For many years, meteorological scientists have been warning about disastrous flooding along the US coastline — flooding that would be caused by global warming. While this “theory” of global warming is still being debated in Congress, and is still dismissed by influential lawmakers, the effects of global warming are no longer theoretical. All US coastlines are increasingly affected by flooding, erosion, and storm surge that is very, very real — and the cause is global warming.

Citizens of low-lying island nations like Tuvalu have for many years suffered directly from sea level rise, and have been pleading for help to no avail. This seems particularly unfair because these small nations are at once the most affected by and least responsible for global warming. These tiny vulnerable islands are so far away, in terms of geographical distance as well as being completely off the “mental radar” for many US citizens. But now, US residents who live and work near our coastlines are facing the same type of threats from the sea as the citizens of Tuvalu.

Seven of these indicators would be expected to increase in a warming world and observations show that they are, in fact, increasing. Three would be expected to decrease and they are, in fact, decreasing. (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

All the US coastlines will be affected in the coming years — including Hawaii, Alaska, the shores along the Gulf of Mexico, and both of the great oceanic coasts. However, there are zones that will be affected sooner than others, and here the impact is already causing great alarm, property damage, plummeting property values, and soaring flood insurance rates. Traditional flood plains and official flood zones are creeping outwards into areas where flood insurance was never needed before. The financial impact of this flood zone creep cannot be overstated.

The east coast of the continental US is experiencing the worst of the threat so far. All along the eastern seaboard, communities have been forced to spend huge amounts of public money to repair infrastructure that is continuously being damaged or wiped out by flooding. Bridges that connect island communities to the mainland must be regularly rebuilt, and water control channels must be constantly dredged and maintained. Norfolk, Virginia is a very good example of a large, densely-populated area that is undeniably — and dangerously — under siege by the encroaching sea.

Norfolk and other population centers close to the Chesapeake Bay are facing grave existential threat due to the fact that the land upon which they are founded is sinking at the same time that the sea is rising. This double whammy means that this region is being slammed with frequent flooding in places that have never before had to deal with it, and are therefore woefully unprepared as far as infrastructure, flood insurance coverage, and emergency planning. Add to this the fact that Norfolk is a critically important naval installation, and we have a blueprint for disaster on a national level.

This threat to naval installations in Norfolk and other areas is fully recognized by the Pentagon, which has already begun building flood barriers, berms, tide control channels, and has installed flood panels around sensitive military assets. But even the Pentagon has met with legislative obstacles and continuing resistance from intransigent members of Congress who continue to deny the existence of global warming and climate change — even in the face of undeniable proof.

Scientists who have been warning us for years about this threat from the sea now tell us that once the effects of global warming first begin to be felt along the coastline, the process will speed up very quickly. The starting gun has already gone off — the race to save our coastline communities is now underway.

Source:: FloodBarrierUSA

Hurricane Matthew is now long gone, having swept through the Caribbean and the southeast U.S. coastal zone in early October. But the damage and financial impact of this storm is far from resolved, and early estimates indicate that the storm may be one of the most expensive disasters on record, with estimates of damages in the neighborhood of $10.6 billion. This puts Hurricane Matthew among the top ten most expensive storms in modern history.

This image shows the amount of rainfall dropped by Hurricane Matthew over the life and track of the storm. IMERG real time data covering the period from Sept. 28 through Oct. 10, 2016 show rainfall from Hurricane Matthew before and after its interaction with a frontal boundary. Matthew caused extreme rainfall in North Carolina resulting in over 20 inches (508 mm) of rain. Credits: NASA/JAXA, Hal Pierce

Hurricane Matthew slammed the US coastline after inflicting utter devastation in the Caribbean, especially in Haiti, which was already reeling from a series of natural disasters and epidemics that have weakened the vulnerable island nation. Financial experts estimate that had Matthew struck the US coast with the same intensity that it hit Haiti, the economic damages might have reached $2 trillion. At full strength, Hurricane Matthew was a terrifying Cat-5 storm, and it left a massive trail of death and destruction in its wake. Although the power of the storm had lessened before it made landfall in the US, it nevertheless inflicted loss of life, tremendous suffering, and severe financial loss across a wide swath of the southeastern coast.

