E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Arcadis via AP
An artist's conception from the Dutch engineering firm Arcadis illustrates its proposal to build a barrier in the Verrazano Narrows between New York's Brooklyn borough and Staten Island, shielding the Upper New York Bay. This barrier would be supplemented by two smaller barriers, one between Staten Island and New Jersey and the other on the East River. Experts say the vast destruction wreaked by the storm surge in New York could have been prevented with a sea barrier of the type that protects major cities in Europe.
Marine scientist Malcolm Bowman has been warning since before Hurricane Katrina that the New York metro area was susceptible to a catastrophic storm surge, but the fact that superstorm Sandy proved him right doesn't make him feel any better.
"It was all predictable, and unfortunately it all happened,” Bowman told me today. "But then it got worse."
Bowman's nightmare scenario, laid out in a 2005 report, foresaw a 12-foot storm surge that devastated low-lying neighborhoods in the New York metro area. When Hurricane Sandy was approaching landfall on the New Jersey coastline on Monday, the National Hurricane Center predicted that the storm surge could amount to somewhere between 6 and 11 feet.
The tide that pushed into New York's Battery Park was higher than any of those figures: 13.7 feet in height.
The results were catastrophic: Subway and highway tunnels between Manhattan and Brooklyn were flooded. Power stations were swamped, leaving millions of people without electricity. The water washed over runways, rail yards and roads, disrupting traffic for days. Whole towns were submerged in New Jersey. Rising water levels affected operations at half a dozen nuclear power plants in the region. The estimated toll: At least 46 deaths in the United States, and an estimated $20 billion or more in property damage.
"This has been a knockout punch," Bowman said. "This is a wakeup call."
A 14-foot storm surge rushed into lower Manhattan, shorting out the ConEd power station and destroying cars and homes. NBC's Anne Thompson reports.
Storm surges have hit the region before — most notably with the deadly nor'easter of December 1992, and to a lesser extent with Hurricane Irene last year. But Sandy was much deadlier.
"What happened on Monday night is that the maximum surge occurred at high tide, and it also happened to be a full moon," Bowman said. "All those events came to coincide, and that's what made it so bad. If the storm had hit six hours later, it would have been low tide, and there would have been less damage. Timing is everything."
But in Bowman's view, it's not just a question of bad luck. "Climate change is real," he said. "We've had these two extreme events, two years in a row. It's time to think about levees. This is what the Europeans have done."
Bowman and his colleagues at the Stony Brook Storm Surge Research Group have been calling for the construction of a network of levees and gates that could block the gargantuan push of water that accompanies superstorms like Sandy.
The project would start with two or three storm surge barriers, modeled after the systems that have been built on the Thames River in England, or on waterways in the Netherlands. Bowman said three such systems are already protecting Stamford, Conn.; New Bedford, Mass.; and Providence, R.I.
The best locations for the New York region's first barriers would be at the Outer Barrier and across the Upper East River, Bowman said. "They would cost in the range of $5 billion or $10 billion each," he said. "That sounds like a lot of money, but you wait until you hear what it will cost to bring the city back."
Watch a lecture by Stony Brook University's Malcolm Bowman on tsunami hazards and storm surges.
Up to now, New York's response to flood threats has been to build smaller-scale barriers around facilities to make them more resilient to flooding. A multibillion-dollar project to create a storm surge defense system hasn't been on the agenda. "The city has been very polite, and they agree that in the long term it will become a necessity," Bowman said. "But for now they say, not yet. They're focusing on resilience, solutions to small problems."
That strategy will almost certainly change in the post-Sandy era. During a Tuesday news conference, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that it's time to upgrade the city's infrastructure for the superstorms to come.
"Going forward we are going to have to anticipate these types of extreme weather patterns," CNBC quoted him as saying. "And we have to think about how we redesign the system so that this doesn't happen again."
That won't happen overnight.
"What has to happen is, either Congress or the city of New York needs to put in a request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and say we need to do a feasibility study," Bowman said. "We've done it on the academic level, but now we need to bring in the corps. ... We could be studying this for the next 10 years, but we better get on with it."
More about the science of Sandy:
- Subway rats may flood NYC streets
- How Sandy turned into a superstorm
- Climate experts worry about storms to come
- NBC News' coverage of superstorm Sandy
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
My solution: clean up the mess but rebuild nothing. Move to higher ground. Forget the levees. Let the cost of insurance provide the incentive.
Exactly!! This is the cost we pay for not learning from our own history. The old adages: Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.
Pray more, and deny science! (sarcasm)
Humans have a long, long history of denying the obvious. It's why we still live in flood plains, on the coast, along fault lines, below sea level, next to volcanoes, and so on. We say it'll never happen, then it's too late and we kick ourselves for ignoring the doomsday predictions. I wonder how long it will take before we're doing the same thing regarding climate change?
Anywhere you live you have to take the good with the bad. Just how much 'bad' you're willing to deal with, determines the risks you're willing to take, over time. For the beancounters, the cost of reasonably minimizing these risks cannot cost more than the positives for living there.
All of this may seem obvious to some of us, for those that appreciating the intangibles or non-quantifiable benefits for living in such places ...that make for a positive attitude for finding the good that comes from disasters. This positive attitude makes us durable and successful in the face of all reasonable risks.
@redheaded;
Umm no they are not. If you are not happy here then...
go thataway------->>>>>
There is something to be said for rebuilding in better locations when feasible, but where exactly do you expect us to move Manhattan to?
