Spring, Summer, Winter, Fall

[BillTurlock]

can you tell the difference...

[Rick B.]

BillTurlock wrote in news:iev1s8d88vtal7hbq...@4ax.com:

>
> can you tell the difference...

Spring seems to have become something of a lost season around here in recent
years, reduced to a few days of pleasant weather between the hangover of
winter and the heat and humidity. The others are still distinguishable.

[Tim Wright]

On 6/18/2013 7:41 PM, BillTurlock wrote:
>
> can you tell the difference...
>

In the spring time we have occasional freezing rain, interspersed with
90° days and the occasional soft type of rain storm you would expect in
a normal part of the country. Tornado season starts in April.

In the summer we have unrelenting heat interspersed with the occasional
thunder storm which may or may not spawn hail and tornadoes. Never seen
it get above 117°F.

Fall here really starts September 15 which is when the heat breaks and
we start having highs in the 80s, cooler nights and later in the fall
possibly an ice storm or two. September is also the end of tornado season.

We don't have winter so much as "Thermal Shock" season. Wild
temperature swings from the 80s to the low teens, frequently in the same
week. Never seen it get colder than -9°F

--
Chickens: Tasty animals you eat before they are born and after they are
dead.
Tim W

[Les Albert]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:56:41 -0500, Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's more complicated than that:

"First comes spring and summer. Then we have fall and winter. And
then we get spring and summer again. There will be growth in the
spring." - Chance Gardner.

Les

[Hactar]

In article <iev1s8d88vtal7hbq...@4ax.com>, <BillTurlock> wrote:
>
> can you tell the difference...

Of course. Compare today's date to the dates of equinoxes and solstices.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

[bill van]

In article <UcadnQIBRO1SnFzM...@supernews.com>,

Vancouver:

Spring: usually starting in February, crocuses and other early-blooming
flowers get going. March and April, the cherry and plum trees blossom.
May, everybody plants their gardens. Mixed sun and rain throughout; more
sun and warmth than usual this year.

Summer: often rainy until July, then two to three months (sometimes
four) of magnificent sunny weather with little rain and comfortable
temperatures. Local strawberries in June, blueberries and cherries July
and August. Okanagan tree fruits right into the fall. My neighbourhood
becomes a beach resort in July and August.

Fall: it gets a little gloomy and rainy, usually, and we get a few
storms blowing in off the Pacific around November. Fallen leaves block
the storm drains.

Winter: it gets dark and rains a lot, with snow at higher elevations.
Once every two or three years, we get snow at sea level but it rarely
sticks around for more than a few days. Mind, it has been a few years
since we had more than a dusting of sea-level snow, and a lot of the
annuals on my patio are overwintering. Either we're due, or global
warming is at work.

So yeah, they're all green and not all are pleasant, but we have
reasonably distinct seasons.

bill

[BillTurlock]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:12:43 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

I'm sorry, I meant Vivaldi; they all sound pretty much the same to me.
I'm usually quite good about that, most of the time if I hear an
unfamiliar piece, I can identify the composer, etc. But Le Quattro
Stagioni all have the same character to me, I've given up guessing.

[Les Albert]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:51:32 -0700, BillTurlock wrote:


>I'm sorry, I meant Vivaldi; they all sound pretty much the same to me.
>I'm usually quite good about that, most of the time if I hear an
>unfamiliar piece, I can identify the composer, etc. But Le Quattro
>Stagioni all have the same character to me, I've given up guessing.

It's interesting that you think they all sound pretty much the same.
Here are good descriptions of the Vivaldi seasons:

http://tinyurl.com/lztg9hz

[Snidely]

BillTurlock is guilty of <0v62s85baju3bcv2v...@4ax.com>
as of 6/18/2013 7:51:32 PM

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:12:43 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <UcadnQIBRO1SnFzM...@supernews.com>,
>> Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/2013 7:41 PM, BillTurlock wrote:
>>>>
>>>> can you tell the difference...
>>>>
>>> In the spring time we have occasional freezing rain, interspersed with

>>> 90ￜ days and the occasional soft type of rain storm you would expect in

>>> a normal part of the country. Tornado season starts in April.
>>>
>>> In the summer we have unrelenting heat interspersed with the occasional
>>> thunder storm which may or may not spawn hail and tornadoes. Never seen

>>> it get above 117ï¿œF.

>>>
>>> Fall here really starts September 15 which is when the heat breaks and
>>> we start having highs in the 80s, cooler nights and later in the fall
>>> possibly an ice storm or two. September is also the end of tornado season.
>>>
>>> We don't have winter so much as "Thermal Shock" season. Wild
>>> temperature swings from the 80s to the low teens, frequently in the same

>>> week. Never seen it get colder than -9ï¿œF

Thunder in Summer, Freezing and falling on your butt in winter. At
least, that's what the verses say (in Italian).

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean

[Nick Spalding]

BillTurlock wrote, in <iev1s8d88vtal7hbq...@4ax.com>
on Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:41:29 -0700:

> can you tell the difference...

Flanders and Swann's take on it.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eT40eV7OiI>
--
Nick Spalding

[Peter Ward]

Nick Spalding says...

Good job I read ahead!

--

Peter, from outside the asylum

I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
There's another example, but I can't think of it.
- Greg Goss

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:41:29 PM UTC-4, BillTurlock wrote:
> can you tell the difference...

In Michigan? Yes!

[Greg Goss]

ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:

>In article <iev1s8d88vtal7hbq...@4ax.com>, <BillTurlock> wrote:
>>
>> can you tell the difference...
>
>Of course. Compare today's date to the dates of equinoxes and solstices.

I've always considered the official seasons dates to be absurd. Where
I grew up, Vicky Day (late May) was essentially the start of summer.
and by mid-August, it was getting to be a bit chilly for swimming.
Snow on Halloween? Not unusual. Snow in late February? Bizarre.

The solstices and equinoces are the MID-POINT of the seasons,
regardless of what the astronomers say.

We've had severe thunderstorms six of the past seven days. T-storms
are a major feature of summertime around here.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[bill van]

In article <b2eap5...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> We've had severe thunderstorms six of the past seven days. T-storms
> are a major feature of summertime around here.

Most of them around 4:30 p.m. or so, if memory serves.

bill

[Hactar]

In article <ae561703-e405-450d...@googlegroups.com>,

I heard a Michigander describe his state's weather as "9 months of snow
and 3 months of bad sledding".

[Rick B.]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:b2eap5...@mid.individual.net:

There are many who agree with you--or at least don't agree with the
solstice/equinox starting points:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/161/is-it-true-summer-in-ireland-starts-may-1

[Greg Goss]

Tuesday's were in the morning, with a bright sunny afternoon. I got
caught on the scooter in three of them, so took the car yesterday.
Sigh.

[Greg Goss]

"Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

>> I've always considered the official seasons dates to be absurd. Where
>> I grew up, Vicky Day (late May) was essentially the start of summer.
>> and by mid-August, it was getting to be a bit chilly for swimming.
>> Snow on Halloween? Not unusual. Snow in late February? Bizarre.
>>
>> The solstices and equinoces are the MID-POINT of the seasons,
>> regardless of what the astronomers say.
>>
>> We've had severe thunderstorms six of the past seven days. T-storms
>> are a major feature of summertime around here.
>
>There are many who agree with you--or at least don't agree with the
>solstice/equinox starting points:
>
>http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/161/is-it-true-summer-in-ireland-starts-may-1

I can live with the "June, July, August" listed there. Kelowna,
though it has a nice deep lake, is a fair distance from the ocean and
the lake isn't very wide -- so it will warm and cool faster than the
coast -- thus May 21.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 06/19/2013 11:15 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>
>> In article <iev1s8d88vtal7hbq...@4ax.com>, <BillTurlock> wrote:
>>>
>>> can you tell the difference...
>>
>> Of course. Compare today's date to the dates of equinoxes and solstices.
>
> I've always considered the official seasons dates to be absurd.

Just because jibber-jabberers like to throw around the word "official"
doesn't mean it is actually official. By whose office would that be?

> Where
> I grew up, Vicky Day (late May) was essentially the start of summer.
> and by mid-August, it was getting to be a bit chilly for swimming.
> Snow on Halloween? Not unusual. Snow in late February? Bizarre.
>
> The solstices and equinoces are the MID-POINT of the seasons,
> regardless of what the astronomers say.

