Colorado, extreme weather event in progress

[itfitzme]

In other words, ignore the reality of events, and just go on living in your alternative universe.

The reality is it's called the 100-year-flood for a reason.

100-year-flood: Boulder rainfall records swamped in dueling weather systems - Boulder Daily Camera

We're not interested in your religious beliefs, dude, or what you refer to as man made climate change.

The reality is that it doesn't mean or imply what you would like it to mean, that it is a naturally occuring, 100 year event.

Colorado Disaster: What Is a 100-Year Flood? | LiveScience

"100 year" simply means a 1% probability of occurance based on historical data.

Even the article linked says,

"We're getting away from using that terminology, because people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years," said Robert Kimbrough, associate director of the USGS Colorado Water Science Center. "But really, it's the chance of it happening in any given year is one in 100."

That's what you think it means, eh? "people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years,"

And, as the global mean temperature has increased, and global climate change is now a reality, this size of an event has a greater probability of occurance.

 

[itfitzme]

The reality is it's called the 100-year-flood for a reason.

100-year-flood: Boulder rainfall records swamped in dueling weather systems - Boulder Daily Camera

We're not interested in your religious beliefs, dude, or what you refer to as man made climate change.

What causes this 100 year cycle?

Statistic Dudley.. Probably Rayleigh distribution of events.
Same way that the Cleveland Browns predict their wins..

Exactly. It isn't what he thinks. It doesn't mean it happens every 100 years. It is an antiquated term that simply means the historical data gives this size a 1% probability of occurance. Unfortunately, due to global warming/AWG/climage change, the historical probability is no longer valid. Historical data based probabilities assume that the future conditions will be the same. As the future conditions will not, the "100-year flood" term has not validity.

 

[flacaltenn]

In other words, ignore the reality of events, and just go on living in your alternative universe.

The reality is it's called the 100-year-flood for a reason.

100-year-flood: Boulder rainfall records swamped in dueling weather systems - Boulder Daily Camera

We're not interested in your religious beliefs, dude, or what you refer to as man made climate change.

The reality is that it doesn't mean or imply what you would like it to mean, that it is a naturally occuring, 100 year event.

Colorado Disaster: What Is a 100-Year Flood? | LiveScience

"100 year" simply means a 1% probability of occurance based on historical data.

Even the article linked says,

"We're getting away from using that terminology, because people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years," said Robert Kimbrough, associate director of the USGS Colorado Water Science Center. "But really, it's the chance of it happening in any given year is one in 100."

That's what you think it means, eh? "people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years,"

And, as the global mean temperature has increased, and global climate change is now a reality, this size of an event has a greater probability of occurance.

The idiots that assume a 0.5deg change in mean temp. has skewed these occurences --- have never sat at a roulette wheel in Lake Tahoe for hours. AND probably don't understand statistical events very well. AND have no knowledge of the MULTITUDE of NECCESSARY conditions for weather to occur..

Pretty much primitive crystal-worshipping losers....

 

[bripat9643]

The reality is it's called the 100-year-flood for a reason.

100-year-flood: Boulder rainfall records swamped in dueling weather systems - Boulder Daily Camera

We're not interested in your religious beliefs, dude, or what you refer to as man made climate change.

The reality is that it doesn't mean or imply what you would like it to mean, that it is a naturally occuring, 100 year event.

Colorado Disaster: What Is a 100-Year Flood? | LiveScience

"100 year" simply means a 1% probability of occurance based on historical data.

Even the article linked says,

"We're getting away from using that terminology, because people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years," said Robert Kimbrough, associate director of the USGS Colorado Water Science Center. "But really, it's the chance of it happening in any given year is one in 100."

That's what you think it means, eh? "people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years,"

And, as the global mean temperature has increased, and global climate change is now a reality, this size of an event has a greater probability of occurance.

The idiots that assume a 0.5deg change in mean temp. has skewed these occurences --- have never sat at a roulette wheel in Lake Tahoe for hours. AND probably don't understand statistical events very well. AND have no knowledge of the MULTITUDE of NECCESSARY conditions for weather to occur..

