Tropical Storm Imelda Worse than Harvey

jerzeegirl(9b)

Some areas around Houston have gotten more than 40" of rain and more was coming. And this is just a tropical storm.


SaveComment62Like
Comments (62)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie

Many of the same areas that dealt with historic flooding from Hurricane Harvey just 2 years ago.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

The thing about any storm is that there is really no way of knowing what it will do. However as people in New Orleans found out sometimes it is better to move than to continually be destroyed. Each time there is a major storm of any kind there are deaths and I can only hope that number is zero or very small. Every area of the US has some type of weather that kills people.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie

Twelve-hour and 3-day rain totals reported by a gauge near Winnie, TX. Both have less than a 0.1% chance of occurring in a given year according to
NOAA's rainfall frequency atlas. That equates to a 1-in-1000 year event. In other words, if we had thousands of years of rain records for this location, statistical techniques indicated that these amounts of rain would only be expected every thousand years or so over the long term.




Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9b)

I guess that is what I find startling. We are experiencing historical weather. When I was selling real estate, I remember looking at flood maps and thinking that the 100-year historical flood numbers would never been seen. Now, we are achieving 1,000 year flood levels.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

I think with the massive rainfalls that some areas of this country has been having the 100/500/1000 year thing is something of the past.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

Most of our rains this year have been between 3-6 inches in only a few hours each time. In the past a heavy rain would have been 1 inch in 24 hours. I am watching to see what the snow totals out west will be. This week is the first week I have seen snow on radar vs past years where it was common to see it in early August. This area has set a new all time record and rain is expected for the next couple of days. Counting for this years total ends September 30.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
mrskjun(9)

New Orleans was destroyed by a failure of levee's. Thank the Corps of Engineers.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

The levees might not have failed if the amount of water from upstream combined with the new rain had not put pressure on them. Currently newly rebuilt levees in Iowa are failing again. Levees fail all of the time but it was the combination that caused the failure.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

If you go to Windy.com right this moment, it's very interesting, I think.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

I noticed that the remains of Imelda do not really move out until Tuesday. Not good.

I did notice the training storms across KC and the dip into the 50s but right back into the 90s. Not good for stable weather.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Andie:

"Twelve-hour and 3-day rain totals reported by a gauge near Winnie, TX. Both have less than a 0.1% chance of occurring in a given year according to
NOAA's rainfall frequency atlas. That equates to a 1-in-1000 year event. In other words, if we had thousands of years of rain records for this location, statistical techniques indicated that these amounts of rain would only be expected every thousand years or so over the long term."




jerzee:

"I guess that is what I find startling. We are experiencing historical weather. When I was selling real estate, I remember looking at flood maps and thinking that the 100-year historical flood numbers would never been seen. Now, we are achieving 1,000 year flood levels"

Maifleur:

"I think with the massive rainfalls that some areas of this country has been having the 100/500/1000 year thing is something of the past."

Alarmist Talk?

I really don't know, but I always think of the

https://www.google.com/search?q=birthday+probability+problem&oq=birthday+probability+problem&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.30530j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

when I see that kind of reaction to these probabilities.

For any one place the odds might be 1 in a 1000, for a given year.

The odds that some where in the World is currently experiencing a record breaking weather event can still be much, much smaller.

And each one will make the nightly news.

Alarmist Talk?


Hay




Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

In 2017 this area had over 13 inches in one night. This year almost all of our rains were very heavy. This is the third year in a row that we have had those 1000 year rains. Other areas of the country like northern Alabama have had so few rains that at a botanical garden a friend is manager even watering several times a day the pictures he sends show trees that have their leaves curling for lack of moisture.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maddie260

Since the Rs, their leaders, and followers don’t believe in climate change, I guess they can offer ‘thoughts and prayers’.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

I guess those that do accept the overwhelming evidence for climate change will have to be those that continue to study it, consider its implications for the future, and take action to minimise its potentially disastrous effects on any particular area. One thing I've been thinking about is that when the climate of an area undergoes significant change, agriculture in that area will have to respond -- in some cases, perhaps, give up on the traditional crops and switch to something more suitable for growing in volatile (or wetter, or drier, hotter, colder) conditions.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

lol

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Yes, chronic drought in an area that used to have just enough rain is hilarious. Some of the fun being had in South Africa right now, through the website of a magnificent organisation called Gift of the Givers (which is much too busy worldwide to waste resources on places that don't need them):

https://www.giftofthegivers.org/disaster-relief/south-africa/1196-2019-disaster-relief-sa/drought-relief-2019

Is this drought just one of those things in a dry country? An unusually extended El Nino? Or part of the climatic instability we are experiencing throughout the country, which was predicted as part of induced climate change? Too early to tell. But lol, hey?

