CHICAGO | General Discussions

[left of center]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

I really don't expect anything from a NY based newspaper to have positive articles on Chicago.

Case in point, the NYT released an article about how Chicago will be under water due to global warming and rising lake levels. Ignoring the fact that the 5 boroughs are at extreme danger of rising sea levels, and the fact that the massive system of man made locks are in place to keep lake levels where they are and can be opened to help alleviate future flooding. But you knooooow....

If more funds are needed for the OPL, the Obamas have a massive nationwide fundraising network they can tap into. I am not too worried, and I'm sure the Obamas aren't either.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by left of center

Case in point, the NYT released an article about how Chicago will be under water due to global warming and rising lake levels. Ignoring the fact that the 5 boroughs are at extreme danger of rising sea levels, and the fact that the massive system of man made locks are in place to keep lake levels where they are and can be opened to help alleviate future flooding. But you knooooow....

If more funds are needed for the OPL, the Obamas have a massive nationwide fundraising network they can tap into. I am not too worried, and I'm sure the Obamas aren't either.

That was an epic reporting fail.

NYC publications spent a full month saying that Chicago was going to be swamped by Lake Michigan and floods.

Couldn’t be bothered to warn their own city a few weeks later that excessive hurricane rains can drown people in their basements because of NYC’s poor drainage infrastructure.


But seeing as the main source of this article is Friends of the Parking Lots, there is probably lots of the grasping of straws regarding the “so-called evidence”

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

That was an epic reporting fail.

NYC publications spent a full month saying that Chicago was going to be swamped by Lake Michigan and floods.

Couldn’t be bothered to warn their own city a few weeks later that excessive hurricane rains can drown people in their basements because of NYC’s poor drainage infrastructure.

The WSJ piece about the Obama Center is biased ideological garbage, but I didn't have a problem with the NYT piece about Lake Michigan.

It's the kind of journalism we should have in Chicago, but our papers don't have the resources to pay someone to fact-check politicians and the MWRD/Army Corps.

Because the impacts of climate change on Chicago are more distant and abstract, there's a lot of complacency here which is dangerous. We may get off better than the coasts, but we won't be unscathed. We need to do our own climate proofing just like other parts of the country. Instead all we get is Deep Tunnel and the Army Corps' lakefront rebuild, which are still solving 1970s problems, not 2020s or 2030s problems.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The WSJ piece about the Obama Center is biased ideological garbage, but I didn't have a problem with the NYT piece about Lake Michigan.

It's the kind of journalism we should have in Chicago, but our papers don't have the resources to pay someone to fact-check politicians and the MWRD/Army Corps.

Because the impacts of climate change on Chicago are more distant and abstract, there's a lot of complacency here which is dangerous. We may get off better than the coasts, but we won't be unscathed. We need to do our own climate proofing just like other parts of the country. Instead all we get is Deep Tunnel and the Army Corps' lakefront rebuild, which are still solving 1970s problems, not 2020s or 2030s problems.

Chicago is 666 feet above sea level. They are more worried about Lake Michigan levels dropping than going up to flood stage.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Chicago is 666 feet above sea level. They are more worried about Lake Michigan levels dropping than going up to flood stage.

I never said Lake Michigan was going to continue rising. But we will see some effects of climate change, so we'd better start studying/modeling the local effects at our universities, and designing projects to prepare for those imapcts. Instead we are still spending billions on Deep Tunnel so some homeowners in the Bungalow Belt don't get flooded basements.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I never said Lake Michigan was going to continue rising. But we will see some effects of climate change, so we'd better start studying/modeling the local effects at our universities, and designing projects to prepare for those imapcts. Instead we are still spending billions on Deep Tunnel so some homeowners in the Bungalow Belt don't get flooded basements.

I can’t imagine why the city spent money on a major current problem affecting thousands of Chicago homeowners every year and causing general water quality issues. /s

Instead of spending money on speculative problems that may or may not happen two centuries from now.

So far excessive rainfall and localized flooding has indeed been the principle issue of climate change here so far, and Deep Tunnel is a decent attempt to address it.

It’s silly to be handwringing over Lake Michigan when it’s still cycling the same as it has ever done, well within the limits Chicago’s infrastructure was built for (aside from a handful of poorly located buildings)




https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/great-lakes

[Briguy]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I can’t imagine why the city spent money on a major current problem affecting thousands of Chicago homeowners every year and causing general water quality issues. /s

Instead of spending money on speculative problems that may or may not happen two centuries from now.

So far excessive rainfall and localized flooding has indeed been the principle issue of climate change here so far, and Deep Tunnel is a decent attempt to address it.

It’s silly to be handwringing over Lake Michigan when it’s still cycling the same as it has ever done, well within the limits Chicago’s infrastructure was built for (aside from a handful of poorly located buildings)




https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/great-lakes

We actually need more rain AND the lake to freeze over for a significant part of the winter for the level to rise. Polar vortex freezes and record precip caused 2020 levels. Lakes already down like 2 ft from there and we've had normal rain, but less icy winters.

More likely than not the lake begins to dry up. Almost certainly if winters become totally ice free every year.