My Readhead.... Though I'm a "righty".... and yes.. MSNBC is a "left leaning" blog/news but hey... that is why I'm here... I want to add my two cents while I'm bleeding in the shark pit and maybe something I say will "help" change how they view the right. I could go on a right leaning blog but I would be preaching to the choir.
I learn somethings here, I don't get much respect but as soon as I "signed" up I knew what I was getting into. I've been bashed, slandered, called idiot, unlearned, Bible thumper, flat earther, bigot, racist and other names I can't mention... My posts have been collapsed.. (probably the most annoying) and the vitriol of FiestyRedhead and Pigotry are legendary here. But all on all I surf the news, blog and try to keep in mind why here, why did start my "blogging" here? Easy:
I'm a Christian.... With a Biblical world view. Jesus was "rejected"... His Bible called "fantasy" but He said: If they called me the prince of devils... what will they do to you? (talking to his discipleship)
I don't pretend like my blogging is going to change the world or change a vote but sometimes I learn something from the "left" even if I don't agree... it has made me a able debater and plus...(Sometime I love getting on there nerves)... in other words... I have a little fun.
So don't get mad or angry at the bias... just keep your cool and don't worry.... Leave that garbage to Fiesty and Tyler... they have enough "vinegar" for all of us... We... well we should be "salt"
#1.7
Dear Sir, If i might say it is possible to build dwellings that can withstand this events IF we do so intelligently, for example, in many lands " Aborigines " have had house that " floated " and also had houses on " stilts " as well as houses that where half bellow ground, so why is it that we , seem not to have learned from them?
cuz screw the environment, eagle...that's why...we make our own environment! there you go, that's why people don't learn.
#1.11 -
LOL Joe, err,, but who is the one " getting screwed" is that like " cut your nose to spite you face"?? :-)
yep...that's why i'm shaking my head too...shoulda been ready, but can you imagine actually moving harlem? the entire east coast? They won't do it. they'll just build more levees. until the day they actually create "star trek" force fields and set em up around cities, i'll keep shaking my head at em.
FEMA, the State, and Insurance Companies will redraw the flood zones...
Building restrictions will follow and some places will become 'NO BUILD' areas or elevated buildings only...
The Insurance Companies will drive-up the price of insurance coverage and many people will be priced out-of the market. Currently the NC Coastal areas are looking @ a 30% increase in insurance rates...
If the Federal Government build dikes, the people behind these structure will then become flood insured by the government (New Orleans). The current foreseeability of this is questionable...
but, of course, we wont. remember, were stupid. our brains are only suitable for pre-1900 situations. we rebuilt new orleans didnt we? and it will be destroyed yet again.
Wow, Red-headed Slut (a really appropriate moniker!)
You appear to be the winner of the "Queen of Denial" award. Sail on mighty queen in your fantasy land of conspiracy. But brace for impact your majesty because you're going to get some really bad news on November 6.
INCOMING! BRACE FOR IMPACT!
Obama/Biden 2012
AC Robertson:
FLOOD INSURANCE IS ALREADY 100% FEDERAL. No insurance company issues flood insurance anymore.
We can protect these areas, it will just cost money. This money is because of GLOBAL WARMING. If you are against socialism, we must put a SUBSTANTIAL TAX ON CARBON to cover the costs of using it, OR WE CAN STAY ON THE GOP's SOCIALIST PATH and just SOCIALIZE THE COST OF FOSSIL FUELS.
So. You can take the PROGRESSIVE'S MARKET BASED APPROACH or the GOP'S SOCIALIST APPROACH. Which do you prefer?
There is an entire industry based on preventing catastrophes and rebuilding afterward. These people will fight against any move to simply move to higher ground. After Katrina, engineers, architects, hydrologists, geologists, meteorologists all testified in hearings that N.O. should be moved up river to higher ground. Since it was effectively destroyed 2006 was a perfect time to move it. Then the bartenders, musicians, restaurateurs started crying and the polytissiuns caved in. They rebuilt the walls and spent about $250,000 per household being protected. Now N.O. is still below sea level. They have a 3 ft thick wall holding back 1,500 miles of sea (N.O. to Venezuela). And one day when they feel safe, they will skip[ the maintenance. And because nothing bad immediately happens, they will skip it again. Then again. And then N.O. will get flooded again. And then send the bills for clean up and rebuild yet again to people who don't even have a retirement plan or a health plan. Now NY, New Jersey and the rest of the N.E. have to decide if they'll rebuild smart, or rebuild stupid. If they can send the bills to St. Louis, Milwaukee and Atlanta and Denver, they will rebuild stupid. IF they have to pay most of this themselves, they will rebuild smartly.
Higher ground?? Really??
How far away from the coast does that translate into?? Or are we going to go like some Sci-Fi movie and move to the Smokies & the Rockies??
If you made a 1 mile National Park on the coasts, the environmental quality of our country would improve. But thats a huge swath of VERY EXPENSIVE property.
So that MAYBE covers the surge. Ok, what are you doing about the inland flooding??? Make a national canal system to control droughts & high water situations?? And haven't there been extreme flood events in the middle of the country??
Middle of the country?? hmm TORNADOES! can't move there. Although, we could rebuild from hurricanes & tornados with monolithic construction, which is wind and fire resistant.
North??Blizzards anyone ??
Northwest?? Tops of mountains blowing up, waiting for the big one.
Southwest?? Earthquakes, Fires?? scares me worse than Hurricanes & Floods.
So everyones going to move and condense exactly where???
SRS, you're right protection costs money. Take a look at how much a country like The Netherlands spends on its protection per capita. Do you really think the general population in this nation living in areas not flood-prone are going to be willing to contribute to areas where people live in questionable locations?
