Damaging Katrina-level storm surges are twice as likely in warm years

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 5:22 PM GMT on November 26, 2012

Share this Blog
43
+

Perhaps the most stunning images in the wake of Hurricane Sandy were the sight of the roller coaster from the Casino Pier in Seaside Heights, New Jersey lying in the Atlantic Ocean. The images reminded us that hurricane storm surges are capable of causing tremendous destruction along the coast, and one of the main concerns on how global warming might affect hurricanes is the potential for stronger hurricanes to create larger storm surges. We expect that global warming should make the strongest hurricanes stronger, since hurricanes are heat engines that take heat energy out of the ocean and converts it to wind energy. These stronger winds will be capable of piling up higher storm surges. However, it is controversial whether or not we have observed an increase in the strongest hurricanes, since hurricane winds are hard to observe. Our long-term hurricane data base is generally too low in quality and covers too short a period of time to make very good estimates of how climate change may be affecting hurricane winds. However, a new 2012 paper, "Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923" by Grinsted et al., looked at storm surge data from six tide gauges along the U.S. coast from Texas to New Jersey, and concluded that the number of moderately large hurricane and tropical storm surge events has increased since 1923. Moderately large storm surge events are on pace to nearly double by the year 2100, compared to 20th century levels. Moreover, 1-in-9 year to 1-in-30 year Katrina-level storm surge events are twice as likely to occur in warm years compared to cool years, and thus global warming may be able to dramatically increase the frequency of highly damaging extreme storm surge events. Since sea level is steadily rising due to global warming, these future storm surges will also be riding in on top of an elevated ocean surface, and will thus be able to do even greater damage than in the past. Expect to see many more shocking storm surge damage photos in the coming decades, unless we wise up, retreat from areas highly vulnerable to storm surge, and invest in increased shoreline protection measures.


Figure 1. The Casino Pier in Seaside Heights, N.J. taken during a search and rescue mission by 1-150 Assault Helicopter Battalion, New Jersey Army National Guard on Oct. 30, 2012. Image credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen.


Figure 2. Top: Observed long-term frequency of moderately large storm surge events from hurricanes and tropical storms measured at six tide gauges along the U.S. East Coast (inset map). The thick line is a 5-year moving average. These type of surge events occurred an average of 5.4 times/year between 1923 - 2008, and are on pace to increase to 9.5 events per year by 2100. Bottom: Departure of Earth's annual mean surface temperature from average, shaded to show warmer and colder than median temperatures. Large storm surge events increase in probability during warmer than average years. Image credit: Grinsted et al. 2012, "A homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923."

Using storm surge to evaluate damage normalization studies
Damage from landfalling storms can be used to estimate if hurricanes are growing stronger with time, but damage estimates must first be corrected to account for changes in wealth and population over time. A 2008 study by Pielke et al. found that although hurricane damages had been doubling every ten years in recent decades, there were no increases in normalized hurricane damages in the U.S. from 1900 - 2005. They used census and economic data to adjust for how increases in populations and wealth may have affected hurricane damages over time. However, Grinsted et al. (2012) questioned whether or not this was done correctly. They found that storm surge heights of U.S. hurricanes and tropical storms correlated very well with metrics that looked at storm intensity, when looking at many decades of data to see long-term trends. However, the researchers found that while short-term trends in normalized hurricane damage estimated by Pielke et al. (2008) did correlate well historical storm surges, these normalized damages had poor correlation with the storm surge record, when looking at decades-long time scales. This implies that the corrections were biased. Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia makes the case that efforts such as the one done by Pielke et al. (2008) to normalize disaster losses are probably biased too low, since they only look at factors that tend to increase disaster losses with time, but ignore factors that tend to decrease disaster losses. These ignored factors include improvements in building codes, better weather forecasts allowing more preparation time, and improved fire-fighting ability. He writes, "Most normalization research to date has not accounted for those variables because they are extremely difficult to quantify. (And most researchers have been at pains to point that out; e.g., Neumayer & Barthel, 2011, pp. 23-24.) In effect, normalization research to date largely rests on the oddly inconsistent pair of assumptions that (a) we have built up enormous wealth during the 20th century but (b) did so without any technological advance whatsoever." Grinsted et al. (2012) suggest that it may be possible to use their storm surge data to correct biased hurricane damage estimates, though. Take home message: studies showing no increase in normalized damage from storms have high uncertainty, and it is possible that higher economic damages due to stronger hurricanes are indeed occurring.

References
Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2012, "A homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923," PNAS 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1209542109

Pielke et al., 2008, "Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005", Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42.

Links
In this remarkable home video, 15-year-old Christofer Sochacki captures the evening high tide on the day Superstorm Sandy struck Union Beach, New Jersey. The later part of the video shows how high waves on top of a 8-foot storm surge can lead to a punishing assault on beach-front structures.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 180 - 130

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

snark.. cannot recall the last time I saw that in a sentence... not since the SM-62 anyway.

well done Nea..
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2564
Quoting indianrivguy:


You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?

Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Member Since: September 30, 2007 Posts: 9 Comments: 15940
Quoting RTSplayer:



The post-Andrew building code changes are insignificant compared to storm surge damage or tree-fall damage, neither of which are actually tested anyway.

The only thing tested in wind tunnels are "ordinary" direct wind and rain-water damage from hurricanes.


If you build a post-Andrew code house 100ft from the water, it will get washed away and demolished just as easily as a pre-Andrew house would.


The house I live in is at least three times as strong as a post-Andrew code house, and even it would probably get demolished by a Katrina or Sandy type storm surge if it was within a few miles of the coast.


The problem is as much or more "where" people are building as "what" or "how" they are building.


Besides all that, the post-Andrew code is itself a joke.

You can still take out a pocket knife and cut a hole through somebody's wall large enough to walk through within a few minutes in a "post-Andrew" home. It wouldn't protect you from a 100mph 2-by-4 any more than no wall at all, unless you got very lucky and the projectile hit the stud in the wall (about a 1/16 chance based on the area occupied).
Here is a link to some useful information you should read before making goofy statements

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
177. txjac
Quoting schwankmoe:


al gore's carbon footprint has nothing at all to do with the fact that climate change is real. nothing. at. all.

making al gore out to be some hypocritical bogeyman in order to help rationalize deliberate ignorance of the world around you is an example of exactly what i'm talking about.

al gore could decide tomorrow to drop off the grid and live in a greasy shack in montana with no electricity and it would mean nothing with respect to the reality of climate change. and come on, we all know that even if that happened deniers everywhere wouldn't reconsider anything.


It's called Lead by Example

Right now he's "Reaping What He Sows"

I've read some of the comments here where people have posted what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprints and I've posted what I have done to reduce mine. I've learned from people here. But I learn when I'm presented ideas and information in a positive manner. Sometimes you ask a question, seeking a response and you get ridiculed.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:



How many times will I remind you you will NEVER change anybody's mind talking like that...Just think, in all of your arguments, has anybody listened to you and actually come to your side?

Oh well you would probably say they are just stupid idiots and wouldn't come to the light for anything....
And just think how that snarky last sentence I wrote made you not want to listen to what I said either..
And just how many times must I remind you that I'm not here to change anyone's mind? I'm only here to post actual, substantiated, verifiable, empirical scientific facts; whether some choose to do their own research and ultimately accept those facts is entirely up to them, not me. Now, I will gladly and politely engage with those who are honestly curious or skeptical. But when confronting those who are only here to spout debunked anti-scientific nonsense, or disparage great scientists like Dr. Masters or James Hansen or Michael Mann, or sling mud and ad hominems at the forum's more respected members, or just play trollish games, I will ridicule them with as much snark as is allowable by the rules of the forum.

In short, I'm here to share, not to sway opinions or make friends or win a popularity contest. I'm actually surprised you asked; I thought I'd made all that pretty clear.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TomballTXPride:
If these storms had come ashore upon the Big Bend Region of Florida for instance, we would not be having this discussion.

Storm surges are causing more damage because more folks are building closer to the coast every year.

And if we use those 6 points that measure storm surge, we must use them all. Because isn't a bit too convenient that those 6 points that construct the graph all took on surges from hurricanes that hit them essentially head on (ie: Ike, Wilma, Katrina)?

Let's use all the gauges we have, then re-draw the graph. I'd be curious to see the results.


"Storm surges are causing more damage because more folks are building closer to the coast every year." This is true in the sense that our "improvements" to an area usually comes at the cost to the natural barriers that were in place before. Anything from trying to control The Mighty Mississippi River to building on barrier islands and in marsh areas. I think that a better way to evaluate if storm surges are becoming stronger than in the past is to examine their impact on unpopulated coastal areas that are subject to a storm surge. We could just look at the damage to the land itself. The one "gotcha" is there are very, very few of these regions left unpopulated. We can adjust for the dollar value of man made progress in these regions, but are we able to fully account for damages to the land by man prior to the damages to the land by the surge? We work with what we have. Either have everyone leave the coastal areas to be more accurate in the study of the storm surge damage to the land, or you factor in as best as you can.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I need to add my 2 cents to the 'Carbon footprint'.Why in this country are 'Energy savers' more in cost? Why does Geothermal, solar and wind cost soooooo much more? Why does my trash cost the same even though I recycle? Why does a toilet that only flushes 1.6 cost sooooo much more?FOOTPRINT.... give me the incentives to move beyond the economics to make this actually happen.Did the closed cell insulation in this old house... cost me my arm and both legs! I am warm, but that 1,000 gallon oil tank sucks! Love my woodstove. It seems our European friends are much more advanced to this. When we get over the fact that bigger is not necessarily better!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sorry if already posted

MESOSCALE DISCUSSION 2123
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
0334 PM CST MON NOV 26 2012

AREAS AFFECTED...NERN TX...NRN LA...EXTREME SRN AR

CONCERNING...SEVERE POTENTIAL...WATCH POSSIBLE

VALID 262134Z - 262300Z

PROBABILITY OF WATCH ISSUANCE...60 PERCENT

SUMMARY...THUNDERSTORMS ARE FORECAST TO DEVELOP ACROSS NERN TX...NRN
LA AND EXTREME SRN AR LATE THIS AFTERNOON AND EVENING. ACTIVITY WILL
EVENTUALLY EVOLVE INTO A LINE AS A COLD FRONT ADVANCES EWD ACROSS
THE AREA. STORMS WILL PRIMARILY POSE A DAMAGING WIND AND LARGE HAIL
THREAT. A WW MAY NEED TO BE ISSUED DURING THE NEXT COUPLE OF HOURS.

