"1,000 Year Rainfall Event" Is this Propaganda?
Oct 5, 2015 21:12:31 GMT -6
Nugget, 727sky, and 12 more like this
Post by Michigan Swamp Buck on Oct 5, 2015 21:12:31 GMT -6
It is truly a huge weather event down in South Carolina right now, but how can anyone know that such weather has ever occurred over a 1,000 year period in an area that has no weather records during that time? Is there any reason to doubt such a claim considering how advanced our sciences have become?
This question had come to my mind because firstly, it makes little logical sense to me and secondly, a red flag came up for me when initial reports claimed a 200 year record rainfall. Let me explain my reluctance to accept the thousand year claim and what has raised this flag.
The history of meteorology is about 300 years old and the tools for measuring weather were first invented around 400 to 500 years ago in Europe. Records for weather events were undoubtedly keep throughout written history by astrologers and scribes, to what level of accuracy is debatable, but there surely must be believable accounts that can be separated from myths and legends. However, this approach cannot be applied to the new world one thousand years ago in South Carolina as the Native Americans there had no written records of any kind and Europeans hadn't even known of the existence of the new world at that time.
OK, so maybe geologists or archaeologists have studied ancient river beds for signs of heavy rain events during the said area and time and have determined that such rainfall events have occurred with a certain frequency. One may want to consider that these were wild running rivers with no dams or flood control, but this could be factored in I suppose. This is all within the realm of possibility and makes sense when questioning the validity of such a statement. Still, there was that initial report of a 200 year record rainfall in that area.
A 200 year record rainfall event seems totally reasonable to me considering that back then the study of weather was beginning to emerge as we know it today. Weather records were being kept and farmers would make good witnesses to such events. I went along with that claim when I first heard it reported on the news. That made total sense to me and I didn't even begin to question that one until the very next day when the more exaggerated claim of a one thousand year rain event was being made and spread all over the different news media.
The red flag then went up for me because of my experience with the reports that had come from Desert Storm. I had noticed that the initial reports from that war were almost always true but were followed up with false reports soon after. It was plainly obvious to me at that time and I have accepted that premise ever since. It certainly seems to fit this rainfall report, but why?
So I pondered the implications of such a report and concluded that this may factor into the man made global warming agenda. I'm not big on debunking this theory, but the idea of a carbon credit market makes me skeptical at the very least. Alternate theories seem just as valid to me at any rate.
This Washington Post article has a link to the NOAA website. You need to click on the map to find the table that makes this claim
The meteorology behind South Carolina’s catastrophic, 1,000-year rainfall event
NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
The NOAA uses a method they call the "partial duration series" to estimate the frequency of the rainfall events presented in their table in the link above. You need to search their website and download a PDF to read about how this estimate works.
So this is an estimate then, yet the talking heads spout this as undisputed truth to be accepted just because they made a report. It's a nearly 300 page PDF file and it will take me a while to download it and find out how they came to their conclusion. In the mean time I will post this thread and come back later to explain how they make such an estimate. Perhaps it is reasonable and I may accept it, but to present this information in this way makes me suspicious that it will soon be used to support the man made global warming theory and carbon credit deal. Just remember, they never let a good crisis go to waste.
This question had come to my mind because firstly, it makes little logical sense to me and secondly, a red flag came up for me when initial reports claimed a 200 year record rainfall. Let me explain my reluctance to accept the thousand year claim and what has raised this flag.
The history of meteorology is about 300 years old and the tools for measuring weather were first invented around 400 to 500 years ago in Europe. Records for weather events were undoubtedly keep throughout written history by astrologers and scribes, to what level of accuracy is debatable, but there surely must be believable accounts that can be separated from myths and legends. However, this approach cannot be applied to the new world one thousand years ago in South Carolina as the Native Americans there had no written records of any kind and Europeans hadn't even known of the existence of the new world at that time.
OK, so maybe geologists or archaeologists have studied ancient river beds for signs of heavy rain events during the said area and time and have determined that such rainfall events have occurred with a certain frequency. One may want to consider that these were wild running rivers with no dams or flood control, but this could be factored in I suppose. This is all within the realm of possibility and makes sense when questioning the validity of such a statement. Still, there was that initial report of a 200 year record rainfall in that area.
A 200 year record rainfall event seems totally reasonable to me considering that back then the study of weather was beginning to emerge as we know it today. Weather records were being kept and farmers would make good witnesses to such events. I went along with that claim when I first heard it reported on the news. That made total sense to me and I didn't even begin to question that one until the very next day when the more exaggerated claim of a one thousand year rain event was being made and spread all over the different news media.
The red flag then went up for me because of my experience with the reports that had come from Desert Storm. I had noticed that the initial reports from that war were almost always true but were followed up with false reports soon after. It was plainly obvious to me at that time and I have accepted that premise ever since. It certainly seems to fit this rainfall report, but why?
So I pondered the implications of such a report and concluded that this may factor into the man made global warming agenda. I'm not big on debunking this theory, but the idea of a carbon credit market makes me skeptical at the very least. Alternate theories seem just as valid to me at any rate.
This Washington Post article has a link to the NOAA website. You need to click on the map to find the table that makes this claim
According to statistics compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, South Carolina’s torrential weekend rain has well surpassed a 1,000-year rainfall event — one that, on average, we would expect to see about every 1,000 years.
The meteorology behind South Carolina’s catastrophic, 1,000-year rainfall event
NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
The NOAA uses a method they call the "partial duration series" to estimate the frequency of the rainfall events presented in their table in the link above. You need to search their website and download a PDF to read about how this estimate works.
So this is an estimate then, yet the talking heads spout this as undisputed truth to be accepted just because they made a report. It's a nearly 300 page PDF file and it will take me a while to download it and find out how they came to their conclusion. In the mean time I will post this thread and come back later to explain how they make such an estimate. Perhaps it is reasonable and I may accept it, but to present this information in this way makes me suspicious that it will soon be used to support the man made global warming theory and carbon credit deal. Just remember, they never let a good crisis go to waste.
