Hurricane Harvey

[forgetful]

Solid explanation of what a 100 year, 500 year, 1000 year flood is and how it is misunderstood and misused.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-time-to-ditch-the-concept-of-100-year-floods/

This article briefly answers your question regarding climate change and Harvey.  No one is saying that Harvey was caused by global warming.  They are saying the devastation and problems associated with Harvey are exacerbated by global warming.

Things like the intensity of storms increasing because of climate change are well documented.

But there is more.  Many of the homes flooding because of Harvey are not listed in 100-year flood plains, despite the fact that they now have a much higher than 1% chance of flooding.  That is because the old models have not been corrected for climate change, nor the rise in sea level.  Both of these factors contributed to massive destruction.  People buying properties didn't know they had high risks of flooding, didn't buy insurance and are now devastated because models were not updated for climate change. 

As the article indicates Obama put in new rules to help avoid some of these complications, that Trump has not promptly rescinded. 

Saying that the Harvey destruction has nothing to do with climate change is equally as delusional as saying that climate change caused Harvey.

[tower912]

Right now....in Houston...there is little esoteric talk over charity money...we have few businesses open to spend anything at...in any case. lol

Instead ....typical of we Houstonians....they get out their boats, gather up all the extra dry clothes they have, grab batteries, flashlights, and bottled water and folks simply head out looking for others who need a hand.

Watch your TV news feeds to see hundreds gathered on the edges of the flooded areas standing ready to help and assist however they can. I was out in the streets and rescue center until midnight. No one asks their neighbor to pitch in...or needs to ....its just understood that at times like these you get out and pitch in. Charity is doing right now, and love thy neighbor...pay it forward, etc are almost automatic actions between us when we see what we are going through.

50 plus inches of rain is a people unifier...no pretenses, no attitudes ,no arguing ....just all us asking where do you want me and what would like me to do.

Prayers and outside money are fine ...we dont need masses of folks coming here to help...we will and are taking care of each other. Words cant express the charity and love you give and get during these pull together times. I am very proud of our towns people power today....the most powerful charity force we could hope for.

I have been admiring the volunteers with boats, both from the Houston area and from elsewhere, showing up, taking direction from organizers, and going out and rescuing people.     Much to commend.   

[MU82]

Not necessarily disagreeing, but this sums up a lot of the world's problems right here. We expect those who do work that greatly benefits society (teachers, charity managers, cops, firefighters, etc) to be paid peanuts but are fine with athletes, movie stars, hedge fund managers, and social media coordinators being paid north of six figures. We don't get quality people in many important positions because the pay just doesn't justify it.

Yes.

But to be fair, just about anybody who wants to be a teacher, charity manager or social media coordinator can be one with hard work. Even cops and firefighters don't need advanced degrees or anything. (Please don't misinterpret those facts as me not appreciating the work.)

No matter how hard I worked, how much schooling I got or how much I "wanted it," I couldn't have been a professional athlete. It's law of supply and demand. Only a microscopic percentage of society can be big-money pro athletes; nearly anybody can be a teacher.

Movie stars? Sure, I guess "anybody" could be one. But most toil for years, living pretty tough existences, before getting their big break. The ones who break through early are usually EXTREMELY talented.

It's when we get to the likes of hedge-fund managers and even most CEOs (and other upper-management types) that I have more problem with the haves/have-nots society. But even those men and women usually have been willing to take risks, have intelligence and aptitude, get training, pay their "dues," etc. They aren't ALL crooks - ha!

Suffice it to say that LeBron or Magic can learn how to be a good CEO but Buffett and Tillerson can't learn how to be a Hall of Famer!

[forgetful]

Added problems from Harvey.  Because of refinery shutdowns and travel woes, combined with a labor day weekend, many gas stations in North Texas are completely out of gas with uncertainty if they will be able to get more.

Driving in to work today, gas stations looked like the 70's gas shortages with lines backed up into the roads. 

Minor concern compared to Houston, but shows how large of an economic impact separate from flooding this is causing. 

Overall effects exceeding $100B.

[GGGG]

Added problems from Harvey.  Because of refinery shutdowns and travel woes, combined with a labor day weekend, many gas stations in North Texas are completely out of gas with uncertainty if they will be able to get more.

