Do Natural Disasters benefit the midwest?

[brewcrew1000]

This hurricane was a pretty bad disaster for our nation. I only wish the best on the rebuilding effort. But it got me thinking do these type of events only make the Midwest more of an attractive place for business and citizens? The Midwest is very capable of flooding and tornadoes but the odds of a direct hit seems a little more rare and makes much less of a footprint then a hurricane or earthquake.

As a result of this storm, does our region see an uptick in economic benefits?

I don't understand why BATS Exchange and other Stock exchanges all over the country weren't open the past 2 days, they work just like the NYSE.

A place like Denver and Salt Lake City are almost disaster proof, there is probably a reason why Denver International has all this secret underground conspiracy theory stuff in it.

These kinds of event make me appreciate living in the Midwest.

[AllThingsKC]

Well, let's not forget that Sandy has had an impact on Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois...all Midwestern states. Though, most of that not nearly as bad as what they're dealing with on the East Coast.

The Midwest has seen it fair share of natural disasters. I believe the worst earthquake in US history happened in Missouri. The deadliest tornado in 60 years hit Joplin last year.

Denver and Salt Lake City deal with mega blizzards every year.

So, there's no spot that is completely safe from natural disasters. We are all going to die.

[phuqueue]

"The worst earthquake in US history" is overstating it a little bit (Alaska produces the strongest earthquakes in the US, California probably produces the most expensive), but MO/TN/IL/AR is a huge earthquake zone, relatively dormant for the past 200 years but capable of major quakes. Plus as already mentioned, the midwest is susceptible to flooding and tornadoes. We can also get dumped on by blizzards, scorched by heatwaves, and arguably our biggest economic threat (well, aside from a magnitude 7 earthquake hitting our ill-prepared cities): drought. All this, but it's also worth mentioning that Sandy is not typical of the weather in the Northeast. Smaller storms and nor'easters happen plenty but fullblown hurricanes are unusual (Irene last year notwithstanding) and "perfect storms" like this are particularly rare.

Agree with ATKC, nowhere is really insulated from natural disasters.

[KCMax]

This hurricane was a pretty bad disaster for our nation. I only wish the best on the rebuilding effort. But it got me thinking do these type of events only make the Midwest more of an attractive place for business and citizens? The Midwest is very capable of flooding and tornadoes but the odds of a direct hit seems a little more rare and makes much less of a footprint then a hurricane or earthquake.

As a result of this storm, does our region see an uptick in economic benefits?

I don't understand why BATS Exchange and other Stock exchanges all over the country weren't open the past 2 days, they work just like the NYSE.

A place like Denver and Salt Lake City are almost disaster proof, there is probably a reason why Denver International has all this secret underground conspiracy theory stuff in it.

These kinds of event make me appreciate living in the Midwest.

IIRC, technically the NYSE could have been open too, as the traders you see in the background on CNBC are only a tiny fraction of the trading that actually takes place. The NYSE servers are in a fortress in New Jersey. But I think they shut it down out of deference to I'm sure the many financial people living in NYC that had other things to deal with.

[pash]

.

[earthling]

double post

[earthling]

More superstorms expected for decades...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/us/sandy- ... homepage-t&

[phuqueue]

Sincerely doubt there will be any significant out-migration from the Northeast due to storm threat. Florida continues to grow even though it gets battered by hurricanes all the time (California, for that matter, continues to grow in spite of the earthquake threat, your friends' experience notwithstanding). Far more likely if hurricanes become more common in the Northeast is investment in stronger flood protection measures. There's already been talk about installing flood barriers around New York; it won't be cheap, but it'll be quite a bit cheaper than paying to clean up storm after storm (estimated $6 billion for the barrier, heard estimated $20 billion for the storm and that was before the full extent of the damage had really been surveyed).

Plus, despite the increasingly erratic weather we're seeing due to climate change, I think we're still far from an annual hurricane hitting the Northeast (I guess you said "East Coast," but if that includes Florida through North Carolina, that area has been getting hit with frequent hurricanes for decades). The article I read in the NYT quoted climate scientists saying that at worst this storm was strengthened by climate change (by as much as 10%), but that the storm itself was still essentially a random chance event. Probably a little too soon to start saying that this is going to become an annual thing that will drive significant numbers out of the region.

[brewcrew1000]

There are Data Centers still running on Generators in Lower Manhattan, I really think Data Centers could see a huge boost in the Midwest or Mountain West.

Also, the storm could have seen less damage if there were more Oyster Beds along the coast, i guess these oyster beds use to serve a really good purpose for various storm surges but now they are diminished because of over harvesting them.

[earthling]

Florida has annual threats but is not hit with one every year (yet). If hurricane hits become more frequent and stronger as predicted/trending, landfall every year in NE and/or SE, some people will not put up with it. And not just thinking population but types of business segments. Florida is not a good location for data centers and is specifically avoided by many companies (at least for a primary DC).

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The article I read in the NYT quoted climate scientists saying that at worst this storm was strengthened by climate change (by as much as 10%), but that the storm itself was still essentially a random chance event.

Wonder how much of the damage was done due to the timing of the storm? When you consider it occurred during a full moon period and at the time of high tide plus a few other factors and you get the higher water levels and more damage.

[phuqueue]

The full moon brought in an even higher tide than normal, but the actual cause of the storm was water in the Atlantic that was far warmer than normal (five degrees warmer than average for this time of year) and warmer in some spots than just last month. Climate change does warm the oceans, but by something like one degree in the past forty years -- five degrees warmer than normal is a random freak occurrence. But like I said, the article mentioned that climate change could have added as much as 10% more energy to the storm than it otherwise would have had. Other factors like the full moon further amplified the damage.

