Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Renewed flooding in Sri Lanka kills 11, affects 1.05 million
Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 10:21 GMT le 07 février 2011 +4
Renewed flooding in Sri Lanka due to heavy monsoon rains has killed at least 11 people and inundated the homes of 1.05 million people over the past week. The floods occurred over the central, north, and east portions of the island, and have the potential to devastate the rice crop and cause hundreds of millions in damage. Many of the areas affected were also hard-hit by January's 100-year flood, which killed 43 people, affected over 1 million people, and did at least $500 million in damage. Those floods destroyed 21% of Sri Lanka's rice crop. Heavy rains from the annual northeastern monsoon are common in the region from December through February, but this year's rains have been enhanced by the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific. According to the United Nations, the rains in January in Sri Lanka were the heaviest in nearly 100 years of record keeping. 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".) Satellite estimates of rainfall over Sri Lanka for the first week of February show that up to 12 inches (300 mm) of rain has fallen. The latest rainfall forecast from the GFS model projects that a tropical disturbance (91B) near Sri Lanka will bring an additional 1 - 3 inches of rain to the flood area this week, so the flood waters will be slow to recede.


Figure 1. AP video of the latest flooding in Sri Lanka.

Jeff Masters
Categories: Flood
  Permalink | A A A
Reader Comments
Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted
Viewing: 151 - 201

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

151. Levi32 01:52 GMT le 08 février 2011    
From the NOAA glossary.....

"PWAT
Precipitable Water - measure of the depth of liquid water at the surface that would result after precipitating all of the water vapor in a vertical column over a given location, usually extending from the surface to 300 mb.
"

Precipitating can mean any non-vapor form of water falling to the ground. I'm pretty sure I know my basic meteorological terms up and down.
Member Since: 24 novembre 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25612
152. Grothar 01:53 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Levi32:


American Meteorological Society is an unknown source? And you really are gonna go with Wiki on this one?



I do when I agree with it. I don't go with Wiki when I disagree. It's just the way I am. I think I have see you quote Wiki once or twice.
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
153. caneswatch 01:53 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
I thought precipitable water is what happens after a case of beer...


LOL, good one.
Member Since: 8 octobre 2008 Posts: 14 Comments: 4479
154. Grothar 01:54 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
I thought precipitable water is what happens after a case of beer...


You are getting that confused with "panic mode"
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
155. GeoffreyWPB 01:55 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:


LOL, good one.


The power of suggestion. Be back in a minute.
Member Since: 10 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 9248
156. beell 01:56 GMT le 08 février 2011    
From an operational meteorology perspective, PW is usually derived from the lowest 400 or 500 mb of atmosphere.

The anomaly chart is labeled "Surface PW". Not sure how that is measured but would expect it to be a low value given the dry, somewhat stable surface air that has been the rule over the gulf coast. There is moisture present but not much at/near the surface.

Just a thought.
Member Since: 11 septembre 2007 Posts: 126 Comments: 13072
157. Grothar 01:56 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:


LOL, good one.



Go to bed!
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
158. Levi32 01:56 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Do we really need to go over the difference between weather and climate AGAIN.

Anyone who is directly attributing the past couple of winters worth of heavy snow events to global warming doesn't know what they are talking about. YOU CANNOT DO THIS. Nor are climate scientists doing it. They can speculate and hypothesize, but two years is not climatologically significant. Neither is five years, or even ten years. If in 20 years we see the 2010 decade as the start for more extreme weather, then we can say that these storms were INFLUENCED by climate change.

This is a point also made repeatedly by Dr. M. There is not enough data over the past ten years to definitively declare that extreme weather events are a result of global warming.

Also, Al Gore was making a general comment about what climate scientists expect to happen as the globe warms. He was not referring to the recent snow storms in particular.

I'm also pretty sure you know Levi, that you don't need continuous record moisture to generate a massive snow dump, anymore than you need it for big floods. If you usually get 6 inches of water equivalent precip in the winter, you could only get 4 inches and still wind up with 4 8"+ snow events. However, in order to get that you need an atmosphere capable of hanging on to that much moisture.


