what peaked my interest, and i have not yet seen on facebook, is the "could be imminent" super-storm of california. can "could be" and "imminent" really be in the same sentence?. whether or not it's a scenario or an incoming fact, i'm a bit surprised that less people care about a storm that may be 5x stronger than a major earthquake and are more interested in the fact the fat kardashian is going to change her hair color and the skinny kardashian who is not kim is also as hot as kim when you see her in a bikini.
i know facebook is not supposed to be a newspaper, but seriously?
here we go:
According to this new report, experts say that the state of California is at risk of being hit by a massive “superstorm” that could potentially flood a quarter of the state’s homes and cause upwards of $400 billion in damage. Great.according to the meteorologists, this is nothing to worry about. but anyone who lives in san francisco has probably already gotten into the habit of trusting weather forecasts about as much as they trust the homeless man who swears his daughter is in kidney surgery and he just needs $8 to bart his way to the hospital because his car was towed and he left his wallet in the vehicle.
Researchers say that the scale of destruction from this storm could be up to five times the amount of damage that is brought on by a major earthquake.Yes, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey are currently in the process of alerting federal and state emergency officials that these types of “superstorms” have hit California before.
Marcia McNutt, USGS Director, says that a 300-mile stretch of California’s Central Valley was flooded from 1861-62. The flood waters were so bad, the state capital was moved to San Francisco, and Governor Leland Stanford was forced to take a rowboat to his own inauguration.
Geological evidence also reveals that even bigger storms have hit in 212, 440, 603, 1029, 1418, and 1605.
A “superstorm” such as the one USGS officials are describing could last for up to 40 days and dump more than 10 feet of water on the state. Interestingly enough, the storm is being referred to in the official report an ARkStorm, which they say stands for “Atmospheric River 1,000″ as opposed to anything of a biblical nature.
[read more]
sidenote: a homeless man told me that on judgment day i will not make it into heaven because i refused to give him and his homeless friend a cigarette. i told him i would not make it into heaven because i'm jewish. then he told me to think about whether or not i wanted to live that kind of life.anyway, whether or not the meteorologists are correct in their laissez-faire style of thought, are the same people who worried facebook was shutting down march 15th legitimately unconcerned by even a potential storm of that caliber? even in the back of my mind, i've often wondered whether or not that homeless man really did have a dying daughter and if i was just one more rude citizen who aided in her slow death. but i'll be honest: when it comes to floods, earthquakes, and natural disasters of that sort, i worry a little more. i would just hate to see the day the tsunami warning signs (above) stop being humorous and start seeming like overlooked foreshadowing.
besides, i was never very good at swimming.
if the atmosphere river storm 7000-- or whatever it's called-- does happen, and san francisco doesn't sink, you are all welcome to kayak up to my apartment on nob hill-- where the water hopefully will not flood. we can play scrabble and drink whiskey and listen to some cat stevens.
maybe i'll make a facebook event for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment