- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What major US city (like top 50) would fare best?
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:05 pm to CharlesLSU
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:05 pm to CharlesLSU
quote:
I'd surmise Seattle would do better than the average bear simply due to dealing with consistent rain fall.
Their rainfall is more like a constant mist and they still don't receive the highest rainfall totals in the USA. Not even in the top 10.
quote:
The 10 rainiest cities in the U.S. by amount of annual rainfall include:
Mobile, Ala.: 67 inches average annual rainfall; 59 average annual rainy days
Pensacola, Fla.: 65 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
New Orleans, La.: 64 inches average annual rainfall; 59 average annual rainy days
West Palm Beach, Fla.: 63 inches average annual rainfall; 58 average annual rainy days
Lafayette, La.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 55 average annual rainy days
Baton Rouge, La.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
Miami, Fla.: 62 inches average annual rainfall; 57 average annual rainy days
Port Arthur, Texas: 61 inches average annual rainfall; 51 average annual rainy days
Tallahassee, Fla.: 61 inches average annual rainfall; 56 average annual rainy days
Lake Charles, La.: 58 inches average annual rainfall; 50 average annual rainy days
0
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:05 pm to CharlesLSU
quote:
I'd surmise Seattle would do better than the average bear simply due to dealing with consistent rain fall.
Seattle gets less rain than Houston in a year. They are below the annual average for the US.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:05 pm to SwatMitchell
Maybe Miami. But I don't believe any major city would do well with 50" of rain. Flat. Coastal. Mountains. Mud. That is 4 ft. of water that either stands or has to go somewhere.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:06 pm to NYNolaguy1
But people (included yourself) have said Chicago like 5 times. I don't see why it would fair better and likely worse than other cities on a coastline. Chicago is flatter than Kiera Knightley.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:07 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
My first thought was Miami or Tampa
It is def not Tampa. We get flooded streets with an inch of heavy rain.
This post was edited on 8/31/17 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:10 pm to LasVegasTiger
quote:
Umm, Vegas, Phoenix
shite no, people die here when it rains half of an inch in flash floods.
Isn't there a train underpass either on Washington or Bonanza that has a big dip down? It always collected a lot of water and people would try to drive through and drown.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:11 pm to SwatMitchell
The answer has to be one of the cities on the gulf coast that actually experience a lot of rain. The soil and plant life has as much to do with this as anything, so a region that experiences this type of rain would be more well suited.
Nothing inland could handle that type of rain at all.
Honestly, my answer to this is probably still Houston. I just don't think any city can handle 2-4 ft of rain properly. Miami is up there too.
Nothing inland could handle that type of rain at all.
Honestly, my answer to this is probably still Houston. I just don't think any city can handle 2-4 ft of rain properly. Miami is up there too.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:11 pm to jmarto1
What about Honolulu?
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:13 pm to OMLandshark
My thought process was that its next to an infinite sink. Theres no upper limit for how much the lake can hold, as compared to say Buffalo Bayou.
I could see some temporary flooding like Sandy for NYC, but there would be no back up like you see in Houston.
I could see some temporary flooding like Sandy for NYC, but there would be no back up like you see in Houston.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:13 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
But people (included yourself) have said Chicago like 5 times. I don't see why it would fair better and likely worse than other cities on a coastline. Chicago is flatter than Kiera Knightley.
Yeah I don't think people are grasping how much rain we are talking about
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:19 pm to Hacker
quote:
Phoenix,
LOL a tropical depression brought arizona to its knees, The remains of Hurricane Norbert butt farked them, and it was no more than a depression then.
they do not have the sewer system for heavy rains, and i doubt vegas does either. they would both be fricked.
Do some of you even watch the news???
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:21 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Yeah I don't think people are grasping how much rain we are talking about
Theres a whole science behind who floods and when (hydrology). Its been a few years since I took it in college, but it comes down to 1)amount of rainfall coming down vs 2)local geography and ability to drain. Part of that is city infrastructure, but part of it is what surfaces are impervious to water, and how much flow can your outflow channels, rivers, creeks, etc can hold.
