Hurricane Milton: watching the climate train wreck in slow motion

Written By: - Date published: 1:12 pm, October 10th, 2024 - 59 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster - Tags: , , ,

Have to admit I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the last few weeks feeling not just gratitude but profound relief that I live in New Zealand. Not that we are immune, by any means, and I’m acutely aware that biggest crisis will probably be a quake and we won’t see it coming. Not slow motion trainwreck, just a sharp jolt and live changed (this we are also not prepared for by the way, that’s for another post, but everything I say here is remarkable appropriate)

So, climate change, first the scary stuff about hurricane Milton,

  • Florida is having its second major hurricane in two weeks, in some places there are still large amounts of debris lining the streets from Helene (and some places are still recovering from hurricanes in August). The risks from this include debris becoming airborne and projectile, as well as blocking drains and adding to flooding.
  • Milton is currently a category 3 hurricane. Several times this week as it approached landfall, it was rated as the once rare category 5. It is expect to make landfall about today NZT.
  • Storm surges of 3 or more metres are forecasted in some areas, depending on the convergence with the high tide, possibly twice the height of Helene.
  • Winds of 190km/hr and 140 – 225km/hr gusts, and multiple tornadoes. For comparison, gale force winds in NZ are typically in the 120km/hr range.
  • Heavy rain is expected to bring catastrophic and life threatening flooding.
  • Millions of people have been evacuating, the Mayor of Tampa told people to get out or die.
  • NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information in Asheville was impacted by Helene and still isn’t fully functional.
  • All of this is driven by human induced climate change.

To make some things blatantly clear then, these are not one off events that we have to recover from. This is the climate crisis, here now, ongoing for the foreseeable future. If we lose key infrastructure (national weather services, rubbish collection, roading, hospitals, emergency services) because it is they are broken or overloaded (often at the same time), and we have extreme weather events much more frequently, or back to back, then our ability to ‘build back better’ is fucked.

It doesn’t mean we’re fucked, it means we have to stop thinking we can adapt with business as usual and carrying on as normal with a bit of intermittent disaster recovery. We need to put ourselves on climate footing and change how we live and run society. The sooner we do this, the better the outcomes.

If you feel fear watching this unfold, then know that you are sane and awake and in a better position to make the necessary changes to prevent the worst of climate collapse as well as survive what is already locked in.

If you’re not feeling fear, maybe consider you’re not paying enough attention. Or perhaps like most of us you are struggling to accommodate the unbelievable and the unbearable. There is a huge amount of technique available now to help us psychologically transition into the climate age, and the more we choose to not live in cognitive dissonance (at least some of the time) the better we will be able to act and create effective change.

It’s not too late to create a better future. So what can we do? I’ve written a lot at The Standard on transition movements and tech, I will link below. Everywhere in New Zealand we now have people who have been thinking deeply and putting systems in place. Go connect with whichever ones you can where you live.

But it was something I read this morning that made me see a specific role for the political left and the labour and indigenous movements. Sharon Astyk has been writing about peak oil, climate change and pandemics for several decades, including a large body of work on adaptation alongside mitigation. Not just writing, but making radical changes to her and her family’s lives. I wrote about her ideas on grassroots climate transition here.


In the past few weeks, she’s been posting about there being no safe place left to run in terms of where to live and build community. But some places are much much better than others, and this is the lesson from Helene and Florida. She wrote in depth about this in the US context here. Today she also connected climate adaptation with progressive movements, I’m going to quote at length,

Those are places people just won’t be able to live. Will they be able to live there a bit longer? Sure. Will they know when they can’t anymore? Nope. They’ll find out the hard way.

Now, I know, not everyone can leave easily – or even with a great deal of effort. But everyone can try and game out SOME way of making a transition eventually. That doesn’t make it easy or fair or just or good. But staying and dying isnt any of those things either.

We are going to need a high degree of collaboration on this – finding where to go, helping people who cannot move themselves to get there, providing support and resources. In a better world, this would have been being done by our government already – but I’m not holding my breath for this. They still haven’t acknowledged the sheer magnitude and inevitability of climate change.

Eventually, if we create this, the government will want in – so we are going to need to create a movement, a transit and transition system to help move millions of innocent people who believed lies about climate change (I don’t mean “it isn’t happening” although that too, I mean “it won’t hit us until 50 years from now” and “Someone will do something about it, so I don’t have to make any major sacrifices.”) Those were always bullshit, and we always knew this.

So we are going to have to create our own Climate Corps, with the motto “Leave no one behind” and create evacuation paths and resources for the poorest and most vulnerable people to get out and find a future for themselves and their posterity. I am glad to see so many people stepping up to help Milton and Helene evacuees. But we also are going need to create organizations and find funds and community resources for MILLIONS of people driven by the climate to move BEFORE the disaster strikes. And if the government won’t do it, we will have to.

