• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$100 easy give away. My money to you.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buzz said:
A half billion dollars... or 500 million to raise the roads and sea walls. And this is just for the roads and sea walls and doesn't cover the many multiples of billions that home and commercial landowners are going to have to pay to protect their properties from sea level rise.



My very rough and estimated count came up with about 40 sets of traffic lights.



The roads are being raised 2 feet.



What difference does it make? Raising things two feet will help until sea levels go up 2 feet. Or do you just want to come up with a time frame that will allow you to divide the cost up over several years? Sorry Tim, but the costs of raising the roads for this island can't just be spread out over time. The costs are happening now.



I would never trust you to fairly compare costs on something like this. I have dealt with your inability to analyze numbers for this kind of thing many times... and they are a joke.

So... let's just look at the numbers now.

You came up with an article about Miami-Dade spending 11 million to upgrade 300(10%) sets of lights to "smart lights". That is about 36,000 per set. So, if my count is correct, Miami Beach could upgrade all their lights for about a million and a half. A hell of a lot less than a half billion.

I also came up with a source that gave costs for installing a new set of lights that was from 250.000 to 500,000. And that includes installation of power lines. So... even if Miami Beach needed to replace ALL of their traffic lights including the poles and wiring they could do it for about a max of 20 million. Still significantly less than this partial costs of mitigating sea level rise.

Send your $100 here.
Click to expand...

Yes the cost of doing this work will need to be spread over the next 100 years because that is the time frame for sea levels to rise by 2 feet.

So 500 million, is 5 million per year.

Miami beach is full of intersections like this one;

Google Maps

This is a far more complex set than you would get for $500,000. More like $1,000,000. Shockingly expensive things traffic lights. They have a half life of say about 20 years and I make it more like 60 sets. With maintenance at 5% per year, a very conservative estimate, you have found the place which almost makes it.

Then again it is a Beach. If you are going to build on a beach well,..........
 
Tim the plumber said:
Good I look forward to it.

You hardest part, I expect, will be to show that there has been and will be an increase in bush fires from a warmer, and generally wetter, world.
Click to expand...

That's the easy part, see the study in my previous post. The hard part is data about local council spending on fire and traffic management,
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes the cost of doing this work will need to be spread over the next 100 years because that is the time frame for sea levels to rise by 2 feet.

So 500 million, is 5 million per year.
Click to expand...

Now, wait a sec... You didn't say anything about spreading the costs over some completely arbitrary number of years in your original challenge. This is nothing but you changing the rules after the game has started.

The last time you choose 30 years. Did you realize that wouldn't be enough this time?

And if Miami Beach was actually going to pay for this fix over 100 years than wouldn't it be fair to calculate the increase in cost due to interest payments. Do you have any clue how much it would cost to finance a half billion dollars over 100 years? Well... at an APR of 5% the interest would be about 2 billion and the yearly payments would be about 25 million.

Insisting on splitting up these costs over 100 years is just stupid.

Tim the plumber said:
Miami beach is full of intersections like this one;

Google Maps

This is a far more complex set than you would get for $500,000. More like $1,000,000.
Click to expand...

A million dollars to install a new set of lights is you pulling numbers out of your backside again. I have checked this out at several sources and the numbers I have seen run from 80,000 to 500,000. See here , here, or here. Now if you want to show it is a million... then prove it.

Tim the plumber said:
Shockingly expensive things traffic lights. They have a half life of say about 20 years and I make it more like 60 sets. With maintenance at 5% per year, a very conservative estimate, you have found the place which almost makes it.
Click to expand...

5% of what? A million? That is 50,000 a year which is ridiculous. Those same sources I just provided show about 10,000 each per year.

Do you want to know what is the most screwed up thing about your argument is? Well... even if we choose to play by your unfairly changed rules you still lose your bet!

Even if we take your count of 60 sets of lights and say they will all need to be replaced every 20 years that is 3 sets per year for a maximum cost of $1,500,000 per year. Then add $10,000 each for maintenance for $600,000 per year. That is about $2,100,000 per year for the traffic light budget.

