Another flooding mega-disaster: Sri Lanka recovers from extreme flooding
At least 43 are dead and thousands still in refugee camps due to extreme flooding in eastern Sri Lanka caused by record monsoon rains. According to the United Nations, the rains in recent weeks in Sri Lanka have been the heaviest in nearly 100 years of record keeping, and the flood that resulted was a 1-in-100 year event, according to The U.N. Global Disaster Alert and Coordination System. Rainfall at Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, during the 42-day period December 1 - January 12 was 1606 mm (63"), which is about how much rain the station usually receives in an entire year (1651 mm, or 65".) Sri Lanka's previous most devastating flooding disaster was the 2004 tsunami, but as The Economist commented, "in terms of the numbers of people displaced and farmland inundated, the floods have been even more devastating than the tsunami of December 2004." Damage estimates start at $500 million, and much of Sri Lanka's agriculture has been severely damaged by the disaster. Also of concern is the large number of land mines from the recent Sri Lanka civil war that may have been unearthed by the floods. Water is also a major concern in the flood-hit area, as fighting between government forces and Tamil Tigers rebels from mid-2007 to May 2009 damaged or destroyed almost all of the water facilities.
Figure 1. A family affected by the 2011 Sri Lanka floods braves the flood waters. Image credit: United Nations.
Sri Lanka is now the fifth nation in the past six month to suffer a flooding disaster unprecedented in its history. As I reported in a previous post, the other four mega-impact floods--the July 2010 Pakistan floods, the December - January Queensland Australia floods, the November 2010 Colombia floods, and the January 2011 Rio de Janeiro floods--were all accompanied by an atmosphere laden with moisture, due, in part, due to sea surface temperatures over nearby ocean areas that were the 2nd or 3rd warmest on record. However, that was not the case for the Sri Lanka floods. Ocean temperatures during December 2010 were 0.2°C below average in the 5x5 degree square of ocean adjoining the island (5N - 10N, 80E - 85E). The floods appear to be due to the normal monsoon rains that typically affect the region this time of year, enhanced by the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific.
Figure 2. Satellite-estimated precipitation over Sri Lanka for January 3 - 9. Up to 18 inches (525 mm) fell over eastern Sri Lanka. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 — Blog Index
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
Always a Healthy choice.
Plus the Ladies Love my Dog.
So thats a BONUS incentive
We have no hope against more frequent storm events caused by global warming, if we don't get our watersheds in better condition.
Frequently Asked Questions
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin
I hope the Sri Lankans can get enough food, though I know they aren't very wealthy.
And, I hope this is just a WAG, as it seems, and it isn't nearly as bad as it could be.
"much of Sri Lanka's agriculture has been severely damaged "
Especially the one who is coughing up phlegm all the time.
I've responded to this same question about a million times here, sometimes giving all the boring details. I do a lot to cut my carbon footprint at home, at work, at play, wherever and whenever. Like anyone else--and I do mean anyone--I can probably do better, and I strive to do so.
But as I've also stated before, it's not simply enough for each of us who care to do our own part; there is a huge campaign, well-funded by corporate (mostly fossil fuel) interests to spread anti-science misinformation and disinformation, and they've been sadly successful judging by some of the writings one sees here and elsewhere. Because of that, I've made it a personal goal of mine to combat that campaign wherever, whenever, and however I can. Yes, I know I'm tilting at ginormous oil- and coal-powered windmills--but I can't just sit idly by while my home is trashed by those who place profit and politics ahead of people. I just can't. I doubt that I've convinced anyone; I'm aware I'm just one small man shoveling, er, egesta against the contrarian tide. But so be it.
Sorry to differ with you.
The research and science (AGW) to which you refer is based on falsified and altered data that has been molded to fit a preconceived view or bias.
Remember, all they have to do is provide a disclaimer and all that falsified data is rendered 'true and accurate', as if by magic.
The blind faith is the Lords of AGW way of doing things.
Living like a total food snob..Growing all the veggies & most the fruit the family eats. Getting into chickens & fish next. So nice not eating food sprayed with pesticides or genetically modified to live through several sprayings of round up..for about free. If your eating the processed American diet your getting some round up. 80% of corn & many other veggies are now "round up ready"..Bon Apitiete!
Driving vehicles with the best mpg we could afford. One payed for itself in less than 3 years from gas savings compared to the car it replaced..
Sealed up the house, (it's amazing how much $80 in caulk can save you), replaced the old leaky ducts, kept investing my savings into new energy efficient appliances. Now I have new appliances that have already payed for themselves (including AC unit) & a bunch of extra money I could have gave to the oil, food & energy giants.. I'm thinking solar next.
If I didn't live green, I'd need a job, be eating crap for food & have a bunch of old appliances.
Ya'll bent on living business as usual~ it is going to rob your wallet.
You mean like how Obama is a socialist fascist non-citizen?