What do the astronomers say? I hear them say "winter solstice", not
"fall-winter boundary solstice".

Xho

[Snidely]

Hactar wrote on 6/19/2013 :
> In article <ae561703-e405-450d...@googlegroups.com>,
> art...@yahoo.com <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:41:29 PM UTC-4, BillTurlock wrote:
>>> can you tell the difference...
>>
>> In Michigan? Yes!
>
> I heard a Michigander describe his state's weather as "9 months of snow
> and 3 months of bad sledding".

During which the mosquitoes can take out half the USAF, right?

(or is that only on the UP?)

/dps "likes West Coast climates"

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:15:02 +0100, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
>
>> In article <iev1s8d88vtal7hbq...@4ax.com>, <BillTurlock>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> can you tell the difference...
>>
>> Of course. Compare today's date to the dates of equinoxes and
>> solstices.
>
> I've always considered the official seasons dates to be absurd. Where
> I grew up, Vicky Day (late May) was essentially the start of summer.
> and by mid-August, it was getting to be a bit chilly for swimming.
> Snow on Halloween? Not unusual. Snow in late February? Bizarre.
>
> The solstices and equinoces are the MID-POINT of the seasons,
> regardless of what the astronomers say.
>

There's a lag in the heat; it takes a while to warm the earth (not Earth)
up.

> We've had severe thunderstorms six of the past seven days. T-storms
> are a major feature of summertime around here.


--

It's a money /life balance.

[bill van]

In article <op.wyzqrpnpo4et73@dell3100>,

I understand you have a state of emergency there today, with flooding
expected. Rivers are rising in southeast B.C. as well, and most highway
links between Alberta and B.C. are closed, including the Trans-Canada
west of Rogers Pass.

bill

[Greg Goss]

They're talking billions of damage so far, and the peak isn't until
tomorrow early AM according to current projections.

Two people were washed away in (reports are confused) either a motor
home or mobile home. There are reports that the man was rescued, and
apparently the woman is missing. I'm not sure if there are any other
missing or injured people.

[bill van]

In article <b2hk9g...@mid.individual.net>,

I've been watching TV newscasts and looking at calgary.ca for the last
while. At least three Calgary neighbourhoods I lived in decades ago are
being evacuated. Parts of High River and Canmore are basically being
wrecked, along with some smaller towns. It looks very, very bad.

My family moved to Alberta in 1959 and I kept up with events there even
I moved away. I've never seen worse flooding there than what is
happening and about to happen, not even close. This is the sort of event
that causes hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths in Third World
circumstances.

You're well away from the rivers, aren't you, Greg?

bill

[Greg Goss]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>> They're talking billions of damage so far, and the peak isn't until
>> tomorrow early AM according to current projections.
>>
>> Two people were washed away in (reports are confused) either a motor
>> home or mobile home. There are reports that the man was rescued, and
>> apparently the woman is missing. I'm not sure if there are any other
>> missing or injured people.
>
>I've been watching TV newscasts and looking at calgary.ca for the last
>while. At least three Calgary neighbourhoods I lived in decades ago are
>being evacuated. Parts of High River and Canmore are basically being
>wrecked, along with some smaller towns. It looks very, very bad.
>
>My family moved to Alberta in 1959 and I kept up with events there even
>I moved away. I've never seen worse flooding there than what is
>happening and about to happen, not even close. This is the sort of event
>that causes hundreds, perhaps thousands of deaths in Third World
>circumstances.

2005 was record level flooding, and this is expected to measure much
higher. I think that they said that 2005 in High River was 850
somethings per something (cubic metres per second?) and that they
expect this one to peak well above 1200.

>You're well away from the rivers, aren't you, Greg?

I live out on the open prairie to the NE. I drove through a small
flow between mosquito ponds this afternoon, but there are no streams
nearby. And newer neighborhoods in the prairie sections have "flood
parks" that are dug out ten or fifteen feet or so below the local
level, with the dirt used to build the nearby houses a bit higher.
There is a round one (I tend to call it "Crater Park") just next to my
townhouse complex, and three more within a quarter mile. When we
bought this place in 2005, the baseball diamond five blocks away was a
foot deep in stored stormwater.

<http://goo.gl/maps/8vEwB> You can see the storm sewer grate
protruding into the circle under the bump on the right where the
statue is being repaired. I've been told that there's a small sump
chamber and pump under the grass that pumps the water away slowly
after a crisis passes.
>
>bill

[Mac]

Calgary is one of the leaders of repurposed emergency runoff storage;
they even deliberately use streets.

[bill van]

In article <2dv8s89nr3mkns1ep...@4ax.com>,

But it appears to be the older inner city neighbourhoods that lack these
facilities that are flooding. No coincidence, come to think of it,
although the volumes of water are such that I don't think a few of these
fields would help. I think they're meant for heavy rainfalls, not
massive river flooding.

Meanwhile, water is up to the 13th row of seats in the Saddledome hockey
rink. The Stampede grounds - home to a fair and rodeo that draw a
million people over 10 days, scheduled to begin in two weeks - are
completely under water.

Three neighbourhoods where I have lived, all near one of the two rivers,
are wholly or partly under water. Time to get in touch with my family; I
have several relatives in Calgary and another cluster, including my
mother, in Lethbridge, which has just declared a state of emergency.

bill

[Paul Madarasz]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:44:14 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hactar wrote on 6/19/2013 :
>> In article <ae561703-e405-450d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> art...@yahoo.com <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:41:29 PM UTC-4, BillTurlock wrote:
>>>> can you tell the difference...
>>>
>>> In Michigan? Yes!
>>
>> I heard a Michigander describe his state's weather as "9 months of snow
>> and 3 months of bad sledding".
>
>During which the mosquitoes can take out half the USAF, right?
>
>(or is that only on the UP?)
>

When I lived in Detroit, the mosquitoes were pretty fierce.

[Heather]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:41:29 -0700, BillTurlock wrote:

>
>can you tell the difference...

Here in Melbourne summer is between six and eight months long with
winter taking up the rest. Spring and autumn might appear for a few
random days. The daffodils and tree blossom happen in July, the depths
of winter. Deciduous trees can lose their leaves any time from
February (if it gets too hot for them) to the end of June and beyond.
New leaves appear any time from July to October. As for those balmy
days in the low to mid twenties (ie 70 to 75 degrees C.), they are
becoming increasingly rare with the disappearance of spring and
autumn.



--
Heather

[Heather]

Are you affected by the flooding?

--
Heather

[BillTurlock]

I don't much recall them at all for the two year period I spent in the
UP

[Snidely]

Just this Friday, bill van explained that ...

> Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

>> Calgary is one of the leaders of repurposed emergency runoff storage;
>> they even deliberately use streets.
>
> But it appears to be the older inner city neighbourhoods that lack these
> facilities that are flooding. No coincidence, come to think of it,
> although the volumes of water are such that I don't think a few of these
> fields would help. I think they're meant for heavy rainfalls, not
> massive river flooding.
>
> Meanwhile, water is up to the 13th row of seats in the Saddledome hockey
> rink. The Stampede grounds - home to a fair and rodeo that draw a
> million people over 10 days, scheduled to begin in two weeks - are
> completely under water.
>
> Three neighbourhoods where I have lived, all near one of the two rivers,
> are wholly or partly under water. Time to get in touch with my family; I
> have several relatives in Calgary and another cluster, including my
> mother, in Lethbridge, which has just declared a state of emergency.

Just to balance things, India is having massive flooding, too. But I
don't think it's the same storm.

/dps

[Greg Goss]

I work for two weeks for Transit during the annual fair. The Mayor
says that the fair will proceed, but I'm skeptical. So it hurts my
employment. But I'm out on the open prairie, and all the rivers are
down in valleys. So I only worry about local runoff, and they build
"flood catchment parks" in all the newer neighborhoods out on the
prairie parts of the city. (The city is about 1/3 prairie, 1/3
rolling foothills, 1/3 river valley.)

The open prairie section of the city is completely unaffected. I
think that the rolling hills section is also unbothered. It's only
the river valley floors that affected. Including downtown.

[bill van]

In article <b2l1gr...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Heather <redbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:15:02 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> >>We've had severe thunderstorms six of the past seven days. T-storms
> >>are a major feature of summertime around here.
> >
> >Are you affected by the flooding?
>
> I work for two weeks for Transit during the annual fair. The Mayor
> says that the fair will proceed, but I'm skeptical. So it hurts my
> employment.

