Comments on: Parts of Texas “underwater,” but levees spared

By: Brendan Loy

Brendan Loy — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:51:58 +0000

I showed you where. Re-read the post. It’s based on Doppler Radar estimates, so it could be slightly off. (Probably not 50% off, though.) However, because the heaviest rain occurred over a relatively narrow band that’s not too heavily populated, it’s quite likely that there were no weather stations within the 20+ inch zone, and thus you won’t hear any physical reports of such amounts. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

By: paul a'barge

paul a'barge — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:33:28 +0000

2 feet of rain? Where? I’m in central Texas, just north of Dolly but in the outer rain bands and I can tell you that down here we’ve heard nothing about 2 feet of rain. In fact, the most we’ve heard of is just over 1 foot.

By: blogbudsman

blogbudsman — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:24:12 +0000

My folks finally moved back to the midwest from the Florida Keys. Does the term “hurricane party” mean anything to you. They finally got scared enough to leave. Yes there is abundant evidence. Public safety officials have to deal with it every time. And then there’s New Orleans…

By: Brendan Loy

Brendan Loy — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:23:13 +0000

There is abundant evidence that people frequently disregard hurricane warnings. I've personally seen it time and time and time again -- storms threaten life and limb, officials say "evacuate," people don't. They say "I'll never leave." They say "this house survived [insert irrelevant previous storm here], it can survive anything." Occasionally, they hold "hurricane parties." Sometimes, they die. Just a few days ago, a Harvard survey found that "nearly one-fourth of people in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina would refuse to evacuate for a storm if told to." But that's barely news -- it's something that anyone who has ever followed hurricanes, as I have for nearly 20 years, is painfully aware of. In addition, there are countless examples of folks in the blogosphere getting all, as you put it, "snarky" about the retrospective, 20/20-hindsight incorrectness of "doom and gloom" forecasts for individual storms that were off by a meteorologically insignificant margin. Never mind that a tiny, unpredictable, last-minute wobble was the only thing that prevented the forecasts from coming true: these ignorant idiots will nevertheless dismiss the dire predictions as so much "hype" and "hysteria," when those forecasts were, in point of fact, completely plausible and responsible at the time they were made. I've seen that time and time again, too, and it makes me incredibly angry because it encourages cynicism about hurricane forecasts (for no good reason!) and thus actively encourages the sort of Darwin Award behavior we were just discussing. So I was making a pre-emptive strike against that attitude here. Hence my "snark." It's pretty obvious, though, that the gloom and doom predictions from a few months ago were a bit overstated. How is that "obvious"? Please elaborate. (Hint: assuming that you are referencing the "gloom and doom predictions" that called for an active hurricane season, you'll find no evidence whatsoever to support your conclusion. This season has been very active so far, by any objective, factually valid, scientifically non-bogus standard. This unusually high early-season activity may or may not imply that the remainder of the season will be active, but it certainly isn't evidence that it WON'T be an active season, or that it won't live up to the pre-season forecasts.)

By: Pink Pig

Pink Pig — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 05:02:58 +0000

Do you have any reason to believe that people disregard hurricane warnings? It’s the only possible explanation for your snarky comment above. There’s ample justification for the Darwin Awards, but for myself and my family, I don’t propose to be a candidate, and I don’t know anyone who does.

It’s pretty obvious, though, that the gloom and doom predictions from a few months ago were a bit overstated.