PDA

View Full Version : Live in Florida? Hate hurricanes? You're out of luck.


Scorch
09-09-2004, 03:27 PM
I realize a buttload of info has been posted on Ivan.. but I just read that apparently, due to changing weather patters, huge back-to-back hurricanes in Florida will be the norm for the next few decades..

MIAMI - (KRT) - Charley, Frances and Ivan. Three major hurricanes. Two assaults on Florida already and possibly a third by next week. Get used to it. This is the new normal.

Scientists say we are in a period of enhanced hurricane activity that could last for decades, ending a 24-year period of below average activity. They also say the law of averages has caught up with Florida, with a change in atmospheric steering currents turning the state into a hurricane magnet.

``People are suddenly alert, suddenly paying attention,'' said Stanley Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's hurricane research division on Virginia Key. ``They can see now that we are in an active era. ... - People should realize that it is very unlikely that Frances is the last storm the U.S. will see this year.''

Which brings us to Hurricane Ivan.

Though subject to considerable error, long-range forecasts are consistently suggesting that Ivan will strike Jamaica on Friday and Cuba on Sunday as a vicious Category 4 hurricane. The outlook improved slightly for South Florida, but the southern half of the state remained in the five-day cone of probability.

When asked if Florida can endure another hurricane, Gov. Jeb Bush pointed Tuesday to a button he wore on his shirt. It said: ``I survived damn near everything.''

``We will survive whatever comes at us,'' he said. ``We're an incredibly resilient state. I'm not being defiant; I'm only suggesting we can meet this challenge.''

If Ivan hits the state, it will be the first time since 1964 that three hurricanes smacked Florida in the same year. And September and October tend to be among the most active months of the six-month hurricane season that ends Nov. 30.

``The season is still young,'' said Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in West Miami-Dade County. ``It certainly seems from my perspective that we're in the active period that has been predicted. The only surprise is that Florida hasn't been hit more often in the last few years.''

A sobering thought: Between 1941 and 1950, seven major hurricanes - with winds higher than 110 mph - attacked Florida. ``And that doesn't include the other less powerful hurricanes,'' Goldenberg said. That 10-year period fell in the middle of a cycle of heightened activity that began in 1926 and persisted until 1970.

Now, the combination of complacency bred during a long lull between 1971 and 1994, the new hyperactivity since 1995 and the ongoing mega-development of Florida's coasts frightens emergency managers and scientists.

``The implications are much-increased damage when storms make landfall,'' Goldenberg said, ``and the potential for major loss of life in the event of an evacuation foul-up during a rapidly intensifying storm.''

He has more than academic interest in this. Goldenberg and his family were nearly killed when Hurricane Andrew crushed their South Miami-Dade home in 1992.

Research he later conducted with NOAA scientist Chris Landsea, private expert William Gray and others found distinct patterns of low-activity hurricane periods and high-activity periods, each of which endured for decades. These patterns, unrelated to the current concern over global warming, are caused by regular cycles of oceanic and atmospheric phenomena, such as unusually warm water in hurricane breeding grounds.

One period of ``hyperactivity'' ended in 1970 and was followed by a 24-year lull. The new period of heightened activity began in 1995 and could last for another 10 to 30 years, according to their report, which was peer-reviewed and published in 2001 in the prestigious journal Science.

In the last few years, and particularly this year, the depressing statistics related to the number, power and duration of storms appear to verify the report's depressing conclusions, especially when major hurricanes are considered.

This is significant because, though relatively few in number, major hurricanes - Category 3 or higher - cause 80 percent of all damage from tropical weather.

``We're not talking about stronger hurricanes than in the past,'' Goldenberg said. ``We're talking about more of the stronger hurricanes.''

The long-term average, including relatively quiet periods and busy periods, is 2.6 major hurricanes a year.

Between 1971 and 1994, only four years had more than two major hurricanes and none had more than three. Between 1995 and 2003, a much shorter period, seven years had three or more major hurricanes.

And we've already had four major storms this year - Alex, Charley, Frances and Ivan.

All the other numbers tell the same tale: total storms, total strength, total duration, Caribbean hurricanes, October and November hurricanes, each at least 100 percent - in some cases 500 or 1,000 percent - higher since the lull.

