despite climate change, white privilege, capitalism, Trump, conservatives, the tea party, greedy insurance people, the NRA, and the vast right wing conspiracy, I was able to successfully solve this puzzle.

For the record, it was aptly classified as Easy.

Done

Done. ng, ng.

I don't want to get in the middle of anything, but I must admit to being a dummy. What is GFY? Thanks. Unless I am missing the point entirely and it stands for Good For You? thanks

@KT "actually motivated to change one's thinking " -- well that is one of the hardest things to do for people anyway. It took Katherine Hayhoe, a Canadian climate scientist working in the US, more than two years to chnage that of her husband on the topic of climate change. He shared the same views as you and TallMike and others here. It is a stroy worth reading - just Google her name.

TallMike I will definitely read The Human Age. Just finished reading a bunch of review but now I am mystified. Or just plain stupid. The WAPO review of her book includes "The strengths on show in “The Human Age” do make navigating the thick prose worth the effort. Facing head-on the trauma we cause to our planet is a grim task. The optimism Ackerman conveys shouldn’t lull us into complacency, and she does not mean for it to. Her words invite us to feel the hope she feels: “We can become Earth-restorers and Earth-guardians. We still have time and talent, and we have a great many choices.” " So I repeat my boring points over and over at the risk of becoming boring because many people and a whole political party reject climate science and to reject climate science causes us to not do the things Ackerman writes about in her book to save the planet.

Joey, GFY stands for " go F yourself ". It's an angry response, not a pat on the back.

Tuco, the smiley face following your obscenity was more like a certain finger than ppp

...than an attempt at humour

Scratch the ppp

Civilised discussions please ladies and gents. You can disagree and feel passionate but no need for rudeness and intolerance.

Start

Yes it is an an angry response, and yes I was angry, and I believe rightfully so. But the smiley face was not meant as a middle finger. Plus Jainie still not sure what argument I was losing. I was replying to someone's personal criticism of me, not an argument about any specific topic.

ding

So I post a link to the explanation of what is meant by 10,000 year floods supporting Penguin's claim of hearing it reported as that and TallMike has been questioning and what do we get back, snarky comments. No "thanks for pointing that out Tuco, I guess it is possible that Penguin could have heard that". Sweet.

Knight,
It is apparent that people do write what Tuco writes. Apparently you do or you would not have responded to him at all. And it appears to upset you when you are presented with information that disagrees with your beliefs. May I suggest either ignoring Tuco going forward, in which case I might be his only reader (which will likely not be the case) or respond to the issues he raises instead of ad hominem attacks.
Thank you.

Mike,
First, and thanks to Tuco for pointing out this out, it was probably a ten thousand year rainfall event. See the link that Tuco provided.
Second, I was listening while I was driving in traffic, so I was not taking notes. Details? No. The 10,000 year figure stuck in my brain as being extraordinary. I am guessing that it was the second 10,000 year rainfall event in two years.
And there was ten inches of rain in Galveston County TX in December of last year.
Third, yes, extreme weather events add to our long term climate data. This does provide the evidence that climate change is occurring. As I understand things it is not evidence, by itself, that this climate change is caused by humans. The causal evidence is from comparisons of historic amounts of different elements and chemicals in the atmosphere which has changed radically coincident with the growth of human population and the human industrial revolution.
Finally, I agree with you that some of the regulations and tax code provide the wrong incentives which result in people building in flood prone areas. Without those incentives it is likely that many would still build there because waterfront views are beautiful and because the human population keeps growing. So it comes down to three possibilities: a) have regulations in place that increase the likelihood of these buildings survival as increasingly severe storms continue, so paying more up front. b) remove the regulations and pay massive amounts for cleanup after increasingly severe storms create devastation. c) ignore it and see the poor and the elderly suffer while the wealthy take care of themselves. I favor a).