6 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

As recently as 12,000 years ago, I'd be typing this under a mile and a half of ice.

Hay

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Climate instability...lol! This is nothing compared to Harvey.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

I've seen the idea put forth that rather than trying to fight "global warming", maybe we should just accept the "reality" and we should instead divert our resources to actually dealing with it.

When a hurricane is bearing down on me, I deal with it.

Hay

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"When a hurricane is bearing down on me, I deal with it."

Like fill up my car with gasoline and get away. With a stream of CO2 filling the air as I hit the road.

Hay


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Andie

Climate stupidity is more like it.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

We -- those of us who think -- do know about climate change that happened before the industrial revolution, actually. That information is not the sole territory of the intellectually arrogant, who apparently don't even know that comparing one tropical storm (or hurricane) with another provides evidence of precisely nothing.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Did you read the title of the OP? No? lol!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

1/1000 does not mean that this is a flood that will happen once in a thousand years. It does mean that there is a 1/1000 chance that it will happen in any given year. It can happen every single year but there is little chance that it would. It is probability.

As humans we tend to put ourselves in harms way by settling in flood plains and when the higher ground in a flood plain has been used up we start making decisions that some developer wants made that it will be just fine to build in this flood prone area and the flood proness parameters keep being refined to include some area that was once deemed unsuitable. The buyer who thinks that no one would allow building where it isn't safe in in for a nasty surprise. We do this to ourselves. I have been watching that very scenario play out here. I however live on a hill.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

The area that was under 18 feet of water in 1993 is now covered with various buildings including a multiple building complex for seniors. Only way out is a street that has a major dip in it. Water rescue has been called for people who tried to drive through that dip. Since the buildings are wood structures while the ones down stream may not be damaged by floating debris it is likely the up stream ones would be. Why the planning and zoning people allow places like this to be built is simply burying their heads and stating that floods will never happen. This morning the NWS published a list of record rainfalls. Someone pointed out that the majority of the last ten years were on that listing. Weather changes constantly and next year might start a long term drought but that too has consequences for where people build things.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Yes I read the title. It provides a comparison, but does not draw any conclusions from it. There's nothing wrong with saying "my house is bigger than your house", yes? The (first) inane lol followed my comment on climate change, not a statement about the title -- in fact it clearly referred to my comment, and not the OP title. Ag, such nonsense.

ETA: I've been dealing with a rumbunctious seven-year-old all afternoon. He does actually have a grasp of logic, but nevertheless, enough for one day.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9b)

Not to beat a dead horse but my title was copied from this headline.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/19/texas-flooding-storm-imelda-hits-winnie-beaumont-dangerous-rain/2372220001/

Meaning that in some parts of the Houston area Imelda was worse than Harvey.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9b)

Hmmm. Take your own advice.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

"It's worse than Harvey!"

"Those darn climate deniers!"

Me - lolThis is nothing compared to Harvey.

"You can't compare the two"

Me - Did you read the OP?

"yes, and there was a comparison but you can't draw any conclusions"

What are you talking about? Nonsense. Who denies climate change?

So silly.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Prim Rose

lmao! Whatever. You should just stop.

How rude. You should just leave because lol and "whatever" is plain disruption.

7 year olds offer fun, laughter, and smarts to compensate for their energy.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

They do that, in spades. Thanks, Prim Rose. Happy to accept I may have misunderstood Lurker's comment, being tired and all. If I did, sorry, Lurker -- but I comment when I want to, stop when I want to, and refrain when I want to. Although it's hard to determine what it is I should stop doing ... breathing, perhaps?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
foodonastump

I haven’t followed, was Alabama spared? Early maps had them in the path.


2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Hay:

"As recently as 12,000 years ago, I'd be typing this under a mile and a half of ice."

Rina:

"We -- those of us who think -- do know about climate change that happened before the industrial revolution, actually. That information is not the sole territory of the intellectually arrogant, who apparently don't even know that comparing one tropical storm (or hurricane) with another provides evidence of precisely nothing."

