Storm of the Century

So, your ridiculous rant means that the storm was just a figment of the biased media's imagination?

Really?

Try telling that to the families of the 19 dead people. "The biased media killed them".

I call BS on you!

What you are saying is asinine. I hope you know that.

That is certainly not what I said.

And, for every link you put up supporting your opinion, however flawed it is, I can match it with one supporting mine, no matter how flawed it might be also.

There's the problem. "News" is no longer "news". It's now propaganda, slanted to appeal to the listener so they will listen to the propaganda and call it "news" from a reliable source.

Your last two paragraphs are quit accurate.

I don't think it was overhyped.....we were fortunate that the storm zigged instead of zagged and we were spared what could have been much worse damage and destruction...I've lived in Florida off and on for most of my life, and have been through many hurricanes, Hurricane Donna passed directly over our house in 1960, we went out when the eye was passing over just to see what it looked like standing in the middle of the eye of a hurricane...then went back in the house and closed the windows on the windward side and opened them on the downwind side to keep the roof from flying off....I remember right after the wind died down we hopped in the car and went down to the beach to see what happened...there was fish everywhere, the windows were completely broken out of the buildings and there was debris everywhere....Today all the buildings have shutters and the building codes are much stricter because of what we have learned over the years, but the trees remain, and the flooding can't be stopped, minimized by water management canal systems, yes, but not eliminated, and storm surges, perhaps the greatest threat, cannot be contained...We still have power poles stringing power and cable to nearly every house, some underground now for the last leg, and concrete poles replacing the creosote soaked wooden ones, but that does not make it safe in a hurricane, just safer than it was.....We had 2 people killed by falling trees locally, and 2 people died because emergency services couldn't safely get to them in time....We were lucky this time, and I know that's the truth....

1. Welcome back Kotter!

2. Can't say I blame the media for reporting the possible consequences of the storm, or people for taking those warnings seriously. I have been through many hurricane warnings when I lived in North Carolina. Many of those storms turned back out to sea once they hit land - but not all of them. All it takes is a Katrina, for (smart) people to say "well, maybe there is someplace else safer to be right now".

3. As for the media saying anything about the cause/reason for the storm - well I just flat must have missed that part.

"But there always seems to be a supply of people with compromised judgment systems regardless of the media's ability to get the word out."

But there always seems to be an endless supply of people with compromised judgment systems.

_{There, fixed that for ya'!}

'fraid you're right.

The media isn't looked upon as a reliable news source anymore. More so as reactive entertainment.... what ever that may mean.

Coupled with people who fail to take responsibility for themselves or their action and pay the consequence.

I think the impression of over-hype comes from reporting like this where Shepard Smith said: "This moves 20 miles to the west, and you and everyone you know are dead — all of you — because you can't survive it.....and your kids too"

I'm not saying people shouldn't take storm warnings seriously or that they shouldn't have evacuated. But give me a break.....you and everyone you know are dead....you can't survive it? I think that's a bit of an over statement.

That was truly over the top, but if the storm had moved inland it would have been much worse.

The OP seems to think that it's all a conspiracy by All Gore and his group to suck money out of the air.

That backward attitude is more dangerous than overhyping the real danger and is becoming more prevalent every day.

Granted that it would have lost its punch, but at what cost in lives and damage?

UUUUgh I'd say.

"If it had moved inland it would have been much worse (for a much smaller area). Once storms move inland, it drains their punch, removes their source of energy and moisture."

I guess you don't remember Andrew....

..."A total of 63,000 homes were destroyed and more than 101,000 others were damaged, leaving roughly 175,000 people homeless. As many as 1.4 million people lost power at the height of the storm. In the Everglades, 70,000 acres (280 km²) of trees were downed. Rainfall in Florida was substantial, peaking at 13.98 in (355 mm) in western Miami-Dade County. Altogether, Andrew killed 44 and left a record $25 billion in damage in the state.

