I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Because of a four-letter word more important than Love: Home. It's their home. Not to mention, frankly, America wouldn't be America without New Orleans. Too much of our national history, culture, even society is tied up in that geographically fragile place.
Quote from: brad2971 on August 29, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Because of a four-letter word more important than Love: Home. It's their home. Not to mention, frankly, America wouldn't be America without New Orleans. Too much of our national history, culture, even society is tied up in that geographically fragile place.
I think the United States might
just be able to survive without a city that consistently ranks very close to the bottom within the country in most major indicators of quality of life.
I guess I feel differently than the residents of NOLA, because while I love home in Wisconsin, I would have no problem moving somewhere else, and I likely will do so within the next decade (the Omaha, Kansas City, Denver, and Oklahoma City areas are the places I have in mind, but who knows).
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
As long as there is money to be made there, New Orleans will be there. That's been the case for centuries: Storms do their damage and money always brings people back.
Why do people still live in other below sea-level places like Amsterdam? Because it's economically viable to do so. The importance as a trade/port facility will always incentivize residents to overcome the physiographic obstacles to live in a primo geographic location like the outlet of the largest river system in North America.
A hundred years from now, New Orleans is going to be a goddamn island, constantly adjusting itself to a rising ocean and a subsiding land, but it's going to still exist. And that is because it will never not be important to have a population center near the mouth of the Mississippi River.
There's an argument to be made to let Morgan City become the next New Orleans since that's where the Mississippi has wanted to shift its primary outlet to the Gulf of Mexico for about a hundred years, but we can maintain New Orleans with minimal effort for at least another 2 centuries. If the Dutch can do what they did for so long with just windmills, then surely 'mur-cah can spot NOLA another two centuries.
The ease of access for a major port and inland access on the Mississippi River will keep a city where it is for a long time to come. Galveston and South Florida have faced similar effects from Hurricanes in the past, so this is not exclusively a New Orleans-only phenomenon.
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:55:03 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season?
I guess I feel differently than the residents of NOLA, because while I love home in Wisconsin, I would have no problem moving somewhere else, and I likely will do so within the next decade (the Omaha, Kansas City, Denver, and Oklahoma City areas are the places I have in mind, but who knows).
I mean, in Omaha, Kansas City, or especially Oklahoma City, the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally blown away from them during the next tornado.
You just kind of learn to ignore the obvious threat, make dark humor jokes about it, and go about your daily life.
I think the more shocking thing is people still living in Grand Isle. Or maybe that Grand Isle still exists..
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
There's always some danger, isn't there. I live at Lake Tahoe, and demand for housing and the price thereof have been going through the roof, really since the end of the Great Recession and particularly here in the remote-work era.
I'm not under any evacuation warning or order this evening but that's a possibility in the next few days, and in any case wildfire is an ever-increasing concern from about the middle of June through October. My homeowners insurance comes through the HOA and that price has been going up fairly steeply the last few years; I do wonder if we're going to get to a point where it's not available at all.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
Earthquakes can happen in the Midwest, too. The New Madrid is an Active Fault Line
Quote from: ilpt4u on August 30, 2021, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
Earthquakes can happen in the Midwest, too. The New Madrid is an Active Fault Line
Memphis has put some effort into retrofitting infrastructure over the last 10-15 years.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
Anyone who has ever built a sandcastle knows: Land that is below sea level near the ocean will eventually be underwater. In Sacramento County, we have lost whole islands (all below or near sea level)-- Not due to sea level rise, but due to sand shifts. Most of the levees in the Sacramento area held in the "9 days in February" back in 1985, but even then their were two towns that were inundated. My hunch is that most of the levees wouldn't have made it 11 days. Fortunately, the rain stopped. At the beginning of those 9 days, let me remind everybody, we were in our fourth year of drought.
In California, even in the
relatively seismically stable Central Valley, everything is built to earthquake codes. I'm not ideologically in sync with most of California politics, but not everything that we do here is completely stupid! Seattle and Portland are late to the game, but they at least are
in the game now. That doesn't help old structures or old freeways that haven't gotten the retrofit yet, but they are at least aware of the potential problem and are likely going to do what it takes. However, to a certain extent, it won't matter when the official pronouncement from the State Emergency Management (I forget if it was Oregon or Washington) is "Our working assumption is that everything west of I-5 will be toast." after a tsunami.
Either the Gods or the Devil will take New Orleans. It is our choice whether we want to aid in relocating a quarter million people and the location of the commerce that draws them there or to mourn their loss and abandon that commerce. People have the choice: watch it sink beneath the waves from a steamboat while crying or try to swim once they are waist deep in it while crying for help. I pick the first one!
Quote from: kenarmy on August 29, 2021, 11:59:20 PM
I think the more shocking thing is people still living in Grand Isle. Or maybe that Grand Isle still exists..
A lot of oil which is drilled out from under the Gulf of Mexico is brought ashore in that area. So Grand Isle and Port Fourchon will continue to be maintained as inhabited settlements until the oil runs out or until there is no longer demand for it.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
I've tried to figure this out myself. Kentucky and Tennessee seem to be safe. (I'm including blizzards in the list of natural disasters, which you didn't mention.)
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 06:58:05 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
I've tried to figure this out myself. Kentucky and Tennessee seem to be safe. (I'm including blizzards in the list of natural disasters, which you didn't mention.)
A blizzard is not a natural disaster, it's just a pain in the ass. In a blizzard most of the deaths are people dying of heart attacks removing the snow.
Quote from: SectorZ on August 30, 2021, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 06:58:05 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
I've tried to figure this out myself. Kentucky and Tennessee seem to be safe. (I'm including blizzards in the list of natural disasters, which you didn't mention.)
A blizzard is not a natural disaster, it's just a pain in the ass. In a blizzard most of the deaths are people dying of heart attacks removing the snow.
Explain how a blizzard isn't a natural disaster.