DISCUSSION...MESOANALYSIS AT 21Z PLACES A SURFACE LOW IN FAR NERN
TX...WITH A WARM FRONT SLOWLY RETREATING EWD INTO CNTRL PORTIONS OF
LA...AND A COLD FRONT ADVANCING E-SEWD ACROSS CNTRL TX. AMPLE
SUNSHINE HAS AIDED IN WARM SECTOR TEMPERATURES WARMING INTO THE 70S
TO LOW 80S...WHILE AN AXIS OF LOW TO MID 60S DEWPOINTS EXTENDS
N-NEWD FROM THE TX GULF COAST INTO WRN LA. THE WARM/MOIST BOUNDARY
LAYER COMBINED WITH 700-500 MB LAPSE RATES NEAR 7 C/KM IS YIELDING
MLCAPE VALUES ESTIMATED TO BE AROUND 1000-2000 J/KG AHEAD OF THE
COLD FRONT.
Member Since: February 13, 2012 Posts: 11 Comments: 3779
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
171. VR46L
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:
At this point in time, with the technology available to us, it is not possible to effectively reduce humanity's carbon footprint without a significant reduction in many of the technologies we have become dependent on and do not WANT to give up.

Our main alternative is to instead make it practical and effective to do so.
We can use nuclear power etcetera, and find another way to power cars and engineer electricity through "green" alternatives.
When that happens, I garuntee the "denialists" wont be passing up a good electric car to go buy $4.00 gas.
And I can also garuntee that until it becomes practical to not do so, all of us, "AGW-believers" included, at least the majority of us, will continue to have a large carbon footprint. We can argue over whether we have time for "green" technologies to come around or not, but whether or not we do, and whether or not AGW is real, the truth is nothing will change until the technology available does. Everything else is merely a bunch of "I'm right, your wrong" childish mularkey. Green energy is good for everyone, Its why people run to the "Nissan Leaf". It is effective to them. I've always wondered how AGW proponents proposed to change anything with carbon output when there wasn't a great alternative yet, much less one that many of us could afford. I've also wondered why AGW denialists seem to hate "green" technologies when it would significantly improve their quality of living and reduce their expenses.

For example Nea seems to hate oil companies...so say we significantly reduce oil production...If a cheap green alternative was present, people would be using it and not complaining about expensive gas. What would really happen is gas would be $15.00 a gallon and the world's transportation would come crashing down.

And then some people come and defend oil companies saying we "need" oil when clearly they would love to be paying a dollar of electricity for a 200 mile drive in an electric car, and wouldnt think twice about the oil companies going out of business while it happened.

My point is, green energy is the future, and whether or not we like it or not, it will come. But in the same token, whether we like it or not, it will not come right now, and oil coal and gas will rule our lives for the near future. Regardless of the views of anyone anywhere, on this blog or anywhere in the world.
I hate to try to be the voice of reason on this blog, but it does get tiring to see the never ending arguments from both sides on here, when it isnt changing anything...not the facts, not anyone's opinions, and definitely not anyone's actions.

Plus being the voice of reason makes me feel stupid.
I know this is a very long post and most of you wont read it, but if you did take a minute to think about what you really expect to happen if your viewpoint controlled what happened in the world in terms of AGW.
And I think for many of us, whether in the short term or the long term, the result isn't pretty.


You know Georgia , You are turning into a really good blogger and that is not being patronizing .There is little in that post that anyone on any side could shred .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


1 opinion + 1 opinion = 2 opinions.


That may be true, but that's not science.

What does the data say. That's science. It doesn't matter if the person presenting the data is Republican, Democrat, Green, feminist, Christian, Muslim, atheist, Hispanic, Caucasian, Japanese, Inuit, philanthropist, pacifist, or a child molester (though they'd have a lot of trouble getting speaking gigs).

If the experimental setup or model input is valid, and the methodology is clear, and the results are repeatable, then that's incorporated into scientific knowledge. Not what "feels right" to the author, or "should be true".

You're allowed to develop your own interpretations based on the observed data and trends, and present your own knowledgeable opinion based on same; that's not a problem at all-- that's what happens at professional conferences.

If you develop your own opinions in spite of the data or regardless of the data, or in ignorance of things like chemistry or the laws of thermodynamics, be prepared to have those flaws pointed out to you. If you choose to repeat them, be prepared to have those flaws pointed out less nicely. After all, you're bringing non-science or anti-science practices to a scientific debate.
Member Since: June 13, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 304
Really good website for Floridians.. south Floridians. Plus, there is a LOT more in the archives including some stunning photography. Its called Go Hydrology.