Go read the article on USA Today where it details that 4 of the towns in NJ that bore the brunt of the damage have been draining FEMA dollars for years while doing ZIP to provide any fortification. If you can't get people who LIVE in those areas to agree to bear additional costs, what makes you think you can generate any kind of interest for those who are not affected? This isn't just a mentality limited to NJ. Or La. It's nationwide.
Where money gets spent to protect an area needs to be selective. There are communities in the 5 boroughs of NY that I would argue the money would be well spent. But to spend untold billions to protect people's property who wish to live on the shoreline is absurd.
There are areas in and around New Orleans that should have simply stayed flattened. There are areas in NJ where the same should apply. Heck there are areas in numerous states where this logic should apply, e.g. Iowa (flooding), Cal (constant mudslide issues in some locations), etc. etc.
The answer is to remove FEMA from being the catch-all for property owners it has become and restore it back to being an agency to coordinate, supervise and assist after emergencies instead of being the open wallet for everyone. FEMA should in the first instance only really be there to assist states in getting the infrastructure up and running again. FEMA's operating method of doling out funds to those who chose to save funds by either not buying insurance or buying insurance policies with high deductibles and then come crying cannot support itself on the dollars it collects. Push all the States to enact legislation that requires ALL insurance companies writing ANY line of insurance in those states to have to provide the flood and earthquake insurance. Once the free market rating system applies what is really an adequate premium for providing coverage for that risk, people will either up and move, thus negating the need to provide assistance dollars, or they'll actually finally start paying their way.
Voter-in-LA: Netherlands is how big???Last war they financed??
Want a peace dividend of a flood control system, underground superstructure, better internet backbone, better educational system, and monolithic construction for all? All for it!! Make a new Conservation Corps to build it. Near zero unemployment. . Chances of happening??? Can you have a value of less than zero??
Scar, size of the population makes their accomplishment even more admirable. You really should do some research on their reclamation of land (the old Ijsselmeer), flood control structures etc. I'm assuming you have zero knowledge of the reasons so will just state that in 1953 during a powerful storm levees were breached and the country as a whole vowed never again to have their population endure that kind of suffering. Each time the tax gets voted on, it passes with little opposition even bearing in mind most of those contributing to the cost are not at risk. That's the kind of mentality that will never exist here.
" Chances of happening??? Can you have a value of less than zero?? "
Yes, it is called " head where the Sun does not shine "!! :-)
Voter-in-LA: you miss my point. The Nederland are not the worlds policemen.
We seem to be , at the tune of HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars.
Now, which is going to happen?? Peace & funds put to infrastructure and modification???
Or more spending on wars & influence??
I suggest the latter will happen. If history is any indication.
Thus , even though , I'm sure the Nederland is a wonderful country.
Comparing them, is like comparing a watermelon to a grape.
Voter in LA is right on. The Miami valley in Ohio got flooded in 1913. Massive damage, hundreds dead. They put together a taxing authority and by 1923 or so built 5 dams on the rivers controlling the valley. To this day on everyone's property tax bills the charge for maintaining those dams and levees is still there. They rebuilt the cities themselves, they built the dams themselves, no Federal money, no Federal employees, no passing the problem off to others. Just fix it yourself. Since WWII there has been created an entire industry of "you are in danger, you will die if you don't pay us a huge living to keep you safe, you can't do it yourself". And with each disasterous event, this industry gets larger and more powerful. And everyone gives them more power believing they should do nothing to help themsleves, this industry will do it for them. Later, when the reporters get the chance, you will read about people in Arizona and Florida filing claims and getting paid by FEMA for the NJ and NY floods. You will read stories of people getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few weeks of work. Remember the poisonous Katrina trailers? Remember the guys in the BP cleanup who made so much money being paid by gubmint in 5 weeks of work they bought new houses paying cash ? Oh yeah, the gubmint is about to cascade fabulous amounts of cash onto a small bunch of people - no questions asked, no red tape. You'll read about the details of abuse next spring.
This follows the traditional government rational. They view it as it only being "possible" this will happen ever so they rationalize it as why spend billions now when it likely won't happen again for another 10-20 years or more. Yes timing is everything and this happened to be a perfect storm of sorts. But what happens next time, or 5-10 years down the road if there is an even bigger/strong storm.
Levee systems are prone to failure and when they do usually cause more harm than good. Just saying lets build something now at the cost of billions and billions more in upkeep is great but its hardly a long term solution. Where do we start? How high? They expected no higher than 10-11 ft. So do we build 15-20ft systems? What then if the ocean levels continue to creep up and we've built to small? What do you do when the levees start acting like damns because of immense storms and flooding?
Its a no win situation!
Yeah, and they would spend the billions to build it, then do no upkeep, and by the time it's needed, it will be inadequate.
A town on the ICW - Princeville,NC had a State/Federal maintained dike. When it failed up-stream during hurricane Floyd's tidal surge, the town turned into a lake. When the flood waters receided, this new lake did not...
The people living in this town prior to the flood were told they did not need flood insurance, due to the dike...
The State and Federal Government rebuilt the dike and rebuilt the town. The Tax payer paid the bills...
I AGREE MR. ROBERTSON. We need to put a HUGE TAX on CARBON to pay for all the ASSOCIATED COSTS. If we just let people use fossil fuels WITHOUT paying their own way, we would be SOCIALISTS. We don't want THAT, now do we?
$5.00 a gallon CARBON TAX on gasoline - about a DOLLAR A POUND. That sounds about right! No SOCIALISTS! SOCIALISTS BAD!
Here in California we have had carbon taxes for years. Yet to see the money used for its intended purpose though.
