×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Acapulco now modern ruins
54

Acapulco now modern ruins

Acapulco now modern ruins

(OP)
This is one of the few instances of a city with lots of fancy high rise buildings taking a direct hit from a catagory 5 hurricane. Almost every inhabitable structure in and around Acapulco looks gutted. No doubt this is going to take years to get it back to its pre storm status.

Hurricane Otis was predicted to be a tropical storm at landfall the day before, so it also represents a modern weather forecasting being pushed beyond its limits.

https://youtu.be/pTjMK4qCDyg?si=zX8U2M9BeFjkkORv

https://youtu.be/0Pb9iq4cbS8?si=QzSzZF6-8qhPxefS

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

It's unclear, given that Acapulco is a relatively old resort, how many buildings were actually built to modern codes.

Additionally, it's never been clear how compliant Mexican buildings are to their design plans, even if compliant.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

3
In the past recent history, it hasn't been subjected to storms such as Otis... I wonder how many 'thousand year' storms it will be subject to in the near future. It's just a feature of warming oceans and climate change.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist. Can you please explain what "past recent history" means?

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I don't know how old the structures are, but those standing have survived for possibly a few hundred years, and if it weren't for climate change, may have survived another few hundred... In spite of code provisions (or lack thereof), they have survived because they were adequately constructed for the weather they were exposed to in past.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

2


"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Not if appropriate... Sorry guy...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Hey, look at the bright side, the hotel rates will be a lot more reasonable for a while. And there will be jobs there.
Likely not so nice for the people who actually do live there.

Actually any place set up for in season visitors is not so nice off season.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Food for thought: Acapulco means "where the reeds were washed away". Perhaps they have a history?

Acapulco rose to prominence in the 1960's. I doubt there were many "few hundreds" of years old structures standing, especially considering that they had a devastating hurricane in 1971 and experienced severe flooding in 2013.

Acapulco does have the highest murder rate in Mexico. Maybe this will be their chance for a fresh start. Apparently they don't get many foreign tourists anymore.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Kudos to whoever designed this McDonald's sign.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

5

Quote:

Not if appropriate... Sorry guy...

You have no clue how old the structures are that got damaged or how well they were constructed or what historic weather has happened there, yet you're making stupid claims that the structures were 100's of years old and would have survived 100's of more years if it wasn't for climate change. You're posts are nothing but complete made up BS to rant on about climate change.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Does Florida have to be 2 ft underwater before there is any change in in policy on climate change?

Personally first hand experience working with the weather every single day of my working life, it has changed significantly over the last 20 years.

Runways which we used 99% of the time landing at an airfield are now down to 50% and the winters are way more mild which is a problem for us with wet snow.




RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Does Florida currently build in water that is 2 feet deep? There is no need to change policy on climate change. They will simply continue with the policy of not building in water that's 2 feet deep.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

the water is rising like it or not, and geologically Florida land mass is not rising like the glacially unloaded land aka Scotland which has beaches 5 miles from the coast and 10's of meters above sea level.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

3
This forum is for discussion on "failures and disasters", presumably for purposes that include avoiding future failures and disasters.  Prudence (remember her?) requires considering climate change in design even though there is some doubt about the likely magnitude of that change.  So keep it cool, chaps.  Pun intended.

 —————————————————————————————————
Engineering mathematician / analyst.  See my profile for more details.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

well said Sir...

And also shit is going to happen again and again due to it, like it or not and completely none compliant with political persuasion or beliefs or short term gains to voter turn out or leanings. As engineers we have to deal with reality not politics.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

2

Quote (Denial)

This forum is for discussion on "failures and disasters", presumably for purposes that include avoiding future failures and disasters. Prudence (remember her?) requires considering climate change in design even though there is some doubt about the likely magnitude of that change. So keep it cool, chaps. Pun intended.

You are in DENIAL smile

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

that made me laugh thanks Ingenuity :D

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

What is the life expectancy of a typical Florida coastal building? 50 years? Do we really expect Florida to be under 2 feet of water in 50 years? When the levels rise, the buildings will be at end of life. No need for a policy change due to climate change, just rebuild higher when the time comes.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

McDonalds is run on consistency - there is likely to be a sign installation section in their franchise manual and failing to meet the terms of that, which likely also includes inspection requirements (because they will have encountered short cut takers) means the franchise won't open until the deficiency is corrected.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

tug look at the whole area land mass elevation. its way more than 2 ft of water :D maybe they can all go to living on stilts and dump the cars for boats.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

3
I have a friend in FL who lives in a location that has seen very little storm activity in the last 150 years.
His property is about 1/2 mi from the current waterfront and sits about 20' above mean-high tide.
Before he built his house, he had some core samples taken.
Down a ways they found two layers of storm deposits, and one of them was very thick such as from a big storm.
He talked to a few experts, and they estimated that this was about 350-450 years ago.
He built the house higher and stronger than he originally intended.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (TugBoat)

What is the life expectancy of a typical Florida coastal building? 50 years?

We had a geotech scold us one time because we built a building atop a layer of shale, in which it would settle a couple inches starting at around 50 years.. He called us every name you could imagine beside "idiot" because he couldn't understand that we only design building for 50 year lifespans. But then again, geologists think in terms of millennia, not decades.

