Lessons of Harvey

[billvon 3,111]

Now that Harvey has finally fizzled out in the middle of the country the talk has turned to the next megastorm to threaten the US - Irma. And in the short term, all you can really do is prepare - prepare to move people out of the way, prepare buildings and structures to survive the storm, prepare the inevitable rescue operations and the longer term rebuilding.

But beyond that we should be asking about the long term. What, in the long term, can we do to prevent more Harveys?

One of the easy answers (at least on the surface) is "deal with climate change." Even if you don't think the incidence of strong storms will increase due to climate change, there's no question that warmer waters mean more evaporation which means more rain. For every degree C that water temperatures increase, evaporation increases by 7%. So for events like Harvey, whether or not they are made more likely by warming, they will pick up more water before hitting land (~30% more in the case of Harvey.) And that means more rain, even if the intensity or incidence doesn't increase.

The problem is that dealing with climate change takes as long as creating that climate change, which has taken decades. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow (which is nearly impossible) it would take ten years before we'd see a change in the course of the warming we are seeing due to the dwell time of CO2 and the natural thermal inertia of the planet. In any realistic scenario, it will take 40 years before significant (but practical) reductions in CO2 begin to reduce the rate of warming - and during that time we will still see all the problems that those warmer water entails.

And that's beyond most people's planning horizons. Even if someone understands the science of climate change, there's going to come a point where they say "we've spent all this money for ten years and we STILL see these storms getting bigger! Why are we wasting our money?" Historically, human organizations don't/can't plan out more than about a decade.

But let's say you don't "believe" in climate change. Let's say you read the above and your conclusion was "that stupid liberal thinks that climate change causes storms" or even "it's all LIES! LIES!" It is still very hard to deny that the seas are getting warmer and that rainfall is increasing during storms. Perhaps you think that it's all natural, that it's a trend caused by the Sun. Even then, there's no getting around the problems caused by warmer oceans, even if you think it's all natural. In Houston, for example, there have been "100 year rains" (i.e. rains that should come once every 100 years or so) in 2015, 2016 and 2017 - and rainfall amounts have been growing steadily. Storms dumping more than 10 inches of rain have doubled over the past 30 years.

So then the issue becomes one of preparation for the worsening rains. And unfortunately that means another thing that will get a lot of resistance - better city planning. One of the reasons that Houston fared so poorly during Harvey was that there was very little planning for storms. A very large percentage of Houston is impermeable - roads, parking lots, roofs and the like. Which means that most of the rain that fell has no chance to be absorbed by permeable soils or slowed down by vegetation before starting to make its way to the sea.

One of the common refrains about Harvey was "why didn't they evacuate?" The reason is that they couldn't, safely. The existing roads could not handle the millions of people that would need to use them in the few days of warning they had. And they absolutely could NOT just try to get most people out. When projects to widen bayous and storm reservoirs got cancelled and delayed, Houston's solution was to build roads below grade to help with drainage. The philosophy was "Wouldn't you rather have water in the street than in your house?" (per D. Wayne Klotz, president of the ASCE.) And while this works for summer thunderstorms, it doesn't work at all for a storm the magnitude of Harvey. Which means that if you order an evacuation you could easily be giving orders that could kill them - so they lose that option.

Remember those pictures of the senior citizens waiting in waist-deep water for rescue? That happened because that home was built on a 100 year floodplain (which means it floods every 100 years on the average.) But that was back in the 1900's - nowadays there are 100 year floods every year.

These risks are nothing new, nor were they unknown. There have been several lawsuits filed against the city by business owners and homeowners who have lost property, saying that the planning for floods was woefully insufficient. They have all failed. In 1996, engineers in the Harris County Flood Control District warned of severe risks with the current scheme - the "original design parameters and assumptions are severely outdated and invalid." They proposed a new drainage system to move floodwaters more quickly to the Houston Ship Channel. They also listed several alternatives, including digging reservoirs deeper, buying out at-risk properties (and then banning further development there) and using a larger number of shallower channels. They listed a final alternative - "do nothing and accept the risk of flooding."

Needless to say, they decided to "accept the risk of flooding." And with Harvey we learned in great detail what those risks were, and what we could lose during such a flood.

So what are the potential solutions?

1) Better integrated, citywide planning, including zoning. Zoning industrial and residential areas more intelligently (so easily-evacuatable factories are the first to flood) will help. Condemning areas that are very likely to flood, and returning them to marsh, will help significantly - both by moving vulnerable homes and factories, and providing a place for floodwaters to pool, be slowed by vegetation and soak into the ground. Likewise, requiring well-drained green spaces in housing and commercial projects will provide some buffer against flooding.

2) Floodplain requirements. Perris Valley airport is in a floodplain, and there have been periodic floods that have inundated the airport. But homes were largely unaffected, because there were zoning requirements that homes be several feet above the 100-year floodplain level. Some homes do this by being up on 4 foot berms, others do it by having floodable lower floors.

3) Fund the sort of drainage projects that will actually make a difference, like the rejected 1996 proposal.

4) Upgrade roadways and railways to allow safe evacuation, which means elevated rail lines (cheap) and elevated or above-grade roads (expensive.)

Needless to say, any one of these will be insufficient - and even if all of them are implemented it will merely reduce, not eliminate, risks from Harvey-scale storms. And all the above mean more work and money (or, in the language of our current president, more "job killing regulations.") But with Harvey, we see the results of not planning for the storms that we know are going to get worse. And not just jobs are getting killed.

[ryoder 1,590]

Something else I just learned about recently that can help in flood-prone areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervious_concrete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rbNznCBKI8

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 2,146]

Lessons of Harvey, Irma, wildfires, scorching temperatures...