Pretty much primitive crystal-worshipping losers....

These are the same morons who deny they screech "the sky is falling" every time there's a heat wave, but here we have one flood that is well within historical norms and they are claiming it's the product of global warming.

Who do these nimrods think they are fooling?

 

[flacaltenn]

The reality is that it doesn't mean or imply what you would like it to mean, that it is a naturally occuring, 100 year event.

Colorado Disaster: What Is a 100-Year Flood? | LiveScience

"100 year" simply means a 1% probability of occurance based on historical data.

Even the article linked says,

"We're getting away from using that terminology, because people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years," said Robert Kimbrough, associate director of the USGS Colorado Water Science Center. "But really, it's the chance of it happening in any given year is one in 100."

That's what you think it means, eh? "people tend to think that's the storm that happens every 100 years,"

And, as the global mean temperature has increased, and global climate change is now a reality, this size of an event has a greater probability of occurance.

The idiots that assume a 0.5deg change in mean temp. has skewed these occurences --- have never sat at a roulette wheel in Lake Tahoe for hours. AND probably don't understand statistical events very well. AND have no knowledge of the MULTITUDE of NECCESSARY conditions for weather to occur..

Pretty much primitive crystal-worshipping losers....

These are the same morons who deny they screech "the sky is falling" every time there's a heat wave, but here we have one flood that is well within historical norms and they are claiming it's the product of global warming.

Who do these nimrods think they are fooling?

I particularly enjoy the rope-a-dope game that they play on these boards.. When you pin one down about whether CO2 CAUSED Sandy as a storm --- they'll tell you that "NO ONE is saying that" --- then in 2 or 3 days ---- one of the religious zealots is back posting about a storm being the PROOF of Global Warming..

I think GoldiRocks actually believes that every weather event is an omen of the gods. And he's not ashamed to testify to that. I see sainthood in the Warmer Church for the guy (or a straitjacket)..

 

[flacaltenn]

Blessed Saint Old Rocks... Has a great ring to it..
He spoke directly to Gaiea and proclaimed her message amongst the nations..

20.1 And GoldiRocks awoke from a sleep in the empty Geology lecture hall to behold a vision of a burning wind turbine. It took the form of a hockey stick and spoketh to him.. "For today I show you the carcass of an Eagle as a symbol of my wrath. Take these bloody feathers and craft a headdress so that all people shall know you as a messenger of Gaiea. Go forth and pronounce the plagues that I bring forth on all who partake of fossil fuel".

20.2 "For yee shall make a longish list of the 97% who believe in my word and THEY shall be spared. But the 3% will be drowned in a fiery pit of petroleum products along with every Twinky and plastic bag on MY Planet".. "GTG --- there's a squirrel crossing the road in Birmingham".. And the Gaiea was gone and the room went dark. (Gaiea always turns off the lights when she leaves a room)

20.3 GoldiRocks shivered before the vision and thought it weird that he not burnt by the heat as the air conditioning was set way too high. He then gave the Weather Channel a "like" on FaceBook and started an RSS feed on storms and malaria..

To be continued...

 

[Old Rocks]

Increases in middle atmospheric water vapor as observed by the Halogen Occultation Experiment and the ground-based Water Vapor Millimeter-Wave Spectrometer from 1991 to 1997 - Nedoluha - 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012)

Water vapor measurements made by the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) from 1991 to 1997 are compared with ground-based observations by the Water Vapor Millimeter-wave Spectrometers (WVMS) taken from 1992 to 1997 at Table Mountain, California (34.4°N, 242.3°E), and at Lauder, New Zealand (45.0°S, 169.7°E). The HALOE measurements show that an upward trend in middle atmospheric water vapor is present at all latitudes. The average trend in the HALOE water vapor retrievals at all latitudes in the 40–60 km range is 0.129 ppmv/yr, while the average trend observed by the WVMS instruments in this altitude range is 0.148 ppmv/yr. This trend is occurring below the altitude where changes in Lyman α associated with solar cycle variations should produce a significant increase in water vapor during this period, and is much larger than the ∼0.02 ppmv/yr trend in water vapor associated with increases in methane entering the stratosphere. In addition to the water vapor increase, HALOE measurements show that there is a temporal decrease in methane at altitudes between 40 and 70 km. This indicates an increase in the conversion of the available methane to water vapor, thus contributing to the observed increase in water vapor. The increase in water vapor observed by both instruments is larger than that which would be expected from the sum of all of the above effects. We therefore conclude that there has been a significant increase in the amount of water vapor entering the middle atmosphere. A temperature increase of ∼0.1 K/yr in regions of stratosphere-troposphere exchange could increase the saturation mixing ratio of water vapor by an amount consistent with the observed increase