As with the recent leaning tower discussion in Italy, I would consider a vast majority of these to be considered successes if they are over 50 years old. It seems that almost all of the high-rises that, while architecturally are trashed, withstood the hurricane forces for the intended life safety function that we design for. A Win in my book for Mexico, given the lack of quality control in a lot of areas and age of some structures.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

"No need for a policy change due to climate change, just rebuild higher when the time comes."

Exactly my reason that pumping poison into drinking water supplies should be allowed by chemical companies.

Just move if the water makes you sick.

That is happening to New Orleans where, because rain distribution has slowed runoff, the sea water is no longer forced past the fresh water intakes. So, just relocate New Orleans and abandon it. Soon Manhattan Island, much of Florida.

Who knows if California develops a nuclear first strike capability for use against Colorado and Nevada when the Water Wars really heat up. Certainly that situation could happen if China cuts the headwaters from reaching India out of either Mongolia or Tibet

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

My barn in the hobby froum has a design of 25 years... due to using aerated concrete structure, the floating slab foundations are 50 years plus....

Will any of the local building control understand the restrictions of the materials... no not a chance.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Just my anecdotal observation on some aspects of the possible integrity of some construction in Mexico. In the late 90s, I was with a group of gearheads/motorheads on a bachelor party jaunt down to Cancun and between the drinking and partying we did notice a mid-age hotel that was being dismantled near the beach. We marveled at the level of manual labor that was being used with gangs of laborers chipping away at balcony railings with pike poles and such, where US stateside that task would have done by way fewer humans and more hydraulic powered equipment. Chipping away all day, every day, the railings were removed and then the concrete shattered and removed. The other observation that made it through our somewhat party-numbed minds was the depth of anchorage for railings appeared shockingly shallow. Maybe 6 to 8 inches for a waist high rail. And being ocean front construction there was plenty of rust. We all decided though we were all young, fit and bold, we were not going to continue to dangle over and on the railings of our hotel balconies.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

3DDave…

In a water war, California would be far better off targeting Oregon and Washington instead of Colorado and Nevada. Except for Lost Wages' draw from the Colorado River, Nevada has all of 6 gallons to its name. British Columbia and/or Alaska would be even better. I will let Governor Slick Hair know about the change in plans. smile

Related to water shortages is this old episode of "Fernwood Tonight" (Martin Mull as Barth Gimball and Fred Willard as Jerry Hubbard): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Li8p8cnPas. The applicable segment runs from 7:34-14:26. At ~11:28, Jerry brings up the potential problem of water tankers having a spill and polluting the ocean with fresh water. "Fernwood Tonight" was one of my delay-getting-to-my-homework excuses while in college. smile

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote:

This forum is for discussion on "failures and disasters", presumably for purposes that include avoiding future failures and disasters. Prudence (remember her?) requires considering climate change in design even though there is some doubt about the likely magnitude of that change. So keep it cool, chaps. Pun intended.


There's a difference between posting factual climate change considerations and the ranting climate change stupidity with absolutely zero factual backing that is being done here. Doubly so here compared to other sites since engineers ought to know the difference.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (LionelHutz)

There's a difference between posting factual climate change considerations and the ranting climate change stupidity with absolutely zero factual backing that is being done here. Doubly so here compared to other sites since engineers ought to know the difference.


I don't have a dog in this fight. Just do your best to follow Eng-Tips Posting Policies such as no Arguing in an Unprofessional Manner and no Irritating Other Members. We can agree and disagree, but using inflammatory language like "pathetic" and "stupidity" won't help.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

4


Seems pretty conclusive to me.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

2

Quote:

Unprofessional Manner

How is posting completely fabricated climate change claims being professional?


Quote:

Irritating Other Members

What exactly do you think the non-stop sensationalistic hand wringing speculating about how bad climate change has become is doing to other members?

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

3

Quote (LionelHutz)

You have no clue how old the structures are that got damaged or how well they were constructed or what historic weather has happened there, yet you're making stupid claims that the structures were 100's of years old and would have survived 100's of more years if it wasn't for climate change. You're posts are nothing but complete made up BS to rant on about climate change.

I believe in Climate change, but I am going to have to agree with LionelHutz here. There is no context to the construction type or age of any building. Only assumptions being made. There have been an innumerable amount of civilizations being wiped out due to crazy weather events throughout history. Due to the interwebs, we just hear about all of them all the time. A little bias is happening for climate change due to the influx of information due to modern media and events like this.

Nevertheless, the assumptions made about the structures being so old is abstract as stating they are no longer usable due to climate change.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (How is posting completely fabricated climate change claims)


I don't make this stuff up... it's happening. My real concern is that this is just the beginning of something that could be a lot worse.

"The rapid intensification Hurricane Otis underwent in the hours before it slammed into southern Mexico is a symptom of the human-caused climate crisis, scientists say – and one that is becoming more frequent. When it happens right before landfall, as it did with Otis, it can catch coastal communities by surprise with little time to prepare.

The hurricane’s intensification was among the fastest forecasters have ever seen: its top-end windspeed increased by 115 mph in 24 hours. Only one other storm, Hurricane Patricia in 2015, exceeded Otis’ rapid intensification in East Pacific records, with a 120-mph increase in 24 hours.

The term rapid intensification refers to when a storm’s winds strengthen rapidly over a short amount of time. Scientists have defined it as a wind speed increase of at least 35 mph in 24 hours or less, and it generally requires significant ocean heat. The National Hurricane Center said Otis strengthened so fast on Tuesday that it had “explosively intensified.”

