| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Irene, the Perfect Storm of Hype |
| 2011-08-29 |
| “We are in, right, now…the right eye wall, no doubt about that…there you see the surf,” he said breathlessly. “That tells a story right there.” Stumbling and apparently buffeted by ferocious gusts, he took shelter next to a building. “This is our protection from the wind,” he explained. “It’s been truly remarkable to watch the power of the ocean here.” The surf may have told a story but so too did the sight behind the reporter of people chatting and ambling along the sea front and just goofing around. There was a man in a t-shirt, a woman waving her arms and then walking backwards. Then someone on a bicycle glided past. |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #15 Finally got the power back on tonight. Out almost 36 hours. It was a lot wilder than I thought it was gonna be. Got a burst about 10:30 AM yesterday that took down 3 100 footers a street over which took out the wires, a transformer and snapped three poles in half. Considering what it looked like yesterday, I'm pleasantly surprised that they got it back as fast as they. Probably helped that today was beautiful. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2011-08-29 22:25 |
| #14 OTOH DRUDGEREPORT > [Ex-Milwaukee Party Girl, Oral Roberts fan MICHELLE] BACHMANN SUGGESTS IRENE WAS GOD'S WARNING. Awwwww, Michelle, no mention of 1960's GUAM TAOTAMONAS - clearly this is a case for Copyright Lawyers, or the ACLU??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2011-08-29 19:12 |
| #13 As a Meteorologist in another life, I for one cannot understand why the NHC kept inferring the storm was going to wipe out New York. In reality it turned into a Summer Nor'easter. Two things a Hurricane must have to maintain it's strength or grow are open ocean (excluding small islands) and warm water 360 degrees. Other variables have to do with atmospheric conditions and upper level wind patterns. This storm was very large but started to lose steam a soon as the NW side start to bump up against the Carolinas. By the time it reached North Carolina the eye had lost it's definition and it was down to a strong Cat 1. By now the storm was starved of half of it's moisture source and was tracking over relatively cooler water. Radar pics along MD, NJ and NY coast showed the SE quadrant of the storm was drying up. Having said that this storm was very large and pushed a lot of moister ahead of it. It's one thing to drop 6-10 inches of rain on the sandy soil of the coastline, but it's another to put that in the rocky and loamy soil of the hills inland. If you add the gradient of the land as it rises from the coast it rings out the clouds. Finally the reporter that claimed he saw the eye-wall in NY, wouldn't know one if it winked at him. He probable saw sky between storm bands. Net-net as the center of this storm ran along the coast it was like ripping a board with a crosscut saw. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2011-08-29 15:25 |
| #12 Barbara, that reference was to the wind and surge damage. Later in the comment I referred to the rain flood damage, which is devastating to the communities affected, but these are relatively small. I've been in some of them and many were charming little places (at least they were 40 years ago) and the destruction is tragic. However, their losses would be 'lost in the noise' had there been just a few feet more storm surge in the New York embayment. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-29 13:42 |
| #11 "damage was fairly modest" Tell that to the towns in New England that are completely under water. By comparison, my power and tree-limb loss are modest. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-08-29 13:13 |
| #10 Unfortunately, an AP article... http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/greaterlouisiana/today/news/national/article.cox?moduleType=apNews&articleId=D9PDS6G82 Says the current death toll from Irene is at 32. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-08-29 13:05 |
| #9 like that nightmare we saw down in Chalmette (six years ago today) Exactly what I was thinking of. And it was followed a few weeks later with that bus of nursing home patients burning up while evacuating Rita - as I recall there were different liability issues with the bus (failure to comply with some safety rules about oxygen, maybe, and lack of driver training or licensing) but it still provided a very real demonstration of the fact that there are risks to staying and risks to going, and that we do a poor job of analyzing them. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-29 12:54 |
| #8 Fortune telling be hard. Make your choice & take what's coming to you. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-29 12:41 |
| #7 Glenmore, I think there's a bias in favor of evacuations because (1) it avoids a disaster scenario like that nightmare we saw down in Chalmette (six years ago today) and (2) it looks like strong leadership. But it's really substituting one set of risks for another. If you order 100 elderly nursing home residents to be evacuated, it's a near certainty that the evacuation will kill some of them. I've just never seen any meaningful comparison of the two sets of risk. Obviously if it's a Cat 5 everyone needs to be somewhere else, but if it's a Cat 1, the tradeoff is a lot less clear. And that doesn't include road accidents or the risk of getting caught in your car. |
| Posted by: Matt 2011-08-29 12:32 |
| #6 Matt, Very good point. If you are responsible for a frail person you have to choose between the certain stress of an evacuation with its statistical health risk, or the statistical storm risk of staying put with a relatively certain health outcome. Evacuate a frail person enough times and odds are the stress will take him. Stay put enough times and odds are the event will take him. In an ideal world you just use your best judgement and hope you are right. In the real world you get sued or jailed if you are wrong and don't evacuate but are mostly ok if you are wrong and evacuate and the person dies. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-29 12:19 |
| #5 Yeah, especially for those of us on the West Coast, the media coverage was tiresome to say the least. But then, the TV is just about worthless anyway. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-08-29 11:43 |
| #4 Although I would have ordered the evacuations, it would be interesting to see some follow-up on how many people, if any, lost their lives because of the evacuations -- ICU patients, the frail elderly, and others. It can be a hellish choice. |
| Posted by: Matt 2011-08-29 11:13 |
| #3 It really could have been far, far worse. Your right - after all Obama was 'in charge' - there might have been a decision to be made in less than three weeks (and four focus groups). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-08-29 08:28 |
| #2 Better safe than sorry. It really could have been far, far worse. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-08-29 08:16 |
| #1 Irene's wind and storm surge were spread out enough and diminished enough that their damage was fairly modest. The rain however, is a different story. The ground was already saturated and the lakes and rivers filled, unlike the typical situation for this time of year; adding 5-6" of rain has overwhelmed a lot of the watersheds in hilly areas. Lots of old towns that haven't had significant flooding in their 200 year existence are being devastated. They're small and spread out, so the total numbers won't be huge, but they make 'great' photo shoots. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2011-08-29 07:59 |