I share your skepticism. I think you have a terrific mayor, but I also
think the engineers are going to win that argument.

> But I'm out on the open prairie, and all the rivers are
> down in valleys. So I only worry about local runoff, and they build
> "flood catchment parks" in all the newer neighborhoods out on the
> prairie parts of the city. (The city is about 1/3 prairie, 1/3
> rolling foothills, 1/3 river valley.)
>
> The open prairie section of the city is completely unaffected. I
> think that the rolling hills section is also unbothered. It's only
> the river valley floors that affected. Including downtown.

But the effect down there is profound. And a number of towns - High
River, Canmore, Cochrane, several smaller ones - are devastated. At
least three or four people are dead, thousands have lost everything they
owned, there's no insurance coverage for flood damage in Alberta, and
any compensation is going to have to be approved by one of two
Conservative/conservative governments.

I'm sure you feel relieved that this horrific disaster isn't a risk to
your personal life and limb, but I assume you feel some empathy for
those less lucky. I shed some tears today when I saw that the
neighbourhoods I grew up in were under water and under mandatory
evacuation orders.

Incidentally, a lot of people in B.C. are wondering whether these events
are going to make Albertans slightly more sensitive to climate-change
issues. The consensus so far is that no, it's going to take them at
least three or four more disasters.

bill

[bill van]

In article <mn.ad2b7dd6f34249c7.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just this Friday, bill van explained that ...
> > Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Calgary is one of the leaders of repurposed emergency runoff storage;
> >> they even deliberately use streets.
> >
> > But it appears to be the older inner city neighbourhoods that lack these
> > facilities that are flooding. No coincidence, come to think of it,
> > although the volumes of water are such that I don't think a few of these
> > fields would help. I think they're meant for heavy rainfalls, not
> > massive river flooding.
> >
> > Meanwhile, water is up to the 13th row of seats in the Saddledome hockey
> > rink. The Stampede grounds - home to a fair and rodeo that draw a
> > million people over 10 days, scheduled to begin in two weeks - are
> > completely under water.
> >
> > Three neighbourhoods where I have lived, all near one of the two rivers,
> > are wholly or partly under water. Time to get in touch with my family; I
> > have several relatives in Calgary and another cluster, including my
> > mother, in Lethbridge, which has just declared a state of emergency.
>
> Just to balance things, India is having massive flooding, too. But I
> don't think it's the same storm.
>

No, it's not. And given the relative integrity of the infrastructure and
the varying ability to provide relief in the two countries, hundreds if
not thousands will die in India, and four or eight or 14 will die in
Alberta.

I've checked with my Alberta relatives, btw. They're all on high ground
and/or away from rivers.

bill

[Greg Goss]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>I'm sure you feel relieved that this horrific disaster isn't a risk to
>your personal life and limb, but I assume you feel some empathy for
>those less lucky. I shed some tears today when I saw that the
>neighbourhoods I grew up in were under water and under mandatory
>evacuation orders.

I think I'm mildly autistic, perhaps even mildly sociopathic (mediated
by a rigid adherence to a "golden rule" rule). I haven't figured out
how to internalize the damage to the city and its people yet. (The
only person I closely know in the affected areas lives in a rental and
is on vacation break anyhow - moved into her travel trailer for the
duration.)

>Incidentally, a lot of people in B.C. are wondering whether these events
>are going to make Albertans slightly more sensitive to climate-change
>issues. The consensus so far is that no, it's going to take them at
>least three or four more disasters.

I'm a carbon bigot, but I'm not sure that this is a poster event for
our point. This could just be "weather" rather than climate.

Besides, if we really cared about carbon based climate change, we
would go nuclear. THEN see BC heads lefty heads explode. (grin)

[John Mc.]

On 6/20/2013 1:44 AM, Snidely wrote:
> Hactar wrote on 6/19/2013 :
>> In article <ae561703-e405-450d...@googlegroups.com>,
>> art...@yahoo.com <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:41:29 PM UTC-4, BillTurlock wrote:
>>>> can you tell the difference...
>>>
>>> In Michigan? Yes!
>>
>> I heard a Michigander describe his state's weather as "9 months of snow
>> and 3 months of bad sledding".
>
> During which the mosquitoes can take out half the USAF, right?
>
> (or is that only on the UP?)
>
> /dps "likes West Coast climates"
>

What you don't realize is that Michigan is our first line of defense
against the Canadians and the mosquitoes ARE the Air Force.

John Mc.

[N Jill Marsh]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:36:46 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Are you affected by the flooding?

My sib has lost a house. Nothing else.


--
nj"internym here"m

Send reggae, guns & numbers.

[Bill Kinkaid]

On Saturday, 22 June 2013 00:42:24 UTC-7, bill van wrote:
> In article <>,
>
> Greg Goss wrote:
>
>
>
> > Heather wrote:

>
> >
>
> > >On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:15:02 -0600, Greg Goss <> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>We've had severe thunderstorms six of the past seven days. T-storms
>
> > >>are a major feature of summertime around here.
>
> > >
>
> > >Are you affected by the flooding?
>
> >
>
> > I work for two weeks for Transit during the annual fair. The Mayor
>
> > says that the fair will proceed, but I'm skeptical. So it hurts my
>
> > employment.
>
>
>
> I share your skepticism. I think you have a terrific mayor, but I also
>
> think the engineers are going to win that argument.
>
>
>
> > But I'm out on the open prairie, and all the rivers are
>
> > down in valleys. So I only worry about local runoff, and they build
>
> > "flood catchment parks" in all the newer neighborhoods out on the
>
> > prairie parts of the city. (The city is about 1/3 prairie, 1/3
>
> > rolling foothills, 1/3 river valley.)
>
> >
>
> > The open prairie section of the city is completely unaffected. I
>
> > think that the rolling hills section is also unbothered. It's only
>
> > the river valley floors that affected. Including downtown.
>
>
>
> But the effect down there is profound. And a number of towns - High
>
> River, Canmore, Cochrane, several smaller ones - are devastated. At
>
> least three or four people are dead, thousands have lost everything they
>
> owned, there's no insurance coverage for flood damage in Alberta, and
>
> any compensation is going to have to be approved by one of two
>
> Conservative/conservative governments.
>

What about Banff? The BC road report last night said the TransCanada Highway was open as far east of Banff but not further east (most highways in BC at least partly open, except for the highway through Kootenay Park). I would have expected Banff to get hammered too, with the Bow River running right through the middle of town, but haven't heard about it.

I was in Jasper a couple of weekends ago and came home through Lake Louise and Golden, it was mostly socked in but typical and nothing like what's happened the past few days. Last year it was Jasper and the North Thompson River across the Rockies from there that got hit - the road to the campground I stayed in two weeks ago was washed out last year, and there aren't even any creeks there. But nothing like this.

Every time some place in the US, most of Europe, Australia gets hit by events like this we get saturation coverage in the Canadian media whether it's relevant to us or not (usually not, apart from the climate change implications). Are people outside of Canada getting this coverage of Calgary being washed away?)

>
>
> I'm sure you feel relieved that this horrific disaster isn't a risk to
>
> your personal life and limb, but I assume you feel some empathy for
>
> those less lucky. I shed some tears today when I saw that the
>
> neighbourhoods I grew up in were under water and under mandatory
>
> evacuation orders.
>
>
>
> Incidentally, a lot of people in B.C. are wondering whether these events
>
> are going to make Albertans slightly more sensitive to climate-change
>
> issues. The consensus so far is that no, it's going to take them at
>
> least three or four more disasters.
>
>
>
> bill

That seems to be what it's taking stateside.

[Bill Kinkaid]

On Saturday, 22 June 2013 03:34:24 UTC-7, Greg Goss wrote:
> bill van <> wrote:

I think it's mostly weather. The main headwaters of the Bow River are icefields which are disappearing rapidly but not rapidly enough to cause this sudden kind of flooding. If they did go suddenly, most Calgary would not exist for long, even your high prairie neighbourhoods. When floods like this happen in BC, the usual culprits are failures of waterway containment (dyking) or of mountain slopes (usually a result of logging) but I don't think either of those are much of a factor in the afflicted region of Alberta.