 

[Moonglow]

4" to 11" of rain in Colorado around Boulder. 12 dams overtopped. Communties cut off. More rain on the way.

Colorado flood: Front Range floodwaters kill three, drench homes - The Denver Post

At least they don't have to worry about wild fires.

 

[Old Rocks]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth's climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback.

Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. If the Earth lies near the upper bound of this sensitivity range, climate changes in the twenty-first century will be profound. The range in sensitivity is primarily due to differing assumptions about how the Earth's cloud distribution is maintained; all the models on which these estimates are based possess strong water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact, substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important policy implications. In this review, we describe the background behind the prevailing view on water vapor feedback and some of the arguments raised by its critics, and attempt to explain why these arguments have not modified the consensus within the climate research community

 

[bripat9643]

What causes this 100 year cycle?

Statistic Dudley.. Probably Rayleigh distribution of events.
Same way that the Cleveland Browns predict their wins..

Exactly. It isn't what he thinks. It doesn't mean it happens every 100 years. It is an antiquated term that simply means the historical data gives this size a 1% probability of occurance. Unfortunately, due to global warming/AWG/climage change, the historical probability is no longer valid. Historical data based probabilities assume that the future conditions will be the same. As the future conditions will not, the "100-year flood" term has not validity.

Bullshit. You assume what has yet to be proven. The Big Thompson storm was worse and that was only 40 years ago

 

[Moonglow]

In other words, ignore the reality of events, and just go on living in your alternative universe.

So i suppose this is somehow related to CO2?

It's rain.

Every place on the planet has been flooded at one time or another.

Even before there were people to blame it on.

Noah was told by God the real reason for the Great Flood and the raining for 40 days and 40 nights was from elevated CO2 levels.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening

Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.

Since water vapor has a residence time in the atmosphere of less than ten days, that means the increase in atmospheric water vapor translates to an increase in rainfall. And since this is never evanly spread over a large area, it means significantly more extreme weather events. Which is what we are already observing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Statistic Dudley.. Probably Rayleigh distribution of events.
Same way that the Cleveland Browns predict their wins..

Exactly. It isn't what he thinks. It doesn't mean it happens every 100 years. It is an antiquated term that simply means the historical data gives this size a 1% probability of occurance. Unfortunately, due to global warming/AWG/climage change, the historical probability is no longer valid. Historical data based probabilities assume that the future conditions will be the same. As the future conditions will not, the "100-year flood" term has not validity.

Bullshit. You assume what has yet to be proven. The Big Thompson storm was worse and that was only 40 years ago

The Big Thompson Canyon flood caused more deaths because of the morphology of the canyon and the crowded campgrounds. The present extreme weather event covers a much larger area, and will result in a far greater amount of property and infrastructure damage. The present storm is also of far greater duration in time.

As stated before, you people really need to do some research before posting drivel.

weather.com - Storm Encyclopedia -

The Big Thompson Canyon Flood of 1976
It was the height of tourist season in Big Thompson Canyon, a popular camping area an hour west of the city of Denver, Colorado.

As several thousand people enjoyed hiking, fishing and relaxing at their campsites on the pleasant summer afternoon of July 31, 1976, they had no way of knowing that tragedy would strike in just a few short hours.

A weak but moist easterly flow was forming on the east side of the Rockies. The air rose up the mountain slopes, enhanced by daytime heating which caused cumulus clouds to spring up. As the afternoon wore on, benign cumulus clouds developed into cumulonimbus clouds, then into a thunderstorm accompanied by heavy rain.