``That's a humongous increase,'' Goldenberg said. ``This is striking. This is not a little signal. It would be like saying the average temperature is 15 degrees warmer than last summer. It's huge. It's huge.''

Worse, atmospheric steering currents have changed to our disadvantage.

During the beginning of this active period, a persistent and beneficial bend in the jetstream carried hurricanes away from Florida. Now, that phenomenon had disappeared, replaced by a persistent ridge of high pressure over the Atlantic that is pushing them toward Florida.

What can you do?

Only one thing: Prepare.

``People should realize that, active year or slow year, we can still get hit,'' Goldenberg said. ``Remember, Andrew hit during a below-average year. The higher activity is just all the more reason to remind people that they can't let their guard down.''

Source: http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/nation/9603303.htm

snotknocker
09-09-2004, 04:08 PM
Global warming is the catylyst for the enhanced hurricane activity IMO. Surprisingly with the presidential election upon us, no one to my knowledge has taken a stand on passing stricter greenhouse laws.

FriskyTanuki
09-09-2004, 04:13 PM
Maybe everyone will take a hint and move, I mean, how many hurricanes can you live through and not take the hint to get out of there?

bignick
09-09-2004, 04:16 PM
Maybe everyone will take a hint and move, I mean, how many hurricanes can you live through and not take the hint to get out of there?

My thoughts exactly. Its like living in Cali. Fuck earthqaukes, and fuck hurricanes.

epobirs
09-09-2004, 04:22 PM
Global warming is the catylyst for the enhanced hurricane activity IMO. Surprisingly with the presidential election upon us, no one to my knowledge has taken a stand on passing stricter greenhouse laws.

Because there is no substantiated evidence for this and there is less evidence still for any positive result from idiot self-destruct pacts like the Kyoto Treaty. There is huge evidence however for the economic damage resulting from same.

If you pay attention to the article and other available data, this isn't an unprecedented event. There have been major climatic shifts long before the possiblity of human intervention in the global environment was even remotely beleivable. Places that have been regarded as frigid hellholes in our lifetimes were seen as promising spots for colonization a thousand years ago. Ever wondered why a perpetually icebound location is called Greenland? At the time it was named it fit the description.

It is a worthless thing to measure events by one's anecdotal experience that are best considered over millenia. Too small of a sample is guaranteed to mislead. The Pacific Ocean, a notably non-pacific body of water was thusly named because the early European explorers who named it just happened to experience it during an unusually calm period.

tyecko
09-09-2004, 04:27 PM
Global warming is the catylyst for the enhanced hurricane activity IMO. Surprisingly with the presidential election upon us, no one to my knowledge has taken a stand on passing stricter greenhouse laws.

Because there is no substantiated evidence for this and there is less evidence still for any positive result from idiot self-destruct pacts like the Kyoto Treaty. There is huge evidence however for the economic damage resulting from same.

If you pay attention to the article and other available data, this isn't an unprecedented event. There have been major climatic shifts long before the possiblity of human intervention in the global environment was even remotely beleivable. Places that have been regarded as frigid hellholes in our lifetimes were seen as promising spots for colonization a thousand years ago. Ever wondered why a perpetually icebound location is called Greenland? At the time it was named it fit the description.

It is a worthless thing to measure events by one's anecdotal experience that are best considered over millenia. Too small of a sample is guaranteed to mislead. The Pacific Ocean, a notably non-pacific body of water was thusly named because the early European explorers who named it just happened to experience it during an unusually calm period.

Actually your wrong about the Greenland comment. The vikings named it Greenland because they knew it was all ice and snow and wanted to trick people into going there, While they named Iceland because they didn't want people to go there because they wanted Iceland all for themselves.

epobirs
09-09-2004, 04:37 PM
Maybe everyone will take a hint and move, I mean, how many hurricanes can you live through and not take the hint to get out of there?

My thoughts exactly. Its like living in Cali. shaq-fu earthqaukes, and shaq-fu hurricanes.

