Gothamist: Hurricane Watch for NYC

Harry

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:01:46 -0500

Brightliner: The fact that it is not zero-sum is exactly my point. Saying we're due for a major storm because it has been quiet for the last seventy years, however, is looking at it that way. The fact that storm classification and detection has changed dramatically over the period that these cycles have been identified calls into question the accuracy of the early data. Long before satellites, storms were reported when a ship spotted one. I certainly think anyone who saw what happened on the Gulf Coast can appreciate the need for preparedness and precautions, there is no arguing that. But I think there is a danger in constantly playing the doomsday card which in my opinion is done more for notoriety than anything else. After a while people stop listening to any warnings and that is what leads to catastrophe.

-ed

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:55:55 -0500

Accuweather is one of the worst private weather forecasting companies out there when it comes to 1) unscientific claims 2) media hype, and 3) self promotion. As Joe Bastard should know from basic statistics, such a statement as "is due for a major hurricane" is hogwash.

Brightliner

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:29:00 -0500

Harry, This isn't a zero-sum game. Just because NYC is due to get hit doesn't mean some other region will be spared. For all you know, we could have a record hurricane season with more named storms than last year, so one heading further north won't make much difference to the south. And actually, as researchers have noted, record-breaking seasons are likely to be on tap given the global warming of the oceans, since warm waters are the engines driving hurricanes.

kc

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:11:41 -0500

but history has shown a pretty steady every-70-year pattern. so it actually is more likely to happen in the next few years than, say, last year, or in the 90s. that's fact. my conjecture is that it's extra likely given global warming and the trend of increased hurricanes and tropical storms.

Harry

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:49:36 -0500

My point is that there is a chance for this type of devestating storm every year. Trying to say 2006 is somehow more susceptible is hogwash. How 'bout we perfect the five-day forecast first? I have yet to see one expert in these articles say it will definitely happen in 2006. Could it happen? Certainly. Will it happen? Who knows.

Ryan

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:37:11 -0500

I mean no *more* crazy.

Ryan

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:36:39 -0500

It's really worth it to find out if your workplace and home are in hurricane evacuation zones. It's no less crazy than knowing where the fire exit is in your building. And it's just as likely to save your life if worst comes to worst.

kc

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:58:52 -0500

actually, it's not hysteria. see this article by arrogant but on-the-mark aaron naparstek: http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=13427 the nyc area gets slammed by a major hurricane typically every 70 years. the last "big one" was the one dubbed "the long island express," in 1938. we're due.

Harry

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:46:39 -0500

This is just attempt to cause hysteria in the innumerate. Saying that NYC is due implies that regions which suffered a devastating storm would be in less danger. Last year's events say otherwise.