Mud slide

[Big Bob]

Some of the pictures I have seen of the washed out sections of East Mnt Road show the gravel base of the road. It looks like 4' of crushed ledge, maybe 2" minus. When Vt rebuilt the road in the Bethel area along the White River, Rt 106?, the imported larger chunks of blasted ledge for fill. Suitcase to basketball size. This stuff will not wash away as quickly as the finer material. Maybe that is what the town should look at. Cover the top with choke stone and maybe 6" of 2' minus gravel, then pave. Even if the top surface washes away it should still be passable. And much larger driveway culvert pipes. I read where engineers underdesign drainage or 50 year events, is this true Stormchaser?

Truth is for driveways; most aren't even engineered. In municipal roadways, culverts are likely only designed to handle what's been called a 10- or 25-year storm... Problem is that rainfall intensities have increased over the last 50 years and what was a 10-year, or 25-year storm is much more frequent today. Used to be once every ten years you'd get a rainstorm that produced 4.5" of r*in in 24 hours. But now due to increased intensities, now you get that storm once every 2 years. So what was a 10-year storm, is now a 2-year storm...but that nomenclature hasn't been revised, so you hear people say things like 'we got two 50-year storm events in a ten-year period'...which is kind of a misnomer. Doesn't help that most culvert design is still based on rainfall intensity mapping from 1961.

And don't get me started on 50-, 100-, and 500- year flood events. Calling something a '500-year flood event', again is an even bigger misnomer. What that event actually is...a r*in event that creates flooding of that extent has a likely occurrence of 0.2 percent in any given year (1/500). So add up all the 0.2% chances in a 500-year period and you end up with a 100% chance it will happen at least once, and thus the '500-year flood' designation. But dumbing it down like that makes it harder to understand that you can easily have more than one event of that magnitude in a 500-year span, as there is a chance every year (0.2%) for this event to occur. They should call it annual 0.2% flood chance. That's easier to understand.

If I remeber correctly some of the radar estimates where 4" in an HOUR from this event!

[rogman]

And don't get me started on 50-, 100-, and 500- year flood events. Calling something a '500-year flood event', again is an even bigger misnomer. What that event actually is...a r*in event that creates flooding of that extent has a likely occurrence of 0.2 percent in any given year (1/500). So add up all the 0.2% chances in a 500-year period and you end up with a 100% chance it will happen at least once, and thus the '500-year flood' designation.

First part is correct, second part is not. If there is a 0.2% chance of an event happening in a given year, there is also a 99.8% (0.998) chance of it not happening. The odds of it not happening for 2 years are therefore (0.998 x 0.998), a slightly smaller number (thus greater odds of the event happening). For 500 years, the odds of it not happening are (0.998)^500 (0.998 multiplied by itself 500 times), which works out to about 37% chance of it not happening. In other words there's a 63% chance of there being a 500 year event in a given 500 year window. Not 100%.

Of course these numbers are a bit fishy to begin with; we don't have records for this area going back to 1523. What does exist are records for a shorter period of time. Sorted and binned, this allows a histogram of rainfall intensities, which in all likelihood contain no examples of this kind of storm. What can be done is a curve fit of the long tail of this plot to try and determine its probability. Statistical guess work.

What is well known is that climate change has heated the higher latitudes disproportionately to the lower latitudes. This decreases the temperature differential between those two areas and the net result is that storms move slower, allowing more time to dump r*in on a specific locale. In addition, warmer temperatures allow the air to hold more moisture, also allowing more r*in to fall. Thus, regardless of the existing statistics, this is no longer a 500 year event, the odds of it happening again are larger and increasing.

[Heywood jablowmee]

FYI Beast Pass is no good for The Mud Slide.

[GlenPLake]

FYI Beast Pass is no good for The Mud Slide.

The mudslide is ‘reserved’

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

There Are No Such Things As 100-Year Floods: Global Warming Isn’t Making Floods Worse
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39516/

Lots of folks seem to be suggesting that the floods this month, while utterly horrifying, are somehow “unprecedented,” “unnatural” and caused by human impacts.

