Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2006, at 6:56:30
In reply to Re: Not long!!!, posted by greywolf on June 6, 2006, at 11:42:20
Hey grey. Or, do you prefer wolf?
> While I agree that climatological changes will probably have a greater adverse impact on North America than any nuclear incident in the foreseeable future, I'm not sure a storm like Katrina is proof of that. Remember, the impact of Katrina was exacerbated by where it struck more than by the storm's power. At landfall, Katrina was only a Cat 3, and while that's still a major storm, 3s hit portions of the US on average 2-3 times a season.
>
> The better benchmark is probably the overall number of major storms, though only time will tell whether there's a consistent increase in those numbers.If last year's hurricane season is not an anomaly (there were so many records set, that it gives one pause), then the fluke that Katrina faded just as she came ashore might still fail to alert people to be more prepared.
Data just submitted to a Canadian meteorological convention demonstrate that the "spawning ground" for Atlantic hurricanes has been increasing in size. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33533
As low pressure centers spin out and away from Africa on the trade winds, they are encountering ocean conditions which promote higher wind speeds, earlier, over broader areas of ocean. Moreover, sustaining conditions are more contiguous, allowing weaker cyclones to maintain wind speeds (as rotational velocity) that can later strengthen dramatically once the storm encounters the "bath tub" water temperatures of the shallow embayment we call the Caribbean.
Katrina set a record for the fastest increase in power, ever seen. Her eye was one of the largest ever, and the eyewall definition was astounding. As I see it, that she came ashore a 3 is nothing but a benevolent God(dess) doing all (s)he can to give us some time to think things through, again.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:653414
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060604/msgs/654371.html