Dakotas blizzard adds to extreme spring flooding risk

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:13 AM GMT on February 21, 2011

Share this Blog
5
+

Heavy snows in excess of six inches have piled up over much of South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota today, with a storm maximum of 16 inches reported at Midland, South Dakota. This is bad news for residents in flood-prone areas of the Upper Midwest, as the new storm has added more than another half inch of melted rainfall equivalent to a snowpack that already had a record water content. When all that snow melts in late March, we can expect another spring of major and possibly record flooding for North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, or the Upper Mississippi River north of St. Louis, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). Their February Spring Flood Outlook released last week warned: "Heavy autumn rains and above average water content in the snow pack throughout the North Central U.S. have produced a high risk of moderate and major flooding for the Spring of 2011. Areas of greatest concern include the Red River of the North in North Dakota and Minnesota, Devils Lake in North Dakota, the James River and Big Sioux River in South Dakota, and areas along the Upper Mississippi River including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri.

Heavy late summer and autumn precipitation (twice the normal amount since October in parts of North Dakota and Minnesota) have soils saturated and streams running high before the winter freeze-up. Another winter of above average snowfall has added water to the snow pack on top of the frozen saturated soils in the North Central US. NWS models show this snowpack containing a water content ranked in the 90 to 100 percentile when compared to a 60 year average. These factors have combined to create some of the highest soil moisture contents of the last century. "



Figure 1. North Central U.S. flood risk. Image credit: NWS. The outlook will be updated on February 24, and a final outlook issued March 17.

There is a huge amount of snow on the ground in North Dakota along the tributaries of the Red River, thanks to fall precipitation that was 150% - 300% of normal, and winter snows that have dumped up to 400% more precipitation than usual. If one were to melt this snow, it would amount to 4 - 5 inches of rain. If heavy rains occur at the same time that the snow melts, there is the potential for the greatest flood in history to affect the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks, the largest and third largest cities in North Dakota. NWS is giving a 20% chance that Fargo will see its greatest flood in history, and a 10% chance for Grand Forks.

The situation is similar in Minnesota, which has received about double its normal precipitation over the past 3 to 4 months. Snow depths are generally around 18 inches in the Upper Mississippi watershed, with a high water content. If one were to melt this snow, it would amount to 3.5 - 5.5 inches of rain, which ranks among the wettest snow packs in the 60-year record. NWS is giving a 15% chance that St. Paul will see its highest flood in history this spring.

In South Dakota, heavy snows this winter have also left a snowpack with a high water content, and NWS is predicting a 30% chance that the the James River at Huron, SD and the Big Sioux River at Brookings, SD will reach their highest flood heights in history.


Figure 2. The snow water equivalent of the Upper Midwest's snowpack as of February 18, 2011. Large sections of Minnesota and North Dakota have the equivalent of 3.9 - 5.9 inches of rain (purple colors) stored in their snowpack. Image credit: NWS/NOHRSC.

When will all this flooding occur? Generally, late March through mid-April is the time when the big spring melt occurs. The record 2009 Red River flood peaked on March 28 in Fargo. The great 1997 Red River flood that devastated Grand Forks, causing $3.5 billion in damage, crested on April 18. St. Paul's greatest flood in history crested on April 19, 1965.

I'll have a new post Tuesday or Wednesday.

Jeff Masters

Blinding snowstorm hits Detroit area (MichiganSnowLvr)
The Detroit area was hit with a blinding snowstorm this afternoon and evening, with near zero visibility and thunder/lightning, as the snowfall piles up quickly and deeply.
Blinding snowstorm hits Detroit area

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

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.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 58 - 8

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

Re: post #2, KOTG:

One of the reasons why anti-GW protests are so strong amongst the "drill, baby, drill" crowd is that there's no money in renewables for them. Energy costs would plummet if everyone switched to renewable energy sources. Basically BP and the other Big Energy companies would be out of business. So they are trying to milk the cash cow as much as possible before the udders dry up....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Yeah. And if you don't think about it makes even more sense.


What? Are you denying population increase and inflation?

Are you denying the geometric and even exponential increases in standard of living of almost everyone on earth since the 1950s?


How old are you exactly, anyway?

Maybe YOU don't remember this, but I remember gasoline for 76 cents per gallon.

