
America’s Great Climate Exodus Is Starting in the Florida Keys - woofyman
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-20/america-s-great-climate-exodus-is-starting-in-the-florida-keys
======
shadowprofile77
Presumably I'll get downvoted for this but here it goes.. I know that news
sites like to link anything they can to climate change in the global human-
caused sense because it might create more clicks but how is this a "climate
exodus" in that sense? It's more a case of people having built homes in a very
flat, easily flooded place that has always been really, really shitty for
living due to the dangers of extremely bad hurricane damage (something that
has been the case since Europeans settled the region). Way too tenuous for a
title like that, but it fits the more hysterical narratives of climate change
so in it goes. Note, i'm not doubting or denying the very real global dangers
of human-caused climate change, but we should be careful in ascribing just
anything to them. Some regions of the world have always been unsafe for human
habitation due to persistently unfriendly weather, that we have colonized them
with our technology doesn't mean that something has fundamentally changed
about their climate whenever things go wrong and nature reasserts itself.

~~~
DoreenMichele
It's being linked to climate change because small, low-lying islands are
seeing serious losses of land mass. From the article:

 _Fifteen years after Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana is trying to relocate the
Native American settlement of about 100 people on the Isle de Jean Charles, a
narrow island that lost 98% of its land over the past six decades to climate
change._

My best understanding is that this is, in fact, a new phenomenon related to
global warming, the defrosting of permafrost, etc.

 _Some regions of the world have always been unsafe for human habitation due
to persistently unfriendly weather_

There is no place without some kind of disaster. I've looked. It's a case of
_pick your poison_.

Hurricanes in the Southeast. Tornadoes in the Plains States. Earthquakes and
the ever-so-lovely Fire Season on the West Coast.

Etc.

But much of Florida is not far above sea level and some of the issues they are
seeing can legitimately be linked to climate change. That's not just hand-
wringing in this case.

This is especially true for low-lying islands, which are seeing new problems
around the world. It isn't the norm for islands to simply disappear to rising
sea levels.

~~~
rjbwork
Yes, but some places are far worse than others. Down here in Atlanta we get
some pretty bad thunder storms (and accompanying low lying land floods), and
rare but not unheard of hail. We're pretty far from any real faults, though we
have gotten tiny tremors from east Tennessee and north/south Georgia before,
they're at most 4-5, with everything in Georgia around a 3. We're far enough
away from, and high enough above the ocean for sea level rise to not impact
us. Tornados are exceedingly rare. We hardly ever get any real hurricane
weather, usually just some rain from the outer reaches of it as it hits the
coasts.

I'd choose this over my former South Louisiana digs any day. We had to
evacuate for hurricanes multiple times when I was a kid there. For hurricane
Andrew we were driving north in the pouring rain and wind so high nobody could
close the car doors except my dad. I've never been even close to that scared
of weather in Georgia.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I think that falls under _personal preference._

I was born and raised in Georgia. I'm abundantly familiar with what goes on
there, weather-wise.

Near daily thunderstorms in the summer.

Electrical storms that can kill electronics, appliances or even people.

If it snows at all, businesses shut down, schools shut down, car wrecks go up,
etc.

If it gets too cold, they sometimes shut down schools and businesses.

When I was eight years old and we had something like a foot of snow, roofs
were collapsing, they were sending a van around to pick up nurses so the
hospitals would be staffed and my sister and father walked like five miles in
the snow to get to a store to get supplies we needed because no municipality
in the state has any equipment for doing snow clearance and all the roads were
closed.

Snow is not some kind of natural disaster in places that routinely get snow.
But it is a real and serious problem in Georgia simply because it happens so
rarely that it doesn't make any real sense to acquire snow plows and the like.
They would rust and rot in place and be unusable on the rare occasion that it
does snow enough to see an accumulation on the ground. Most of the time, you
wait a day or so, things warm up, it melts, schools and businesses re-open.

