My screenshot from the BBC ...I think I'm glad I don't live there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13401894
That's a huge amount of land that's going to be underwater :eek:
Is it not fascinating and exciting to see water showing coming down some dry creak-bed? Or hear and see a wall of water arrive in a flash flood?
It annoys me that all this predicted flooding is occurring over and over and no one bothers to document the water's actual approach.
I think it would be gripping footage to show a huge field, or a school, or town, and this little tongue of water, a harbinger, creeping relentlessly forward to swallow it all.:eek:
There should be some time-laps shots of this happening too.
I noticed this paragraph:
Just one bay was opened on Saturday, allowing 10,000 cubic ft of water per second to pass. Within 30 minutes, 100 acres of land were under a foot of water, the Associated Press reported.
But, at that rate, that water should have covered 413 acres one foot deep in 30 minutes.
They need to teach those reporters some math.
The land is surely uneven. Some parts were a foot deep, some parts were a few inches, and who knows which parts they were averaging or discounting... but I don't disagree that the math requirements for a journalism degree are minimal at best.
I guess that brings up the question of how they determined it was 100 acres and 1 foot deep.
An investigative journalist would have been out there with a Gunter's chain and a theodolite.
Or they could have been approximating.
An investigative journalist would have been out there with a Gunter's chain and a theodolite.
...unless it was Geraldo Rivera, in which case he would have been out there with a cheap Hawaiian shirt and a bad case of hysteria.