Historic, Widespread Flooding Will Continue Through May, NOAA Says (cnn.com) 113
The U.S. is likely to see "historic, widespread flooding" through May, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's spring outlook. From a report: "This is shaping up to be a potentially unprecedented flood season, with more than 200 million people at risk for flooding in their communities," said Ed Clark, director of NOAA's National Water Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. NOAA's outlook calls for nearly two-thirds of the lower 48 states to face an elevated risk of flooding through May, with the potential for major to moderate flooding in 25 states across the Great Plains, Midwest and down through the Mississippi River valley.
"The flooding this year could be worse than what we have seen in previous years ... even worse than the historic floods we saw in 1993 and 2011," said Mary Erickson, deputy director of the National Weather Service. The warning comes amid record flooding triggered by a sudden warm-up and heavy rains earlier this month brought on by the "bomb cyclone." Combined with rapid snowmelt, the factors in recent weeks have put many places in the Great Plains and Midwest underwater.
"The flooding this year could be worse than what we have seen in previous years ... even worse than the historic floods we saw in 1993 and 2011," said Mary Erickson, deputy director of the National Weather Service. The warning comes amid record flooding triggered by a sudden warm-up and heavy rains earlier this month brought on by the "bomb cyclone." Combined with rapid snowmelt, the factors in recent weeks have put many places in the Great Plains and Midwest underwater.
Time to build NOAA's Ark (Score:2, Funny)
n/m
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think most people would consider 1000-year floods to be historic.
Frosty (Score:2)
Q: What did c6gunner say when he found some earth in his rice?
A: It's pliau terra!
Easy Puzzle with Scientific Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
These events are occurring because global warming and increased human development press on the environment at the same time. Both pressures are at fault, and have a common cause as both are driven by faster development than is supportable in the ecosystem.
Re: (Score:1)
Tough break for those farmers who voted for Trump.
First he breaks their balls with an idiotic trade war, then he diverts funding from FEMA for his wall. And of course he doesn't give a rat's ass about climate change, so that's the cherry on top.
Reap what you sow, mid-westerners
Re: Easy Puzzle with Scientific Thinking (Score:1)
We all reap what they sow.
Better infrastructure policy? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what are you going to do about it? How are you making a difference?
How about better infrastructure policy, for starters? (Policy that would take into account realistic forecasts of climate evolution, in particular.)
The many levee breaches make me think that we are not focussing on raising the right walls, at this point in time.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember watching the HUGE HISTORIC floods on TV at my grandparents house in the midwest twice in my childhood, about a decade apart.
As a teenager I remembered thinking "This is the same thing that happened before, why are they acting like it's some unprecedented event?".
What higher temperatures (Score:1, Insightful)
Higher temperatures sooner in the year causing earlier melting.
In Colorado we've had record low temperatures for February [denverpost.com].
A trend which carried on [cbslocal.com] in March
Where do you think much of the snowpack is, hmm...
Maybe flooding is due to more moisture?? Like, say from a rare event that dropped a lot more moisture across a wide region than normal??
Nah, can't be! Has to be the mythical Spaghetti Monster vibrating the atmosphere to shake out all the water!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Or, hang on, yes the climate is changing, but not because of human activity.
Why would someone spend $400 million [thehill.com] trying to influence voters if they didn't expect a return?
But OK, "Big Science" is the problem, sure.
Re:What higher temperatures (Score:5, Informative)
No, you had record cold temperatures in February -- you ignore the other days mentioned in your own article:
Similarly
Two days, again according to your own article.
Your February wasn't even in your top 20 coldest Februarys [weather.gov], so it's hard to see what trend carried into March.
Funny how those rare events keep increasing in frequency.
Re: What higher temperatures (Score:1)
Re: What higher temperatures (Score:1)
Re: What higher temperatures (Score:1)
Re: What higher temperatures (Score:2)
Re:What higher temperatures (Score:4, Informative)
We can see the temperatures ourselves, moron [accuweather.com]. Two days. Three if you want to pretend that 28 F is some sort of barn-burning cold. Only four days that didn't go above 32.
Own-goal. March 3rd to March 7th is indeed a "few days" from bomb cyclone to average high temperature. Also, not something that supports your point.