Agree with the posters in this group.
With all the concern over our national debt, the size of the deficit, and fears about unemployment and a weak economy, our environmental debt has been ignored. Indeed, even its reality has been questioned by many politicians. But its ability to disrupt our economy dwarfs the impact of anything we can do with changes in taxation or regulatory policy; Sandy has brought that home very forcefully. And unlike a monetary debt, we can't deal with an environmental debt by borrowing more or by sending environmental problems someplace else.
I would disagree. The inevitable result of any form of welfare state/nanny state is stagnation and collapse .... economics is the base of a advancing or degrading civilization. Money is a resource, waste it and it is not available for the basic responsibilities of a responsible government: Natural disasters, preparation for those disasters, defense of the citizen, protection of the basic human right of ownership. 2/3s of that deficit current is the direct result of mandatory federal spending social welfare, create an environment that encourages job creation and restore the massive middle-class tax base lost as a result of clintons "new economy" and you have resources for research and new ways to do things .... waste that resource and you are locked doing things in an old less efficient manner or worse yet regressed to even older wasteful ways that make the problem worse. Economics is the foundation of society, fix that and good strong infrastructure follows.
My wife has lived on the east coast for 35 years, and this is the worst storm she remembers ever seeing. This spring when the temperature was so high very early, I knew there would be some kind of freak storm this fall. Sure enough, I was right.
As long as it is in big corporate's best interests, they will continue dumping money into lobbying and advertising to mislead people into believing global warming is NOT real. Seriously, do you know why the talking heads on TV and the radio deny global warming? Because someone paid them to use their eloquent speaking talents to do so. Follow the money and you will find the truth.
Unfortunately, much of the media allows extremists from both sides of the spectrum to get airtime because controversy gets attention. A nice "middle of the road" pundit with sensible positions and suggestions just does not get the listenership of a Rush Limbaugh so we are left with the shrillest voices on both sides yelling at each other.
Real "news" should not be a profit center.
Which only serves to muddy the waters and prevent real, serious discussion on the subject. It's hard to sway public opinion when all you hear is that we either need to go back to the horse and buggy now, all of it is a total fraud, or it's too late and we're all already doomed. The media plays their role in this, along with those just looking to make a buck off the situation, and an apathetic public. A lot of people look only to their next paycheck, and politicians are only focused on the next two, four, or six years of their terms. Who cares about something ten, fifty, or a hundred years in the future. It's sad but true.
The longest running sea-level measurements are recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands—part of which (about 25%) lies beneath sea level, beginning in 1700.[38] Since 1850, the rise averaged 1.5 mm/year...
Records dating from 1843 Australian data taken by an amateur meteorologist at the Port Arthur convict settlement, when merged with data recorded by modern tide gauges, indicated sea level rise of about 1 mm a year.[39]
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year from 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[5] an increase on earlier estimates.[6]
The satellite-measurement accuracy is still in question due to their very short data period and other factors...
For INCREASES in major storms see NOAA;
May 24, 2012 - NOAA predicts a "near-normal" Atlantic hurricane season...
So far during 2012; 19 - named storms with 10 - hurricanes, including 1 - major hurricane...
May 19, 2011 - NOAA predicts a "above-normal" Atlantic hurricane season...
2011 results;19 - named storms with 7 - hurricanes, including 3 - major hurricanes...
2011 - Irene becomes the first hurricane to hit the USA in three years...
May 27, 2010· NOAA predicts “active to extremely active” hurricane season...
2010 results;19 - named storms with 12 - hurricanes, including 5 - major hurricanes...
August 6, 2009,NOAA predicting "below average activity"...
2009 results;9 - named storms with 3 - hurricanes, including 2 - major hurricanes...
BTY - The Atlantic high-activity era that began in 1995 thru 2011 have averaged about 15 - named storms, 8 - hurricanes, and 4 - major hurricanes. Compared with the generally low activity of the previous 24 years (1971 to 1994).
reference - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/outreach/noaa/announcement.html
For you young kids remember Hazel 1954 - 18+foot storm surge into NC/SC (Cat 4) and had hurricane winds (100+MPH) into Toronto. It coincided with the highest lunar tide of the year and merged with a cold front. Just like Sandy...
reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
Sandy may have the highest dollar amount in damage, but Hazel did the most damage and killed the most people... Prior to any effects from AGW...
Just a rerun of N'awleans.
HCGW.... is the farce.... Not GW... Scientist has measured the warming and cooling of the earth in the past during "short" periods and not millions of years. And even if we (US) got on the "green wagon" we would still "suffer" with India, China and Russia"s "pollution". I'm not saying that we should not be good stewards of the planet but a reason approach and investment in levees, infrastructure and upgraded building codes is what is needed.... this we can do NOW.... If no "pollution" was put out it would take only God knows how long to "fix" the current problem... It makes no sense to save the planet and "pauper" the populace.