Driving in to work today, gas stations looked like the 70's gas shortages with lines backed up into the roads. 

Minor concern compared to Houston, but shows how large of an economic impact separate from flooding this is causing. 

Overall effects exceeding $100B.

But Houston Texans games will be sold out in a couple weeks.  So all is good!!!

[warriorchick]

Suffice it to say that LeBron or Magic can learn how to be a good CEO but Buffett and Tillerson can't learn how to be a Hall of Famer!

Yeah, I am not so sure about the first part of your statement.

[mu03eng]

This article briefly answers your question regarding climate change and Harvey.  No one is saying that Harvey was caused by global warming.  They are saying the devastation and problems associated with Harvey are exacerbated by global warming.

Things like the intensity of storms increasing because of climate change are well documented.

But there is more.  Many of the homes flooding because of Harvey are not listed in 100-year flood plains, despite the fact that they now have a much higher than 1% chance of flooding.  That is because the old models have not been corrected for climate change, nor the rise in sea level.  Both of these factors contributed to massive destruction.  People buying properties didn't know they had high risks of flooding, didn't buy insurance and are now devastated because models were not updated for climate change. 

As the article indicates Obama put in new rules to help avoid some of these complications, that Trump has not promptly rescinded. 

Saying that the Harvey destruction has nothing to do with climate change is equally as delusional as saying that climate change caused Harvey.

Ummm, I think you are reading the article through a particular lens. Let's take the Obama rule change example. Obama changed the rule from 100 year flood to a 500 year flood as the basis....but the underlying data and assumptions remained in place that make up the calculation for 100 yr vs 500 yr vs 1000 yr flood, etc. It wasn't like Obama fixed everything and Trump went and undid it.

Secondly, the impact of climate change on the flood plain is a non-zero, but it's also not the majority cause. In fact, the impact of climate change is not quantifiable within the list of total factors that result in whether or not a place flooded as a result of Harvey or not. I could list 100 factors that caused the results of Harvey (yes, climate change is one of them) but highlight climate change as a major contributor allows someone to create a science based argument that you are wrong.....which is the permission structure that allows people to dismiss climate change as a thing. If you want to talk climate change as an impact over a trend, go for it because those are both probabilistic. If you want to apply a probabilistic outcome to a singular event you are going to have false results allowing people to discredit the underlying probability. This is one of the clear lessons of Bayes Theorem.

[jsglow]

Added problems from Harvey.  Because of refinery shutdowns and travel woes, combined with a labor day weekend, many gas stations in North Texas are completely out of gas with uncertainty if they will be able to get more.

Driving in to work today, gas stations looked like the 70's gas shortages with lines backed up into the roads. 

Minor concern compared to Houston, but shows how large of an economic impact separate from flooding this is causing. 

Overall effects exceeding $100B.

Fuel is going to be critical in the affected area in general.  With deference to the 'electric car' thread, I think it can be argued that the most important lifesaving tool down there has been the good old internal combustion engine.

[Pakuni]

Yeah, I am not so sure about the first part of your statement.

Magic has been an exceptionally successful businessman.

[Jockey]

Yeah, I am not so sure about the first part of your statement.

As Pakuni said, Magic is very successful as a CEO

James may be even more so, especially with the business model that he has set up.

[warriorchick]

Magic has been an exceptionally successful businessman.

But that is separate from his skill as a basketball player.  I took your comment to mean that any pro athlete could be a CEO with the right training, but not vice versa.

[tower912]

In the face of great suffering and destruction, some get in their boats and go offer whatever help they can.  Helping out the over stretched first responders and professional rescue personnel.  Civilians taking their watercraft out into the flooding, rescuing those in need with little to no regard about color or creed.  In other words, they are showing the best of humanity and the best of America.  Character revealed.

Some sit at their keyboard and downplay the disaster and suffering.  Also revealing character.
 

[Pakuni]

But that is separate from his skill as a basketball player.  I took your comment to mean that any pro athlete could be a CEO with the right training, but not vice versa.

It wasn't my comment.
But, I do think some pro basketball players probably could be successful CEOs (like Magic!) with the right training.