I remember when a Toyota truck was listed at 13k, but you could talk the dealer down to 7k (and the 87 Toyota and 88 Mazda trucks got better real world gas mileage than anything since even claims to get).

I definitely remember when minimum wage was LESS than $3.50, cucumbers were 10 for a dollar, and dressed catfish was like $0.75 per pound. I remember when concrete was $50 per yard, and now it's $110 per yard and finishing costs 4 times more than it did then.

I'm trying to remember some other specific benchmarks from the early and mid 80's, but I was young then and wouldn't have been paying much attention to everything that didn't directly concern me.

Clearly, you haven't thought this through.

My earlier post makes sense, because not only are there that many more people, things cost that much more, in dollars anyway, and people tend to have twice or 3 times as much as compared to the 1950s, and more people have insurance.

Now I only remember the early and mid 80's, because I was born in 1980, but the point is you are quite wrong.

if a family today suffered a total loss vs a family in 1990, it would be around 4 or 5 times as much in "dollars", well, let's say 2007, before the housing bubble burst.

If a family in 1999 suffered a total loss vs a family in 1950, it would be many, many times as much damage.

Like I said, they did not have big expensive houses, they didn't have computers, they didn't have extra cars to be destroyed, and the stuff they did have was less than 1/4th the cost, and as stated many things were actually 10 times cheaper, or more.


It only fails to make sense to you because you are either too sheltered or else too young and naive to know these things.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunlinepr:


Perfect.... You can play with the different embeded sizes...

Yup, and thanks again
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting Neapolitan:

And there they were, right on schedule. ;-) The thing is, when the scientists at the NWS's Hydrologic Information Center uses phrases like "some of the highest soil moisture contents of the last century" and "could see levels approach the record levels" and "exceeding the record" and "snow water equivalents ranking among the wettest on record" and "Very high potential for widespread major flooding in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota", I get the feeling they're not just talking about garden-variety 5- to 10-year events in always flood-prone areas.

The times, they are a-changin'...

99 days, 20 hours, and 48 minutes until hurricane season officially starts...


I know the solution!! More levees and flood walls. How about additional asphalt and concrete? Pave that flood plain over and throw up some condos next to the river, I'm sure nothing bad will happen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomTaylor:





edit: YES, it works! thanks for showing me that, didn't realize you take the embed code from the youtube video itself.


Perfect.... You can play with the different embeded sizes...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunlinepr:


Every Youtube video has some buttons underneath them. Like/Add to/Share/Embed

Click on Embed

The embeded code will appear... with a copule of checkmark boxes
Before copying it click on Use old embed code and select the size you want to embed... I usually use the 480x390
Select the size by clicking on it; that will update the embed code

Finally, select the embeded code, copy and paste to the blog (directly)

Hope this helps...





edit: YES, it works! thanks for showing me that, didn't realize you take the embed code from the youtube video itself.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting TomTaylor:


I still don't get it. Sorry Pat, your directions are a little vague to me

Somebody please, if I want to embed a youtube video in a post, how do I do it?


Every Youtube video has some buttons underneath them. Like/Add to/Share/Embed

Click on Embed

The embeded code will appear... with a couple of checkmark boxes
Before copying it -
-click on Use old embed code and select the size you want to embed... I usually use the 480x390
Select the size by clicking on it; that will update the embed code

Finally, select the embeded code, copy and paste to the blog (directly)

Hope this helps...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Use the LINK button to link one in using the YouTube Top page URL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7D65IomNYY

To Embed one,,use the old embed code and past directly in the comment box,bypassing all buttons.




Use the preview Button to check it and then Post comment.

Easy as cake,..er, Pie


I still don't get it. Sorry Pat, your directions are a little vague to me, maybe its because I don't know the old embed code?

Somebody please, if I want to embed a youtube video in a post, how do I do it?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting cat5hurricane:

VERY nicely said.