We need a climate corps. And we need it now. Because we cannot leave people behind.

Astyk’s post is very American, so let’s translate that for Aotearoa/New Zealand. We are in a very good position to build on existing community, regional, and national organisations, networks and infrastructure. What we don’t have yet is the compelling narrative of a climate change world that works well. We need stories about how things work out, and thus open the doorway through which people will jump when they finally realise we have no choice but to change.

I’ve been thinking about the East Coast of the North Island in the past week, wondering how people are getting on there since Gabrielle, and why is that we don’t know or talk about this. There is a massive opportunity here for the left to be doing the mahi now so that when the next wave of disaster hits, we are much better prepared.


Also recently from Astyk,

If you are not adapting now, you won’t have a chance. Think hard about the future if you aren’t dealing with disaster already, because you will be.

Edited to add that this is about climate change, and no, I’m not saying we are all doomed, I’m saying our way of life is going to change by necessity so do it now while there are choices.

And as always, adaptation and prevention/mitigation are the same thing or not at all. This analogy from Dmitri Orlov If you are going to fall out of a window, it’s better to fall out of the first floor than higher up. We going to have to change eventually, so better to do so in a way that lessens the damage. Everything we can do now is going to make it much easier in the future both in terms of limiting the worst effects of Climate Change and in terms of adapting.

Note: no climate denial under my post. This includes the Bart Simpson excuse (“we didn’t do it”), and it’s too late messaging (there is no way to know that).

59 comments on “Hurricane Milton: watching the climate train wreck in slow motion ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. SPC 1
    10 October 2024 at 1:55 pm

    The water level is of course already higher than in 1970.

    According to tidal data in the region, relative sea level off the coast of Florida has risen approximately 7 inches since 1970.

    The forecast is another foot by 2050.

    "By 2050, Florida sea levels, like much of the US, are headed for a 1-foot rise on average (above 2020 levels)," William Sweet, an Oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told Newsweek

    Two and one half foot above 1970, by 2100.

    https://www.newsweek.com/floridas-projected-sea-level-rise-2100-bad-news-sunshine-state-1783707

    • lprent 1.1
      11 October 2024 at 3:22 pm

      Two and one half foot above 1970, by 2100.

      If you trust the climate models which I don't and never have about sea level rise and a few other things – all the way back to 1980 when this was raised in climatology lectures in my BSc.

      Models are only as good as their input data, and that was, and still is, patchy for in-situ continental ice melts. Currently something like 70-80% of the known cumulative mean global sea level rise from around 1880 is simply from the heat expansion of water.

      Global average sea level has risen 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880.

      Since about 2000 only about 40% (and decreasing) of the sea level rise can be attributed to thermal expansion. The rest is coming from on-land melt of ice – ie glaciers and ice sheets. Sea ice doesn't matter much because melted ice pack isn't much different in displacement to ice floating on water.

      So what we have been seeing is a rate of increase in sea level that is lot faster than estimates from 25 years ago, and it is exponentially increasing faster than expected. Which matches what has been seen not only in glaciers like Franz Joseph, but also what is showing up in the melt coming off Greenland and East Antarctica.

      There is a reason that I brought property at 85m above sea level in 1998. Because you have to plan on rapid tipping changes in sea level rises. That is what shows in the geological records in rocks. It is also what we are seeing now with the really fast temperature changes humans have been making in climate – at least 500x to 1000x faster then any known natural process (apart from something like a local supernova – in which case the radiation is your main problem).

      //—–

      If you want to get freaked out, just figure out how much heat has to be stored to pump into the oceans to pump up the total volume sufficiently from heat expansion to raise the surface by 16+cm. Basically the ocean has been soaking up almost all of the human added (directly or indirectly) heat.

      You can't even blame the orbital elements for increased heat because the Milankovitch cycles would have us sliding into a cooler cycle over the last few thousand years (and eventually into another glacial period).

  2. Bearded Git 2
    10 October 2024 at 2:07 pm

    It's all a Democrat plot to help them win the election.

  3. SPC 3
    10 October 2024 at 2:22 pm

    These events have more than the impact of loss of power and water services – they have a longer term economic impost

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/09/hurricane-milton-florida-insurance-00183062

  4. tsmithfield 4
    10 October 2024 at 3:49 pm

    I don't know how people are going to be able to remain in areas vulnerable to hurricanes this intense. For a start, I doubt insurance companies will be willing to insure houses in those areas, assuming they haven't already abandoned the areas. And people simply won't be able to keep rebuilding their homes.

    Whatever we do to reduce emmissions, it won't make much difference to these sort of storms for decades I expect. So, there will have to be hard choices made in the very near future.

    • Grey Area 4.1
      10 October 2024 at 4:43 pm

      I agree. Very near future = NOW.

