land to begin with. What are you going to do -- price everyone out of an area, or forcibly move/remove people from 'danger' zones (when apparently that includes overhead power lines, too)? :mong:
They should have enough to keep main arteries clear, yes. Side streets, not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Obviously it's more complex than X number of plows and salt trucks being needed - there's a lot of sophistication having to do with traffic levels, maximal rate of snow accumulation, etc. But there are reasonable assumptions that can be made that can limit the massive disruption from anything more than a blizzard with a relatively modest investment. The kind of crazy stuff that cities farther north focus on is, of course, not necessary.
If you've lived in cold/snow states and never had snow tires or chains, it's because your municipality did the heavy lifting by keeping roads plowed and salted, or you lived near a city with good public transit (like trains or subways). PA is a snow state....and plenty of drivers switch out their tires after Thanksgiving, because they perform better than "all weather" tires. And our school buses and mail trucks usually put chains on their vehicles too, because it's a blurry line from city to suburb to rural. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
18 wheeled and double truck rigs are a huge problem. Georgia learned that the hard way. When road conditions get bad, the Governor or DOT should require them to pull-off interstate highways and turnpikes.
Agreed, but don't forget that salt is now in short supply. We nearly went through our entire winter supply, based on "normal" winter weather predictions, before the end of January. Salt doesn't need maintenance, but it does need huge supply depots, vehicles and manpower to move it around.Quote:
That being said, snow removal equipment and salt trucks aren't exactly one purpose. In Chicago, they regularly convert garbage trucks and dump trucks for this purpose - it means you only need the kits, not the whole vehicle. Similarly, salt keeps indefinitely and doesn't need maintenance. I don't doubt that there's costs associated with this, but they might be offset by the gains to be had from preventing utter chaos (and voter anger). In Tampa, maybe not worth it, but in the Carolinas, it probably is.
I would agree that expensive purpose-built equipment like snow melters should not be a major priority for municipalities in balmier climates.
Warmer climates could do a better job maintaining their airport runways, especially since they're national/international hubs. By default that means they'll have to do better at commuting employees from home to work, whether it's by roads or rails.
It's high time we admit that "extreme weather" events have far reaching ripple-effects.
So? Most of the US population is in urban areas, and we're not talking about clearing rural roads, but keeping major cities open for business. I don't doubt that snow tires and chains are useful for some people, but for the vast majority of the US population in snowy regions, they're largely unimportant.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Vehicles and manpower are easy, they are multipurpose (and frankly no one is expecting garbage pickup or construction work during a snowstorm). Salt supplies are cheapish and last indefinitely, though I'll recognize they take up space. You don't need super-fancy storage, though - protection from rain is about all you need.Quote:
Agreed, but don't forget that salt is now in short supply. We nearly went through our entire winter supply, based on "normal" winter weather predictions, before the end of January. Salt doesn't need maintenance, but it does need huge supply depots, vehicles and manpower to move it around.
Not all US urban areas are the same, though. Atlanta, for example, acts more like a big urban city within a southern state...instead of the hugely important national/international hub that it is. Unfortunately, their public policies reflect that disconnect.
When workers can't commute, the airport shuts down....and flights get back-logged from coast-to-coast, and internationally. That's major artery stuff. If the city of Atlanta, the greater-metro area, or the State of Georgia won't invest (spend public dollars) on preparation for "extreme weather" events -- everyone else pays the price.
PS -- I'm basically agreeing with you, wiggin. But with a caveat: that states and municipalities need to do more 'heavy lifting' in the future than they have in the past, act more like the urban areas they've become, and get rid of the "rural" mentality that infects their public policy.
That's one problem I have with assertions that "private insurance" is the best way to deal with weather-related problems. Their entire business model is based on ensuring their own profits via premiums, not insuring policy holders against risk/loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
When confronted with damage claims from hurricane-force winds, they say "hurricanes" aren't covered. When people file claims under tornado damage, they say it wasn't "technically" a tornado. When a storm event causes millions of homes/businesses to be flooded, they say "floods" aren't covered. They use fine print and legal mumbo jumbo to avoid paying claims. That's how they make their money. :sour:
Anecdotally, I've only filed two homeowner insurance claims, and they both involved water damage. The first time was after a "freak" snow blizzard in the early 90's that resulted in ice-damming, leaking windows, fallen gutters. Damage was covered 100% because it was deemed 'unexpected and sudden', unrelated to normal maintenance. (ie, their mandatory home inspection declared all windows and gutters and roofing were sound, and could withstand inclement weather, even 'extreme' rain or snow events.) The second incident was related to corroded HVAC lead pipes in the attic that 'flooded' the interior below. Again, based on inspections approved by the insurance carrier, and the mortgage company.
But "flooding" is not covered....because the township or municipality failed to adequately maintain storm drains, or the state didn't control 'flood plains' adequately. When all this PAX snow melts, millions of homeowners will be filing claims for water damage and/or home flooding, and their claims will be denied. Insurance companies will say public infrastructure was at fault, or it was an "Act of God"....and they don't have control over either. :rolleyes:
England's fucked.
Two more dead last night in severe storms.
Flooding continues.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ps155f04de.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...od-624-top.jpg
http://im.ft-static.com/content/imag...5a98b57b45.img
http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/3...s_2821915i.jpg
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/13622...looding-01.jpg
http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/file.../02/floods.jpg
I think it's safe to say not all of those places are in flood planes, rand..