You misspelled "temperatures." I'd let it slide, but you have a spelling fetish it seems. How do you have more melting? Something about greater snowpack, which you admit, and daytime temperatures routinely above freezing, which we can see for ourselves. But wait, it gets better, because for some reason you want to only talk about Denver.
You're appearing to confuse Denver with the predicted flooding areas [noaa.gov], and then the world.
You can't locate Denver on a map. SAD. The rest of us can. It's in one of those square states full of white.
No, [globalchange.gov] I really [uchicago.edu] didn't [aerisweather.com].
You can't click on a hyperlink to NWS temperatures? SAD.
You should try clicking on these links. But you won't. SAD.
You think that I have the sole responsibility to provide "real data" that is being published constantly yet you actively ignore? SAD.
You won't. You'll come back and post some nonsense, including that fact that "everyone" (except for every single reply to your post) agrees with your delusional position.
Re: (Score:2)
Not what your weatherman means if he says says "record [macmillandictionary.com] cold for February," now is it?
Re:What higher temperatures (Score:5, Insightful)
Higher temperatures sooner in the year causing earlier melting.
In Colorado we've had record low temperatures for February [denverpost.com].
A trend which carried on [cbslocal.com] in March
It may surprise you to learn that after things get cold in an area that they then get warmer which causes all that snow to melt. The increasingly extreme weather and weather fluctuations are indicative of Climate Change.
It's not a coincidence that all these "rare weather events" are becoming increasingly common because they are part of the larger pattern that is Climate Change.
Re:What higher temperatures (Score:5, Informative)
The new weather pattern. A warmer pacific ocean is generating a new air flow pattern, with more warmer air rushing up the US West Coast and the Pacific, pushing further North than was the old pattern. This warmer air is picking up a lot of moisture as it is cooling and heating up Alaska and the Arctic accelerating ice melt and picking up that newly available water, it then has to go somewhere, so it would normally go a bit more south east but it is being blocked by a warmer Atlantic and air moving north. So it gets squeezed between the pacific air flow and the Atlantic airflow and now goes much further south pushing cold air and a whole lot of moisture, in the form of snow.
Once that now routine weather pattern is over, warm air comes it to replace that cold air as it is pushed out over the Atlantic, and melts all the snow, really quite fast, well the further south snow, more north not so fast, so lots of flooding further south because the snow melts a whole lot faster than previous regular patterns and flooding occurs.
Suck it up, this is the new norm, and combined with sea level rise it will really be quite bad for the US East Coast, catastrophic is no understatement. Altered water levels really screw up building footings, storm water and sewer system. You can imagine the worth of a coastline full of flooded out collapsing structures and a lot of US military bases on the east coast are on really low lying land. Then you have sea ports and airports, again on low lying land (it was cheaper) also in real trouble.
Too late to do much about the first say 1.5m of sea level rise, maybe keep it down to 750mm but that will take real action now. The safest economic measure, simple irrigate large swathes of Australia west coast desert, pumping desalinated water inland. You obviously pull that water out of the sea, so immediate benefit but in addition, green where it was red, cools the surface of the planet at lot, then of course the new planting would absorb lots of carbon dioxide and plant transpiration cycle also cools the atmosphere and for the cheery on top, the majority of that transpiration would fall as rain on inland Australia which is lower than sea level. The more you do that and the quicker you do it, the more it will reduce the impact of climate change and it in part pays for itself with a massive social benefit, tens of thousands of square kilometres planetary food and fibre bank (trees, hemp etc). Countries could invest in desalination in resources they could directly access, especially worth while for countries with limited land area, access to thousands of sqaure kilometres of land as long as they supply the desalinate irrigation to that land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Star Wars collectables nationwide are saying 'Oh no! Oh no!' in their basement display cases as owners ignore them and continue to frequent Marvel movies.
How to not get flooded (Score:3)
Step 2: "Oh, it has flooded before? Thanks. I'm not interested in the property."
Re: (Score:1)
Step 1: "When was the last time this place flooded?"
Step 2: "Oh, it has flooded before? Thanks. I'm not interested in the property."
good luck buying property anywhere, there is not a square inch on this entire planet that has not been underwater in the past.
Re: (Score:1)
The water has a nice way of obliging them.
Re: (Score:3)
The last time my area was underwater, there was a plesiosaur swimming in it.