Otis “took full advantage of a warm patch of ocean” that was roughly 88 degrees Fahrenheit, said Brian McNoldy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Miami – more than enough ocean heat to fuel a monster storm."

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

3
I just hope they equip Acapulco with only electric stoves so this never happens to them again. Ever.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

2
You have proof older historic type structures were damaged beyond repair, or does using "possibly" and "may have" absolve you of needing it?

Quote (dik)

I don't know how old the structures are, but those standing have survived for possibly a few hundred years, and if it weren't for climate change, may have survived another few hundred... In spite of code provisions (or lack thereof), they have survived because they were adequately constructed for the weather they were exposed to in past.


It would be interesting to see how some of the older buildings survived, but there doesn't seem to be much of any information available. I don't see any structures in the videos that I would want to claim are "possibly" a few hundred years old.

Modern tracking and categorizing methods for hurricanes in the Eastern Pacific started in the late 60's or early 70's and there are only sparse records on storms occurring before the 1900's. So, I find it hard to believe any claims about this being a 1000 year storm, since no-one actually knows if it is or not. On top of that, don't forget that statistically two 1000 year storms could occur in the same year.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Mexican codes are somewhere between sparse and non-existent, so one should expect a lot of damage under high-wind conditions. Most places (Mexico City being the exception) don't have a code to design to - at least not in the way we normally think of it. From what I have witnessed, you borrow some "best practices" from other countries, use what you can from the info available from the national electric utility, rely heavily on the experience of your "engineer", add a heavy dash of local customs and builder preferences, and pass it by the Perito on a stack of Benjamins. There is no system of Professional/Structural Engineer or Architect registration other than the honor system.

It's a wonder there aren't MORE failures.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (LionelHutz)

On top of that, don't forget that statistically two 1000 year storms could should occur in the same year.

Severe weather tends to cluster because the conditions that cause it don't suddenly go away when the first storm is gone.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

The arrogance necessary to assume we have any real understanding of a butterfly wing in africa being the impetus for a category 5 storm in Mexico is not too far removed from any exercise purporting to prove the existence of heaven and hell... there has been weather and climate change for a whole lot longer than we've taken to be able to develop the predictive skill level that can't even see a TS rage into a cat 5 in hours... Observations taken over a couple hundred years to claim to understand processes that have been constantly changing over eons, and the hubris to explain it all as "fact"... Yes, we're all doomed, but it won't be the weather-

Analog spoken here...

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

4
(OP)
Fires, floods, hurricanes, and brutal heatwaves on every continent making populated places unlivable. It's becoming clear that the day when we can no longer hide in our air conditioned living rooms and pretend climate change isn't a big deal is fast approaching. Engineers are the ones who will have to come up with solutions to reduce emission and defend against mother nature on steroids.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

What populated place has become unlivable? Nothing is clear. Everything you have said is a total fabrication.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Yes, the climate is likely changing due to human influence.

But, anyone who thinks we can hold the climate to be exactly that of say 1970 for the next 10,000 years is a clueless fool. The earth’s climate has had very large variations even over the past 100k years, much less the past 1m years. Cripe, in the 1970s science was freaking out about the coming ice age. Maybe someday we will conclude “global warming” was a good thing.

And our record of weather events is a pitifully short time period (maybe a could hundred years at best) relative to earth epoch time scales.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

We don't expect the climate to remain the same, but forcing a change that would have taken 5000 years into 500 is a problem to adapt to, particularly when it's done by releasing Carbon back into the environment at a rate 1000X or more than it was originally removed.

Imagine eating a year's worth of food in 30 days, except it's replaced with fat and starch.

The more irritating claim is "energy independence." No one is making more fossil fuel so if the easy to recover material is sold at low prices now then it leaves America vulnerable in the future. Seems more patriotic to deplete everyone else's reserves first and use them as raw materials rather than for fuel.

" in the 1970s science was freaking out about the coming ice age" was based on wide reporting of a minority opinion.

Quote:

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cov...

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

500 years, 5000 years, why restrict your window to such a narrow time range. Over the past 14,000 years sea level rise has historically been significantly faster than it is post industrial revolution. Sea levels have risen 300 feet in 14k years. That's a real 1/4 of an inch per year and the rate was likely much higher because there has been no remarkable sea level rise within written human history (the last 2000 years).

Want to make a real change? Let's look in to the effects of LED (daylight temp) lighting on insect populations.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

We've accomplished in decades what previously has happened in millennia...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Are you lying or are you that misinformed? Since the end of the last ice age sea level rise has averaged 1/4 inch per year. We have been nowhere near that rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

The amount of available land based ice has significantly decreased, so of course the rate of water rise has gone down. What has gone up is the temperature, and drastically. Once the permafrost is involved kiss the Greenland and Antarctic ice landmass goodbye.

Quote:

Together, the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets hold enough water to raise sea level by roughly 65 meters (more than 210 feet) if they melt entirely. That will not happen in the foreseeable future, but it hardly takes the entire loss of an ice sheet to affect population centers worldwide. According to a 2019 estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 680 million people live in low-lying coastal zones, and that number could exceed 1 billion by 2050. The melt of just a tiny fraction of an ice sheet exacerbates high-tide flooding, and rapid change on an ice sheet could spell disaster.