But, meanwhile, people die in car wrecks.

[https://www.vox.com/2016/1/27/10840810/snow-car-crash-
map](https://www.vox.com/2016/1/27/10840810/snow-car-crash-map)

Atlanta sometimes has serious flooding.

[https://www.11alive.com/article/weather/10-year-
anniversary-...](https://www.11alive.com/article/weather/10-year-anniversary-
historic-2009-flood/85-67a5d008-de15-4529-a68b-796eabcacf65)

Etc.

~~~
selectodude
Sounds like Chicago is about as close to safe as it gets anywhere on earth.

~~~
geomark
You are joking, of course. A safe place would not have subzero temperatures
during cold season. The world is full of much safer places where there are no
weather extremes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Of course, you must
also consider manmade disasters like overreaching government, civil unrest,
and if there are oil reserves you risk invasion by other countries to liberate
the population.

~~~
EdwardDiego
> A safe place would not have subzero temperatures during cold season

Given the long human history of surviving subzero temperatures, why do you say
that?

------
watertom
Why is the government buying these people out?

The homeowners weren't forced to purchase these properties, so it's not the
government's responsibility to remediate the situation.

~~~
acdha
Think about who owns waterfront property, yacht clubs, etc. and ask whether
those rich people are likely to be well-represented in the legislatures.
Government agencies do what the law makers tell them and it’s really hard to
roll back decades spent ignoring the problem for short-term profit, especially
when there’s a large and effective propaganda machine which will attack anyone
who suggests policies which realistically accept the scale of the problem.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The woman profiled in this Bloomberg piece is 60, likely is not wealthy (her
insurance settlement is a bit more than half of what remains on her mortgage,
and she cannot afford to bring her house up to code due to the extent of the
damages), and could possibly be homeless without a relo buyout. If it was me,
I’d buy a new home in Florida (far above sea level!) with my settlement, and
default on the shack she’s stuck with (Florida law is very strong when it
comes to protecting debtors; as long as her new home is her primary residence,
all of her equity would be protected from creditors, as well as her social
security when she begins to collect). But that’s not a solution that works at
scale.

As long as the properties are bulldozed and never allowed to be developed
again, it’s reasonable policy.

Should people know better? Perfect information is hard. I’ve bugged Redfin
several times to include these models in their property search interface with
no reply. You need legislation to better assist real estate buyers to fully
understand what they’re getting into.

~~~
Gibbon1
> Should people know better? Perfect information is hard.

Ordinary people aren't the perfect agents we're propagandized them to be.
People often are forced to gamble tomorrow to live through today. I've seen
people make the gamble and lose badly and others manage to slip out from under
it.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Of course. That’s why I said this is reasonable policy. Bailouts shouldn’t be
a four letter word when done properly.

~~~
Gibbon1
I'm agreeing with you. The state zones places that aren't suitable for
housing. Banks loan developers money to build. And quasi-government agencies
hold loans used to buy the houses. In these clusterfucks the owner is just one
of many partially responsible parties.

I remember reading about a disaster in Washington State (I think). A geology
professor been doing field trips to an hill side. To show his students an
example of an unstable hillside. One year he shows up and there are now houses
on it. Few years after that the whole thing comes down.

Another one. During the housing bubble in California they build a subdivision
on farmland that was reserved as a flood plain. During heavy rainfall years
it's expected to flood. Now there are houses on it.

Are the people that bought those houses responsible or are they more victims?
Both?

~~~
sjg007
As long as it was disclosed to the buyer then they take the risk with
hopefully flood insurance. If it wasn’t disclosed then they may have recourse
against the property developer and their agent.

------
olivermarks
'By the end of the century, 13 million Americans will need to move just
because of rising sea levels, at a cost of $1 million each, according to
Florida State University demographer Mathew Haeur, who studies climate
migration.'

I couldn't find any concrete evidence to validate this, it seems more of a
prediction? Mr Hauer is a sociologist so this seems a bold claim
[https://coss.fsu.edu/sociology/mhauer](https://coss.fsu.edu/sociology/mhauer)

'his research has focused on how migration induced by sea level rise _could_
reshape the U.S. population distribution'

~~~
maehwasu
You can, quite literally, find someone from a university in the social
sciences who say anything that you want.