I'm guessing natural disaster here refers to something that inflicts a lot of damage, something that would cost money to fix. An earthquake, a flood, a fire, a hurricane or tornado. It's a natural phenomenon that destroys and leaves a mess to clean up. Blizzards typically don't do that. A blizzard can cause problems and difficulties, but the mess is usually not that bad when all is said and done. Ice storms on the other hand...
A typical blizzard isn't as bad as the others. However, considering that the other natural disasters mentioned only hit once every several years at most, there are some really bad blizzards once every several years.
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
Don't parts of KY and TN get ice storms? They can cause a lot of damage, like bringing down power lines. Sure, buildings aren't flattened in ice storms. But lives are affected.
Plus floods, including one recent one.
Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a few small branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).
And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.
Regarding New Orleans, some people just plain don't have a practical way to leave, especially homeless people and extremely poor people. There were various pictures on the news of people who were still living in tents under I-10 or sleeping in the streets even this weekend because they had nowhere else to go and the whole COVID problem had them even more reluctant than usual to go to any sort of shelters or other such places.
My brother moved to New Orleans about two years ago. He just plain likes it there. I had thought he'd be more likely to move to Colorado because he likes outdoor recreation, but he says he has come to hate cold weather more and more as the years have gone by. I hope he still has a home to return to later this week.
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
It seems like "tornado alley" is moving a bit southeast lately. Like I've seen more tornado news from states like Tennessee and Alabama than tornadoes in the Great Lakes states.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 30, 2021, 09:08:37 AM
Regarding New Orleans, some people just plain don't have a practical way to leave, especially homeless people and extremely poor people. There were various pictures on the news of people who were still living in tents under I-10 or sleeping in the streets even this weekend because they had nowhere else to go and the whole COVID problem had them even more reluctant than usual to go to any sort of shelters or other such places.
My brother moved to New Orleans about two years ago. He just plain likes it there. I had thought he'd be more likely to move to Colorado because he likes outdoor recreation, but he says he has come to hate cold weather more and more as the years have gone by. I hope he still has a home to return to later this week.
Pretty much this. A lot of people didn't leave after Katrina because they simply couldn't afford to, and they still can't. They have nowhere else to go.
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 09:00:19 AM
Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).
And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.
Funny, since moving back out west from Orlando I often tell people they are lucky they don't have to deal with hurricanes. As you said, wild fires generally affect extremely rural areas and generally don't burn the same area twice for a significant period of time. The vast majority of Earthquakes are harmless and far from the "big one" so many fear. All tropical depressions, storms and hurricanes on the other hand are far more frequent. Any of them can deadly effects (especially in coastal areas) and have potential to create substantial property damage. I don't miss as someone who plans emergency response having to watch every single tropical wave during hurricane season.
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.
Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.
It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.
Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.
It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.
Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.
Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.
It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.
Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.
Inland areas of New England, yes. Vermont in particular considering the other five New England states have coastal areas that can get hurricanes.
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 09:52:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.
Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.
It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.
Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.
Inland areas of New England, yes. Vermont in particular considering the other five New England states have coastal areas that can get hurricanes.
Even then, I don't think the northeast get that many hurricanes in the first place, at least compared to the frequency in the southeast. I think the last hurricane to hit the northeast before Henri last week was Sandy.
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 09:00:19 AM
Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).
And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.
One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape. With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path). With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known. There's no time to drive elsewhere. There's no known path where the tornado will hit. All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 09:58:03 AM
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 09:52:30 AM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:50:40 AM
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 09:44:37 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
I think basically the entire Rust Belt is "safer" than Kentucky or Tennessee, considering those two states are more likely to get floods, ice storms, and tornadoes.
Here in upstate NY, people generally consider the snow as a trade-off for basically any other form of dangerous/severe weather. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no wildfires; and extreme heat, extreme cold, flooding, and significant ice are all very rare.
It's similar in Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania.
Would New England Join too as "safer" locations.
Inland areas of New England, yes. Vermont in particular considering the other five New England states have coastal areas that can get hurricanes.
Even then, I don't think the northeast get that many hurricanes in the first place, at least compared to the frequency in the southeast. I think the last hurricane to hit the northeast before Henri last week was Sandy.
And what hurricanes do reach New England are usually relatively weak. New England gets more of what a significant portion of the country gets - residual effects from a hurricane, usually in the form of heavy rains. In that respect, Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Vermont - even many portions of Canada - are potentially in the line of a former hurricane.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2021, 10:13:08 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 09:00:19 AM
Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).
And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.
One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape. With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path). With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known. There's no time to drive elsewhere. There's no known path where the tornado will hit. All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.
We're at the point now where you can pinpoint a window of a few hours where tornadoes are most likely to occur. Those windows are known well in advance, with enough time to change your plans to avoid being out during that window and to be somewhere sheltered. Also, the damage path of a tornado is relatively small compared to the broad areas of damage a hurricane inflicts. I'm choosing the tornado risk over the hurricane risk 11 out of 10 times.
It has historical values and full of culture despite its social and weather issues.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 09:11:04 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree that Kentucky and Tennessee (or at least parts of the two states) are safe.
It seems like "tornado alley" is moving a bit southeast lately. Like I've seen more tornado news from states like Tennessee and Alabama than tornadoes in the Great Lakes states.
I think Tornado Alley shifts places in cycles. Gauging by Wikipedia's page on deadly tornado outbreaks, during the 2010s and 2020s so far, there've been a lot of tornadoes in the southeast, but if you look at the 2000s, most of the big outbreaks happened in the Midwest. And the south is no stranger to tornadoes, as Vicksburg, Jackson MS, Natchez, Atlanta, and Birmingham have all gotten hit from notable tornadoes before the 1960s.
Even this year you can tell there are cycles. Lots of supercells this year have erupted in the Texas panhandle and Wisconsin, and those areas, even though they are in Tornado Alley, don't get three biggish outbreaks per year usually, like they have this year.
In hopes of steering this back to the actual topic...
Pride is a funny thing. Not everyone might want to move just because their area is declining. Sometimes, seeing others leave might only increase their determination to stay.
Generally, this applies more to rural areas, but it could probably be applied to New Orleans as well.