For example, Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier drains a giant expanse of the ice sheet in West Antarctica. The glacier covers an area larger than the state of Florida. At its current rate of retreat, it is expected to contribute several centimeters (a few inches) to sea level rise by the end of this century. A worst-case scenario involves sudden retreat of the glacier beginning later this century, loosening enough ice to raise sea level by more than 3 meters (10 feet) over the next few hundred years

https://nsidc.org/learn/ask-scientist/where-will-s...

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

If that's your source I guess we'll settle for grossly misinformed. Talk about an organization with a conflict of interest.

Let's look at how outrageous that claim is. 125k years ago the North polar ice cap completely melted. Sea level was 8m higher then than it is today. This is within the history of humans as well. The oldest human fossils are estimated to be 233k years old.

There has also been a time when Earth has no ice at the end of the Cretaceous period. Certainly geological surveys and fossil records could estimate what the peak sea level was? Nah, it pays more to scare the public with ludicrous numbers.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

@TugBoatEng:

Yes, you are 100% correct that past climate changes (over timescales of tens of thousands to millions of years) have exceeded what is projected as the most likely outcome of recent anthropogenic climate change in the coming decades.

The big differences are the rates of change (decades, rather than millennia), and of course the fact that human civilization is not only causing the current very rapid changes, but will also have to deal with it.

On the timescale of climate change over the past 100,000 years or so, we have seen drastic changes in regional vegetation across the globe, together with the loss of entire ecosystems (to be replaced by new ecosystems), and the wholesale extinction of megafauna across the globe. Does the fact that we might be responsible for something comparable in the next 50 to 100 years not bother you?

As for the impacts of climate change on human civilization: there is ample historical evidence of what happens when the regional climate changes by a couple of degrees over a few centuries; as a key example, consider the part of the Middle East that is known as the birthplace of western civilization; today, it is a couple of degrees warmer, and much, much drier than it was 5,000 years ago. Now consider those sorts on impacts across the globe, but happening over the next century. And you are still not concerned?

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

And as a postscript: I assume you are aware that the melting of the Arctic polar icecap contributes precisely 0 mm to global sea-levels, because it is already floating.

It is the melting of the remaining land-based ice that will have the biggest impact; in particular, Antarctica and Greenland.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Jhardy1, do you think the northern ice cap melted completely without any significant reduction in land based ice?

Why does everyone keeps saying 10's of thousands of years. The last ice age ended within a singular ten thousand years and sea level rose 300 feet within that single 10k years. That's where my 1/4 inch per year average comes from. However, there has not been remarkable sea level rise in the last 2000 years so the rate of rise was likely MUCH higher at times. The patterns of history all seem to be much more extreme than anything of late.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

(OP)

Quote (TugboatEng )

What populated place has become unlivable? Nothing is clear. Everything you have said is a total fabrication.

India, Africa, The Middle East, and everywhere near the equator that doesn't have elevation, even Miami was pretty brutal for 4 months this year.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

All of those regions, even Florida, are having population booms...

My wife is a funny example, she works in an air conditioned office. I work in engine rooms. She has never been heat tolerant. I'm fine with it as long as I'm not in the direct sun. She got to remote work from home for two years because of COVID fear. We don't have air conditioning. She's much more heat tolerant now to the point she enjoyed our last stroll through downtown Tuscon at 95°.

Humans are very adaptable...

It crazy listening to people complain about the discomfort of a day a degree or two hotter than normal and think that throwing away their comfortable automobiles is going to make their lives more comfortable.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

@TugBoatEng:

The last glacial maximum was 20,000 years ago, not 10,000 years ago. Sea levels have been rising over the past 20,000 years, albeit far from uniformly. Most of the post-ice-age sea level rise occurred between about 19,000 to 8,000 years ago - which pre-dates "civilization" as we know it. Sea levels have been fairly stable over the past 6,500 years (i.e. most of human civilization), ending with a 0.50 m sea level rise over the past 1,500 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level

Your personal tales about your own and your wife's heat tolerance are fascinating, but ignore the real question: what happens to global food supply, potable water supply, and indeed habitable land area, when we take into account anthropogenic climate change over a period of a century or so, rather than millennia? Most of us could cope at a personal level with an average temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius or so in our current towns and cities, but we'll be struggling to maintain a reasonable standard of living if potable water becomes scarce, food crops fail, and ocean-front land starts to slide into the sea. There are already examples of such trends in many places around the globe.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

As long as humans revert to a nomadic existence, numbering in the few millions, hunting and gathering, it will all work out. Stones are still available, so they will be fine. But, for a brief moment, we maximized shareholder value.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Warming climate is correlated with increase precipitation... Lawrence Livermore Labs (funding not tied to doomsaying about climate change) released a study a few years ago that said precipitation would increase with warming. That got swept under the rug rather quickly.

Anyways, you're supporting my point that climate change has historically occurred faster without human emissions and it has happened many times within human history without causing human extinction.

3DDave? Is that what you're doing? Maximizing your income while it's still legal to inject CO2 into the upper atmosphere?

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

That's what the fossil fuel industry is built on.

So extinction is the hurdle? Getting humans to 5,000 would get there.

Warming climate is correlated with increase precipitation - in places that won't help humans. Maybe humans will enjoy Ozark raised kelp.

"climate change has historically occurred faster" as measured by what scale? Climate is a measure of large trends, such as planetary temperature or continental precipitation.