No mention of the 60-year reanalysis graph? I see no global warming-induced moisture increase there.

And saying that they don't attribute these recent winters to global warming is bologna. They always bring it up whenever some major weather event happens. A couple years ago (before the record snowfall winters) I heard nothing but stories from climate scientists about snow disappearing.
Member Since: 24 novembre 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25612
159. Levi32 01:56 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:



I do when I agree with it. I don't go with Wiki when I disagree. It's just the way I am. I think I have see you quote Wiki once or twice.


This is true, but if it is questionable I always check their legitimate sources at the bottom of their page first. And yes, that is something I failed to do before posting when I checked what the mass of the Earth's atmosphere was. I didn't double-check until after the fact, and look at what that got me into that day.
Member Since: 24 novembre 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25612
160. Ossqss 01:57 GMT le 08 février 2011    
With respect to our Sun, this item got into position and started beaming back goodies yesterday.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html

Pretty cool stuff, live no less :)



135--- 2% of what when?
Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154
161. caneswatch 01:57 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:



Go to bed!


No.........
Member Since: 8 octobre 2008 Posts: 14 Comments: 4479
162. Levi32 02:03 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting beell:
From an operational meteorology perspective, PW is usually derived from the lowest 400 or 500 mb of atmosphere.

The anomaly chart is labeled "Surface PW". Not sure how that is measured but would expect it to be a low value given the dry, somewhat stable surface air that has been the rule over the gulf coast. There is moisture present but not much at/near the surface.

Just a thought.


I don't know, but an extremely small fraction of the atmosphere's total water vapor content is contained above 500mb (~6km).

Member Since: 24 novembre 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25612
163. Grothar 02:03 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Levi32:


This is true, but if it is questionable I always check their legitimate sources at the bottom of their page first. And yes, that is something I failed to do before posting when I checked what the mass of the Earth's atmosphere was. I didn't double-check until after the fact, and look at what that got me into that day.


I remember that night well. Some were a little too relentless. We all goof up sometimes. I did once in 1962. J/K You're doing OK, Levi, but open your mind to all possibilities. When I would give my students debate subjects, I would always assign a subject to which they did not believe and made them argue the pro side and vice versa. It worked out well. They learned much more from arguing the opposite side since it made them more open to argument. It is commendable that you have a strong stance. However, there always exists the other side may have some credence as well. When I was 20, I thought I knew everything. That didn't actually happen until I was 40. LOL
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
164. pottery 02:05 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:


Come on, pot, we have vast forests left. See below.

Quoting GeoffreyWPB:


Imodium A-D works for me.
Quoting hydrus:
Dont eat so many pretzels..Wuzup Pott.

Sorry, I got called away...
But, LOL!
Member Since: 24 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 20866
165. Levi32 02:06 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:


I remember that night well. Some were a little too relentless. We all goof up sometimes. I did once in 1962. J/K You're doing OK, Levi, but open your mind to all possibilities. When I would give my students debate subjects, I would always assign a subject to which they did not believe and made them argue the pro side and vice versa. It worked out well. They learned much more from arguing the opposite side since it made them more open to argument. It is commendable that you have a strong stance. However, there always exists the other side may have some credence as well. When I was 20, I thought I knew everything. That didn't actually happen until I was 40. LOL


I understand. However, I think there are more than enough people on the "other side," don't you? More than enough. I think I'll just chill over here on the other side of the class for a while and try to keep it balanced, something that is becoming very difficult to do.
Member Since: 24 novembre 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25612
166. Grothar 02:07 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting pottery:

Sorry, I got called away...
But, LOL!