[Dover Beach]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

news:b2lctc...@mid.individual.net:

> bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure you feel relieved that this horrific disaster isn't a risk to
>>your personal life and limb, but I assume you feel some empathy for
>>those less lucky. I shed some tears today when I saw that the
>>neighbourhoods I grew up in were under water and under mandatory
>>evacuation orders.
>
> I think I'm mildly autistic, perhaps even mildly sociopathic (mediated
> by a rigid adherence to a "golden rule" rule). I haven't figured out
> how to internalize the damage to the city and its people yet. (The
> only person I closely know in the affected areas lives in a rental and
> is on vacation break anyhow - moved into her travel trailer for the
> duration.)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Heather asked Greg if he was affected. He
answered that question. The fact that you, Greg, didn't immediately show
sympathy to everyone else who might be affected makes you neither
autistic nor sociopathic. Bill, I think it was a little unfair to poke
Greg for not answering a different question from the one Heather asked.

[Dover Beach]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ipdbs8hn0af2clji0...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:36:46 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Are you affected by the flooding?
>
> My sib has lost a house. Nothing else.
>
>

Yikes! Say some more about that.

[N Jill Marsh]

On 22 Jun 2013 16:44:27 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com>
wrote:

Not really anything more to say, at the moment. They weren't living
in it, currently, although other people were. I assume everything in
the upper level isn't trashed, everything else is, my peoples' stuff
was in the lower level. No one was hurt, and nothing irreplaceable
was lost. It still sucks, a lot, but not as much as it could have.

[Dover Beach]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:17mbs8p1kbd5p7e0a...@4ax.com:

Glad no life was lost.

[bill van]

In article <b2lctc...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> >Incidentally, a lot of people in B.C. are wondering whether these events
> >are going to make Albertans slightly more sensitive to climate-change
> >issues. The consensus so far is that no, it's going to take them at
> >least three or four more disasters.
>
> I'm a carbon bigot, but I'm not sure that this is a poster event for
> our point. This could just be "weather" rather than climate.
>

Agreed. The climate change theory says it will result in more extreme
weather events more often. You can't say that one particular event is
one thing or the other.

But there is considerable negative sentiment in B.C. around Alberta
aggressively ramping up hydrocarbon production, especially at the oil
sands, and completely failing to understand why B.C. might not want
bitumen slurry moving through its landscape and coastal waters. Those
feelings fuel the reaction I described above.

bill

[bill van]

In article <45f0170c-5d41-42ed...@googlegroups.com>,

Bill Kinkaid <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about Banff? The BC road report last night said the TransCanada Highway
> was open as far east of Banff but not further east (most highways in BC at
> least partly open, except for the highway through Kootenay Park). I would
> have expected Banff to get hammered too, with the Bow River running right
> through the middle of town, but haven't heard about it.

Me too. I was actively looking for news on Banff, but it appears that
while a bunch of roads in the vicinity were washed out, the town itself
wasn't hit hard. I heard an interview with someone Friday who said
people in the townsite were comfortable, but they couldn't go anywhere
because the roads to everywhere else were closed.

>
> I was in Jasper a couple of weekends ago and came home through Lake Louise
> and Golden, it was mostly socked in but typical and nothing like what's
> happened the past few days. Last year it was Jasper and the North Thompson
> River across the Rockies from there that got hit - the road to the campground
> I stayed in two weeks ago was washed out last year, and there aren't even any
> creeks there. But nothing like this.

The CBC, which keeps a few actual meteorologists around, talked about a
freak low pressure system that would dump immense amounts of rain on the
eastern slopes of the Rockies, but was prevented from moving away by
strong easterly winds. It would rise a bit, replenish its moisture
content, then drift back down and dump more rain on the same region, day
after day.

>
> Every time some place in the US, most of Europe, Australia gets hit by events
> like this we get saturation coverage in the Canadian media whether it's
> relevant to us or not (usually not, apart from the climate change
> implications). Are people outside of Canada getting this coverage of Calgary
> being washed away?)
>

I haven't tried to pick up any newscasts from abroad to find out, but my
guess is that it's similar coverage to what we get here when India or
Europe floods, or California or Australia burns: 30 seconds in a major
newscast with the most spectacular video available, then nothing until
the next major newscast. Anderson Cooper doesn't do non-American weather
disasters.

bill

[Greg Goss]

Bill Kinkaid <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What about Banff? The BC road report last night said the TransCanada Highway was open as far east of Banff but not further east (most highways in BC at least partly open, except for the highway through Kootenay Park). I would have expected Banff to get hammered too, with the Bow River running right through the middle of town, but haven't heard about it.

The first big-damage zone was Canmore, just outside the Banff park
boundary. But the damage at Canmore was in tributaries, not the Bow
itself.

I think that much of the surge that's hitting Calgary in the Bow came
from the Kananaskis ("Front Range"?) range, rather than the main part
of the Rockies. These would join the Bow well downstream from Banff.

[Greg Goss]

Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com> wrote:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

>> I think I'm mildly autistic, perhaps even mildly sociopathic (mediated
>> by a rigid adherence to a "golden rule" rule). I haven't figured out
>> how to internalize the damage to the city and its people yet. (The
>> only person I closely know in the affected areas lives in a rental and
>> is on vacation break anyhow - moved into her travel trailer for the
>> duration.)
>
>Oh, for heaven's sake. Heather asked Greg if he was affected. He
>answered that question. The fact that you, Greg, didn't immediately show
>sympathy to everyone else who might be affected makes you neither
>autistic nor sociopathic.

I determine what other people think or feal by a reasoned process from
reading expressions or by projecting in a reasoned manner what I would
feel given the same situations. Most people seem to come to a reading
on other people by a much more holistic right-brain gestalt that makes
no sense to me. I reason what the other person is experiencing.
Everyone else seems to "become" in some sense the other person in
order to determine what the other is experiencing.

[Greg Goss]

Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com> wrote:

>Glad no life was lost. [NJ's sib]

I think that the official numbers are three dead, one missing. But
some of the reports only say TWO bodies, so I'm not sure.

Considering the damage, including videos of the Bragg Creak house
running into that bridge, and considering the foolishness of looky-loo
tourism, I'm astonished at only "four" lost.

[Hactar]

In article <ipdbs8hn0af2clji0...@4ax.com>,

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:36:46 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Are you affected by the flooding?
>
> My sib has lost a house. Nothing else.

That sucks. I don't think you can get a prosthesis for that.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:28:57 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com> wrote:
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in

>>> I think I'm mildly autistic, perhaps even mildly sociopathic (mediated
>>> by a rigid adherence to a "golden rule" rule). I haven't figured out
>>> how to internalize the damage to the city and its people yet. (The
>>> only person I closely know in the affected areas lives in a rental and
>>> is on vacation break anyhow - moved into her travel trailer for the
>>> duration.)

>>Oh, for heaven's sake. Heather asked Greg if he was affected. He
>>answered that question. The fact that you, Greg, didn't immediately show
>>sympathy to everyone else who might be affected makes you neither
>>autistic nor sociopathic.

>I determine what other people think or feal by a reasoned process from
>reading expressions or by projecting in a reasoned manner what I would
>feel given the same situations. Most people seem to come to a reading
>on other people by a much more holistic right-brain gestalt that makes
>no sense to me.

How can you possibly know how other people come to a reading of what
someone else is thinking or feeling?

>I reason what the other person is experiencing.
>Everyone else seems to "become" in some sense the other person in
>order to determine what the other is experiencing.

How do you know that everyone else "becomes" the other person to
determine what someone else is experiencing?

Les

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0400, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
wrote:

>N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:36:46 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> >Are you affected by the flooding?

>> My sib has lost a house. Nothing else.

>That sucks. I don't think you can get a prosthesis for that.

Losing a house is bad. This is worse: http://tinyurl.com/4cd52dr

Les

[Greg Goss]

Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:

>How can you possibly know how other people come to a reading of what
>someone else is thinking or feeling?

The post describes that OTHER people describe their method of reaching
conclusions in a manner that makes absolutely no sense to me. Now you
want me to explain that method that makes no sense to me. It isn't
going to work.

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:18:18 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:

>>How can you possibly know how other people come to a reading of what
>>someone else is thinking or feeling?

>The post describes that OTHER people describe their method of reaching
>conclusions in a manner that makes absolutely no sense to me. Now you
>want me to explain that method that makes no sense to me. It isn't
>going to work.