Surprisingly, this severe financial loss is something that is increasingly being debated by economists. At first glance, it may seem extremely obvious that hurricanes and similar natural disasters inflict long-lasting damage to the economy. However, a growing opinion among financial experts maintains that just the opposite may be true: that these storms in many cases end up being a wash, or may even have a positive impact on the economy when all factors are weighed in the final analysis. These experts maintain that severe storms may actually inject new vitality into the economy by creating jobs, replacing the outdated infrastructure that was destroyed by the storm, and by stimulating new investment and business opportunities during the reconstruction phase of the disaster.

A new study, however, has debunked this theory. Two economists, Solomon Hsiang of Berkley and Amir Jina of Columbia, recently released the findings of their exhaustive study of the long-term financial impact of over 6,700 cyclones. They found that these disasters inflicted financial damages that lasted decades after the storms had passed, and that there was no silver lining when the final tallies were made. While it is certainly true that some well-placed industries or companies may benefit financially from storms, the overall effect for the economy at large remains negative.

The same study also projected that given the increasing frequency of severe storms, the world’s economy will most likely suffer extreme losses in the coming decades- losses so severe that the financial impact could dwarf the losses produced by banking crises, currency crises, or even civil wars. The Hsiang/Jina team concluded that efforts to control global warming must become a top priority — not only for environmental and health reasons, but because of the enormous impact to the economy of more frequent and more severe storms.

(Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20352)

Source:: FloodBarrierUSA

Hurricane Matthew is now long gone, having swept through the Caribbean and the southeast U.S. coastal zone in early October. But the damage and financial impact of this storm is far from resolved, and early estimates indicate that the storm may be one of the most expensive disasters on record, with estimates of damages in the neighborhood of $10.6 billion. This puts Hurricane Matthew among the top ten most expensive storms in modern history.

This image shows the amount of rainfall dropped by Hurricane Matthew over the life and track of the storm. IMERG real time data covering the period from Sept. 28 through Oct. 10, 2016 show rainfall from Hurricane Matthew before and after its interaction with a frontal boundary. Matthew caused extreme rainfall in North Carolina resulting in over 20 inches (508 mm) of rain. Credits: NASA/JAXA, Hal Pierce

Hurricane Matthew slammed the US coastline after inflicting utter devastation in the Caribbean, especially in Haiti, which was already reeling from a series of natural disasters and epidemics that have weakened the vulnerable island nation. Financial experts estimate that had Matthew struck the US coast with the same intensity that it hit Haiti, the economic damages might have reached $2 trillion. At full strength, Hurricane Matthew was a terrifying Cat-5 storm, and it left a massive trail of death and destruction in its wake. Although the power of the storm had lessened before it made landfall in the US, it nevertheless inflicted loss of life, tremendous suffering, and severe financial loss across a wide swath of the southeastern coast.

Surprisingly, this severe financial loss is something that is increasingly being debated by economists. At first glance, it may seem extremely obvious that hurricanes and similar natural disasters inflict long-lasting damage to the economy. However, a growing opinion among financial experts maintains that just the opposite may be true: that these storms in many cases end up being a wash, or may even have a positive impact on the economy when all factors are weighed in the final analysis. These experts maintain that severe storms may actually inject new vitality into the economy by creating jobs, replacing the outdated infrastructure that was destroyed by the storm, and by stimulating new investment and business opportunities during the reconstruction phase of the disaster.

A new study, however, has debunked this theory. Two economists, Solomon Hsiang of Berkley and Amir Jina of Columbia, recently released the findings of their exhaustive study of the long-term financial impact of over 6,700 cyclones. They found that these disasters inflicted financial damages that lasted decades after the storms had passed, and that there was no silver lining when the final tallies were made. While it is certainly true that some well-placed industries or companies may benefit financially from storms, the overall effect for the economy at large remains negative.

The same study also projected that given the increasing frequency of severe storms, the world’s economy will most likely suffer extreme losses in the coming decades- losses so severe that the financial impact could dwarf the losses produced by banking crises, currency crises, or even civil wars. The Hsiang/Jina team concluded that efforts to control global warming must become a top priority — not only for environmental and health reasons, but because of the enormous impact to the economy of more frequent and more severe storms.

(Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20352)

Source:: FloodBarrierUSA