So the Imodium really does work?
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
168. pottery 02:10 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:


So the Imodium really does work?

hehehehhhh.
Nice weather again today.
Max temp 88f
20 mph winds easterly (big waves, to 12 feet in open waters)
Occasional showers.
Great visibility.
Bliss!
Member Since: 24 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 20866
169. Levi32 02:12 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting JFLORIDA:


Drought is a longer term absence of moisture.

BTW its amusing you cant even get the climate right:





I see moderate drought in the south. Not the east. Also the US situation is not the world situation.

Again.

World WV is documented up by as much as 4 percent. So again you are completely incorrect levi.


When did I ever speak of the "world" or the entire global climate? Please tell me that. You're putting words in my mouth again, and I don't appreciate it.
Member Since: 24 novembre 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25612
170. hydrus 02:12 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:


So the Imodium really does work?
Good evening Gro...With a name like Imodium, one might not think so.
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
171. Ossqss 02:12 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154
172. caneswatch 02:13 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Two questions, this should stump someone here:

1. The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant was hit by the severe part of Hurricane Andrew and yet, it wasn't significantly damaged and a bigger disaster was avoided. How so?

2. From Wiki:

The highest recorded surface gust, within Andrew's northern eyewall, occurred at the home of a resident about a mile from the shoreline in Perrine, Florida. During the peak of the storm, a gust of 212 miles per hour (341 km/h) was observed before both the home and anemometer were destroyed. Subsequent wind-tunnel testing at Clemson University of the same type of anemometer revealed a 16.5% error. The observed value was officially corrected to be 177 miles per hour (285 km/h).

Since Andrew was so powerful, what if it was 212 mph?
Member Since: 8 octobre 2008 Posts: 14 Comments: 4479
173. pottery 02:13 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
Good evening Gro...With a name like Imodium, one might not think so.

I was thinking that as well.
Member Since: 24 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 20866
174. GeoffreyWPB 02:18 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:
Two questions, this should stump someone here:

1. The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant was hit by the severe part of Hurricane Andrew and yet, it wasn't significantly damaged and a bigger disaster was avoided. How so?

2. From Wiki:

The highest recorded surface gust, within Andrew's northern eyewall, occurred at the home of a resident about a mile from the shoreline in Perrine, Florida. During the peak of the storm, a gust of 212 miles per hour (341 km/h) was observed before both the home and anemometer were destroyed. Subsequent wind-tunnel testing at Clemson University of the same type of anemometer revealed a 16.5% error. The observed value was officially corrected to be 177 miles per hour (285 km/h).

Since Andrew was so powerful, what if it was 212 mph?


Member Since: 10 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 9248
175. hydrus 02:21 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:
Two questions, this should stump someone here:

1. The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant was hit by the severe part of Hurricane Andrew and yet, it wasn't significantly damaged and a bigger disaster was avoided. How so?

2. From Wiki:

The highest recorded surface gust, within Andrew's northern eyewall, occurred at the home of a resident about a mile from the shoreline in Perrine, Florida. During the peak of the storm, a gust of 212 miles per hour (341 km/h) was observed before both the home and anemometer were destroyed. Subsequent wind-tunnel testing at Clemson University of the same type of anemometer revealed a 16.5% error. The observed value was officially corrected to be 177 miles per hour (285 km/h).

Since Andrew was so powerful, what if it was 212 mph?
It is my belief that there were gusts over 200 mph during Andrew, and probably higher. If my long term memory still works, I believe one of the giant stacks there was demolished because of structural damage. Those are not cheap. I drove right by the plant after the hurricane. The destruction in that area was so bad, It taxes satisfactory verbal description .
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
176. Ossqss 02:22 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:
Two questions, this should stump someone here:

1. The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant was hit by the severe part of Hurricane Andrew and yet, it wasn't significantly damaged and a bigger disaster was avoided. How so?

2. From Wiki:

The highest recorded surface gust, within Andrew's northern eyewall, occurred at the home of a resident about a mile from the shoreline in Perrine, Florida. During the peak of the storm, a gust of 212 miles per hour (341 km/h) was observed before both the home and anemometer were destroyed. Subsequent wind-tunnel testing at Clemson University of the same type of anemometer revealed a 16.5% error. The observed value was officially corrected to be 177 miles per hour (285 km/h).