The tabs at the top take you all over the place, and each one has tons of graphs. I have downloaded several to help me place SFWMD structures, discharge rates and other stuff.

Folks who just plain like to learn cool stuff will like this site. Robert V. Sobczak puts a lot of effort into the site.

Here's a relevant graph given Doc's comments about the mighty Missip'



I can't recall if the Missip' had navigation issues in 06.. looks like without a major precip event, this year will be as dry as 06.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2564
Quoting Neapolitan:
The CPC's 6-10 day outlook calls for above normal temps for the entire Lower 48, with the exception of parts of the coastal Southeast.

CPC


Worth noting that while there is a high chance for above average temperatures for the majority of America, the CPC forecast changes day to day. For example, earlier this year the CPC was predicting well above average temperatures for most of the USA in a 6-10 day period, a day or so later they were predicting in the 6-10 day period well below average temperatures. Just like during hurricane season, the models change day to day, and so does the forecast.
Member Since: July 8, 2005 Posts: 259 Comments: 24186
Quoting Luisport:

First flood watch just posted for parts of northern Calif. in advance of prolonged heavy rain event starting Wed: http://www.weather.com/weather/alerts/localalerts/ USCA0967?phenomena=FA&significance=A&areai d=CAZ017 &office=KSTO&etn=0001
Wow, been watching this... even though I may get my first snow on the East Coast. This will be a wild ride for CA! Be safe on the West Coast.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
It is pretty weird that Cat 4 storms cause more damage than Can 5 storms in normalized dollars.
I was hoping to see the dip in damages due to improved building codes following hurricane Andrew in Florida 1992. (?) But I haven't seen that yet.
Oddly the number of weather disasters dipped for 5 years after. humm.
Wow! was 1932 (1931-1933) wierd! Was that Dust Bowl?



The post-Andrew building code changes are insignificant compared to storm surge damage or tree-fall damage, neither of which are actually tested anyway.

The only thing tested in wind tunnels are "ordinary" direct wind and rain-water damage from hurricanes.


If you build a post-Andrew code house 100ft from the water, it will get washed away and demolished just as easily as a pre-Andrew house would.


The house I live in is at least three times as strong as a post-Andrew code house, and even it would probably get demolished by a Katrina or Sandy type storm surge if it was within a few miles of the coast.


The problem is as much or more "where" people are building as "what" or "how" they are building.


Besides all that, the post-Andrew code is itself a joke.

You can still take out a pocket knife and cut a hole through somebody's wall large enough to walk through within a few minutes in a "post-Andrew" home. It wouldn't protect you from a 100mph 2-by-4 any more than no wall at all, unless you got very lucky and the projectile hit the stud in the wall (about a 1/16 chance based on the area occupied).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:


Only 3 hurricanes have struck the US as a cat 5, hardly enough to draw conclusions from.

The 'Labor Day' hurricane of 1935 hit the Florida Keys, so not much potential for high economic damage there.

Hurricane Camille hit Mississippi in 1969 and at the time was the second most destructive hurricane, after Betsy in 1965. It cost $1.42 billion. Pretty cheap by today's accounting. It's possible that accounting criteria was very different back then. These days, if a restaurant closes due to a hurricane, the loss of earnings is added to total losses. Was that the case in the past?

Hurricane Andrew hit a densely populated area of Florida in 1992, but is only the 4th costliest hurricane in US history. It was only upgraded to a 5 many years later. Part of the reason it didn't do more damage was due to its small size. However, less exacting accounting standards probably also applied back then.


civilization comes to a pie point down there.. Andrew crossed the tip... 25 miles north would have doubled or more the cost.. prolly in lives too.

Katrina was the same. We lost a LOT of people, but had Katrina come in 30 miles west, we "could" have 5 thousand in an hour.

Location is pretty dang important at landfall.
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2564
Quoting MAweatherboy1:

That's a different system than the one I mentioned, the one I saw was much further out. We'll have to watch to see if either one ends up having a chance.

It looked like it formed in the same area when I was on there... Oh I see with the time. It might be possible but that would be in the middle of December so it isn't likely.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
At this point in time, with the technology available to us, it is not possible to effectively reduce humanity's carbon footprint without a significant reduction in many of the technologies we have become dependent on and do not WANT to give up.

Our main alternative is to instead make it practical and effective to do so.
We can use nuclear power etcetera, and find another way to power cars and engineer electricity through "green" alternatives.
When that happens, I garuntee the "denialists" wont be passing up a good electric car to go buy $4.00 gas.
And I can also garuntee that until it becomes practical to not do so, all of us, "AGW-believers" included, at least the majority of us, will continue to have a large carbon footprint. We can argue over whether we have time for "green" technologies to come around or not, but whether or not we do, and whether or not AGW is real, the truth is nothing will change until the technology available does. Everything else is merely a bunch of "I'm right, your wrong" childish mularkey. Green energy is good for everyone, Its why people run to the "Nissan Leaf". It is effective to them. I've always wondered how AGW proponents proposed to change anything with carbon output when there wasn't a great alternative yet, much less one that many of us could afford. I've also wondered why AGW denialists seem to hate "green" technologies when it would significantly improve their quality of living and reduce their expenses.