Yeah. And if you don't think about it makes even more sense.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1550
The World’s Oldest Water? Link

ScienceDaily (Feb. 19, 2011) — New evidence bolsters the notion that deep saline groundwaters in South Africa's Witwatersrand Basin may have remained isolated for many thousands, perhaps even millions, of years.
The study, recently accepted for publication in Chemical Geology, found the noble gas neon dissolved in water in three-kilometre deep crevices.
The unusual neon profile, along with the high salinities and some other unique chemical signatures, is very different from anything seen in molten fluid and gases rising from beneath Earth's crust, according to University of Toronto professor Barbara Sherwood Lollar, who is the Canadian member of the international team that produced the results.
"The chemical signatures also don't match those of ocean water or waters higher up in the Witwatersrand Basin, where as in most regions of the crust ground waters show evidence of mixing with surface waters and are extensively colonized by microorganisms," she said. "We concluded that the deeper waters were the product of isolation and extensive chemical interaction between water and rock over incredibly long geological time scales."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting washingtonian115:
Intresting blog Doc.Theirs nothing to stay around here for tonight.Ah good night.

Nite
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Intresting blog Doc.Theirs nothing to stay around here for tonight.Ah good night.
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17471
18, ??????

Dude! out>>>

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oss & KOG. check your mail and tell me if that works??
Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26511
Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity will have another companion in Mars... Curiosity

Advanced NASA Instrument Gets Close-Up on Mars Rocks

ScienceDaily (Feb. 20, 2011) %u2014 NASA's Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity, will carry a next generation, onboard "chemical element reader" to measure the chemical ingredients in Martian rocks and soil. The instrument is one of 10 that will help the rover in its upcoming mission to determine the past and present habitability of a specific area on the Red Planet. Launch is scheduled between Nov. 25 and Dec. 18, 2011, with landing in August 2012....

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

And there they were, right on schedule. ;-) The thing is, when the scientists at the NWS's Hydrologic Information Center uses phrases like "some of the highest soil moisture contents of the last century" and "could see levels approach the record levels" and "exceeding the record" and "snow water equivalents ranking among the wettest on record" and "Very high potential for widespread major flooding in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota", I get the feeling they're not just talking about garden-variety 5- to 10-year events in always flood-prone areas.

The times, they are a-changin'...


They gave that only a 15% chance...

wow. 5 inches of rain equivalent. Wow. We get that much from a thunderstorm sometimes. Got 7 from Katrina and 5 from Rita.

If these people are being flooded out from 5 inches of rain equivalent then they live too close to the river basin.

But again, they gave it only a 15% chance, which means that a lot of other stuff would need to happen, like a few more big storm systems coming by at just the right time and temperature, etc.



The last time there was a 100 year flood on the mississippi was in the 20's. Ever since then, levees have inflated the water rise data.

when a real hundred year flood happens in a river basin the river overflows EVERYTHING and merges with tributaries many miles away from their usual meeting of waters.

If you do some research, in spite of the false claims about the 1993 flood, the 1927 flood was 4 to 7 feet higher in some of the regions that overlapped between the two events.


The 1993 flood is roughly a 75 year average event, or less, based on the historical record. there are 3 on record about this size in the exact same location in the past 150 years prior to and counting the 1993 flood, and 2 of them happened long before alleged AGW could possibly have been a factor. Both of the other two floods had higher flow rates than the 1993 flood.


So if it's been as bad or worse 60 years ago, and again as bad or worse 170 years ago, why exactly are you blaming AGW ? There was almost zero carbon footprint in 1844, and 1/4th of modern carbon footprint in 1951, and around 1/20th of modern carbon footprint in 1927.



similarly, there were SEVERAL much worse floods in Queensland, Australia in history, 3 and 4 meters worse in the same region, long before any significant carbon footprint.

How can you guys be such alarmist when we can point to events just as bad, or even much worse than any recent event long before carbon footprint mattered?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:
The global costs of extreme weather events shot up from less than five billion dollars a year during the 1950s to 45 billion dollars a year during the 1990s, according to Munich Re, a major reinsurance company in Germany. Not all of this increase is due to climate change. Some is due to population and infrastructure growth and better disaster reporting. However, the number of significant floods has tripled in the past 30 years.


Considering world population in 1950 was around 2.5 billion, and considering inflation since then has been several hundred percent for most things you can think of, and considering "standard of living" has also improved, there was probably less actual damage done in the past few decades than in the past.

45 billion is not that much more than 5 billion when you consider a movie ticket at that time cost 25 cents, a house maybe 15000, and gasoline was a few cents per gallon.


