Hurricanes
Sep. 19th, 2005 08:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fabrisseI'm home sick today, so I have a chance to catch up on a few things.
The first thing that I've been meaning to get to for awhile is hurricanes in general. I know that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
eanja knows far more about the subject than I, but about ten years ago, I had to do some basic research into Atlantic hurricanes.
It was for Disney Cruise Lines back before their existence had been announced to the public. One of the men I was working for was named the VP in charge of this new speculative project, and he had me doing some fact checking for him. The biggest assignment was to find out about Atlantic hurricanes, particularly those that struck Florida.
There was an internet site and, between it and the contact number on the site, I was able to find out what I needed to. The first question was: "What is the average number of hurricanes in a year?" The second question was the same, but for tropical storms. The answer has stayed with me. There was one year after the tradition of naming the storms began when there were thirteen (M in the alphabet). Since the research went back nearly 100 years (i.e. pre-naming), I found no other year in that time frame with more than thirteen -- and only one other year had 13. There wasn't a single year that didn't have at least one. The average was eight although more years had fewer than eight. I checked my math several times. And other than the one year that got to M, no year made it past K in the alphabet.
A small digression: I think naming the storms was a brilliant idea. Someday, I'll tell y'all about my experiences in the very odd Hurricane named Agnes.
I completed my research through the then current year of 1995. The very next year, there were thirteen hurricanes/tropical storms (Marco). I figured it could be an anomaly. And the next year, 1997, there were only seven -- about average.
But 1998 was the first year they made it to "N" and the year after still had twelve (Lenny). There were fifteen in both 2000 and 2001, thirteen in 2002 (although the last only made it to depression status and was therefore unnamed), sixteen in 2004, and in this year that's not yet over, we've made it to "Rita."
I'm not a scientist. I do, however, remember my third grade introduction to the idea of global warming. As little kids we were told that the first big sign would be an increase in the strength and frequency of hurricanes. Going through Agnes at summer camp three years later helped cement my ideas of the terror (we ran out of food, briefly) and risks (the drinking water was suspect until they traced the artesian well system it came from) of hurricanes. It's still my first thought when I look into recycling in a new neighborhood -- could this help prevent hurricanes. What can I say, this picture of global warming caught me young.
In fourth grade I did my first independent scientific research paper (I was in 8th grade English and second grade math, but I don't remember what science class I was in. I suspect it was higher than fourth grade but can't be certain.). It dealt with nuclear power and the runoff from the cooling systems. This was my first encounter with how small a change had to be to effect something much larger. One degree of temperature difference in a river could cause all sorts of weirdness when it came to the algae and fish in the ecosystem.
We have a President who thinks global warming is a myth. When I was in third and fourth grade, I was taught we could prevent global warming if we tried. I know that statistics have to be examined more closely than I have for any real conclusions to be drawn.
But we're going through a period where there are more hurricanes per year than in the documentable past. I'm certainly willing to come to a tentative conclusion that global warming is at least beginning if not advanced.
I know the most immediate problem is to help those who are devastated by the results of the current spate, but while this is still fresh in people's minds, I think we may also need to start thinking about the causes and how we handle the whirlwind we've sown.
The first thing that I've been meaning to get to for awhile is hurricanes in general. I know that
eanja knows far more about the subject than I, but about ten years ago, I had to do some basic research into Atlantic hurricanes.It was for Disney Cruise Lines back before their existence had been announced to the public. One of the men I was working for was named the VP in charge of this new speculative project, and he had me doing some fact checking for him. The biggest assignment was to find out about Atlantic hurricanes, particularly those that struck Florida.
There was an internet site and, between it and the contact number on the site, I was able to find out what I needed to. The first question was: "What is the average number of hurricanes in a year?" The second question was the same, but for tropical storms. The answer has stayed with me. There was one year after the tradition of naming the storms began when there were thirteen (M in the alphabet). Since the research went back nearly 100 years (i.e. pre-naming), I found no other year in that time frame with more than thirteen -- and only one other year had 13. There wasn't a single year that didn't have at least one. The average was eight although more years had fewer than eight. I checked my math several times. And other than the one year that got to M, no year made it past K in the alphabet.
A small digression: I think naming the storms was a brilliant idea. Someday, I'll tell y'all about my experiences in the very odd Hurricane named Agnes.
I completed my research through the then current year of 1995. The very next year, there were thirteen hurricanes/tropical storms (Marco). I figured it could be an anomaly. And the next year, 1997, there were only seven -- about average.
But 1998 was the first year they made it to "N" and the year after still had twelve (Lenny). There were fifteen in both 2000 and 2001, thirteen in 2002 (although the last only made it to depression status and was therefore unnamed), sixteen in 2004, and in this year that's not yet over, we've made it to "Rita."
I'm not a scientist. I do, however, remember my third grade introduction to the idea of global warming. As little kids we were told that the first big sign would be an increase in the strength and frequency of hurricanes. Going through Agnes at summer camp three years later helped cement my ideas of the terror (we ran out of food, briefly) and risks (the drinking water was suspect until they traced the artesian well system it came from) of hurricanes. It's still my first thought when I look into recycling in a new neighborhood -- could this help prevent hurricanes. What can I say, this picture of global warming caught me young.