Before moving ashore Andrew caused extensive damage to oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to $500 million in losses for oil companies. It produced hurricane-force winds along its path through Louisiana, leaving about 152,000 without electricity. Over 80% of trees in the Atchafalaya River Basin were downed, and the agriculture there was devastated. Throughout the basin and Bayou Lafourche, 187 million freshwater fish were killed in the hurricane. An F3 tornado in St. John the Baptist Parish wrecked 163 structures. With 23,000 houses damaged, 985 others destroyed, and 1,951 mobile homes demolished, property losses in Louisiana exceeded $1.5 billion. The hurricane caused the deaths of 17 people in the state, six of whom drowned offshore.

Andrew spawned at least 28 tornadoes along the Gulf Coast, especially in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Throughout its path, Andrew left 65 dead and $26 billion in damage (1992 USD, $43.8 billion 2016 USD); it is currently the fifth costliest hurricane in Atlantic hurricane history, behind only hurricanes Katrina and Wilma in 2005, Ike in 2008, and Sandy in 2012."...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Andrew

I remember Andrew but that was a beast of a different color. It's very unlikely that anyone alive for Andrew will see another one like it.

Well Wilma was the same way, cat 3 when it hit, crossed the Florida peninsula cat 2 then back to cat 3 on the other side....

I too, remember Andrew and hope you are right. I could quite happily go the rest of my life without seeing another one like that.

Let's not forget Hurricane Camille (1969). H Andrew is rated so bad as much because of the property damage it caused as the loss of human life. Andrew roared through a densely populated area of middle and upper class homes in Miami-Dade.

But in terms of power, Camille was much, much worse.

Let's not forget Hurricane Camille (1969). H Andrew is rated so bad as much because of the property damage it caused as the loss of human life. Andrew roared through a densely populated area of middle and upper class homes in Miami-Dade.

But in terms of power, Camille was much, much worse.

you are quite correct. with a 24 foot storm surge it took no prisoners.

Note: Camille was in the late 60's well before junk computer doomsdays climate models. it was blamed on the reality of Mother Nature not 57 Chevy's and coal

That was during global cooling threats though.

yet another media fallacy

Speaking of commercials, has anyone ever noticed that when a broadcast is interrupted for "breaking news" or some sort of alert, it's never during a commercial (or political ad), but that the portion of whatever you were watching is what is interrupted?

Speaking of commercials, how can we get rid of pharmaceutical and political commercials and get back to more sanity in commercial TV?

Is the purpose of repetition of the same ads over and over really to sell a product or person or to drive us mad?

Commercials, especially those praising "the latest advances" in medical science, are the direct result of Congressional bribe taking. Big pharma spends BILLIONS of dollars to pay lobbyists who buy Congress. Those lobbyists write the bills that let drug companies is pay for and advertise their tests as legitimate and then charge obscene prices for them

How about getting rid of TV? I really mean it. Maybe try not watching it?

When I was twelve, our TV went out and dad didn't replace it for 18 months.. funny part, after about maybe 3 days, I never missed it.

As a child, our TV went out three years in a row. I learned a little about replacing tubes. After the third year, my dad chose not to repair it. We went at least 3 years before getting one to replace it. I complained because all my friends were watching Happy Days....but really, I didn't miss it that much. I had plenty of things to keep me busy (dogs, woods, sports).

[_{just seeing this post}] ~ When I moved to the apartment I'm in for a new job 2-1/2 years ago, I left my (2) tvs behind at my home. The only news that I now catch is while I'm on the treadmill at our fitness center. And now (now that I am NO LONGER constantly being pummeled by the deafening cacophony of propaganda, claptrap and twaddle that both Crappywood and our so-called broadcast journalists* spew forth 24/7), now I can see clearly and distinctly how all-too-many minds are being "won-over" to the liberal left's "heroin-high" self-destructive agenda. It is so sad, watching kids these days, reciting the kinds of things they have been "taught" to believe. Now-and-again I feel like the gal (_{played by Dakota Fanning}) in War of the Worlds, watching dead bodies floating-by in the river.

---*---about those "journalists"; I cannot help but wonder whether they HONESTLY believe all of the "slant" that they force down people's throats... or, are they being "directed" to do so, against their will (letting $$ drive them to what they do)...?

I see real 'hope'

I stopped watching TV 2 years ago, the only type of programming I see has been internet/Youtube based.

over the air TV is just a mild protracted form of brainwashing

Just watch football over the networks, otherwise, its YouTube or movies

Can't hardly even bring myself to watch a game, after Kaepernick began his nonsense (it was easy for his new <_{ethicity-omitted}> girlfriend to coerce him into being a bad boy... his education already had him primed to hate this country). Once one dumb idiot does it, others are bound to follow... ("Hey, I gunna do dat TOO!").

Now, I hear that it's supposed to be 'cool' to LIKEWISE show disrespect, in (subtle) violation of US Code, when you're invited to sing our National Anthem.

And the "agenda" continues to snowball, with MANY of the players these days not even realizing what part they are playing, within it...!

An overwhelming number of Uh-merican citizens have drunk the koolaid, and bought into "academia's teachings". I shan't rant, now, but: we shall all be paying the price in the not-too-distant future, for failing to do as this country's Founding Fathers prayed that we would do.....(_{no emoticon will suffice})

Minions, the new America.

And who remembers that day when you could watch TV all night and never see the same commercial twice?

I remember the lights when TV went dead at 9:00PM and didn't come back on till 6:00AM the next.

Oh, and the test pattern I sort of remember had an American Indian in it.

I had several trees snapped off at about the 6' level. I have hundreds of pounds of vegetation piled up in the street that used to be part of my yard.

There were 120 MPH winds about 15 miles from my house. About 2:30 AM the clump of storms trying to join the outer eye-wall rolled over my house. I never heard a good number but before losing power the TV suggested winds in the 90's in our town. We didn't get power restored until 6 PM Sunday from Friday's storm. Many people still don't have power and our community was very lucky compared to many further north.

About 2-3 years ago I had several postings on CR4 asking for advise while I was planning and building an archway for bougainvillea. I ended up making it out of 3/8" square solid steel bars. All cross members were welded. That arch was on the south side of the house "protected from the wind" and the steel is now bent (foundation held) over 45 degrees to the south.

I don't have any qualifications as a weather expert but I'm going to call this storm real.

Glad to hear you have weathered the storm as well as could be expected. Just curious, how close to the coast are you?

About 2000'. If the eye would have been a little farther west I might need a negative number to answer your question.

Less than 1/2 mile definitely puts you squarely in storm surge danger zone as flat as it is down there.

If I am not mistaken the biggest perpetrator of the 'hype' was FOX News (Shepard Smith). I find it a bit ridiculous that you claim that FOX has a liberal bias or a stake in a "global warming HOAX" (your words). I deal with rainfall related issues every day in my work and I can tell you that from the actual rainfall data that I have seen storms are becoming more severe. Whether climate change is related to something that humans are responsible for or not is immaterial and was not really a part of the hype, as far as I could tell.

I don't think it was overhyped - it just tracked a bit differently than originally planned.

Originally, people thought it would go back into the ocean and turn south after hitting South Carolina, but it continued on to North Carolina and those people were not prepared. I bet they wish there had been some "hype" for their state so they had a little warning.

Here is an older article that has some information about problems with hurricane predictions. According to the article, even one day out, the predicted path can be off by 100 miles.

Here's more information about the National Hurricane Center's prediction process.

The weather channel is "OOOOH A HURRICANE!" Floridians are like, "It's Gonna Rain."

Thought for the day,

"You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I don't think Hurricane Matthew was unusually over-hyped. As was pointed out previously, the news and weather channels sell commercials, so all kinds of news stories are hyped all day long to keep the viewers glued to their TV sets. --That's part of the reason for the hype.

Another reason for the hype is that the weather reporters are human and feel the sting from their viewers when a storm is worse than predicted. If they predict storms and no storms happen, no one cares. But if they predict nice weather and a lot of family picnics gets ruined, the weather folks are bombarded with complaints.

There is a famous scene in the movie 'The Shipping News' about this:
"What's the headline?"

As for the global warming / hurricane connection. Yeah, that's bunk. There is no connection between the global temperatures and the strength or number of hurricanes. Anyone who says there is, is either misinformed or uninformed and is repeating bogus information.

Are you suggesting that a historical alteration of global temperature has NO effect on weather?

You agree with Fredski that it's all a hoax?

When the statistics of hurricanes is compared with the mean global temperatures over the past century, there is no correlation between the two sets of data. The global temperature rise of the 1980s through the later-1990s was not followed by an equivalent rise since the late 1990s. Aside from minor blips up and down, the mean global temperature has been flat for about 18 years.

When the mean global temperatures of the past few decades are compared with the mean global temperatures of the past few centuries, there is nothing 'historical' about the numbers. Well, there is one thing historical - the hysterical over-reaction to these within-normal variations.

I think human activity has a small effect on CO2 levels, and CO2 levels have a small effect on global mean temperatures. But the reaction of certain political groups and the politicians they influence has been way out of proportion to the actual changes. My field is astrophysics, and I know that there is no question that the main driving force of the Earth's weather is the Sun. (Take away the Sun and there literally is no weather.) Small changes in the Sun's output have a much greater potential of affecting the Earth's climate that a few percentage points of CO2, which is not even the most significant of the 'greenhouse gases'.

No, no!

Certainly not decades.

Come on.

Surely you know that we're not talking about weather trends.

Global climate does not change over a decade, or even a century.

You cannot discount what the real science says because you disagree with it.

I'm on my phone this week so I can't easily research topics.

but you can't tax the sun so that argument rarely is included in the narrative

I agree, and as far as reactions, it was a pretty common news story.

Which a lot of news story's are loosing it public information and being substituted with sensationalism. I would put internal acts of domestic and outside terrorism.

Both carry similar newsworthy weight, now using story's like this for a political agenda weight is something different.

My point is, news today is more about entertainment than a public service.

Didn't the 'news' in the U.S. start as a public service required by the broadcasters for the privileged of using the public airwaves? I would like to go back to when it was reported and not sensationalized.

Drew K

Keep dreaming. There was also a time when political candidates were afforded equil time to present their cases to the public, free.

There was also a time when lawyers were not allowed to hawk their wares on TV.

There was also a time when drugs were tested and approved for the by the government.

There was also a time when drug companies were not allowed to advertise their latest "miracle" drug as if it were (like laundry detergent) " new and improved" what's it.

Those drugs didn't cost thousands of dollars a year and everyone still made a nice profit.

Then, I'd say post Eisenhower, Congress decided to sell itself to the Devil and we have what we have today. $600.00 Epipens, and $35,000.00 a year cancer drugs, and fake news, sold to the highest bidder.

Congress are whores and we are the unwitting John's.

That's what I thought, a while ago the FCC required that stations broadcast news for a certain amount of time.

but now there been so much complaints about the news to the FCC that 'the news' isn't really news at all. Just a but of selected bits and pieces of b.s.

And then you have people (members here on CR4 for example) post these bits and pieces of crap, most are too lazy to do that and you're supposed to take their word for it and then just beller and label them as fact, but on CR4 these members also talk down to anyone that disagrees with. When in fact everything is taken out of context and at times not even recognizable.

That's so far off topic that it doesn't even deserve a response.

You can have your own opinion, you cannot manufacture your own facts.

Facts require going to UNBIASED sources and your FCC source says nothing except that they are not allowed to interfere with the Breitbarts and Fox News propaganda machines. Just as they are not allowed to interfere with the CNNs and other liberal sources.

That is why I have been telling you for some time that if you can't quote verifiable facts, you are wasting our time with your propaganda.

I realize this will open the flood gate of your wrath, but go ahead, it's easy enough to ignore, just as you could ignore me.

You just keep repeating the same tired old propaganda and expect repetition to magically turn it into fact. It doesn't work that way.

No it's on topic, it just reminds you of yourself.