As recently as 12,000 years ago helps put into perspective the way that people misunderstand the "once in a 1000 year event" when it comes to weather events.

There certainly must have been a lot more than 12 or so "1000 year events" in the last 12 thousand years.

Pointing out that this is a "1000 year event" "provides evidence of precisely nothing."

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

You call this a "flood"?

This is just another rainy day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

"The Missoula Floods (also known as the Spokane Floods or the Bretz Floods) refer to the cataclysmic floods that swept periodically across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Gorge at the end of the last ice age. The glacial flood events have been researched since the 1920s. These glacial lake outburst floods were the result of periodic sudden ruptures of the ice dam on the Clark Fork River that created Glacial Lake Missoula. After each ice dam rupture, the waters of the lake would rush down the Clark Fork and the Columbia River, flooding much of eastern Washington and the Willamette Valley in western Oregon. After the rupture, the ice would reform, creating Glacial Lake Missoula again.

During the last deglaciation that followed the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, geologists estimate that a cycle of flooding and reformation of the lake lasted an average of 55 years and that the floods occurred several times over the 2,000-year period between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago. U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist Jim O'Connor and Spanish Center of Environmental Studies scientist Gerard Benito have found evidence of at least twenty-five massive floods, the largest discharging ≈10 cubic kilometers per hour (2.7 million m³/s, 13 times the Amazon River). Alternate estimates for the peak flow rate of the largest flood include 17 cubic kilometers per hour and range up to 60 cubic kilometers per hour. The maximum flow speed approached 36 meters/second (130 km/h or 80 mph)."

When you look out at 78 or so Amazon Rivers coming your way, we can talk more about "1000 year events"

Pointing out that this is a "1000 year event" "provides evidence of precisely nothing."

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Hay, the text on glacial floods is very interesting, Thank you. As was, more briefly, the comment that a particular flood is regarded as a "1000 year event" -- which of course doesn't mean that such floods haven't been exceeded under vastly different conditions; it refers to calculations of probability under current conditions. I would, in fact, regard that as "providing evidence" in a discussion of climate change -- not proof, but evidence. If I were doing a study on the whether the size of apples in an orchard had increased, year on year, the measurement of one apple would provide evidence to go into the pot, as it were, but the comparison of (say) the two biggest apples in the study would not.


I'm afraid I have a pernickety mind. Pernicketing is how I earn my living. Which I must get back to doing right now.


Nevertheless, I think if you had briefly explained your point when dropping the pithy statement about the ice age, I for one might have understood what you were getting at, whether I agreed or no. Brevity can be good, but it's very easy to overdo it.


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Rina:


" Nevertheless, I think if you had briefly explained your point when dropping the pithy statement about the ice age, I for one might have understood what you were getting at, whether I agreed or no. Brevity can be good, but it's very easy to overdo it. "


Being an old man and observant of human nature all these years, I, for one, have found that you can point out a misunderstanding to someone a thousand times, But, to get them to really understand it, they have to get there themselves. I can lead a horse to water and all that.


And, certainly, around here, in considering whether brevity is good or bad, if the post is longer than your average attention span, brevity counts.











Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Rina:

" which of course doesn't mean that such floods haven't been exceeded under vastly different conditions; it refers to calculations of probability under current conditions. "

I won't overload you, but I think that is another misleading statement.

You want a brief comment as to why or a long extended comment?

Or, better yet,.....



Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Rina:



" it refers to calculations of probability under current conditions. I would, in fact, regard that as "providing evidence" in a discussion of climate change -- not proof, but evidence. "


Rather brief statement and pretty encompassing.


My contention is basically that, in the context of our current climate and "climate change" and this conversation:


" Pointing out that this is a "1000 year event" "provides evidence of precisely nothing."


Very briefly, you agree or not agree?


Hay


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Oh Hay, naughty. I'm an old woman, lots of human experience, lots and lots and lots of experience at interpreting meaning. So you can't one-up me on that.

Going to go back now and read all your comments -- but on the last point, no, I don't agree. Will explain again why if you wish. But I've been working most of the day at high concentration levels, so don't be too demanding, please. I'm a tired old woman.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

You modelled for Rodin? Now I am impressed!

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Rina:

" Going to go back now and read all your comments -- but on the last point, no, I don't agree. Will explain again why if you wish. "

Do go back and read now that you have a better understanding of what I'm meaning to say.