There were 2.33 times as many people in the 90's vs the 50's, and stuff cost many times as much in dollars, and people have more stuff.

Now costs are 10 to 50 times as much in the 20-teens, and there are 2.66, nearing 3 times, as many as the 1950's.

So.

number people multiplied by inflation in 40 years

2.33... * 4.80102 = 11.2

45/5 = 9


So you would have expected the damages to go up 11 times due to population and inflation if no change had happened in weather at all.

Instead the damage went up just 9 times, and does not even reflect the anticipated increase due to inflation and population increases.


No AGW to blame.

The damage levels actually decreased once you adjust for population, inflation, and standard of living. Then, they had one automobile if they were lucky, and one television if they were really lucky, and nobody had computers except the military. Nasa didn't exist.

Now every family has two cars and a 3 or 4 bedroom/2 bath house, 2 computers, 3 television, etc.

That 5 billion is already adjusted for inflation, you just adjusted it twice.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting Patrap:
Sen. Inhofe R Oklahoma

Legislation - Committee Assignments

* Standing Committee on Armed Services
website: http://armed-services.senate.gov/
- Subcommittee on Airland
- Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
- Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

* Standing Committee on Environment and Public Works (Ranking Member)
website: http://epw.senate.gov/


- Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety
- Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
- Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management
- Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure





Ignorance is best kept in a mayo jar on Funk and Wagner's porch.

Posting it here only shows it it Globally.

The Science Bus debate on the Warming and causation left the terminal a decade ago.

If you missed it,,well,Im sure the Trolley of Sen. Inhofe and others has a few seats left.


Are you really sure you want to post that video? Did ya watch it? Ain't no trolleys in it...or SEIU!~

Thanks WPB, the vids were a welcome change :)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
------
Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 11379
Quoting JFLORIDA:
4. I think more intense systems produce those kind of events.


Thundersnow, also known as a winter thunderstorm or a thunder snowstorm, is a relatively rare kind of thunderstorm with snow falling as the primary precipitation instead of rain. It typically falls in regions of strong upward motion within the cold sector of an extratropical cyclone, where the precipitation consists of ice pellets rather than snow. Thermodynamically, it is not different from any other type of thunderstorms but the top of the cumulonimbus are usually quite low.


Rare? It used to be rare. I remember two instances of it growing up, but now we get it a couple times winter.

It's very pretty and the snow is crazy intense. If you go outside it sounds like it's sizzling.

The cumulonimbus clouds in winter have a lower top due to a lower tropopause. The tropopause increases or decreases with temperature, so in winter it is usually at it's lowest point.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1550
Sen. Inhofe R Oklahoma

Legislation - Committee Assignments

* Standing Committee on Armed Services
website: http://armed-services.senate.gov/
- Subcommittee on Airland
- Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
- Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

* Standing Committee on Environment and Public Works (Ranking Member)
website: http://epw.senate.gov/


- Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change, and Nuclear Safety
- Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
- Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management
- Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure





Ignorance is best kept in a mayo jar on Funk and Wagner's porch.

Posting it here only shows it it Globally.

The Science Bus debate on the Warming and causation left the terminal a decade ago.

If you missed it,,well,Im sure the Trolley of Sen. Inhofe and others has a few seats left.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129088
Quoting JFLORIDA:
Here is a blog about it. I assume someone will do the research now that its becoming, at least is reported, seemingly more often.

Thundersnow...A Rising Phenomenon?

Have you ever heard of Twitter, Facebook in our new information age?

Funny, cuz I heard the same things from my friends when they report certain things more...not only that clap of thunder during the blizzard but even up to the minute stuff like when they pour a cup of coffee or run to the bathroom!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting jwh250:

????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm outta here. Night all.
Member Since: January 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 586
Member Since: September 10, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 11379
Quoting RecordSeason:
The global costs of extreme weather events shot up from less than five billion dollars a year during the 1950s to 45 billion dollars a year during the 1990s, according to Munich Re, a major reinsurance company in Germany. Not all of this increase is due to climate change. Some is due to population and infrastructure growth and better disaster reporting. However, the number of significant floods has tripled in the past 30 years.


Considering world population in 1950 was around 2.5 billion, and considering inflation since then has been several hundred percent for most things you can think of, and considering "standard of living" has also improved, there was probably less actual damage done in the past few decades than in the past.