The winds generally found at mountain crests of 10,000 feet are strong enough to push thunderstorms eastward and out of the area. On this particular afternoon, however, the upper winds were extremely weak, and the storm remained stationary over the mountain. Heavy rain continued to fall.

The slope leading into Big Thompson Canyon is sheer rock, unlike slopes with soil and vegetation which are able to absorb water. As the heavy rain fell, it plummeted straight down the walls of the canyon to the Big Thompson River below.

Eight inches of rain fell in one hour. The water in the river quickly rose over its banks. The weight of the charging water was so strong that it sent huge boulders hurtling with it downstream.

Residents and visitors had no idea that they were in the path of raging flood waters. Within two hours the Big Thompson Canyon Flood created over $30 million of property damage and killed at least 139 people.


Other historical flash floods include the Johnstown Flood of 1889 and the Shadyside, Ohio Flood of 1990. The Mississippi River Flood of 1993 caused between $15-20 billion in damage.

 

[flacaltenn]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere. As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, increase because of human activity, it is centrally important to predict how the water vapor distribution will be affected. To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified. Models of the Earth's climate indicate that this is an important positive feedback that increases the sensitivity of surface temperatures to carbon dioxide by nearly a factor of two when considered in isolation from other feedbacks, and possibly by as much as a factor of three or more when interactions with other feedbacks are considered. Critics of this consensus have attempted to provide reasons why modeling results are overestimating the strength of this feedback.

Our uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity is disturbing. The range most often quoted for the equilibrium global mean surface temperature response to a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. If the Earth lies near the upper bound of this sensitivity range, climate changes in the twenty-first century will be profound. The range in sensitivity is primarily due to differing assumptions about how the Earth's cloud distribution is maintained; all the models on which these estimates are based possess strong water vapor feedback. If this feedback is, in fact, substantially weaker than predicted in current models, sensitivities in the upper half of this range would be much less likely, a conclusion that would clearly have important policy implications. In this review, we describe the background behind the prevailing view on water vapor feedback and some of the arguments raised by its critics, and attempt to explain why these arguments have not modified the consensus within the climate research community

Thats very funny. The part about "our uncertainty about climate sensitivity is disturbing, ,

Lmfao. But that would never stop them from speculating about the highest bullshit estimates that theyve heard.. nono

And you need to realize that they are not talking about TODAYS WEATHER.

But rather speculating about what happens FAR DOWN the road. For panicking today chicken little, youre on ur own.

 

[Mr. H.]

It's hilly in Colorado. Downright mountainous. I remember seeing signs posted along roadways because it doesn't take but a moment for a lazy stream to turn into a raging wall of water.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. It isn't what he thinks. It doesn't mean it happens every 100 years. It is an antiquated term that simply means the historical data gives this size a 1% probability of occurance. Unfortunately, due to global warming/AWG/climage change, the historical probability is no longer valid. Historical data based probabilities assume that the future conditions will be the same. As the future conditions will not, the "100-year flood" term has not validity.

Bullshit. You assume what has yet to be proven. The Big Thompson storm was worse and that was only 40 years ago

The Big Thompson Canyon flood caused more deaths because of the morphology of the canyon and the crowded campgrounds. The present extreme weather event covers a much larger area, and will result in a far greater amount of property and infrastructure damage. The present storm is also of far greater duration in time.

Sorry, Chicken Little, but you only think it covers a much larger area. The difference between the two storms is that the rain that caused the Big Thompson flood fell in the mountains 50 miles West of Denver. Except for Estes Park, the area is mostly unpopulated. The current storm is dropping rain in Denver and it's surrounding suburbs. Therefor, there are a lot more reporters in the area and a lot more places for them to look at. It's also not clear which storm has caused the most property damage.

As stated before, you people really need to do some research before posting drivel.

You should follow your own advice. Your claims are based on nothing but pure speculation.

Keep in mind that 12-14 inches of rain caused the Big Thompson flood. Only 4-8 inches have fallen in the last couple of days in the Denver Area. One thing we know for certain is that if the Big Thompson flood had occurred today, people like you would be squawking that it was an "extreme weather event" cause by Goebbels Warming.