There could be thousands of "1000 year weather events" in any given year. I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

I'd think it's virtually a certainty that, in any given year, there will be many "1000 year weather events" scattered around the earth.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"You modelled for Rodin? Now I am impressed! ".


As you should be. I just happened to be the man for the job.


Hay



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

(Seems to be a problem with this post. I'm working on it. Deleting a few items that might have set off a filter.)

The drought that you're currently experiencing in South Africa?

Another day in the life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44868527

"The official history of Earth has a new chapter - and we are in it.

Geologists have classified the last 4,200 years as being a distinct age in the story of our planet.

They are calling it the .....Age the onset of which was marked by a mega-drought that crushed a number of civilisations worldwide.

...

... the youngest stage, runs from 4,200 years ago to the present. It began with a destructive drought, whose effects lasted two centuries, and severely disrupted civilisations in ....

It was likely triggered by shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

I get your point, Hay. Nevertheless, statistical analysis is useful in proving a hypothesis. It's not everything, but it is evidence. And that fact -- flood X falls within the definition of an event with a one in a thousand chance of happening in a given year -- is one piece of evidence a statistician would need to work on when tackling just such a topic. Just one, but it would be evidence of unusual flooding, just as ten years without a flood would be evidence of the reverse in an area where at least some flooding would be expected. In fact, bog standard floods (to mix half a metaphor) (?) would also be evidence, possibly of stability. One would combine those individual pieces of evidence with other data collected to try to determine a trend.

On the other hand, saying that the 1996 flood was greater/lesser than the 2003 flood, or this January's flood was worse than the August flood, or it wasn't, gives you no further information than just that. Unless for some reason you wanted to know whether over a period of time January floods were worse than August floods. But that's not the topic at hand.

I fear we may be boring the non-pernickety among us. Not with contemplation of your being the man for the job, of course.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

The drought that you're currently experiencing in South Africa?

(Seems to be a problem with this post. Working on it.)

Another day in the life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44868527

Welcome to the Meghalayan Age - a new phase in history

"The official history of Earth has a new chapter - and we are in it.

Geologists have classified the last 4,200 years as being a distinct age in the story of our planet.

They are calling it the Meghalayan Age, the onset of which was marked by a mega-drought that crushed a number of civilisations worldwide.

...

The Meghalayan, the youngest stage, runs from 4,200 years ago to the present. It began with a destructive drought, whose effects lasted two centuries, and severely disrupted civilisations in ......XXXXXX.

It was likely triggered by shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Well, I think I found what seemed to have set off the filters in my post that I was having trouble with.

Good to know.

Go to the article and look at just what I couldn't post in my first attempts to talk about the weather..

What's missing is what I had to substitute the XXXXXX for in the quote from the BBC, "...and severely disrupted civilisations in ......XXXXXX. "

Verboten.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

That meant good night.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

"That meant good night."

Sleep tight!


I'm just waking up.


Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Rina:

" I get your point, Hay. Nevertheless, statistical analysis is useful in proving a hypothesis. "

" Oh Hay, naughty. I'm an old woman, lots of human experience, lots and lots and lots of experience at interpreting meaning. So you can't one-up me on that. "

How much experience do you have at interpreting statistical analysis ?

And a Good Day to you, too.



I'm going to go work while the sun shines.



It's where I do some of my best thinking.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Interpreting statistical analysis? Not a huge amount, but some, e.g. mostly in my academic career which was short and boring.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

And good night, d*mmit.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

You seem to contradict yourself:

" I get your point, Hay. Nevertheless, statistical analysis is useful in proving a hypothesis. It's not everything, but it is evidence. And that fact -- flood X falls within the definition of an event with a one in a thousand chance of happening in a given year -- is one piece of evidence a statistician would need to work on when tackling just such a topic. "

The topic is global warming?

The fact that this might be a "1000 year weather event", to quote you, "in an area" does just exactly what to enhance our understanding of "climate change" on a world-wide basis?

"1000 year weather events" happen just about every day, I'd suspect.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

Side topic but something to know if you have never had damage from floods. Insurance Adjusters may take weeks before looking at your property. Always check first with your insurance company for their OK to start cleaning BUT change your camera/phone so that it shows the date that you took the picture. Since you will need to remove many things such as drywall/carpeting to start drying while an adjuster would know you had damage there are enough scammers that they are very cautious. A picture of the before then after if repairs have been made with the date on the before picture will help verify that yes there was damage and the amount of damage. The amount is what the adjuster is looking for since they know that there should have been damage.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Rina

Hay: "in an area" was meant merely to say that an equal event in another area might be much more likely, so the area is relevant if one is collecting data. Statistics are made up of data. Not continuing this conversation; I know that I know what I'm talking about, so there's no point.