Even though sea surface temperatures seem to have warmed, it's not at all clear that Atlantic hurricane activity has truly increased. As recently described in World Climate Report, the average hurricane activity during 1995-2005 was greater than that during 1971-1994, but the 1970s and 1980s witnessed unusually low hurricane activity. So the increased hurricane activity of 1995-2005 "thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature," according to World Climate Report. Finally, regardless of whether warmer sea surface temperatures are associated with increased hurricane activity, the University College London researchers admitted that, "Our analysis does not identify whether greenhouse gas-induced warming contributed to the increase in water temperature and thus to the increase in hurricane activity." Since the entire global warming debate depends on whether manmade greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, without a link between such emissions and sea surface temperature changes, the claimed sea surface temperature-hurricane activity link is, at best, an academic point. The other hurricane study, published in Geophysical Research Letters (Jan. 23) and not widely reported by the media, comes from climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The NOAA researchers compared sea surface temperatures with hurricanes that made U.S. landfall -- the most reliable hurricane measurement over the long-term, according to the researchers. They found a slight decrease in the trend of landfalling hurricanes with warmer sea surface temperatures. "This paper uses observational data to demonstrate that the attribution of the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity to global warming is premature and that global warming may decrease the likelihood of hurricanes making landfall in the United States," the researchers concluded. As leading hurricane forecaster William Gray of Colorado State University put it, "Meteorologists who study tropical cyclones have no valid physical theory as to why hurricane frequency or intensity would necessarily be altered by small amounts (plus/minus 0.5 degrees Centigrade) of global mean temperature change." Dr. Gray continued, "In a global warming or global cooling world, the atmosphere's upper air temperatures will warm or cool in unison with the sea surface temperatures. Vertical-lapse rates [differences between the atmospheric and sea temperatures that, when increased, tend to favor storm formation] will not be significantly altered." In observing that there were 80 major hurricanes during 1945-1969 when the global temperature was cooling, but only 38 major hurricanes during 1970-1994 when global temperature was warming, Dr. Gray note that "Atlantic sea-surface temperatures do not necessarily follow global mean temperature trends." Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged in its most recent assessment that although average Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the last half of the 20 century were very likely higher than at any other time during the last 500 years, "There is no clear trend in the annual number of tropical cyclones [hurricanes]...
reference - Hurricane Hysteria Revisited - By Steven J. Milloy January 30, 2008
I will depend on the EXPERTS and historical data, not the MEDIA spouting headlines...
Sage advice, AC. Let's see what the experts say:
Will you listen now?
No. He won't listen. He is one of those GOP SOCIALISTS that want EVERYONE ELSE to pay for their mistakes. No carbon tax - let EVERYONE pay for the effects of GLOBAL WARMING, not those that CAUSE IT. Don't let the MARKET decide. The GOP wants to pick winners and losers and the GOP is run by the KOCH BROTHERS so you KNOW that the WINNER will be FOSSIL FUELS and the LOSERS will be the REST OF US!
There are three aspects to the storm Sandy, A. hurricane, B. tide, C. Jet stream. The tide is predictable. Though there might be some question about the increase in ocean temperatures due to global warming, what about the air temperatures over the northern polar areas which affect the jet stream. This landmass air warming is over Northern Europe, Northern Asia, and North America, ( Canada and Alaska ) It was the jet stream that influenced the course of the storm and how long it lingered over the northeastern coastline.
Actually, the jet stream added energy to the system. Its direction was forced by a dominating high pressure dome over the North Sea. Sandy also picked up energy from the Gulf Stream as it traveled north along the coast.
Physicist-retired,
According to NOAA data the numbers of hurricanes making landfall are DECREASING due to a warmer (1+degree C) Atlantic...
The numbers of Cyclones in the Pacific are DECREASING due to La Nina - DECREASING Pacific water temperatures. Though the intensity of these storms have increased due to increasing levels of air pollution. (Atmospheric Brown Clouds - ABC)..
Satellite-era sea surface temperature records indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not manmade greenhouse gases...
http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh
For a century of weather observations and the results on water temperatures... see
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+century+of+North+Atlantic+data+indicates+interdecadal+change%3a...-a019264354
BTY - I will rely on NOAA and their decades of data. Not some institute that uses data from NOAA...
I've absolutely no idea where you got that from, AC. No one denies the impact of ENSO on natural variability, but our oceans are currently heating at a rate equivalent to 2 Hiroshima bombs per second - every second - since 1961.
ENSO can't create heat. ENSO can only distribute heat that's already there.
Quick shoutout to Alan... good article. So lets get too it.
Unless you guys think that the International Climate Change Conference is "bunk" and you think that ICECAP is "junk science" Then this creationist calls the scientific "free thinkers" as Hypocrites... wanting to believe only science that supports your point of view... the Jury is out and the case is closed... There is NO HUMAN caused Global warming: It is CYCLICAL. Notice the dates on my links... nothing older than 2 1/2 yrs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Screen_shot_2012-10-31_at_7.01.12_AM.png
Gee.. How Much "proof" do you need?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6024/1592.abstract
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-e6frfkp9-1225700043191
I feel like the one who reported the murder, fingered the culprit, The police have all the evidence and I get the prison sentence because I Had to be involved because I called 911... and the murderer goes free..... (sheesh)
"Unless you guys think that the International Climate Change Conference is "bunk""
If yuo mean the one put in by the conservative think tank for poilitical strategizing, of course it is bunk.
Unless you think the National Academy of Sciences and every other major scientific academy on the planet is "bunk" antrhopogenic global warming is real.
Your first link is to a conservative journalist, and there is nothing in the other three that refutes anthropogenic climate change. I would suggest you learn more about science, but your proud announcement of your creationist leanings does not bode well for that. LOl
you're right, jock. if the guy's a creationist, he's definitely not interested in reality... probably believes in Noah's ark and virgin births, too. because if he dosen't say that he believes in these things he's afraid some big guy up in sky is going to sell him to a red guy with a long tail and a big fork.
I don't care what people believe in, but when they deny science, I do get a little saddened.
Frontline did a great show about the roots of this disinformation recently.
lookup:
Frontline: Climate of Doubt
Hey Flame, the universe is only 5000 years old, how many "cycles" can there possibly have been?
During Dec-Feb 2012 - the Northern hemisphere had the largest ice/snow coverage ever observed...
During Mar 2012 - The Arctic Sea Ice Coverage was the highest ever observed 16+million sqkm...
During Sept 2012 - The Arctic Sea Ice coverage was the lowest ever observed 3.75+million sqkm...
15 October 2012, Arctic sea ice extent stood at 5.18 million square kilometers (2.00 million square miles). This is 3.49 million square kilometers (1.35 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 mean for this time of year and 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the same date in 2007. Although it is still at record low levels, extent is climbing fast.
Antarctic sea ice extent remains above the average for the 1979 to 2000 observation period...
Reference - http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ & http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html
One storm or year of record levels does not make climate, it is WEATHER...
Flame - You definitely set yourself up for the responses that you are getting. First, I would recommend that you use Google Scholar to look up actual scientific studies on climate. Being underinformed doesn't help your postition or your argument. Next, science should be known and understood, not believed in. Those who attempt to believe in science are just as ignorant as those who are anti-science. I understand science and I beleive in God. These are huge differences.
Mr. Robertson:
You are cherry picking. 97% of all climate scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity.
97%
Take your SOCIALIST GOP IGNORANCE and stow it! If you don't back a CARBON TAX or its equivalent or you are the worst kind of socialist there is!
@AC
if you are cherry picking you are doing it badly...
it wouldn't let me post the link: earthsky.org
You know... Here is the truth... and no more comments from me.... watch this video.... 15 minutes...
It is an hour long but you will get the gist in 15 min... What this man presents is common sense... and you never heard of him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmoKRz5VcbI&feature=player_embedded
Now, how do think we should pay for all these infrastructure improvements that are required due to the effects of climate change?? I know, a CARBON TAX!!! Pay now or pay later; there's no way that we are going to avoid paying for pumping billions of tons of heat trapping gasses into our atmosphere. If we had passed cap and trade and a carbon tax 10 years ago, we'd be much closer to solving mankind's biggest looming problem. (Although there's still overpopulation, despoilment of the environment, ignorance, greed, and poverty to deal with)
100% bovine fecal matter. When, in the history of the world, has any government ever used revenue for a constructive cause? Give a government a tax dollar and it will only waste it. Where does the current "carbon tax" dollars go? Anyone know? Why is Social Security going broke? Why are roads in towns and cities degrading dispite rising property and road taxes? Why has what was once the 5th strongest economy in the world (if California were its own nation) now at 3rd world level? The answer is not a tax, it is maybe tax breaks for new technology, tax breaks to encourage rather than discourage business, restoration of the massive middle-class working tax base lost in clintons "new economy". All of that still ignores the real root problem of all, to many people. The resources used are not the real problem, its the number of people using that resource. Fix that and everything else fixes itself.
I agree. CARBON TAX NOW! We that ride ELECTRIC BIKES and have SOLAR PANELS on our roofs are SICK AND TIRED of paying for you disgusting CARBON SPEWERS. Pay your OWN WAY!
Anybody against a CARBON TAX is a disgusting SOCIALIST. And nothing we PROGRESSIVES HATE MORE than a disgusting GOP SOCIALIST!
SRS - Just a quick note. I would not characterize anything that the current GOP does as socialistic. True socialism has the government paying and controlling different things for their citizens, like universal healthcare, free education through college and a carbon tax to pay for infrastructure to either combat global warming or preparing for its effects.
Climate Changers are coming out of the woodwork again.
GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS are coming out of their SOCIALIST WOODWORK. They insist on the REST OF US paying for their WASTEFUL WAYS.
We progressives HATE GOP SOCIALISTS!
The movie "11 hours" is a documentary movie that they have made it about a decade ago, and there are many scientists have spoken from that movie with many scientific data and results from the researches. It may be a good idea that people would watch it.
And another movie is "The Day after Tomorrow" is not a documentary movie, but it is about the impact of the global warning and the green house gases effects.
This time we have done a very good job in terms of the way we anticipate Sandy Storm, and hope that we will be much better next time. Sandy should be retired from the list then.
Man thinks it has evolved from Chimps. Perhaps but man is insane.
The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.
That's building in tornado alley matchstick homes, building homes along the shore, over or near fault lines, along rivers, in below sea level areas, etc, etc.
I propose mankind is simply insane and is hopelessly doomed to repeat it's mistakes ad infinitum.
I think you're nuts. YoU aLL aRe! eXCEpt mE!
Man thinks it has evolved from Chimps.
Not at all. Man and chimp both evolved from a common ancestor ..... a little clearer for you: Man did not evolve from ape, man IS an ape.
The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting different results
Not a complete statement: Insanity is doing the same thing the same way over and over again expecting different results. Something along the lines of voting for the Democratic Party Agenda and expecting good things dispite historical evidence in civilization after civilization throughout recorded history.
That's building in tornado alley matchstick homes, building homes along the shore, over or near fault lines, along rivers, in below sea level areas, etc, etc.
Eliminate all areas that has the potential for natural disaster. Now eliminate all areas where that potential is realised every 2 to 50 generations. Once you have done that just where do you suggest large masses of people live? An event that occurs once in a hundred years is a gamble, it may occur tomorrow or it may not occur for 200 years.
I propose mankind is simply insane and is hopelessly doomed to repeat it's mistakes ad infinitum.
I propose that a basic understanding of economics, political science, human behaviour and history will reassure your pessimism and restore your faith in the species. After all somehow it has managed to survive and over populate the planet in a relatively short period of time. The only cause for concern is that tendency to over breed its environment. A planet with 1 billion people could be paradise, a planet with 7 billion and growing daily is a cesspool.
