Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,586
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LopezElliana
    Newest Member
    LopezElliana
    Joined

Summer Banter, Observation and General Discussion 2018


CapturedNature

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, HoarfrostHubb said:

Well, that 4600 number was derived statistically by looking at a small sample and extrapolating...probably not hugely accurate, but def more in line with reality that the 65 or whatever were “officially” killed.  Pretty insane considering it was the US in 2017.  

Im guessing we will never know the “real” toll.   And you are so right that our civilization, or at least the US part, is lining up for some monster catastrophes.   Either a hurricane, or a Pacific coast volcanic deal, or an earthquake, or ...God help us...a Yellowstone caldera...

That estimate also includes deaths related to storm-caused infrastructure failure, a valid inclusion but one which makes comparisons with prior events problematic.  Events like the Okeechobee storm in the 1920s, with fatalities listed in the 1000s but less that 4600, almost certainly had the death toll from just the direct storm impact - water and wind - rather than deaths coming days/weeks/months later.

Full agreement on "Isaac's Storm" - a great piece of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, radarman said:

WaPo published this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/02/did-4645-people-die-in-hurricane-maria-nope/

They gave a lot more credence to the other 5 studies that estimated the death toll at ~1000.  Certainly horrific enough as it is.

It's difficult to attribute fatalities to storms in general (think of a swimmer swept out to sea by rips generated from a storm 1000 miles away), let alone with a storm like Maria. So many of these deaths are indirect, but attributed to the storm. The easy ones are due to falling/flying objects or flooding, but the hard ones are due to power loss and lack of resources following the storm. 

I could believe a number like 65 due to landfall itself, but no way did it end there. And that's pretty important for the NWS, because the after action reports will want to focus on why fatalities occurred. Was it a forecast problem, communication problem, etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dendrite said:

If you have spares they should be sent to Northfield 1W ASAP.

 

2 hours ago, tamarack said:

And if "spares" really denotes plural, another one to New Sharon 2NW.

 

2 hours ago, dryslot said:

And while were at it, One to 2E Lew.

NLSC might notice when a few SRGs go "missing" from GYX.

But if anyone plans of moving to the North Woods, we're always looking for new Coops up there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In spite of frequent nor'easters leading to record heavy rainfall over east coast states from Massachusetts[2] to South Carolina[3] during April and May, drought had already been developing over the interior. However, only over the sparsely-populated far northern Great Plains was the spring unusually hot..."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistics for weather-related phenomenon has several indirect/transitive causality/circumstantial links that give rise to a lot of relativity when comparing eras and settings. It makes the science of it both complex, but also ... I wonder how useful it really is to compare events from nearly 100 years ago.  It's like trying to arbiter a debate over who is the better Boxer between Tyson and Ali during their respective hay "maker" days.  

Population vs population exposure: That being a big one. There are more people now; more importantly, more people physically in environments where climatology demonstrates in hard numbers, they should be physically located.  For that ... it's easier to die. Shear numbers mean that there is a greater likelihood of one becoming an unwitting participant in a naturally occurring mortality study - to put it mildly... And it doesn't take a lot of mathematical computational power to assess that would be case when a hurricane in 1880 or 1980 or 2018 were to strike these geographical regions.  74.5 mph wind is just as deadly in any era ... 

What makes last year peculiar to me ... wasn't so much the ISE ... though that was factor-able.  It was that there were three giant tempests ... so perfectly placed in both geometry and time - that's what that season was about. A wake up call to a complicit civility ... perhaps pacified into a complacency that bordered on a conceit of discrediting to the real levels of threat, or the dystopian setting post these local-scaled holocausts. By the shear fact that they may have simply been lucky ... for decades?  You spin the Roulette wheel enough times, your number's going to occur.

When I first brought it up ... I was really more interested in that angle.  Whether it was 1,000 or 4,600 ... one thing is for certain, we don't live in an era when anything that comes over technology as mass-dissemination can be trusted.  Everything is packaged for economic and/or special interest/political gains .. somehow.  But that's all a different course for discussion then vulnerability. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OceanStWx said:

 

 

NLSC might notice when a few SRGs go "missing" from GYX.

But if anyone plans of moving to the North Woods, we're always looking for new Coops up there!

One about 10  miles NW of Allagash village, at 1500' elev., might have some interesting snow totals.  That Rocky Mt area always bagged a lot more snow than I had in Fort Kent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...