Florida Weather

[Ignoto]

I suppose being a Florida resident isn't quite as dangerous as being a top who barebacks, but I really do not understand the fatalistic attitude that leads individuals to make their lives in hurricane country, and large corporations to invest billions there.

 

I have been tracking Hurricane Francine and comparing its course with The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. NOAA has said that if a storm came along today that followed the same course as the one in 1926, there would be $70 billion damage in Florida and another $10 billion along the Gulf Coast of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. (This year's Hurricane Charley cost at least $15 billion.)

 

Hurricanes have a way of veering one way or the other, so Miami will probably luck out this time. But it can't luck out, every time. If I lived in Miami, I'd be hoping that really bad things happen to Palm Beach -- so they won't happen to me.

 

Here is a link to the 1926 storm track:

 

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at192606.asp

[Guest skrubber]

Florida is the kind of place I would like to live. I probably would never have visited it except for a friend of mine who moved down there from NJ. I have been visiting every year at least once and think it is a beautiful state. I suppose you take the good with the bad and certainly take your chances to move to Florida but I think it's worth the risk and plan on moving there when I retire. Get away from this northern snow.

[eastbayguy]

>I suppose being a Florida resident isn't quite as dangerous

>as being a top who barebacks, but I really do not understand

>the fatalistic attitude that leads individuals to make their

>lives in hurricane country, and large corporations to invest

>billions there.

>

>I have been tracking Hurricane Francine and comparing its

>course with The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926. NOAA has said

>that if a storm came along today that followed the same course

>as the one in 1926, there would be $70 billion damage in

>Florida and another $10 billion along the Gulf Coast of

>Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. (This year's Hurricane

>Charley cost at least $15 billion.)

 

Are there any areas of the nation not prone to occasional severe damage due to extreme conditions brought on by nature? I'd lump hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, severe blizzards and so on in to this category. Is any area of the nation really immune?

 

--EBG

[Guest showme43]

Palm Beach huh? The 1928 Hurrcaine came ashore there...killed over 2000, mostly poor farmers who drowned from storm surge out of Lake Ockechobee.

We'd all be better off if it turns north into the mid Atlantic.

[+ deej]

>Is any area of the nation really immune?

 

Nowhere worth living. ;-)

 

Some riends retired to Florida last year. Their financial plans include completely rebuilding at least twice in the next 20 years. I live in the earthquake zone and pay insurance premiums accordingly.

 

After every natural disaster, people ask "why do people live there?" -- every time the Mississippi floods, every time a tornado flattens a town in the midwest, every blizzard that closes the east coast, etc.

 

The answer is easy. It's home. :-)

[Guest manreadyokc]

>The answer is easy. It's home. :-)

 

. . . and, of course, you're right. I grew up on the Gulf Coast of Texas (hurricanes), moved to Central Texas (tornadoes), then to Oklahoma (MEGA tornadoes). Oklahoma City is home base now, and the tornadoes continue every year, but it's a great place to live and, yes, it's home. I now own a condo in Florida that is 10 miles across the gulf from Sanibel Island and 30 miles from Punta Gorda . . . Charley was a little to close for comfort. I was chatting with a friend at the gym yesterday who said, "Next you need a condo in San Franciso on the 25th floor of a 30 story building in San Francisco that was built in the 1940's and you'll have all the natural disasters covered." What a peach of a guy . . . anyone know a good realtor in SF?

[mercury40]

My fantasy if I ever win the lottery is to live in 5 star hotels and never own anything. When the weather gets bad I'd just leave and go somewhere the weather is good. I wouldn't even bring any clothes with me. I'd just go shopping when I get there and leave everything behind when I leave. I think it would be the perfect life not having any possessions at all.

[+ deej]

So you aspire to be Hooboy?

 

Have you SEEN some of his travel tales? :+

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

The Weather Channel

 

I lived in San Francisco for ten years, including during the last major earthquake there, lived in South Florida during two hurricanes there and now live in Los Angeles. As Deej and others have pointed out, there are many other things that motivate people to live where they do, whether it be tornado country, hurricane areas or otherwise.

 

Home is where the heart is.

