It's an odd week in that real space news seems hard to find, the stories are preliminary news about potential contracts or programs, so nothing we'll see for a while. So since the news I'm seeing is wrapped around the coming Hurricane Milton and the recovery operations ongoing after Hurricane Helene up in the SE stretching from Georgia and the Florida panhandle up to Tennessee and Virginia, that has sucked up a lot of my time and attention.
A starting point is that I still swap emails from time to time with a former
office mate I've known since we worked on hardware for the space station in
the early 1990s. He's a fellow RF engineer who grew up in Tennessee and went
to college there. As news started coming out of NC, he sent me this photograph
from one of the local papers up there. In the distance, what I take to be
flood waters can be seen. It's a landmark sign about the Flood of 1916,
apparently knocked down by something, presumably Hurricane Helene
itself.
It's hard not to notice it's just over 100 years ago, and while most places
keep track of "hundred year floods," it takes some determined research to find
out lots about it. Was the catastrophic flood of 1916 worse than this year's
flood? Or was this year's worse? Are they really spaced around a
hundred years from each other?
It's so common that it's a cliche' that every change in weather, every bad
day, whether cold or hot, dry or flooded, gets blamed on "climate
change." It isn't surprising or unexpected, then, that Watts Up With
That, one of the most authoritative counterpoints to blaming everything on
anthropogenic climate change,
would run an article on this 1916 Flood, which also happens to have been caused by a hurricane. Interestingly, every place named on that sign is named in that article linked to on WUWT.
The 1916 Major Hurricane Asheville culprit is Number 4 on the list at a time when names were not given to hurricanes and there were no satellites, hurricane hunter aircraft or long-range weather radar systems available to identify and track storms.
There were 15 numbered Atlantic storms in 1916 even though there easily could have been many more that were never observed during this season because of observation inadequacies compared to today’s available technology.
The year of 1916 had more numbered storms at 15 than we've had named storms (Milton is number 13), and that big disclaimer saying there could have been more storms, or even many more storms than we have had is quite important, as hurricane season starts to wind down. Back in 1916, if a storm stayed out of shipping lanes, or wasn't active in them when ships were there, it's far more likely it could live out its life without being known about than today. With our satellites and other ways of knowing they're out there, that's pretty much impossible today.
A measure of the activity of a hurricane season is accumulated cyclone energy, ACE, a product of the strength of a storm and how long it exists. The 1916 Atlantic season had a total ACE of 144 compared to the 2024 season total 115.6 as of October 7, 2024. The Atlantic Season 30-year ACE average (1991 – 2020) is 122.5 so the year 1916 was an above average ACE hurricane year, and 2024 is still below average. Hurricane season runs until the end of November so there's close to two months left. While early predictions were for a very active season, it hasn't been. Even with Milton - so far.
The number of storms through the Atlantic hurricane season, showing the peak on September 10th, and a "You Are Here" box around October 10th, or so. Just to show that while we're well past the peak, we're nowhere near as inactive as through August 1st, or from mid-November until December 1.
If you haven't seen it, yes,
Helene
and Milton both have been blamed on climate change. It's a different
subset of people than the ones blaming it on weather modification or malicious
forces trying to buy up all the land so they can mine the shi..er.. mine the
lithium out of it. In both cases the basic idea seems to be, "it seems abnormal to me, so it
must be this instead of just plain weather" - where "this" is climate change,
cloud seeding, Black Rock, the military, or whatever.
I've always thought that the "100 year" whatever was a good, arbitrary number, a big enough number.
ReplyDeleteMe too. Humans love round numbers. But talk about statistical averages, which 100, 500, et al are, out come the blank states.
DeleteI will agree that the climate has changed as soon as I see bananas on Hudson Bay, or polar bears in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteA new unit of measurement!
Delete'Its so hot a polar bear was seen in Cuba.'
'Get ready folks, next week it will be TWO polar bears in Cuba.'
Er, uh, I mean cold.
DeleteWanna bet that if Soros or Zuckerberg see this comment, they will establish a zoo in Cuba with polar bears and penguins?