"This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age."


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

How is it that we measure CO2 from so far in the past?

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

TugBoatEng:

It is more accurate to say that climate change will lead to changes in precipitation patterns, rather than an implied global increase. (And what makes you think that a global increase would be "good" for humankind anyway?) Some areas will see an increase in precipitation (and an increase in storm intensity, flooding, dams over-topping, etc), while others will see a decrease in precipitation (and an increase in drought frequency / intensity / duration).

"Current climate models indicate that rising temperatures will intensify the Earth’s water cycle, increasing evaporation. Increased evaporation will result in more frequent and intense storms, but will also contribute to drying over some land areas. As a result, storm-affected areas are likely to experience increases in precipitation and increased risk of flooding, while areas located far away from storm tracks are likely to experience less precipitation and increased risk of drought."
https://gpm.nasa.gov/resources/faq/how-does-climat...

Yes, global climate change has happened and will continue to happen, with or without human involvement. However, the rate of recent change is unprecedented.

There were periods in the prehistoric past which saw rates of sea level rise faster than is predicted for the next 50 to 100 years, but there were no history-recording humans around to tell us how they coped. Chances are, they simply moved inland a couple of kilometres every generation or so, but they probably told stories about how their ancestors once hunted and foraged on the land which had since sunk below the waves. (Ever wonder how the Atlantis myths might have originated?)

I wonder what our great-grandchildren will think of the tales of their ancestors who used to live in high-rise buildings in Miami and on the Queensland Gold Coast, to take advantage of the wide sandy beaches which once existed there, and how there used to be a multitude of inhabited islands in the South Pacific?

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

@3DD... Excellent NASA link...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (jhardy1)

Some areas will see an increase in precipitation (and an increase in storm intensity, flooding, dams over-topping, etc), while others will see a decrease in precipitation (and an increase in drought frequency / intensity / duration).

You say this very confidently as if you have evidence to prove it to be true. Or, you're parroting the same excuse used when the experts predictions of global warming all failed.

Quote:

Chances are, they simply moved inland a couple of kilometres every generation or so, but they probably told stories about how their ancestors once hunted and foraged on the land which had since sunk below the waves.

Yes, these include the stories of Noah's Arc and the lost city of Atlantis.

Nice dodge on the ice core question. If CO2 causes warming that reduces ice levels then ice samples would never show high levels of CO2.

Historically, Earth's climate seems to be very stable until it isn't. All changes have been quite rapid but the rapid changes aren't captured due to our slow sampling rates. I think the controls engineers call this aliasing.

Wait until someone recognizes that the Grand Canyon may not be the result of millions of years of erosion...

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

2
TugBoatEng asked: "How is it that we measure CO2 from so far in the past?"

Let me Google that for you:

For the last few hundred thousand years:
"For example, ancient air bubbles trapped deep in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica reveal how much carbon dioxide was present long ago. ... There's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any other time in at least 650,000 years"
https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/scienti...).

For geological "deep time":
"Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Ea....

“The problem today is not higher global temperature or carbon dioxide levels alone. The problem is the rate of change,” explained Olsen. “Throughout most of the Earth’s history, carbon dioxide levels have generally changed very slowly. That gave organisms and their ecosystems sufficient time to adapt to climate change through both evolution and migration.”
Climate scientists warn that over the next century, the rate of change will be 10 times faster than any climate pattern that unfolded in the last 65 million years. Because of today’s rapid rate of warming, up to 14 percent of all plants and animals on land may face extinction in the coming decades, according to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

[My emphasis]
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/09/20/you-a...

Perhaps its time to acknowledge that being a highly proficient marine engineer does not necessarily give one the greatest of insights into global climate science, and the potential consequences for life on Earth - including us?

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (How is it that we measure CO2 from so far in the past?)


The graph stipulates 'Ice Core Data'. Catch the NASA link for added information.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Does nobody see the logical fallacy? You're using something (ice) that doesn't exist at high levels of CO2 to demonstrate low levels of CO2.

It's funny watching a post blow up with purple stars when the structural engineers show up. Why does that not happen with any other group?

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

TugBoatEng said: "Nice dodge on the ice core question. If CO2 causes warming that reduces ice levels then ice samples would never show high levels of CO2."

Not so; snow / ice is still deposited in periods of "interglaciation", but at a reduced rate. Ice cores exist which go back hundreds of thousands of years, giving us a good picture of the composition of the atmosphere over that period.

The "recent" glaciation / interglaciation cycles (over the last 2.6 million years in particular) are thought to have been driven primarily by the Earth's orbital cycles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles , with changes in CO2 levels largely being a consequence of the extent of glaciation, rather than being the main driver of it. (Although there are also feedback cycles involved.)

During past glacial cycles, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere fluctuated from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm as part of Milankovitch cycle-driven changes to Earth’s climate. These fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles.
Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased 50 percent, from about 280 ppm to 412 ppm (update: 421 ppm in 2023).

[My emphasis]
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/...'s%20climate.

Note that important fact: the change in atmospheric CO2 over the past 100 years is dramatically greater than the natural fluctuations which have occurred over the past several million years.