 

http://www.gaydar.co.uk/francodisantis

[woodlawn]

I don't think you have enough information about the recent history of hurricanes, or you wouldn't have made the comments you did about Florida. Until this year, during the past decade North Carolina has suffered far more damage from hurricanes than has Florida. I think that would probably still be the case if you expanded the time period to two decades, which would include Hurricane Andrew in 1992. As for this year, Charley did major damage to western and central Florida, but torrential rains caused by Gaston have required one of the most historic districts of Richmond to be condemned for water damage. And was it last year or the year before that a hurricane shut down Washington and left water waist deep in the streets of Baltimore?

 

I think it's probably the case that Florida is no more vulmerable to hurricanes in statistical terms than any other part of the eastern seaboard south of Washington. You wouldn't suggest we relocate the capital city, would you?

[+ Charlie]

I currently live in Palm Springs, where the only real danger (other than heatstroke) is from earthquakes, but destructive ones have been pretty rare, compared to the hurricanes, tropical storms, floods, tornadoes, windstorms and blizzards that affect much of the rest of the country.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Are there any areas of the nation not prone to occasional

>severe damage due to extreme conditions brought on by nature?

>I'd lump hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, severe blizzards

>and so on in to this category. Is any area of the nation

>really immune?

 

Severe blizzards would not cause me much concern. They are only dangerous to life and limb of you are foolish enough to go out in one. When I was living "back east" I loved the blizzards. Gave me an excuse to cocoon with a stack of good books and a endless supply of gin!

[Luv2play]

People sometimes confuse a severe climate with severe weather, when in fact, there is a world of difference between the two. In the case of the northeast of the North American continent, we have a severe climate but because building codes recognize this, we are seldom confronted with weather that causes widespread damage. In the southeast, the opposite is the case. A mild climate has led to an attitude that flimsy structures are acceptable for human habitation.

 

It was only after Hurricane Andrew that Florida started to get serious about tightening up their building codes and compliance. Insurance companies got in on the act and considerable improvements have been made. Nevertheless, south Florida is still vulnerable to a devastating hurricane.

 

What has changed in the last several decades is the amount of investment that has been made in real estate on the east coast of Florida. Relatively cheap structures erected in the 40's and 50's have given way to multimilliondollar stuctures that house single families by the tens of thousands, something unheard of just several decades ago. High rise luxury condos have sprouted like mushrooms in places like Aventura just north of Miami. If a major hurricane were to hit one of the areas today, the costs would be incalculable.

 

Hurricane Andrew hit Homestead, a few miles south of Miami, and a relatively poor area. A similar hit on Fort Lauderdale or Miami today would be devastating in comparison and it is easy to believe that $70 billion in damage is not outside the realm of possibility. Scary thought!!!

[Guest Tristan]

Both you and Woodlawn make some very good points. The Carolinas have historically taken many more hits than Florida. Hurricanes just seem to gravitate to them. And what happened in Richmond caught everyone by surprise. I think you made the most important point. The difference between now and 10-15 years ago is the incredible development that has taken place along the shoreline in hurricane prone areas. I don't think your estimate of $70B is high enough. Hurricane Charley, which hit the west coast a few weeks ago is estimated to have caused $15B in damage, and that was in a much less populated area. Had it hit Tampa as predicted, it would have been much more castostrophic.

 

So here I sit in Fort Lauderdale thinking about all the historic blizzards through which I lived, especially in the Boston area. I went X-Country skiing down the main road after the Blizzard of '76. The only way to get around was by skiis or snowmobile. It was exciting and quite an event. Of course, this was a nightmare for people who didn't make it home before the blizzard. The point was well taken, that if you are are at home, the worst thing a blizzard is usually going to do is knock out the power. And even that doesn't always happen.

 

I believe that hurricanes have taken the highest death toll since they started keeping records, though tornadoes and earthquakes may have more shock value. Hurricanes cover a much greater land mass area. The impending hurricane is certainly scary, but while there are long lines in the supermarket and places like Home Depot, I don't sense any panic (yet). I just went to fill up my car with gas, and there was no wait at all. Of course, as the hurricane gets closer, that could all change. This storm is a biggie and needs to be taken very seriously.

 

Well wish us all luck here on the east coast of Florida. Hopefully, we'll still be here when it's all over, and the coastline will not have changed dramatically. So come on down - after any mess is cleaned up.