2.1 million < 5 million

You still lose!!

:lamo
 
Buzz said:
Now, wait a sec... You didn't say anything about spreading the costs over some completely arbitrary number of years in your original challenge. This is nothing but you changing the rules after the game has started.

The last time you choose 30 years. Did you realize that wouldn't be enough this time?

And if Miami Beach was actually going to pay for this fix over 100 years than wouldn't it be fair to calculate the increase in cost due to interest payments. Do you have any clue how much it would cost to finance a half billion dollars over 100 years? Well... at an APR of 5% the interest would be about 2 billion and the yearly payments would be about 25 million.

Insisting on splitting up these costs over 100 years is just stupid.



A million dollars to install a new set of lights is you pulling numbers out of your backside again. I have checked this out at several sources and the numbers I have seen run from 80,000 to 500,000. See here , here, or here. Now if you want to show it is a million... then prove it.



5% of what? A million? That is 50,000 a year which is ridiculous. Those same sources I just provided show about 10,000 each per year.

Do you want to know what is the most screwed up thing about your argument is? Well... even if we choose to play by your unfairly changed rules you still lose your bet!

Even if we take your count of 60 sets of lights and say they will all need to be replaced every 20 years that is 3 sets per year for a maximum cost of $1,500,000 per year. Then add $10,000 each for maintenance for $600,000 per year. That is about $2,100,000 per year for the traffic light budget.

2.1 million < 5 million

You still lose!!

:lamo
Click to expand...


1, I am shocked at how cheap American traffic lights are in comparison to UK ones.

2, I am also shocked at how much it is costing Miami Beach to spread an extra 2 feet of material over their roads.

3,
Out of pocket costs to me?
It costs the taxpayer $250,000 to $500,000 to purchase and install a traffic signal. Electric bills and routine maintenance amount to about $8,000 a year. Drivers also have increased costs for fuel, time delay, and accidents. This adds to the reasons for installing signals only where clearly justified.
Click to expand...
The electricity costs add about another $1,500 or so per year, apparently. So average of $375k installation, half life of 20 years or so, so about $10k plus $10k operating per year. $20 k per year x 60 traffic light sets; $1.2 Million per year.

4, You win. The $5 Million per year needed to counter climate change is greater than the cost of traffic lights for a small city built on a sand bar.

5, Not Skeptical Not Science will not be getting the $100. I will happily donate it to this forum or to you or to Action Aid because of this;

The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive1 (RED) dictates that 10% of transport fuel in the EU must be derived from renewable sources by 2020. It is estimated that the great bulk of that renewable fuel – about 88% of it – will be made up of first generation biofuels grown on agricultural land2.However, most of Europe’s agricultural land is already in use, and it therefore cannot grow all the additional biofuels needed to meet its targets. Land is an essential and limited resource needed to sustain livelihoods and life. For many people living in poverty, access to land means being able to grow your own food and generate income, and in many cases it is a central part of people’s identity. In countries with the greatest inequality and poverty, land is at the heart of conflicts over land tenure and access to food and resources. In situations where men and women are already struggling for respect for their rights to access and control land, increasing demand for land on which to grow biofuels is making that struggle harder.
Click to expand...
https://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/...eeling_the_biofuels_pressure_in_guatemala.pdf

Or some other mutually acceptable recipient.
 
So we have a winner!

Building on a sand bar will lead to the need to spend more on sea defenses than traffic lights. But not so much that any of the complaints about this are at talking about the cost but simple the esthetics of the thing.

Now about that catastrophe. Where is it?
 
Tim the plumber said:
So we have a winner!
Click to expand...

I am honestly surprised you admit it. Go ahead and send the $ to Debate Politics. Just give me the credit.

Tim the plumber said:
Building on a sand bar will lead to the need to spend more on sea defenses than traffic lights. But not so much that any of the complaints about this are at talking about the cost but simple the esthetics of the thing.
Click to expand...

Nobody builds 4 and 5 story buildings on sand bars. There is limestone supporting most of the island.

