|
|
Post by Dianna on Oct 5, 2015 12:55:42 GMT -5
I think Tony Partridge lives in Carolina (north/south?) I hope he and his family are okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 5, 2015 21:48:49 GMT -5
I believe his home is in South Carolina; and if so, I hope we hear from him soon.
The state's governor, Nikki Haley, has called this a "once in a millennium flood". That it probably is, but there's just one caveat--it may not be the last.
|
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Oct 6, 2015 17:38:53 GMT -5
Greetings from the Republic of South Carolina.
According to the news, my county is the hardest hit in the upstate area. Lots of roads washed out and several areas flooded. I built on higher ground so I had no flood damage this time around, just a few broken limbs (on the trees, not my body).
A lot of folks are ridiculing Nikki Haley's comment that this was a 1000-year rainfall, pointing out that records have only been kept for less than 200 years. But she was only quoting the scientific community in that this amount of rainfall is statistically only expected to occur once in 1000 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Oct 6, 2015 19:18:45 GMT -5
Quote by Partridge:
Which is kind of ironic in a way: a right-wing Southern governor actually quoting scientists. Still, to get two feet of rain in 24 hours (which is the rate of one inch per hour on average if it rains non-stop) is catastrophic anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Partridge on Oct 6, 2015 22:01:36 GMT -5
Not on the subject of flooding, but Nikki Haley, I found this segment from Jon Stewart's Daily Show to be amusing. The South Carolina part starts at about 4 minutes 30 seconds if you want to skip ahead. Topics: racism and adultery Click here for video |
|
|
|
Post by Goldie on Oct 7, 2015 5:59:58 GMT -5
Scientists are saying a number of odd factors, including global warming is the culprit for the flooding. Ocean levels are up, more moisture in the air, higher temps, etc. blah blah blah. A good excuse for your governor to break out her rubbers, er I mean galoshes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2015 16:21:29 GMT -5
Quote by Partridge: Which is kind of ironic in a way: a right-wing Southern governor actually quoting scientists. Still, to get two feet of rain in 24 hours (which is the rate of one inch per hour on average if it rains non-stop) is catastrophic anywhere. That's true, but as South Carolina is among the east coast states that have to be wary of hurricanes, one would think that much rainfall would occur more often than every 1000 years. Especially than in states which are not close to an ocean or a gulf at all. But, I have thought it very odd that many northern states that get a lot of snow and ice during the winter yet are thousands of miles away from an ocean, and that coastal states can sometimes be bone dry on moisture, despite the fact they are closer to the moisture. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 10, 2015 16:33:09 GMT -5
Scientists are saying a number of odd factors, including global warming is the culprit for the flooding. Ocean levels are up, more moisture in the air, higher temps, etc. blah blah blah. A good excuse for your governor to break out her rubbers, er I mean galoshes. What? El Nino not getting the blame? NASA had a very odd comment about El Nino: the newest one is in their words, too big to fail. I'm holding off judgement until we get past the winter to come but I did notice that once this particular El Nino formed, all of the heavy rain Oklahoma had been getting seemingly came to a stop, and now we're getting back into dry conditions again. El Ninos for Oklahoma usually means harsh winter ahead, but we've been warmer than normal and drier than normal, and fall has just started. Still, it's early, and I'm not too concerned at this stage. I'm not inclined to say what's happening is due to global warming because that's based on weather records of the last 30 years rather than for as long as weather records have been kept. That's skewered information although I can see where recent records might be more practical for short term forecasting. But, for long term, you need to study the records dating as far back as they go to see if it's cyclical, which I don't think they do. |
|
|
|
Post by Goldie on Oct 11, 2015 2:06:39 GMT -5
I think el Nino affects the west more than the east coast but could be wrong. I would suppose it depended on how big it is as you say. It will be worrisome in the desert cities if the rain does materialize.
To get a little political I believe many of SC's politicians voted NO for aid to help the state of NJ and victims of Sandy but expect a big YES now that they need help. Same with Ted Cruz and Texans when they had flooding. NO to the Yankee north but where is my help? As far as I am concerned aid for disasters should be automatic no matter the state. Of course it is all Conservatives that voted NO and Liberals voted yes, no matter the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Oct 11, 2015 15:45:23 GMT -5
I think el Nino affects the west more than the east coast but could be wrong. I would suppose it depended on how big it is as you say. It will be worrisome in the desert cities if the rain does materialize. To get a little political I believe many of SC's politicians voted NO for aid to help the state of NJ and victims of Sandy but expect a big YES now that they need help. Same with Ted Cruz and Texans when they had flooding. NO to the Yankee north but where is my help? As far as I am concerned aid for disasters should be automatic no matter the state. Of course it is all Conservatives that voted NO and Liberals voted yes, no matter the state. El Nino affects the whole country and the whole planet but in different ways. The southern part of the country tends to be colder and wetter (snow and ice) during the winter season while the north tends to be less wet, a little warmer in the northwest and colder in the northeast. I don't think they consider the tilt of our planet's axis in the equations, which can have an impact on who gets what, just as they don't consider the planet's tilt in the global warming issue. They think it doesn't matter but it does. What is happening with El Nino is that the Pacific waters are warming and that sends moisture into the air and shifts the jet streams around that affect our weather pattern. I saw one comment that El Nino allows for moisture from Central and South America to come up further north into North America than it normally does and the southern US benefits from that. A lot of the country could see ice and snow at some point this winter. The more worrisome thing about El Nino is that it's expected to last into next spring or summer. That could result in a lot of tornado-producing thunderstorms and if the Atlantic heats up just right, powerful hurricanes. The Atlantic has been rather quiet as far as dangerous hurricanes are concerned but that might not be the case next year. It's hypocritical of any politician to sit on the sidelines and vote no on helping out victims of the weather. It's hypocritical because the damage can run in the hundreds of million or billions, and people just don't have the money to rebuild. They can put in a claim with their insurance company, which naturally doesn't have a problem taking the customer's money but looks for any excuse that will allow them to get out of having to pay to rebuild a house or pay for hospitalization if there were injuries. Republican politicians are the ones who believe in a free market place with no rules or regulations on businesses' questionable business practices, and no remedy for anyone who is screwed by a business. Still, to be fair, a severe weather storm system can tax the funds of any insurance company but Republican politicians will not admit there's just some things the federal government can do better than private businesses or the states. Sometimes, it does take the resources of the whole country to fix a regional problem. Republicans and conservatives have a problem with the Affordable Care Act but not the states mandating that people have insurance on their motor vehicles. What's the difference in who's holding the financial gun to your head? The state, who makes as few rules as possible who forces you to buy even if you can't afford it? Or the federal, who had good intentions to make health insurance affordable for everyone (but was ruined by the Republicans so as not to hurt the insurance industry) and who could probably add a nickel to the gas tax to provide insurance for everyone? But, oh no, the Republicans believe the free market should take care of everyone, even when the free market of insurance takes your money and denies your claim or denies you coverage or offers you coverage at a price you can't afford. Apologies for getting off topic on the weather, but we may be in for some devastating weather in the months ahead that will make the insurance companies go running to the government to take care of the problem. And that thought just has me wondering, how many Republican congressmen and senators may have at one time worked for an insurance company or had one? I find it very odd they always want to protect that industry (and banking) at all costs when they don't want to protect other industries. |
|