[real chili 83]

I would say it depends on the type and size of the charity.

Marquette University is a charitable organization, and I bet Mike Lovell has a $50,000 car.

Big dif between charitable and non profit.

[warriorchick]

Big dif between charitable and non profit.

I draw the distinction between charity and non profit at whether or not they can accept tax-deductible donations. Marquette is a charitable organization. The American Bar Association is a non profit.

[MU82]

But that is separate from his skill as a basketball player.  I took your comment to mean that any pro athlete could be a CEO with the right training, but not vice versa.

I don't know about "any" pro athlete being a CEO with the right training, determination, etc, but I'm quite sure that a pretty high number could be - an, in fact, they have been! Accomplished athletes are focused, incredibly hard-working, detail-oriented, mentally tough, etc. Many also are highly intelligent.

Now we move on to CEOs.

No matter how well they are trained, not a one of them can play pro sports - unless they buy the team and force themselves into the lineup.

I don't care how much Mark Cuban wants to play pro sports, or how hard he works at it, it is totally impossible for him to ever be a pro athlete.

Now, if Dirk Nowitzki or his former Mavs teammate Jason Terry really wanted to be CEOs of major corporations, although it's not a given that they could be, they certainly would have a chance if they worked hard enough at it, got to know the right people, etc. And they absolutely would have a better chance at being CEOs - even Fortune 100 CEOs - than Mark Cuban ever had or has of being even the last man on a major sports roster.

Does anybody really disagree with that?

[real chili 83]

I draw the distinction between charity and non profit at whether or not they can accept tax-deductible donations. Marquette is a charitable organization. The American Bar Association is a non profit.

Non-profits can accept tax-deductible donations.

[jesmu84]

After, once again, getting thrashed in his own thread, the OP changed his name yet again

[forgetful]

Ummm, I think you are reading the article through a particular lens. Let's take the Obama rule change example. Obama changed the rule from 100 year flood to a 500 year flood as the basis....but the underlying data and assumptions remained in place that make up the calculation for 100 yr vs 500 yr vs 1000 yr flood, etc. It wasn't like Obama fixed everything and Trump went and undid it.

Secondly, the impact of climate change on the flood plain is a non-zero, but it's also not the majority cause. In fact, the impact of climate change is not quantifiable within the list of total factors that result in whether or not a place flooded as a result of Harvey or not. I could list 100 factors that caused the results of Harvey (yes, climate change is one of them) but highlight climate change as a major contributor allows someone to create a science based argument that you are wrong.....which is the permission structure that allows people to dismiss climate change as a thing. If you want to talk climate change as an impact over a trend, go for it because those are both probabilistic. If you want to apply a probabilistic outcome to a singular event you are going to have false results allowing people to discredit the underlying probability. This is one of the clear lessons of Bayes Theorem.

The only lens I look at the article or this issue through is one of scientific skepticism/criticism. 

You seem to like to use fancy phrases like "permission structure" that have no fundamental meaning, to try to make it seem like you are more knowledgable. 

A general rule of thumb in science, engineering etc., is that you should never use a 10-cent word when 5-cent word can replace it.  Those that use more complicated phrasing can generally be assumed to be trying to make up for an intellectual or logical deficit. 

In this case you are wrong in many places.  The underlying data for 100-year, 500-year and 1000-year floods do not remain in place, unless you consider 40-year old data (in some cases) sufficient to explain current conditions.  That is the problem, much of the underlying data is substantially outdated, such that the calculations for 100-year/500-year flood plains are no longer remotely accurate.  They no longer represent 1% and 0.2% changes of having a flood in any given year.  In substitution for the errors, Obama's regulations replaced the 100-year to 500-year, because it was likely to correlate with the type of risk they are willing to take. 

I also highly disagree that the effect of climate change is not quantifiable.  It most certainly is quantifiable. We may lack precision in quantifying the magnitude, but saying it is not quantifiable is false. Pretending it is not a quantifiable parameter is frankly strange, and is the type of argument I see people making that do not understand how science works.  The same type that says that we have no proof that vaccines even work. 