      So what do we do with a climate change-denying coalition government?

      People don't seem to be able to join the dots until it affects them personally. Maybe millions of Florida residents will finally wake up. I hope so, but will they? And will we and toss out this bunch of insane and dangerous fools?

      • weka 4.1.1
        10 October 2024 at 5:36 pm

        I think the answer to that lies in who people will feel most safe with. Sense of safety isn't predominantly a rational thing, it comes from our emotions and experience. If the left can present a future that shows hope and a way through, we might have a chance at electing climate conscious governments.

        • Patricia Bremner 4.1.1.1
          10 October 2024 at 5:57 pm

          yes 100% hope so Weka. But we have discussed the fickle memory and denial.

          We have a friend who favours the right, I work on them all the time. They were your "live" with covid and "there have always been storms" type.

          After two bouts of covid and "flu in between, they are listening more. Advise about secondary infections saw the husband treated for a severe case of walking Pneumonia.

          Gabrielle changed their view of storms and the ongoing devastation caused by logging fallout. The comment on insurance rang bells, as theirs is a village insurance.

          It has to actually affect them, they can't or won't feel others pain.

          • weka 4.1.1.1.1
            10 October 2024 at 6:56 pm

            that's quite encouraging in a weird way. Seeing people shift from denial to starting to get it is a good sign and useful to watch. You mahi is paying off!.

            What is village insurance?

            • Cricklewood 4.1.1.1.1.1
              10 October 2024 at 8:45 pm

              Will be like a townhouse complex where insurance for the buildings etc (not contents) is global for the whole complex and part of the bodycorp fees.

              The rises have been steep although mostly earthquake related.

            • tsmithfield 4.1.1.1.1.2
              10 October 2024 at 9:38 pm

              I wasn't really ever a climate change denier. But I did think that the climate threats were being exaggerated to spur people into action.

              On the other hand, I am evidence-led. So, the facts sent me to your side of the fence on this issue.

              • weka …
                11 October 2024 at 9:05 am

                It's the great issue of our time, who we trust and why. In your case it sounds like you are more easily able to trust direct evidence than science theory and prediction. Which is understandable, the climate crisis is a huge thing for humans to get their head around.

                It was much easier for me because my starting point was nature sustainability. But for a long time I thought climate change wasn't the most important issue to focus on because peak oil was going to drop GHGs. Lots of us were wrong about that re peak oil and climate change is happening faster than most thought.

                I think the issue for people in your position is to now what to do. I don't believe that high tech will save us and we waste precious time trying to do that. I do trust the people who have been working on sustainability tech and powering down for a long time, but I understand this is a stretch for many (most people on TS for instance).

                • tsmithfield …
                  11 October 2024 at 12:18 pm

                  The problem with theories is that there are usually competing ones, and it takes a lot of expertise to be able to tell which is the best.

                  Although I lean to the right, part of the reason I don’t comment much on Kiwiblog is that a lot of commenters there wouldn’t accept the evidence for climate change if you hit the over the head with it. I can’t be bothered with that sort of ignorance.

                  I think technology has to be part of the answer. The world is still going to need energy, and technology hopefully will provide us with solutions for that.

                  The problem with technology is that it often overlooks hidden environmental costs and just focusses on the efficiency of the technology at point of use. For example, lithium batteries require materials to be mined, and there is the emissions involved in manufacturing the technology that need to be taken into account.

                  • lprent …
                    11 October 2024 at 5:13 pm

                    For example, lithium batteries require materials to be mined, and there is the emissions involved in manufacturing the technology that need to be taken into account.

                    The best solution is threefold fold.

                    • Stop rising the population (that has effectively already happened).
                    • Stop burning fossil hydrocarbons. Then other greenhouse gases like methane from land use are less of an issue. They dissipate almost immediately (in geological timescales).
                    • Start building things for recycling and to last centuries.

                    All of theses are societal changes and have absolutely nothing to do with technology. We already have the technology to do all of those.

                    The problem is that the dimwits who want to keep burning fossil hydrocarbons and having a use once and throw away economy.

                    Problem with all of retroactively mitigating greenhouse gas tech solutions is that they are all extremely dangerous.

                    We literally don't know of any proven way to sequester captured CO2 for thousands of years and don't have the faintest idea of how we could do it. We barely know how to extract gaseous CO2 and make into a solid at test levels. We don't know how to do without using way more energy (and therefore heat) than we extracted by burning it in the first place.

                    The idea of doing a shroud (in any form – particulate or orbital) to limit insolation energy gives me the heebies just thinking about how to maintain the kind of societal and economic structures over centuries that would be required to return us to a known state.

                    When we or even those technological morons who made Nationals 'plans' for greenhouse reductions are talking about technology – they're talking about those two technologies being required.

