At least 611 dead in Brazilian floods: Brazil's deadliest natural disaster in history
Torrential rains inundated a heavily populated, steep-sloped area about 40 miles north of Rio de Janeiro on Tuesday and Wednesday, triggering flash floods and mudslides that have claimed at least 611 lives. Rainfall amounts of approximately 300 mm (12 inches) fell in just a few hours in the hardest-hit regions, Teresopolis and Nova Friburgo. Many more people are missing, and the death toll is expected to go much higher once rescuers reach remote villages that have been cut off from communications. The death toll makes the January 2011 floods Brazil's worst single-day natural disaster in its history. Brazil suffers hundreds of deaths each year due to flooding and mudslides, but the past 12 months have been particularly devastating. Flooding and landslides near Rio in April last year killed 246 people and did about $13 billion in damage, and at least 85 people perished last January during a similar event.
Figure 1. Flooding at Sao Jose do Vale do Vale do Rio Preto in Brazil, photographed on Thursday, January 13, 2011.
Role of near-record sea surface temperatures in Brazil's flood
This week's heavy rains occurred when a storm system crossing from west to east over southern Brazil drew in a moist southerly flow air off the Atlantic Ocean over southern Brazil at the surface. At higher levels, the storm drew in very moist air from the Amazon. Sea surface temperatures along the Brazilian coast are at near-record warm levels, which likely contributed to the heavy rains. Record rains are more likely when sea surface temperatures over the nearby moisture source regions are at record high levels. This occurs because increased amounts of water vapor evaporate into the atmosphere from a warm ocean compared to a cold one, due to the extra motion and energy of the hotter water molecules. According to an analysis I did of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre sea surface temperature data set, December 2010 sea surface temperatures in the 5x5 degree region of Earth's surface along the Brazilian shore nearest the disaster area, 20S to 25S and 45W to 40W, were the second warmest on record since 1900. Temperatures were 1.05°C (1.9°F) above average in this region last month. Only 2007, with a 1.21°C departure from average, had warmer December ocean temperatures.
Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart, with the Brazilian private weather forecasting company Metsul, wrote in his blog today, "Heavy rains early this year coincide with the strong warming of the Atlantic along the coasts of southern and southeastern Brazil. With waters up to 2°C warmer than average in some places, there is a major release of moisture in the atmosphere essential for the formation of storms."
Figure 2. Newspaper front page story in Brazil after the March 18, 1967 flooding disaster, Brazil's previous deadliest single-day natural disaster. Image credit: Metsul.
Brazil's previous worst natural disaster: the March 18, 1967 flood
The previous worst natural disaster in Brazilian history occurred on March 18, 1967 when a tsunami-like flood of water, mud and rocks swept down a hillside in the coastal city of Caraguatatuba, near Sao Paulo, killing 300 - 500 people. According to meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart with the private Brazilian weather company Metsul, a rainguage at nearby Sao Sebastao measured 115 mm (4.5") on March 17, and 420 mm (17") on March 18. Hackbart puts the death toll from the 1967 disaster at 300 - 500, and refers to it as Brazil's deadliest single-day natural disaster in history. Heavy rains at other locations in Brazil that month caused additional mudslides and flooding deaths, and Wikipedia lists the total death toll for the Brazil March 1967 floods at 785.