Your post doesn't "describe" anything. It just makes your broad
statement about how most people "seem to come to a reading" of others.
Here is what you wrote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I determine what other people think or feal by a reasoned process from
reading expressions or by projecting in a reasoned manner what I would
feel given the same situations. Most people seem to come to a reading

on other people by a much more holistic right-brain gestalt that makes
no sense to me.

I reason what the other person is experiencing.
Everyone else seems to "become" in some sense the other person in

order to determine what the other is experiencing. - G.Goss
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My questions still stand.

Les

[BillTurlock]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:28:57 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>
>I determine what other people think or feal by a reasoned process from
>reading expressions or by projecting in a reasoned manner what I would
>feel given the same situations. Most people seem to come to a reading
>on other people by a much more holistic right-brain gestalt that makes
>no sense to me. I reason what the other person is experiencing.
>Everyone else seems to "become" in some sense the other person in
>order to determine what the other is experiencing.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that. No judgement from here.

I, on the other hand am an empath. Someone here once demanded my
definition of that. It's simple: I feel your pain*. srsly

You fall down and skin your knee, my leg jerks in sympathetic pain.
I can not watch those "funny" home movie shows where someone always
gets struck in the balls. That really literally hurts to watch.

And, of course, emotional pain is equally easily transmissible.

If someone with whom I am closely acquainted is having some specific
kind of extreme physical pain, it's not unlikely that I will feel it.
It's only later, when they relate the episode do I recognize the link.


*No appologies to Slick Willie

[BillTurlock]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:18:18 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>How can you possibly know how other people come to a reading of what
>>someone else is thinking or feeling?

It's spooky, innit?

>The post describes that OTHER people describe their method of reaching
>conclusions in a manner that makes absolutely no sense to me. Now you
>want me to explain that method that makes no sense to me. It isn't
>going to work.

Fer sher, dyood

[Greg Goss]

Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:18:18 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>
>Your post doesn't "describe" anything. It just makes your broad
>statement about how most people "seem to come to a reading" of others.

Bill describes the same thing as I was describing.

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:17:41 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:

>>On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 14:18:18 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>>Your post doesn't "describe" anything. It just makes your broad
>>statement about how most people "seem to come to a reading" of others.

>Bill describes the same thing as I was describing.

I don't know what Bill describes; I came into the subject with your
post.

Les

[Les Albert]

The two of you are like a comedy act. And you are both so alike.

Les

[bill van]

In article <b2mccl...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Dover Beach <moon.b...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Glad no life was lost. [NJ's sib]
>
> I think that the official numbers are three dead, one missing. But
> some of the reports only say TWO bodies, so I'm not sure.

Two bodies recovered, a third spotted but can't be recovered with safety
just yet. I'm just seeing now that a third body was recovered Saturday,
but it's not clear whether it is that of a woman who was missing with
her camper van, or the body that was previously spotted.

There is some uncertainty about others: two bodies seen floating down
the Highwood River that may or may not be the ones recovered; the woman
in the camper; a man seen falling out of a canoe, not known whether he
drowned, or got back in, etc.

>
> Considering the damage, including videos of the Bragg Creak house
> running into that bridge, and considering the foolishness of looky-loo
> tourism, I'm astonished at only "four" lost.

There might be a few more here and there; I don't think the authorities
have tabs on every individual in the flood zones. But by and large, it
appears that the emergency response people have done a good job, and I
don't expect there will be many more deaths reported.

However, there's potential for more trouble south and east of Calgary.
The Oldman River at Lethbridge is cresting this afternoon, and the crest
doesn't reach Medicine Hat on the South Saskatchewan River until Monday.
Evacuations have been ordered at both places. The South Saskatchewan's
tributaries include the Bow and Elbow, the two rivers that flooded at
Calgary, so that's a lot of water on its way.

bill

[Paul Madarasz]

"Holistic", "right-brain", and "gestalt" all in one phrase! That's
the hat trick!

[Greg Goss]

It ain't keyword bingo. It's basically saying the same thing, using
multiple words for the concept to preserve variety. I'm talking about
a single concept here.

[Mark Brader]

"bill van":

> But the effect down there is profound. And a number of towns - High

> River, Canmore, Cochrane, several smaller ones - are devastated...

Did the weather system that caused this flooding stop at the border
or what? The only things I've heard about other areas that might
be affected are the ones downstream from Calgary, in Saskatchewan
and Manitoba.
--
Mark Brader There are people on that train!
Toronto Sure, they're Canadians, but they're still people!
m...@vex.net -- Paul Gross, "Due South"

[bill van]

In article <c-ydnd7UVc4vFFvM...@vex.net>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> "bill van":
> > But the effect down there is profound. And a number of towns - High
> > River, Canmore, Cochrane, several smaller ones - are devastated...
>
> Did the weather system that caused this flooding stop at the border
> or what? The only things I've heard about other areas that might
> be affected are the ones downstream from Calgary, in Saskatchewan
> and Manitoba.

Bit of a long story, that.

It was a low pressure system that, because of unusual atmospheric
conditions, got stuck in one place over the eastern slopes of the
Rockies, including and especially the Kananaskis range southeast of
Banff. It dropped huge amounts of rain over a period of three or four
days on an area that was already going through spring freshet and had
seen quite a bit of conventional rain, so the soil was already
saturated. Immense volumes of water came down the local river and stream
beds, all of which flow more or less east and south. The low pressure
system has been gradually dissipating over the last couple of days and I
think it's pretty well gone now.

I've been paying fairly close attention. Cougar Creek took a piece out
of Canmore. I'm pretty sure it feeds into the Bow River system along
with many other local creeks. The Elbow River, which originates in the
Kananaskis, joins the Bow at the edge of downtown Calgary.

The Highwood River, which also originates in the Kananaskis area, wiped
out High River, south of Calgary. It flows into the Bow downstream.

The Oldman River, a little further south, goes through Lethbridge, where
it crested Saturday without causing major problems. It flows into the
Bow downstream.

Cochrane is located in the Bow Valley a bit west of Calgary. It got
whacked by the Bow just before Calgary did.

Furthest north of problem rivers that I'm aware of is the Red Deer
River, which caused some flooding at Sundre and a few other smaller
places.

Problem is that all these rivers eventually combine to form the South
Saskatchewan, which over the next couple of weeks will bring
extraordinary volumes of water to various places in southern Alberta and
Saskatchewan, and when it combines with the also swollen North
Saskatchewan to form the Saskatchewan River, to Manitoba.

At the moment, I think the predictions are for 10 to 12 times normal
water flows. So there will likely be flooding, gradually moving further
east, for the next two or three weeks.

Does that answer the question? I didn't really follow the part about
borders.

bill

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

> > Did the weather system that caused this flooding stop at the border
> > or what? The only things I've heard about other areas that might
> > be affected are the ones downstream from Calgary, in Saskatchewan
> > and Manitoba.

"bill van":
> ...Does that answer the question?

Yes, thanks.

> I didn't really follow the part about borders.

I wondered why I was only hearing about these dramatic effects in
that part of Canada that's close to the border, but not extending

to rivers in the northern US. You covered it when you said:

> The Oldman River, a little further south, goes through Lethbridge, where
> it crested Saturday without causing major problems.

In other words, the weather system (or the really bad part of it) was
not large enough to cause severe problems all the way to the border,
let alone across it.
--
Mark Brader A real Canadian science-fiction plot would be
Toronto about whether alien visitors were a federal or
m...@vex.net a provincial responsibility. --Duncan Thornton

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Heather]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:03:18 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Just this Friday, bill van explained that ...
>> Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Calgary is one of the leaders of repurposed emergency runoff storage;
>>> they even deliberately use streets.
>>
>> But it appears to be the older inner city neighbourhoods that lack these
>> facilities that are flooding. No coincidence, come to think of it,
>> although the volumes of water are such that I don't think a few of these
>> fields would help. I think they're meant for heavy rainfalls, not
>> massive river flooding.
>>
>> Meanwhile, water is up to the 13th row of seats in the Saddledome hockey
>> rink. The Stampede grounds - home to a fair and rodeo that draw a
>> million people over 10 days, scheduled to begin in two weeks - are
>> completely under water.
>>
>> Three neighbourhoods where I have lived, all near one of the two rivers,
>> are wholly or partly under water. Time to get in touch with my family; I
>> have several relatives in Calgary and another cluster, including my
>> mother, in Lethbridge, which has just declared a state of emergency.
>
>Just to balance things, India is having massive flooding, too. But I
>don't think it's the same storm.
>

Don't forget all the floods in Europe.

