Insane rates of rainfall

[griteater]

Most (all) floods in Appalachia end up in towns that are in a valley or crevice between the mountains. If the storm parallels a major river through the mountains, the town below is screwed. Like I said, 10 miles or so and we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

I remember receiving 7 inches of rain in ONE NIGHT in the Smokey Mountain NP. The river was raging, but there were no towns in the path and it just washed through the forest sides. That was about 20 years ago.

Don't recall the source, but I've read that the headwaters of the streams in the upper elevations of Great Smokey Mountains NP (near the TN/NC line) receive as much rainfall as anywhere in the lower 48....it mentioned a comparison to the Oregon coast.

[franklin NCwx]

Don't recall the source, but I've read that the headwaters of the streams in the upper elevations of Great Smokey Mountains NP (near the TN/NC line) receive as much rainfall as anywhere in the lower 48....it mentioned a comparison to the Oregon coast.

I will have to find the map again, but some of the higher peaks here in SW NC receive over 100" of rain per year.

[franklin NCwx]

Most (all) floods in Appalachia end up in towns that are in a valley or crevice between the mountains. If the storm parallels a major river through the mountains, the town below is screwed. Like I said, 10 miles or so and we wouldn't be talking about this.

I remember receiving 7 inches of rain in ONE NIGHT in the Smokey Mountain NP. The river was raging, but there were no towns in the path and it just washed through the forest sides. That was about 20 years ago.

where were you at when you stayed in the park?

[tamarack]

Most (all) floods in Appalachia end up in towns that are in a valley or crevice between the mountains. If the storm parallels a major river through the mountains, the town below is screwed. Like I said, 10 miles or so and we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

I remember receiving 7 inches of rain in ONE NIGHT in the Smokey Mountain NP. The river was raging, but there were no towns in the path and it just washed through the forest sides. That was about 20 years ago.

 

Case in point:  Areas in Maine a few miles south of Jackman (in the state's western mountains) had monster RA from training TS this past Tuesday.  There were confirmed obs of 7"+ in 5 hours and Doppler estimated areas with 10"+, but mainly in unpopulated commercial forest.  AFAIK, there were no injuries at all, though considerable damage to logging roads, also to US Route 201, a major link between Quebec and Maine.  This latter necessitated a detour via Greenville that added nearly 100 miles to the journey. 

[Jonger]

where were you at when you stayed in the park?

I can't remember the exact campground. I was in a tent and it actually held up pretty good. We use campers now, so it wouldn't matter now days.

We were in Tennessee.

Maybe Elkmont... maybe.

[Bhs1975]

We're getting more flooding these days from high rates and stagnant patterns with weak mean flow.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

On 8/13/2016 at 7:50 AM, Bhs1975 said:

We're getting more flooding these days from high rates and stagnant patterns with weak mean flow.

 

the million dolllar question though : what's causing these slower moving, more stagnant patterns over the last few (at-least) years.  This summer especially seemed to be particularly stagnant.

another thing noticed, even during all of last winter :  more spread-out , weaker areas of low pressure ...weak disturbances spread out left and right...just like this summer. 

what's missing from the norm ?

Bigger, deeper , more consolidated winter storms during the winter.

and Hurricanes during the summer.

maybe i'm onto something.. 

[Bhs1975]

2 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

 

the million dolllar question though : what's causing these slower moving, more stagnant patterns over the last few (at-least) years.  This summer especially seemed to be particularly stagnant.

another thing noticed, even during all of last winter :  more spread-out , weaker areas of low pressure ...weak disturbances spread out left and right...just like this summer. 

what's missing from the norm ?

Bigger, deeper , more consolidated winter storms during the winter.

and Hurricanes during the summer.

maybe i'm onto something.. 

It's due to a much warmer artic with less ice lowering the temp gradient. We are returning to the climate of 3.6 mya which was much different than today.

http://www.livescience.com/29471-arctic-climate-change-global-warming.html

We are heading into a chaotic time for human civilization.