For example Nea seems to hate oil companies...so say we significantly reduce oil production...If a cheap green alternative was present, people would be using it and not complaining about expensive gas. What would really happen is gas would be $15.00 a gallon and the world's transportation would come crashing down.

And then some people come and defend oil companies saying we "need" oil when clearly they would love to be paying a dollar of electricity for a 200 mile drive in an electric car, and wouldnt think twice about the oil companies going out of business while it happened.

My point is, green energy is the future, and whether or not we like it or not, it will come. But in the same token, whether we like it or not, it will not come right now, and oil coal and gas will rule our lives for the near future. That much is true, regardless of the views of anyone anywhere, whether on this blog or anywhere in the world.
I hate to try to be the voice of reason on this blog, but it does get tiring to see the never ending arguments from both sides on here, when it isnt changing anything...not the facts, not anyone's opinions, and definitely not anyone's actions.

Plus being the voice of reason makes me feel stupid.
I know this is a very long post and most of you wont read it, but if you did, take a minute to think about what you really expect to happen if your viewpoint controlled what happened in the world in terms of AGW.
And I think for many of us, whether in the short term or the long term, the result isn't pretty.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AstroHurricane001:
Blog hole?



When I first saw this, I thought this was the Atlantic.


I did that this morning before coffee... been under the weather(rimshot) and not here so I was confused for a minute.. well, maybe a lil' longer than that, I AM blonde ya know...
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2564
Quoting wxchaser97:

This shows it as warm core and transitioning to cold core. I doubt we will get another storm but you never know.

That's a different system than the one I mentioned, the one I saw was much further out. We'll have to watch to see if either one ends up having a chance.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
26W is starting to look more impressive:



No real signs of an eye forming on microwave so RI tonight is unlikely:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
It is pretty weird that Cat 4 storms cause more damage than Can 5 storms in normalized dollars.
I was hoping to see the dip in damages due to improved building codes following hurricane Andrew in Florida 1992. (?) But I haven't seen that yet.
Oddly the number of weather disasters dipped for 5 years after. humm.
Wow! was 1932 (1931-1933) wierd! Was that Dust Bowl?


Only 3 hurricanes have struck the US as a cat 5, hardly enough to draw conclusions from.

The 'Labor Day' hurricane of 1935 hit the Florida Keys, so not much potential for high economic damage there.

Hurricane Camille hit Mississippi in 1969 and at the time was the second most destructive hurricane, after Betsy in 1965. It cost $1.42 billion. Pretty cheap by today's accounting. It's possible that accounting criteria was very different back then. These days, if a restaurant closes due to a hurricane, the loss of earnings is added to total losses. Was that the case in the past?

Hurricane Andrew hit a densely populated area of Florida in 1992, but is only the 4th costliest hurricane in US history. It was only upgraded to a 5 many years later. Part of the reason it didn't do more damage was due to its small size. However, less exacting accounting standards probably also applied back then.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
Good afternoon. The 12z GFS appeared to show a TS in the open Atlantic late in its run. I can't be sure that it's warm core but it looks that way. Very long way out and none of the other runs have shown this but we'll see what future runs show:


This shows it as warm core and transitioning to cold core. I doubt we will get another storm but you never know.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Blog hole?



When I first saw this, I thought this was the Atlantic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


Yes, one of the worst official death tolls of any U.S. disaster.

...but we know Katrina was also a combination of several human induced flaws.

1, Public misunderstanding of the roles of levees. They are a defense mechanism, but one should never bet their lives on them.

2, Flawed designs in the previous systems.

3, Improper inspection and maintenance practices.

4, People refuse to watch the weather or news regularly enough to be of use. As I recall, it turns out the first hurricane warnings for Louisiana were put out at a time where most people were away from home anyway, and did not receive them until the next morning, about 12 hours later, delaying preparations and evacuations.

5, People misunderstood the role of government in planning for and evacuating, and did not take personal responsibility for their own escape plan, and in many cases left relatives in nursing homes below sea level.

6, in some cases, old timers who thought they'd seen it all with Camille stayed behind, thinking "well, I survived Betsy or Camille, Katrina couldn't be worse." It was.

These problems were NOT just in NOLA, but other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

All of these factors, and more, turned what might otherwise been a few dozen casualties storm into a thousand deaths storm.


You can still look up the video of TWC local on the 8's warning of prolonged 150mph winds.


Why was the death toll from Category 2 Sandy in 3rd world Haiti about the same as the death toll from Category 1 Sandy in the U.S. even though our technology and infrastructure is light years ahead of them, and even though they are still recovering from one of the worst Earthquake disasters in Western Hemisphere history?! I think it's because when they are told to run for their lives they listen.

When Americans are told to run for their lives, they stop an throw a fit about their rights and freedoms, or blame the mayor or president for not giving them a limousine ride out of town.


Actually, I think Haiti does have a warning system, but not an evacuation system because the UN doesn't do anything. The populations over the US Northeast are concentrated coastally over a much larger area.