 

[waltky]

Flooding in Colorado...

Flood rescues continue as Colorado braces for more rain
Sat Sep 14, 2013 - More heavy rain is expected on Saturday in Colorado where rescue workers are battling to reach residents cut off by the worst floods in decades, which have killed at least four people and left 172 still unaccounted for.

Search and rescue teams have used boats and helicopters to pull stranded residents to safety in areas where flash floods toppled buildings, washed out roads and inundated farmland. The flooding began overnight Wednesday. It was triggered by unusually heavy late-summer storms that soaked Colorado's biggest urban centers, from Fort Collins near the Wyoming border south through Boulder, Denver and Colorado Springs.

Boulder and a string of other towns along the Front Range of the Rockies north of Denver were especially hard hit as water poured down rain-soaked mountains and spilled through canyons that funneled the runoff into populated areas. Overnight, rescue workers took advantage of a break in the weather to reach residents still stranded in their homes by rampaging floodwaters that turned creeks into raging torrents that burst their banks.

"Quite a bit of the water has receded in the city ... and rescue crews will work throughout the night," Ashlee Herring, a spokeswoman for the Boulder Office of Emergency Management said of the recovery effort. The National Weather Service in Boulder warned of scattered showers and thunderstorms later on Saturday and into Sunday that could trigger further flash flooding in the already drenched area.

DISASTER

See also:

Stranded residents plucked from Colo. floodwaters
13 Sept.`13 — By truck and helicopter, thousands of people stranded by floodwaters came down from the Colorado Rockies on Friday, two days after seemingly endless rain turned normally scenic rivers and creeks into coffee-colored rapids that wrecked scores of roads and wiped out neighborhoods.

Authorities aimed to evacuate 2,500 people from the isolated mountain community of Lyons by the end of the day, either by National Guard convoys or airlifts. One of them, Mary Hemme, recalled hearing sirens going off in the middle of the night and her husband saying they needed to leave. They stepped outside their trailer and into rushing water that nearly reached their knees.

She got in her car and tried to drive away. "But I only got so far, because the river was rushing at me, so I threw it in reverse as fast as I could," Hemme said. "I was so afraid that I was going to die, that water came so fast." Others were less fortunate. The body of a woman who had been swept away was found Friday near Boulder, raising the death toll to four. National Guard troops aided by a break in the weather started airlifting 295 residents from the small community of Jamestown, which has been cut off and without power or water for more than a day.

Dean Hollenbaugh, 79, decided to take one of the helicopters after officials warned electricity and water could be disrupted for weeks. "Essentially, what they were threatening us with is 'if you stay here, you may be here for a month,'" Hollenbaugh said as he waited for his son to pick him up from the Boulder airport. "I felt I was OK. I mean I've camped in the mountains for a week at a time." Airlifts also were taking place to the east in Larimer County for people with special medical needs.

More Stranded residents plucked from Colo. floodwaters

Related:

Rescues accelerate as floodwater inundates Colo.
14 Sept.`13 — By air and by land, the rescue of hundreds of Coloradoans stranded by epic mountain flooding was accelerating as food and water supplies ran low, while thousands more were driven from their homes on the plains as debris-filled rivers became muddy seas inundating towns and farms miles from the Rockies.

For the first time since the harrowing mountain floods began Wednesday, Colorado got its first broad view of the devastation — and the reality of what is becoming a long-term disaster is setting in. The flooding has affected parts of a 4,500-square-mile area, almost the size of Connecticut. National Guard choppers were evacuating 295 people — plus pets — from the mountain hamlet of Jamestown, which was isolated by flooding that scoured the canyon the town sits in. Mike Smith, incident commander at Boulder Municipal Airport, said helicopters would continue flying in and out late into the night.

The outlook for anyone who'd rather stay is weeks without power, cellphone service, water or sewer. "Essentially, what they were threatening us with is, 'If you stay here, you may be here for a month,'" said 79-year-old Dean Hollenbaugh, who was evacuated by Chinook helicopter from Jamestown, northwest of Boulder. For those awaiting an airlift, Guardsmen dropped food, water and other supplies in Jamestown and other small towns in the winding, narrow canyons that dot the Rocky Mountain foothills. Thousands of evacuees sought shelter in cities that were nearly surrounded by raging rivers spilling over their banks.