Common sense will tell you that rebuilding in flood prone areas or building on sand (OBX) is a fools errand. Unfortunately, homeowners and tourists like to be near the water. Should they get assistance every time a storm floods their home? First time maybe. Subsequent times, no. In this case, many homes and businesses were flooded for the first time. Rebuild elsewhere or risk the flooding again, but don't expect government assistance the second time if you rebuild in the same spot.
I really am stunned and grieving for the folks of North-East USA - for the dreadful toll of lives - for the destruction of homes, businesses and infrastructure - what can I say - my heart goes out to you folks. As a one-time resident of New England - I will never forget the kindness of its people, the beauty of its landscape, and the majesty of its fall foliage season.
All that said, this has really been "a disaster waiting to happen !! Looking at some of the photos and news-footage, it's really quite devastating. Worst part is that the inevitability of a storm like this has been touted time-and-again by various reputable scientists and government agencies - and they were mostly dismissed as cranks and alarmists - publicity seeking sensationalists !!
I'm reminded of some 25-30 years ago I was flying over the Galveston, TX area in the immediate aftermath of a huge hurricane - houses - trees - factories - everything was flattened and flooded for about 3 miles inland. Guess what - 2 years later I flew over the same area and just about everything had been rebuilt right in the same place - just ready and waiting for the next big wave !!
And I guess it'll be the same this time in NE USA - they'll patch-up their entirely inadequate little levees in NY & NJ and spend a fortune rebuilding their pathetic little houses and businesses exactly as they were as if nothing like this can ever happen again.
It's like the old Tommy Cooper story:
Mind you - out of all the grief and misery, at least some little good will indubitably emerge - a big uplift in employment, building supplies, road & rail repairs, utilities services repair and upgrades - but a rather pyrrhic victory when all things are considered.
Again, my condolences for your great losses and my prayers for a speedy return to normality.
Eamonn, Dublin, Ireland
well, the writing has been on that wall for quite some time,, we said way back, it will take a real catastrophe to get peoples minds truly around this problem, mainly due to the scope[global],..storm surge barriers work,. they are in action in lots of countries now, and the cost, while initially it seems high, in fact, 50% or more will not leave the area,, the money will go out, but it will come back "in" too,,,so take that figure and cut it in half for the end cost calculations,,,and,some of the infrastructure in NY is from the 18 and or 19 hundreds,,,old! old! very very OLD!,..look at it as an opportunity, shift your view,,answer the 5W,s and get on it asap,...This may seem a wee bit out there, but for lower Manhatten?.. fill may be the only real solution,,yes,, add 4 meters of fill, most of the larger buildings can handle it and the new infrastructure,tunnels etc, can be built at the same time as the fill goes in,If the jacking gear is there, and teams are ready? the rest can be lifted!,filled under, and set back down,,as we can see,, going down! is no longer viable for that area,,,then go up!!,..create a shifting front line that moves block by block downstream and dont stop until you get to the end,,,dikes etc, may work, for a while,,but when they they fail?? they fail big! and they can hold water in as effectivly as they hold it out,,,its going to be an interesting excercise,,OOTB will bring the solutions I am sure,,,as we say, when you are loaded with lemons??.. lemonade may be the only solution,,,get to work!!,..
Is it possible that the convergence of the 3 weather systems that wrecked the east coast was created by the meteor shower a couple of weeks ago? What are the stats on the co-occurance of bad storms and meteor showers?
Are we regressing to looking to the sky for omens? What next: reading sheep intestines, rolling chicken bones, sacrificing animals and virgins to supernatural omnipotent entities?
Here is a list of the meteor showers we see each year:
http://meteorshowersonline.com/calendar.html
There are 116 identified meteor showers ("identified" meaning that we have calculated the duration, intensity, orbit, and often the comet from which the debris came).
Last week's shower was in no way "special".
There is no known mechanism for a meteor shower to have any impact (pardon the pun) on the weather we've seen in the past week.
Further, there is no known correlation between larger meteor showers and large Earth weather events. (Meteor dust may act as a nucleation point to help form raindrops and snowflakes, but the amount of particulate matter we spew into our atmosphere from cars and industry dwarf meteors by several orders of magnitude.)
I'm not saying that it is impossible, but if it is then it is beyond currently known science.
When high density living occurs along coastal waters sooner or later there will be a price to pay. This is not a climate change issue. In 1969 Hurricane Camille, at 200+ mph winds hit the same region of the MS Gulf Coast. This storm was 3 times the strength of Hurricane Katrina, but the damage by Katrina was worse by far. How does this translate into climate change being the difference. The difference - the angle of entry into the coastal area and the forward speed, Katrina took 5 days to transit the Gulf while Camille was a fast mover. The increased density in living that occurred between 1969 and 2005 resulted in far more homes being placed at risk. See the truth for what it is. As humans, we make choices and living on the edge of the ocean is not really a smart choice - to visit yes, to live no. And, I'm one who made the dumb choice in MS.
We have always had devastating storms, and humans often pretend they didn't know it was going to happen. Even when they see it coming they will often refuse to evacuate. Weird phenomenon if you ask me. We also know an earthquake will rip up the West Coast one of these days.
Of course it was foreseen.
New York got hit by a hurricane back on September 3, 1821. The tide rose 13 feet in one hour. New York also felt the effects of a Cat 3 hurricane in 1938.
Hazel hit the east coast in 1954. Hazel was a Cat 3, happened during a full moon and combined with a cold front. Hazels storm surge was 15-18 feet.
Sandy hit during a full moon and combined with a cold front but was only a Cat 1.