--
Heather

[N Jill Marsh]

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0400, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
wrote:

>In article <ipdbs8hn0af2clji0...@4ax.com>,
>N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 13:36:46 +1000, Heather <redbo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Are you affected by the flooding?
>>
>> My sib has lost a house. Nothing else.
>
>That sucks.

Yes, it does, and it's official, the house is not repairable, nothing
is salvageable, the only thing that is going to happen to what is left
is a wrecking ball. Other than the entire house and most of the
contents, nothing important was lost.

> I don't think you can get a prosthesis for that.

Not even if you have insurance, which was not possible to have.

[Greg Goss]

N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0400, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)

>>N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> My sib has lost a house. Nothing else.
>>
>>That sucks.
>
>Yes, it does, and it's official, the house is not repairable, nothing
>is salvageable, the only thing that is going to happen to what is left
>is a wrecking ball. Other than the entire house and most of the
>contents, nothing important was lost.
>
>> I don't think you can get a prosthesis for that.
>
>Not even if you have insurance, which was not possible to have.

On one of the US political channels that I watch, there are frequent
ads for a company that provides flood insurance. "Overland flood" is
a peril that is well-defined and for which the compensation is well
defined. It seems like a perfect situation for insurance.

But all the interviews say that "You cannot get insurance for overland
flood in Alberta." Cannot? I can see that it wouldn't be included in
the default insurance package, and can see that there would be zones
like High River after 2005 where it could be some huge percentage of
the house value per year, but cannot?

Is it true that overland flood insurance cannot be bought in Canada
(or at least in Alberta), and why not?

[bill van]

In article <b2ovvl...@mid.individual.net>,

That is my understanding, and I've seen and heard it reported multiple
times in the past few days.

The explanation is that there is not a big enough pool of people in
Alberta who live in flood plains and consider themselves at risk for
flood damage, and would therefore be willing to buy flood insurance.
That makes it uneconomic for insurance companies to sell overland flood
insurance. They'd have to charge premiums so high that homeowners
wouldn't be willing to pay them.

Overland flooding is defined as water that enters through doors and
windows from outside. Things like sewers backing up and flooding homes
are covered by normal home insurance policies, so there is a big enough
pool of buyers to make it worthwhile for insurance companies.

A few more events like the present one would probably change that, but
at this point it's an extreme rare occurrence. There hasn't been another
one like it in recorded history.

bill

[BillTurlock]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:50:46 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>A few more events like the present one would probably change that, but
>at this point it's an extreme rare occurrence. There hasn't been another
>one like it in recorded history.

srry for my recent post

[bill van]

In article <lopes8tf4j3gkgqas...@4ax.com>, BillTurlock
wrote:

I didn't notice anything offensive.

bill

[BillTurlock]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:56:20 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>

wrote:

>In article <lopes8tf4j3gkgqas...@4ax.com>, BillTurlock
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:50:46 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >A few more events like the present one would probably change that, but
>> >at this point it's an extreme rare occurrence. There hasn't been another
>> >one like it in recorded history.
>>
>> srry for my recent post
>
>I didn't notice anything offensive.
>
>bill

OK, good, then. I won't point out that I was to some extent making fun
of rainfall, uncharacteristically ignoring the pain of others.

ok still srry

[bill van]

In article <b74fs8dvotpa8futn...@4ax.com>, BillTurlock

wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:56:20 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <lopes8tf4j3gkgqas...@4ax.com>, BillTurlock
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 12:50:46 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >A few more events like the present one would probably change that, but
> >> >at this point it's an extreme rare occurrence. There hasn't been another
> >> >one like it in recorded history.
> >>
> >> srry for my recent post
> >
> >I didn't notice anything offensive.
>

> OK, good, then. I won't point out that I was to some extent making fun
> of rainfall, uncharacteristically ignoring the pain of others.
>
> ok still srry

Uh, that was the California thing. If you made fun of the Alberta people
who were flooded out of their homes that would be offensive. But just
some rain in southern California, no. Think of it as future brush fire
prevention.

bill

[Mac]

On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 17:47:10 -0700, bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca>

Don't work that way, though: unpredictable rain can lead to lots of
scraggly crap that makes great brushfires.

[D.F. Manno]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> On one of the US political channels that I watch, there are frequent
> ads for a company that provides flood insurance. "Overland flood" is
> a peril that is well-defined and for which the compensation is well
> defined. It seems like a perfect situation for insurance.

That's not a company, that's a government agency. No private insurer will
write flood coverage due to adverse selection - the purchase of insurance
mostly if not solely by those most affected by the named peril. With flood
coverage, the numbers of claimants is far larger than the potential number
of people interested in buying the coverage, which means there's no
opportunity for profit on the policies.

Thus the feds become the only flood insurer, since it has a larger treasury
and no need to make a profit.
--
D.F. Manno

[Mark Brader]

D.F. Manno:

> No private insurer will write flood coverage due to adverse selection
> - the purchase of insurance mostly if not solely by those most affected
> by the named peril.

By this logic, no private insurer will provide life insurance.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Premature generalization is
m...@vex.net the square root of all evil.

[D.F. Manno]

Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno:
>> No private insurer will write flood coverage due to adverse selection
>> - the purchase of insurance mostly if not solely by those most affected
>> by the named peril.
>
> By this logic, no private insurer will provide life insurance.

Well, yes, if you only look at half of the logic. Here's the part you left
out: "With flood coverage, the numbers of claimants is far larger than the

potential number of people interested in buying the coverage, which means
there's no opportunity for profit on the policies."

--
D.F. Manno

[Snidely]

on 6/22/2013, Les Albert supposed :

Well, perhaps.

> And you are both so alike.

That is a strange reading, methinks. There is a certain similarity to
the projection of their personality vectors along one particular axis,
but I don't see as much similarity along other axes.


/dps

--
Ieri, oggi, domani

[Snidely]

Greg Goss was thinking very hard :
> Bill Kinkaid <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What about Banff? The BC road report last night said the TransCanada Highway
>> was open as far east of Banff but not further east (most highways in BC at
>> least partly open, except for the highway through Kootenay Park). I would
>> have expected Banff to get hammered too, with the Bow River running right
>> through the middle of town, but haven't heard about it.
>
> The first big-damage zone was Canmore, just outside the Banff park
> boundary. But the damage at Canmore was in tributaries, not the Bow
> itself.
>
> I think that much of the surge that's hitting Calgary in the Bow came
> from the Kananaskis ("Front Range"?) range, rather than the main part
> of the Rockies. These would join the Bow well downstream from Banff.

OT, and FWIW, I had imperfectly formed memories that placed Lake Louise
closer to Banff, and had missed the connection with Rogers Pass. I was
still in high school when I went through there by car, and the train
trip was several years later.

You'd think I'd have read enough tales of the opening of the West to
have gotten this right sometime ago.

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Snidely]

Snidely scribbled on 6/24/2013 :

And I get irritated when Google Earth is too quick to go 3D on me
(strange sensations result over tall mountains) or wants to start
swooping from vertical viewpoint to something halfway to street view.

[Snidely]

On Saturday, bill van pointed out:

> It was a low pressure system that, because of unusual atmospheric
> conditions, got stuck in one place over the eastern slopes of the
> Rockies, including and especially the Kananaskis range southeast of
> Banff.

Was this perhaps because it was pinned in place by the Jet Stream? I
should, of course, go look at the information myself, but I won't get
to that tonight, and I haven't been following TWC or much reportage
outside of AFCA.

If there is a Jet Stream connection, then that could be tied to Global
Warming, because the warming of the Arctic lets the Jet Stream wander
more, which plays into extreme weather events (including,
un-intuitively, bring the late cold weather from the Arctic to Mary's
house).

/dps "well, my intuition needed some help with that"

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[Snidely]

Just this Monday, Snidely exclaimed that ...

> OT, and FWIW, I had imperfectly formed memories that placed Lake Louise
> closer to Banff, and had missed the connection with Rogers Pass. I was still
> in high school when I went through there by car, and the train trip was
> several years later.
>
> You'd think I'd have read enough tales of the opening of the West to have
> gotten this right sometime ago.

Wow! The Kootenai River flows about 2 miles from Lake Columbia, the
headwaters of the Columbia ... and then doesn't join up with the
Columbia until Castlegar !?!?!

