Preventing the Next Sandy

[cpzilliacus]

Slate.com: Preventing the Next Sandy -
Environmentalists are worrying about reducing CO2. It's cheaper to build seawalls and protect the subways

When Sandy hit the east coast of the United States on October 29, it not only flooded the New York City Subway and became an important election issue. It also resurrected the claim that global warming was to blame, together with the morally irresponsible argument that we should help future hurricane victims by cutting CO2 emissions.

Now, global warming is real, and cutting CO2 is a good idea when the reduction cost is lower than that of the damage it prevents. There is also a grain of truth in the connection between hurricanes and global warming: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects stronger but fewer hurricanes toward the end of this century.

[Beltway]

Slate.com: Preventing the Next Sandy -
Environmentalists are worrying about reducing CO2. It's cheaper to build seawalls and protect the subways

When Sandy hit the east coast of the United States on October 29, it not only flooded the New York City Subway and became an important election issue. It also resurrected the claim that global warming was to blame, together with the morally irresponsible argument that we should help future hurricane victims by cutting CO2 emissions.

Now, global warming is real, and cutting CO2 is a good idea when the reduction cost is lower than that of the damage it prevents. There is also a grain of truth in the connection between hurricanes and global warming: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects stronger but fewer hurricanes toward the end of this century.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.  I see that they are continuing to hawk the "global warming" theory.  There is no scientific case for the claim that "global warming" influences hurricane frequency and intensity.  They are spewing nonsense out their rectum if they think that they can "Prevent the Next Sandy"

[english si]

When Katrina happened, the left-wing papers here talked about it being global warming, with at least one pointing to New Orleans' oil industry and blaming that for why it specifically got hit. These papers, with a straight face, then said "don't be silly - hurricanes aren't caused by God's judgement for sexual deviancy - they are natural random events" on the next page - it seems like left wing arguments of Gaia's judgement are legit, whereas right wing ones are anti-science.

And one of those same papers blamed Sandy on New York's financial industry.

Seawalls, etc are certainly a better idea. Though in the case of Katrina, building a city at/below water level with a large lake to the north, the sea to the south and the mighty Mississippi in the mix as well, it's not the best idea.

While not as coastal as NYC, the London Underground's flooding problems have never really been considered to be storm surges from the river (the District line between Westminster and Blackfriars is underneath a sewer in the Embankment - it was built where the river once was, and is under river level. Canary Wharf tube station was built inside/under a dock - they filled enough in so that it's not completely surrounded by water, but there's still lots of it. There's 10-under Thames rail tunnels - including the oldest under-river tunnel in the world) - but torrential rain and bomb hits that burst the walls between tunnel and river. This is due to the extensive sea/storm surge defences.

[Alps]

Global warming is a fact. The overall global temperature has been rising consistently. I think we have a good idea of what to expect, but I don't think we can rule any one theory correct yet. For example, there have lately been more frequent but weaker hurricanes than in years past. So how does that stack up against the UN Intergovernmental Panel? All I know is this is not the weather I grew up with, most years. I also don't think anything drastic will happen unless we explode our atmosphere away, and then it doesn't really matter what happens to the planet because we won't be around to see it...

[Duke87]

Weather patterns naturally vary with time. Have we really been keeping track of hurricanes for long enough to determine if a trend is truly out of the ordinary?

Anyways, the article makes a valid point: mitigation may very well be more practical than prevention at this point. Carbon emissions aren't going away anytime soon, and nobody has a good way to take the existing excess CO₂ in the air back out.

[Brandon]

Preventing the next Sandy?  Anyone suggesting this is high on something.  You cannot prevent a storm such as Sandy, Katrina, the Groundhog Day Blizzard, etc.  You can, however, setup your area and services to be prepared for one when, not if it happens.

Had the levees been maintained properly in Orleans Parish, Katrina would've been a bunch of rain and wind with minimal flooding.  Had NYC and NJ been ready for a Sandy and not built on shifting barrier islands, the damage would've been minimal.  We were ready for the Groundhog Day Blizzard and had the streets cleared by the middle of the next day.  Preparedness is what works with storms, not some stupid high-on-crack idea of preventing them.

Newsflash to all, these storms happen regardless of climate change.  Should we attribute the Galveston Gale of 1900 to climate change as well?  Or how about the storm that took out the Spanish Armada?  Climate is always changing, we influence it, get over it and adapt.

[Beltway]

Weather patterns naturally vary with time. Have we really been keeping track of hurricanes for long enough to determine if a trend is truly out of the ordinary?