Thank you for removing the posts without locking the thread.
I'm not sure I'd consider most blizzards to be in line with disasters like hurricanes and wildfires. Most of them just make it a little difficult to drive while they're around and then they're gone, the plows clear the road, and life continues as if nothing happened. The main exception I can think of is that time 7 feet of snow was dumped south of Buffalo.
Ice storms are a bigger deal. The 1991 Ice Storm in Rochester left people without power for two weeks, and driving was impossible in some areas for a while due to fallen tree limbs (if not full trees). A very high percentage of trees in the area were killed or damaged in that storm.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 30, 2021, 01:38:08 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on August 29, 2021, 11:59:20 PM
I think the more shocking thing is people still living in Grand Isle. Or maybe that Grand Isle still exists..
A lot of oil which is drilled out from under the Gulf of Mexico is brought ashore in that area. So Grand Isle and Port Fourchon will continue to be maintained as inhabited settlements until the oil runs out or until there is no longer demand for it.
Yes, but it's still shocking considering it's been completely underwater several times and gets affected by a tropical storm or hurricane every year (atp). I'd be terrified if my only way out was a 2 lane bridge that always gets flooded.
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 30, 2021, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2021, 10:13:08 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 09:00:19 AM
Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).
And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.
One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape. With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path). With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known. There's no time to drive elsewhere. There's no known path where the tornado will hit. All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.
We're at the point now where you can pinpoint a window of a few hours where tornadoes are most likely to occur. Those windows are known well in advance, with enough time to change your plans to avoid being out during that window and to be somewhere sheltered. Also, the damage path of a tornado is relatively small compared to the broad areas of damage a hurricane inflicts. I'm choosing the tornado risk over the hurricane risk 11 out of 10 times.
Whenever coastal people talk about tornadoes I always think back to the time in October 2017 that a tornado touched down less than 5 miles from my house, yet it was blue sky and minimal wind for me the whole time.
While you can't predict for 100% certain when and where a tornado will touch down, meteorologists can predict the thunderstorms that create tornadoes several days in advance.
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:27:46 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on August 30, 2021, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2021, 10:13:08 AM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 09:00:19 AM
Some false equivalencies here. Tornadoes have a very narrow path of destruction, meaning that it's highly unlikely that your property will be significantly damaged by one, beyond a small few branches falling off a tree. I think the general perception of tornadoes from people who live outside Tornado Alley is much more dangerous than they really are. Wildfires can only start in largely rural areas, so only the worst ones in the worst areas impact a large number of people. Notable earthquakes are also much rarer than notable hurricanes (in the US anyways).
And blizzards/ice storms are not natural disasters. I would put them in the same category as severe thunderstorms, small flash floods, extreme heat, and extreme cold.
One of the biggest hazards of tornados is that you don't really know when and where they'll hit, and the lead time to escape. With hurricanes, at least there's a few days where its general path is known, and people can escape from there (although unfortunately a change in that path can put some people into harm's way, and leave others in its new path). With a tornado, the best forecasters can do is issue a tornado watch over a very large area, and a warning in a more specific area only when conditions become known. There's no time to drive elsewhere. There's no known path where the tornado will hit. All someone can do is hunker down in a shelter or most secure place in their house.
We're at the point now where you can pinpoint a window of a few hours where tornadoes are most likely to occur. Those windows are known well in advance, with enough time to change your plans to avoid being out during that window and to be somewhere sheltered. Also, the damage path of a tornado is relatively small compared to the broad areas of damage a hurricane inflicts. I'm choosing the tornado risk over the hurricane risk 11 out of 10 times.
Whenever coastal people talk about tornadoes I always think back to the time in October 2017 that a tornado touched down less than 5 miles from my house, yet it was blue sky and minimal wind for me the whole time.
While you can't predict for 100% certain when and where a tornado will touch down, meteorologists can predict the thunderstorms that create tornadoes several days in advance.
Not with much accuracy. In my area, on Saturday they were predicting thunderstorms starting about noon Sunday. By Sunday morning, the forecast had changed to 4:00. No storms until after 6:00.
And I don't know how many times forecasts for thunderstorms have simply gone away.
It would be a shame if such a unique city got abandoned.
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Or at least within living memory. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake sure did a number on the city and much of the state of California. Suffice to say modern infrastructure improvements have abated the likelihood of a similar outcome with a quake of the same size.
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.
Quote from: webny99 on August 30, 2021, 12:05:11 PM
In hopes of steering this back to the actual topic...
Pride is a funny thing. Not everyone might want to move just because their area is declining. Sometimes, seeing others leave might only increase their determination to stay.
Generally, this applies more to rural areas, but it could probably be applied to New Orleans as well.
I might say the same thing for people who are born in California like myself. Urban areas do the same thing too.
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:27:46 PM
While you can't predict for 100% certain when and where a tornado will touch down, meteorologists can predict the thunderstorms that create tornadoes several days in advance.
On this note...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/hurricane-ida-end-of-hurricane-preparedness/619926/
As the author points out, effectively evacuating the city of New Orleans requires an order to be given with 72 hours advance notice before everyone has to be out.
With Ida, they didn't have 72 hours. The storm formed and intensified too quickly for that.
This basic logistical problem means that proper prep for future storms requires either more transportation infrastructure so everyone can get out faster, or places for at least some of the population to safely hunker down locally.
This was supposed to be part of the impetus for I-49 south.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 30, 2021, 09:14:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.
Scientist are pretty certain that it happened in 1700. There was a tsunami in Japan with no ground shaking in Asia or the Eastern Pacific. They have written records of it. The indigenous people of Cascadia have an oral history of what seems to be the same event. There is plenty of geologic evidence that point to the same conclusion (and records of past occurrences also).
