OT: Hurricane Hilary to Impact Mexican Coast and probably SoCal/SW-US

[Knight Shift]

Pro tip: posters named "Moderate Dad" and "TruthSeeker" typically aren't the best sources - Lake Mead (and Powell) is only getting a tiny boost from Hilary. Most of Hilary's rain didn't fall on the Colorado River Valley, so Lake Mead has only gotten a small boost in water levels (0.1% from this rain). The lake stands at about 47% full right now or at 8.68MM acre-feet of water, which is a nice jump from last year's record low level of 7.02MM acre-feet (38% full), with the improvement largely due to the heavy snow season/melt-off this winter and spring. Average is 18.65MM acre-feet, so Lake Mead is still a long, long way from "normal."

https://snoflo.org/reservoir/nevada/lake-mead

The graphic below shows the radar estimated rainfall from Hilary, so far. Huge numbers for most of SoCal and some of Nevada and impressive numbers for the whole SW US region, given that most areas get <0.1" in August.

Which is why the disclaimer, "if accurate." Busy day at work, and saw later those posts (no longer called "tweets"!) were called into question, but did not have time to circle back. We are in tune to the water situation out west because we have a place in Sedona, AZ. I remember that the Oak Creek was dangerously high and almost took out a pedestrian bridge in Sedona some time in March/April due to the snow melt.

Next time, will seek out the posts of MAGA Dad and LieSpreader, with the hopes of greater accuracy. 😉

 

[RU848789]

Which is why the disclaimer, "if accurate." Busy day at work, and saw later those posts (no longer called "tweets"!) were called into question, but did not have time to circle back. We are in tune to the water situation out west because we have a place in Sedona, AZ. I remember that the Oak Creek was dangerously high and almost took out a pedestrian bridge in Sedona some time in March/April due to the snow melt.

Next time, will seek out the posts of MAGA Dad and LieSpreader, with the hopes of greater accuracy. 😉

I almost went full bore sarcastic, but knew you meant well, so kept it light. 😉

 

[koleszar]

So, what's the overall impact of this media hyped climate change induced multibillion-dollar catastrophe? Seems to me they just got a lot of rain, with some flooding in low lying areas where a simple topography class would have told you, "Yeah, that's going to flood at some point in time".

 

[Local Shill]

To be honest, I always thought @Local Shill was Tom Luicci. LOL

I did once very briefly meet Tom but I can assure you I'm not him.

 

[Knight Shift]

I did once very briefly meet Tom but I can assure you I'm not him.

Will you ever retire that avatar? It seems dated, but it is a funny reminder of how far RU has come since that time.

 

[RU848789]

So, what's the overall impact of this media hyped climate change induced multibillion-dollar catastrophe? Seems to me they just got a lot of rain, with some flooding in low lying areas where a simple topography class would have told you, "Yeah, that's going to flood at some point in time".

Have only seen one damage cost estimate, so far, of 7-9 billion dollars, which is substantial (but not crazy high) given the extensive flooding, destruction of parts of roads, damage to many houses, etc. Fortunately, given the "hype" people paid attention and mostly stayed in, which is likely the biggest reason why there was no loss of life. Would you have preferred no warnings and having everyone out and about as if it were just a few showers? That would've certainly led to numerous deaths. As it was, there were a bunch of water rescues and evacuations, preventing casualties.

Also, very few scientists think this particular storm was related to climate change other than the abnormally warm waters off the coast of Mexico enhancing the storm's development, which may have led to an incrementally stronger/wetter storm when it hit the US, but there's no way to "prove" for any individual storm.

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2023/08/22/318871.htm

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/21/1195032403/hilary-california-flooding-storm-monday

 

[bac2therac]

Which is why the disclaimer, "if accurate." Busy day at work, and saw later those posts (no longer called "tweets"!) were called into question, but did not have time to circle back. We are in tune to the water situation out west because we have a place in Sedona, AZ. I remember that the Oak Creek was dangerously high and almost took out a pedestrian bridge in Sedona some time in March/April due to the snow melt.