Quoting VR46L:

I respect your environmental approach to life.
In answer to your question Because surely every little counts in trying to reduce AGW if you believe its a man made problem . If you believe its a natural occurance then there is nothing that can be done .Which I believe but everyone is entitled to there own opinion and should not be belittled for having that opinion.


You don't even have to "believe" in AGW to do something about it - many "climate skeptics" go off the grid and use solar for purely personal reasons.

I think it all boils down to, "I can only solve a problem when I'm not causing it". The premise behind this sentiment is absolutely false, yet psychologically for humans it is true. This is the root of human stupidity.

Enough humans already. Enjoy your Monday.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BULLETIN
TROPICAL DEPRESSION BOPHA (26W) ADVISORY NUMBER 5
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TIYAN GU WP262012
800 AM CHST TUE NOV 27 2012

...TROPICAL DEPRESSION BOPHA (26W) SLOWS DOWN...

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR NUKUORO IN POHNPEI
STATE AND LUKUNOR IN CHUUK STATE. A TROPICAL STORM WATCH REMAINS IN
EFFECT FOR LOSAP AND FOR CHUUK LAGOON ISLANDS IN CHUUK STATE.

A TROPICAL STORM WARNING MEANS TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS...INCLUDING
DAMAGING WINDS OF 39 TO 73 MPH...ARE EXPECTED WITHIN 24 HOURS. A
TROPICAL STORM WATCH MEANS THAT TROPICAL STORM CONDITIONS ARE
POSSIBLE WITHIN 48 HOURS.

AT 700 AM CHST...2100Z...THE CENTER OF TROPICAL DEPRESSION BOPHA
(26W) WAS LOCATED NEAR LATITUDE 4.2 DEGREES NORTH AND LONGITUDE
155.8 DEGREES EAST.

THIS IS ABOUT 60 MILES EAST-NORTHEAST OF NUKUORO
155 MILES SOUTHEAST OF LUKUNOR
280 MILES SOUTHEAST OF LOSAP
250 MILES SOUTHWEST OF POHNPEI
350 MILES SOUTHEAST OF WENO ISLAND CHUUK AND
555 MILES EAST-SOUTHEAST OF PULUWAT.

TROPICAL DEPRESSION BOPHA (26W) IS MOVING SLOWLY TOWARD THE WEST AT
2 MPH. IT IS EXPECTED CONTINUE ON THIS TRACK WITH A SLIGHT INCREASE
IN FORWARD SPEED OVER THE NEXT 24 HOURS.

MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS REMAIN AT 35 MPH. TROPICAL DEPRESSION BOPHA
(26W) IS EXPECTED TO INTENSIFY AND COULD BECOME A TROPICAL STORM
LATER TODAY.

REPEATING THE 700 AM POSITION...4.2 DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE AND 155.8
DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE MOVING WEST AT 2 MPH WITH MAXIMUM SUSTAINED
WINDS OF 35 MPH.

AN INTERMEDIATE ADVISORY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER
SERVICE AT 1100 AM LATER THIS MORNING FOLLOWED BY THE NEXT SCHEDULED
ADVISORY AT 200 PM CHST THIS AFTERNOON.

$$

ZIOBRO

Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14336
Quoting txjac:


So I guess we should just allow Al Gore to keep on keeping on with his LARGE carbon footprint???

Do as I say and not as I do????


al gore's carbon footprint has nothing at all to do with the fact that climate change is real. nothing. at. all.

making al gore out to be some hypocritical bogeyman in order to help rationalize deliberate ignorance of the world around you is an example of exactly what i'm talking about.

al gore could decide tomorrow to drop off the grid and live in a greasy shack in montana with no electricity and it would mean nothing with respect to the reality of climate change. and come on, we all know that even if that happened deniers everywhere wouldn't reconsider anything.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I don't normally do this, but on this one I'm gonna respectfully disagree on this. There are differences between the two areas, but to say one is more prone to surge than the other is inaccurate. If you're trying to say that damages would likely be higher in a storm surge event up there, I don't think I would have any argument with that. It's just two unique areas, that are both highly susceptible to storm surge flooding. I'll take my home county for example population is ~160,000 people. In a Category 4/5 hurricane making landfall just north of the area (large and slow moving), 90% of the population center would be under water. And that's just one county...

Quoting AGWcreationists:
You still have nowhere near the population and development of the Jersey Shore, Long Island and NYC beaches. And NYC is more prone to surge than SW Florida, due to the funnel shape of the bight. Plus, your trees don't go decades without seeing hurricane-force sustained winds, and are in general better evolved for such.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


uhhh! they'll close schools for longer than Sandy from this snow
Member Since: April 23, 2011 Posts: 104 Comments: 14873
Quoting Neapolitan:
Glad to hear it! I'm on the "The Earth is flat" side, myself. Also the "The Earth is only 4,500 years old" side, and the "Santa Claus is real" side, and the "Elvis is still alive" side. Why, you and me, we're two peas in a pod, we are! We won't let none of that high-falutin' sciencey stuff get in the way of our beliefs, nosiree...I agree! And if there were really any proof that overeating and lack of exercise caused obesity, ALL medical research money would go directly to deep subsidies for gyms. Therefore, doing nothing except eating high-calorie foods can't possibly make anyone fat, no matter what all them egghead doctors say!