Since Andrew was so powerful, what if it was 212 mph?


It is discussed here and specifically in the notes section, 13 and 14 :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building


"The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station was hit directly by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Turkey Point has two fossil fuel units and two nuclear units. Over $90 million of damage was done, largely to a water tank and to a smokestack of one of the fossil-fueled units on-site, but the containment buildings were undamaged."
Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154
177. caneswatch 02:30 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
It is my belief that there were gusts over 200 mph during Andrew, and probably higher. If my long term memory still works, I believe one of the giant stacks there was demolished because of structural damage. Those are not cheap. I drove right by the plant after the hurricane. The destruction in that area was so bad, It taxes satisfactory verbal description .


Like you, I believe that gusts were over 200 mph in Andrew. That hurricane was way too powerful and compact not to have 200+ mph gusts.
Member Since: 8 octobre 2008 Posts: 14 Comments: 4479
178. Ossqss 02:36 GMT le 08 février 2011    
174, gotta balance out Rick :)

Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8154
179. GeoffreyWPB 02:42 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Andrew had practically no impact in my area. I was young and dumb…driving around in the storm and going to the beach watching the waves.
Member Since: 10 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 9248
180. presslord 02:49 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting pottery:

hehehehhhh.
Nice weather again today.
Max temp 88f
20 mph winds easterly (big waves, to 12 feet in open waters)
Occasional showers.
Great visibility.
Bliss!


you make me sick...
Member Since: 13 août 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10407
181. sunlinepr 02:53 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Website: Chechen rebel leader claims airport bomb

MOSCOW – A website affiliated with Chechen rebels has released a video in which insurgent leader Doku Umarov claims responsibility for last month's deadly suicide bombing at Russia's largest airport and threatens more bloodshed if Russia does not leave the region.

Yahoo

Member Since: 2 août 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 8469
182. Grothar 02:54 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:


Like you, I believe that gusts were over 200 mph in Andrew. That hurricane was way too powerful and compact not to have 200 mph gusts.



But Wilma was bad, too. It was no Andrew but worse than we expected. I swear that storm had TWO eyes.

.
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
183. hydrus 02:54 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting caneswatch:


Like you, I believe that gusts were over 200 mph in Andrew. That hurricane was way too powerful and compact not to have 200+ mph gusts.
And logically, if the storm had sustained winds of 165 mph, and the gusts are usually 20% to 25% higher, a gust well over 177 mph is a very good possibility.
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
184. hydrus 02:56 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting presslord:


you make me sick...
The waves on the Carolinas are much more bigger...:)
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
185. hydrus 02:58 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:



But Wilma was bad, too. It was no Andrew but worse than we expected. I swear that storm had TWO eyes.

I still think Betty was a better dish than Wilma.....Hurricane Betty ??
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
186. Grothar 03:01 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
I still think Betty was a better dish than Wilma.....Hurricane Betty ??


Yeah, she rocked. How you doing hydrus? Saw you sneaking in.
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
187. Patrap 03:04 GMT le 08 février 2011    
www.solarcycle24.com


Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force.
Updated 2011 Feb 07 2200 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity
SDF Number 038 Issued at 2200Z on 07 Feb 2011

IA. Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 06/2100Z
to 07/2100Z: Solar activity has been at very low levels for the past
24 hours. Region 1153 (N15W56) produced several low level B-class
events. Region 1153 showed an increase in areal coverage, sunspot
count, and magnetic complexity.

IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be at
very low levels with a slight change for C-class activity for the
next three days (08-10 February).

IIA. Geophysical Activity Summary 06/2100Z to 07/2100Z:
The geomagnetic field has been at quiet levels for the past 24 hours.
The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit was at
high levels throughout the period.

IIB. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is
expected to be at predominantly quiet levels for the next three days
(08-10 February).

Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 377 Comments: 113014
188. KoritheMan 03:04 GMT le 08 février 2011    

Quoting hydrus:
And logically, if the storm had sustained winds of 165 mph, and the gusts are usually 20% to 25% higher, a gust well over 177 mph is a very good possibility.
Not to mention that Andrew was moving at a relatively swift forward speed while traversing southern Florida. As such, the wind speed would be enhanced along the eastern half of the storm.
Member Since: 7 Mars 2007 Posts: 422 Comments: 15662
189. GeoffreyWPB 03:04 GMT le 08 février 2011    
For those who remember...the best ending to a T.V. show ever...

Member Since: 10 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 9248
190. hydrus 03:06 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:


Yeah, she rocked. How you doing hydrus? Saw you sneaking in.
Tired. Way to much to do and not enough time to do it in...Did you happen to read the post I typed about Andrews wind speed?...
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
191. Grothar 03:08 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
Tired. Way to much to do and not enough time to do it in...Did you happen to read the post I typed about Andrews wind speed?...


Most certainly did.
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
192. pottery 03:10 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting presslord:


you make me sick...

hehehehehhh
Here, have a sip of this.
Make you feel better in no time at all....
Member Since: 24 octobre 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 20866
194. hydrus 03:14 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting KoritheMan:

Not to mention that Andrew was moving at a relatively swift forward speed while traversing southern Florida. As such, the wind speed would be enhanced along the eastern half of the storm.
LOL..Thats right.! A gust of 230 mph is realistic...I own several anemometers. I have a Maxima from the late 70,s.(which still works great)all the way up to a 2010 model. I know they tested a model identical to the one that measured the gust to 212, but the are to many mitigating factors to dismiss the reading recorded during the hurricane. The force of the torrential rain smashing against the backside of the cups could slow the instrument down. And if it was a pressure gauge, there still are possible problems for measuring winds at that speed.
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
195. Grothar 03:14 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
For those who remember...the best ending to a T.V. show ever...



It is the funniest.
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
196. GeoffreyWPB 03:15 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Member Since: 10 septembre 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 9248
197. Patrap 03:22 GMT le 08 février 2011    
198. hydrus 03:23 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
It does not seem that long ago ..18 and a half years went pretty fast for me.:)
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
199. Grothar 03:28 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting hydrus:
LOL..Thats right.! A gust of 230 mph is realistic...I own several anemometers. I have a Maxima from the late 70,s.(which still works great)all the way up to a 2010 model. I know they tested a model identical to the one that measured the gust to 212, but the are to many mitigating factors to dismiss the reading recorded during the hurricane. The force of the torrential rain smashing against the backside of the cups could slow the instrument down. And if it was a pressure gauge, there still are possible problems for measuring winds at that speed.


Yes, and one of them being trying to find someone to go outside and hold one of those things.

Personally, I think Andrew remains very close to those of us who experienced it. Never do I want to see anything like that again.
Member Since: 17 juillet 2009 Posts: 58 Comments: 19682
200. hydrus 03:33 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting KoritheMan:

Not to mention that Andrew was moving at a relatively swift forward speed while traversing southern Florida. As such, the wind speed would be enhanced along the eastern half of the storm.
There were other indications of Andrews winds being over 200 mph. One of them was bark damage on palm trees from wind driven rain. They found concrete poles with the surface permeated from the rain blasting them.
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721
201. hydrus 03:35 GMT le 08 février 2011    
Quoting Grothar:


Yes, and one of them being trying to find someone to go outside and hold one of those things.

Personally, I think Andrew remains very close to those of us who experienced it. Never do I want to see anything like that again.
Cyclone Oz comes to mind..I remember that night very well...
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 14721

Viewing: 151 - 201

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

New Comment
Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.
Post Your Comments
Please sign in to post comments.
Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.
About JeffMasters
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather
Fog
46 ° F
Brouillard
Community Activity