What is uncertain is whether the events are periodic or random and when the next major event will take place and how big it will be. 6-magnitude events cause inconvenience. 7s cause disruption, 8s cause devastation, 9s change the map. The energy for a 9.5 will be there. The question is whether it will be released in 4-magnitude events every day for years and years or all in one go. Seismologists haven't even really attempted theories that try to predict which will happen very far in advance. They can predict huge events with about 20-second lead time -- Maybe enough time to get out of the shower, but not enough time to get out of Dodge.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 29, 2021, 11:16:17 PM
Why do people still live in other below sea-level places like Amsterdam? Because it's economically viable to do so. The importance as a trade/port facility will always incentivize residents to overcome the physiographic obstacles to live in a primo geographic location like the outlet of the largest river system in North America.
A hundred years from now, New Orleans is going to be a goddamn island, constantly adjusting itself to a rising ocean and a subsiding land, but it's going to still exist. And that is because it will never not be important to have a population center near the mouth of the Mississippi River.
There's an argument to be made to let Morgan City become the next New Orleans since that's where the Mississippi has wanted to shift its primary outlet to the Gulf of Mexico for about a hundred years, but we can maintain New Orleans with minimal effort for at least another 2 centuries. If the Dutch can do what they did for so long with just windmills, then surely 'mur-cah can spot NOLA another two centuries.
True too and basically any city within a hurricane zone from Houston to Boston will have to face the same thing as New Orleans is facing due to the climate area they are in. In this case its the CFA Koppen Climate area Humid Subtropical climate is hurricane country that hits Houston to Boston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_subtropical_climate
https://web.archive.org/web/20181224025419/https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/climate_max
Maybe the simplest answer is this: Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.
Quote from: kphoger on August 31, 2021, 02:57:34 PM
Maybe the simplest answer is this: Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.
Before a few days ago, the highly populated areas (e.g. not Grand Isle) had only been hit with one major storm in living memory: Katrina. The state of Louisiana lost population from 2000 to 2010. Now that there have been two 16 years apart, there are probably going to be even more leaving the area, since we know that Katrina wasn't a one-time event.
I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".
Chris
Because port cities tend to be somewhere around sea level.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 31, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".
Chris
My area varies between 25 and 80 feet above sea level. We don't get flooding from the ocean often. This area (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6849913,-71.140517,3a,75y,325.04h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sifx5GPufAvCdSV7cTvN4ew!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Difx5GPufAvCdSV7cTvN4ew%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D11.162439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) (Google Maps link) flooded in both 2005 and 2006, but that would have happened in the lower-lying regions regardless of elevation. (Proximity to the ocean mattered as in New England vs. Midwest, but not 1 mile vs. 20 miles; elevation only did in relative terms, not absolute.)
In addition, if you're actually on the coast, temperatures are milder than inland.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2021, 03:00:56 PM
The state of Louisiana lost population from 2000 to 2010.
Not according to Census data...
2000 pop: 4,468,976
2010 pop: 4,533,372
Growth rate: +1.4%
Quote from: kphoger on August 31, 2021, 03:08:54 PM
Because port cities tend to be somewhere around sea level.
Quote from: 1 on August 31, 2021, 03:14:16 PM
My area varies between 25 and 80 feet above sea level. We don't get flooding from the ocean often. This area (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6849913,-71.140517,3a,75y,325.04h,89.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sifx5GPufAvCdSV7cTvN4ew!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Difx5GPufAvCdSV7cTvN4ew%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D11.162439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) (Google Maps link) flooded in both 2005 and 2006, but that would have happened in the lower-lying regions regardless of elevation. (Proximity to the ocean mattered as in New England vs. Midwest, but not 1 mile vs. 20 miles; elevation only did in relative terms, not absolute.)
In addition, if you're actually on the coast, temperatures are milder than inland.
Completely understood on both points, but basically 230' is the amount the sea levels will rise if all surface ice melts, which is not likely in any of our lifetimes (or likely our kids' or kids' kids' lifetimes), but the thought still stands. Any place that's coastal and near sea level is going to be at a high risk for destructive weather events, more so than those who live inland and/or higher in elevation. Moore, Oklahoma, despite getting whacked by multiple F5 tornadoes in its history still strikes me as a much safer space to build a home than Miami.
Chris
Quote from: kphoger on August 31, 2021, 02:57:34 PM
Maybe the simplest answer is this: Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.
Furthermore, why are people still choosing to move to Houston in large numbers? Houston has just as many reasons to leave as New Orleans has regarding the weather.
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 31, 2021, 03:32:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 31, 2021, 02:57:34 PM
Maybe the simplest answer is this: Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.
Furthermore, why are people still choosing to move to Houston in large numbers? Houston has just as many reasons to leave as New Orleans has regarding the weather.
And Houston lacks the food and Mardi Gras.
Also Tulane is there and I know many Tulane students.
Why do people want live in Miami? Why do people want to live Chicago?
You have various reasons that people choose a specific city to live in.
Some because of jobs take them there. Others cause of health and weather.
Then here in the I-4 corridor you have people who really want tropical over winter weather now that development has blossomed and plenty of retail and restaurants to use as a stepping stone while hunting for a better job. Before you had to have a plan as there were no jobs to come to unless it was white collar, blue collar with trades, and doctors or lawyers. Now our state has boomed and has a chance for all to start a life here without waiting for retirement to move here like in the 70's.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 31, 2021, 05:26:36 PM
Also Tulane is there and I know many Tulane students.
Tulane students won't be back on campus until mid-October. https://tulane.edu/university-update-083021
I say even if everyone decided to not live in New Orleans anymore for fear of the next flood, the U.S. would still need a garrison there. It is too important a port to be left un-manned.
Why do people still live in Los Angeles knowing the next earthquake could be the one to kill everyone?
I say it's worth the perfect weather. I know the big one is coming, let me enjoy my year-round 75 degree days.
Why does everyone live in New York City, with the highest prices charged in the entire nation?
(Yeah, it's not a weather-related reason, but it's had its share of weather problems, namely blizzards in the winter and severe storms in the summer, like Superstorm Sandy back in 2012, although the threat of a hurricane is pretty rare.)
Basically, where you choose to live is kind of a "pick your poison" deal.