Sigh...



How many times will I remind you you will NEVER change anybody's mind talking like that...Just think, in all of your arguments, has anybody listened to you and actually come to your side?

Oh well you would probably say they are just stupid idiots and wouldn't come to the light for anything....
And just think how that snarky last sentence I wrote made you not want to listen to what I said either..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting charlottefl:
Actually, SWFL is very prone to storm surge flooding. We just haven't had a setup in recent history to create a bad storm surge event on the Florida West Coast. But it has happened in the past and it will happen again. Many of these instances I'm referring to were when the population of the FL West Coast was much much smaller than it is today.

You still have nowhere near the population and development of the Jersey Shore, Long Island and NYC beaches. And NYC is more prone to surge than SW Florida, due to the funnel shape of the bight. Plus, your trees don't go decades without seeing hurricane-force sustained winds, and are in general better evolved for such.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is pretty weird that Cat 4 storms cause more damage than Can 5 storms in normalized dollars.
I was hoping to see the dip in damages due to improved building codes following hurricane Andrew in Florida 1992. (?) But I haven't seen that yet.
Oddly the number of weather disasters dipped for 5 years after. humm.
Wow! was 1932 (1931-1933) wierd! Was that Dust Bowl?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
148. txjac
Quoting schwankmoe:


clearly, if a person refuses to consider the fact that an honest-to-god measurable physical phenomenon is real unless they hear about it from someone who is 'pure enough' in their own lifestyle, he's not really interested in listening in the first place and is just rationalizing a refusal to accept the world around him.



So I guess we should just allow Al Gore to keep on keeping on with his LARGE carbon footprint???

Do as I say and not as I do????

What happened to lead by example?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
147. yoboi
Quoting schwankmoe:


clearly, if a person refuses to consider the fact that an honest-to-god measurable physical phenomenon is real unless they hear about it from someone who is 'pure enough' in their own lifestyle, he's not really interested in listening in the first place and is just rationalizing a refusal to accept the world around him.





your missing the point...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
Quoting yoboi:



when you lead by example you will get more people to buy into what you are selling....


clearly, if a person refuses to consider the fact that an honest-to-god measurable physical phenomenon is real unless they hear about it from someone who is 'pure enough' in their own lifestyle, he's not really interested in listening in the first place and is just rationalizing a refusal to accept the world around him.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
The CPC's 6-10 day outlook calls for above normal temps for the entire Lower 48, with the exception of parts of the coastal Southeast.

CPC


Matches well with the drought areas

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
144. yoboi
Quoting schwankmoe:


i'm not saying believing everyone should do their bit is a stupid opinion.

you said "everyone is entitled to there own opinion and should not be belittled for having that opinion". i'm saying that just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't give those opinions and the people who hold them inherent protection from belittling. some opinions are just plain stupid. having an opinion doesn't put your belief on the same playing field as everyone else's.

to paraphrase asimov, your ignorance is not just as good as my knowledge.


1 opinion + 1 opinion = 2 opinions.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
The CPC's 6-10 day outlook calls for above normal temps for the entire Lower 48, with the exception of parts of the coastal Southeast.

CPC
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Actually, SWFL is very prone to storm surge flooding. We just haven't had a setup in recent history to create a bad storm surge event on the Florida West Coast. But it has happened in the past and it will happen again. Many of these instances I'm referring to were when the population of the FL West Coast was much much smaller than it is today.

EDIT: There have been high surges in recent history. Wilma is a good example of that. There were reports from Goodland, FL of storm surge between 11-13ft, but it's in the Everglades, the population is 320, so it doesn't get the same type of media attention after a storm as a larger city would.

Quoting AGWcreationists:
Now, imagine Wilma, with its broad eye diameter, making landfall in Atlantic City and Sandy hitting SW Florida. Wilma would jump to a $100 million diaster and Sandy would be a forgettable Cat 1, since Florida is not nearly as prone to surge as where Sandy hit. Also, over a thousand people drowned in NOLA - because so much of that city is under sea level, whereas in much of the affected parts of NY, you could get to a multi-story, solid building with at least one floor above water level. Apples and oranges. Sandy was as much a perfect storm as to where and how it hit as to how big a storm it was.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
141. VR46L
Quoting schwankmoe:


i'm not saying believing everyone should do their bit is a stupid opinion.

you said "everyone is entitled to there own opinion and should not be belittled for having that opinion". i'm saying that just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't give those opinions and the people who hold them inherent protection from belittling. some opinions are just plain stupid. having an opinion doesn't put your belief on the same playing field as everyone else's.

to paraphrase asimov, your ignorance is not just as good as my knowledge.



You are entittled to believe I am ignorant ..I will save on typing my retort .