Good morning from sunny Joburg.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Rina:

" Not continuing this conversation; I know that I know what I'm talking about, so there's no point. "

Thanks for the conversation. A pleasure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods#p-search

I was just getting started.

Good morning to you, too. Not much happening weather-wise where I am....a thousand year event? All this "normality" is feeling a little strange.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

"To win a classification, a slice of geological time generally has to reflect something whose effects were global in extent, and be associated with a rock or sediment type that is clear and unambiguous."

BBC article

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

The combination of recent dramatic weather events may not show up as a singular event.

Don't know how meaningful it is if unexpectedly low sedimentation occurs in the same time period that unexpectedly high sedimentation occurs (different parts of the same planet).

Maybe we have to wait 4,000 years (that Meghalayan thing was very recently described).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Apologies if this section was provided above:

"Already the decision to discriminate ages within the Holocene has drawn fire from some scientists who believe the move is premature. They question whether some of the climate shifts used as anchors for the new ages were truly global in their impact.

They are also concerned that the divisions have been approved when there is still an active debate about assigning a new geologic slice of time to reflect specifically the influence of humans on the planet.

Tentatively referred to as the Anthropocene, its precise definition - its beginning point and the spike used to denote its initiation - is the subject of ongoing research."

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

https://acwi.gov/hydrology/Frequency/B17bFAQ.html

"Finally, some caution must be exercised in calculating and interpreting probabilities of events that have already occurred. Consideration of pure random chance indicates that two exceedances of the 100-year flood could occur in 10 years for the same reason (and with about twice the likelihood) that three double-sixes could occur in 10 rolls of a pair of fair dice. The occurrence of either of these events might lead one to wonder whether the dice really were fair or whether the 100-year flood had been under-estimated. However, floods are continually occurring on thousands of streams around the country; although the probability is small that the 100-year flood would be exceeded twice in a particular 10 year period in any particular location, the fact that it happened during some 10-year period, somewhere in the country, is not surprising, and the fact that it happened on your river, rather than someone else's, should not be taken as an indication of anything wrong. "


Whew!

We can all sleep well tonight.


Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Unless the native Indians left some very detailed records....

I'm left wondering just how they can make "1000 year event' determinations since, at most, we can only have data from about 1492.

I'm still working on that, but I got this far:


https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1553-20490-7937/dl_flow_body.pdf



Which leaves me wondering just how we're supposed to now use this data to show climate change.

As recently as 12,000 years ago, I was sitting here under a mile and a half of ice.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

As recently as 12,000 years ago, I was sitting here under a mile and a half of ice.

Yes and that was because of natural small variations in Earth's orbit, axis and precession as it revolves around the sun in cycles known as Milankovitch cycles. These cycles occur over tens of thousands of years and cause more or less ice to build up in the Northern hemisphere and Earth to go through glacial and interglacial periods.

The climate is not changing now because of Milankovitch cycles, because normally it would be very slowly cooling as we head towards another glacial period. It is changing primarily because humans are burning fossil fuels and putting billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.

Not sure about Imelda but we're raising the temperature in the atmosphere and the oceans, which means more evaporation and more moisture in the atmosphere, thus more intense storms and precipitation events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

terrene:

"Yes and that was because of natural small variations in Earth's orbit, axis and precession as it revolves around the sun in cycles known as Milankovitch cycles. "

Nothing that I've said, including the remark about being under all that ice, should be construed as anything other than remarks about the misuse of these "1000 year weather events".


Never meant to be a comment about Climate Change. Pro or Con.


Hay

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Community Hurricane Harvey: How You Can Help
Want to donate or volunteer to aid victims of the storm? Here are groups assisting with disaster relief and recovery
Full Story
Life Polar Vortex: How Houzzers Are Coping With the Storm
Spirits are staying high even as the mercury plunges to new lows. Do any of these firsthand accounts sound familiar?
Full Story
Houzz Tours Houzz Tour: From Ramshackle Beach Shack to Storm-Resilient House
Architects honor Old Florida style while designing a raised bungalow that can stand up to extreme weather
Full Story