Next time, will seek out the posts of MAGA Dad and LieSpreader, with the hopes of greater accuracy. 😉

You mean Peter Hotez isnt credible

 

[bac2therac]

Have only seen one damage cost estimate, so far, of 7-9 billion dollars, which is substantial (but not crazy high) given the extensive flooding, destruction of parts of roads, damage to many houses, etc. Fortunately, given the "hype" people paid attention and mostly stayed in, which is likely the biggest reason why there was no loss of life. Would you have preferred no warnings and having everyone out and about as if it were just a few showers? That would've certainly led to numerous deaths. As it was, there were a bunch of water rescues and evacuations, preventing casualties.

Also, very few scientists think this particular storm was related to climate change other than the abnormally warm waters off the coast of Mexico enhancing the storm's development, which may have led to an incrementally stronger/wetter storm when it hit the US, but there's no way to "prove" for any individual storm.

https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/west/2023/08/22/318871.htm

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/21/1195032403/hilary-california-flooding-storm-monday

Then why are so called climate scientists writing articles in news rags and spreading climate alarmism on msmbc

 

[mildone]

Then why are so called climate scientists writing articles in news rags and spreading climate alarmism on msmbc

You watch a lot of MSNBC, do you?

Or could it be that are you watching a lot of climate alarmist alarmists that alarm you about people talking about climate change so you can come here and try to alarm people about people talking about climate change, as if that's somehow going to ruin life as we know it?

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

 

[e5fdny]

You watch a lot of MSNBC, do you?

Or could it be that are you watching a lot of climate alarmist alarmists that alarm you about people talking about climate change so you can come here and try to alarm people about people talking about climate change, as if that's somehow going to ruin life as we know it?

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Crying "movie!" in a crowded firehouse is illegal.

 

[Knight Shift]

You mean Peter Hotez isnt credible

He posted Hurricane videos? He's at Baylor, that bastion of good behavior. 😂

 

[RU848789]

Then why are so called climate scientists writing articles in news rags and spreading climate alarmism on msmbc

Haven't seen much of that and don't watch much TV. I'd need to see an example to know if it is "spreading alarmism" or just someone noting that global warming is very likely making for more powerful and wetter hurricanes (that is pretty well proven already - not hard, when the most important factor in storm strength is ocean water temp and they're markedly higher than they used to be), even if it's not tied to an impact on the numbers of tropical systems yet.

 

[RUPete]

Crying "movie!" in a crowded firehouse is illegal.

Doesn't it depend on the movie?

 

[mildone]

Crying "movie!" in a crowded firehouse is illegal.

Only when there's no fire. And the vast preponderance of evidence tells us there's a fire.

But it's a bad analogy anyway since the vast majority of scientists who publish about the climate aren't crying anything. They're mostly just quietly publishing their research.

It's a tiny percentage that put out anything truly alarmist. I prefer responding to a fire with composure, not panic. But it's sure a lot easier to stay calm when the fire is tiny and we can put it out with a fire extinguisher rather than later on when people are dying in the flames and the exits are all blocked.

 

[e5fdny]

Only when there's no fire. And the vast preponderance of evidence tells us there's a fire.

But it's a bad analogy anyway since the vast majority of scientists who publish about the climate aren't crying anything. They're mostly just quietly publishing their research.

It's a tiny percentage that put out anything truly alarmist. I prefer responding to a fire with composure, not panic. But it's sure a lot easier to stay calm when the fire is tiny and we can put it out with a fire extinguisher rather than later on when people are dying in the flames and the exits are all blocked.

That’s all it takes to start a panic.

 

[mildone]

That’s all it takes to start a panic.

Define "panic", in this case.

 

[RU848789]

Only when there's no fire. And the vast preponderance of evidence tells us there's a fire.

But it's a bad analogy anyway since the vast majority of scientists who publish about the climate aren't crying anything. They're mostly just quietly publishing their research.

It's a tiny percentage that put out anything truly alarmist. I prefer responding to a fire with composure, not panic. But it's sure a lot easier to stay calm when the fire is tiny and we can put it out with a fire extinguisher rather than later on when people are dying in the flames and the exits are all blocked.