The practice of inserting quotes from random "experts" in news stories is one
of the worst journalistic practices out there. It's fundamentally dishonest in
very obvious ways, and forms the basis of many articles.

~~~
WillPostForFood
Including the landscape architecture professor in the article who said, "If we
don’t, it won’t matter, because much of America will be underwater or on
fire."

No hysteria at all there.

------
todd8
SLR (sea level rise) is a problem, but this article promotes a kind of
alarmist version of SLR, in my admittedly inexpert opinion.

SLR has been going on for 20,000 years, and it may be accelerating in the last
few decades due to global warming; however, if your property is threatened by
a 3mm SLR per year you probably didn’t make a wise purchase in the first
place. 2+mm SLR per year has been going on for at least 150 years. See [1].

[1] [https://www.flseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SLR-
Fa...](https://www.flseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SLR-Fact-
Sheet_dual-column-letterhead_8.2.13_pdf.pdf)

~~~
H8crilA
People, en masse, rarely react to a problem till it hits them in the face.
Florida does get flooded already - Sunny Day Floods, what a beautiful name.
Meanwhile real estate prices keep ignoring the issue:

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MIXRNSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MIXRNSA)

~~~
ozborn
Yes, you are correct.

Of interest though is this study:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3073842](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3073842)
which indicates that prices are 7% than they would be otherwise.

~~~
mlinksva
Sensitive to exposure -- 22% discount for properties that will be encroached
with 1ft sea level rise, 6% with 6ft encroachment -- and to knowledge eg less
discount in regions with less belief in climate change, except for investors
who don't seem to be influenced by such local beliefs, substantially greater
discounting after 2014 IPCC report (dataset from 2006-2017). Recommended read!

------
Simulacra
I don't think this article presents enough evidence that climate change, or
climate in general, is affecting a person's desire to move to a new area.
Florida has always had hurricanes, and it will continue to have hurricanes.
Our response should not be to say the climate has changed so much its forcing
us to leave, but rather what can we do to adapt to the new climate forces?

~~~
electic
The issue isn't the hurricanes or the strength that is associated with them,
it is the water content. In the past, hurricanes main threat was the wind.
With wind, you can mitigate that with stronger building techniques and since
the flooding was minimal, it was easy to recover from.

The new issue with these hurricanes is that they are bringing significantly
more water with them because of global warming. The net result is you are
seeing once in 1500 year floods happening every year.

It is very hard to recover from those. Especially if you find yourself doing
it every year. At some point, you have to move.

The net loss is property and economic activity to name a couple.

~~~
propogandist
>once in 1500 year floods happening every year.

Source?

~~~
neals
The sea, obviously

------
ilamont
_About 6 million Floridians will need to move inland by century’s end to avoid
inundation, according to Hauer, the demographer, in a 2016 paper. By then,
about 80% of the nearby Keys, the archipelago that includes the tourist mecca
of Key West, will be underwater. About 3.5 million people would be flooded in
South Florida’s Miami-Dade and Broward, the two counties with America’s
biggest exposed populations._

The article then shows a chart predicting population displacement caused by a
1.8-meter sea level rise.

Is that the accepted consensus, that the sea level is rising ~6 feet?