Does the original city of New Orleans flood too or just the expanded areas? Like my town has flooding issues, but the meaning of Terre Haute in French is "High Ground" and the downtown area (original town) does not flood at all.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 31, 2021, 05:45:41 PM
Why do people still live in Los Angeles knowing the next earthquake could be the one to kill everyone?
I say it's worth the perfect weather. I know the big one is coming, let me enjoy my year-round 75 degree days.
Or Sacramento and San Francisco they fit the LA criteria too for quakes and wildfires note I used to live in both Sacramento and San Francisco. Or Hawaii for volcanoes, Typhoons and quakes.
Quote from: michravera on August 31, 2021, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 30, 2021, 09:14:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.
Scientist are pretty certain that it happened in 1700. There was a tsunami in Japan with no ground shaking in Asia or the Eastern Pacific. They have written records of it. The indigenous people of Cascadia have an oral history of what seems to be the same event. There is plenty of geologic evidence that point to the same conclusion (and records of past occurrences also).
What is uncertain is whether the events are periodic or random and when the next major event will take place and how big it will be. 6-magnitude events cause inconvenience. 7s cause disruption, 8s cause devastation, 9s change the map. The energy for a 9.5 will be there. The question is whether it will be released in 4-magnitude events every day for years and years or all in one go. Seismologists haven't even really attempted theories that try to predict which will happen very far in advance. They can predict huge events with about 20-second lead time -- Maybe enough time to get out of the shower, but not enough time to get out of Dodge.
Early warning systems are not predictions.
Also, Seattleites are more worried about a shallow and less powerful earthquake on a local fault comparable to the 2001 Nisqually quake. One of those on the Seattle Fault could cause quite a bit of damage and disruption without being a major disaster that triggers a national response.
Quote from: US 41 on August 31, 2021, 08:20:08 PM
Does the original city of New Orleans flood too or just the expanded areas? Like my town has flooding issues, but the meaning of Terre Haute in French is "High Ground" and the downtown area (original town) does not flood at all.
The areas that flood are mostly the expanded areas on the Eastbank. The Quarter and Garden District rarely flood. The Westbank (Algiers), despite being closer to the Gulf, also does not tend to flood either. Those are the older areas of town, built on the small bits of actual high ground in the area.
Almost all of my family is from New Orleans and many of them still live there, as do a number of my friends from back home. I moved back briefly in 2014 for a year just for the hell of it, and I can tell you... I honestly dont know why people still live there, and not just because of the weather.
Yes,it's home for a lot of people and there is a connection to one's home (though I have never had a problem leaving lol), and its easy to just settle in and get comfortable somewhere...you already know the layout, and the culture, and have roots there. Moving to another city or state can be stressful or scary for some people. And New Orleans has a specific pride and mindset that goes with it that keeps lot of people there. My mother and her parents and siblings moved from NOLA to Kentwood in the late 60s, and yet my grandmother never stopped wanting to go back for any reason. So many of my cousins ended up back there, and my uncles and aunts go down at least once a month.
I used to think it was the greatest place I had ever been... then when I moved back in 2014, I wondered "why do people live here?"
It's dirty...especailly the quarter and anywhere inside the city proper. Run down old houses, old dilapidated streets, giant rats, swamp gas. You cannot bury people underground because they'll float back up. All the buildings downtown are either hotels or mostly empty...it's been slowly dying for years. The quarter is beautiful and historic and filled with culture...and also horse manure and urine and trash and vomit.
The crime is insane. Its everywhere. I lived in the quarter and every day there was a story about someone being mugged or stabbed or attacked...one of my managers at work was robbed in our parking garage. The only jobs are oil, and tourism/hospitality. City government is so corrupt. The police are more so.
I have never felt as unsafe and always on guard as I did from June 2014-July 2015 when I lived there again. It was worse than when I was younger and used to live there half time and spent a lot of time there...things had changed. There were more homeless...and they were aggressive. Gentrification was attempting to take hold but all it did was provide a target for criminals. I walked around with a knife in my pocket at all times...and was always on edge.
I don't get how people do that every day for years. And so many of the people I knew just shrugged that stuff off like "oh theres crime everywhere...houston is dangerous too..." they would tell me im insane for preferring Houston to New Orleans...well in Houston ive never felt unsafe, its a much bigger city, theres a lot more diversity, museums, and other jobs. And I dont feel like im going to get jumped walking around my neighborhood or downtown.
To me, its just like those dying cities in the Rustbelt...the glory days are long gone but so many people are so entrenched and settled that they'll never leave.
Quote from: CoreySamson on August 31, 2021, 03:32:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 31, 2021, 02:57:34 PM
Maybe the simplest answer is this: Because not everyone thinks the risk of a big flood is a good enough reason to leave.
Furthermore, why are people still choosing to move to Houston in large numbers? Houston has just as many reasons to leave as New Orleans has regarding the weather.
Being from New Orleans and having moved to Houston, I can tell you--- the weather here is similar but we generally get fewer hurricanes...fewer really bad ones.
Aside from that, Houston has a lot more to do..museums, a much more diverse economy with a good variety of jobs and industries whereas New Orleans has oil and tourism. Its much more culturally diverse and very affordable, and the outlook for the future is positive; New Orleans has been dying for a long time. The good old days are long gone...
Oh and Houston isn't nearly as ridiculously dangerous as New Orleans... Crime in New Orleans is just unbelievable
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2021, 08:48:06 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Or at least within living memory. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake sure did a number on the city and much of the state of California. Suffice to say modern infrastructure improvements have abated the likelihood of a similar outcome with a quake of the same size.
And for those who think we as a nation are living under a unique period of governmental incompetence, it was well documented during that 1906 earthquake and fire that SF mayor Eugene Schmitz and US Army General Frederick Funston were continually at each others throats.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 31, 2021, 05:43:31 PM
I say even if everyone decided to not live in New Orleans anymore for fear of the next flood, the U.S. would still need a garrison there. It is too important a port to be left un-manned.