/dps "yes, I'm dizzy"

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[bill van]

In article <mn.c5837dd66f4a78ad.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, bill van pointed out:
>
> > It was a low pressure system that, because of unusual atmospheric
> > conditions, got stuck in one place over the eastern slopes of the
> > Rockies, including and especially the Kananaskis range southeast of
> > Banff.
>
> Was this perhaps because it was pinned in place by the Jet Stream? I
> should, of course, go look at the information myself, but I won't get
> to that tonight, and I haven't been following TWC or much reportage
> outside of AFCA.
>
> If there is a Jet Stream connection, then that could be tied to Global
> Warming, because the warming of the Arctic lets the Jet Stream wander
> more, which plays into extreme weather events (including,
> un-intuitively, bring the late cold weather from the Arctic to Mary's
> house).
>
> /dps "well, my intuition needed some help with that"

Verrry interesting.

From the Edmonton Journal, as published in the Calgary Herald on
Saturday:

EDMONTON - A massive high pressure system held in place by a loop in the
jet stream is what's behind both the Calgary floods and balmy
temperatures in the Yukon.

"It doesn't let systems through," said Chris Scott, chief meteorologist
at the Weather Network. He watched as what would otherwise be just a
simple spring storm got stuck west of Calgary.

The weather system came over the mountains from the Pacific. As it spun
and stalled over the foothills, it pulled in moisture from Saskatchewan,
the United States and the Gulf of Mexico. Starting Wednesday around
suppertime, it poured for 15 to 18 hours straight across most of
southwest Alberta.

"It was like this firehose of moisture," Scott said. "(The weather
system) just kept slamming this moisture into the mountains."

One spot at the Three Sisters Dam in Kananaskis got 220 millimetres of
water in 36 hours, which is "nearly half of the total annual
precipitation for that area."

(bill: that's 8.7 inches.)

Many areas got as much rain in 18 hours as they normally get in two
months. Locations from Waterton Lakes National Park north were measuring
near 100 mm, and some got as high as 120 or 150 mm. Bow Valley, west of
Calgary on Highway 1, got 165 mm.


Good question, Snidely.

If I was still in the news biz, I might be able to turn that into a
national and international story, assuming a few more people with the
right credentials corroborated and/or talked sense about this story.

I see that David Suzuki, arguably Canada's leading environmentalist, has
blogged on it for the Huffington Post:

<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/alberta-flood-climate-change_b
_3480005.html>

http://tinyurl.com/mfuzgqy

But his bottom line appears to be the old climate change disclaimer: The
theory of climate change predicts more frequent severe weather events.
But you can't pin any given weather event on climate change with any
certainty.

It hasn't blossomed into a national/international story, at least not
yet.

Still, a really interesting angle.

bill

[Nick Spalding]

Snidely wrote, in <mn.c57d7dd6886b2fa8.127094@snitoo>
on Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:25:12 -0700:

Tools | Options | Navigation
(•) Do not automatically tilt while zooming

helps with that.

It still goes into tilt mode when returning from street view but a quick
dab of the R key fixes that.
--
Nick Spalding

[Snidely]

Nick Spalding noted that:
> Snidely wrote, in <mn.c57d7dd6886b2fa8.127094@snitoo> or something:

>> And I get irritated when Google Earth is too quick to go 3D on me
>> (strange sensations result over tall mountains) or wants to start
>> swooping from vertical viewpoint to something halfway to street view.
>
> Tools | Options | Navigation
> (•) Do not automatically tilt while zooming
>
> helps with that.
>
> It still goes into tilt mode when returning from street view but a quick
> dab of the R key fixes that.

Oooooh, thank you, kind sir!

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

[Les Albert]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:35:43 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

They are both so self-aware: one describes himself as part sociopath
and possible autistic person, and the other one is a self-described
empath.

Les

[Greg Goss]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Just this Monday, Snidely exclaimed that ...
>
>> OT, and FWIW, I had imperfectly formed memories that placed Lake Louise
>> closer to Banff, and had missed the connection with Rogers Pass. I was still
>> in high school when I went through there by car, and the train trip was
>> several years later.
>>
>> You'd think I'd have read enough tales of the opening of the West to have
>> gotten this right sometime ago.
>
>Wow! The Kootenai River flows about 2 miles from Lake Columbia, the
>headwaters of the Columbia ... and then doesn't join up with the
>Columbia until Castlegar !?!?!

There are two projects named "The Kootenay Canal". One was a
navigation project to connect the two rivers in the paddlewheeler days
-- I think a single ship passed through it to prove it worked before
it was shut down. (The other one runs the Kootenay river along the
valley side just below Nelson past several now-obsolete dams and drops
it through a powerhouse. It can get confusing to mention the Kootenay
Canal to someone who only knows of the other one from what you're
mentioning.)

Anyhow, I don't remember why the navigation canal was a fiasco --
perhaps the rise of the railways made river paddlewheelers obsolete.

[Bill Kinkaid]

On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 07:49:43 UTC-7, Greg Goss wrote:

The village of Canal Flats still remains, though there's as much canal there as there is a tunnel on Tunnel Mountain or falls in Okanagan Falls.

Bill

[Bill Kinkaid]

On Monday, 24 June 2013 23:20:01 UTC-7, Snidely wrote:
> Greg Goss was thinking very hard :
>

Lake Louise is fairly close to Banff, about 55km up river. It's really the head of the main Bow Valley, where the river drops down from its higher reaches in what's really a side valley and more or less hits bottom. It's also near the head of the fairly low Kicking Horse Pass, and most traffic heading west keeps going that way to very quickly drop down that side valley toward the Columbia at Golden. Rogers Pass is the next range over, in the Selkirks which are a different set of mountains and completely different from the Rockies in all ways (the Columbia makes a big hairpin north then south again to Revelstoke, and Rogers Pass is the shortcut)

Bill

[Mark Brader]

(I meant to respond to this sooner, but accidentally failed to leave it
marked unread.)

Mark Brader:

>> By this logic, no private insurer will provide life insurance.

D.F. Manno:

> Well, yes, if you only look at half of the logic. Here's the part you left

> out...

Okay, let's try again.

| No private insurer will write flood coverage due to adverse selection -
| the purchase of insurance mostly if not solely by those most affected
| by the named peril.

By this logic, no private insurer will provide life insurance.

| With flood coverage, the numbers of claimants is far larger than the
| potential number of people interested in buying the coverage, which
| means there's no opportunity for profit on the policies.

No, it means nothing at all. The people who would be claimants,
but decided they were not interested in buying the policy, are
irrelevant to the insurer.

Is that clearer?
--
Mark Brader "I am Sam. Sam I am.
Toronto I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
m...@vex.net --Forrest Cameranesi (after Dr. Seuss)

[Paul Ciszek]

Private insurance companies won't sell flood insurance to people who
actually need it for the same reason they won't sell health insurance
to sick people (unless the government forces them to) or sell life
insurance policies that cover being killed in military action. Whenever
you have a high risk group that can be easily identified, you will have
people who know they are in the high risk group wanting to buy insurance,
and people who know they are not in the high risk group not bothering
with insurance, which is exactly how the insurance business *doesn't* work.

Insurance companies and homeowners alike can consult the same USGS maps
and determine whether a building lies in the 20-year floodplain, the
100-year floodplain, or no floodplain at all. The latter homeowners are
not going to buy flood insurance at all, and the middle group only if it is
really cheap, while the first group will be rather eager to buy flood
insurance. The insurance company can only profit from selling them flood
insurance if the annual premium is well over 5% of the cost of replacing
the building. Furthermore, *every* house in the 20-year floodplain is
going to be lost to a 20-year flood all at the same time.

Sure, insurance companies can sell life insurance despite the inevitability
of death, but it is priced accordingly, and the company is counting on its
clients staggering their deaths over time and not all dying in the same
year. In a world where people knew when they were going to die, life
insurance would become unsellable. (Robert Heinlein's first published
short story was about this.)

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
| --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

[D.F. Manno]

In article <kqhrg6$jt7$1...@reader2.panix.com>,

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> Private insurance companies won't sell flood insurance to people who
> actually need it for the same reason they won't sell health insurance
> to sick people (unless the government forces them to) or sell life
> insurance policies that cover being killed in military action. Whenever
> you have a high risk group that can be easily identified, you will have
> people who know they are in the high risk group wanting to buy insurance,
> and people who know they are not in the high risk group not bothering
> with insurance, which is exactly how the insurance business *doesn't* work.