The idea of a “500 year event,” as used in modern meteorology, or climate analysis is truly odd.

Probability is wholly conditional. A MODEL is generated that seeks to make equations that quantify all the components of the system that need to be considered in the analysis. The model can then be used to generate the probability of a given event occurring in a given time span.

You CANNOT produce a functional model of catastrophic r*in events from first principles in meteorology (physics/ chemistry/ etc). You can try. It will not be artfully predictive.
.
Alternately you can look at long term data. You can look at historical data and try to find patterns in it that correlate with various other components of our climate system.

So, it has been suggested that these recent flood events, are “unprecedented” (NOT true) and somehow correlate with a warmer New England, which somehow correlates with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Here is the ACTUAL USHCN station data for St Johnsbury since station opened. Those are monthly maximum temperatures, just showing when things got hot there. If you somehow see a rising trend in this part of Vermont… seek help.

https://realclimatetools.com/apps/graph ... =0&units=F

SAINT-JOHNSBURY-.png (66.45 KiB) Viewed 1184 times

How about INCREASED FLOODING EVENTS?
Following is a link to USGS River Flow Guage data for Vermont
Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment: Flood History of Vermont Rivers
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources April, 2004 https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files ... istory.pdf
(wish it had the last two floods for comparison…but you get the data you can, I guess)
None of the charts for the various rivers (I know its only to 2004… but SURELY if the bedwetters are correct you could see clear trends before 2004… think of ALL that “atmospheric carbon!” ) show any trend for increasing flood severity.

I am making some posts about various historical flooding events that occurred in New England well before carbon dioxide got over 300ppm. The 1927 flood was stunning. Hard to quantify these events unambiguously (disaster in some watersheds, mild flooding in others) but the 27 flood seems worse.

s-l960.jpg (124.34 KiB) Viewed 1184 times

Here are a few leads to look at:
HISTORIC FLOODS IN THE NORTHEAST :
Upon reviewing these cases, it can be seen that flooding can occur at any time of year, and can result from many different types of meteorological events. In general, a single large rainfall event may be sufficient to cause minor to moderate flooding. However, the largest floods in the northeast have generally been caused by two large storms falling in a 7 day period. It should also be remebered that all 6 inch rainstorms are not equal. A six inch r*in in April, accompanied by snowmelt and wet soil conditions will have a much larger impact on the rivers than a 6 inch r*in in August when soil conditions are normally much dryer and the vegetative cover consumes a large portion of the precipitation.
https://www.weather.gov/nerfc/HistoricFloods#
Date Event Description
November 1996 Record flooding occurred just west of Lake Champlain following a 5-8 inch rainfall
March/April 1987 Heavy r*ins combined with snowmelt resulted in major flooding throughout New England.
June 1982 Up to 16 inches of rainfall resulted in major flooding throughout Connecticut
June 1972 Hurricane Agnes moved up the East Coast. While the most significant damages were along the Susquehanna River basin, major flooding was also reported along the Genesee River in Western New York
March 1968 Heavy r*in combined with snowmelt caused small river flooding in southeast New England
August 1955 Hurricanes Connie and Diane came a week apart to batter most of New England with the most significant flooding recorded at many locations.
January 1949 A New Years Day storm resulted in flooding principally in the Hudson Valley
September 1938 Widespread 10 inch rainfall caused by a hurricane resulted in major flooding throughout the Connecticut River valley
March 1936 Heavy r*in and melting snow caused major flooding throughout the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states
November 1927 A late season tropical system produced record flooding in Vermont
AND THE BEST RESOURCE …so far…
HISTORICAL FLOODS IN NEW ENGLAND
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1779m/report.pdf

[HelmetCam]

There Are No Such Things As 100-Year Floods: Global Warming Isn’t Making Floods Worse

Thanks but maybe this fits better in the 219 page Climate Change thread.

Anybody have any pictures of the Valley Plunge / East Mountain Road / Bear Mountain road mess? I didn't see anything online. The Mountain Times can learn a few things from vtdigger in the photo department.