And yet New Orleans gets along just fine with having a Joint Reserve base in lieu of having active duty posts in the city. The nearest US Army active duty post from NOLA is 220 miles away at Fort Polk, LA. And THAT base is mainly known as a active/reserve training post with only one active brigade stationed there. That base also lost power during Hurricane Laura last year. It took up to two weeks to fully restore the fort's power.
Quote from: Jim on August 31, 2021, 05:42:57 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 31, 2021, 05:26:36 PM
Also Tulane is there and I know many Tulane students.
Tulane students won't be back on campus until mid-October. https://tulane.edu/university-update-083021
Wow that's half the semester gone.
Quote from: Bruce on August 31, 2021, 09:42:39 PM
Quote from: michravera on August 31, 2021, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 30, 2021, 09:14:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 30, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: bing101 on August 30, 2021, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on August 29, 2021, 11:00:08 PM
Seattle and Portland could realistically be wiped off the map by a megaquake in the next 50-200 years, but no one questions why people still live there and waves of people can't wait to relocate there.
San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, Inland Empire and Sacramento could join too for the next San Andreas Mega Quake.
But in Portland and Seattle it for Cascadia fault reasons.
But this "megaquake" has never happened. Not during the time that people have been living there, anyways. Whereas New Orleans has already been wrecked by storms time after time.
Scientists are pretty damn certain it will happen and they expect it will be devastating when it does, so that argument doesn't work for me.
Scientist are pretty certain that it happened in 1700. There was a tsunami in Japan with no ground shaking in Asia or the Eastern Pacific. They have written records of it. The indigenous people of Cascadia have an oral history of what seems to be the same event. There is plenty of geologic evidence that point to the same conclusion (and records of past occurrences also).
What is uncertain is whether the events are periodic or random and when the next major event will take place and how big it will be. 6-magnitude events cause inconvenience. 7s cause disruption, 8s cause devastation, 9s change the map. The energy for a 9.5 will be there. The question is whether it will be released in 4-magnitude events every day for years and years or all in one go. Seismologists haven't even really attempted theories that try to predict which will happen very far in advance. They can predict huge events with about 20-second lead time -- Maybe enough time to get out of the shower, but not enough time to get out of Dodge.
Early warning systems are not predictions.
Also, Seattleites are more worried about a shallow and less powerful earthquake on a local fault comparable to the 2001 Nisqually quake. One of those on the Seattle Fault could cause quite a bit of damage and disruption without being a major disaster that triggers a national response.
If I gave you reliable 20-second predictions of dice rolls, you would call it a miracle. So, don't tell me it's not a prediction. It certainly isn't as helpful to know that an 7+magnitude earthquake is coming in 20 seconds as it would be, say, if someone could give 20 minutes' or 20 hours' warning, but in 20 seconds, a world-class sprinter can be 200 m away. A big, fat guy maybe only 30 or 40, but that's better than nothing. It's also helpful that tsunami only travel at roughly the speed of sound. That doesn't much help those who are close to the source (who should probably make a beeline for the nearest tall thing that they can find), but people in Japan (10 hours), Hawaii (5 hours), and northern California (an hour or two) can get to higher ground before the wave hits. Depending upon where it hits, people from the southern Oregon coast could probably be in Medford before the tsunami hits.
It was sad when I visited when Save Our Cemeteries recommended not touring other cemeteries alone due to muggers (i.e., go in a group, they said).
Quote from: kenarmy on August 29, 2021, 11:59:20 PM
I think the more shocking thing is people still living in Grand Isle. Or maybe that Grand Isle still exists..
Or Isle de Jean Charles. That place has no future but the residents have such a deep connection there so it's a tough pill to swallow that they have to go. I've watched two documentaries on it,
Can't Stop the Water and
Isle de Jean Charles. The road there is pretty frightening. The overall socioeconomic situation of Louisiana also doesn't help, a good video series I recommend on this is
Why Louisiana Stays Poor:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWTic9btP38
I once saw a graphic that I think was from the New Yorker that showed Louisiana's southeast as what was shown as land on our maps, versus actual solid ground. When you have a map that shows what's actually solid ground, New Orleans is essentially an island city. Every time I push a bowl down into the sink when I'm doing dishes I think of New Orleans.
Here is that map:
(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5c93e3d902c93412cad6d6bc/master/w_2560,h_1771,c_limit/190401_r34006.jpg)(https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5c93e3d9da8d423b16ba6f89/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/190401_r34015.jpg)
Along with one from Medium showing actual solid ground:
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*BDjVlXgYzkDmQRNoKiCm0w@2x.jpeg)
Quote from: index on September 01, 2021, 09:04:47 AM
The overall socioeconomic situation of Louisiana also doesn't help, a good video series I recommend on this is Why Louisiana Stays Poor:
This is a great video! I watched it a few weeks ago. It blew me away how extreme the property tax exemptions are compared to
every other state. Hopefully their activism can make a change.
Also, I feel like this is fitting :sombrero:
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/ida-batters-new-york-city-region-flood-emergency-issued-first-n1278336 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/ida-batters-new-york-city-region-flood-emergency-issued-first-n1278336)
Now the same thing is happening in New York where people have died from Hurricane Ida's remains as the OP here. Basically its any city in the Cfa Climate zone thats affected here.
https://www.mindat.org/climate-Cfa.html (https://www.mindat.org/climate-Cfa.html)
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 31, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".
Chris
Some people just enjoy living close to the ocean. If your favorite thing to do in life is to surf, or go saltwater fishing, or you just plain like to go to the beach on the weekends, living closer to shore so you can do that is probably a much bigger positive than potential seawater rise by 2100 is a drawback. Besides, people are very talented at rationalizing away non-imminent dangers; just see the response to the pandemic and climate change in general. And if you rent and thus aren't going to lose too much when the sea level does rise, why
not live there?
The word "current" in your post makes me think...when the sea levels do rise, are we going to have to go through and recalculate every town's new elevation, or are we just going to accept that towns newly on the coast have an elevation of 230 feet "above sea level"?
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 31, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".