The North Atlantic Ocean sees a 20- to 30-year hurricane cycle, and it may be influenced by the 24-year solar intensity cycle.

"An active hurricane cycle lasting from 1930 to the mid-1960s savaged Florida and the East Coast before it stopped, Fitzpatrick told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. He said one of the exceptions was the Gulf Coast, most notably Hurricane Camille, which battered Mississippi in 1969.  The current 20- to 30-year hurricane cycle began in 1995 and is still going strong. Hurricane Katrina killed 238 in Mississippi and 1,100 in Louisiana and the death toll may climb, he said."

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2006/01/24/64517.htm

[roadman65]

Remove Obama. Only kidding.  No power of human can ever stop the weather, but we can prepare for it.  Learn from our mistakes.  Get flood gates for the tunnels on both roads and transit.  Rebuild the power grid!  There is a lot you can learn from storms.  I live in Florida, so I have been through plenty of them.  Believe me, we learned after Charley fast how to prepare being we had two more within a few weeks.

[empirestate]

I believe the discussion of whether climate change causes these storms should be had separately from the discussion of how to protect ourselves against them. Whether and why the probability of such events varies over time becomes irrelevant once the event actually occurs, because then the probability becomes 100%. The problem with prevention is that it relates to future events, whose probability is never 100%, so it becomes necessary to hedge our bets and, if possible, to influence the probability in a favorable direction.

But since the probability of Hurricane Sandy, with or without climate change and its influence, was never zero, then there has always been justification for wanting to protect against it. If climate change were to be debunked and its influence ruled out, the issue of protection would remain.

On the other hand, you could argue that the next Sandy has, indeed, already been prevented, because there is no doubt that the NHC will retire the name for future seasons!

[cpzilliacus]

Slate.com: Preventing the Next Sandy -
Environmentalists are worrying about reducing CO2. It's cheaper to build seawalls and protect the subways

When Sandy hit the east coast of the United States on October 29, it not only flooded the New York City Subway and became an important election issue. It also resurrected the claim that global warming was to blame, together with the morally irresponsible argument that we should help future hurricane victims by cutting CO2 emissions.

Now, global warming is real, and cutting CO2 is a good idea when the reduction cost is lower than that of the damage it prevents. There is also a grain of truth in the connection between hurricanes and global warming: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects stronger but fewer hurricanes toward the end of this century.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.  I see that they are continuing to hawk the "global warming" theory.  There is no scientific case for the claim that "global warming" influences hurricane frequency and intensity.  They are spewing nonsense out their rectum if they think that they can "Prevent the Next Sandy"

Did you read what the author wrote?

Do you know who he is? 

[NJRoadfan]

New Jersey has been struck by stronger storms in the past. Its rare, but not completely out of the question. Not to nitpick, but the storm was technically a "post tropical cyclone" when it made landfall in NJ. The background is very complicated as to why.

There was plenty of advance notice to get out of low laying areas and to stock supplies. We were prepared the best we could be. You may not be able to prevent storms, but you can prevent stupid and mitigate the damage.

[empirestate]

Not to nitpick, but the storm was technically a "post tropical cyclone" when it made landfall in NJ. The background is very complicated as to why.

Indeed it was, albeit one with the wind speed of a Category 1 hurricane. That's distinct from Irene, which was down to tropical storm strength when it hit Brooklyn.

I have heard the distinction between hurricane and tropical storm, and presumably post-tropical cyclone as well, makes a difference as far as some insurance policies go, but I really don't know the details.

[Beltway]

Not to nitpick, but the storm was technically a "post tropical cyclone" when it made landfall in NJ. The background is very complicated as to why.

Indeed it was, albeit one with the wind speed of a Category 1 hurricane. That's distinct from Irene, which was down to tropical storm strength when it hit Brooklyn.

I have heard the distinction between hurricane and tropical storm, and presumably post-tropical cyclone as well, makes a difference as far as some insurance policies go, but I really don't know the details.

"The primary difference between a tropical cyclone and a wintertime cyclone is the energy source. Tropical cyclones extract heat from the ocean and grow by releasing that heat in the atmosphere near the storm center. Wintertime cyclones (also called extratropical or frontal lows), on the other hand, get most of their energy from temperature contrasts in the atmosphere, and this energy usually gets distributed over larger areas. Because of these differences, tropical cyclones tend to have more compact wind fields, tend to be more symmetric, and have a well-defined inner core of strong winds. Wintertime lows have strong temperature contrasts or fronts attached to them, have a broader wind field, and more complex distributions of rain or snow."