45 billion is not that much more than 5 billion when you consider a movie ticket at that time cost 25 cents, a house maybe 15000, and gasoline was a few cents per gallon.


There were 2.33 times as many people in the 90's vs the 50's, and stuff cost many times as much in dollars, and people have more stuff.

Now costs are 10 to 50 times as much in the 20-teens, and there are 2.66, nearing 3 times, as many as the 1950's.

So.

number people multiplied by inflation in 40 years

2.33... * 4.80102 = 11.2

45/5 = 9


So you would have expected the damages to go up 11 times due to population and inflation if no change had happened in weather at all.

Instead the damage went up just 9 times, and does not even reflect the anticipated increase due to inflation and population increases.


No AGW to blame.

The damage levels actually decreased once you adjust for population, inflation, and standard of living. Then, they had one automobile if they were lucky, and one television if they were really lucky, and nobody had computers except the military. Nasa didn't exist.

Now every family has two cars and a 3 or 4 bedroom/2 bath house, 2 computers, 3 television, etc.

That would be great--but Munich Re's 5 billion/45 billion comparison is in inflation-adjusted dollars. So your statement that "45 billion is not that much more than 5 billion" is mathematically incorrect, given that 45 billion is roughly nine times greater than 5 billion, at least according to my calculator.

AGW almost certainly involved.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Here is a blog about it. I assume someone will do the research now that its becoming, at least is reported, seemingly more often.

Thundersnow...A Rising Phenomenon?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:
The global costs of extreme weather events shot up from less than five billion dollars a year during the 1950s to 45 billion dollars a year during the 1990s, according to Munich Re, a major reinsurance company in Germany. Not all of this increase is due to climate change. Some is due to population and infrastructure growth and better disaster reporting. However, the number of significant floods has tripled in the past 30 years.


Considering world population in 1950 was around 2.5 billion, and considering inflation since then has been several hundred percent for most things you can think of, and considering "standard of living" has also improved, there was probably less actual damage done in the past few decades than in the past.

45 billion is not that much more than 5 billion when you consider a movie ticket at that time cost 25 cents, a house maybe 15000, and gasoline was a few cents per gallon.


There were 2.33 times as many people in the 90's vs the 50's, and stuff cost many times as much in dollars, and people have more stuff.

Now costs are 10 to 50 times as much in the 20-teens, and there are 2.66, nearing 3 times, as many as the 1950's.

So.

number people multiplied by inflation in 40 years

2.33... * 4.80102 = 11.2

45/5 = 9


So you would have expected the damages to go up 11 times due to population and inflation if no change had happened in weather at all.

Instead the damage went up just 9 times, and does not even reflect the anticipated increase due to inflation and population increases.


No AGW to blame.

The damage levels actually decreased once you adjust for population, inflation, and standard of living. Then, they had one automobile if they were lucky, and one television if they were really lucky, and nobody had computers except the military. Nasa didn't exist.

Now every family has two cars and a 3 or 4 bedroom/2 bath house, 2 computers, 3 television, etc.

VERY nicely said.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
4. I think more intense systems produce those kind of events.


Thundersnow, also known as a winter thunderstorm or a thunder snowstorm, is a relatively rare kind of thunderstorm with snow falling as the primary precipitation instead of rain. It typically falls in regions of strong upward motion within the cold sector of an extratropical cyclone, where the precipitation consists of ice pellets rather than snow. Thermodynamically, it is not different from any other type of thunderstorms but the top of the cumulonimbus are usually quite low.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Partrap Im still a little confused, so I got this url for the vid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM_10MzkX6k

now I click the "Link" button and put it in there, and then what happens?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
The global costs of extreme weather events shot up from less than five billion dollars a year during the 1950s to 45 billion dollars a year during the 1990s, according to Munich Re, a major reinsurance company in Germany. Not all of this increase is due to climate change. Some is due to population and infrastructure growth and better disaster reporting. However, the number of significant floods has tripled in the past 30 years.


Considering world population in 1950 was around 2.5 billion, and considering inflation since then has been several hundred percent for most things you can think of, and considering "standard of living" has also improved, there was probably less actual damage done in the past few decades than in the past.