Chris
Some people just enjoy living close to the ocean. If your favorite thing to do in life is to surf, or go saltwater fishing, or you just plain like to go to the beach on the weekends, living closer to shore so you can do that is probably a much bigger positive than potential seawater rise by 2100 is a drawback. Besides, people are very talented at rationalizing away non-imminent dangers; just see the response to the pandemic and climate change in general. And if you rent and thus aren't going to lose too much when the sea level does rise, why not live there?
The word "current" in your post makes me think...when the sea levels do rise, are we going to have to go through and recalculate every town's new elevation, or are we just going to accept that towns newly on the coast have an elevation of 230 feet "above sea level"?
Oh, I know that's why they do, just generalizing that it's not only about New Orleans when it comes to the weather.
Re: the ASL, interesting question. I gotta think we readjust, right? It makes no sense for cities on the sea to be above sea level.
Chris
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
The word "current" in your post makes me think...when the sea levels do rise, are we going to have to go through and recalculate every town's new elevation, or are we just going to accept that towns newly on the coast have an elevation of 230 feet "above sea level"?
It's complicated from the get-go. Land rises and falls too, such that the sea level can appear to change differently than is actually happening.
southern LA has been slowly eroding into the sea forever. look at "Lake" Borgne. used to be a lake back in the day, i.e. hundreds of years ago, but it's now just a part of the gulf of mexico.
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 02, 2021, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 02, 2021, 04:44:45 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 31, 2021, 03:06:45 PM
I feel like a better question to ask is "Why do people still live in coastal cities with a current elevation of 230' ASL or less?".
Chris
Some people just enjoy living close to the ocean. If your favorite thing to do in life is to surf, or go saltwater fishing, or you just plain like to go to the beach on the weekends, living closer to shore so you can do that is probably a much bigger positive than potential seawater rise by 2100 is a drawback. Besides, people are very talented at rationalizing away non-imminent dangers; just see the response to the pandemic and climate change in general. And if you rent and thus aren't going to lose too much when the sea level does rise, why not live there?
The word "current" in your post makes me think...when the sea levels do rise, are we going to have to go through and recalculate every town's new elevation, or are we just going to accept that towns newly on the coast have an elevation of 230 feet "above sea level"?
Oh, I know that's why they do, just generalizing that it's not only about New Orleans when it comes to the weather.
Re: the ASL, interesting question. I gotta think we readjust, right? It makes no sense for cities on the sea to be above sea level.
Chris
The definition of "Mean Sea Level"="MSL" is adjusted periodically (one source says every couple of months). I know of no one who thinks that MSL will rise 230 feet (70 m?) in the next hundred years or so. I have been going to some of the same beaches for over 40 years (in some cases over 55 that I know of). Any rise of sea level at any of those beaches has been imperceptible. The level looks pretty much the way it did 40 years ago. Would I have missed 200 or 300 mm of rise? I doubt it. 100 mm? maybe. Could it just be the beaches that I go to are like this? I also doubt it.
Quote from: index on September 01, 2021, 09:04:47 AM
Along with one from Medium showing actual solid ground:
(https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*BDjVlXgYzkDmQRNoKiCm0w@2x.jpeg)
That looks so metal!
LA should use that for the state highway shield. \m/
Quote from: michravera on September 03, 2021, 03:56:59 PM
Would I have missed 200 or 300 mm of rise? I doubt it. 100 mm? maybe. Could it just be the beaches that I go to are like this? I also doubt it.
It's important to keep in mind that people get used to new normals fairly quickly, over a couple of years or so, and so changes are likely to escape perception if they're slow enough. In the case of sea level rise, while I don't know the particularities of the beaches you have in mind, on average it's increased by about 160 or so mm since 1950.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 06, 2021, 02:12:20 PM
Quote from: michravera on September 03, 2021, 03:56:59 PM
Would I have missed 200 or 300 mm of rise? I doubt it. 100 mm? maybe. Could it just be the beaches that I go to are like this? I also doubt it.
It's important to keep in mind that people get used to new normals fairly quickly, over a couple of years or so, and so changes are likely to escape perception if they're slow enough. In the case of sea level rise, while I don't know the particularities of the beaches you have in mind, on average it's increased by about 160 or so mm since 1950.
So, a rise of 100 mm (or less) during the last 40 years would certainly fit both of our data sets. One must keep in mind that, especially in bays (where almost all of the beaches of my lengthy experience are), sand and rocks get kicked around a lot, so the rise might even be (or seem) less still. In California, most good beaches have cliffs, so erosion, seismicity, and such might build up the beach area despite any sea level rise. In any case, sea levels may have risen 70 m in the last 10000 years and may in the next 10000, but I don't think that anyone is predicting more than a meter or so by 2200. That would be very much in line with what has happened over the last 10000 years (I get 1.26 m). Now a meter might inundate some low lying islands in the Pacific, but daily tides do more than that.
My two cents... Canal Street and the Street Cars are nice. The waterfront is nice. Thats it. The rest of the city is really, really dumpy. High weeds and rotting homes everywhere. Streets are in unbelievably horrible condition.
As for the sinking land of the Mississippi River Delta:
Grand Isle...the normal water level is almost level with the ground at the back side of the island. The huge dune (which in large part was washed away by Ida), only protected from storm waves, not storm surge.
Leeville, just north of Grand Isle, was once a more significant town, but was mostly gone before Ida, and Ida destroyed most of what was left.
I think the construction of the LA 1 elevated highway would have never taken place just for Grand Isle. Its only there for Port Forchon, because it is extremely important for oil.
Normal water level in Bayou Lafourche, which runs along LA 1 thru Golden Meadow is even with the level of the road in some places, and is held back by a wall.
Basically, I think in the long run, the entire Mississippi River Delta portion of Louisiana will have to depopulate
Quote from: SectorZ on August 30, 2021, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 06:58:05 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
I've tried to figure this out myself. Kentucky and Tennessee seem to be safe. (I'm including blizzards in the list of natural disasters, which you didn't mention.)
A blizzard is not a natural disaster, it's just a pain in the ass. In a blizzard most of the deaths are people dying of heart attacks removing the snow.