DeleteWhich promptly will be eaten, because there's nothing else in Cuba to eat.
DeleteOh, there is PLENTY to eat for the right people.
DeleteCheck out "Yoel And Mari" on Youtube.
Climate change sounds much better than it's just the weather; especially when it can be used to amass huge amounts of money, or sway an election.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think a few of the fear mongers deserve some sort of punishment for their fraud. Having "I lied about the climate" tattooed on their forehead seems like a good one. That, and a law that states you have to pelt them with rotten vegetable when you meet them in public.
I don't buy the weather modification beyond cloud seeding.
ReplyDeleteTo steer a hurricane, much less to create one, is absurd.
However, the genesis of Milton in the west of Gulf Of Mexico (GOM), then growing in intensity so very quickly, then tracking east, is quite unusual.
That Milton the Unusual comes on the heels of strange Helene is rather boggling. Of Helene I mean that after landfall it tracked west then stalled.
I don't think man caused this but I am curious as how to explain.
For the past week I have regularly checked in on the GOM Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) on NOAA site. Nothing unusual there.
A low pressure trough did move down from Arizona and deep into mainland Mexico in the days before formation of Milton. While it seemed massive and persistent, I did not think it strong enough to affect in anyway the weather which was to become Milton.
DeleteThen again, the stagnation which would have occured would cause a rising heat index then vorticity. Perhaps.
Late season storms often act 'not correctly' in size, intensity, speed of build up.
DeleteLike Hurricane Andrew, the first named storm in mid August, 1992. Late for the first named storm, it was all sorts of whacked in size and power.
The later the storm, the less the rules apply.
I'm guessing you haven't been watching the tropics all season because that area has been highlighted practically every day since the season got going as an area where something could develop. The NHC puts a colored marker over an area showing the potential for development over both the next 3 and 7 days. I don't think a single week has gone by without that area showing something.
DeleteIn May, when I posted about predictions for the season, the entire gulf and western Caribbean showed a prediction of 2-3 times the average Accumulated Cyclone Energy. As the post says, we're not even back to average, let alone twice or three times average.
And now I'll add the depressing thing about the great 1916 Flood and Hurricane Helene.
ReplyDeleteSo after WWII, the Army Corps of Engineers and other organizations were looking at the area that got destroyed by the 1916 floods and determined how to harden and prepare for the next big storm, and what damage was going to take place.
All of them figured out that a storm equivalent to the 1916 storm would cause, due to humans building on the low lands, restriction of waterways due to bridges and enforced channeling (like the concrete river that goes through Pigeon Forge) and other man-made stupidities, that the future storm would be over 4 feet higher in flooding than in 1916.
And that lots of hardening of slopes and creating wider flood channels and basins and buying out human habitation and requiring 'replacements' of flood-damaged buildings to move to higher ground were needed to prevent major catastrophe.
Helene was only 2 feet above the 1916 flood levels.
And no real hardening of slopes, widening and deepening of flood channels and basins, no moving of humans up slopes occurred. At all. Instead more and more build-up in flood-prone areas occurred and no slope mitigation took place.
So we get the disaster that was predicted. No, we get a disaster that was less than predicted. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if the flood waters were 4 ft above the 1916 storm?
Now, there are ways of coping with storm damage without having to move too many people. Japan does it. Artfully concreting and stabilizing slopes even in earthquake-prone areas. Fortifying water ways with levees and storm walls and other things, often done tastefully. And, yes, moving people whether they want to be moved or not.
But, no, we spend all our hard-earned tax dollars giving Iran the ability to blow up Israel, giving money and weapons to the actual Taliban, giving Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations lots of 'humanitarian aid' and bringing in 5% of Haiti into this country as 'probationary refugees' and assisting other illegal aliens. Oh, and paying everyone else's fair share in NATO so they could cut their fair shares and look good to their people.
Gee, what could we have done with all of that money?
Also check the demographics in Japan to understand the source of the problem. And compare Hiroshima or Nagasaki today to Detroit today.