[bobbyhawks]

I've been guilty of pulling the Global Warming card in front of deniers when I know that a single day or storm means very little in the scheme of things. The only reason I do it is because global warming deniers are so fond of pointing out a single cool day in July or that December is now more golfable. When people ignore science and only pay attention to what is in front of them, it is tough to avoid the temptation to use evidence that supports your argument, but that isn't really sound.

[heatherkay]

Climate change may have also affected the path of the storm. I was listening to Fresh Air (?) yesterday and they had a climate scientist. He said that with the warming globe, the jet stream has been declining in force. The jet stream is usually the force the pushes hurricanes out to sea in mid-latitudes. His assertion was that we can expect to see more hurricanes that pull to the west and come onshore.

[earthling]

In the case of Sandy it was a high pressure near Greenland that pushed it back to the coast. Climate scientists claim that warming will cause more highs near Greenland, so could push future hurricanes back to coast as well.

As far as 'global warming', it of course goes in cycles naturally whether human influence or not. Methinks we are better off trying to spend resources to prepare for changes rather than stop it. Is naive to think we can keep the planet in a static state but yeah, truly ignorant (ignoring reasonable information) to think it's not happening at all. Even if human impact isn't minor, we probably can't reduce our impact w/out reducing population down to 1B.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I've been guilty of pulling the Global Warming card in front of deniers

Whether you call it global warming, climate change, or whatever there has been a change. 30 to 40 years ago there was a fear that things were cooling off. What I am a believer in is things change, and they can changed normally (via natural means like a valcano eruption or something like a meteor crash). Can someone tell me how much of this climate change is due to actions by mankind and how much is normal?

[earthling]

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CH ... han+humans?

It's irrelevant at this point. It took 10s of thousands of years for humanity to hit 1B. It only took last 200 years to go from 1B to 7B. You can be as green as you want but as long as there are over 1B people (and all the animals we breed to support the population and stirring up CO2), it's pretty moot to try and stop climate changes that occur naturally anyway.

There was an interesting study a few years ago convincingly showing that even if we cut out all things we do that generate CO2, given the mere existence of 7B people and animals we breed to support population (and pets), it wouldn't alter CO2 output enough to reduce climate change. The study said the population would have to go back down to 1B and stop all modern things we do. Just not realistic. Better off allocating resources to prepare for changes than try to reduce (socially engineer?) population back down to 1B - and dump all modern amenities.

[phuqueue]

I've been guilty of pulling the Global Warming card in front of deniers

Whether you call it global warming, climate change, or whatever there has been a change. 30 to 40 years ago there was a fear that things were cooling off. What I am a believer in is things change, and they can changed normally (via natural means like a valcano eruption or something like a meteor crash). Can someone tell me how much of this climate change is due to actions by mankind and how much is normal?

No, I cannot tell you that x% of temperature increase would have occurred naturally and the remaining y% is man-made. Nobody can and no climatologist would ever attempt to. However,

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperatures of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place.

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)

"Likely," "very likely," "extremely likely," and so on aren't just vague terms but correspond to specific levels of probability:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.

In relation to your particular question, the most important points to take from this are probably: "it is ... very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone," and, "it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years," where "very likely" means greater than 90% probability and "likely" means greater than 66% probability. These don't give you proportions of how much is natural vs. man-made, but they do tell you that there is a greater than 90% chance that some of the temperature increase is man-made and a greater than 66% chance that the man-made part is "significant." If you are genuinely interested in how they reached those conclusions, you are free to peruse the entire report, which is linked in the quote tag above.

(bolding and italics are from the report itself, not mine)

[bobbyhawks]

I've been guilty of pulling the Global Warming card in front of deniers

Whether you call it global warming, climate change, or whatever there has been a change. 30 to 40 years ago there was a fear that things were cooling off. What I am a believer in is things change, and they can changed normally (via natural means like a valcano eruption or something like a meteor crash). Can someone tell me how much of this climate change is due to actions by mankind and how much is normal?

There is certainly a case to be argued and studied that climate is changing despite what we have done, but I think the general consensus among scientists is that we have had an undeniably significant human impact on the climate in the last few hundred years. Some view the nature versus nurture argument differently, but I think it is wrong to put all of your eggs in any single basket (terraforming the earth vs. polluting less). Isn't it possible that we should do both? Right now, the absolute easiest way we can change our impact is to pollute less, have fewer babies, and make less stuff. Everything else is a hedge on the science and social structures we have not created yet.

We have completely changed the landscape, using carbon-based fuel to create furtilizer, power our cars, give us electricity. We have bred numbers of animals never-before-seen during human history for consumption. We have grown to a population triple what it was less than a hundred years ago. We can study weather patterns for thousands of years and not see such abrupt shifts as we do now. So when we ask ourselves how much is created by man vs. how much is natural... aren't we just fooling ourselves to think we can keep doing what we've been doing (aka transforming the globe, eradicating forrests, sucking up water from the ground, lobbing chemicals into the ocean) and in reality Earth is just going through a coincidental shift in its ecosphere?

Our progeny over generations will have to live very different lives, but I think it is important to do what we can now so that technology can catch up without being overrun by famine, war, disaster, etc. To me, saying we should ignore our current impact and focus on the technology of making that impact work to our favor is like saying we should allow folks to drive drunk because we will eventually have automated cars. We need to work on the problems of the present in coordination with the problems of the future, and we absolutely know of some huge things that we are doing wrong this very moment that could be changed for the better.