I though that this was a good attempt to reach out to the public, even though not everyone agrees with the policies Environmental Defense advocates.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/000563part_ii_historical.html

Thanks!

Y’know, this water tube storm surge protection wall idea looks *very* promising.

Have you done any work that breaks down the economic losses from hurricanes into separate component parts (e.g., storm surge, wind damage, inland flooding)?

If not, do you know anyone who has?

Thanks,
Mark

Here are some photographs that give impressive testament to the strength of storm surge. One can write all one wants about “building design” to mitigate for hurricanes, but I think the fact is that no one-story or two-story structure is going to withstand storm surge that actually floods the structure nearly to the roof.

http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/hurricanes/rita/photo-comparisons/cameron.html

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38hurricane/richelieu.gif

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=ig20_hurricane_01_02.jpg&cap

This final site is particular impressive. It gives animations for the flooding of Long Island (Suffolk County and Nassau County), NY, for increasingly strong hurricanes (Categories 1 to 4…they don’t model Category 5 because one has never struck New York). Click on the “All maps animation,” and prepare to be dazzled:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38hurricane/storm_surge_maps.html

And then go to Google Earth to see what those areas look like from an aerial photo:

http://earth.google.com/

We’re talking about literally hundreds of thousands of people who would probably be rendered homeless. (Unless they were protected by the miracle of water-filled tubes, of course! )

Mark

I have somewhat-lengthy responses to Jim Clarke’s comments on hurricane mitigation techniques. I’ve spared everyone the gory details by posting them on my own blog:

http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/08/some_responses_.html

However, there is one response I think is worth cut-pasting here. Jim wrote: “I hate to be a spoil-sport, but the most cost effective and realistic mitigation of hurricanes remains in building, planning and insurance.”

In response to that, I have the same sort of questions that I had for Judith Curry:

1) In the last 20 years, what has the damage from storm surge averaged in the United States?

2) In the 2040-2060 period, what do you expect the damage from storm surge to average without any of the measures you advocate?

3) In the 2040-2060 period, what do you expect the damage from storm surge to average with the measures you advocate?

4) What do you think is the cost of the measures you advocate?

If you can’t answer these questions, then I don’t think you can say what is the “most cost effective and realistic mitigation of hurricanes.”

P.S. I freely admit I can’t answer these questions for the mitigation techniques I propose (e.g. hurricane strength reduction or temporary storm surge walls). But I’m not saying any of my ideas *will* be the most cost-effective and realistic techniques. Just that they *might* be, and are (definitely) worth further study.

I see the software deleted by “end sarcasm” symbol after my statement:

“No, I think I’ve thought about it enough (maybe 3-4 hours, total) that it can go straight to full-scale deployment.”

That’s probably just as well…

No, I think I’ve thought about it enough (maybe 3-4 hours, total) that it can go straight to full-scale deployment.

Assuming such a system would cost several billion dollars, *obviously* it would require a lot of thought! If I remember correctly from my days designing waste-to-energy plants, the Engineering arm of the company (in which I worked) typically charged about 5% of the overall project cost. (That’s as opposed to the Construction arm.) Assuming this tube system was a $3 billion system, that would mean total engineering costs of $150 million. Even at $100 per person-hour, that would be 1.5 MILLION hours of engineering! At 2000 hours per year, that’s 750 person-years, just for engineering!

So obviously thinking 3-4 hours about it isn’t going to solve all the problems, or even identify whether “deal breaker” problems exist.

“I think you’ll find the logistics simply won’t work.”

I think you’ll find that the logistics of digging large tunnels under the English Channel won’t work. I also think you’ll find that digging a canal across the Isthmus of Panama using pre-WWII technology won’t work.

“How much equipment and manpower is going to be necessary to deploy the system in a timely manner?”