Tim the plumber said:
Now about that catastrophe. Where is it?
Click to expand...

Look... I gave you one cost of the rise in sea level. You asked for the costs of one single effect of a warming world. So if I could have documented all the costs of that one effect(sea level rise) the costs would have been astronomical compared to just raising the roads and some sea walls. And you had to dishonestly spread the one cost I gave over 100 years to make it look smaller. Or do you really think this is the only cost Miami Beach is going to occur over the next 100 years?
 
Tim the plumber said:
So we have a winner!

Building on a sand bar will lead to the need to spend more on sea defenses than traffic lights. But not so much that any of the complaints about this are at talking about the cost but simple the esthetics of the thing.

Now about that catastrophe. Where is it?
Click to expand...
I could have warned you about this. Remember hurricane Katrina. Most of New Orleans is below sea level, like Holland, but they don't take the reality seriously. Much more tahn in Europe, Americans build in idiotic places. Other favorites are river flood plains and earthquake faults.
 
Buzz said:
I am honestly surprised you admit it. Go ahead and send the $ to Debate Politics. Just give me the credit.



Nobody builds 4 and 5 story buildings on sand bars. There is limestone supporting most of the island.



Look... I gave you one cost of the rise in sea level. You asked for the costs of one single effect of a warming world. So if I could have documented all the costs of that one effect(sea level rise) the costs would have been astronomical compared to just raising the roads and some sea walls. And you had to dishonestly spread the one cost I gave over 100 years to make it look smaller. Or do you really think this is the only cost Miami Beach is going to occur over the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

1, $100 donated, not sure how to specify it to be on your behalf. Actually not yet as I am trying to work out how to do it as a one off. https://www.debatepolitics.com/tech-support/359914-can-make-one-off-donation.html#post1070223522

2, Any coastal built environment will constantly have to spend money maintaining the sea defenses etc. The price of that sea view and being on the beach is high.

3, If Miami beach is on limestone I suspect that the limestone is a wave cut platform with a sand bar on top of it. Otherwise it would generally have not got the name beach.

4, I still see no real mega bad thing at all. A warmer wetter world will be a better one as far as I can see. That you managed to find a place built on a beach that has cheap traffic lights and expensively adds a couple of feet onto the top of the roads means you win but it is hardly catastrophic is it?
 
Buzz said:
I am honestly surprised you admit it. Go ahead and send the $ to Debate Politics. Just give me the credit.



Nobody builds 4 and 5 story buildings on sand bars. There is limestone supporting most of the island.



Look... I gave you one cost of the rise in sea level. You asked for the costs of one single effect of a warming world. So if I could have documented all the costs of that one effect(sea level rise) the costs would have been astronomical compared to just raising the roads and some sea walls. And you had to dishonestly spread the one cost I gave over 100 years to make it look smaller. Or do you really think this is the only cost Miami Beach is going to occur over the next 100 years?
Click to expand...

1, $100 donated, not sure how to specify it to be on your behalf. Actually not yet as I am trying to work out how to do it as a one off. https://www.debatepolitics.com/tech-support/359914-can-make-one-off-donation.html#post1070223522

2, Any coastal built environment will constantly have to spend money maintaining the sea defenses etc. The price of that sea view and being on the beach is high.

3, If Miami beach is on limestone I suspect that the limestone is a wave cut platform with a sand bar on top of it. Otherwise it would generally have not got the name beach.

4, I still see no real mega bad thing at all. A warmer wetter world will be a better one as far as I can see. That you managed to find a place built on a beach that has cheap traffic lights and expensively adds a couple of feet onto the top of the roads means you win but it is hardly catastrophic is it?
 
Jay59 said:
I could have warned you about this. Remember hurricane Katrina. Most of New Orleans is below sea level, like Holland, but they don't take the reality seriously. Much more tahn in Europe, Americans build in idiotic places. Other favorites are river flood plains and earthquake faults.
Click to expand...

Not maintaining your sea defense when you have lots of poor people (blacks who you don't care about) will indeed lead to such disasters.
But that does not apply to this challenge because the sea levels have, as yet, not risen significantly.