I've lived in California all my life and can attest that with modern building standards the eqrthquakes are no big deal. After the 1906 San Francisco quake the death toll compared to other natural disasters common to other parts of the country has been minimal. In most quakes the great majority of deaths come from a single structural failure. The double deck freeway collapse in 1989 and the Northridge Meadows Apartments in 1994 are two prime examples. More recently two people were killed because they manage to be right in front of the only structure in Paso Robles to collapse. This was a 19th century unreinforced masonry structure of the sort that hasn't been built here since the 30's. It was the sort of place that would have been demolished and replaced with something better if not for its historical status.

I'd feel much more threatened to live anywhere in the Missisippi flood plain but they keep going back.

epobirs
09-09-2004, 04:51 PM
Global warming is the catylyst for the enhanced hurricane activity IMO. Surprisingly with the presidential election upon us, no one to my knowledge has taken a stand on passing stricter greenhouse laws.

Because there is no substantiated evidence for this and there is less evidence still for any positive result from idiot self-destruct pacts like the Kyoto Treaty. There is huge evidence however for the economic damage resulting from same.

If you pay attention to the article and other available data, this isn't an unprecedented event. There have been major climatic shifts long before the possiblity of human intervention in the global environment was even remotely beleivable. Places that have been regarded as frigid hellholes in our lifetimes were seen as promising spots for colonization a thousand years ago. Ever wondered why a perpetually icebound location is called Greenland? At the time it was named it fit the description.

It is a worthless thing to measure events by one's anecdotal experience that are best considered over millenia. Too small of a sample is guaranteed to mislead. The Pacific Ocean, a notably non-pacific body of water was thusly named because the early European explorers who named it just happened to experience it during an unusually calm period.

Actually your wrong about the Greenland comment. The vikings named it Greenland because they knew it was all ice and snow and wanted to trick people into going there, While they named Iceland because they didn't want people to go there because they wanted Iceland all for themselves.

I've heard the retort before and it's pure bullshit from the same propagandists who think 'The Day After Tomorrow' contains serious concerns to be discussed. It is well established that the Northern Hemisphere was experiencing a period of very mild winters during that era. There are many written accounts from a wide array of sources noting that. Some religious types saw this as gearing up for the Second Coming and Heaven on Earth with a perpetual Spring. This got its comeuppance a few centuries later when things turn nastily cold and brutal winters were tha norm for several decades.

johnnyoski
09-09-2004, 04:58 PM
The law of averages is just catching up to Floridians. They really have not had it that bad since the early 70's with the exception of Andrew and off course everything they've been dealt so far this season.
Seems as if the Carolinas have had more to complain about over the past few decades.

darth007
09-09-2004, 05:10 PM
That article hit it right on when it mentioned that bend in the jetstream that always pushed hurricanes away from Florida for the last couple of years until this year... Now that it's gone, and that high pressure in the ocean, our state is screwed...

DigitalSpace
09-09-2004, 10:58 PM
If you hate hurricanes, why are you in Florida in the first place? :lol:

darth007
09-09-2004, 11:03 PM
Well for me, my parents chose to live here, and I was born here in Jacksonville. Im definitely getting away from this state when Im done with high school.

Death2Sanity
09-09-2004, 11:09 PM
Global warming? *shakes head* As a meteorology student, take it from me...it's WAY too early to be blaming anything on global warming.

Please stop turning everything into politics, and stop making assumptions based on such.

Spacepest
09-09-2004, 11:10 PM
Maybe everyone will take a hint and move, I mean, how many hurricanes can you live through and not take the hint to get out of there?

My thoughts exactly. Its like living in Cali. shaq-fu earthqaukes, and shaq-fu hurricanes.

I've lived in California all my life and can attest that with modern building standards the eqrthquakes are no big deal. After the 1906 San Francisco quake the death toll compared to other natural disasters common to other parts of the country has been minimal. In most quakes the great majority of deaths come from a single structural failure. The double deck freeway collapse in 1989 and the Northridge Meadows Apartments in 1994 are two prime examples. More recently two people were killed because they manage to be right in front of the only structure in Paso Robles to collapse. This was a 19th century unreinforced masonry structure of the sort that hasn't been built here since the 30's. It was the sort of place that would have been demolished and replaced with something better if not for its historical status.

I'd feel much more threatened to live anywhere in the Missisippi flood plain but they keep going back.