Just because more people decide to build and live in risky areas people like to pretend that the newest storms are the most devastating. But on the list of hurricanes that have caused the most damage (adjusted to 2012 dollars) the top three all happened before 1930.
I will avoid adding all of the links to sources since I have posted them on several replies to different stories about Sandy.
All I have to say is this. The east coast got hit by three Cat 3 hurricanes in 1954. Carol in August, Edna in September and Hazel in October.
In the last two years we have seen the east coast get hit by tropical storm Irene and Cat 1 hurricane Sandy.
Why were those stronger storms natural in 1954 but the weaker storms today are man made?
Yeah, some of these "scientists" should go back and study causality and the scientific method.
BTW, the 1938 storm that hit NY killed 700+ people, and still had hurricane-force winds when it hit Quebec! But the worst hurricane to hit New England since Europeans arrived is believed to have been the Great Colonial Storm of 1635, which sent a 22-foot storm surge into coastal Massachusetts.
What no one ever talks about is how our 'global warming' is most likely saving us from another period of massive glaciation. Instead of trying to cool the planet we should be finding ways of keeping it warm. A flooded New York is much easier to fix than a New York smashed flat by a three thousand foot thick sheet of ice. And there is no levee in the world to stop THAT.
Not to mention most of the planets fresh water locked up in the ice (read 10,000 year global drought) and sea levels 400 feet lower. But then maybe 5 billion fewer people isn't such a bad thing.
The best part of this article? That the Corps of Engineers has to review this. I gaurantee they don't have the expertise to properly judge a project of this type...
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta calls upon Suzy Softcount to re-assess the need for cyber defense
after Silicon Sandy's strut up the east coast.
Pull a Chicago and build off the ground.
Though a system of levees and locks isn't a bad idea. I can't imagine anyone willing to pay for it. If someone tries to make a bank pay for it, they'll just move ops into Jersey and escape your silly city/county tax initiatives.
Global Warming!!!
There was a time when the Western US was nothing more than a micro continent with a few scattered islands
The entire California Central Valley's "Bathtub Rings" Are clearly visible in the sierra Nevada foothills where if you drive through some areas, those areas would be ancient coastlines and shallower Wetlands near the 800-1000 foot elevation , tabletop coastal cliffs are also visible in many areas of the sierra Nevada foothills. There are high sea level and low sea level "bathtub rings". In an Ice Age the San Francisco Bay and Marin Delta would be a dry empty valley.
At the rate the polar caps are melting, we will see rising seal levels and further devastation from extreme storm surges from such storms as Sandy, which quite literally laid down a layer of desert and drew a new coastal margin for the East Coast. But the North American continental plate and tectonic factors have long since uplifted the continent where a complete polar meltdown might not completely fill up California's Central Valley.
The Sea of California at low sea level, and the Sierra Pacific Ocean at high sea levels.
Canada's Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes were once all one body of water, The Great lakes are what's left of the southern portion of that body of water, The Central Plains and everything east and the entire SouthWest would have all been ocean at such an ancient time when the polar caps have experienced a complete meltdown. The eastern Appalachia's may have been the only dry land in the eastern US. But everything up to the Colorado Rocky's from the southern deserts and everything east of the rockies, up to the Grand Tetons of the Dakotas would have been ocean, even Nevada, with all its Dry Lakes (Seas) and Utahs Salt Lakes. There are seashells all over these regions belonging to oceanic marine life. Yes just a micro-continent in the western US, its not very difficult to fathom. But such extremes in sea levels may not happen today or tomorrow, we may see the indications creeping into the future, certainly in less than a thousand years, and probably in less than 500 years, with significant changes in the next 200 years due to continued polar melting. It may not be reversible and there may or may not be a balanced equilibrium point where the polar caps would begin reforming...the earth's axis and tilt will for some time experience more sunlight and warming in the Northern Hemisphere and the Antarctic may hold its own with less sunlight in the Southern Hemisphere. Extreme polar meltdowns in the earths history could be attributed to the earth's tilt and axis in addition to environmental conditions which in the past may have been due to an increase in volcanic activity, albeit human civilizations effects may be on par with that volcanic activity. It appears to be a cyclical minimum in the polar caps coverage due to the earths tilt-axis compounded by human activity as opposed to a polar maximum in periods of extreme Ice Ages and glaciation in both Northern and Southern Hemisphere's where the earth's axis and tilt is at a more balanced equilibrium.
Climate change is real and we are living in it.
And you ask yourself while driving through those areas of California's central valley and sierra foothill's rolling hills,
"What are those horizontal white lines on every hill at the same level."
Those are all layers of seashells like sandy atolls and you are driving under an ancient ocean.
From Red Bluff to the Tehachapi's...a few current coastal islands and current mountain chains islands.
Seems like more of a description of the anti-climate change naysayers that came out of the woodwork.
NYC created this problem by allowing construction near and below sea level. It should have to fix the problem. No one in Atlanta or Denver should have to pay for this folly. New Orleans is the perfect example of how not to respond to this sort of situation. Billions and billions spent so shantytowns can be rebuilt below sea level. Insanity! The sensible solution is to not allow anyone to rebuild in locations that were flooded. Require them to move to higher ground. Someone up thread asked where would we move Manhattan. I would suggest relocation to Provo Utah or Butte Montana. This country has plenty of land which is well above sea level where office buildings and apartments could be constructed.
Just goes along with all the other science related ignorance that goes on in this country. Anytime a scientist speaks out about something like this, they are ignored and shut down because its not what anyone wants to hear. This country is now paying for its willful ignorance.