Re: Is the Hills' flood possible?

In a message dated 6/8/2006 6:48:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
glennmorton@entouch.net writes:
I would like to add to Phil, when he gets back that he should not ignore my
(and David
Sieman's) physical objections to this theory. David's note shows that there
is a big problem
with rolling (as I had noted in my original post). And David brings up
another excellent
point, the velocity of the water. He is right. As I interpret the following
passage, the mean
river velocity for rivers not in flood stage, is about 4 mph, but the Hill's
have a whole
region in flood for a year. Surely the velocity would be higher than 4mph.
I won't ignore it, Glenn. I was at a conference all week and unable to
respond to much e-mail.

The proper way to critique Alan Hill's hydrology would be to point out why
his model was (1) wrong, or (2) improperly applied. I doubt that (1) is
possible since he used the standard hydrology model that is used by hydrologists
studying rivers, unless he made an error coding it into the computer. If he did
make a coding error, then you would need to point out specifically where his
error was, or else try to duplicate his work and show that you get different
results.

Saying "surely the velocity would be higher" is not an acceptable critique of
the standard hydrology model or of Alan's application of it. Maybe you can
find that he misapplied the model somehow.

best regards,
Phil
Received on Thu Jun 8 20:27:26 2006