                    The other one is some kind of magic fix for methane production in pastoral farming. Those don't exist, and none have managed to work at any useful level for the last 40 years that we and the rest of the world has been working on them.

                    Each great hope has failed in the lab or when tested at scale. Each successive great hope has had the National party and FedFarmers holding their members in anticipation of action and waiting for the hard-on call to action but gone very limp and quiet…. You'd think that they would know the pattern by now. Doesn't matter if it is a gut bacteria feed solution or magic seaweed or whatever the pattern is always the same.

                    Basically after observing the minuscule agttention spans of the RW, I think that to be RW, requires you have to be quite stupid about basic science and engineering. Even more so about the process of making it work. I get the impression that there is a sucker born every day, and they are a RW voters. Too lazy to learn and too stupid to understand how limited their knowledge is. Good for learning current fashions and fuckall else.

                    I don't see any signs that anyone is near at getting a agritest at scale done. Even if they do, it won't be widespread for several decades at best. Therefore irrelevant.

              • lprent …
                11 October 2024 at 4:41 pm

                "Evidence" is always decades after the fact for climate change. What we are seeing now is effectively the effect from last centuries emissions. It gets buffered by the water volumes in the oceans. That sucks up almost all of the excess heat and and most of the CO2.

                Cutting emissions now will probably shave metres off the the end of century sea-level height (which I am currently expecting to be >5 metres based on reported melt in Greenland and East Antarctica), prevent the demise of farming (our farming technologies are not good at handling more energetic and unpredictable weather), and consequently the kinds of crop failures that I'm expecting over the next few decades.

                FFS: Forget 'evidence' of actual harm. If you rely on that, then you're bound to find out the worst case in the hard way. Climate process are slow. Natural processes are usually measured in thousands of years.

                That there is any change at all in a system as large as the oceans like acidification or temperatures rise from deep currents coming out in the tropics. The current conveyors transporting excess heat and CO2 from the polar regions to welling up in the tropics take anywhere between 4 decades to several centuries to arrive there. The energy to magnify tropical cyclones from surface water heat will be because the cold water from the poles is quite a lot warmer than it used to be and doesn't cool the tropical surface water. Or that the current speeds have slowed because the temperature differential is much lower.

                Just look at the physics and the geological evidence of previous climate change.

                Then consider that where the natural events typically took thousands of years to happen at their fastest, we have been doing the same CO2 and CH4 effects as a thousand years of natural change in as little as few decades.

                • tsmithfield …
                  11 October 2024 at 5:10 pm

                  I don't disagree with you. But the "evidence" that really woke me up was my trip to the Tasman Glacier. The incredible volumes of ice that has disappeared since the 70s should be enough to convince anyone of the truth of climate change if they are looking at it with an open mind.

                  True, the ice has been retreating anyway since the last ice age. But obviously the rate of melt must have been increasing exponentially over recent times, because, otherwise all the ice would already have disappeared centuries ago if it had been melting at that rate consistently. I didn't need any theories to demonstrate that to me.

                  Only someone who is a diehard denier would refuse to accept that evidence if they saw it. And it didn't require a science degree or theory.

                  • lprent …
                    11 October 2024 at 6:03 pm

                    Sure. I saw most of the low level NZ glaciers back in 1975. I then saw then in 1985-7 and they'd visibly shrunk. Now they are almost accelerating backwards.

                    Tasman was pretty static until the late 90s. It was always covered by earth and stone materials, so hadn't changed a lot over the last few thousand years

                    //—–

                    But science and the terminology it uses is important – it gives time and process perspectives. You don't need to science degree to use those.

                    Ice age for instance isn't correct. What you are talking about are glacials and inter-glacials. Those are short events mostly related to orbital mechanics. Glacials are superimposed on top of the underlying climate.

                    Those are related changes in the suns output over a billion year time scale. But for the half a billion years or so there are variations based on to the layout of continental masses. These are what are usually known as ice ages and warm periods. Humans being what they are divide those up in epochs that are based on the living material around at the time in the fossil record.

                    //—

                    The low-level glaciers advanced to way bigger in the last glacial. That peaked about 16k years ago.

                    The peak of the interglacial was only about 15k years ago. There was some kind of event that bumped global temperatures and oxygen levels up to about 8C higher than they are now. Probably methane being released after the last glacial.

                    By way of comparison humans have only been farming and having settled communities from about 10k yo.

                    The NZ low-level had been slowly advancing from European discovery until about the 1940s. That was because we had been starting to go into another glacial as the orbital cycles have been trending that way for several thousand years. Which is why the Sahara (for instance) had started advancing before the Romans went into North Africa. North Africa always goes to desert in glacials and to quite lush plains at the height of inter glacials. However on a broader timescale, we have been in full blown ice age for more than 3 million years and we are still in it and are probably naturally only about halfway through it.

