Home | About | Donate

Landfall or Not, Joaquin Could Deliver 'One-in-a-Thousand-Year' Dangers


Landfall or Not, Joaquin Could Deliver 'One-in-a-Thousand-Year' Dangers

Jon Queally, staff writer

"The worst-case scenarios are very worrisome, and the best-case scenario is pretty bad even without a landfall because of the rain threat."


Another one in a thousand year event?

Well, good thing the oil companies are still insisting this has nothing to do with climate change. I'm going to go fill up again, I remember what Willy said, but I now think that gasoline is god's way of showing us that we have too much money.


For those of you nerds (like me) out there, this means that the logarithm of the expected rainfall is about three times the standard deviation above the logarithm of the historic mean rainfall (probably for a day or two period for NOAA's calculations). (I assume a lognormal distribution, while they are probably using one better for estimating these kind of extremes, but my estimate might help some grasp with what the probabilistic estimate means (no pun)).


The storm's course is now out to sea.

However, in a day we're going to hear some really nasty reports from the Bahamas. There's a big difference between a category 4 storm that passes over an area and one that parks right on top of the area. A storm that lasts ten times as long causes ten times as much damage. Too many people have been trapped in their houses.

Oh, and they will be wealthy white people this time. Yes that makes a difference in news coverage.


What you mean provides a locus for a standard deviant like myself. That mode of thinking is very trendy. If I were three times the person I am I would be in the 1% on the left side of some curve.



On Tuesday, a broad swath of the eastern US from Pittsburgh northeastward to Maine got 4.5 to 6 inches of rain in 24 hours. The cause? Just ordinary moist air ahead of a ordinary autumn cold front. It was the heaviest 24-hour rain that was -not- associated with major tropical storms or slow-moving severe summer thunderstorms. In other words, even some of the most ordinary "rainy days" are now becoming disruptive flood-causing events.

This upcoming storm is similar - and the article should have emphasized that the hurricane will be well offshore and will have nothing to do with it.


My chicken brain hurts. Cluck.


Mother Nature is coming and boy is She pissed!


Will have nothing to do with it? So you are discounting what meteorologists are claiming relative to the hurricane's impact on rain totals – they having factored into those forecasts the hurricane not making US landfall?


"Residents are urged to take precautions to protect life and property." Like take shelter at James Inhofe's house, for whom this storm should be named. In fact, all climate change deniers should be forcefully relocated to the danger zone to experience first-hand the fruits of their labors.


CD goes for the big, the spectacular, the scary, the splashy.It's the End of the World!! Meanwhile local governments up and down the East Coast go about making emergency preparations-prudently. I've lived in the path of hurricanes most of my life (I'm currently residing in California,where we only have to worry about fire, drought and earthquakes) I enjoy the ritual: go down to the hardware store, and buy candles, kerosene , flash lights and tape. Lay in extra food and water. Board up your windows. Turn on the radio and scare yourself. Most of the time, the ritual works, and the hurricane rarely lives up to its hype. The power goes out, and there is some local flooding. The last time I experienced a hurricane that caused serious damage, was in 1954 when Hurricane Carol paid us a visit. A large yacht stranded on the railroad line, boats smashed up in the harbor, a Studebaker floating nose down on Water Street. Lots of flooding, and the power was out for a week. Then there is the legend of the Hurricane of '38-well before my time. That is the Gold Standard for New England hurricanes


Too bad the rain can't be parked over California.


Not to mention the annual "Storm of the Century!"


Jupiter has the Great Red Spot
a permanent feature that Earth has not.
We might get a spot that's white
that permanently erases Earth's human blight
but most other life here wouldn't survive,
little would be left alive
and it will all be our fault
if fossil fuel insanity doesn't halt.


A little of the moisture contribution is coming from the Hurricane - but this event - ordinary frontal-weather related event (not even a nor-easter), would have been about as severe without the hurricane. Ordinary events are now severe events due to a warmer more moisture laden atmosphere and warmer oceans - and that was my point. I'm afraid to think of what some of the actual nor-easters are going to be like this winter - 10-foot snowstorms?


"Scientists say it is all but impossible to tie a specific weather event to climate change but say with increasing certainty that temperatures are rising."


Time for all the climate change deniers to head out for a cruise on the Atlantic from Georgia to Nova Scotia...literally "bounding on the main" and cresting with the waves and then sinking into the abyss accompanying the monster waves. Maybe being smack in the middle of Cat 4 storms, monsoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes will change their obstinacy and denial into acceptance and taking action to stem the tide of climate change. I have lived long enough and been an inveterate admirer and custodian of nature and without scientific data, the climate changes and destruction of so many wild places I have seen are heartbreaking. Yet the moneyed interests perennially seeking to eat up natural resources while destroying everything they touch, polluting soil/rivers/lakes/air and leaving toxins in their wake are the entrenched climate change deniers whose money will not protect them from the results of that denial.


That was in 1888, not last winter-which was pretty bad in the Northeast. This winter will be different, but in what way, nobody knows.


I guess having the pope visit didn't help after all.

Maybe we should invite the head of some other religion to pray for us while telling us to ignore sex education and have larger families.


Well if, for discussion's sake, this "divesting" would have ended widespread burning of fossil fuels, and by "long ago, you man, say, 1950 to 1960, then the answer with about 80% confidence (becasue record extreme events are always possible even without AGW) is "Yes."