Not in western NY where lake-effect blizzards can dump upwards of 100" of snow.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 09, 2021, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 30, 2021, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 06:58:05 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
I've tried to figure this out myself. Kentucky and Tennessee seem to be safe. (I'm including blizzards in the list of natural disasters, which you didn't mention.)
A blizzard is not a natural disaster, it's just a pain in the ass. In a blizzard most of the deaths are people dying of heart attacks removing the snow.
Not in western NY where lake-effect blizzards can dump upwards of 100" of snow.
However, that much snow is a rare event and certainly not something that happens every season. This area is well-equipped to handle up to 2-3 feet of snow. Anything more than that is rare enough that it could potentially qualify as a natural disaster.
Quote from: webny99 on September 09, 2021, 10:33:42 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 09, 2021, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on August 30, 2021, 07:56:03 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 30, 2021, 06:58:05 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 30, 2021, 12:05:44 AM
Is there even a part of the US that will never be affected by some sort of natural disaster event? There's earthquakes in the west, tornadoes in the midwest and south, and hurricanes in the gulf and Atlantic coasts.
I've tried to figure this out myself. Kentucky and Tennessee seem to be safe. (I'm including blizzards in the list of natural disasters, which you didn't mention.)
A blizzard is not a natural disaster, it's just a pain in the ass. In a blizzard most of the deaths are people dying of heart attacks removing the snow.
Not in western NY where lake-effect blizzards can dump upwards of 100" of snow.
However, that much snow is a rare event and certainly not something that happens every season. This area is well-equipped to handle up to 2-3 feet of snow. Anything more than that is rare enough that it could potentially qualify as a natural disaster.
NYSDOT and NYSTA, yes, but localities are less consistent. City of Syracuse is a standout in terms of shoddy plowing given its Golden Snowball victories.
Beats me, and I'm from there. After Katrina I said "Never again."
I thought after Katrina perhaps the people of this state would get some sense and take a serious look at evacuating populated areas that are vulnerable to storm surge-type flooding, among other needed reforms. The levees held this time (Ida) but inevitably they will fail. It is baked into the cake. The political complacency that caused the levees to fail in 2005 has ultimately not abated.
The issue with New Orleans, and Louisiana in general, is not the tax structure or bad politicians or out of control crime and poverty. Those are the symptoms. The cause is a human capital deficit. Like many declining places, the best and the brightest leave once they graduate from university - the classic "brain drain" phenomenon. The upshot is that it leaves a remaining population that is largely poorer, less educated, and apathetic about anything beyond LSU football and Carnival. I realize this is a generalization, and yes there are many smart and talented people who remain here against all odds, but it describes a large number of people here - maybe not the majority but certainly a large plurality. The government and society we have then comes to reflect the values and mores of the people. And thus the brain drain is perpetuated further as continued decline sets in.
I would love to see New Orleans and Louisiana turn the corner and succeed, but I am very skeptical that it will ever happen.
One of my favorite YouTube channels just posted a video on this topic:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpEEBcE8tc
Quote from: brad2971 on August 29, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Because of a four-letter word more important than Love: Home. It's their home. Not to mention, frankly, America wouldn't be America without New Orleans. Too much of our national history, culture, even society is tied up in that geographically fragile place.
second that. i've lived in, or near, the city i live in (or near) most of my life. every time i leave, i find myself back here, because my life seems to emanate from this place. we all have our homes, dysfunctional or weird as they (or i) might be.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on September 16, 2021, 10:03:05 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on August 29, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Because of a four-letter word more important than Love: Home. It's their home. Not to mention, frankly, America wouldn't be America without New Orleans. Too much of our national history, culture, even society is tied up in that geographically fragile place.
second that. i've lived in, or near, the city i live in (or near) most of my life. every time i leave, i find myself back here, because my life seems to emanate from this place. we all have our homes, dysfunctional or weird as they (or i) might be.
Colorado is statistically one of the best states to live in. Maybe a little bit different in New Orleans.
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:40:59 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on September 16, 2021, 10:03:05 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on August 29, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Because of a four-letter word more important than Love: Home. It's their home. Not to mention, frankly, America wouldn't be America without New Orleans. Too much of our national history, culture, even society is tied up in that geographically fragile place.
second that. i've lived in, or near, the city i live in (or near) most of my life. every time i leave, i find myself back here, because my life seems to emanate from this place. we all have our homes, dysfunctional or weird as they (or i) might be.
Colorado is statistically one of the best states to live in. Maybe a little bit different in New Orleans.
But that's starting to conflate with people's personal feelings about places. Many people who grew up in NOLA might stay there precisely because they're trying to make it a better place to live - because it's their home, and
someone has to fight for it.
Quote from: thspfc on September 16, 2021, 10:40:59 AM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on September 16, 2021, 10:03:05 AM
Quote from: brad2971 on August 29, 2021, 10:47:19 PM
Quote from: thspfc on August 29, 2021, 10:41:51 PM
I genuinely wonder why people still live in New Orleans in 2021. There's only one way that the story of New Orleans can end, and it's with a hugely devastating flood that leaves the city completely underwater. How do the residents live their lives with the thought that everything they own could, realistically, be literally washed away from them during the next, or ongoing, storm season? With every passing tragic hurricane that hits NOLA I just wonder how anyone still lives there when there are so many other places to be around the US and beyond. And this isn't even getting into the host of non-weather related other issues that the city has. I understand that there are a lot of jobs in New Orleans; yet there's also a major labor shortage in every city around the country. But if you are a resident of NOLA who can afford to leave, yet you haven't, why?
Because of a four-letter word more important than Love: Home. It's their home. Not to mention, frankly, America wouldn't be America without New Orleans. Too much of our national history, culture, even society is tied up in that geographically fragile place.
second that. i've lived in, or near, the city i live in (or near) most of my life. every time i leave, i find myself back here, because my life seems to emanate from this place. we all have our homes, dysfunctional or weird as they (or i) might be.
Colorado is statistically one of the best states to live in. Maybe a little bit different in New Orleans.
slightly drier.
'cause they can.