[Lookout]

On Tuesday, June 07, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Hoosier said:

Here's a paper from 1995 about that Holt, Missouri rainfall record.  Apparently nearby observers had similar amounts/rates, with up to 11 inches in 42 minutes-50 minutes.

 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0434%281995%29010%3C0779%3AAWRRRA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Here is a page from KC nws about it...although the links to the images are out of date/don't work.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/eax/?n=holtmorecrain1947

 

I saw 6 inch plus per hour rates   (got 1.25 inches in 10 minute span)  just 2 days ago with a storm and although I've actually seen  heavier rain/higher rates, it was still damn impressive and I  can't even begin to imagine the rates the amount of rain as reported in that list. With regards to the heaviest I've ever seen, there was one storm in particular that I can recall years ago where the rain was so heavy  that visibility was only a few feet. I could not see the fence 30 feet in front of my house at all. (not a lot of wind either). It was like being in total whiteout and It was absolutely one of the most incredible things I've ever seen weather wise.  This type of rain only lasted about 2 minutes  or less before be becoming  less heavy (but still very very heavy)...but I have no idea how much rain fell in that time as I didn't have an electronic gauge at the time. For the storm, which lasted about 30 minutes, I picked up around 3  inches and I have to believe based on visibility and  the amount of runoff, that  the  rate had to be exceptionally extreme during that 2 minute interval. To this day I wish I knew.

Makes you wonder though  what is the theoretical maximum rain rate per minute and hour?  Here is an interesting reddit thread where it's discussed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2aryiq/what_is_the_maximum_rate_of_rainfall_possible/?sort=old&limit=500&st=is3i5h3w&sh=54483c02

 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

4 hours ago, Bhs1975 said:

It's due to a much warmer artic with less ice lowering the temp gradient. We are returning to the climate of 3.6 mya which was much different than today.

http://www.livescience.com/29471-arctic-climate-change-global-warming.html

We are heading into a chaotic time for human civilization.

 Someone should do a climate change special (TV) on our last few posts...since we seem to be hitting the nail on the head.  Most other speculation out there is rather 'scattered'. 

And funny how it's not bigger storms causing the problem, but smaller ones.

Lookout, even scattered areas on Long Island at this very moment are going thru this hit-or-miss type flooding.  4 to 5 inches today...while the rest of the area is sunny.

http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=LSR&issuedby=OKX

[ORH_wxman]

5 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

 Someone should do a climate change special (TV) on our last few posts...since we seem to be hitting the nail on the head.  Most other speculation out there is rather 'scattered'. 

And funny how it's not bigger storms causing the problem, but smaller ones.

Lookout, even scattered areas on Long Island at this very moment are going thru this hit-or-miss type flooding.  4 to 5 inches today...while the rest of the area is sunny.

http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=LSR&issuedby=OKX

That would be pretty cool if there was good empirical evidence for going back to a climate of 3.6m years ago. 

 

But unfortunately that breaks down pretty fast.   Believe me, I'm all for some good extremist theories. But they usually break down fast under empirical evidence. Almost every single extreme theory for climate change is based on modeling and not empirical evidence. The exception may be Arctic sea ice going faster than thought which is why I post on it a lot. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

18 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Believe me, I'm all for some good extremist theories. But they usually break down fast under empirical evidence. Almost every single extreme theory for climate change is based on modeling and not empirical evidence.

 

BHS and I are reflecting on current trends and what's currently going on around the world...and has been for the last several years. 

Nothing about modeling.

[Bhs1975]

4 hours ago, Bacon Strips said:

 

BHS and I are reflecting on current trends and what's currently going on around the world...and has been for the last several years. 

Nothing about modeling.

Unfortunately it's looking like the models are underestimating the climate sensitivity to CO2 and we are all ready going to see significant warming from what's in the atmosphere now. We really need to start thinking about an international effort to start pulling it out of the air on a global scale. We can't just wait and see if the models are right or not because by then it would be too late.