                    The process that caused the current ice age when Antarticia drifted into the polar area – starting when the dinosaurs were still around > 65 million years ago.

                    During this ice age there were something like 8-12 glacial periods (depends on what you see in different parts of the globe and how you define a glacial or interglacial).

                    Humans and virtually all of animal and plant species are now completely adapted to being in ice age when average global temperatures are about 10-15 degrees below normal.

                    We are also adapted to when oxygen levels are about 20%. In different climate epochs over the last 550 million years O2 has been as low as 10% and up to 30%.

                    I watched a useful (ie not stupid) documentary called "The Next Great Extinction Event" from aussie last night. It was on Prime, but also apparently on Apple TV that was interesting because they just let the scientists explain in broad terms the factors that affected animals like us as the climate shifted and why the climate shifted.

                    Worth watching for anyone. It makes Discover Channel garbage look pretty sick.

    • AB 4.2
      10 October 2024 at 7:05 pm

      I don't think there's much doubt about what will happen to such people in the US. It already has a fine, upstanding tradition of poor or destitute people living the American Dream in trailer parks – which ironically seem to be on the news from time to time because they are hit by tornadoes, especially in the midwest. Actual social democracies that haven't reversed the principles of the New Deal and reverted to the brutal capitalism of the 19th century might do somewhat better – maybe.

      • weka 4.2.1
        10 October 2024 at 7:13 pm

        Ironically, people with mobile homes might end up being better off than others. Makes sense to be able to move if you live in a place like Florida. But agree about the social situation in the US. So much could be done helping trailer park communities to move, but will it?

    • joe90 4.3
      10 October 2024 at 7:16 pm

      I doubt insurance companies will be willing to insure houses in those areas, assuming they haven't already abandoned the areas.

      They're on their own.

      .

      Another fact that makes Helene’s devastation so unprecedented is that almost none of those hundreds of billions of dollars in losses will be paid out by insurance. While the storm caused most of its damage through flooding, which is covered under a government-run flood insurance program, very few residents of the southern Appalachian mountains hold flood policies — even those who live in federally designated flood zones. As of now, these storm victims in North Carolina and Tennessee have no guarantee of comprehensive public or private assistance as they try to piece their lives back together. The situation stands in stark contrast to other recent deadly storms like Hurricane Ian in 2022, where wind damage was paid out by standard homeowner’s insurance and flooding was limited to low-lying coastal areas where residents typically hold government flood insurance.

      https://grist.org/extreme-weather/hurricane-helene-flood-damage-cost-insurance/

      • tsmithfield 4.3.1
        10 October 2024 at 9:36 pm

        That is harsh. But, in some ways will likely force the inevitable. People won't want to live in places where they risk losing everything every couple of years.

        • weka 4.3.1.1
          11 October 2024 at 8:55 am

          Have a read of the Astyk piece linked in the post about where it's a really bad idea to be living now. The problem is going to be how people can move if they can't sell their house, or are too poor/disabled to move. It will destroy whole communities and split families.

          All of that is solvable of course. We could be moving communities that want to stay together. Astyk presents lots of good ideas on how to make it work at the individual and family level (she is basically saying move now because it will only get harder as time goes by). In NZ we already have communities at risk (South Dunedin, West Coast), and in a sane world we would be helping those people collectively, not just leaving it to the pressures of the insurance companies and nature.

          • Karolyn_IS 4.3.1.1.1
            11 October 2024 at 9:15 am

            I looked at that. It's hard to think of any potentially viable area in the upper North Island. I can't think of anywhere much around Auckland because the guidance says being near a volcano (do extinct ones count?) is not a good idea.

            • weka 4.3.1.1.1.1
              11 October 2024 at 9:35 am

              I don't know much about the volcanoes around Auckland, is there much chance of them going live? I would have thought this a very low risk. As opposed to being in a low lying area near the coast, which is a certainty to be a problem. There are maps that show sea level rise in NZ by metres, I find them interesting to see inundation. Doesn't take into account storm surges or tsunamis. These are the main things I would take into account along with NZ's high number of roads that have the potential for bad slips.

              I've been meaning to look up whether the main trunk line was blocked in Dunedin recently when all the roads were. I saw some US based discussion about rail being much more resilient. Part from quakes of course, and much of the SI rail network is along the coastline.

              Astyk's takeaway imo is to look at a range of factors around resiliency, and avoid the worst case scenarios. eg if I lived in South Dunedin I'd be looking at moving asap. The early adaptors need to set good precedents and processes. High on my list is what the community is like. Because when the shit hits the fan, often it comes down to the people and how they manage and care about others. Again, this is a key opportunity for the left, but it does require choosing collective responses over neoliberalism.