It is also intellectually dishonest to say that the effect of climate change is not "quantifiable" and make the claim that it is not the "majority cause".  If it is not quantifiable it is not possible to determine if it is the majority cause or not.

Finally, you seem to want to reduce this to whether climate change caused Harvey, or caused an area to flood.  I made it clear in the previous statement that no one is making such arguments.  What they are saying and which is a fact is that climate change contributed significantly to the magnitude of the damage. 

Similarly, climate change can turn a region that has a 5% chance of flooding in a given year to one that is now in the 100-year flood regime.  No one would ever say then that climate chance caused flooding, but they would correctly state that climate change increases the risk of flooding substantially. 

[warriorchick]

Non-profits can accept tax-deductible donations.

Can you give me an example?

My guess is that you are actually donating to that non-profit's charitable foundation.  It is considered a separate entity.

[GGGG]

Non-profits can accept tax-deductible donations.

Not all non-profits.  Organizations classified under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.  That is pretty much all charities.

501(c)(6) organizations, like the local chamber of commerce, is a non-profit where deductions are not tax deductible.

Summary:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1559

[mu03eng]

The only lens I look at the article or this issue through is one of scientific skepticism/criticism. 

You seem to like to use fancy phrases like "permission structure" that have no fundamental meaning, to try to make it seem like you are more knowledgable. 

A general rule of thumb in science, engineering etc., is that you should never use a 10-cent word when 5-cent word can replace it.  Those that use more complicated phrasing can generally be assumed to be trying to make up for an intellectual or logical deficit. 

In this case you are wrong in many places.  The underlying data for 100-year, 500-year and 1000-year floods do not remain in place, unless you consider 40-year old data (in some cases) sufficient to explain current conditions.  That is the problem, much of the underlying data is substantially outdated, such that the calculations for 100-year/500-year flood plains are no longer remotely accurate.  They no longer represent 1% and 0.2% changes of having a flood in any given year.  In substitution for the errors, Obama's regulations replaced the 100-year to 500-year, because it was likely to correlate with the type of risk they are willing to take. 

I also highly disagree that the effect of climate change is not quantifiable.  It most certainly is quantifiable. We may lack precision in quantifying the magnitude, but saying it is not quantifiable is false. Pretending it is not a quantifiable parameter is frankly strange, and is the type of argument I see people making that do not understand how science works.  The same type that says that we have no proof that vaccines even work. 

It is also intellectually dishonest to say that the effect of climate change is not "quantifiable" and make the claim that it is not the "majority cause".  If it is not quantifiable it is not possible to determine if it is the majority cause or not.

Finally, you seem to want to reduce this to whether climate change caused Harvey, or caused an area to flood.  I made it clear in the previous statement that no one is making such arguments.  What they are saying and which is a fact is that climate change contributed significantly to the magnitude of the damage. 

Similarly, climate change can turn a region that has a 5% chance of flooding in a given year to one that is now in the 100-year flood regime.  No one would ever say then that climate chance caused flooding, but they would correctly state that climate change increases the risk of flooding substantially.

I leave this here and let this be a reference as to how the rest of your post is wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/05/03/obama-boehner-brendan-buck-permission-structure/2132583/

[rocket surgeon]

I leave this here and let this be a reference as to how the rest of your post is wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/05/03/obama-boehner-brendan-buck-permission-structure/2132583/

"ruh-roh"

[GooooMarquette]

Non-profits can accept tax-deductible donations.

Not all. 

Non-profit corporations are established under state corporate laws, so it's a matter to be dealt with by state officials (usually the Secretary of State).

To be able to accept tax-deductible donations, the corporation needs to apply for exempt status through the IRS.  Many non-profit corporations are granted exempt status, but it certainly isn't automatic.

ETA: Just read down to Sultan's post, which covers some of this....

[jsglow]

In the face of great suffering and destruction, some get in their boats and go offer whatever help they can.  Helping out the over stretched first responders and professional rescue personnel.  Civilians taking their watercraft out into the flooding, rescuing those in need with little to no regard about color or creed.  In other words, they are showing the best of humanity and the best of America.  Character revealed.

Some sit at their keyboard and downplay the disaster and suffering.  Also revealing character.
 

My thoughts exactly.