Strange how it seems that ONLY climate science is political. What about medical research? Energy research? What about agricultural science? Why aren't they political? They should be, even more so than climate science considering the money going to medical research groups and companies dwarfs climate science by an order of magnitude.
And why, exactly, would anyone use climate science for political gain? Why would anyone waste the time and effort to try and manipulate world government through climate science when there are far easier and more direct ways to do so?
You seem to be confused. Science is performed in a rigorous peer-reviewed environment by experts in their respective fields. That being said, any idiot can participate in politics.
Which, of course, is part of the problem.
Sorry, but conspiracy theories just make you sound like truthers and birthers. They bring nothing of use to the conversation, and honestly only make you look like fool who can't bring to bear any sort of a cogent logical scientific argument.
Google paleoclimatology.
But next year should cool off by .4C compared to last year. Even if the La Nina weakens.
And when you can't come up with a logical argument, you fall back on conspiracy, character assisination, ad hominem, and other fallacies.
You have yet to provide a single source of verifiable proof that there is a global world wide conspiracy going on.
But what do climatologist gain by trying to form a world wide conspiracy of this magnitude? Why climate science, when other branches of science are more well funded and would be easier to fool the general populace?
Even if I subscribed to conspiracy theories (which I don't), using climate science as a tool for world domination or whatever just doesn't make logical sense. There are more convenient routes to money and power.
No, the past societies that destroyed themselves, without a trace.
2011 will likely be cooler overall than 2010, which was a record warm year. If anyone wishes to call that a sign of global cooling, they're free to do so--though they'll have to do so by ignoring the simple fact that climate is about long-term trends, not year-to-year changes. And those long-term trends point toward a warming planet.
Who said anything about conspiracies?
In their perverted world, disclaimers make it all better.
In the real world, its called bad science.
Precisely. From unknown governor in Alaska to extreme right wing power princess in a handful of years.
People are very easy to manipulate, and you certainly don't need scientists to do it. In fact, they'd get in the way.
A really successful worldwide conspiracy would never make itself publicly open to debate or review. They would act behind the scenes, while putting charismatic individuals in seats of power to slowly bend world policy and perceptions to their will. Over time, they would convince the people to act in their own worst interests to further secure their positions of wealth and power. But you'd only see the pretty person parade, you'd never see the people behind them.
Thanks for the laughs, you are a funny man!
Everyone does realise the only chance to prove AGW is a hoax is to pour a lot more money into climate research? If funding were to stop today, the science would stop and the current consensus of man-made warming would be the de facto science for decades to come ;)
It's better than getting a real job, being a corporate knob & eating crap.. Are some people just afraid of leisure & money or just that brainwashed they can't make anything & must give all their money to corporations?
You know, even reading an elementary introduction to climate science would answer your questions. Climate does not equal weather, and vice versa.I you were actually motivated to learn, there are dozens of good books on the subject of climatology.
Climatological projections are based on assumptions of what our activities are now and may be in the future. They make it quite clear that the projections do not take into account extreme events such as massive volcanic eruptions or asteroid impacts.
Thats a good point skye.
We buy Local Seafood weekly,,and try to by all our veggies from Local Growers.
Mass Transit serves NOLA well,,and we only Drive the Boy to school one way.
He rides home with a local schoolmate.
Corporations run rampant with Tax Breaks,,outsourcing and PR slants like BP in the GOM.
Alls well if they say so,,but let some rumor of Truth come to light with Known facts,studies and obs,,then its all conspiracy.
Go Fig'ya
Earthquake
SPPI = Sham. Their research is not peer reviewed. Their methods are not open. Their funding sources are not declared. And they have no backing of any respectable climate science organization.
You could always refer to actual published research papers by skeptics instead of posting this psuedo-scientific garbage. Unfortunately, you won't find any REAL skeptic research paper claiming that global warming is a hoax/conspiracy.
I don't claim to be an expert on weather or climate,but as I said before,its not getting any warmer at my house(by that I mean the thermometer on the tree). Besides every record reported by weather recording stations always state (since records have been kept). which is what since 1880 in most cases. If they said 5,000 years ,then we might have something to worry about!
hhhhhhmmm
Skye - That is how it shoudl be done. My wife and I just bought a new house (well, start of last year), and one of our qualifications is that it is energy-efficient. We paid extra for Tek-shield in the attic, double-paned low-e windows, a very efficient A/C unit, extra insulation, etc. Our highest electric bill this summer (in Houston, TX) was $120, for a two story house. (and yes, we use 100% green energy)
We drive small cars, and all future cars will get 30+ mpg (35 if we can get it), and be hybrids if possible. Growing our own food, while difficult to keep it organic, not only saves us money, but allows us to live even more green (and they keep a lot longer in storage).
So many people focus on fossil fuels to live green... but more people need to think like you and I, and live sustainably. If anyone needs some ideas, I posted some on my blog a while back (its the most recent post on there).
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 — Blog Index