My point is that given NYC and to a lesser extent Chicagos high proportion of impervious surfaces coupled with proximity to large bodies of water that wont back up due to high water, and then youll have high immediate flooding that drains relatively quickly.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:24 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Honestly, my answer to this is probably still Houston. I just don't think any city can handle 2-4 ft of rain properly. Miami is up there too.
I love Houston but there needs to be a better effort to build retention ponds, green spaces/rain gardens, and green roofs.
I did see a company is starting to do ball moss roofs LINK
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:25 pm to Hacker
quote:
Umm, Vegas, Phoenix,
???
Deserts do not handle torrential rains well at all. The ground is essentially baked and doesn't allow much to be absorbed so it all stays on the surface. The only reason Vegas might do well with strictly rain is because of the number of tall hotels that could be used as shelters.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:27 pm to NYNolaguy1
I'm confident New York could handle a flood like this over Chicago, especially when you get outside of Manhattan.
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:27 pm to MLCLyons
Honolulu would be my first thought, could drain into the ocean and people could just surf away to stay out of the rising waters
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:30 pm to NYNolaguy1
Here is an article discussing flooding in the Chicago area from 5-8 inches in a 24 hour period, 2-3 inches of rain per hour at the highest rate.
LINK
Houston received 15-25 inches in a 24 hr period (twice) and peak of 5-6 inches per hour.
I'm sure Chicago would handle it better than Houston, but there would still be large scale flooding and lots of damage
LINK
Houston received 15-25 inches in a 24 hr period (twice) and peak of 5-6 inches per hour.
I'm sure Chicago would handle it better than Houston, but there would still be large scale flooding and lots of damage
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:32 pm to Hacker
quote:
Phoenix,
That place would flood with 2" of rain
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:40 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
I am going San Francisco. Sure there are parts that are going to get 20 feet deep, but there is a lot of elevation. Places like the Marina district and probably Mission are going to get wasted, but Presido, Castro, Nob Hill, Pacific Heights should be fine. Most water is going to drain away from center.
No way. The rainfall stats over the past 20 years are as follows. 50" in a couple of days would obliterate all the high areas via mudslides and the low areas via flooding. Shoreline would come in a LOT, taking out everything from the Marina to the Embarcadero all the way around to Hunters Point. Basically the only places I think that would be fair are the ones kind of in the "middle" of the hilly areas like the Outer Richmond and Outer Sunset areas
Rainfall stats of SF 1997 - 2016:
AVG = 23.73"
MAX = 47.22"
MIN = 12.54"
MEDIAN = 23.38
My vote is Portland. Rainy 9 months out of the year and drainage via the Columbia and Willamette Rivers--as long as they don't swell crazy out of their banks
This post was edited on 8/31/17 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 8/31/17 at 12:54 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
Here is an article discussing flooding in the Chicago area from 5-8 inches in a 24 hour period, 2-3 inches of rain per hour at the highest rate.
from Eric berger of space city weather
quote:
But this was not normal rainfall; it was extreme tropical rainfall. Meteorologists measure rainfall rates in inches per hour at a given location. A rainfall rate of 0.5 inches per hour is heavy, while anything above 2.0 inches per hour is intense (you'd probably stop your car on a highway, pull over, and wait out the passing storm). Over Clear Creek near where I live, from 11pm to 1am that night, 10.6 inches of rain fell, about as much rainfall as New York City gets from October through December. That happened in two hours.
he next night, the heaviest band of rainfall set up over western Houston, where affluent suburbs are generally protected by two large reservoirs. The Addicks and Barker facilities were built before World War II following devastating floods in Houston. Combined they have a capacity to store about 400,000 acre-feet of water, or about the same amount of water that goes over Niagara Falls in 10 days.
The reservoirs filled up for the first time ever during Harvey, forcing the US Army Corps of engineers to release water into bayous that were already flooded, worsening conditions downstream in central Houston. Dramatically, this occurred near the very height of the storm. It seems insane, but this was the best of several bad options. Had the Corps not done this, the dam walls might have failed, leading to a catastrophic release of a wall of water as much as 100 feet high.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News