[rogman]

There Are No Such Things As 100-Year Floods: Global Warming Isn’t Making Floods Worse
https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/39516/

Lots of folks seem to be suggesting that the floods this month, while utterly horrifying, are somehow “unprecedented,” “unnatural” and caused by human impacts.

The idea of a “500 year event,” as used in modern meteorology, or climate analysis is truly odd.

Probability is wholly conditional. A MODEL is generated that seeks to make equations that quantify all the components of the system that need to be considered in the analysis. The model can then be used to generate the probability of a given event occurring in a given time span.

You CANNOT produce a functional model of catastrophic r*in events from first principles in meteorology (physics/ chemistry/ etc). You can try. It will not be artfully predictive.
.
Alternately you can look at long term data. You can look at historical data and try to find patterns in it that correlate with various other components of our climate system.

So, it has been suggested that these recent flood events, are “unprecedented” (NOT true) and somehow correlate with a warmer New England, which somehow correlates with more atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Here is the ACTUAL USHCN station data for St Johnsbury since station opened. Those are monthly maximum temperatures, just showing when things got hot there. If you somehow see a rising trend in this part of Vermont… seek help.

https://realclimatetools.com/apps/graph ... =0&units=F
SAINT-JOHNSBURY-.png
How about INCREASED FLOODING EVENTS?
Following is a link to USGS River Flow Guage data for Vermont
Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment: Flood History of Vermont Rivers
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources April, 2004 https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files ... istory.pdf
(wish it had the last two floods for comparison…but you get the data you can, I guess)
None of the charts for the various rivers (I know its only to 2004… but SURELY if the bedwetters are correct you could see clear trends before 2004… think of ALL that “atmospheric carbon!” ) show any trend for increasing flood severity.

I am making some posts about various historical flooding events that occurred in New England well before carbon dioxide got over 300ppm. The 1927 flood was stunning. Hard to quantify these events unambiguously (disaster in some watersheds, mild flooding in others) but the 27 flood seems worse.
s-l960.jpg
Here are a few leads to look at:
HISTORIC FLOODS IN THE NORTHEAST :
Upon reviewing these cases, it can be seen that flooding can occur at any time of year, and can result from many different types of meteorological events. In general, a single large rainfall event may be sufficient to cause minor to moderate flooding. However, the largest floods in the northeast have generally been caused by two large storms falling in a 7 day period. It should also be remebered that all 6 inch rainstorms are not equal. A six inch r*in in April, accompanied by snowmelt and wet soil conditions will have a much larger impact on the rivers than a 6 inch r*in in August when soil conditions are normally much dryer and the vegetative cover consumes a large portion of the precipitation.
https://www.weather.gov/nerfc/HistoricFloods#
Date Event Description
November 1996 Record flooding occurred just west of Lake Champlain following a 5-8 inch rainfall
March/April 1987 Heavy r*ins combined with snowmelt resulted in major flooding throughout New England.
June 1982 Up to 16 inches of rainfall resulted in major flooding throughout Connecticut
June 1972 Hurricane Agnes moved up the East Coast. While the most significant damages were along the Susquehanna River basin, major flooding was also reported along the Genesee River in Western New York
March 1968 Heavy r*in combined with snowmelt caused small river flooding in southeast New England
August 1955 Hurricanes Connie and Diane came a week apart to batter most of New England with the most significant flooding recorded at many locations.
January 1949 A New Years Day storm resulted in flooding principally in the Hudson Valley
September 1938 Widespread 10 inch rainfall caused by a hurricane resulted in major flooding throughout the Connecticut River valley
March 1936 Heavy r*in and melting snow caused major flooding throughout the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states
November 1927 A late season tropical system produced record flooding in Vermont
AND THE BEST RESOURCE …so far…
HISTORICAL FLOODS IN NEW ENGLAND
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1779m/report.pdf

IMG_4738.jpeg (125.86 KiB) Viewed 956 times

[newpylong1]

But he likely feels better now...

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

But he likely feels better now...