~~~
brohee
It's not rising 6 feet permanently, but it does during storm surges. Hence the
stilts. (which only partially solve the problem), your road network, water
distribution network, electrical network etc still suffers)

------
ForHackernews
Where are the insurance companies on all this? Shouldn't it become
increasingly more expensive to insure a low-lying property? Are they not
including climate risks in their modelling?

~~~
dghughes
A few weeks ago a 60 minutes segment compared flooding in The Netherlands vs
the USA.

In The Netherlands if an area floods homes are not built there and measures
are taken to control the water in those areas. In the US people get insurance
and build in the same place using the same style.

New Jersey hired a man from The Netherlands to tell them how to break out of
that process. This was due to the Sandy Hurricane that devastated the coast.

It boils down to if something keeps getting damaged stop doing the same thing
over and over expecting different results.

edit: [https://www.cbsnews.com/video/storm-water-management-
dutch-s...](https://www.cbsnews.com/video/storm-water-management-dutch-
solution-henk-ovink-hurricane-damage-60-minutes-2019-07-21/)

~~~
zaroth
Building codes have changed dramatically for hurricane prone and flood prone
properties in the US. Homes are built on stilts/pillars and with roofs
designed to withstand Cat5 winds. It’s night and day to how they were built
even 20-30 years ago.

------
tempsy
For some reason I just assumed that Miami Beach real estate was all luxury
condos, so I was shocked to see how affordable some condos could actually be
in 200-300k range. Not a luxury high rise, but a condo in the heart of Miami
Beach nonetheless.

------
mmaunder
A little late if hurricanes are your benchmark for climate change.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane)

What's sad is that most reporters know that climate change is measured in
decade long trends. Small yearly increases in sea level, gradual increases in
global temps and slow changes in atmospheric composition. But that doesn't get
clicks.

Associating climate change with outlying catastrophic events is as short
sighted as the environmental abuse that causes climate change.

~~~
qqqwerty
I am completely fine with it. We need to convince low information voters that
climate change is a serious issue, and the opposition likes to point at snow
storms and bring snowballs to congress as proof that climate change is a hoax.

~~~
mmaunder
Lie because the other side is lying. The bigger bolder lie wins. The truth is
considered weak medicine. This is how we got here. It's a disaster.

~~~
qqqwerty
Reminding folks that climate change will result in more frequent and extreme
weather events after/during extreme weather events is not lying. If folks mis-
interpret that to mean that the weather event in question was due to climate
change, then that is their own fault.

~~~
justsubmit
> Reminding folks that climate change will result in more frequent and extreme
> weather events after/during extreme weather events is not lying.

1\. That claim certainly isn't science, because it's neither reproducible nor
falsifiable.

2\. If it's not science, what is it?

~~~
qqqwerty
I don't care if it fits your narrow definition of science. If a planet
destroying meteor is hurtling towards earth, is that reproducible or
falsifiable? Should we do nothing until you personally are convinced that it
has been scientifically proven that it will destroy the planet.

If we convert our entire energy and transportation sectors to renewable energy
and climate change turns out to be a hoax, we still get cleaner cities,
cleaner air and a cleaner environment. That is a perfectly acceptable
consolation prize considering the potential risks.

~~~
justsubmit
> I don't care if it fits your narrow definition of science.

1\. That's not my definition of science--it's the definition of science.

2\. If your argument is not based on science, what is it based on?

> If a planet destroying meteor is hurtling towards earth, is that
> reproducible or falsifiable?

That scenario would be a matter of Newtonian physics, which any astronomer
could run the numbers for. Newtonian physics is indeed reproducible and
falsifiable, as demonstrated by the many objects launched into the solar
system, as well as the astronomical observations and predictions over the
centuries.

It's disingenuous to compare climate change alarmist claims based on
primitive, already-falsified computer models to simple, proven Newtonian
physics.

> Should we do nothing until you personally are convinced that it has been
> scientifically proven that it will destroy the planet.

Should we do what you demand when you demand it because you personally are
convinced that the planet is going to be destroyed? (N.B. Earth will certainly
be destroyed, either when impacted by a large celestial body or when the sun
expands. Earth would not be destroyed by a minor GATA increase.)

> If we convert our entire energy and transportation sectors to renewable
> energy and climate change turns out to be a hoax, we still get cleaner
> cities, cleaner air and a cleaner environment.

