The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Survival lessons from an ancient failed city > Comments

Survival lessons from an ancient failed city : Comments

By Edward Blakely, published 6/8/2012

There is debate over the causes and consequences of how cities rise and fall.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
"Climate change plays a part but is not the sole culprit."

Do we really have to keep listing all the meteorological disasters that took place before it became fashionable to bleat about 'climate change'? Most of them, incidentally, involving much greater loss of life, largely because the economic resources weren't there to protect people.

A good place to start is here: http://www.ranker.com/list/the-worst-droughts-and-famines-in-history/drake-bird

Of course, if by 'climate change' you mean 'natural variation', then I agree completely. It's a terrible thing, except when it's not -- e.g. greening the Sahara. But what are you suggesting we do about it?
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 6 August 2012 11:12:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Prof Blakely but you have wildly over-stretched the analogy. You may or may not blame climate change for an increase in the number of extreme events - and this point is still hotly debated despite what the IPCC view might be. But the collapse of the modern US urban areas he mentioned had much more to do with government failure, such as permitting people to build in low lying areas when not enough money has been spent maintaining levees.

Much the same trade off occurs here with building codes. Never mind whether we will get more storms in Northern Queensland, have the building codes been properly designed and enforced? That's what matters. The article is sloppy thinking.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 6 August 2012 11:59:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

You are so spot on.

'Never mind whether we will get more storms in Northern Queensland, have the building codes been properly designed and enforced?'

Here is a fact that few would know.

Qld Building codes only require houses to be built to survive a Catagory 4 cyclone.

ie Sustained winds of 86-107 kt (160-200 km/h)

Gusts of 122-151 kt (225-279 km/h)

Here are facts few recall and noone publishes,

Cyclone Yasi winds destroyed very few buildings ($ 0 .8 Bil, Infrustructure and bldgs)less than Cyclone Larry, ($0.5 bil Structures in Innisfail). Official examination of damage indicated winds were variable with most damage caused by cat 3 winds and only some (isolated) areas suffering Cat 4 winds.

At the time all the media reported and 'climate extremists' (incl the BOM) claimed Yasi was a Cat 5, an 'extreme climate event' and only one of a forecast many cyclones to hit Nth Qld last year. There were only four to cross the Qld Coast that year and two were little more than rain depressions as they crossed.

This year the 'climate extremists' including the BOM, predicted numerous and more intense cyclones. There were none.

Again the weather is failing the alarmist predictions... and no-one in the media comments.

Why is that?
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 6 August 2012 12:50:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a dishonest article!

No mention of the real problem with New Orleans. That it was built on low land, which had settled to much lower, & well under sea level. That the dikes to protect this below sea level city were definitely inadequate, or that the pumps required to pump normal rain water out of the place were built below even the low ground level, & quickly flooded.

The whole place was a disaster waiting to happen, & the city administration too dumb to do anything about it. Surely even an academic can see that there is a reason that there were 15000 vacant housing units in the city centre. Obviously no one wanted to live in this city planners idea of utopia.

No amount of long winded dishonest dissertation is going to change this. What we need is some planners who design what people want, & then cater to that model.

There is no connection with this catastrophe, & the point the professor is trying to make. Further he makes no even moderate argument to support the stacks on the mill city of his desire.

These town planing people all suffer from the same idea. Jam everyone into the minimum space, suburbs are bad.

Well sorry Edward, from what I see most of our troubles today are from overcrowding, not suburban sprawl.

Here's a new idea. If suburbs can't save cities, abandon the cities. People don't want to live there anyway. Demolish the garbage, & make the areas market gardens, reduce the transport requirement, & every one can live happily ever after in the suburbs.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 6 August 2012 2:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Today New Orleans, tomorrow Cairns!

It is a wonderful sunny winter's day here in north Queensland.... but this regional city is precariously built on very low-lying land and is prone to total WIPEOUT by a cyclone-generated storm surge or a relatively small sea-level rise.

[reposted. Now it might actually make sense!!]
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 August 2012 9:19:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy