Hurricane Harvey

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sirlynchmob**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.

And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.

Not in their house no, but you should not be staying in a building that has 4 feet of water in it, much less any more. Which means you'd need to leave, which means you'll be dealing with the moving water outside.

And yes, there are people who have brought up that a better drainage system would have avoided the flooding. Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.

No one in this thread said that a better drainage system would have prevented any flooding. Nobody here is making the same argument as the one you read in the CNN article.

Houston periodically gets hit with massive rainfall from storms. They got hit with 22 inches of rain from a storm in 1998, they got hit with 41 inches of rain from a storm in 2001 and they got hit with 17 inches of rain from a storm in 2016.

Did the people in charge of Houston make any significant improvements to their storm water drainage system in the 16 years between getting hit by 41 inches of rain and getting hit by 51 inches of rain? No. The Addicks and Barker reservoirs are over capacity and flooding out more homes because they have to release water. Both of those reservoirs are 70 years old. Maybe over the course of the last 70 years the people in charge of Houston could have added additional reservoirs or upgraded the existing ones since the city has certainly grown during that time. Maybe upgrading 70 year old dirt canals, improving their gradient to help carry away storm water away, strengthening them with concrete etc. would have been a good idea since it's a known fact that the city is in a location that periodically gets FEET of rainfall dumped on it by storms.

Isn't this one of the primary reasons why we have government in the first place? To safeguard our community and its citizenry? Yes, 51 inches of rain was going to cause a massive disaster but it's not ok to just absolve the people who have been running Houston for the past 15 years because hey, 51 inches of rain right? Whatcha gonna do? There are things that could have been done, hundreds of thousands of people in Houston are suffering life altering consequences now and it Harvey didn't have to have an impact this severe, but due to the decisions not to take steps to mitigate the known threat of massive rainfall from tropical storms that have been hitting the city for centuries Harvey is a disaster of this magnitude. The people in charge have to be held accountable for those decisions, that level of inaction can't be consequence free. We can't let the people we elect to government office get away with shirking the responsibility to the hard work of actually governing.

the whole republican party in texas should be held criminally negligent. They voted to defund fema, the national weather service and any government service that could help them now. they voted against helping jersey after their hurricane, they're only solution seems to be to pretend climate isn't real and hold a day of prayer. Ya that should help when the next hurricane hits. They keep advocating for a "free market" solution, then are shocked to see what that entails, $50 for water. They're even refusing offers to help, Mexico offers help and no one accepts their offer. so when I see charities being set up to help, all I can think is texas doesn't want any help, they'll pull themselves up from their bootstraps. Then pretend the problem is gone and be shocked when the next one hit and nothing has been done to mitigate the damage.

It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.

so for the victims in texas, let me quote the president here "good luck", you're going to need it. and I'm selling bootstraps at $10,000 a pair.

**NinthMusketeer**

MDSW wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.

Actually, I believe most cities in Texas have BETTER water run-off rules than CA. Having lived in both states, I cannot ever recall a huge parking lot in CA having to devote space to a 'green area' for water run-off. Here in Texas I see plenty. A big parking lot has a lot of run-off, so the water has to go somewhere. I think the person who wrote the article needs to go back, check facts, do their homework, and find some other scapegoat.

And, I recall the Sepulveda Dam having severe flood issues when they got 8" of rain in a short period. If any city in CA got 49" in 30 hours, Hollywood would just float away.

Of course, this is not to say all of the building in Houston was not a contributing factor to remove large spots of green area. Let me know of any city that gets 4' of water flood-proof from flooding, and I will show you a natural run-off by nature that has nothing to do with city planning/building.

Honestly California simply isn't a good comparion because the geography and levels of rainfall are so different. California, overall, has a relatively steep incline going up from the coast and that alone drains off water much more rapidly over large areas. Besides, we are more into figuring out how keep water from going into the sea than the opposite.

**Frazzled**

Gas stations in San Antonio are going down to. It's my understanding the Colonial pipeline went down. The East is about to feel our pain.

**whembly**

Just off the phone with my brother and his fiancée... They're 50 miles north of Houston metro area, so they're pretty much unscathed.

They see all sort of help going through their town to help out down south.

They're both engineers who has worked on water work projects, damns and bridges throughout the country. They stressed that no amount of planning could mitigate the flooding that we've seen. Not enough room for large enough reservoirs to handle a Lake Michigan sized amount of water in that area.

This is truly an outlier event.

Now the cleanup begins... and, the city will need to decide how to upgrade their waterwork systems. (surprisingly, there's a lot of different options to attack this, and big business engineer companies will be making proposal for such projects).

Houston will be a "happening place" for the general construction employment/business.

**Prestor Jon**

whembly wrote:
Just off the phone with my brother and his fiancée... They're 50 miles north of Houston metro area, so they're pretty much unscathed.

They see all sort of help going through their town to help out down south.

They're both engineers who has worked on water work projects, damns and bridges throughout the country. They stressed that no amount of planning could mitigate the flooding that we've seen. Not enough room for large enough reservoirs to handle a Lake Michigan sized amount of water in that area.

This is truly an outlier event.

Now the cleanup begins... and, the city will need to decide how to upgrade their waterwork systems. (surprisingly, there's a lot of different options to attack this, and big business engineer companies will be making proposal for such projects).

Houston will be a "happening place" for the general construction employment/business.

No. There was a miscommunication if that's the impression you got. The entire purpose of storm water infrastructure is to divert water and mitigate flooding. The only way the storm water system couldnt mitigate the flooding would be if it didn't exist. Houston has two storm water reservoirs, Addicks and Barker, they were constructed 70 years ago, all of the water that was diverted into those reservoirs would be in the city of the reservoirs and canals that led to them didn't exist. If the city of Houston had built more canals and reservoirs in the last 70 years as the city grew and got hit by multiple storms that dyumped feet of rain on the city then even more rain (though certainly not all of it) would have been diverted and less would be in the city causing horrific damage to lives and property. However many inches of rainfall you can divert into reservoirs you can subtract from the inches of rainfall flooding the city which lessens the impact of the disaster.

**whembly**

Prestor Jon wrote:
whembly wrote:
Just off the phone with my brother and his fiancée... They're 50 miles north of Houston metro area, so they're pretty much unscathed.

They see all sort of help going through their town to help out down south.

They're both engineers who has worked on water work projects, damns and bridges throughout the country. They stressed that no amount of planning could mitigate the flooding that we've seen. Not enough room for large enough reservoirs to handle a Lake Michigan sized amount of water in that area.

This is truly an outlier event.

Now the cleanup begins... and, the city will need to decide how to upgrade their waterwork systems. (surprisingly, there's a lot of different options to attack this, and big business engineer companies will be making proposal for such projects).

Houston will be a "happening place" for the general construction employment/business.

No. There was a miscommunication if that's the impression you got. The entire purpose of storm water infrastructure is to divert water and mitigate flooding. The only way the storm water system couldnt mitigate the flooding would be if it didn't exist. Houston has two storm water reservoirs, Addicks and Barker, they were constructed 70 years ago, all of the water that was diverted into those reservoirs would be in the city of the reservoirs and canals that led to them didn't exist. If the city of Houston had built more canals and reservoirs in the last 70 years as the city grew and got hit by multiple storms that dyumped feet of rain on the city then even more rain (though certainly not all of it) would have been diverted and less would be in the city causing horrific damage to lives and property. However many inches of rainfall you can divert into reservoirs you can subtract from the inches of rainfall flooding the city which lessens the impact of the disaster.

No, their point was that even if Houston has the best mitigation strategy in the world, its debatable that the scope of the damage would be different.

Afterall... that was the most rainfall on US continental ground in 24 hr period EVER on record.

By definition, that's an outlier.

The "canals" as you said were the highways and most residential streets. They started that project back in the 60s/70s whenever they rebuild/resurface the area roads.

Your point does stand regarding the reservoirs, as it was built for the early 20th century Houston population/infrastructures.

