SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the time-to-build-that-ark-then dept.
AnonTechie writes:
"British newspaper The Independent reports that a new study has found that the frequency of extreme flooding across Europe may double by 2050, while the annual economic losses resulting from floods may grow from 4.2 billion to 23.5 billion euros. The study, which was published in Nature Climate Change (paywalled), foresees that about two-thirds of the risk increase by 2050 will be due to economic growth, while one-third will be caused by climate change. The study's findings also include a correlation between floods in different European countries:
Current risk-assessment models assume that each river basin is independent. But in actuality, river flows across Europe are closely correlated, rising and falling in response to large-scale atmospheric patterns that bring rains and dry spells to large regions.
According to Reuters, the study also predicts that 'instances of very extreme floods, which now occur about once every 50 years, could shorten to about every 30 years, while cases of extreme damage now occurring once every 16 years could shorten to once every 10 years.' On the bright side, the study also said that 'investment in flood protection measures could help reduce the magnitude of overall flood losses in the future. By investing around 1.75 billion euros in such measures, Europe's annual flood losses could be reduced by around 7 billion euros, or around 30 percent, by 2050.'
(Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Monday March 03 2014, @06:44AM
I'm sure the Russians will have figured out how to solve the problem by then.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Monday March 03 2014, @07:26AM
In other words, people will keep building in flood-prone areas. It will be New Orleans all over again, where the government gave a ton of money to rebuild in the same low-lying areas instead of just moving the city upstream.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by bugamn on Monday March 03 2014, @02:21PM
Tradionally, people used to build near water bodies due to all advantages brought by then, and now they keep building because there are already foundations nearby.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gallondr00nk on Monday March 03 2014, @08:00AM
There was an article in the Guardian [theguardian.com], attributing some of the cause of the massive floods in the UK this year to government removing a requirement for crop cover on maize fields in the winter. Heavy rainfall would then simply run off the bare fields into nearby rivers.
Admittedly it's a George Monbiot article, and his column seems to verge on sensationalism now and again.
(Score: 5, Informative) by CynicGalahad on Monday March 03 2014, @09:46AM
This has been a concern in The Netherlands for some time now.
Their predictions were that the dikes would withstand a number of big storms/year and for the next 10.000 years or so. They were conducting studies to reach new predictions due to the rise of the sea level. Previous winter there were quite a few storms that reached the maximum the dikes were designed to hold.
Didn't looked that hard, but I did bumped into this, from 2007, as an example: http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/dutch-sea.htm [american.edu]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday March 03 2014, @03:13PM
"extreme flood losses could more than double in frequency by 2050 under future climate change and socio-economic development"
If climate models are accurate for the next forty years (sure they are [coyoteblog.com]), and if the authors predict socio-economic projections for the next forty years are accurate (right, yep), then flood losses "could" double in frequency.
Really, aside from highlighting the idiocy of building in flood basins, which is hardly new or research, this article seems to have nothing to say.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.