It's very important to not get confused between "cause" and "effect" when looking at correlation between historical CO2 concentration and climate; especially where feedback loops are involved. Elevated CO2 can be both a driver of temperature rise, and also an effect of temperature rises from other causes.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote:

It's very important to not get confused between "cause" and "effect" when looking at correlation between historical CO2 concentration and climate;

Bingo! There does appear to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature. It's not so clear which one leads the other. Before you come at me about absorption spectrum, remember that all energy becomes heat.

You still haven't explained how we can accurately track CO2 concentration in ice cores if new ice doesn't form during periods of high temperature/CO2 concentration.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

TugBoatEng, you're the only person who claims new ice doesn't form during periods of higher temperatures. The annual rate of deposition of snow / ice reduces as temperatures rise, but new snow / ice is still deposited each winter in the coldest areas (tops of mountains, inland Greenland, on Antarctica, etc), while the melting predominantly takes place in spring and summer from the warmer areas (toes of glaciers, coastlines of frozen land-masses, etc). If the rate of deposition exceeds the annual melt, there is a net growth of ice (glacial period), while there is an inter-glacial period when the annual melt exceeds the annual deposition - but it can be a long-time before the Earth is essentially ice-free. (It is thought that the Earth was last glacier-free well over 30 million years ago.)

Even today, new ice is being laid down each year in the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes and the Rockies, even though the annual melt-loss in these areas is significantly greater than it was just a few decades ago, and means there may not be any permanent icefields or glaciers in some such areas within our own lifetimes. Ice is also still being deposited each year in Greenland and Antarctica, but again, the melt-loss currently exceeds the annual deposition. It will take some centuries (or longer) before they are ice-free on current trajectories - but there will have been an enormous sea-level rise long before Greenland and Antarctica are ice-free.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I'm not understanding your comment. You say new ice is laid down yet the melt loss is significantly greater? Does that mean we're still gaining ice despite the greater loss? Or is the addition being lost every year due to the increased loss? If the new addition is being lost every year how is it being recorded historically 10s of thousands of years later?

If you have access to Pat's Pub see that I was the only person claiming COVID vaccines didn't prevent infection years ago. I'm not allowed in the pub anymore for demonstrating that fact... Consensus ≠ fact.

I also put batteries on cement!

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

TugBoatEng:

In an interglacial period (such as the modern age), the annual rate of deposition of new ice onto an icefield is less than the annual melt, so there is a net loss of ice each year. This is true today of the majority of glacier fields around the globe, and also for Antarctica and Greenland.

However, the deposition and the melt occur at different places. The maximum deposition typically takes place at the cold, elevated heart of an icefield (where it may remain below freezing point all year), while the maximum melt typically occurs at the warmer, lower periphery. Gravity causes icefields to flow from high to low ground, where the melt rate is typically higher. The column of ice at the heart of an icefield may not melt at all, and may show an annual series dating back tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, even though the icefield may be losing gigatonnes of ice each year, and the glaciers flowing from the icefield may be retreating at hundreds of metres per decade.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (You're using something (ice) that doesn't exist at high levels of CO2)


It's what's contained in in the layers of ice and sediment that provides the information.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Maybe we should drop this conversation; it does not appear to be going anywhere... and revert back to Acapulco.

"Hurricane Otis: At least 27 dead in Acapulco after ‘nightmare’ Category-5 storm
At least 27 people are dead and four people are missing in Acapulco after a “nightmare” Category-5 hurricane, Mexican officials said on Thursday.

Hurricane Otis roared ashore shortly after midnight on Wednesday with 165mph winds and torrential rainfall, slamming into the coastal city where residents had little time to evacuate or prepare.

Otis is the strongest ever storm to make landfall on Mexico’s west coast. The hurricane underwent explosive intensification from a Category 1 to Category 5 in just 12 hours, catching forecasters by surprise. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) described it as a “nightmare scenario” for the region."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/hurricane-otis-live-upda...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Strongest ever? Acapulco, where the reeds were washed away is from the Nahuatl language. That dates back to the Aztec times. Definitely pre-industrial. It seems that this region has a history of such storms. Remember, you are the one that derailed the conversation. Maybe you're upset you're not getting floodded with a climate change level of purple stars from the structurals. They might come. We will see.

Remember, catching forecasters by surprise means the forecasters are not experts...

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Let's drop it... even experts can be surprised. It's far more significant if they are surprised.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

See comment #4 on this thread. Will you also drop your climate change distractions in the future? I guess we'll have to wait and see
pipe.

Are you allowed to claim surprise when one of your designs fails? Climate change is the only industry that is allowed to be perpetually surprised by their lack of understanding.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

like it or not 20 year ago I landed at one end of the runway 99% of the time now we land at the other end more than 50% of the time.

Your honestly in a dream world if you think things are not changing and faster than Engineer can react.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

My architect pilot friend once told me that there was nothing more useless than 'runway behind you.'

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

If we weren't wasting all of our resources chasing the carbon-free dreamworld we would have no trouble reacting.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

it need everything a far a I can tell.

History will tell you what going to happen when all the stored carbon is released again.

10 year ago flying across the alps there was snow and glacier every where. Not so now. only 3 glacier left and I can see the difference in size year to year.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

In the USA we have the Grand Canyon. Scientist love to tell us how the Colorado river carved it over millions of years. However, such a slow carving should result in a very narrow channel through rock or a very sloped side in sand. The Grand Canyon is neither. It has steep sides and is very wide. More realistically, it was formed very rapidly during a climate change event.