If it might be a hoax, shouldn't we consider why such a hoax would be
perpetrated? Might there be ulterior motives? What would be the implications
of those motives?

> That is a perfectly acceptable consolation prize considering the potential
> risks.

Your analysis presented here is completely one-sided. It does not mention any
drawbacks or side-effects. It is not impartial, it is not fair, and it is not
scientific. It is not a reasonable analysis to act upon, especially
considering the risks, i.e. decimating the economies and lives of billions of
people in poor and developing nations.

~~~
qqqwerty
Nice one, demand that I provide irrefutable proof for my claims, while
providing no evidence for your own. I should know better than to engage with
climate trolls, but I have some time to kill, so here we go.

> 1\. That's not my definition of science--it's the definition of science.

Definition of science: [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/science](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/science)

> That scenario would be a matter of Newtonian physics, which any astronomer
> could run the numbers for.

Please provide citations and evidence for these extraordinary claims. And no,
academic references don't count because they are obviously biased due to them
trying to advanced their own careers. I will only accept citations from 2-bit
think tanks funded by mega-corporations that have obvious financial interests
at stake.

> Should we do what you demand when you demand it because you personally are
> convinced that the planet is going to be destroyed?

Yes.

> i.e. decimating the economies and lives of billions of people in poor and
> developing nations.

Please use science to back up that claim. Until then, clean energy is the way
forward. Its already cheaper[1], healthier[2], and creates more jobs[3] than
fossil fuel.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-
and...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and-wind-
power-so-cheap-they-re-outgrowing-subsidies) [2]
[https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-
fu...](https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-
air-pollution) [3]
[https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm)

------
Synless
This actually started in Louisiana:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/louisiana-town-moves-to-
high...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/louisiana-town-moves-to-higher-
ground-amid-growing-climate-crisis.html)

------
chiefalchemist
> "By the end of the century, 13 million Americans will need to move just
> because of rising sea levels, at a cost of $1 million each"

13M feels low. Given the "of $1M each" then perhaps they means households. At
an average of 4 heads per, 52M individuals feels closer.

That said, what goes into a $1M move? Does beachfront property average out
that high?

Finally, is that $1M in current dollars, or adjusted for inflation estimates?

~~~
chiefalchemist
Lol. Down voted for simple and obvious math. God bless HN. Keep the hate
coming. I love it.

------
ryansmccoy
Why do people buy beach front houses when they know they'll be under water in
just a few years? Doesn't make sense to me.

~~~
Consultant32452
Barrack Obama just bought a multi-million dollar beachfront home. If any major
public figure has the most accurate info about pending sea level rise, even
classified level information that might not be released to the public, surely
it's him.

~~~
paul_f
This is an interesting fact related to the discussion, yet downvoted. Weird.

~~~
Consultant32452
I think the reason is that what I said isn't compatible with the most
catastrophized interpretation of climate change. Climate change is one of the
few topics alongside topics like guns and abortion where nuance is generally
not welcome. Look at the other responses. Does "he's rich so he's probably
just burning millions of dollars" feel like the most reasonable explanation of
his behavior? I don't think that fits what I know of Obama's temperament.
Apparently, some people disagree.

------
lulu59
Great news Mr Bloomberg, about time some of these bozos left the islands,
maybe we can finally enjoy the place without being flooded by tourists. We
used to have September to ourselves now not even that is quiet. The Florida
Keys are being purchased by conglomerates and wealthy people like never before
in history. Housing is blooming, and tourism is also. The exodus is happening,
but that is New York City. They are all moving down to Miami and the Keys. You
want to play alarmist? Then include Miami sir, because ALL OF FLORIDA will be
affected by weather changes and patterns, like LA, like the coastal Carolinas
in about 100 years or so. Until then I doubt Amazon would HQ in S FL if there
was fear of submersion. Until the great flood will happen, get the heck out of
our islands!