Well, that would depend on many, many things. For example, are the tubes going to be placed on shore, or in the water? If in the water, how deep? How long will the tubes be? (For example, maybe it would make sense to only have the tubes 50 miles long and extending a mile onto shore, even though that would mean that there would be significant damage outside those tubes.) If the tubes were joined together, how would they be joined? How would they be filled (many small pumps, or several large ones)? Etc. etc. etc.

“They can’t be sure of the landfall target more than 24hrs out.”

Yes, that’s merely one of hundreds (or thousands) of problems that need to be addressed. The total length of the U.S. Gulf Coast is 1630 miles (2600 km). The total length of the Atlantic coast from Florida to Boston is approximately 1700 miles (2700 km). Assuming a capital cost for the tubing of $10,000,000 per kilometer, the total cost to get enough tubing to cover *all* of *both* coasts would be $53 billion. That’s obviously a lot of money.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001801.html

But even that amount is exceeded by approximately a factor of two by the storm surge damage caused by ***one storm*** (Katrina)!

So rejecting out of hand the idea of water-filled tubes forming temporary surge wall protection is foolish and illogical.

I am a great fan of science fiction and someday in the distant future, suggestions like yours may be realistic, but I see way too many problems with your suggestions at this point in time.

For example,

Your suggestions about reducing the strength of storms by covering or cooling the water would likely have extreme environmental consequences. Since much of the concern over AGW is that it will generate extreme environmental consequences, you may not have much approval for such actions.

Temporary hurricane walls are a logistical nightmare. Where do you store them? How do you deploy them? How do you anchor them? How do you deal with rivers and streams (keeping the ocean out but allowing rivers and streams to continue draining)?

The average forecast error for 24 hours is near 70 miles in either direction. For 3 days or more, the average error is over 200 miles. If the storm is approaching the coast at an angle, the 70-mile error can translate into many hundreds of miles of coastline, making deployment impossible.

There are many more reasons, costs and complications involved, but here is one that you might not have anticipated. Lawyers! If the hurricane hits ‘naturally’ there is little that lawyers can do. If humans have any effect on a hurricane, real or alleged, the lawsuits will fly faster than the storm winds. This has already happened with simple cloud seeding experiments, and suits have been recently filed over the speculation of AGW effects!

The litigious aspects alone make it unlikely that any direct meddling with the ‘natural’ course of these storms will be cost effective.

I hate to be a spoil-sport, but the most cost effective and realistic mitigation of hurricanes remains in building, planning and insurance.

You might want to think your water tube idea through some more.

I think you’ll find the logistics simply won’t work.

How much equipment and manpower is going to be necessary to deploy the system in a timely manner? They can’t be sure of the landfall target more than 24hrs out.

You write, ” Policies need to be developed that address building construction, community planning, government response and insurance practices. This should be the focus.”

Let’s not be too hasty!

Have you even considered the possibilities that:

1) Hurricanes could be reduced in strength by “geoengineering” methods (e.g. cooling surface water or reducing its ability to evaporate)?

2) “Temporary hurricane protection walls” could be constructed?

With that second item, I’m thinking of the possibility of transporting and and laying giant “water tubes” that extend the length and height of the hurricane’s storm surge. Take, for example, a hurricane that produces a maximum storm surge of 25 feet at the center, decreasing to 3 feet 100 miles to either side of the center. (Roughly a Category 4/5 hurricane.)

Therefore, the total length of the tubes would be 200 miles (about 300 km). They be 25 feet above calm sea level at the center, and only 3 feet above calm sea level at the edges.

If such a tube system could be developed for $10,000 per linear meter (it seems to me that should be doable) the cost would be $10 million per kilometer, or $3 billion for the entire 300 kilometers.

Let’s further say that it costs $1 billion each time to deploy the system. That’s still VERY cost-effective, compared to fortifying both the Gulf and East coasts against hurricanes! (Also imagine if such a system had been available for Katrina…damages would have been reduced to a tiny fraction of the estimated $100 billion cost!)

Mark