As an anecdote, my favorite campsite has a river. We had a lot of rain this year and I noticed many of the large rocks I had recognized were gone. That's 3-4 feet in diameter. The river didn't even flood, it only had above average flow. Amazing how much things change during a single event with the power of water involved.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

All I see is conversations about the weather, and not the topic of this thread.

So it looks to me like climate change is a way to take money from the Middle east (oil), and divert it to China (solar panels). So how is placing dark colored panels in the sun helping to keep us cool?

Also looks to me the disaster is the construction standards (or lack there of), not the climate. Also we don't know the design life of the buildings in the pictures.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

See my note of Nov 5 @ 6:19...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I wonder if topographic wind effects were a factor. The heaviest damage seems to be concentrated around the slopes of sharp-ridged hills.



RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Surely. There is less braking from the boundary layer so one should expect higher winds where elevations increase rapidly.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Of course. That is why topographic effects are an important part of most design codes. Not sure about Mexico.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Kudos to Bones206 for getting this thread back on track.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

We've been over this before. Insurance companies are leaving regions due to high costs of claims, not because of climate change.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

It is all about risk factors, and can they make money. Yes they can make money, but the rates may need to be higher.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

States like California have made it more than just risk factors. In the areas that burned during recent wildfires the state is mandating infrastructure upgrades prior to issuing permits which makes it outrageously expensive to rebuild.

Out of control inflation is a another primary factor. Imagine trying to maintain a profit margin when your material costs jump 30% in 2 years. It makes it impossible to insure in areas that are historically risk prone.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I'm always amazed by how fatalistic many folks become in these circumstances and how short their memories are. In reality, natural disasters happen and people always rebuild. Businesses come, go, and come back. Cost and values increase and fall, often going one direction for decades before reversing. All this happens in a natural and capitalistic cycle. In my 40s now I'm not particularly old but have seen various cities that were utter crap-holes improve and decline, LA and Manhattan esp were written-off in the 80s, thought perfect in the Y2ks, and written-off again during recent declines. Personally, I have faith that things will improve bc 1. history demonstrates that and 2. bc worrying is an utter waste of valuable time and dam depressing, it literally leads to a miserable, far-less productive life.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

In addition to high litigation expenses ...

The weather does seem to be on their minds, including deSantis.

Quote (https://eu.pnj.com/story/money/2023/07/12/florida-...)

An increase in storm hazards played another important role. United Property and Casualty, a Florida insurance company that is in liquidation, wrote that between 1851 and 2018, 41% of the 292 hurricanes that hit the U.S. in that time frame also hit Florida — 37 of those 120 hurricanes were rated a Category 3 or higher.

The high cost of severe weather damage has prompted more than a dozen insurers to either pull out of Florida or increase rates. That comes despite $3 billion spent by the legislature in the past year to stabilize the industry.

“I think you’re going to start to see companies see an advantage," Governor Ron DeSantis offered his forecast earlier this week during The Howie Carr Show. 

He also said, “I think what’s going to happen is because we did those reforms, it now is more economical for companies to come in, I think they’re going to wait through this hurricane season and then I think they’re going to be willing to deploy more capital to Florida. So knock on wood (that) we won’t have a big storm this summer."

Wiles said it’s unrealistic to not expect a big storm, but said he has heard large insurance companies are talking about returning to Florida after this hurricane season.

When insurance companies pull out of TX, LA, CA and FL., you don't suspect its the weather?
High costs usually are not associated with TX and LA.

CWB1, Agree. That's kind of the problem isn't it. After a hurrican passes, they all collect their cheques and rebuild bigger and better on the same spot, just to get whiped off the map again and again. Why worry, as long as you can get insurance.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

That's why I mentioned inflation. Labor costs, too. Those are high nationally which make it costly to rebuild in places like Texas and Louisiana.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

What's going to make it costly is no insurance.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

to be honest its not these days. And insurance rebuilt will cost 10 to 20 times.

my barn has cost 20k sticking the finger up and playing the local rags.

if i got local builders in to do the basic structure it would be over 80k

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I can see that inflation is one reason for rising costs, but there has always been higher costs due to inflation. A house today costs 10-20x more than my first house, a house that also cost less than my present car. Gasoline was 17c/gal. Campbell's chicken soup was 12c/can. Loaf of bread was 24c. That's inflation. Strangely enough I don't recall inflation as ever having been a reason insurance companies left perfectly good business opportunities on the table. Rising costs are recovered by rising sales prices, which when recovered, actually increase profits (although in inflated dollars). But that is not true with rising risk. Rising risk kills any opportunity to make a profit in the insurance business and in fact will increase losses substantially. Insurance is a risk balancing game. When they know the costs and risks, they can set rates to make a profit. That's what they do. They know the inflation predictions for costs. What they are unsure of is the risks they see today. When insurance companies do not know the value of either one or the other variable, they don't write policies. Rising risk is the logical cause.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

The trouble is that if you raise rates enough to cover your costs and they become unaffordable for the customers you start losing your customers. As customers are lost, revenue is lost, and per customer costs increase. Now it doesn't make sense to insure in that region.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/people-sup...

And you can't blame risk because the area has already burned.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Not entirely true. Insurance companies will write a lot of weird policies for football players potential injuries, opra singers voices, or whatever, as long as they think they can adequately define the risk. There is not necessarily a need for mass marketing to make a profit in insurance, as long as yhey can limit their exposure, number of payouts x average cost thereof x P(payout). I think they can put numbers on inflated costs, or just cap the payout value if they can't, and they know the max number of possible payouts. Its the risk they don't know. That's the number they don't have any clue about today. Sorry, its risk again.