One was Mary Hemme, 62, who displayed a pair of purple socks as she sat outside the Lifebridge Christian Church in Longmont. They're a memento of the more than 30 hours she spent in an elementary school in the flood-stricken mountain town of Lyons. Many evacuees — eventually rescued by National Guard trucks — got socks because most of them had wet feet, Hemme said. She recalled the sirens blared at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday. "Mary we have to go, this place is flooding," she recalled her friend Kristen Vincent saying as they clambered out of a trailer. "And we stepped out of the trailer, onto the ground where the cars were parked, and it already like this, almost to our knees," she said. "It wasn't just sitting there. It was rushing at us."

Soon the trailer, like others in the park where she was staying, was submerged. Hemme said she walked up at hill a daybreak and surveyed the trailer park. "The most terrifying thing was when I climbed up on that cliff and looked down. It was the meanest, most — I mean, no wonder it carries cars like toys," Hemme said. "I was so afraid that I was going to die, that water came so fast."

More Rescues accelerate as floodwater inundates Colo.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bullshit. You assume what has yet to be proven. The Big Thompson storm was worse and that was only 40 years ago

The Big Thompson Canyon flood caused more deaths because of the morphology of the canyon and the crowded campgrounds. The present extreme weather event covers a much larger area, and will result in a far greater amount of property and infrastructure damage. The present storm is also of far greater duration in time.

Sorry, Chicken Little, but you only think it covers a much larger area. The difference between the two storms is that the rain that caused the Big Thompson flood fell in the mountains 50 miles West of Denver. Except for Estes Park, the area is mostly unpopulated. The current storm is dropping rain in Denver and it's surrounding suburbs. Therefor, there are a lot more reporters in the area and a lot more places for them to look at. It's also not clear which storm has caused the most property damage.

As stated before, you people really need to do some research before posting drivel.

You should follow your own advice. Your claims are based on nothing but pure speculation.

Keep in mind that 12-14 inches of rain caused the Big Thompson flood. Only 4-8 inches have fallen in the last couple of days in the Denver Area. One thing we know for certain is that if the Big Thompson flood had occurred today, people like you would be squawking that it was an "extreme weather event" cause by Goebbels Warming.

Does proving that you are extremely stupid give you a thrill, Pattycake?

Flood-weary Colorado awaits more rain; 172 people unaccounted for - CNN.com

Boulder, Colorado (CNN) -- As furious waters flow through flood-devastated northern Colorado, fears and tales of devastation grow.

At least four people have been killed and 172 are unaccounted for, officials say.

The nightmare is far from over as the state awaits more rainfall Saturday, threatening to send swollen rivers gushing through streets choked with debris. The rain is expected to come down heavy Sunday.

It will not be as much as the 15 inches dumped in some spots this week, but it could cause more flooding in areas where water has already receded, forecasters warned.

https://twitter.com/SeverePlains/status/378590035953459200/photo/1

The level of the Big Thompson river has surpassed the level of the 1976 flood.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's hilly in Colorado. Downright mountainous. I remember seeing signs posted along roadways because it doesn't take but a moment for a lazy stream to turn into a raging wall of water.

We have the same sort of mountian country in Oregon. A major thunderstorm can turn a lazy creek into a raging river in a matter of an hour. In 1903, one such storm killed about 250 people in a little town called Heppner. However, unlike the Big Thompson Canyon flood of 1976, this storm is not localized. It is causing flooding over nearly half the length of the east front in Colorado, as well as in New Mexico and Kansas.

Hundreds evacuated amid N.M. flooding - CNN.com

Heavy rains cause flooding in Kansas | fox4kc.com

 

[editec]

"This is not unprecedented," Doesken said. "It is simply not common."

The floods' impact, though still unclear, was devastating.

Honestly...debating around a heavy rainfall and flood event.

What's the point?