DeleteBeans is on it today!
DeleteWe here in NE has also seen historical records of massive floods OVER and OVER again because folks rebuild in the same way, in the same location.
But back in the day of flash powder photography it was "Bad Weather", now we blame it on carbon from burning fossil fuels and "climate change".
Although not arguing intensity of storms, certainly human settlement patterns in the last 100 years have almost by default made storms more "destructive" - especially building in things like flood plains and coastal regions where weather can happen - and when it goes badly, it is very destructive. They area actively building $750K to $900K homes in my state of origin in a well known flood plain with an infrastructure to prevent floods that has not been significantly updated since it was originally built. The 100 year storm will hit, and people will be "shocked" by the destruction.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. Not just the settlement patterns, but the rules enforced on everyone by the greenies, whose only motivation in life seems to be to make every place to meet their idea of "prettier." How much damage has been done by wind farms? How many dead eagles, hawks and more? How much by solar power farms?
DeleteWe need to stop developing right on the beach in Florida. It's just asking for things to get wrecked. Even inland, with all the out of control development they are building whole neighborhoods in floodplains, and when we get heavy rainfall they flash flood. But everyone has dollar signs in their eyes and only care about money.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who grew up in Florida, my parents moved here when I was 3, I can't imagine wanting to live on the beach. Yeah, it can be pretty. Big Freakin' Deal. Evacuate for every storm? Causeways can get taken out. Have more fragile utilities. It's not worth it.
DeleteWell the eyewall just hit us. I'm waiting it out in a shelter because the old house has never been through a major hurricane like this and I don't want to find out in person that it would fall on my head.
Delete" I'm waiting it out in a shelter because the old house has never been through a major hurricane like this and I don't want to find out in person that it would fall on my head."
DeleteI think that's as good a definition of wisdom as I think we'll ever hear. The 5PM update shows winds at 120, which is way better than the last few days with winds in the 160s to 185. Wind loading scales as wind speed squared.
Our local NWS weather had been showing the eye going overhead tomorrow in the early afternoon (1 to 2PM) but at 5PM that went away and our winds look to peak around 6AM. That's a big change, and implies the eye is passing north of us. I'll take it!
I'm in Clearwater/Dunedin, we're well above the storm surge but it's a little breezy out there and according to the weather channel app, it will get a bit worse then slack off around 2300. And now it's dark....
ReplyDeleteI've emptied 6" from the rain gauge so far today.
That's a lot of rain. I've never had one of those and keep telling myself to get a few things, if not a big Personal Weather Station. Like pretty much everywhere in the state, it has been raining since the weekend, and after this afternoon's deluge, I've got standing water all around.
DeleteSiG, prayers for you and yours. Hope your house, antennas and workshop survive with little damage.
ReplyDeleteAbout the "once in 100 years storm" thing.
ReplyDeleteTaking probability theory, then the probability of it occurring in a given year is 0.01. The probability of it NOT occurring is therefore 0.99.
Now the probability of it NOT occurring over a 25 year period is 0.99 to the power of 25 (i.e. the probability THIS year is 0.99, next year is also 0.99 but you must multiply 0.99 by itself for a 2 year period and continue to do that 25 times).
So over a 25 year period, the probability of the 100 year event NOT happening is 0.77782 or, to put it in terms of the event occurring is 0.22217. Or, statistically (not guaranteed) over a 25 year period, you have a 22.2% chance of that 100 year event happening.
Don't think that just because you have had a "100 year event" happen that you are good for another 99 years. Randomness and nature doesn't work like that.
Phil B
Do we really know the dates of these "100 year events" accurately enough to use five significant figures? I always thought that was an approximation.
DeleteI used a spreadheet to calculate the numbers since two significant figures don't really show much difference from one calculated point to another - only 0.01, a slight bit more if you round the 3rd decimal place.
DeleteAgreed that calculating to 5 or more significant figures is way too precise for something like this but occasionally it helps to show that the data does change and "accelerates".
Phil B