That Holland has land, just agricultural land, at -11m below sea level shows just how cheap and easy it is to do.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Not maintaining your sea defense when you have lots of poor people (blacks who you don't care about) will indeed lead to such disasters.
But that does not apply to this challenge because the sea levels have, as yet, not risen significantly.

That Holland has land, just agricultural land, at -11m below sea level shows just how cheap and easy it is to do.
Click to expand...
As in Holland, the dikes are the key element. They failed in the surge of an F5 hurricane, partly due to substandard construction. More than any US city, New Orleans has a reputation for corruption. In spite of that, everyone blamed President Bush.
 
Jay59 said:
As in Holland, the dikes are the key element. They failed in the surge of an F5 hurricane, partly due to substandard construction. More than any US city, New Orleans has a reputation for corruption. In spite of that, everyone blamed President Bush.
Click to expand...
The way I understand it was the dikes did not fail, what failed were the floodwalls.
The problem had been identified, and money allocated, but the federal money was spent on a cruise ship terminal, instead of fixing the problem.
 
Buzz said:
How about that half billion dollars the relativly tiny island of Miami Beach is spending to raise roads and sea walls I showed you a while back. Your rationalizations you used to blow it off were a joke.

Miami Beach climate change report suggests more raised roads | Miami Herald

You never did address the fact that the traffic light costs you cited were for the all of Miami/Dade and not for just the island of Miami Beach.
Click to expand...

Just having a think about these numbers.

Half a billion dollars on an island 15km long... So about 45km of roads to add 2 feet to the top of.... $10 million dollars per km..... To add 2 feet to the road height....

What are they using for this? ~You would need a volume of 14m (width of road) x 1km x 0.6m (height of additional material in center of road) x 1/2 (because I am assuming they can make the center of the road high and slope the roadway down to the sides) = 4200 m3

If you spec concrete you are looking at about $250/m3 for poured cast concrete. Finished job less the road markings....$1M per km.

Some consultants are making a few dollars out of that one I think.

The kind of consultants that can arrange for you to sleep with the fish.
 
Just been looking at this;

As I mentioned, it’s much less expensive to maintain existing roadways. To mill and resurface a 4-lane road, it costs an average of $1.25 million per mile. Then, if you want to expand said road from four lanes to six, you can expect to pay roughly $4 million.
Click to expand...

How Much Does It Cost to Build a Mile of Road? | Midwest Industrial Supply

Now I know that the job is a little more work, they will have to add some extra material, and some work on the drains may be needed. But that's it.

$1.25M per mile, 45km is about 30 miles so $42M or maybe $50M by the time you add in the drains etc.

So actually I dispute the figures and see a normal x10 exaggeration as per standard green issues.

I will still do the $100 to this forum but I dispute that any place has actually been found that does in fact meet the criteria.
 
I could do with additional input from others;

Have I found that the cost of the sea defenses are not going to be that much or not?
 
Tim the plumber said:
I could do with additional input from others;

Have I found that the cost of the sea defenses are not going to be that much or not?
Click to expand...

Do you really think raising the roads 2 feet is only going to cost about what it costs to mill and resurface it? Do you realize how ludicrous that is? And have you forgotten all about the sea walls?

Seriously... before you answer go back and look at the article I sited in the first place. Notice the drone footage of the seawalls and the picture of the already finished road that is 2 feet above the sidewalks.

Oh... and I think most people have abandoned this little game of yours because you don't play fair.

I know I am done here.
 
Buzz said:
Do you really think raising the roads 2 feet is only going to cost about what it costs to mill and resurface it? Do you realize how ludicrous that is? And have you forgotten all about the sea walls?

Seriously... before you answer go back and look at the article I sited in the first place. Notice the drone footage of the seawalls and the picture of the already finished road that is 2 feet above the sidewalks.

Oh... and I think most people have abandoned this little game of yours because you don't play fair.

I know I am done here.
Click to expand...

1, If you are doing sea walls then you don't need to raise the roads in that place.