I looked at the sea surface temperatures for March 1967 to see if unusually warm ocean waters may have contributed to that year's flooding disaster. Sea surface temperatures in the 5x5 degree region of Earth's surface nearest the disaster site (20S to 25S, 50W to 45W) were 0.24°C (0.4°F) above average, which is not significantly different from normal. So, we can get record rains and flooding when sea surface temperatures are near normal, and it is possible that this week's catastrophe was not significantly impacted by the exceptionally warm water near the coast. However, heating up the oceans loads the dice in favor of extreme rainfall events, and makes it more likely we will have an unprecedented flood. If we look at the departure of temperature from average for the moisture source regions of the globe's four most extreme flooding disasters over the past 12 months, we find that these ocean temperatures ranked 2nd or 3rd warmest, going back through 111 years of history:
January 2011 Brazilian floods: 2nd warmest SSTs on record, +1.05°C (20S to 25S, 45W to 40W)
November 2010 Colombia floods: 3rd warmest SSTs on record, +0.65°C (10N to 0N, 80W to 75W)
December 2010 Australian floods: 3rd warmest SSTs on record, +1.05°C (10S to 25S, 145E to 155E)
July 2010 Pakistani floods: 2nd warmest SSTs on record, +0.95°C (Bay of Bengal, 10N to 20N, 80E to 95E)
The size of the ocean source region appropriate to use for these calculations is uncertain, and these rankings will move up or down by averaging in a larger or smaller region of ocean. For example, if one includes an adjacent 5x5 degree area of ocean next to Brazil's coast that may have also contributed moisture to this week's floods, the SSTs rank as 7th warmest in the past 111 years, instead of 2nd warmest. It would take detailed modeling studies to determine just how much impact these near-record sea surface temperatures had on the heavy rains that occurred, and what portion of the ocean served as the moisture source region.
Figure 3. Predicted total precipitation amounts in South America for the 7-day period ending at 7am EST January 21, 2011, as forecast by the 06Z run of the GFS Ensemble model made January 14, 2011. Image credit: Florida State University.
More rain in the forecast
The coast of Brazil is embedded in a warm, moist tropical airmass that is expected to continue to bring heavy rains over he Rio de Janeiro area for at least the next week. Heavy rains in excess of five inches in the next seven days (Figure 3) are predicted by the GFS Ensemble computer model for the disaster region, just north of Rio de Janeiro. The additional heavy rains are likely to cause more life-threatening mudslides and floods.
2010 tied for warmest year in Earth's history
Earth's warmest year in history occurred in 2010, NASA reported this week. The globe's temperature beat the previous record set in 2005 by just .01°C, so we should consider 2010 and 2005 tied for the warmest year on reecord. Reliable global temperature records go back to 1880. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also announced this week that 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, with temperatures during 2010 1.12°F (0.62°C) above the 20th century average. When the planet stops producing record weather catastrophes to blog about, I'll discuss the 2010 global temperature record in more detail.
Anniversary of the Haitian earthquake
Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of the great Haitian earthquake of 2010. I want to thank all of you who offered donations to such great charities as the Lambi Fund of Haiti and Portlight.org. The people of Haiti need our continued financial support and prayers in the difficult rebuilding years to come.
I'll have a new post on Monday.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index
Well, you've convinced me. :-\
Lol at the bold part.
Maybe if you read their comments, you would understand.
Cat5 and Rita were basically saying that Earth isn't warming.
This would be what he is ultimately after. Not a secret, just in the background :)
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
Oh, I can assure you I understand perfectly. You're not listening, so I'll state it again:
"Comments like these serve no purpose other than to alienate."
We have Don Quixote to take care of the windmills. ;)
No, I'm listening just fine, I agree with you. But they were making equally "alienating" posts.
My point is, you're pointing the finger at me, when if anything, we are both responsible. And if you're curious who threw the first rock, they did.
Sorry, but I don't recall any of them making specific references to your IQ or mental health status.
Read again. The TSI is remaining relatively stable. That is the TOTAL spectrum.
What the new section is seeing are variations in parts of the spectrum (increases in IR, and decreases in UV), during the solar minimum (which was NOT expected).
In order to see the whole story, they'll probably need at least ONE solar cycle (and just as many "earth" seasons).
It may be proved, it may not. There may be an underlying cycle. This cycle may be in-phase or out-of-phase with known oscillations.
But it is a plausible theory that may account for SOME of the earth's warming. Just how much is unknown - at this time.
So, if the climate scientists want the whole story, they'll need to be able to make observations. THEN they can add to the models.
"...Of course, that means it should have been just as warm in the early 20th Century when solar activity was at similar levels..."