Yup crazy old man. Just making sh*t up. Took me weeks to photoshop these

VERMONT 1927

book.jpg (39.44 KiB) Viewed 794 times

27book.jpg (122.37 KiB) Viewed 794 times

prctr 27.jpg (102.38 KiB) Viewed 794 times

PROCTOR

proct27.jpg (167.37 KiB) Viewed 794 times

PROCTOR

proctr27.jpg (62.42 KiB) Viewed 794 times

PROCTOR

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

VERMONT 1927 CO2 < 300ppm

rtlnd.jpg (92.44 KiB) Viewed 792 times

RUTLAND

randolph 27.jpg (81.77 KiB) Viewed 792 times

RANDOLPH

mendon 27.jpg (91.24 KiB) Viewed 792 times

MENDON

gysvl 27.jpg (179.31 KiB) Viewed 792 times

GAYSVILLE

oldd.jpg (65.71 KiB) Viewed 792 times

ROYALTON

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

VERMONT 1927 CO2 < 300ppm
WINOOSKI FLOODING

27.jpg (167.36 KiB) Viewed 788 times

WATERBURY

mplier.jpg (56.01 KiB) Viewed 788 times

MONTPELIER

mplr 27.jpg (145.08 KiB) Viewed 788 times

MONTPELIER

mntplr27.jpg (91.13 KiB) Viewed 788 times

MONTPELIER

mp 27.jpg (33.21 KiB) Viewed 788 times

MONTPELIER

GOT LOTS MORE PICTURES FROM OTHER FLOODS (1883/ 1888/ 1900/ 1902 / 1909/ 1910/ 1912/ 1913 /1917/ 1920/ 1921/ 1936/ 1938/ 1944/ 1947/ 1960/ 1964/ 1973 / 1992) (I REMEMBER THE LAST TWO

BUT HOPEFULLY YOU GET THE POINT.

CO2 WAS BELOW 300ppm WHEN THIS HAPPENED

LOTS OF PEOPLE DIED.

THESE TYPES OF FLOODS ARE NOT RARE IN VERMONT'S HISTORY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK TOWARD ANYTHING BEYOND '"NATURAL CAUSES'"TO EXPLAIN THESE.
(if I am going to be accused of yelling.... I will)

[daytripper]

Isn't there already a thread for this discussion?

[f.a.s.t.]

Hello Sargent, I have to give you credit for trying to talk some sense into the ignorant, indoctrinated and narcissists' anarchist on Kzone? They are too far off the deep end to ever help them.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Isn't there already a thread for this discussion?

Well ... The "Mud Slide" was a MASSIVE event at Killington. I have a place at Sunrise so it matters to me and I am truly grateful for those that started this thread. It was a GREAT thread. I had no particular intent to "highjack" the thread and make it about climate.

But... when the conversation segwayed into "500 year events" and blaming this on "climate change" I felt the justification to push back against the developing narrative. I truly want to minimize the damage caused by these recurrent events, for everyone's sake. I think Vermonters are amazingly resilient folks who has been consistently brave and clever and impressive in response to flooding events. I love Vermont. I admire (most) Vermonters more than most other populations.

In my opinion, if people think the proper response to this is to blame "human induced climate change," the effect will be destructive. Instead of planning for future events which WILL OCCUR not matter what we do... we are told we will need to change over to EVs and mass transit. That is real wealth spent poorly. If we ignored the climate alarmists we would have cheaper energy, good for people of modest financial resources, and thus more available wealth to build resilient infrastructure.

In any case, sorry to have offended anyone by RESPONDING to claims about the impact of CO2 on the mudslide.

And... you gotta admit those are cool flooding pictures?

I actually have lots more,including a few books. I have been obsessed about flooding in Vermont since the 1973 floods destroyed my favorite tiny trout stream: Pinney Hollow Brook.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Hello Sargent, I have to give you credit for trying to talk some sense into the ignorant, indoctrinated and narcissists' anarchist on Kzone? They are too far off the deep end to ever help them.

Thanks. You have always been a voice of reason on this board.