Mike,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43s5Zlh\nuyjs
is a video of Amy Goodman interviewing former NASA scientist and climate expert James Hansen yesterday. Right from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

and remove the \n as usual

Penguin, you missed something about the document linked by tuco:
http://www.weather.gov/ffc/0909historic\nrain
If you read the document carefully, you will see that it relates only to a small, defined area: North Georgia. It provides a table showing the probabilities of various amounts of rain in a 24 hour period in North Georgia. Immediately below the table is a paragraph expanding on what would have been the next line in the table:
10.0 INCHES IS 0.01 PERCENT...10000 YEAR RAIN EVENT
It is saying that 10 inches or more of rain occurring in a 24 hour period IN NORTH GEORGIA would constitute a 10000 year rain event. That doesn't mean what tuco would have us believe, that 10 inches or more of rain occurring in a 24 hour period in some other area of the U.S. would be a 10000 year rain event. In fact, it is rather obvious that the probability of 10 inches of rain in a 24 hour period varies widely with the location, and is much more likely in North Georgia than in an equivalent area of, say, Northern Arizona. What is a bit less obvious until you think about it is that the probability of 10 inches of rain in a 24 hour period also depends on the size of the area being considered - the bigger the area, the higher the probability, and the lower the "x-year event" number.

Let's get the statistics right before claiming that we have proof of our assertions.

Penguin, why do you say there are only three possibilities for reducing our exposure to flooding catastrophes? For example, why not simply prohibit building or rebuilding residential properties in flood prone areas?

I agree with TallMike. I posted what I did to show what the criteria would be to have a storm classified as a 10000 year event. If it was rare for coastal TX to receive 10 inches of rain over a 24 hour period then Harvey could be classified as a 10000 year event. However since Harvey is not classified as such it means the likelyhood of coastal TX getting hit like this again is much higher than it is in GA, AZ, NY, etc.

Done EXPZ

TallMike someone tried to do what you suggest. And someone else rolled it back. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/\nobama-administration-federal-flood-standards-\n000154

Rollback. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-signed-away-oba\nmas-flood-risk-rules-weeks-hurricane-harvey-h\nit-655712

I am not saying Trump caused Harvey so don't go there.

Penguin, re the YouTube link you posted, I also found the text version helpful:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/\n30/ex_nasa_scientist_james_hansen_there
As always, remove any occurrences of \n from the URL.
Personally I am unimpressed by the interview, especially because climate scientists are still collecting and studying the data from Harvey in order to determine the precise combination of causal factors involved, and yet James Hansen acts as though all the analysis has been completed. He clearly enjoys the limelight and seems to be an expert at weaving together a collection of imprecise ideas, unsupported claims and incomplete arguments. Not at all what I would need to see in order to attach much value to his assertions. But that's just my opinion.

tuco, when you posted the link about 10,000 year rain events you said, "According to this link any rainfall of 10 inches or more in a 24 hour period is a 10,000 year rain event." You did not say anything about your statement being specific to a particular location and area, and you posted it right after my discussion with Penguin about whether Harvey was a 10,000 year event. There was a clear implication that you believed that the linked document proved that Harvey was a 10,000 year event. For you now to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Not so easy. Cute stuff. 18.

My intention was not to claim otherwise. My intention was to show it was possible that rainfall of that amount can be considered a 10000 year event. I was wrong to link it to Harvey since rainfall of that amount is more common in the Harvey area. You are correct TallMike.

Depending on where Penguin was and what he was listening to it was very possible that they were linking rainfall amounts of what was falling from Harvey with their local rainfalls and saying rainfalls of that amount are 10000 year events in that location. Not being disingenuous just backing up that Penguin heard what he heard.

Looking at it differently I am glad these kinds of storms don't hit where I live. Donating to Red Cross tonight. I think these kinds of storms would probably be a 100,000 year event around here.

Mike,
The context of what I wrote is that the person on the radio did refer to the 10,000 year figure. I've already apologized for not remembering the details and don't think I should owe further apologies on this. It is not relevant to the real problem. The only aspect of that detail that I find important is that storms appear to be getting stronger. That is related to climate change.

Mike
You ask why I only listed three possibilities. You ask about prohibiting building in flood prone areas. That's certainly possible but I doubt it will occur because of the reasons I cited, growing human population and folks find such areas desirable. And it strikes me as being harsher than requiring buildings in flood zones to meet safety requirements (as the current administration just undid).

Regarding the James Hansen interview, I would just note that it was not a scientific paper. He was describing his opinions based on the science. The body of published work on climate science does, as I understand things, support his claims.
And I am not claiming to be a climate scientist. Most of the climate scientists are on the same page that climate change is occurring. Most of the opposition to this seems to be from folks with political motivations or from think tanks funded by conventional energy companies. Being neither a scientist nor a politician, I'll believe the scientists who have studied it a lot more than I have.

Tuco,

Tuco,
http://noredcross.org lists why my support for the victims of Harvey is going through other organizations.

done

Thanks Penguin