A couple models are showing the potential for 60" of rain in localized areas
Hopefully that won't come to pass, that would be a disaster worse than Katrina.
As Hurricane Harvey bears down on the Texas coast, American satellites have provided vital monitoring data to give Texans the best information about the incoming terror tempest. The space agency has three orbital platforms providing data on the mega-storms, which has now been upgraded to a category-three hurricane, meaning …
I know they make things big in Texas but a rain fall gauge that can even measure 5' of rain would be an impressive beast. I'm not sure how big an area would count as localized there or what time scale is indicated but that's basically a swimming pool depth of water but over an entire <localized_area>.
It get's a bit damp over here sometimes and twice in 10 years the stream at the bottom of my garden has decided to get about 4-5' deeper for a few hours which was a bit unpleasant but nothing like that. I'm quite glad I decided to live on the side of a stable hill rather than say the "levels" a few miles away (Somerset, UK.)
I sincerely hope those models are wrong.
We had 18 inches in 3 hours in Austin a few years ago. It was the airport area and the Formula 1 racecourse - meaning, FLAT. A couple neighborhoods near a creek there, a bit lower than the rest, found themselves essentially underwater in no time.
It was there, doing rescue work afterwards, that I learned what "localized rain" means.
Where I live, maybe 20 miles away, we just had strong rain, nothing to worry about (but then I dug a ditch behind my garage last year - those rains were starting to seep in. I'm more than slightly concerned right now...)
Saw yesterday evening the Euro model was showing two local peaks of 51". The storm is so slow moving and the Gulf water is extremely hot right now, that's already a bad combination but more and more models are coalescing on a view that the storm will move inland and then turn back on itself to dump maximum rain on places being hit twice. They really need it to either speed up or at least turn a bit to share the pain with other areas instead of concentrating it.
I was not far from the Wray flood of 1967. We had around 4" of rain in around 1/2hr. Its was seriously impressive - windscreen wipers cant cope and even if they could the road disappears under the backspray. The noise inside a car is phenomenal as we sat unable to move for 20 minutes.
At the top of the valley where the most rain fell it stripped several inches of soil and vegetation. revealing the bed rock underneath. The beck at the bottom of our garden (fed from an adjacent catchment) went from a 6' wide by 4" deep chuckling flow to a 60' wide 15' deep 60 mile an hour torrent tumbling 12 ton concrete blocks (to prevent erosion Ha!) and tossing 60' tree trunks like lolly sticks.
Some areas under the hurricane will be getting this kind of weather for a few days!!!!!
The high temperature since Friday, Aug 25 has been 78°F and the greenhouse gas,
water vapor blocks the Sun and drops 'warming' rain....or not....real cloud dynamics....
"Science Goes Over-Under, Inside-Out" at FauxScienceSlayer.com
You threw me there for a bit. I immediately converted that mentally to being enough water to cover nine million km^2 to a depth of one meter or metre (a (metric) ton(ne) of water is one cubic meter, so a square kilometer a meter deep would be 1e+6 cubic meters or tonnes of water.) The United States have roughly that area. This is a big storm, but I don't think it could cover the US to a depth of one meter. I think this is the article you had in mind:
Fortunately, it's more like 9e+12 _gallons_, or 34e+12 liters or however you want to spell it, or 34e+9 cubic meters of water. You were only wrong by a factor of 300... not quite wrong enough to qualify you for high elective office, but close.
(The URL says 'tons'; the article says 'gallons'. Note that while the corrected figure wouldn't cover the US in a meter of water, it _would_ cover Wales in about 1.5 metres of water... that being the unit of area more appropriate to this site anyway.)
If you drive around Houston you'll see flood gauges pretty much everywhere - that place seems to be just asking for it. AND, now they'll get it as soon as Harvey is done with Corpus. It's taking its time there, Puerto Aransas has been under the worst for almost 12 hours now, was supposed to have moved on already.
I find you're lack of concern over these matters disturbing.
Fortunately the more gravitationally challenged have positive buoyancy so they will rise with the tide.
For anyone else....
Grab a fat bloke and hang on tight.
You are correct. I have recently been working in Dallas and had to comment on this exact issue: darned place is flat. I mean absolutely. The only deviations in elevation were due to the elevators or highway overpasses.
I have even contemplated starting a crowd-sourcing campaign to finance creation of artificial hill, for people to be able to rest their eyes on.
It's a Chinese hoax. But hoax or no take shelter on high land in a strong building if you are in the affected area. My sympathy to all in the affected area.
At least the FEMA people are reputed to be competent though we have not heard from the cheto 'n cheif. He did however have time to pardon a racist sheriff.
As for anyone who's underneath this....
You're pretty much f**ked unless you live on high ground in what is basically a circular concrete igloo which can take several psi of +ve and -ve pressure with say a few days of supplies.
August is not quite over so any bets on wheather this will be the last big one for this year?
My instinct is with 4 months to go that's plenty of time for a few more visits from "Mr Windy"
"Can't Trump build a wall to keep it out?"
yeah, would be nice if he could. Nothing even remotely like that worked for Katrina [N.O. being surrounded by levies and stuff, some of which broke, resulting in floods].
Seriously, though, think about it: if there is nothing humans can do to STOP it, then why the hell would anyone think that humans CAUSED it... [just to make a point]
Oh, and it was upgraded to category 4, probably after the article was written.