Re: (Score:1)
Our home has never flooded before and was considered completely flood proof. In fact, our entire neighborhood was considered flood proof. We're at the top of the largest hill in the are, with the river bottom portion of the city several hundred feet below us.
We had a LONG cold streak. For more than a month temperatures were well below freezing with near unprecedented snow. Which lead to huge piles of snow along roadways and driveways. Even though the snow started as fluffy and light due to the cold, it
Re: (Score:3)
It's a damned shame that cities keep permitting people to build on flood land just because it supports their tax base. We have permitting systems in place specifically to avoid things like this, but instead we use them to keep "undesirables" out.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny enough, the undesirables used to be forced to live on the floodplains here. No government help back then so rich people stuck to the higher ground.
Re: (Score:2)
And now there is government help, but the help doesn't require people to relocate if they get it, and that's horribly misguided. People should either be able to stay where they are and have to do it all themselves, or get a hand up off the flood plain. I'm all for helping people, but you don't let the drowning man pull you under. You knock him the hell out if you have to.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 2: "Oh, it has flooded before? Thanks. I'm not interested in the property."
May I interest you in a really big boat? Lots of space to store animals.
Climate change impacts cost Trillions (Score:5, Insightful)
Every year you put off implementing things to reduce climate change, the costs multiply many fold.
What were once once a century storms and floods are now every 2-3 years.
What were once massive inundations and beetle infestation wildfires are now commonplace.
Even zoning codes have to change, to allow for redesign of buildings to survive such events every year or two, which increases building costs on average 50 percent and requires redesign of existing towns and buildings.
Energy goes in.
It comes out somewhere. It's like putting a bucket of bees inside. We can't tell you where the bees will sting or when, but we know there are going to be a lot of stings and consequences.
Oh, and stop building on flood plains and lowlands and using levees. We're beyond that now. You waited too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the sleestax in Land of the Lost? We use glowing rocks to compute.
Re: (Score:3)
What were once once a century storms and floods are now every 2-3 years.
All you need is 100 independent regions and you'll have a once in a century event every year.
Re: (Score:2)
All you need is 100 independent regions and you'll have a once in a century event every year.
It's become common for regions to have new records every few years of late, and the globe has had two hottest years in recorded history in what, the last decade?
Re: Climate change impacts cost Trillions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So these events aren't 100-year events (or what have you) any more.
Re: (Score:1)
the world is warming faster than it has ever before guess why? Chemistry that we are actively using and whose products really last thousands of years so everything ever done in industry is all building up and getting worse by the second
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An insurance payment for a flood-damaged home should come with a relocation requirement, and replacement should not be on any other flood plain, either.
Another prediction bites the dust. (Score:3)
LOS ANGELES — With California entering its fifth year of a statewide drought, Gov. Jerry Brown moved on Monday to impose permanent water conservation measures and called on water suppliers to prepare for a future made drier by climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0... [nytimes.com]
Oh well.
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu... [unl.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Finally someone is speaking out against the conspiracy. Clearly drought didn't exist because today we get flooding. Just like how in many parts of the United States there was this supposed white powder than fell from the sky, blanketing the ground for months. Everyone knows that even in their wild conspiracies that left three-fourths or more of the year "snow" free. In such a fantasy, why would any even worry about snow removal, thicker clothes, or heating of homes. One should just sell all those beads
Re: (Score:2)
The point is droughts and floods are not a new thing, despite what some interests would like you to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Aquifers can accommodate several times as much water as surface storage, but they are not refilled in a year — even a year like this one. Too much of the water runs off. Deforestation and land development tend to cause land to shed water. It runs into the ocean instead of into land which can contain it until it can seep into aquifers. Los Angeles is the American poster child for this; it's got so much pavement that basically all of the water runs off immediately. I've read that they get enough rainfal
well, what do you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
and yet... (Score:1)
Food prices? (Score:2)
Slashdot *used* to have intelligent people posting, a dozen and more years ago. Now, you have to dig through the trolls and the 16 yr old idiots.
Haven't seen the headlines telling you all that the price of food, later this year, will go *way* up: bread, tortillas, meat (what do you think they feed cattle, pigs and chickens?).
Wonder if it'll result in food riots in the countries the US exports to....
Odd (Score:2)