[Ignoto]

>I don't think you have enough information about the recent

>history of hurricanes, or you wouldn't have made the comments

>you did about Florida. Until this year, during the past

>decade North Carolina has suffered far more damage from

>hurricanes than has Florida. I think that would probably

>still be the case if you expanded the time period to two

>decades, which would include Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

 

Which, of course, is another way of saying that South Florida is overdue for the Big One. Or do you also believe that the southern Californians who live along the San Andreas Fault don't have enough information about the history of earthquakes?

 

>I think it's probably the case that Florida is no more

>vulmerable to hurricanes in statistical terms than any other

>part of the eastern seaboard south of Washington. You

>wouldn't suggest we relocate the capital city, would you?

 

I'm very happy that the capital city is far enough inland that it will not experience the 100+ mph winds and 20-foot walls of seawater that threaten the sandy beaches of South Florida. Florida coastal areas are no more vulnerable to those killers, than other coastal areas along the Atlantic and Gulf. Unfortunately, they are no less vulnerable, and millions of people have not chosen to live close together in places other than Miami.

 

Inland cities like Washington DC and Richmond will be flooded from time to time, by heavy rainfall. But comparing a heavy downpour to a hurricane is like comparing a 2.0 earthquake to a 7.0.

[MTLover]

The Orlando area seems to be in a much greater panic than Ft. Lauderdale as we have a very recent memory (less than three weeks ago) to spur us to prepare and the refuse from Charley is still piled high in the streets in many places. Wood appears to be running out around our local places and the forecast seems to portend an even worse hit from Frances. I've lived here for 15 years and this is honestly the first time we have been so severely struck by storms. It is a nerve-racking time. Florida folks stay safe.

[woodlawn]

> Until this year, during the past

>>decade North Carolina has suffered far more damage from

>>hurricanes than has Florida. I think that would probably

>>still be the case if you expanded the time period to two

>>decades, which would include Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

 

>Which, of course, is another way of saying that South Florida

>is overdue for the Big One.

 

That is a meaningless statement. There is no reliable method of calculating the likelihood of a major hurricane striking any particular part of the eastern seaboard over a period of years, so it makes no sense to say that South Florida is "overdue" for anything. South Florida is a mighty big place, and the chances of any particular community being hit by a lethal storm in any particular year are really rather small. The Miami area was last hit by a major storm twelve years ago. Does that mean it is "due" to be hit by another this year? Of course not. It could be hit this year. Or it could just as well be another twelve years before that happens. Or another twenty.

 

> Or do you also believe that the

>southern Californians who live along the San Andreas Fault

>don't have enough information about the history of

>earthquakes?

 

There's no comparison between the two phenomena. The San Andreas fault is a geologic feature that exists only in a certain place and responds to geologic stresses in certain predictable ways. Atlantic hurricane activity, on the other hand, depends on a number of factors each one of which changes every single year -- principally the amount of rainfall in West Africa, which is where tropical storms in the Atlantic originate, the prevailing ocean temperatures, and the prevailing winds near the eastern seaboard. A slight change in those winds would have caused Charley to hit downtown Tampa, rather than Punta Gorda.

 

>>I think it's probably the case that Florida is no more

>>vulmerable to hurricanes in statistical terms than any other

>>part of the eastern seaboard south of Washington. You

>>wouldn't suggest we relocate the capital city, would you?

 

>Inland cities like Washington DC and Richmond will be flooded

>from time to time, by heavy rainfall. But comparing a heavy

>downpour to a hurricane is like comparing a 2.0 earthquake to

>a 7.0.

 

Nonsense. Several years ago Hurricane Floyd, a Cat 4 storm, went right by the coast of Florida and then rapidly deteriorated -- but not before dumping so much rain on eastern North Carolina that thousands of people were flooded out of their homes. If your home is destroyed, do you really care whether it is because of a direct hit by a hurricane or because of the rain bands of a passing one? I don't.

[Ignoto]

>That is a meaningless statement. There is no reliable method

>of calculating the likelihood of a major hurricane striking

>any particular part of the eastern seaboard over a period of

>years, so it makes no sense to say that South Florida is

>"overdue" for anything.

 

Sorry, I guess I was just being too subtle in pointing out how meaningless your own statement was, about most of the damage being farther north during the last 20 years. (You have any data going back, say, 500 years? Are you suggesting that the probability of a Florida hurricane has decreased recently?)

