search results matching tag: flood

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (425)     Sift Talk (21)     Blogs (60)     Comments (1000)   

Second Ellicott City 'Thousand Year Storm' in 2 years

Mordhaus says...

also @eric3579

To clarify a Thousand Year Storm isn't only going to happen once in a thousand years. There is always a probability that it can happen. Some of this could easily be 'bad luck'.

The phenomenon that created this situation is known as cell training, and happens all over the place. However, it is worthwhile noting what else they say, "...scientific studies have shown a statistically meaningful uptick in the frequency of extreme rain events over the eastern United States. Statistically, over the long term, these types of extreme floods are probably becoming more common, in areas that are normally rainy as a result of global warming."

What this means, at least the way I understand it, is that statistically in this region we can expect a higher probability of these 'xxx year storms' every time conditions are favorable for cell training style weather.

We can expect more of these types of storms, simply because the climate is in a format that creates more ideal conditions. These ideal conditions are not limited to just this type of weather, either. Gulf hurricanes, tornado alley tornadoes, and other 'regional' weather patterns are also experiencing 'ideal' conditions to allow stronger, more damaging storms to develop.

Anom212325 said:

The comments in this thread is a perfect example of people not doing their own research and just believing everything they read or hear. attach a striking video or image to a comment stating some viewpoint/reason and 3 out of 4 in this case will eat it up as truth without thinking for themselves.

Second Ellicott City 'Thousand Year Storm' in 2 years

Unexpected

Payback says...

You can see the tow truck was parked a hundred feet away when the camera follows the skater. I'm thinking someone bought a flood damaged car from one of those Texas dealerships that got flooded out and let it roll over the edge. The tow truck was there because they sold it to them as parts "after the movie shoot".

Then again, I have an overactive imagination.

medusa said:

think the car got away from the tow truck

Underwater Eco Park-Rio da Prata

Payback says...

I'd think it would have mostly to do with the water being clean to begin with, and flooding extremely slowly.

Probably a Hell of a lot warmer than this place:
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Beautiful-Park-Spends-Half-The-Year-Completely-Underwater

Janus said:

Wow, I'm a bit surprised the water is that clear after flooding.

Underwater Eco Park-Rio da Prata

*SWOON EMOJI* needed for this English Ammonite

Sand Master - why you want the right tool for the job

Hurricane Irma Aftermath In the Lower Florida Keys

KrazyKat42 says...

It happened near my house in a different flood. It washed the pavement completely off the road.

moonsammy said:

Is it just me, or in shot #11 (1:19) does it appear that a giant chunk of the road bed both moved laterally several feet? I mean, isn't that white stripe supposed to be on the left side? Madness.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

Lol, I read "imaginary Hiller" (and assumed you meant Hillary). My bad.



We have reasonable laws already.
Most things people ask for either already exist (and anti-gunners just don't know because they don't have to follow those laws), or only screw collectors and sportsmen while not doing anything to reduce risk (which I already covered, I assume you read the earlier part, eg California compliant AR15, etc).



Nobody expects to need to form a militia.
Nobody expects the country to go to hell.

The seat belt analogy is about preparedness for unlikely events.
Like, you don't "need" flood insurance in Houston - unless you do.

Owning a gun also hurts nobody.
By definition, ownership is not a harm.

Almost all guns will never be used to do any harm.
The very statement that "guns are all about hurting other people" is a non-empirical assertion.

Just shy of every last gun owner doesn't imagine themselves as Bruce Willis. Asserting that they do is a straw man.


You remind me of Republicans that complain that Black people are welfare queens (so they can redirect money out of welfare). Or Republicans that complain that Trans people are pedophiles in hiding (so they can pander to religious zelot voters). Creating a straw man and then getting mad about the straw man (rather than the real people) is self serving.


* Only the rarest few people think they are Roy Rogers. That is a straw man that does not apply to just shy of every gun owner.
* You don't need a gun for home defense... unless you do.
* Differences in likelihood of death armed vs unarmed is happenstance.
(Doesn't matter either way. Googled some likelihoods : http://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/02/15/how-likely-are-you-to-die-from-gun-violence-this-interesting-chart-puts-it-in-perspective/
You'd have to suffer death 350'000 times before you're at a 50/50 chance of your next death being by firearms.)
[EDIT, math error. Should say 17'000 years lived to reach a 50/50 chance of death by firearms in the next year]
* Technically, even 1 vote gets someone elected. You don't control who is on the ballot.



NRA and NSSF are on life support. They have to fight the influence of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, most major newspapers. They are way outclassed. Current events don't help either.
The "big bad NRA" rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. As is the rhetoric that the NRA only represents the industry.

-sceherazade

ChaosEngine said:

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Climate Change Just Changed by 50%

newtboy says...

Not so much if you actually read (and comprehend) it, or listened to the authors.
They've said clearly that even using their revised estimates of CO2's effects that to meet a 1.5 degree rise (the tipping point where we loose all ability to mitigate the run away greenhouse effect and start the irreversible march towards mirroring Venus) we have to start decreasing CO2 emissions today and be at zero by 2040. They've also said clearly that anyone misusing their paper to imply climate change is a myth is a liar, a moron, or both, because it says and implies no such thing.

What we are doing is raising the amount we emit while people like you who clearly don't grasp the science argue, ignoring that the effects of warming are already being seen far earlier than predicted....effects like melting methane hydrates that make up the difference in CO2 effects and then some, effects like 3-500 year floods in under 2 years in places, effects like reefs bleaching worldwide.
So much for the climate science denier BS.

bobknight33 said:

So much for the Climate Change BS.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Laotian Dam Failure

Asmo says...

They weren't making it out, they were going downhill in the same direction the water was backflowing from...

Seriously people, if you see flooding like this (and I hope you never do), if you have an 'uphill' to go to (ie. behind the white building following the red pipe), go that way. You can't get to your family in time, so ring them up on the mobile and get fucking safe. Even if you do survive by some miracle, some poor rescue worker has to come try to save you.

Mekanikal said:

The guy in the motor grater jumps out while it's still rolling backwards and it blocks the other two cars from making it out. That sucks.

newtboy (Member Profile)

newtboy (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon