Trump Presidency

[deadheadskier]

Texas thanks you Donny!!!

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... e-projects" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

Texas thanks you Donny!!!

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... e-projects" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

President Barack Obama signed the order in 2015, but the changes have not taken effect; FEMA has been soliciting input and drafting new rules.The Obama administration's order covered only public infrastructure projects...

[Coydog]

"This is climate science denial at its most dangerous, as Trump is putting vulnerable communities, federal employees, and families at risk by throwing out any guarantee that our infrastructure will be safe," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement ahead of Trump's remarks.

The Obama administration's order covered only public infrastructure projects. But revoking it could have implications for private development as well — for example, if the government builds a road in a flood-prone area, residential development might follow.

In an op-ed in Politico, an environmental advocate and an insurance industry advocate — Robert Moore of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Franklin Nutter of the Reinsurance Association of America — urged Trump to maintain the standards. They said climate resilience is crucial across the country: "While many Americans may think flooding is only a problem for coastal regions prone to hurricanes and tropical storms, it is far more widespread than that and can devastate any state or region across the country. In just the past five years, all 50 states have experienced flood damage."

#MAGA

[Mister Moose]

— for example, if the government builds a road in a flood-prone area, residential development might follow.

<Gasp> Say it ain't so!


Residential development in a flood prone area, if designed to accommodate future floods, shouldn't be an issue. Flood insurance premiums should reflect both the risk and the design's mitigation, paying particular attention to what the design left vulnerable.

This is known as the "Shortski principle".

Which by the way had nothing to do with Climate Science and everything to do with the weather.

PS. Developers build and pay for residential roads, not the government.

[Coydog]

— for example, if the government builds a road in a flood-prone area, residential development might follow.

<Gasp> Say it ain't so!


Residential development in a flood prone area, if designed to accommodate future floods, shouldn't be an issue. Yeah, kinda the whole point with those regulations since rolled back by our Fake President Flood insurance premiums should reflect both the risk and the design's mitigation, paying particular attention to what the design left vulnerable.

This is known as the "Shortski principle".

Which by the way had nothing to do with Climate Science and everything to do with the weather exacerbated by climate change.

PS. Developers build and pay for residential roads, not the government.

PSS. The government issues flood insurance. Far better to mandate more impervious structures in flood prone areas than simply charge higher premiums ultimately paid for by taxpayers one way or the other.

[madhatter]

— for example, if the government builds a road in a flood-prone area, residential development might follow.

<Gasp> Say it ain't so!


Residential development in a flood prone area, if designed to accommodate future floods, shouldn't be an issue. Yeah, kinda the whole point with those regulations since rolled back by our Fake President Flood insurance premiums should reflect both the risk and the design's mitigation, paying particular attention to what the design left vulnerable.

This is known as the "Shortski principle".

Which by the way had nothing to do with Climate Science and everything to do with the weather exacerbated by climate change.

PS. Developers build and pay for residential roads, not the government.

PSS. The government issues flood insurance. Far better to mandate more impervious structures in flood prone areas than simply charge higher premiums ultimately paid for by taxpayers one way or the other.

regulations that never took effect and perhaps now never will...regardless of how you build it , it's still gotta be "insurable" unless you intend to take on 100% of the risk...state and local codes/zoning still apply I'd assume...neutral here on the regulations at the federal level and their intended purpose...need way more info to have an ax to grind for one side or the other...in any case it had zero impact on what's happening in texas right now...

[Coydog]

regulations that never took effect and perhaps now never will... regardless of how you build it , it's still gotta be "insurable" yeah, insured by taxpayers unless you intend to take on 100% of the risk...state and local codes/zoning still apply I'd assume...neutral here on the regulations at the federal level and their intended purpose...need way more info to have an ax to grind for one side or the other...in any case it had zero impact on what's happening in texas right now...and Gump has assured it won't have any positive impact in the future either

We don't need no stink'in flood regulations. Climate change is a hoax and can't possibly affect the weather. We're pretty much done with serious flooding anyway. Higher premiums will more than offset taxpayer funded insurance payouts, believe me. Besides, we got much more important things to worry about, like those rally sizes in Arizona.