 

 

>There's no comparison between the two phenomena. The San

>Andreas fault is a geologic feature that exists only in a

>certain place and responds to geologic stresses in certain

>predictable ways. Atlantic hurricane activity, on the other

>hand, depends on a number of factors each one of which changes

>every single year

 

So what was the point of saying that just in the last 20 years, most of the hurricanes have hit farther north? (Except, of course, for the ones that hit farther south.)

 

 

>Nonsense. Several years ago Hurricane Floyd, a Cat 4 storm,

>went right by the coast of Florida and then rapidly

>deteriorated -- but not before dumping so much rain on eastern

>North Carolina that thousands of people were flooded out of

>their homes. If your home is destroyed, do you really care

>whether it is because of a direct hit by a hurricane or

>because of the rain bands of a passing one? I don't.

 

If you were one of 100 people killed in an automobile accident on September 11, do you really care whether it was not because you were at the World Trade Center? The $70 billion in damage that a hurricane will eventually do to the Miami megalopolis, is somewhat more consequential than the 4,117 uninsured and underinsured homes flooded by rains from Floyd.

[Guest Tristan]

The Weather Channel displayed a chart showing the states with the greatest number of hurricane hits since 1900. Florida was the clear leader in the 50-60 category. The Carolinas were high up there, but not as much as Florida over the long term.

[woodlawn]

>>That is a meaningless statement. There is no reliable

>method

>>of calculating the likelihood of a major hurricane striking

>>any particular part of the eastern seaboard over a period of

>>years, so it makes no sense to say that South Florida is

>>"overdue" for anything.

 

>Sorry, I guess I was just being too subtle in pointing out how

>meaningless your own statement was, about most of the damage

>being farther north during the last 20 years.

 

The meaning of my statement obviously escaped you, as I'm sure much else does. The import of the original post in this thread is that living in Florida is riskier than living elsewhere. If one looks at the damage done in Florida by hurricanes in recent decades as compared to the damage done elsewhere, that simply isn't borne out. Now do you get it?

 

> (You have any

>data going back, say, 500 years? Are you suggesting that the

>probability of a Florida hurricane has decreased recently?)

 

 

I am not "suggesting" anything. I came right out and said there is no reliable method of predicting how often Florida will be hit by a hurricane during any particular period of time. That is why your statement that Florida is "overdue" for a hit is so absurd. How can you say something is "due" to happen if there is no paradigm for predicting how often it will happen? Well?

 

 

>So what was the point of saying that just in the last 20

>years, most of the hurricanes have hit farther north?

>(Except, of course, for the ones that hit farther south.)

 

See above.

 

>If you were one of 100 people killed in an automobile accident

>on September 11, do you really care whether it was not because

>you were at the World Trade Center?

 

No. That is why it makes no sense for you to say that it is somehow riskier to live in Miami than in cities which are seldom hit directly by hurricanes but which have suffered a huge amount of damage as a result of those hurricanes anyway. If your home is going to be flooded by the aftermath of a hurricane so that you can't even get in the door, why is that not as bad having the roof smashed by hurricane-force winds? Either way, you're homeless.

 

> The $70 billion in damage

>that a hurricane will eventually do to the Miami megalopolis,

>is somewhat more consequential than the 4,117 uninsured and

>underinsured homes flooded by rains from Floyd.

 

How do you know what a hurricane will "eventually" do to Miami? Even if you take the two decades from 1984 to 2004 as your example period, a period that includes Andrew in 1992, you will have a period during which Raleigh and Baltimore and Richmond were all flooded by hurricanes but Miami was not. So shouldn't you be telling people that they are stupid to live in those other places?

[Ignoto]

>How do you know what a hurricane will "eventually" do to

>Miami?

 

As I noted in my original post, "NOAA has said that if a storm came along today that followed the same course as the one in 1926, there would be $70 billion damage in Florida and another $10 billion along the Gulf Coast of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana." Of course, this doesn't take into account Miami's immunity to hurricanes that you have discovered.

 

 

>Even if you take the two decades from 1984 to 2004 as

>your example period, a period that includes Andrew in 1992,

>you will have a period during which Raleigh and Baltimore and

>Richmond were all flooded by hurricanes but Miami was not.

 

Those cities were flooded by tropical storms that were the remnants of hurricanes. You seem not to understand that the greatest dangers from a hurricane are 100+ mph winds, and sea surges of 10 to 20 feet.