True, but CO2 then isn't the same as CO2 now. And, without seeing any underlying cycle, we can't hind-cast to previous solar cycles.
As of now, all they can say, with some certainty, is that parts of the spectrum are not following the TSI.
The Planet is warming because so many people are spouting-off hot air.
At least, that's what my wife told me earlier today when I was loudly ranting.
And she ought to know.
You go against everything which has been stated and proven and accepted. And you do it without presenting any evidence whatsoever.
You just go out and make some ridiculous claim.
Yea maybe not in the same form I do it, but they equally disrupt the topic of discussion and offer nothing to the discussion, and if anything, regress the discussion. Care for an explanation, read above this.
Well, although not global, there was that whole "record for most number of days over 100 degrees" in Australia, during that time...
Happy B'day Patrap. Still workin on the balloons here :)
Disagree. In fact, the opposing points of view serve to stimulate the discussion.
Oh boy, a movie ref. Nice Pat.
Good evening folks.
LOL.
Hello there. How are things?
Tyvm,...
Fine!
Except, the temp here went DOWN by 3 degrees centigrade in the last 4 hours.
This GW thing is a total farce.
Nah, it's just that you weren't ranting ;-)
Well disagree all you want. And you're right, they do stimulate discussion. But do you ever consider what discussion they stimulate? They stimulate the exact same discussion we have already conducted hundreds of times on this blog.
How many times has the temperature graph been shown?
How many more times need it be shown?
................
Anyway
Enough with the Ad Homenin, I'm done, sorry for calling you out Cat and Rita.
I heard that. Look at this report for FL, my neck of the woods included, for last year. I am movin! :)
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/tbw/TopNews/PDF/2010YearlySummary.pdf
(sigh)
No one can force you to accept anything. Nobody. We all believe what WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.
If you choose not to believe what has been plainly and simply told to you over and over again, then by all means, go right ahead.
From a new paper by Dr. Greg Kopp and Dr. Judith Lean, new finding on the solar minimum TSI in 2008 (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L01706, 7 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010GL045777):
The most probable value of total solar irradiance representative of solar minimum is 1360.8 /- 0.5 W m-2, lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 /- 1.3 W m-2 recommended a decade ago. This new value, measured by SORCE/TIM, is validated by irradiance comparisons to a NIST%u2010calibrated cryogenic radiometer in the new TSI Radiometer Facility. Uncorrected scattering and diffraction are shown to cause erroneously high readings in non-TIM instruments."
That's lower by 4.6 watts per square meter.
Of course, OTOH, this may prove that man's influence on temps is greater.
By way of a forcing comparison to this suggested revision, according to NOAA ESRL:
"...The total effective climate forcing for all GHGs including CO2 and ozone (O3) from the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 to the year 2000 is 2.63 watts per square meter..."
So a change of 4.6 watts per square meter to the old baseline TSI is more than double the total GHG forcings.
It is important to note this caveat from their abstract:
"...TIM's lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun's output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations..."
And the instrument that found the changes in parts of the spectrum is on the same satellite...
Wow!
Thanks for the link there.
Obviously, we will experience more and more 'wild' weather in the future, as temps continue to rise/fall in haphazard fashion over parts of the World.
The real problem is, that after years of trying to come to terms with known/historic parameters, the conditions are changing fast and our forecasting is going to be negatively affected.
There are people 'demanding' better warning systems for extreme weather, but we have never been 'here' before, so we cannot predict how the weather will react to the climate.
Fun times ahead.
Unfortunately, we have more people living in, moving to, the vulnerable areas. That is indeed a problem to reckon with... education and placement of homes/businesses is critical on this unpredictable planet. Living within the bounds of the Ohio river, at a younger age, taught me well.
Lol. I promised nothing of the sort. I said nothing about 2008. It already has crashed deep in a hole from where it was 4 months ago. According to the GISS data set itself, November-December 2010 was the largest month-to-month drop in at least 30 years (didn't look back any farther). We still have a ways to fall too judging by past La Ninas and the current global SST.