Fox news had a reporter standing out in the middle of a street being blown about and rained on while discussing the situation on live TV. If it weren't a serious cause of property damage and possible loss of life, it'd be funny watching him. Then again, if they'd played 'Yakkity Sax' in the background...
I thought the problem with Katrina was the levies were in so poor shape they had no hope of stopping it? IIRC it was going reasonably well until the levies broke and the land being below sea level didn't help much either - please correct me if i'm wrong it was a while ago.
Not sure the point your making there bob, there is nothing we could do to stop a nuclear winter but there is plenty we could do to cause it...
Regardless of the cause though I wouldn't even want to see a fox reporter out in it - we all know what a hurricane is like (or those of us on the right of the pond have seen them on TV) there is no need to put a reporter out in one just for shits and giggles.
New Orleans has been a Democrat controlled city forever. Why maintain levees when corruption is calling? Besides, they know they can always hit up the rest of the country when they get flooded, and blame it all on Republicans too!
Now it seems the Democrat mayor of Houston told people NOT to evacuate, and it's shaping up into a big disaster. Watch for the media to shift blame to Trump in five, four, three...
> "You do know that levees are the purview of the state right ? They were built by the feds."
And the state Governor was a Democrat too, along with the New Orleans mayor. Also, who cares that the Feds built the levees? It's still the responsibility of the State and city to do that maintenance, and that is what did NOT get done, at least not well enough to stop certain levees from crumbling before they were even topped. Those levees should not have failed at that level, yet they did, because of neglect. Democrat neglect. Yet Bush got all the blame in the media, who prefer that their client (the Dem Party) not be blamed when Democrat corruption becomes impossible to ignore.
Big John - I think you'll find (assuming you have access to more than one news source) Bush was blamed not for the levees failing but for the piss poor response after that happened - you know the FEMA debacle. I wasn't suggesting his facial expressions were the problem but his poor leadership.
Still - I think i've worked out your decision tree now
Blame the feds
reps in the white house? oh shit - blame the state
reps in charge of the state? oh shit - blame the city
reps in charge of the city? oh shit well its all fake news La La La, oh and the Left
Now it seems the Democrat mayor of Houston told people NOT to evacuate,
That's correct. Houston's hurricane evacuation experience is marked by storm Rita in 2005. The roads turned into parking lots and 100 people died in the evacuation.
Watch for the media to shift blame to Trump in five, four, three...
CNN, the Associated Press, and ABC are still focusing on Mayor Turner for the evacuation decisions.
So your stance is that it was good not to evacuate? Because the last time didn't work out well due to bad planning? Isn't this an admission that Democrats and bad planning go together? Or is it more important to just insinuate that Bush's facial expressions were the primary cause of the Katrina flooding?
Oh, and as soon as it becomes clear that not evacuating and not having a plan for that are the big problems, there's no doubt CNN et al WILL blame Trump, like night follows day.
Hey, there big John. Screw you! I was in Katrina and was displaced for weeks. Had nothing to do with being a Democrat or a Republican. And yes, thank fucking GOD that people in the U.S. and around the world are so willing to help one another. But I guess you're too wrapped up in politics to understand fuck all about good will. Go back under your rock, asswipe.
A massive hurricane/storm has not hit the US in several years until Harvey, so we are getting a bit overdue for one. The Gulf coast and Florida are very vulnerable to hurricanes because they are basically flat for miles inland. Once the rains start you hope the storm either dissipates or moves through. Harvey is predicted to do neither. Storm surge will batter the coast but the real fear is rain overwhelming the watershed.
Good luck, yeah, but think about it...
Texas has tornados and hurricanes. Florida has hurricanes. And California has earthquakes. etc. It's to be expected, depending on where you live, and if you haven't seen one in a while, you probably will soon. There hasn't been a major storm in that area for a decade or so, so I guess "it's time".
Unified Water Grid - not a bad idea except for several mountain ranges beginning with the Rockies in Colorado
it would be SO expensive to pump water across the mountains (and a couple o' thousand miles) that it becomes seriously cost prohibitive, but it's well known that normal weather patterns typically put drought in California while flooding the Mississippi valley. And vice versa.
So yeah if we DID have the tech to send water across 6000+ foot mountains [several times] it would be nice to do that. Who knows it might solve LOTS of problems that way, but at a very high cost...
Re pumping water across mountains - you can get about 95% of the energy back from pumping water up hill by putting it through turbines. So the cost of going over is really only that of 300' which is probably achievable so long as you committed to doing a lot of it.
That would require the individual states to work to gather . They get even dumber when it comes to water rights. To give the idea of the level of bullshit that would happen imagine this. Lets say that do to treaties with the UK an d the EU all UK nationals are required to have a national ID on them at all times to move about freely in the EU. The UK has 18 months to do it and the contract will got to captia
Just in case it was a serious question, there is no unified water grid in the US.
The other part of the question, however ... If we can move hot crude from Prudhoe to Valdez, Shirley moving liquid water across the lower 48 should be a piece o'cake.
Stay safe in the storm zone, folks!
There will never be a Central water grid in the US .
Logistics is easy . Crude pipe line brings in cash. a Water pipe line does not. As result you will have those that don't want to pay for it. Taxes bad. Big Gov bad. Then politicians of 48 stats, crap load of counties and mayors. Then each states has the right to set water quality. Think revamping the NHS computer system to make it centralize and secure and getting the gov the foot the bill so each individual trust does not have to pay. I'm convinced you would have a better chance of that happening on time , on budget before the US would every have a central water grid.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019