Although, now that you say that, not sure "where" the highways/streets 'Water Canals' are supposed to go? I assumed it would be dumped back into the sea, but the elevation map doesn't really lend to that...

(unless, I'm reading the map wrong).

**NinthMusketeer**

This is why I say this discussion is important. Already people are excusing the lack of flood preperation and setting themselves up for it to happen again. But hey it it's their homes being flooded, hope they enjoy. I feel no obligation to sympathy for people who can't be arsed to help themselves.

**sebster**

Grey Templar wrote:
Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.

Here's the CNN article.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/us/houston-harvey-flooding-urban-planning/index.html

It's titled "How Houston's layout may have made its flooding worse". Oh, so there in the title it's clearly saying it could have reduced the problem, not eliminated it entirely. But hey, titles are written by sub-editors, and the article itself might talk about how planning could have eliminated the problem, so lets check with the article.

"No amount of planning can completely prevent a disaster like Harvey"
"experts in floodplain and storm water management say its damage could have been lessened if authorities in Houston"

Oh. So the article also clearly says planning could have lessened the severity, not prevented it entirely. So it looks like Grey Templar just misread the article, and accidentally interpreted it to be a farcical strawman version of what it actually said. What a total and complete accident that was.

**Frazzled**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
This is why I say this discussion is important. Already people are excusing the lack of flood preperation and setting themselves up for it to happen again. But hey it it's their homes being flooded, hope they enjoy. I feel no obligation to sympathy for people who can't be arsed to help themselves.

yes I am sure the family of six that drowned trying to escape should have none of your sympathy.

Wow if you experience the same thing then I guess none of us should give a gak for you and should laugh at your mom's tears too.

**sebster**

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.

Harris County, which includes Houston, voted 54% for Clinton. Got swamped by most of the rest of Texas, of course, but by itself it was more blue than the national average. Not that that really matters, people in need should be helped, even if they voted differently to yourself. That's the difference between a government for the people, and a banana republic.

Of course the help for everyone harmed by Harvey and the political support that aid packages have gotten should be contrasted against Sandy, where around 200 Republican congressmen voted against aid, including around 20 Republican congressmen, including both their senators. Their hypocrisy should be noted and acted on, but not by withholding aid for people affected by Harvey.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Wow if you experience the same thing then I guess none of us should give a gak for you and should laugh at your mom's tears too.

I am confident that you contacted Senator Cruz with that exact message when he voted against the aid package for victims of Hurriance Sandy.

**motyak**

We're dancing dangerously close to this becoming a proper political discussion (at least by Dakka's OT standards). Let's get back to the topic of the hurricane thanks

**sirlynchmob**

sebster wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.

Harris County, which includes Houston, voted 54% for Clinton. Got swamped by most of the rest of Texas, of course, but by itself it was more blue than the national average. Not that that really matters, people in need should be helped, even if they voted differently to yourself. That's the difference between a government for the people, and a banana republic.

Of course the help for everyone harmed by Harvey and the political support that aid packages have gotten should be contrasted against Sandy, where around 200 Republican congressmen voted against aid, including around 20 Republican congressmen, including both their senators. Their hypocrisy should be noted and acted on, but not by withholding aid for people affected by Harvey.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Wow if you experience the same thing then I guess none of us should give a gak for you and should laugh at your mom's tears too.

I am confident that you contacted Senator Cruz with that exact message when he voted against the aid package for victims of Hurriance Sandy.

sure and Canada offers to help and also get's turned down. we're told to send prayers instead of the equipment and crews to help restore power and to provide blankets, beds, pillows and hygienic products.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-offers-aid-texas-hurricane-harvey-1.4267387

So both of Americas neighbors have offered to help and were told "no thanks" Aid is being offered and not withheld by any means, the aid is just being outright rejected.

I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.

**sebster**

sirlynchmob wrote:
I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.

Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.

Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.

**A Town Called Malus**

sebster wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.

Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.

Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.

I think that America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone. After Katrina, the US government turned down an offer from Cuba to send over doctors trained and experienced in natural disaster relief, many of whom had previous experience from helping in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan tsunami.

**Kanluwen**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
sebster wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.

Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.

Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.

I think that America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone. After Katrina, the US government turned down an offer from Cuba to send over doctors trained and experienced in natural disaster relief, many of whom had previous experience from helping in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan tsunami.

It's less "America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone" but rather a certain political party which we cannot name has to be seen as "America first!" to their constituents.
When Katrina happened, Cuba was still basically an "antagonistic foreign power" for all intents and purposes. There is a significant Cuban refugee/immigrant population in Miami Florida that votes for whoever is against Cuba.

With regards to Canada? We have a certain individual supposedly leading our country right now who has claimed that Canada is undermining us with NAFTA and other stuff. That's likely why Canadian aid was turned back--to stroke the ego of a schmuck who thinks that Canada not falling in line is them undermining us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

motyak wrote:
We're dancing dangerously close to this becoming a proper political discussion (at least by Dakka's OT standards). Let's get back to the topic of the hurricane thanks

It's kind of difficult to separate discussing the response to the hurricane's effects and politics.

Politics plays a big part of why this event and its response is being looked at so critically.

**Skinnereal**

whembly wrote:
This is truly an outlier event.

When was the last one? When will the next one happen?
Will people learn from this one, and make changes for when it happens?

I'll try to find some storm stats to see how uncommon this one is.

**Easy E**

Harvey is an outlier event, but let's not pretend Houston does not have flooding issues every year.

Hint: It does!

**Lord of Deeds**

For the curious the following link is satellite images taken in the last few days of some of the hardest hit areas.

https://storms.ngs.noaa.gov/storms/harvey/index.html

Efforts continue. After work last night, my family spent several hours helping a family friend clean out their house that was flooded head of the remediation professionals arriving today. Our friend has flood insurance, though this will be the first time since the house was built 43 years ago that they will have need of it. It was just another reminder how different this storm was compared to other flood events. They are in good spirits, but the uncertainty about how long their home would be torn up is already weighing on them. Fortunately, they did not lose too many irreplaceable items such as photos, heirlooms, etc. as they moved a lot of that type of stuff to the second floor of their home.

My wife and kids have also spent the last couple of days working shifts at a shelter and both kids will be out today helping with more clean up in the local area while wife and I are both back at work.
Despite all the devastation and the emotional toll, it is so uplifting to see so many of my neighbors helping each other.

**whembly**

That map!

I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!

**reds8n**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
sebster wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.

Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.

Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.

I think that America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone. After Katrina, the US government turned down an offer from Cuba to send over doctors trained and experienced in natural disaster relief, many of whom had previous experience from helping in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan tsunami.

Mexico sent troops and relief efforts to help after Katrina

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-mexicans-crossed-our-border-to-feed-our-hungry/2015/08/28/347342e4-4cee-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html?utm_term=.e42a742b7cac

By the time their mission in San Antonio ended Sept. 25, the Mexicans had served 170,000 meals, helped distribute more than 184,000 tons of supplies and conducted more than 500 medical consultations.

Mexican sailors also assisted with clearing downed branches and other storm debris in Biloxi, Miss., where they posed for photos with President George W. Bush, who thanked them for their help.

piece was written in 2015

Because hurricane season is again upon us. And you never know when you are going to need a friendly neighbor, and a hot meal.

... hmm. Indeed.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2015/08/25/canadians-among-the-first-to-help-in-hurricane-katrina.html

**A Town Called Malus**

Huh, very strange.

Certainly paints a picture of how the governments approach has changed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That map!

I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!

It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

Frazzled wrote:
Gas stations in San Antonio are going down to. It's my understanding the Colonial pipeline went down. The East is about to feel our pain.

Gas Prices are up .30 cents in the last two days alone, and I'm just outside Philly. But if thats the worst I personally experience (plus an increased workload, as the Houston branch of my job is out of commission from what I'm told), then I consider myself lucky. A bunch of my coworkers are actually getting a 24 foot trailer of supplies for the people affected.

**whembly**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That map!

I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!

It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.

There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.