[madhatter]

regulations that never took effect and perhaps now never will... regardless of how you build it , it's still gotta be "insurable" yeah, insured by taxpayers unless you intend to take on 100% of the risk...state and local codes/zoning still apply I'd assume...neutral here on the regulations at the federal level and their intended purpose...need way more info to have an ax to grind for one side or the other...in any case it had zero impact on what's happening in texas right now...and Gump has assured it won't have any positive impact in the future either

We don't need no stink'in flood regulations. Climate change is a hoax and can't possibly affect the weather. We're pretty much done with serious flooding anyway. Higher premiums will more than offset taxpayer funded insurance payouts, believe me. Besides, we got much more important things to worry about, like those rally sizes in Arizona. ice cream dude...scoops of ice cream...do I hear 3?

global cold and cloudy here today....

[madhatter]

[XtremeJibber2001]

So I guess we don't rebuild Houston, egh? I mean, they're on a flood plain right?

[madhatter]

So I guess we don't rebuild Houston, egh? I mean, they're on a flood plain right?

I dunno that's what I asked about 107 here too but it's rebuilt and operational now...









some places here got bought out by FEMA perhaps more should elsewhere going forward...2nd claim is a buyout? no exceptions?

[Nikoli]

Houston has no zoning. It's the land of sprawl.

[Coydog]

Houston has no zoning. It's the land of sprawl.

And too close to New Orleans.

[brownman]

Yeah, butt .. this ain't no soft machine ..

There goes the Gov Shutdown strategy .. right down the undersized storm drain.
Perhaps they approve $100B recovery funding for Houston area instead of some hair brained wall of no consequence.

Yet, Harvey and these last 3 monsters aren't related to any global weather phenomenon
They're just anomalies .. yeah, that's the ticket

[madhatter]

Yeah, butt .. this ain't no soft machine ..

There goes the Gov Shutdown strategy .. right down the undersized storm drain.
Perhaps they approve $100B recovery funding for Houston area instead of some hair brained wall of no consequence.

Yet, Harvey and these last 3 monsters aren't related to any global weather phenomenon NOPE...
They're just anomalies .. yeah, that's the ticket

These 100 year storm events sure appear to be occurring with regularity .. several each decade lately.
That must just be a coincidence. nah its just imaginary...the only coincidence is that dumb liberals are convinced of this just like every other fallacy they spew...

Ocean water temps at Wellfleet have been delightfully warm this summer.

^^^brainwashed barely useful idiot^^^

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12251" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ten-Year Gap in Major Hurricanes Continues
Released on May 27, 2016

It has been a decade since the last major hurricane, Category 3 or higher, has made landfall in the United States. This is the longest period of time for the United States to avoid a major hurricane since reliable records began in 1850. According to a NASA study, a 10-year gap comes along only every 270 years.

The National Hurricane Center calls any Category 3 or more intense hurricane a “major” storm. It should be noted that hurricanes making landfall as less than Category 3 can still cause extreme damage, with heavy r*ins and coastal storm surges. Such was the case with Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Timothy Hall, a research scientist who studies hurricanes at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York and colleague Kelly Hereid, who works for ACE Tempest Re, a reinsurance firm based in Connecticut, ran a statistical hurricane model based on a record of Atlantic tropical cyclones from 1950 to 2012 and sea surface temperature data.

The researchers ran 1,000 computer simulations of the period from 1950-2012 – in effect simulating 63,000 separate Atlantic hurricane seasons. They also found that there is approximately a 40% chance that a major hurricane will make landfall in the United States every year.

These visualizations show hurricane tracks from 1980 through 2015. Green tracks are storms that did not make landfall in the U.S.; yellow tracks are storms that made landfall but were not Category 3 or higher; and red tracks are Category 3 or higher hurricanes that did make landfall.