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20121027_pa_sandyTransition.pdf

[empirestate]

Not to nitpick, but the storm was technically a "post tropical cyclone" when it made landfall in NJ. The background is very complicated as to why.

Indeed it was, albeit one with the wind speed of a Category 1 hurricane. That's distinct from Irene, which was down to tropical storm strength when it hit Brooklyn.

I have heard the distinction between hurricane and tropical storm, and presumably post-tropical cyclone as well, makes a difference as far as some insurance policies go, but I really don't know the details.

"The primary difference between a tropical cyclone and a wintertime cyclone is the energy source. Tropical cyclones extract heat from the ocean and grow by releasing that heat in the atmosphere near the storm center. Wintertime cyclones (also called extratropical or frontal lows), on the other hand, get most of their energy from temperature contrasts in the atmosphere, and this energy usually gets distributed over larger areas. Because of these differences, tropical cyclones tend to have more compact wind fields, tend to be more symmetric, and have a well-defined inner core of strong winds. Wintertime lows have strong temperature contrasts or fronts attached to them, have a broader wind field, and more complex distributions of rain or snow."

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20121027_pa_sandyTransition.pdf

Was that meant to answer my insurance question, or did that get misquoted?

[Beltway]

Indeed it was, albeit one with the wind speed of a Category 1 hurricane. That's distinct from Irene, which was down to tropical storm strength when it hit Brooklyn.

I have heard the distinction between hurricane and tropical storm, and presumably post-tropical cyclone as well, makes a difference as far as some insurance policies go, but I really don't know the details.

"The primary difference between a tropical cyclone and a wintertime cyclone is the energy source. Tropical cyclones extract heat from the ocean and grow by releasing that heat in the atmosphere near the storm center. Wintertime cyclones (also called extratropical or frontal lows), on the other hand, get most of their energy from temperature contrasts in the atmosphere, and this energy usually gets distributed over larger areas. Because of these differences, tropical cyclones tend to have more compact wind fields, tend to be more symmetric, and have a well-defined inner core of strong winds. Wintertime lows have strong temperature contrasts or fronts attached to them, have a broader wind field, and more complex distributions of rain or snow."

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20121027_pa_sandyTransition.pdf

Was that meant to answer my insurance question, or did that get misquoted?

I don't think it is related to insurance, it is a meterological defintion by the National Hurricane Center.

[empirestate]

Indeed it was, albeit one with the wind speed of a Category 1 hurricane. That's distinct from Irene, which was down to tropical storm strength when it hit Brooklyn.

I have heard the distinction between hurricane and tropical storm, and presumably post-tropical cyclone as well, makes a difference as far as some insurance policies go, but I really don't know the details.

"The primary difference between a tropical cyclone and a wintertime cyclone is the energy source. Tropical cyclones extract heat from the ocean and grow by releasing that heat in the atmosphere near the storm center. Wintertime cyclones (also called extratropical or frontal lows), on the other hand, get most of their energy from temperature contrasts in the atmosphere, and this energy usually gets distributed over larger areas. Because of these differences, tropical cyclones tend to have more compact wind fields, tend to be more symmetric, and have a well-defined inner core of strong winds. Wintertime lows have strong temperature contrasts or fronts attached to them, have a broader wind field, and more complex distributions of rain or snow."

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20121027_pa_sandyTransition.pdf

Was that meant to answer my insurance question, or did that get misquoted?

I don't think it is related to insurance, it is a meterological defintion by the National Hurricane Center.

Yes, I understand that. But insurance companies often use these meteorological definitions to determine how (or if) certain losses are covered, based on the type of meteorological event that caused them. For example, hurricane deductibles go into effect with wind speeds of 74mph or more, so if your roof is blown off by a 78mph wind, it's covered differently than if it were blown off by a 72mph wind, even though your roof is equally blown off in either case.

What I don't know is whether some policies make the distinction between tropical and non-tropical, or post-tropical, systems. That would matter for Sandy, because it was a hurricane until 7pm EDT, but made landfall shortly afterward as a non-hurricane. Would you have to certify that your roof got blown of at 6:30 instead of 8:30?

That's mostly moot, of course, since in the case of Sandy the vast majority of damage was caused by flood water and not directly by wind, which is a whole different area of insurance...