In fourth grade I did my first independent scientific research paper (I was in 8th grade English and second grade math, but I don't remember what science class I was in. I suspect it was higher than fourth grade but can't be certain.). It dealt with nuclear power and the runoff from the cooling systems. This was my first encounter with how small a change had to be to effect something much larger. One degree of temperature difference in a river could cause all sorts of weirdness when it came to the algae and fish in the ecosystem.
We have a President who thinks global warming is a myth. When I was in third and fourth grade, I was taught we could prevent global warming if we tried. I know that statistics have to be examined more closely than I have for any real conclusions to be drawn.
But we're going through a period where there are more hurricanes per year than in the documentable past. I'm certainly willing to come to a tentative conclusion that global warming is at least beginning if not advanced.
I know the most immediate problem is to help those who are devastated by the results of the current spate, but while this is still fresh in people's minds, I think we may also need to start thinking about the causes and how we handle the whirlwind we've sown.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 04:49 pm (UTC)She mentioned on her lj recently that hurricanes naturally follow a cycle of 80 years or so, in which the intensity and number goes up and down- for the last 40 years or so, we've been in the natural downswing, and we're now in a natural upswing.
Everyone seems to agree that the last couple of years have been unusually active, but there seems to be a lot of dissent on whether there is enough to evidence to say whether it's a change in the base pattern rather than just a brief blip. So, some of it might be global warming, but at least part of it was expected anyway, and ties into wind patterns (El Nino supresses Atlantic hurricanes, El Nina encourages them) and other longer term normal weather things.
I did see some scary stuff indicating that while the number of hurricanes is in the expected range, the severity has been increasing, which might be due to global warming, but I don't know how extensive or reliable that research is.
And of course, I'm not in any way implying that I don't believe in global warming. Though I do think the fact that everyone in the weather community has known hurricanes were going to get worse for years just makes the lack of planning all up and down the ladder even more inexcusable.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 05:03 pm (UTC)And even with the upswing in the cycle, the ones in the past were between eleven and fourteen a year. Assuming "Q" was skipped we're already up to 17. I'm perfectly willing to accept this is within the expected/accepted range, but do we have any idea how long the swing will last?
When might we be able to tell whether we're in an anomaly or witnessing a basic change?
Hugs, sweetie.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 07:40 pm (UTC)The Capital Weather Blog for the week just before and after Katrina has some really interesting posts- including the former New Orleans weatherman who made a pretty damn accurate prediction of what was likely to happen if the levees went, and a whole bunch of links to various people who'd modeled and discussed the issue to death in the last 3 or 4 years. Based on the weatherman's post, I was expecting the levees the break before the storm ever hit. If you build something to withstand a Category 3 storm, and then a Category 4 storm hits it, it's not an engineering failure when it breaks, it's just sheer bloody luck if it doesn't. (And of course the Corp had been recommending upgrading the levees to withstand a category 4 storm for years. But the Bush administration stripped their budget for 5 years running, which no other administration had done in over 20 years.)
The problem is that politicians, particularly this lot, do not have any interest in listening to scientists unless it fits their political agenda. (Remember me griping because the EPA can now has to have it's studies approved by the government before publication? They are supposed to be independent, but if they have conclusions the administration disagrees with, they can told they can't release the study.)
What pissed me off particularly was learning (via a TV interview, I forget where) that Texas offered to mobilize it's National Guard and send them to Louisiana ahead of the storm, on the assumption that there would be massive damage whatever happened and Louisiana had too many guardsmen overseas to handle it themselves. But you aren't allowed to send your national guard into other states without permission, and no one gave it to them. Also, the red cross had shelters set up for 80,000 people before the hurricane, but due to lack of publicity and transportation, only had 6,000 people in them when the storm hit.
My sister had a rather nice (I thought) piece about why no one planned better for this in her lj here.
OK, enough ranting.
As for the upswing- I gather the overall long term average is about 10 hurricanes a year, but they were predicting 18-21 this season. I'm not sure when they'll know if it's a trend or a blip, because it's been a while since I've done statistics, but I'd think a few more years at least.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-19 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 02:57 am (UTC)Other than recycling, keeping my car tuned (until I can take public transport in a month or two), and a contributing to my usual charities when I have money again, I just don't know what to do.
Hugs.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 02:57 am (UTC)Other than recycling, keeping my car tuned (until I can take public transport in a month or two), and a contributing to my usual charities when I have money again, I just don't know what to do.
Hugs.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 03:02 am (UTC)That's my big question in all of this. A little fact that I was given as a child (global warming will increase the number and frequency tropical storms/hurricanes) has been locked in my brain. It would be nice to have an answer to the question. I wish I could trust my own scientific research abilities -- or the government's -- enough to help come up with one.
Hope you're well.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-20 03:15 am (UTC)The naming started in the 1930s. I don't know if they made a distinction between a tropical storm and a hurricane before that. What I pulled data on was storms with gale force 2 winds or greater. After the naming, it became easier. Tropical depressions don't get named. As far as I know the measure of gale forces has been the same, but as you say the accuracy of the instruments -- especially for forecasting -- has become much greater. There was no collected data before the late 1890s and the consistent listing started, to the best of my memory, in 1902. So.
There could have been storms that never made it to Florida, although, most of the ones that came up the path through Cuba --whether the actually hit Florida or not -- were tracked as far back as the 1920s. Ship to shore capabilities (late 1890s but not in general use for civilian shipping until the 1910s) also changed reporting capablities and probably added to the accuracy of the data after that point.