And that's the very definition of "adverse selection."

> Insurance companies and homeowners alike can consult the same USGS maps
> and determine whether a building lies in the 20-year floodplain, the
> 100-year floodplain, or no floodplain at all. The latter homeowners are
> not going to buy flood insurance at all, and the middle group only if it is
> really cheap, while the first group will be rather eager to buy flood
> insurance. The insurance company can only profit from selling them flood
> insurance if the annual premium is well over 5% of the cost of replacing
> the building. Furthermore, *every* house in the 20-year floodplain is
> going to be lost to a 20-year flood all at the same time.
>
> Sure, insurance companies can sell life insurance despite the inevitability
> of death, but it is priced accordingly, and the company is counting on its
> clients staggering their deaths over time and not all dying in the same
> year. In a world where people knew when they were going to die, life
> insurance would become unsellable. (Robert Heinlein's first published
> short story was about this.)

The reason life insurance is a viable product is that not every policy
pays out. Term policies often expire before the insured dies. People
allow policies to lapse. Insurers deny some claims (e.g., suicide within
two years of issuance, murder by a beneficiary). Some policies are never
collected on because the beneficiaries don't know or can't prove they
exist. Actuaries can estimate the rate of these events with great
accuracy, and insurers can set their premiums accordingly.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <dfmanno-A90381...@news.albasani.net>,

D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, insurance companies can sell life insurance despite the inevitability
>> of death, but it is priced accordingly, and the company is counting on its
>> clients staggering their deaths over time and not all dying in the same
>> year. In a world where people knew when they were going to die, life
>> insurance would become unsellable. (Robert Heinlein's first published
>> short story was about this.)
>
>The reason life insurance is a viable product is that not every policy
>pays out. Term policies often expire before the insured dies. People
>allow policies to lapse. Insurers deny some claims (e.g., suicide within
>two years of issuance, murder by a beneficiary). Some policies are never
>collected on because the beneficiaries don't know or can't prove they
>exist. Actuaries can estimate the rate of these events with great
>accuracy, and insurers can set their premiums accordingly.

While all of the things you list do affect the profitability of the life
insurance industry, I disagree with your statement:

>The reason life insurance is a viable product is that not every policy
>pays out.

That is not the reason why life insurance is viable. Even if every person
who bought a life insurance policty kept it paid up until they died, the
insurer could still profit so long the number of people who "got lucky" and
died early were more than offset by the number of people who hung on into
old age and paid more in premiums than their survivors collected. That is
where the actuaries come in.

[Nick Spalding]

Paul Ciszek wrote, in <kqi38k$oef$2...@reader2.panix.com>
on Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:19:48 +0000 (UTC):

Also the insurers don't keep all the premium money under the mattress,
the actuaries tell them how much of it they can invest.
--
Nick Spalding

[Mark Brader]

Paul Ciszek:

>>> Sure, insurance companies can sell life insurance despite the inevitability
>>> of death, but it is priced accordingly, and the company is counting on its
>>> clients staggering their deaths over time and not all dying in the same
>>> year. In a world where people knew when they were going to die, life
>>> insurance would become unsellable. (Robert Heinlein's first published
>>> short story was about this.)

> Even if every person
> who bought a life insurance policty kept it paid up until they died, the
> insurer could still profit so long the number of people who "got lucky" and
> died early were more than offset by the number of people who hung on into
> old age and paid more in premiums than their survivors collected. That is
> where the actuaries come in.

Exactly. So flood insurance could be sold on the same basis, but in an
area where floods come more than once in a lifetime, the ratio of premiums
to payoffs would need to be higher than for life insurance. And the
insurer would need to be ready to deal with a large number of expensive
made at the same time, which adds cost as well. But these are reasons
why it should<*> be expensive, not reasons why it should not be available.

<*>If, that is, it's sold as a separate product. The alternative would
be for all property insurance policies to include this coverage, either
as a result of insurance industry agreement or of government regulation.
But some people would find that objectionable because customers who don't
live on flood plains would be subsidizing the risk of those who do....
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, m...@vex.net
"Have you ever heard [my honesty] questioned?"
"I never even heard it mentioned." -- Every Day's a Holiday

[Greg Goss]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

>Insurance companies and homeowners alike can consult the same USGS maps
>and determine whether a building lies in the 20-year floodplain, the
>100-year floodplain, or no floodplain at all. The latter homeowners are
>not going to buy flood insurance at all, and the middle group only if it is
>really cheap, while the first group will be rather eager to buy flood
>insurance.

Climate change makes those predictions harder than before. The 2005
flood (impacted a few small cities near Calgary, but only minor damage
in Calgary) was called a 100-year flood. So eight years later, we're
getting a flood three times worse, that's pretty much written off the
city hit hard in 2005.

So "consulting the maps" may not be particularly effective.

(Not contradicting your main point - just picking nits.)

[Greg Goss]

Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:


>Also the insurers don't keep all the premium money under the mattress,
>the actuaries tell them how much of it they can invest.

This supply of "money to invest" is why Warren Buffet likes the
insurance biz so much.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 06/27/2013 10:07 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> Private insurance companies won't sell flood insurance to people who
> actually need it for the same reason they won't sell health insurance
> to sick people (unless the government forces them to) or sell life
> insurance policies that cover being killed in military action.

Several insurance companies do sell life insurance that covers being
killed in military action to military personnel, despite having to
compete with the government�s own provision.

> Whenever
> you have a high risk group that can be easily identified, you will have
> people who know they are in the high risk group wanting to buy insurance,
> and people who know they are not in the high risk group not bothering
> with insurance, which is exactly how the insurance business *doesn't* work.

That problem occurs is when the high risk group *cannot* be easily
identified by the insurer (and mostly when the high risk group is not a
group, but a tail)

> Insurance companies and homeowners alike can consult the same USGS maps
> and determine whether a building lies in the 20-year floodplain,

I can call spirits forth from the vasty deep.

> the
> 100-year floodplain, or no floodplain at all. The latter homeowners are
> not going to buy flood insurance at all,

I would it if it were cheap enough. If I were a home owner. Especially
if I could get it as simple rider on the main plan, rather than a
separate plan from a separate company.

> and the middle group only if it is
> really cheap, while the first group will be rather eager to buy flood
> insurance. The insurance company can only profit from selling them flood
> insurance if the annual premium is well over 5% of the cost of replacing
> the building. Furthermore, *every* house in the 20-year floodplain is
> going to be lost to a 20-year flood all at the same time.
>
> Sure, insurance companies can sell life insurance despite the inevitability
> of death, but it is priced accordingly, and the company is counting on its
> clients staggering their deaths over time and not all dying in the same
> year.

I think the rules about who can cancel a policy, once issued during its
stated term, makes the risks of issuing life insurance not all that much
different from flood insurance, from the insurers perspective.

I think the main problem with private flood insurance, other than the
government fixing things, is that quibbling over just how much of what
kind of water constitutes what kind of flood is more ambiguous than what
death actually is.

> In a world where people knew when they were going to die, life
> insurance would become unsellable.

Wouldn't that depend on the skill of the salesman?

Xho

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 06/27/2013 12:05 PM, D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> The reason life insurance is a viable product is that not every policy
> pays out. Term policies often expire before the insured dies. People
> allow policies to lapse. Insurers deny some claims (e.g., suicide within
> two years of issuance, murder by a beneficiary). Some policies are never
> collected on because the beneficiaries don't know or can't prove they
> exist. Actuaries can estimate the rate of these events with great
> accuracy, and insurers can set their premiums accordingly.

Nonsense. If those things didn't happen and the estimates were to be
zero with great accuracy, they could still set their premiums according
to that, too.

Xho

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 06/27/2013 01:32 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> <*>If, that is, it's sold as a separate product. The alternative would
> be for all property insurance policies to include this coverage, either
> as a result of insurance industry agreement or of government regulation.
> But some people would find that objectionable because customers who don't
> live on flood plains would be subsidizing the risk of those who do....

That would only be the subsidy if the requirement were that the coverage
were priced the same to everyone. If the requirement were just that
coverage exists within standard policies, the subsidy would be mostly
from those who don't want the insurance to those in the same area/risk
band who do want it.

Xho