Thats interesting.
No~~ not at all :) out>>>>
LMAO. Thanks for the humor!
True. As pressure builds to find locations for towns and industry, more stress will be put on planners to find suitable locations.
And many of the current 'suitable' locations may become hazardous in the future as well.
Climate Change is, I think we agree, inevitable and in progress.
Our reaction to it will be the challenge.
Happy Birthday, in a couple of hours!
LOL
Ty Dude..
The simple fact that CO2 lags temperature does nothing to disprove the notion that the gas can also drive temperatures as well. It's not a one-way relationship, meaning that the CO2 could yet rise after the initial GHG-induced warming when warmer oceans release dissolved H2CO3 and acidified carbonate fragments back into the atmosphere. That's likely the way it's worked paleohistorically, and gives more credance to the AGW theory than it takes away.
Check this out: Floods in 2010 (incomplete list).
Atmospheric dynamics concerning the feedback mechanism of water vapour is a bit more complex than that. The stratosphere plays a major role. Stratospheric water vapor decline credited with slowing global warming
Have Greenland temperatures risen to 3C above average within the last year or was the actual increase in temperature anomalies by an amplitude of 3C? I'm thinking it's most likely the former. Western Greenland, Northern Quebec (where Kuujjuaq is located near Ungava Bay), Baffin Island and elsewhere in eastern Arctic Canada set numerous high temperature records in late December to early January thanks to that Greenland Block bringing warm Gulf Stream Air into the Arctic. The place mentioned in the article on Western Greenland's sunrise, Ilussiat, was one of the places where such a temperature record was set for more than one consecutive day and also where Jakobshavn Isbrae drains a significant portion of Greenland into the sea. It's as if the entire Gulf Stream's warmth suddenly and temporarily became displaced over top of the Labrador Current, as those places are still warmer than normal, and a huge SST warm anomaly stretches across that area. St. John's, Newfoundland got its first snowfall of the season this week.
That sudden stratospheric warming could completely reverse the predominantly negative feedback from lower stratosphere water vapour. It just so happens that warmer-Arctic winters tend to strengthen the polar-continental outflow pattern and create strongly negative AO/NAO patterns, diverting the jet stream toward North Africa rather than northeastwards through Europe.
Use ROOF MELT! (Happy early birthday!)
The ridging pattern is caused by the vast ice melt last summer forcing air to rise and creating high pressure during the winter months. This is driving cold Arctic air from Siberia into Western Canada and fuels nor'easter lows in Eastern North America when the Arctic flow plunges deep into the continent. This pattern is however a bit less problematic without the Greenland block and Hudson Low in place.
Looks like the jet stream arches back north into Greenland near the end of that model run, keeping western areas warmer than normal. The Barents/Beaufort High looks to degrade and drift into Canada.
The entire west coast of Greenland, the Hudson Strait, parts of eastern Hudson Bay, Ungava Bay and the Gulf of St. Lawrence STILL remain unfrozen?!? I just can't believe this; this is unbelievable! Normally, all of those areas should be completely or mostly frozen. Also, warm air from the Central Pacific is being driven up through East Siberia and Alaska into the Beaufort Sea. Take a look at the average sea ice concentration throughout January 2010. Yes, that was another Gulf Stream-West Greenland Current ocean and air flow diversion anomaly year, but the unfrozen sea did not extend past Jakobshavn Isbrae, nor was any portion of Hudson Bay, Ungava Bay or the Hudson Strait completely unfrozen.
Sea ice concentrations, Jan. 2010.
Also compare the extent anomalies for December 2009 vs. December 2010. Blue indicates lower than normal sea ice concentrations.
2009(-2010):
2010(-2011):
Everything.
Everywhere.
Everyday.
The SSTs in the North Atlantic are incredibly flat (parallel to latitude). This spells trouble as more MDR record warmth is likely.
you are kidding right?
Viewing: 251 - 301
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 — Blog Index