~~~
kls
LOL I absolutely know you are from the islands! What key are you on. This
September has been busy, if it had not been for Doreen threatening us, I don't
thing it would have slowed down at all. All my favorite restaurants closed
shop for the month though.

------
lulu59
About time New Yorkers stopped their exodus to come and bug us in the keys.

------
mrfusion
Disclaimer. I have unwavering faith in climate change.

But I do wonder why are banks writing mortgages on houses in these kind of
areas? Shouldn’t they be more worried about losing their investment over 30
years?

~~~
hyperbovine
You mean the same banks who were underwriting NINA mortgages as fast as they
could print them out back in 05-07? (That's "No Income, No Asset", for those
of you who do not recall.)

------
readhn
the problem is that they keep building using outdated technologies!!!!

why do they keep building these "paper" houses? average american house is too
poorly constructed to handle these things. honestly its just a few sticks and
plywood in between most of the time! what hurricane??? Government should force
contractors to build using ICF technology, hurricane proof houses on high
stilts in coastal areas and problem solved!!!

this is a crucial comment: "She dreams of resettling in Key West or Homestead,
a safer spot on the Florida mainland.

“I’d like to take the money and run,” Rittel said. “But I’ll have to buy
something on stilts. I’m not buying anything on the ground down here ever ever
again.”"

------
tito
The sea is rising more slowly today than any day in the foreseeable future.

Sea level rise is accelerating. This angle may spark some smart thoughts here.

------
wutwutwut77
"The Great Climate Exodus Is Starting In The Texas Gulf"

[https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/galveston-
hur...](https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/galveston-hurricane-
texas.jpg)

1891 July 6th 80mph from the south 1900 Sept 8th 145mph the great galveston
hurricane kills 8,000 people with a 15ft storm surge even though it was low
tide while hitting it traveled 6 to 10 miles inland from the ESE .The pressure
at landfall was 27.55inches with winds of 110mph.Half of Galveston destroyed
with 2,600 buildings destroyed & 10,000 people left homeless would have been
much worse if not moving so quickly. It is said that a one inch steel hull of
an ocean going freighter was pierced through with a piece of lumber.According
to the hurricane research division winds were of Category 4 strength at
landfall. Newspaper headline | max wind map | Monument | surge animation |
Interview with Julie Lake summer of the storm 1909 july 21st a 10 ft strom
surge with 110mph winds from the ESE 41 killed in texas. 1915 AUG 17th a cat 3
120mph kills 275 ,12' tides flooded Galveston 5' to 6' in the Business
District. Winds at Galveston were 97 mph gusts to 130mph putting this in the
cat 3/4 range.Press 940 mb,.Seawall prevented a repeat of the 1900
disaster.Causes 50 million in damage max wind field 1932 Aug 14th 145mph winds
from the SE direct hit 1934 july 27th, a storm surge of 5.9ft with a cat
1,80mph that passes just east while moving south 1942 Aug 21st 80mph from the
ESE 1943 July 27th a storm surge of 4 ft ,nineteen killed,86mph winds. 1945
Aug 27th 140mph from the south just west of here 1947 August 24th 80mph from
the S.E 1949 oct 4th 130mph from the south 1957 June 27th 110mph(hurdat)
Hurricane Audrey well east from the south. Newspaper article 1959 July 25th
hurricane Debra hit with 85mph winds bar 29.07 14.42 inches of rain. NHC
Wallet 1983 hurricane Alicia on aug 18th causes 2 bill damage as a cat 2/3
with 71 to 98mph winds in Galveston moving at a forward speed of 8mph. 21
killed 1.2 billion dollars in damage,a 10 to 12 ft storm surge at normal high
tide.90% of Dwellings on Jamaica bch destroyed.Many highrise glass buildings
sustained heavy damage. Pressure in Galveston was measured at 989mb 29.20
inches at 2:00AM. From NOAA GPST2 - GALVESTON PLEASURE PIER (PORTS) - TX 29.29
max gust 020/076kts Damage photo | #2 | max wind field | Dr Ted Fujita wind
map | Newspaper headline | Newspaper headline #2 1989 Oct 15th Jerry 3 dead
over 8 million in damage ,85mph winds.The latest a hurricane ever hit the
upper Texas coast NHC Wallet 2001 June 5th T.S Allison hits with 60mph winds
dumping extremely heavy rain especially inland in the Houston area. Over a 120
hr period houston recorded 36.99 inches of rain.Only 3 tropical systems have
produced more rain in this area. T.S Amelia 46.00",T.S Claudette 45.00",unamed
1921 40.00". 41 deaths related to flooding & 5 billion in damage. Allison was
finally retired in July of 2002 as the only T-storm to be retired. NHC Report
2008 Hurricane Ike hits Galveston on Sept 13th with 110mph winds causing
extensive damage in entire area by 15 ft storm surge.From NOAA GALVESTON G
GPST2 11.19 ft storm surge MAJOR 29.29 GALVESTON STATE PLEASURE PIER.A high
gust for the Houston area was 92mph at Hobby airport.Gust at pleasure pier
86mph.Deaths reported in Texas at 22 with several missing. Hurricane Warning
Show | Before & after aerial shot | Bolivar Peninsula just north | Ike model
history | SAR Helicopter refueling over Galveston | Newspaper headline |
Newspaper headline 2 days later | Neil Frank describing landfall video | Ike
aftermath story video | surge animation | USGS surge info | Radar animation |
NHC Final report 2017 Aug 29th tropical storm Harvey just offshore while
moving north by 32 miles with 50mph winds. Galveston Scholes Field (KGLS)
22.87 inches of rain gust's to 59mph. Galveston Pier 2.7ft water inundation.
Inland counties report upwards of 60inches of rain in some locations most
rainfall ever for tropical system in U.S. NHC Final report

------
isomorphic
The article is paywalled.

outline.com and archive.org do not seem to work; Google's cache returns 404.
Are there any other such sites that work?