[triplemultiplex]

The connection between climate change and storms is one of probabilities.  A warmer planet means warmer oceans which stacks the deck in favor of more storms and stronger storms.  We can't point to a single storm and say, "That one right there; that was global warming".  What we can say is that the probability of another storm that size in that location is not the same as it was a few decades or centuries ago.  As the variables that affect storm growth and movement change, so to will their recurrence intervals.

I heard a good analogy to Major League Baseball's steroid era.  We can't point to a single home run by Barry Bonds or Mark MacGuire and say with any certainty that it was because they were juicing.  But we can say with certainty that steroid use among major leaguers resulted in a definite spike in the amount of home runs hit in baseball.

[Beltway]

I doubt that a reputable insurance company would nitpick between whether the wind was over or under 74 mph (hurricane force).  For one thing, at any one location the wind profiles won't necessarily be known exactly.

[The Great Zo]

The connection between climate change and storms is one of probabilities.  A warmer planet means warmer oceans which stacks the deck in favor of more storms and stronger storms.  We can't point to a single storm and say, "That one right there; that was global warming".  What we can say is that the probability of another storm that size in that location is not the same as it was a few decades or centuries ago.  As the variables that affect storm growth and movement change, so to will their recurrence intervals.

I heard a good analogy to Major League Baseball's steroid era.  We can't point to a single home run by Barry Bonds or Mark MacGuire and say with any certainty that it was because they were juicing.  But we can say with certainty that steroid use among major leaguers resulted in a definite spike in the amount of home runs hit in baseball.

The steroid analogy is overly simplistic and not totally applicable to weather or climate forecasting. A warmer planet means warmer oceans, but also means several other changes to environmental variables (upper atmospheric temperatures, wind shear, etc) that may or may not act in favor of hurricane strength. There have been several articles written post-Sandy that indicate that research suggests slightly fewer storms (but slightly stronger at the high-end). As you alluded to correctly, these effects would be negligible on the time scale of a single storm or year, but evident over long-term averages.

[texaskdog]

Global warming is a fact. The overall global temperature has been rising consistently. I think we have a good idea of what to expect, but I don't think we can rule any one theory correct yet. For example, there have lately been more frequent but weaker hurricanes than in years past. So how does that stack up against the UN Intergovernmental Panel? All I know is this is not the weather I grew up with, most years. I also don't think anything drastic will happen unless we explode our atmosphere away, and then it doesn't really matter what happens to the planet because we won't be around to see it...

I'm betting there was global warming during the 1900 Galveston Hurricane   So tired of these unproven theories

and anyway...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/141005weather_modification.htm

[formulanone]

So instead of taking a scientific engineering approach like building sea walls, canals, super-adequate drainage, and stop building stuff at sea level or lower, let's just fruitlessly point fingers at whatever political agenda we dislike the most and everything will be a-OK, right?

[NE2]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

bahahahahahaha


"I don't wanna talk to a scientist, y'all mother fuckers lying and gettin me pissed" - Insane Clown Posse, Miracles

[Beltway]

So instead of taking a scientific engineering approach like building sea walls, canals, super-adequate drainage, and stop building stuff at sea level or lower, let's just fruitlessly point fingers at whatever political agenda we dislike the most and everything will be a-OK, right?

False dichotomy.  Both can be done, political agendas can be skewered, and at the same time it is important to use engineering to build flood protection systems.  Building at and below sea level is not a good practice, either.

[Brandon]

So instead of taking a scientific engineering approach like building sea walls, canals, super-adequate drainage, and stop building stuff at sea level or lower, let's just fruitlessly point fingers at whatever political agenda we dislike the most and everything will be a-OK, right?

I'm in favor of not rebuilding these cities on barrier islands.  Barrier islands, by their very nature are vulnerable to storms and also have a nasty tendency to move over time (regardless of one's opinions on climate; their movement and vulnerability are geologic fact).

[Alps]

So instead of taking a scientific engineering approach like building sea walls, canals, super-adequate drainage, and stop building stuff at sea level or lower, let's just fruitlessly point fingers at whatever political agenda we dislike the most and everything will be a-OK, right?

I'm in favor of not rebuilding these cities on barrier islands.  Barrier islands, by their very nature are vulnerable to storms and also have a nasty tendency to move over time (regardless of one's opinions on climate; their movement and vulnerability are geologic fact).

The issue in NJ is that there's so much revenue coming in from them, there's probably a good financial case to spending the rebuilding money now. Otherwise, the Jersey Shore withers and this state will be out at least tens of billions a year.