In any case, no insurance isn't good for obtaining a mortgage either. No housing loans; people will leave, or certainly not chose to live there in unaffordable rent housing. Somebody must pay the insurance, or potential rebuild costs, policy or not.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

And that's why we have insurance commissioners. They limit how insurance companies can limit exposure.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Nationwide, Florida has 9% of homeowners claims but 79% of homeowners insurance lawsuits. Litigation a bigger bogeyman to insurance companies than climate change.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

That looks like the result of two problems.

79% of lawsuits is the legal problem.
9% is the climate change part.
If by state, the 9% would only be 2% of claims and 1.6% of lawsuits.
If by population, it should be 6% of claims and 4.7% of lawsuits.
Let's assume it's by population. Its still 50% more claims then they should have.
If by some combination of 1/50 States and 21MM/333MM population, its something like double.
Disproportional damages might also cause litigation, if insurance companies aggressively limit payouts in the face of massive damages and inflated rebuild vosts. Litigation might be cost effective. But no, they wouldn't do that though, right?

In any case, several insurance companies admit to the climate change aspect being part of their decision to pull out. I can take their word for it.


--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote:

Let's assume it's by population. Its still 50% more claims then they should have.

That logic makes no sense. The whole population doesn't live in areas that have the same disaster risk meaning it should be fully expected there would be more claims there.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (1503-44)

9% is the climate change part.

Florida makes up 6.7% of the USA population. Maybe you could blame the extra 2.3% on climate change? Y'all are driving yourselves loopy trying to link everything to climate change.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

It could be speculated that the high Florida numbers are due to incompetence and criminality: higher claims due to increased failures, plus more "targets" for lawsuits.

An examination of the practices of the various people and organizations who built Champlain Towers South might provide examples. If the matter is ever examined.

spsalso

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

"The whole population doesn't live in areas that have the same disaster risk meaning it should be fully expected there would be more claims there."

Lionel, Why would it be expected?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I think certain localities that are facing this insurance issue could augment their local building codes to require a certain "resiliency" standard. That resiliency standard would have to involve the insurers buy-in somehow. Not sure if that's realistic or not but just a thought for a potential way forward.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Bones, yes absolutely. NOAA has revised rainfall data, probably winds too somewhere. A lot of what you suggest, including building code updates, was discussed in
https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=511922
It has become obvious to most that even the current building code requirements in many areas are no longer adequate and design engineers should be especially aware of the recent and considerable increases in rainfall intensities, especially in Gulf and Atlantic Coastal regions.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

There is also less capacity for run-off in the combined-use sewers, caused by population increase.

Might want to have fewer people.



spsalso

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

At what point in the history of time--forward or backward--would one declare a 2023 glacier zone to be free of glacier concerns?

When was Wisconsin a forever-glacier-free zone with enduring glacial building codes?

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Roof ponding from inadequate drainage and other knock on effects include increased runoff in general, affecting flood area, total volume, rate of accumulation, depth and velocity.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote (1503-44)

When they know the costs and risks, they can set rates to make a profit
I just built a new house last year. It cost me $520k and that was me acting as the GC and it was not fancy. My insurer wrote a policy for $350K as that is what they figured the replacement cost was. I got them to change it but it is scary how far out of touch they were with the cost of construction nowadays.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Congratulations. That's a lot of work. I've noticed that many construction related costs doubled to trippled just last year. Must have been a few headaches sticking to budgets.

I thought that they could put a better number on that, or maybe they knew and were trying to limit exposure by low balling you. But if it was an honest attempt to place value, that apparent lack of knowledge is a factor that they should be very worried about. If it is written as "replacement up to a value of 520k", that does cap that risk in terms of value, but an accurate probability of occurence might still be poorly defined.

I did a lot of work during the past few years and am very glad that I finished just before the bulk of the price increases arrived. Values of existing properties are rising fast with the realisation that new builds are now very expensive. I was very surprised to hear values of up to twice what I was thinking would have been a great selling price just a year ago..

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote:

Lionel, Why would it be expected?

You're seriously asking that? I'd like to hear your reasoning for only expecting the same dollar amount of claims per capita in Florida as there would be in a state like say South Dakota.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

I did not mention dollars at all. Only numbers of claims. I am not questioning your logic. I think I have the same expectations myself. I just want a better explanation of what you meant. I would like to know why you would fully expect to see more claims "there" and where "there" is. That is all.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Thanks.

I was only thinking hurricanes.
That is a major change.

¿You didnt happen to see any info on change in number of events and intensities did you?

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Quote:

I did not mention dollars at all. Only numbers of claims.

Same applies. Areas more prone to "natural disasters" will see more claims than areas that aren't. Both in number of claims and payout per capita.

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Thank you. Yes. Exactly what I thought too.
I might have considered regional multipliers to compensate for inherent differences in property values, if I was working with dollar values, but I wasn't.

--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

RE: Acapulco now modern ruins

Obviously a combination of number of events and inflation, but either way, or both, not good for insurance companies.

Dollar value of climate disasters doubled since 2011





--Einstein gave the same test to students every year. When asked why he would do something like that, "Because the answers had changed."

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close