2, If you are doing the sea walls then only the additional 2 feet required for countering the 100 year prediction of global sea level rise counts. The local subsidence is not anything to do with global warming.

3, If you used solid concrete for the infill of the additional 2 feet then you would need only 1/10th the amount being spent. The figure of $450M is for a complete revamp of the sea defenses. This is what you have to do on a built coastline. The price of living next to the sea. Nothing to do with changing sea levels. Just the normal.

4, Yes you are done here. You have demonstrated that even though you tried very hard to achieve the result you were after you are unable to find any place on earth that will suffer any sort of catastrophe at all.
 
So we have no further attempts to answer the challenge.

The best was that Miami Beach was spending loads on sea defenses. Which after a bit of thought is what they will always have to do, every 30 years or so they will need to redo the sea defenses. If you build a city on a beach then what do expect in a hurricane zone? While they are at it they will be raising the sea defenses 30cm to allow mostly for the local rise in sea level due to the drop in the land's altitude.

Any other takers out there?
 
Tim the plumber said:
I will give you $100 to the first person to cite a single place, a single local council, which will have to spend more than it will spend on traffic lights (it has to have some) in order to counter, to sort out, a single effect of the warmer climate, as per the IPCC's numbers for climate. You must explain, in your own words, the mechanism, the bit between the warming and the bad thing, and support it with some sort of science, a paper or such, to show this mechanism in detail and so we can look at it to see if it is going to be so bad that the local council will have to spend more than the traffic light budget.

I will exclude only one aspect of warming; the need for places which have permafrost to change the foundations of their buildings. But I recon that such places will be better not worse for some warming.

Just think you get to take my money and wipe the smile off my face.

Obviously if you can't manage it you, and everybody else, will know you don't have any argument at all.
Click to expand...

Bet this one might exceed New Orleans traffic light budget.

New Orleans may face a storm surge on an already-high Mississippi River this weekend.

Massive rain and unprecedented flooding has been predicted by the IPCC (remember? ‘A warmer and wetter world, as you admit to?) added to a typical tropical storm... we shall see if it comes to pass.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Bet this one might exceed New Orleans traffic light budget.

New Orleans may face a storm surge on an already-high Mississippi River this weekend.

Massive rain and unprecedented flooding has been predicted by the IPCC (remember? ‘A warmer and wetter world, as you admit to?) added to a typical tropical storm... we shall see if it comes to pass.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to call flooding in a city below sea level "unprecedented".
I grew up near New Orleans, and recall hearing of floods routinely.
They have been building levees there since the city was founded.
Katrina should have taught them that value of allowing wealthy homes to keep boats near their homes,
is not worth the increased risks of flooding, we shell see.
Remember that during Katrina, it was not the massive levees that failed, but the much lower flood walls,
that protected the boat channels into the city.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link!
A quick look at google maps, looks like that have made plenty of improvements,
I guess we are about to see if they work.
 
longview said:
It is difficult to call flooding in a city below sea level "unprecedented".
I grew up near New Orleans, and recall hearing of floods routinely.
They have been building levees there since the city was founded.
Katrina should have taught them that value of allowing wealthy homes to keep boats near their homes,
is not worth the increased risks of flooding, we shell see.
Remember that during Katrina, it was not the massive levees that failed, but the much lower flood walls,
that protected the boat channels into the city.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link!
A quick look at google maps, looks like that have made plenty of improvements,
I guess we are about to see if they work.
Click to expand...

The Mississippi has never been this high for this long.

But deniers gotta deny.
 
longview said:
You have no idea what you are talking about!
National Weather Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service
Historic Crests
(1) 21.27 ft on 04/25/1922
(2) 21.05 ft on 05/11/1912
(3) 21.00 ft on 04/25/1927
(4) 20.50 ft on 05/18/1927
Click to expand...


That’s not really telling you how long it’s high, is it? RIF, dude.

Notice the dates. It’s spring- that’s when the river crests. But right now, it’s riding at like 16ft, where normal is much less.- maybe half that. Read the article that I posted, instead of reflexively denying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom