dolanbaker wrote:If this is so, then many parts of western Europe are in trouble due to the developments along most of the rivers here have reduced flood plains to the point now that most of them would overflow into nearby towns at the first hint of above average rainfall.
The point that I was making and proven by the photo is that expensive flood defence measures are needed to protect some towns but not all can be saved.Strummer wrote:dolanbaker wrote:If this is so, then many parts of western Europe are in trouble due to the developments along most of the rivers here have reduced flood plains to the point now that most of them would overflow into nearby towns at the first hint of above average rainfall.
Not neccesarily. The 2013 Danube flood, which was among the largest in recorded history, caused much less damage than expected due to the wide-scale preparations commisioned after the 2002 floods.
There were some towns which were completely overwhelmed, like Passau in Germany, but that was mostly due to their unfortunate geography and impossibility of building proper counter-measures.
dohboi wrote:And it looks like just a foot higher or so and even those impressive walls would be breached.
dohboi wrote:And of course it only takes one boat or one largish tree ramming into them with the right force and the right place to punch a hole in it--only one hole needed to flood the whole town.
ROCKMAN wrote:Wetter, warmer and prone to flooding. So, world, welcome to my bit of the universe in S La. LOL. Just had that discussion with a Cajun coworker: it's always damp, rains a lot and occasionally floods. Too much? So move. BTW Cajuns and Creoles don't tend to move. And when we do we'll still visit often.
Unfortunately most of the third world won't have that option.
ROCKMAN wrote:Alaska - "...but given the well documented continuing coastal loss in Louisiana a lot of your Cajun buds will have little choice but to move, whether they want too or not.". Not being flippant. You might want to get your head out of your butt for a few minutes and do a little online research on Gulf Coast subsidence. The coastal areas of S La. have been slipping under the waves for millions of years...very "well documented continuing coast loss". It's why we build houses on stilts in the swamp: the relative sea level is going to rise even with no AGW. Folks in my part of the world knew and accepted that reality many, many generations ago and dealt with it.
As I pointed out we came to terms with Mother Earth long ago and are able to adjust. And those that didn't care to deal with the inevitable moved away. But, as I non-flippantly pointed out, many in the world especially in the poorest regions won't have that option. And in their case they can't blame nature and Mother for their problem so it should rightfully sting a bit worse.
Synapsid wrote:Alaska_geo,
Good to see you again. You'll know not to let ROCKMAN get under your skin, if you're from the old TOD. He gets proprietary when people who don't live in conditions of grotesquely high humidity, bloodsucking insects, and fattening food have the audacity to comment on the region he hails from.
He's very informative, and courteous, most of the time.
And: anything you have to say about oil and NG in Alaska would be very welcome to this reader. Sneak it in to an appropriate thread, or, better yet, start your own.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 243 guests