              • Belladonna …
                11 October 2024 at 10:19 am

                Auckland's volcanic field is still 'live' – there's a new cone every 3,000 years or so (most recent was Rangitoto).

                However, the risk isn't considered imminent (in the same way that earthquakes are – especially the Alpine Fault (the big one if/when it goes)

                https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/642-determining-auckland-s-volcanic-risk

                And, unlike earthquakes, there is almost always a significant period of warning of a new volcanic eruption.

                Tsunamis (due to earthquakes) are a risk to the eastern sea coast (my understanding is that the west is too deep for tsunamis – but open to correction) – which is where the ring of fire is likely to generate them. But most of Auckland would be protected by the islands (Rangitoto, etc.) – which would break up the waves.

                Auckland's biggest risk is storm damage (especially if tropical cyclones move south, due to climate change), and sea-level rise (large chunks of the city are at, or just above, current sea level)

                • weka …
                  11 October 2024 at 10:38 am

                  thanks. How much warning for the volcanoes?

                  • Belladonna …
                    11 October 2024 at 12:52 pm

                    Well, it depends. But usually months of active emissions (rumblings, increased magma temperatures, etc. Especially where a new cone is being formed.
                    In Auckland's case, each eruption means a new vent (so not like White Island or Tarawera – which have existing vents which periodically heat up again).

                    The underlying 'hot spot' seems to be moving offshore – with Rangitoto the newest in the field. So a new volcanic eruption/cone would likely be at sea – and further away from the city.

                    Being at sea does mean that initial signs are less obvious – but the whole volcanic field around Auckland is actively monitored – with any tremors being captured by the Geonet earthquake system.

                    Weeks or even months isn't a huge amount of time for population relocation (should it be necessary) – but it certainly beats the seconds or at best minutes that you have with a major earthquake; or the minutes to hours for tsunamis.

                • Karolyn_IS …
                  11 October 2024 at 11:59 am

                  Thanks.

                  Yes. The storm damage impacts West Auckland. The above linked guidelines recommends not living near hills because of slippages. West Auckland suffered a major slippage in the last major floods.

                  Maybe that also could be a problem in other parts of Auckland. Plus various valleys suffered flooding.

                  The guidelines recommended an elevated plateau above sea level is a good place to be.

                  • Belladonna …
                    11 October 2024 at 1:03 pm

                    Storm run off is also an issue for many other parts of Auckland. It's built on the slopes of volcanoes, and water runs downhill. Anywhere which is the bottom of a gully, is at serious risk.

                    All of the cliff-faces (occupied by millionaire mansions) are made of very friable rock – at very serious risk of storm surge damage (the waves don't get that high – but undermine the rock lower down); and from waterlogging/ run-off in high rain events.
                    This is a known risk, and has been for decades, if not generations. There are always minor slips after a storm.

                    It's been compounded by infill housing, and landscape development (in ground pools, decks, fashionable landscaping) – which have both weakened the cliff edges, and removed the ability for rain to soak in.

                    I find myself less concerned over the plight of millionaires (with their Takapuna beach-side mansion at risk from sea-level rise; or their Torbay cliff-top mansion at risk of landslips) – than I am over ordinary Kiwis in the pathway of a landslide or storm flood.

                    However, it's the agitation of the millionaires which is likely to shift the public policy on this.

                    My personal preference is a land-for-land swap (so you get the same size of land in the new location as you had in the old one) – and with no top-ups for amenities (sorry you no longer have a sea view, tough luck)

                    But am aware that those impacted are unlikely to regard this as 'fair'.

                • aj …
                  11 October 2024 at 5:39 pm

                  Volcanoes.
                  Dormant. Have not erupted for a long time but may erupt in the future.

                  Extinct. Unlikely to erupt again as cut of from the magma supply.

              • lprent …
                11 October 2024 at 6:23 pm

                I don't know much about the volcanoes around Auckland, is there much chance of them going live? I would have thought this a very low risk.

                They are basaltic volcanoes. There are about 50 probably quiescent (not many volcanoes can be considered to be extinct – just less likely to to restart) volcanoes.

                Not really a problem. These aren't like Taupo which is a rhyolitic volcano or White Island (a andesitic volcano), both of which can go off like firecrackers with little to no warning and cover immense areas with every thing from ignimbrite flows to dust clouds (thing St Helens in the US in the ? 1980s).

                Basaltic volcanoes typically give a lot of warning (think Pompei), and usually the major problem is people saying 'well it hasn't gone off in my lifetime – how likely it is more the the usual rumbles' (think Pompei). Mostly you get lava flows which anyone should be able to hobble away from, moderate local ash, and some tossed out lava bombs that really encourage people to start becoming good at watching for them (think of it as evolution in action).

                The last eruption in Auckland was about 600 years ago and gave us the new cone on Rangitoto. See..