I'll tell you what's tiring, your consistency of being a hypocrite is phenomenal, you'll search the web and selectively pick and choose your facts to suit your platform and hail to the world your 'facts' and ignore the rest of the facts that don't match your agenda and degrade and ridicule everyone else who disagrees with you. Very rarely do you list all the facts.

and that doesn't include when you go half cocked just to blow your horn on topics you know nothing about, but think you do.

I'm patient, but there's a limit, You need help with your disorders.

You are so predictable.

If predictable means pointing things out to you as your blowing your horn, yes.

Some here seem to believe that just because they don't believe something, it isn't true.

We DID have a hurricane!

It DID kill people!

Perhaps Fred, and the other usual suspects, should not watch TV at all. They can just walk out the door and hold a finger up and know all they need to know about the weather.

After all, that's how my parents did it, right before my father hooked up the team to go play o.cut and take hay.

Nobody denies that Matthew was "real"...

but , But , B U T , we've been having hurricanes and typhoons for MEEELLIONS (maybe billions!) of years now, haven't we? Are the ones in the past 200 years any stronger or weaker than the ones that BEGAN to carve out our coastline say, between 480,000 and 479,800 years ago...?

Hurricane Matthew was interesting in that it threatened to run the eye up the beach for a major part of the east coast of the US. The eye stayed off shore for most of the path and for many areas the significant damage was far less than the damage forecasts.

While Matthew was running up the coast Nicole was somewhat idle in the Atlantic. She is now moving. She is interesting (but not historic) in that she is forecast to be a hurricane for at least a day or two after she is no longer a tropical system. I'm sure this has happened many times before but I don't recall noticing it.

Well it's still awful windy here and I can tell you trying to wrassle these palm fronds and branches and stuff in this kind of wind is exhausting, I'm glad I don't have to do it anymore....

It helps to have designed and built one's own home on the Florida Atlantic coast. There was no global warming or pre-Andrew "hype" in the late 1970's, just the Labor Day storm of the late 1930's and Camille in 1969 to guide one's engineering acumen for the design and construction of his home and to justify his riding out the storm in his home.

The worst was, as expected, when the eye wall appeared as a "lightening'' of the eastern horizon and the wind was shore parallel toward the south. The peak wind speed on my little magnetic wind gauge on one of the two of the four roof railings (the only structural damage) that survived the blast was barely Cat 3 at 112 mph, but was slightly higher than what NOAA was predicting for the location.

Claiming anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax will fade into history along with Watson's "Who would want or need a computer at home?" and many other failures of vision and rejection of scientific fundamentals by individuals of otherwise very well founded realism. In a way I am one, for I really thought that after the Soviet Union collapsed, there would finally be a ''peace dividend''.

Skeptic or warmist, climate change is real, and in part anthropomorphic.

Consider how man over the ages has changed the land; as I type this I am sitting in a new development not more than 50 feet from a wooded area.

Several months ago we were under a tornado watch, and I remember thinking "Is it possible that the wooded area that was cleared served as a means for the wind to dissipate its energy before effecting occupied areas?"

Think of all the shopping malls, airports. roadways and cities and farms that have changed the landscape in the last 200 years! I think just about everyone on this forum has heard of the "urban heat island" effect.

As long as we keep changing the land use, climate will change in addition to whatever changes occur naturally.

You mixing up things here. Unless the cleared land has caused the Tornado there is nothing man made on the Tornado itself.
As with so many things we are aggravating the impact of a Tornado with how we do the landscaping but there was and is and always will be a Tornado.

Same things with flooding. If we build in flood prone areas we wash away our houses and kick and scream about flooding but flooding was there before and will always be there after.

You miss the point that climate "Change" is something happening anyway, you can not qualify and quantify humans impact on climate, but we need to do this on the consequences. Change is a given and if it wasn't changing it was something to be worshipped.

Also check your wording https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism.

Agreed, but to many people anything that is "different" than their everyday experience is "significant" change.

Personally I would be more worried if climate DIDN'T change.

ever stop and think how much pavement and miles of concrete affect drainage and waterflow during and after rain events??