As a former Californian (25 years in Cali) I totally agree with Epobirs. Cali has got to be one of the few places on earth that when a big earthquake hits, if people are in bed they actually have to think about whether or not it is worth it to get up out of bed. During big Cali earthquakes you have to actually fear the older building structures collapsing. Plus Cali is crawling with so many safety activists that it is almost impossible to construct any new buildings without some kind of earthquake safety standards.

As for Florida, all I have to say is that there is going to be a bunch of old people pissed off in the future when they realize they can't retire to Florida like they wanted to. :lol: If most of Florida wasn't swamp land I suppose you could build underground houses/bunkers to live in that would be safe from the hurricanes. Face it, Florida is now one big windy sinkhole. Mickey Mouse is going to have to move somewhere else. XD

Lootr2Core
09-09-2004, 11:13 PM
North Dakota./Manitoba... No hurricanes, hardly a tornado to be had, YA blizzards suck but as long as you are indoors not gonna kill you nor damage your property.

Worse thing are mosquitos... hmm mosquitos or hurricanes or earthquakes.?

Drocket
09-10-2004, 02:49 AM
Considering that mosquitoes can carry all kinds of terrible diseases and have historically probably caused more deaths than earthquakes and hurricanes combined, that's not exactly as easy of a choice as you make it sounds :P

KingDox
09-10-2004, 03:43 AM
Maybe everyone will take a hint and move, I mean, how many hurricanes can you live through and not take the hint to get out of there?

My thoughts exactly. Its like living in Cali. shaq-fu earthqaukes, and shaq-fu hurricanes.

I've lived in California all my life and can attest that with modern building standards the eqrthquakes are no big deal. After the 1906 San Francisco quake the death toll compared to other natural disasters common to other parts of the country has been minimal. In most quakes the great majority of deaths come from a single structural failure. The double deck freeway collapse in 1989 and the Northridge Meadows Apartments in 1994 are two prime examples. More recently two people were killed because they manage to be right in front of the only structure in Paso Robles to collapse. This was a 19th century unreinforced masonry structure of the sort that hasn't been built here since the 30's. It was the sort of place that would have been demolished and replaced with something better if not for its historical status.

I'd feel much more threatened to live anywhere in the Missisippi flood plain but they keep going back.

yeah people are so damn afraid of quakes, we haven't had a strong one since northridge and that was 10 years ago. The minor quakes we have most people sleep though, I felt one a few months ago in class, but when I asked anyone in class if they had felt it I was the only one.

DenisDFat
09-10-2004, 03:45 AM
You are both wrong about Greenland/Iceland.

Icland was named by a dude who hated the place and saw a fjord and called it ice land.

Parts of greenland are green and and that was touted to people in order to get them to go there

pumbaa
09-10-2004, 03:55 AM
Maybe everyone will take a hint and move, I mean, how many hurricanes can you live through and not take the hint to get out of there?

My thoughts exactly. Its like living in Cali. shaq-fu earthqaukes, and shaq-fu hurricanes.

WEll you see, we in Florida get yearround beautiful weather and access to beaches. We also get hurricanes. Its a trade off. I guess just like you can't imagine going through hurricanes... I can;t imagine living without a beach nearby (or the ocean nearby to be more specific). Plus, if youre born Floridian, you're kinda used to this kind of thing. Hurricanes really don't phase me anymore. This is coming from a Miami native by the way.

Zenithian Legend
09-10-2004, 08:28 AM
I'm just waiting for Hurricane Elmo, because come on you have to admit THAT will be funny.

epobirs
09-10-2004, 08:37 AM
You are both wrong about Greenland/Iceland.

Icland was named by a dude who hated the place and saw a fjord and called it ice land.

Parts of greenland are green and and that was touted to people in order to get them to go there

Clueless as usual.

There was a thriving colony in Greenland for the better part of a century. This was wiped out when the weather shifted back to what we consider normal. That we operate in the belief that the planet has such a condition is the biigest intellectual failure of the doomsday contingent. It isn't here for our convenience and changes happen regardless of our actions. What we once attributed to capricious deities out of ignorance we now attribute to ourselves out of vanity. Neither is valid.

DenisDFat
09-10-2004, 09:47 AM
The only clueless one is you.

epobirs
09-10-2004, 10:03 AM
Ah, another detailed and reasoned argument from troll-boy.