                There is a good monitoring system in the Auckland volcanic field that should give a month of more warning of a likely eruption.

                Also the Waitākeres which is a larger different older basaltic field.

                Most of Northland has scattered small basaltic cones and old basaltic fields.

                But generally Auckland and Northland are amongst the safest areas in NZ for volcanoes and earthquakes.

                Fortunately from a risk perspective both volcanoes and earthquakes are mostly foreseeable risks (as in you can calculate the risks). They aren’t affected by climate change unless you happen to be close to land rebounding from a melted icesheet.

                Climate change causes unknown risks… Quite a different problem for insurers.

  5. Bruce 5
    11 October 2024 at 7:56 am

    Apparently we have been suffering a power crisis and the solution we are told is to burn more gas, without looking I can see other fixes developed globally, yet there is no mention of these possibilities being promoted here apart from solar.

    Small scale personal power generation offers so many advantages, lack of need for expensive infrastructure being one.

    • Gareth 5.1
      11 October 2024 at 8:40 am

      Be aware if you are getting wind or solar, that unless you have a battery, when the grid goes down, your generation goes down as well.
      If it's feeding into the grid and there's an outage, it's a hazard to the lines guys, so the systems are set up to turn off and you can't override it.

      • weka 5.1.1
        11 October 2024 at 8:43 am

        whoah, I didn't know that! Something to be aware of re quakes, a big enough quake and the grid will shut down in the South Island at least.

        I guess people can set up dual systems.

        • Gareth 5.1.1.1
          12 October 2024 at 11:56 pm

          I'm not sure what you mean when you say dual systems… the only system that lets you draw power from your own generation when the grid is down, is having a battery. If you have a battery, your generation charges the battery and the battery power is available to use in your house to keep the lights on. Unfortunately getting a battery significantly increases the cost of home power generation. It's the difference between the system paying for itself in 20 years without a battery vs paying for itself in 35 years with one.

    • weka 5.2
      11 October 2024 at 8:50 am

      there aren't enough resources for humans to keep producing power at the rate we do with fossil fuels, doubly so if we want to keep increasing population and run a perpetual growth economy (simply not possible).

      What we can do instead is move to steady state and assess where we go from there. I'm a fan of localised power production. It's more resilient, less wasteful of electricity, and gives power back to communities, so to speak. If we start from the premise of sustainability (rather than renewables), then we can look at NZ's population and what the carrying capacity is for that in terms of power (local, national and imported). Then design our lives and society around this.

      This is what many people using home solar and wind have to do anyway because of the inherent limits of electricity production. The idea that you can turn on something that uses power and just leave it running just isn't real, it's a myth from fossil fuel use, and there is a mental adjustment to be made around that from which good use of tech will follow.

      • Belladonna 5.2.1
        11 October 2024 at 10:10 am

        Then design our lives and society around this.

        I guess this is the key point. What does designing our lives look like?

        For many, the fear is that this means that the rich get the more-expensive electricity (since they can pay for it), and the poor miss out. We already see this, today. When people have electricity, but can't afford to turn on the heating in winter.

  6. Belladonna 6
    11 October 2024 at 10:08 am

    An unfortunate side-effect of the media catastrophism in reporting (if it bleeds, it leads) – is that people are expecting the worst, and when it fails to eventuate (Milton was not nearly as catastrophic as predicted), they tend to believe that there isn't really a problem, therefore,business as usual.

    • Jenny 6.1
      11 October 2024 at 8:44 pm

      Belladonna @6

      11 October 2024 at 10:08 am

      An unfortunate side-effect of the media catastrophism in reporting (if it bleeds, it leads) – …..

      With one exception, if it bleeds in Gaza.

      • Belladonna 6.1.1
        11 October 2024 at 10:02 pm

        Seems to me that Gaza is very frequently in the media – considerably more so (currently) than either Ukraine or Sudan.

    • Muttonbird 6.2
      11 October 2024 at 9:08 pm

      I don't get this criticism (I do get that you, being an anti-media conspiracy theorist are doing the criticising). There was quite a bit of destruction in Florida and people there probably are thankful it wasn't worse and are probably grateful to the civil authorities and the media for the updates.

      We saw it with the Auckland anniversary event and Gabrielle. Not enough forewarning for Auckland in the first and for Hawkes Bay in the second. The authorities and the media were criticised for not doing enough.

      It's incredibly difficult to judge the right level of info for a weather event but some serious deluded idiots are going to claim the media got the storm wrong every time.

      • Belladonna 6.2.1
        11 October 2024 at 10:01 pm

        Surely you've also noticed the reaction when a large storm, is predicted, and either fails to arrive, or is considerably less destructive than predicted – people are less likely to believe the media about the next warning.