45 billion is not that much more than 5 billion when you consider a movie ticket at that time cost 25 cents, a house maybe 15000, and gasoline was a few cents per gallon.


There were 2.33 times as many people in the 90's vs the 50's, and stuff cost many times as much in dollars, and people have more stuff.

Now costs are 10 to 50 times as much in the 20-teens, and there are 2.66, nearing 3 times, as many as the 1950's.

So.

number people multiplied by inflation in 40 years

2.33... * 4.80102 = 11.2

45/5 = 9


So you would have expected the damages to go up 11 times due to population and inflation if no change had happened in weather at all.

Instead the damage went up just 9 times, and does not even reflect the anticipated increase due to inflation and population increases.


No AGW to blame.

The damage levels actually decreased once you adjust for population, inflation, and standard of living. Then, they had one automobile if they were lucky, and one television if they were really lucky, and nobody had computers except the military. Nasa didn't exist.

Now every family has two cars and a 3 or 4 bedroom/2 bath house, 2 computers, 3 television, etc.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:
Neapolitan even if we 3 or 4 100-year flood events on the Mississippi this year the deniers will just say it's proof that scientists don't know what they are talking about and that flood frequency models are all wrong.

And there they were, right on schedule. ;-) The thing is, when the scientists at the NWS's Hydrologic Information Center uses phrases like "some of the highest soil moisture contents of the last century" and "could see levels approach the record levels" and "exceeding the record" and "snow water equivalents ranking among the wettest on record" and "Very high potential for widespread major flooding in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota", I get the feeling they're not just talking about garden-variety 5- to 10-year events in always flood-prone areas.

The times, they are a-changin'...

99 days, 20 hours, and 48 minutes until hurricane season officially starts...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
Quoting RecordSeason:
It is interesting this much snow. It would seem to be expected following Iceland's prolonged volcanic activity last year. The particles suspended in the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere may have served as nucleation for snow and ice to form.

If there was any rationality in our society, they'd open the spillway and go ahead and pre-drain the Mississippi to make room for the anticipated floods.

Additionally, if there was any rationality, the levees would be moved back a hundred yards or so on each side of rivers to make room for a greater water volume. This would allow the river to spread out more before contacting the levees, so there would be less total water level rise. Water level rises since the levees were made are artificially inflated due to confinement upon a single vertical column.

We should focus on educating people that these river floods have always happened every 5 or 10 years or so, and that nothing is going to change. It's why the levees were made to begin with. They just made them too close to the river and allowed people to live too close to the rivers. They need to be moved back more to allow for the volume.

There is no shame in admitting and correcting these continual mistakes.


These 1 in 5/10/100 year events will become more frequent and intense though, so it's not as simple as making a few quick adjustments. Obviously a lot of people are living in areas which are going to be near inhabitable due to multiple weather conditions, so what would you purpose as a solution?

Considering the amount of people that will need to be moved in the future, where would they live? Are we going to go ahead and speed up climate change and build another couple million houses? What about increased electrical demands for AC near the equator (because there must be some limit on habitable daily temperatures without copious amounts of electricity). The facts are that surviving and adjusting to climate change will in return intensify climate change. So it's not really as simple as saying do this or that, obviously rationality does not rule the decision making process on this planet (although we didn't nuke the planet so props to us on that).

On another note, it looks like this is the last arctic blast until the transition to summer.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
you have been in the cabin way to long


+1
Member Since: January 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 586
Quoting jwh250:
you have been in the cabin way to long
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54770
Quoting Neapolitan:
I've been reading an increasing number of stories about sand and bags being stockpiled in towns along the Red, James, and upper Mississippi Rivers, among others. Not good. Do we have yet another 1-in-100-year event in the making?

I suppose that is possible. However, some regions are just more prone to flooding than others, all else being equal.

The Red River Valley is highly susceptible to flooding being that it is home to a river channel that meanders very much and is also very shallow. Therefore, over-bank flooding is more frequent. Also interesting is the northerly directional flow of the river. What happens is when the upstream (southern) part of the river thaws faster than the downstream part (up north), the water begins to move downstream (from the south to the north) over the still frozen river channel to the north or upstream. Subsequently, you will see greater probabilities of ice jams and backwater flow to the north where the water is flowing. Not to mention the Red River Valley has a gentle slope (averaging 0.5 to 1.5 feet per mile), thus making overland flooding or water that will pond on saturated ground more likely. Also, urbanization (Highways, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings encourage more runoff) along with new levies and dikes being built does not help. When a new levee is built or an old floodwall raised in height to prevent overtopping, more and more water is forced into the river bed, which raises the height of the flood.

So perhaps it isn't that the climate is necessarily changing when it seems clear certain areas are historically more prone to flooding than others.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
I've been reading an increasing number of stories about sand and bags being stockpiled in towns along the Red, James, and upper Mississippi Rivers, among others. Not good. Do we have yet another 1-in-100-year event in the making?


Nope.

Just another 5 to 10 year flood amplified by levees artificially inflating mean water rise.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Well fortunately the Corps of engineers Know when to Open the Spillway sport ,,as its not as easy a thing to do,,as a certain level must be reached before that occurs.

Spillways are also above Baton Rouge if ya care to maybe search Mississippi River Flood controls/COE on da GOOGLE thing a ma Bob.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129088
It is interesting this much snow. It would seem to be expected following Iceland's prolonged volcanic activity last year. The particles suspended in the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere may have served as nucleation for snow and ice to form.

If there was any rationality in our society, they'd open the spillway and go ahead and pre-drain the Mississippi to make room for the anticipated floods.

Additionally, if there was any rationality, the levees would be moved back a hundred yards or so on each side of rivers to make room for a greater water volume. This would allow the river to spread out more before contacting the levees, so there would be less total water level rise. Water level rises since the levees were made are artificially inflated due to confinement upon a single vertical column.

We should focus on educating people that these river floods have always happened every 5 or 10 years or so, and that nothing is going to change. It's why the levees were made to begin with. They just made them too close to the river and allowed people to live too close to the rivers. They need to be moved back more to allow for the volume.

There is no shame in admitting and correcting these continual mistakes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The Bonnet Carré Spillway is a flood control operation in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana - about 12 miles (19 km) west of New Orleans - it allows floodwaters from the Mississippi River to flow into Lake Pontchartrain and thence into the Gulf of Mexico.


Opening of the Bonnet Carre' Spillway on 1997-03-17. The spillway was operational from March 17 to April 18, 1997 -- operating at a maximum flow of 243,000 cu ft/s (6,900 m3/s).
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129088
Huge amount of googling going on now to jump in my face about all the horrible untruths I have posted.
Member Since: January 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 586


The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opens the Bonnet Carre Spillway north of New Orleans April 11, 2008.



Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129088
Quoting weatherboy1992:
I like the blog better without youtube vids clogging it up and wasting time. But that's just me.


Youtubes dont slow down,nor clog the blog in ANY way.

And one can "Hide" any post by using the HIDE Button on every comment save for your own.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129088
Quoting weatherboy1992:
Neapolitan even if we 3 or 4 100-year flood events on the Mississippi this year the deniers will just say it's proof that scientists don't know what they are talking about and that flood frequency models are all wrong.


My parents moved to Arizona in the early seventies and had three hundred year floods in four years. Anecdotal information is rarely accurate.
Member Since: January 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 586
I like the blog better without youtube vids clogging it up and wasting time. But that's just me.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Use the LINK button to link one in using the YouTube Top page URL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7D65IomNYY

To Embed one,,use the old embed code and past directly in the comment box,bypassing all buttons.




Use the preview Button to check it and then Post comment.

Easy as cake,..er, Pie
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129088
Could someone please teach me how to get youtube videos on this blog.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4358
Quoting Neapolitan:
I've been reading an increasing number of stories about sand and bags being stockpiled in towns along the Red, James, and upper Mississippi Rivers, among others. Not good. Do we have yet another 1-in-100-year event in the making?


Of course there is going to be flooding this year do to a lot of snow in the upper mid-West. Even in your bubble you should understand this. Whether it's going to be a hundred year event? I suggest you get to calculating how much snow is there and how many ergs it's going to melt at what rate and you guys can be arguing that for days.

Peer reviews necessary of course.
Member Since: January 2, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 586

Viewing: 58 - 8

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

Top of Page

About

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

Overcast
48 °F
Overcast