NOAA issues its most aggressive hurricane season forecast on record

[zephyr]

And ZERO requirements are being placed on many developments to require proper elevation of those new homes. so the brand-new ones will flood just as the old ones are flooding now.

This is false

[facelessjonmoon]

And ZERO requirements are being placed on many developments to require proper elevation of those new homes. so the brand-new ones will flood just as the old ones are flooding now.

I don’t think this is accurate based on my experience

[ZoomZoom]

And ZERO requirements are being placed on many developments to require proper elevation of those new homes. so the brand-new ones will flood just as the old ones are flooding now.

Uh, no. In fact, regulations is a root problem causing concern. Once where water filled rice fields, there are tons upon tons of dirt brought in to elevate home sites to meet FEMA requirements. The rice field owner has every right to do what he wants with his land, but there is the classic butterfly effect that comes with it.

Local governments have a responsibility to their citizens to adhere to the FEMA regulations. There’s a direct impact on insurance rates with failure to do so. The days of a person telling the local administrator “Cher, mais ya know my momma’s and dems house never floods” are gone. Yes, the preceding statement isn’t a joke, really was happening a decade or so back (not in Lafayette parish).

And sediment of things have consequences. How about building a home in a flood zone, rightfully shooting an elevation line off a LADOTD marker, pouring a slab, pass inspection. Between this and final inspection the state replaces the marker with one 3” higher (the old mark allegedly sunk). Which fails the final inspection. Yeah, that’s no joke either.

[HelmutVII]

Uh, no. In fact, regulations is a root problem causing concern. Once where water filled rice fields, there are tons upon tons of dirt brought in to elevate home sites to meet FEMA requirements. The rice field owner has every right to do what he wants with his land, but there is the classic butterfly effect that comes with it.

Local governments have a responsibility to their citizens to adhere to the FEMA regulations. There’s a direct impact on insurance rates with failure to do so. The days of a person telling the local administrator “Cher, mais ya know my momma’s and dems house never floods” are gone. Yes, the preceding statement isn’t a joke, really was happening a decade or so back (not in Lafayette parish).

And sediment of things have consequences. How about building a home in a flood zone, rightfully shooting an elevation line off a LADOTD marker, pouring a slab, pass inspection. Between this and final inspection the state replaces the marker with one 3” higher (the old mark allegedly sunk). Which fails the final inspection. Yeah, that’s no joke either.

Or doing a Flood elevation certificate for a new home. Then years later after new flood maps with a higher BFE AND BFE +1 requirements the home owner wants to add on to the home at the same elevation. Not going to happen. Try explaining that to a client. Especially when he saysI never flooded.

[CajunVic]

govt regulation at any level is fraught with constant issues, gaps, inaccuracies, over limitations, contradictions . . . which is why, in ALL instances, less is better than more

[Big Tyme]

govt regulation at any level is fraught with constant issues, gaps, inaccuracies, over limitations, contradictions . . . which is why, in ALL instances, less is better than more

ALL generalizations are worthless.
Info on subsidies.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024.all-subsidies/

[SlickRick]

ALL generalizations are worthless.
Info on subsidies.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024.all-subsidies/

Birds of a feather, flock together.

[CajunVic]

Birds of a feather, flock together.

those windmills are hell on the birds . . .

[Big Tyme]

those windmills are hell on the birds . . .

But what about THE bird

[Cajunrunner]

ALL generalizations are worthless.
Info on subsidies.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024.all-subsidies/

I mean…I just as soon post a link to API extolling the values of oil & gas as an energy source to counter that link.

[ZoomZoom]

There’s a few of us here seen pictures our family had of the 1927 flood. 2016 was a proverbial fart in a windstorm compared to that.

Rob needs to start building an ark, one day, history will repeat itself.

[Big Tyme]

There’s a few of us here seen pictures our family had of the 1927 flood. 2016 was a proverbial fart in a windstorm compared to that.

Rob needs to start building an ark, one day, history will repeat itself.

Funny you should mention 1927. That was the start of the Levees Only course for the USACE that got us into this mess.

[Big Tyme]

I mean…I just as soon post a link to API extolling the values of oil & gas as an energy source to counter that link.

Cool. I should have added the science behind the article but I know how some posters here feet about science.
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-su.showall%3Dtrue

[Cajunrunner]

Cool. I should have added the science behind the article but I know how some posters here feet about science.
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-su.showall%3Dtrue

Interesting read. I'm not sure all their conclusions can really be definite as truth, such as "Combined, wind and solar generation led to 1,200 to 1,600 fewer premature mortalities in 2022", but I'm admittedly also not not a science major. Maybe my ChemE undergrad daughter can understand some of the science of that report better with the molecules evaluated for damages estimates.

All that aside, even if all the conclusions of that report are to be taken as 100% gospel fact, such as:

"Total benefits were found to be large, compared with levelized costs, energy market value, long-term contract prices, and direct subsidies."

It will be financially and structurally impossible to "transition" away from all needs for hydrocarbons even by 2050, and to try to force such a transition would be irresponsible and have other negative effects for humans not just in the United States, but across the globe.

[CajunVic]

. . .

It will be financially and structurally impossible to "transition" away from all needs for hydrocarbons even by 2050, and to try to force such a transition would be irresponsible and have other negative effects for humans not just in the United States, but across the globe.

it is those receiving the financial remuneration which you speak of that push this stuff . . . they could not care less about anything other than getting that money . . . any negative effects are a knat on an elephants ass to them so long as they get the $$$$ . . .