        Yes, I know meteorology isn't an exact science – but the fable of the boy who cried wolf, is all too accurate.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.1.1
          12 October 2024 at 11:30 am

          … but the fable of the boy who cried wolf, is all too accurate.

          The moral stated at the end of the Greek version is, "this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".

          B, in your analogy, are meteorologists 'The Boy' who lies, deliberately and repeatedly, and are the extreme weather events they lie about 'the Wolf'?

          Meteorologists are damned by some when they err on the side of caution, and would often be damned if they didn't, but imho they're seldom deliberate liars.

          In the long run, more Sheep(le) will be Wolf tucker unless the Boy's considered alerts are heeded every time, because climate change is real. Forewarned is forearmed – https://www.metservice.com/warnings/tropical-cyclone-activity

          It amazes me how persistent some climate change deniers are, even now, and particularly those on the political right. 23% of elected officials in the 118th U.S. Congress are CC deniers – that's 123 officials – Republicans all, believe it or not.

          https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-of-the-118th-congress/

          Maybe there are even a few in the ranks of our CoC MPs, and their supporters, who wish to sow and feed the seeds of doubt as to the motivations of meteorologists – an obvious question being 'Why?' Ah well, you reap what you sow.

          Prime Minister defends Peters' climate comments [29 Aug 2024]
          … look at the pain and suffering we're causing to lower middle income working New Zealanders across this country. – Luxon

          NIWA to take over MetService in forecaster merger [26 Sept 2024]
          The former Meteorological Service was split in 1992, with Metservice taking over day-to-day forecasting and NIWA – the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research – taking over climate research and longer-term forecasts.
          …
          "Extreme weather events in 2023 resulted in a tragic loss of life. These events cost nearly $12 billion in economic terms and $5 billion in insured loss."
          [- Collins]

          Hmm, split under a Bolger-led govt, and merged under a Luxon-led CoC govt. How's that for productivity.

          Yet another hurricane wetter, windier and more destructive because of climate change [11 Oct 2024]
          Hurricanes and Climate Change
          On a global scale, recent decades have seen an increase in more intense tropical cyclones (category 3-5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale), but no change in the overall number of TCs. Attribution studies on recent dangerous hurricanes in the NA basin show that rainfall from these events were all amplified by anthropogenic climate change… There is also growing evidence that hurricanes are now intensifying more rapidly, becoming more intense and will continue to do so with further warming, and that storm surges are causing extra damage due to sea level rise.

          Wolf, woooooolf!

          • Belladonna 6.2.1.1.1
            12 October 2024 at 11:32 am

            A response perfectly illustrating why you fail to convince.

            • Drowsy M. Kram 6.2.1.1.1.1
              12 October 2024 at 11:44 am

              A response perfectly illustrating why you fail to convince.

              What am I failing to convince you about this time B, and ‘Why?’

              In your analogy @6.2.1, are meteorologists 'The Boy' who lies, deliberately and repeatedly, and are the extreme weather events they lie about 'the Wolf'?

              Any ideas about why all 123 climate change deniers in the 118th U.S. Congress are Republicans?

  7. Jenny 7
    11 October 2024 at 10:26 am

    If we can't stop killing each other, how can we stop killing the planet? The answer to the above question is simple; If we can't stop war, we can't stop climate change. If we can't even stop a genocide, humanity has no hope of stopping an ecocide.

    Greta Thunberg accuses Israel of ‘war crimes’ and ‘genocide’

    Sweden is also complicit in Israel’s ‘occupation and mass killing,’ climate activist says.

    By CLAUDIA CHIAPPA

    December 5, 2023

    2 minutes read

    …..“Silence is complicity. You cannot be neutral in an unfolding genocide.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/greta-thunberg-gaza-israel-war-crimes-and-genocide/

    • Belladonna 7.1
      11 October 2024 at 1:05 pm

      Climate change is likely to drive more war.

      When resources are scarce, or areas become unlivable, people attempt to migrate elsewhere. Which is resisted by those already living in the new location. War happens.

    • Karolyn_IS 7.2
      11 October 2024 at 1:28 pm

      And underlying both those issues is capitalism. In the end, if those that benefit most from capitalism DO understand the dangers of climate change, their solution will be for the few at the expense of the many.

  8. SPC 8
    12 October 2024 at 6:36 pm

    Even though the southeastern US state is highly vulnerable to catastrophes caused by climate change, including rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes, nothing seems to dampen its appeal.

    The state is the third most populous in the country, and it attracted the second highest number of new residents in 2023, behind only Texas, according to US census data.

    In 2023, homeowners paid an average of $10,996 to insure their residences, 421 percent more than the national average, according to data from Insurify, an insurance comparison firm.

    Over $8000pa in extra insurance.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/530573/despite-hurricanes-floridians-refuse-to-leave-paradise