 

Meanwhile ..... another tropical depression has just developed out in the Atlantic, following a path just south of the one tracked by Frances. The hundreds of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents who are being evacuated today, may not want to go home right away.

[woodlawn]

>>How do you know what a hurricane will "eventually" do to

>>Miami?

 

>As I noted in my original post, "NOAA has said that if a storm

>came along today that followed the same course as the one in

>1926, there would be $70 billion damage in Florida

 

And the NOAA has, of course, a superb record of accuracy when it comes to predicting what hurricanes will do. Does the name "Floyd" ring a bell? Or you could ask the people of Tampa who were told to evacuate because of Charley -- and the people of Punta Gorda who were NOT told to evacuate until it was much too late.

 

 

>>Even if you take the two decades from 1984 to 2004 as

>>your example period, a period that includes Andrew in 1992,

>>you will have a period during which Raleigh and Baltimore

>and Richmond were all flooded by hurricanes but Miami was not.

 

>Those cities were flooded by tropical storms that were the

>remnants of hurricanes.

 

I'm sure that makes the thousands of people who lost their homes and businesses feel much better about the experience. They can tell themselves, "Well, I may have lost everything I have in the world, but at least it wasn't because of a direct hit by a hurricane."

 

 

>You seem not to understand that the

>greatest dangers from a hurricane are 100+ mph winds, and sea

>surges of 10 to 20 feet.

 

You seem not to understand something much, much simpler: fierce winds and storm surges hold no danger at all UNLESS THEY ACTUALLY STRIKE A COMMUNITY.

 

 

>Meanwhile ..... another tropical depression has just developed

>out in the Atlantic, following a path just south of the one

>tracked by Frances. The hundreds of thousands of Miami-Dade

>County residents who are being evacuated today, may not want

>to go home right away.

 

Well, if they have nothing better to do this weekend they can spend their time trying to figure out why you said Miami was "overdue" for a hurricane when the truth is there's no way of predicting when or if the city will be struck by one. How anyone can proclaim that something is "due" to happen when there is no means of measuring its likelihood is a puzzle that could occupy them for a long, long time.

[Ignoto]

>fierce winds and storm surges hold no danger at all UNLESS

>THEY ACTUALLY STRIKE A COMMUNITY.

 

..He said, while millions of Floridians with common sense tried to avoid being part of a "community" that will stretch 100 miles along Florida's east coast. It could be the 100 miles north of Palm Beach, or it could be the 100 miles south of there (including Miami). The only thing that is predictable is that if Frances doesn't do major damage to Miami, the next hurricane might.

[woodlawn]

>>fierce winds and storm surges hold no danger at all UNLESS

>>THEY ACTUALLY STRIKE A COMMUNITY.

 

>..He said, while millions of Floridians with common sense

>tried to avoid being part of a "community" that will stretch

>100 miles along Florida's east coast. It could be the 100

>miles north of Palm Beach, or it could be the 100 miles south

>of there (including Miami).

 

Or we could have the same situation we've seen on several occasions during the past decade or so, which is that the hurricane misses Miami but its remnants flood one of the other cities near the Atlantic where the "crazy" residents of Miami do NOT live.

 

> The only thing that is

>predictable is that if Frances doesn't do major damage to

>Miami, the next hurricane might.

 

You're saying it's "predictable" that something "might" happen? Seriously, do you ever actually read any of the nonsense you post here?

[woodlawn]

>>fierce winds and storm surges hold no danger at all UNLESS

>>THEY ACTUALLY STRIKE A COMMUNITY.

 

>..He said, while millions of Floridians with common sense

>tried to avoid being part of a "community" that will stretch

>100 miles along Florida's east coast. It could be the 100

>miles north of Palm Beach, or it could be the 100 miles south

>of there (including Miami).

 

Or we could have the same situation we've seen on several occasions during the past decade or so, which is that the hurricane misses Miami but its remnants flood one of the other cities near the Atlantic where the "crazy" residents of Miami do NOT live.

 

> The only thing that is

>predictable is that if Frances doesn't do major damage to

>Miami, the next hurricane might.

 

You're saying it's "predictable" that something "might" happen? Seriously, do you ever actually read any of the nonsense you post here?