Neo thank you for replying . Appreciate your answer

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting eyeofbetsy:


I know there are subsidies from the gov't. and some concern about the effect this will have on future technologies but I will look further into it.
From that same article:

Subsidies both good and bad

The increased production of energy from renewable sources is essentially a happy circumstance; however, it is being bought at a very high price, and ultimately the taxpayers and consumers shoulder the costs. Weigert points out that Germany's Renewable Energy Law (EEG) regulates the subsidies for and purchase of eco-friendly power. "We sell electricity for 5 or 6 cents on the exchange and pay those who feed it into their grids - for example, the solar energy sector - over 20 cents," he said.

In 2013, some 16.2 billion euros ($20.6 billion) in subsidies will be paid out to alternative energy producers, said Weigert, and if production increases further, it will be even more. At the same time, he warned that rising supplies lead to falling prices across the EU's energy markets.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
139. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
That's not a stupid opinion at all. But it's disingenuous and illogical to make the claim that because a) Dr. Joe Schmoe, climate scientist, doesn't ride a bike to work, then b) everything he has to say about climate science is wrong.

See the encyclopedia for "logical fallacies" for an in-depth answer.



when you lead by example you will get more people to buy into what you are selling....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344

First flood watch just posted for parts of northern Calif. in advance of prolonged heavy rain event starting Wed: http://www.weather.com/weather/alerts/localalerts/ USCA0967?phenomena=FA&significance=A&areaid=CAZ017 &office=KSTO&etn=0001
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:



Actually, I've tried going without Sodas for months at a time, and notice no difference.

Now I have quit caffeinated sodas. Even though Barq's root beer is my favorite brand based on flavor, I quit drinking it because the caffeine in it has negative effect on me. For some reason caffeine puts me to sleep (the opposite of the effect it has on most people). I noticed this about 5 years ago, but only really noticed how bad it was about a year ago.

Anyway, I've tried quitting sodas before, and it does not work in terms of weight loss. Those commercials or people claiming you can lose x number of pounds per year just by not drinking sodas; maybe it worked for them, but it had no impact on my weight...at all.


I actually eat almost no chocolate and almost no ice cream, probably a total of 10 times less sugar than I did during my teens or early 20's, and have still gained about 50 pounds in the past 8 years.


I recently found I'm 'carbohydrate intolerant'. After a rather large meal of carbohydrate, particularly simple carbohydrate, I get a very weak feeling, with rapid heart beat and 'general malaise'.

I think I've probably been carbohydrate intolerant for ages, but it's got worse recently. I'm absolutely convinced that it induces all sorts of illnesses (particularly diabetes).

I've been on a diet known as the 'ketogenic diet' for about six weeks, now. The strictest diet is no carbs, adequate protein, and the rest from fats. Sounds a recipe for disaster, but I feel 100% better since I started, even though I only do a modified version. I don't get tired so easily, and my mood is much better.

I allow myself half portions of brown rice, lentils in home made soup (16% carb), peaches and a few oatcakes (and the odd bottle of beer), but I'm determined to go on the full blown ketogenic diet soon, to see how much it improves my health.

It doesn't follow that everyone would get significant benefit from an ultra low carb diet, but I'm now convinced that carbohydrates are a bigger cause of diseases than is realized.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


.The Weather Channel‏@weatherchannel

First flood watch just posted for parts of northern Calif. in advance of prolonged heavy rain event starting Wed: http://www.weather.com/weather/alerts/localalerts/ USCA0967?phenomena=FA&significance=A&areaid=CAZ017 &office=KSTO&etn=0001
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
135. VR46L
Quoting MAweatherboy1:
Good afternoon. The 12z GFS appeared to show a TS in the open Atlantic late in its run. I can't be sure that it's warm core but it looks that way. Very long way out and none of the other runs have shown this but we'll see what future runs show:



Actaully the euro shows it much sooner



and the CMC



Looks like my area of the world aint gonna catch a break
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


But Why is it a stupid opinion to believe everyone should do their bit ....I asked Neo earlier but he doesnt seem to want to answer .


i'm not saying believing everyone should do their bit is a stupid opinion.

you said "everyone is entitled to there own opinion and should not be belittled for having that opinion". i'm saying that just because everyone is entitled to their own opinion doesn't give those opinions and the people who hold them inherent protection from belittling. some opinions are just plain stupid. having an opinion doesn't put your belief on the same playing field as everyone else's.

to paraphrase asimov, your ignorance is not just as good as my knowledge.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


But Why is it a stupid opinion to believe everyone should do their bit?
That's not a stupid opinion at all. But it's disingenuous and illogical to make the claim that because a) Dr. Joe Schmoe, climate scientist, doesn't ride a bike to work, then b) everything he has to say about climate science is wrong.

See the encyclopedia for "logical fallacies" for an in-depth answer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
131. yoboi
Quoting VR46L:


But Why is it a stupid opinion to believe everyone should do their bit ....I asked Neo earlier but he doesnt seem to want to answer .


neap is concerned about a friend of his on a sofa....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2344
130. VR46L
Quoting schwankmoe:


i disagree. there are plenty of stupid opinions out there whose authors deserve belittling.


But Why is it a stupid opinion to believe everyone should do their bit ....I asked Neo earlier but he doesnt seem to want to answer .
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 180 - 130

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
50 °F
Overcast