Don't vote for Trump.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rifleman 70]

I know that these articles are about the UK and may not be of any use in dealing with the weather effects associated with a hurricane but they include some potentially good ideas.

http://www.countryfile.com/article/what-are-natural-flood-defences-and-do-they-work

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-flooding-how-a-yorkshire-flood-blackspot-worked-with-nature-to-stay-dry-a6794286.html

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[DirtyChai 0]

billvon

For every degree C that water temperatures increase, evaporation increases by 7%. So for events like Harvey, whether or not they are made more likely by warming, they will pick up more water before hitting land (~30% more in the case of Harvey.)

Could you please provide a source for that? I was under the impression that every degree C increase in global/atmospheric temperatures allowed the atmosphere to hold 7% more moisture, which is a lot different than what you're trying to say.

From what I gather, some climate models translate the additional 7% of moisture into a 2-3% increase in actual rainfall, while some satellite observations indicate a 6% increase.

[DirtyChai 0]

billvon

For every degree C that water temperatures increase, evaporation increases by 7%. So for events like Harvey, whether or not they are made more likely by warming, they will pick up more water before hitting land (~30% more in the case of Harvey.)

Nevermind, apparently you're too preoccupied arguing with Rush and Ron about the finer points of AGW. How foolish of me to ask you to actually back up your claim. . .

[coreecee 0]

billvon

For every degree C that water temperatures increase, evaporation increases by 7%. So for events like Harvey, whether or not they are made more likely by warming, they will pick up more water before hitting land (~30% more in the case of Harvey.)

Either you have a gross misunderstanding of thermodynamics as it pertains to evaporation, or you're just trying to bullshit everyone. . .

For every degree C of global warming, the atmosphere can hold up to 7% more moisture. And while warmer water evaporates more quickly, the rate of evaporation depends more on the current air temp, wind speed and humidity, rather than SST - not that anyone actually gives a fuck about the details.

[kallend 2,146]

coreecee

For every degree C of global warming, the atmosphere can hold up to 7% more moisture.

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation doesn't predict a linear response with temperature.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,587]

Man, go jumping for a day and you miss all the fun...

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[winsor 236]

Overpopulation is an acute problem while 'Climate Change' (tm) is chronic. Both are self-correcting in the long run.

With a greatly reduced population, allocation of resources is not as big of an issue. Even with the impact of humanity on climate completely negated, our locust-like consumption of E) All the above is a primary issue.

If our biggest problem was our impact on the climate, we'd be in comparatively great shape. It isn't and we're not.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 3,111]

>Overpopulation is an acute problem while 'Climate Change' (tm) is chronic. Both
>are self-correcting in the long run.

While true, that's like saying that cell division is an acute problem while cancer is chronic.

A large population in and of itself is not bad. (In fact we're all probably pretty happy that the world is overpopulated with plankton.) A large population over the carrying limit is bad, as is a population that expands without restraint.

Thus before you can declare "overpopulation!" you have to decide what the carrying capability of the biome is. The ability to get rid of wastes safely is one part of that. Ability to provide food is another - but we are far from having a problem in that area yet. Ability to provide clean water is another - and that problem is much more imminent. And climate change affects our ability to do all of that.

All that being said, population control will help with all the above. And the best weapon we have against overpopulation is women's education. Dollars spent on educating women is the best bang for the buck in terms of reducing overall birthrate, and charities like Tostan, Camfed and Women's Learning Partnership promote women's education around the world.

[billvon 3,111]

Trump's recent tweets - "Hurricane Irma is of epic proportion, perhaps bigger than we have ever seen" "Hurricane looks like largest ever recorded in the Atlantic!" And today he said that Irma was a storm "the likes of which we can say really say nobody's ever seen before. They've never seen a category like this come in because it came in really at a five."

So someone asked him if this changed his view on climate change. This, of course, required some quick historical revisionism.

"We've had bigger storms than this. If you go back into the 1930s and the 1940s, and you take a look, we've had storms over the years that have been bigger than this. If you go back into the teens, you'll see storms that were as big or bigger. So we did have two horrific storms, epic storms, but if you go back into the '30s and '40s, and you go back into the teens, you'll see storms that were very similar and even bigger, OK?"

Nobody's ever seen storms like this before! But we've seen bigger storms.

[coreceeo 0]

billvon

For every degree C that water temperatures increase, evaporation increases by 7%. So for events like Harvey, whether or not they are made more likely by warming, they will pick up more water before hitting land (~30% more in the case of Harvey.)

So, are you ever going to admit that you were wrong? Or will you just continue to bolster this facade known as Alarmism, crying wolf and trampling underfoot the credibility of real climate science?

[gowlerk 2,274]

Quote

continue to bolster this facade known as Alarmism, crying wolf and trampling underfoot the credibility of real climate science?

This is not about the evaporation rate thing in dispute here but in general. Lately I have seen a lot of press mentions about global warming related to the recent weather events. And I do believe it is undercutting the real science. There MAY be an intensification of these storms. But the sources I have read that are credible go no further than that.

In the meantime, many news outlets seem to feel it is their duty to inform the public that these events are a direct result of AWG. This is typical sensationalism and it will hurt, not help in changing minds. Because the simple fact is that it can not be proven. There are plenty of provable signs of warming. We need to be careful to stick to using them as our arguments and not to be tempted to jump on the band wagon over transient weather event when discussing climate.

And for the record, billvon is usually correct when he gets into the numbers. But even if he has misinterpreted something here, warmer water evaporates quicker, and warmer air can hold more water. That no one can deny.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.