I would agree with 100% of your points if @e5fdny had said it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded moviehouse...

 

[RU4Real]

I would agree with 100% of your points if @e5fdny had said it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded moviehouse...

Except that it's not - at least not comprehensively.

The phrase is a non-binding dictum (Holmes, in Schenk v US) and subsequent narrowing of what constitutes a violation of the 1st Amendment, such as in Brandenburg v Ohio, would limit the illegality of shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater to circumstances directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Similarly, it is not illegal to shout "movie" in a crowded firehouse, unless the movie in question is "Dirty Dancing".

 

[RU848789]

Except that it's not - at least not comprehensively.

The phrase is a non-binding dictum (Holmes, in Schenk v US) and subsequent narrowing of what constitutes a violation of the 1st Amendment, such as in Brandenburg v Ohio, would limit the illegality of shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater to circumstances directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Similarly, it is not illegal to shout "movie" in a crowded firehouse, unless the movie in question is "Dirty Dancing".

Thank you, your honor. Although I was mostly referring to agreeing with his points about alarmists not about the actual (mis)quote.

I do think Brandenburg could have been cited if a certain prosecutor wanted to say that certain elements of a certain speech weren't actually protected under the First Amendment, given that that speech was likely to incite imminent lawless action.

And speaking of Dirty Dancing, it's an accurate profiling film. When our nephew was 12, he fell in love with the film watching it constantly. My wife and I knew what that likely meant, but somehow it was a shock to my sister and her husband (who are definitely a bit more straitlaced than we are) when their son came out of the closet when he was 22. Not that there's anything wrong with that (he's a great kid and was a helluva baseball player who got a few partial scholarship offers, but not from NC State, where he really wanted to go).

 

[Caliknight]

All this rain and Gov Gruesome will be declaring a drought by October to try and seize more power.

Maybe the moronic Ca pols should have spent the $20billion over the last 20 years on collecting the 95% of rain water lost instead of on the homeless (pols) effectively making it worse. Much worse.

 

[RUPete]

Well, this thread certainly took an abrupt turn around the dance floor.

 

[e5fdny]

Thank you, your honor. Although I was mostly referring to agreeing with his points about alarmists not about the actual (mis)quote.

I do think Brandenburg could have been cited if a certain prosecutor wanted to say that certain elements of a certain speech weren't actually protected under the First Amendment, given that that speech was likely to incite imminent lawless action.

And speaking of Dirty Dancing, *it's an accurate profiling film. When our nephew was 12, he fell in love with the film watching it constantly. My wife and I knew what that likely meant, but somehow it was a shock to my sister and her husband (who are definitely a bit more straitlaced than we are) when their son came out of the closet when he was 22. Not that there's anything wrong with that (he's a great kid and was a helluva baseball player who got a few partial scholarship offers, but not from NC State, where he really wanted to go).

I was quoting the great philosopher, Steve Martin. 🙂

* And, dude...I like film, and that one in particular, a lot too. Yikes. 😮

 

[RU848789]

Well, this thread certainly took an abrupt turn around the dance floor.

Once the usual suspects start posting, most threads go downhill...

 

[RU848789]

I was quoting the great philosopher, Steve Martin. 🙂

* And, dude...I like film, and that one in particular, a lot too. 😮

I know you were - one of my favorite lines of his. I still can recite about 90% of "Let's Get Small" and always chuckled at his pronunciation of his favorite philosopher. So-crates and was always a proponent of the ethos of what the great Maharishi Guru taught Steve, as per the album: "I studied with the Maharishi for many years, and really didn't learn that much. But one thing he taught me, I'll never forget: 'always...' no, wait-- 'never...' no, wait, it was 'always carry a litter bag in your car. It doesn't take up much room, and if it gets full, you can just toss it out the window.'" For some reason, that has always cracked me up. Might need a thread on Let's Get Small, lol...

 

[mildone]

I would agree with 100% of your points if @e5fdny had said it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded moviehouse...

Yeah, I read it so fast I "autocorrected" it to what was contextually meaningful and missed the joke. Busy day.