~~~
pwg
It is only paywalled if you let your browser run the javascript served from
the site. Blocking all the JS with NoScript results in being able to read the
article with no paywall.

~~~
siberianbear
In Chrome, you can also do per-site Javascript blocking. Blocking Javascript
from [*.]bloomberg.com in preferences will let you read Bloomberg without
problems.

------
PKop
A counter-argument to climate alarmist statistics, shows use of selective
presentation of statistics to portray specific conclusion on climate change:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU)

~~~
devoply
Billions of birds dead, insect apocalypse, amphibian populations decimated,
etc... But yeah people are just being alarmist, it's the end of the world and
I feel fine.

~~~
perl4ever
The thing is just that people continually present opinions that require
numbers in proper context to validate, but seemingly reject the concept that
numbers in context are socially appropriate, at all.

~~~
dwaltrip
We have enough context for the numbers.

Taken in context, the numbers paint a very expensive picture economically
(trillions and trillions of dollars), as well as a grave tale of unnecessary
suffering for many tens of millions of people, if not more.

~~~
perl4ever
Suffering _is_ necessary; I don't subscribe to the belief that it's somehow
_due_ as the wages of original sin, but to suffer and die is the fate of every
human being. Not tens of millions, but all of the billions that have ever
existed; not one has ever escaped it.

And money is an abstraction. You could eliminate trillions and trillions just
by hacking the systems that keep track of who has how much.

What I'm trying to say is not that the consequences of climate change aren't
grave, but that without mentioning specific numbers and their relationship to
other numbers that describe reality, and researching and choosing those in
good faith, you are saying nothing.

~~~
dwaltrip
Not all suffering is necessary. Much potential suffering that climate change
may cause is understood and avoidable, if we take action.

If you want actual numbers and the relevant context, perhaps you could read
the IPCC report.