The U.S. has had only four Cat 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970... FOUR. But in the same number of years preceding 1970, there were fourteen Cat 4+ strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, that famous Cat 4 hurricane hit Galveston, TX in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history in terms of loss of life.

And don’t forget, we just went through a big pause of almost 12 years without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

I think the whole descriptor of "unprecedented" regarding Harvey's impact to Houston is in terms of overall damage and number of people affected, in a relatively concentrated area... rather than this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

Had Harvey not stalled like it did, it wouldn't have dumped all that water in one spot... a spot that's 4th or 5th in population size of the US.

Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of 'umies.

**feeder**

Be it caused by natural cycles, Jeebus's divine will, or the consensus of the international scientific community, global temperatures are rising. This will affect the severity of weather systems, and we all better plan for hotter summers and more severe storms.

**NinthMusketeer**

whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That map!

I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!

It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.

There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.

There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.

When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.

**Scrabb**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.

There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.

When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.

Is anything in whembly's post above incorrect?

I also want to sardonically thank you for helping us realize we have a water management problem at this time. Again, Houston is handling flood prevention poorly and wouldn't have to handle as much post flood recovery if they did flood prevention better.

Thank you for taking time out of your day to belabor that while there are so many in need of emotional, physical and financial support. Truly.

**Dreadwinter**

whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
That map!

I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!

It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.

There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.

The U.S. has had only four Cat 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970... FOUR. But in the same number of years preceding 1970, there were fourteen Cat 4+ strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, that famous Cat 4 hurricane hit Galveston, TX in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history in terms of loss of life.

And don’t forget, we just went through a big pause of almost 12 years without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

I think the whole descriptor of "unprecedented" regarding Harvey's impact to Houston is in terms of overall damage and number of people affected, in a relatively concentrated area... rather than this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

Had Harvey not stalled like it did, it wouldn't have dumped all that water in one spot... a spot that's 4th or 5th in population size of the US.

Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of 'umies.

Let me tell you, you paint a beautiful picture of horsegak. You are using a fact to hide a lie here. I will point out the issue.

"And don’t forget, we just went through a big pause of almost 12 years without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S." This is a 100% true factual statement, but at the same time it is horsegak because we have had major hurricanes that have caused incredible amounts of damage in the past 12 years. They were just not a Cat 3 when they made landfall in the U.S. You are discounting Hurricane Sandy, which was a Cat 2 when it made landfall. This was another area that was not prepared for the amount of flooding it received. These things happen more often than you are letting on here. Remember the catastrophic flooding in New York?

"Estimates as of 2015 assessed damage to have been about $75 billion (2012 USD), a total surpassed only by Hurricane Katrina.[6] At least 233 people were killed along the path of the storm in eight countries."

One of the most damaging and expensive hurricanes of all time was a Cat 2 that hit major urban centers. A Category 2 Hurricane.

**Scrabb**

Dreadwinter wrote:

One of the most damaging and expensive hurricanes of all time was a Cat 2 that hit major urban centers. A Category 2 Hurricane.

This means where storms hit matters. It doesn't mean we've had more high intensity storms in the last decade.

He literally posted the exact truth of the matter and you're calling him a liar? That's rich.

**Dreadwinter**

Scrabb wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

One of the most damaging and expensive hurricanes of all time was a Cat 2 that hit major urban centers. A Category 2 Hurricane.

This means where storms hit matters. It doesn't mean we've had more high intensity storms in the last decade.

He literally posted the exact truth of the matter and you're calling him a liar? That's rich.

Did you read the entirety of what I wrote? Where I said what he is saying is factually correct, but it is covering a lie?

No? Oh cool. Thanks for playing.

**Frazzled**

Scrabb wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
whembly wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:

It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.

There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.

When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.

Is anything in whembly's post above incorrect?

I also want to sardonically thank you for helping us realize we have a water management problem at this time. Again, Houston is handling flood prevention poorly and wouldn't have to handle as much post flood recovery if they did flood prevention better.

Thank you for taking time out of your day to belabor that while there are so many in need of emotional, physical and financial support. Truly.

Indeed.

In new news. More areas being evaced near Addicks reservoir.