From the “looks like a win for skeptics” department. USGS publishes new information that quashes widespread media and activist claims that the flood in South Carolina was caused by climate change; nor was it a “1000 year event” as many have called it such as USA Today:
From the USGS: Flood Information website:
Dr. Robert Holmes, USGS National Flood Hazard Coordinator, takes some time to discuss and answer some hot issues related to the flooding in South Carolina.
Is this flooding in South Carolina truly a 1000-year flood?
While this certainly was a catastrophic flood with lots of damage and tragic loss of life, USGS provisional data and preliminary analysis show NO indication that a 1000-year flood discharge occurred at any USGS streamgages. However, based on that analysis, it does appear that the USGS streamgage on the Black River at Kingstree, SC and the one on theSmith Branch at Columbia, SC both measured peak floods in the neighborhood of a 500-year flood. Currently, there appear to be a few more streamgages experiencing a 25-year to 50-year flood, but the majority of USGS streamgages had flood peaks that were less than 10-year floods. USGS will have more accurate estimates of the flood probabilities out in the coming months, as the engineers and scientists in South Carolina take time to do more careful analysis of the statistics.
I heard that the river flow through downtown Columbia was 4 times the historic maximum; maybe that was close to the 1000-year flood?
The provisional peak flood flow that USGS measured for the Congaree River in Columbia was 185,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on Sunday, October 4, 2015. The maximum recorded in history was 364,000 cfs in 1908, which is almost double what was experienced in this current flood.
In the 1930s, though, reservoirs were built in certain parts of the Congaree watershed upstream of Columbia, which makes a flood of 364,000 cfs unlikely. However, even in the 75 years since the construction of those reservoirs (see the peak record here), there have been floods that approach the 2015 flood. For example, in 1964 the peak discharge was 142,000 cfs, and in 1977 the peak discharge was 155,000 cfs.
So, if only the data from last 75 years are considered, this flood is the largest in that period, but not four times the historic maximum.
Why do you think people have been calling it a 1000-year flood?
When USGS uses terminology like “1000-year flood,” it means that, statistically speaking, a flood of that magnitude (or greater) has a 1 in 1000 chance in any given year. In terms of probability, the 1000-year flood has a 0.1% chance of happening in any given year. One must keep in mind a 1000-year flood value is a statistical value based on observed data.
Although the USGS streamgage data in South Carolina does not seem to indicate a 1000 year flood, the amount of rainfall that fell over a 2 to 3 day period (greater than 16 to 20 inches in some locations) had, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a statistical probability of occurrence of 0.1% or 1 in 1000 chance. So, rather than someone saying this was a 1000-year flood, it is more accurate to say that “statistically speaking”, the rainfall that fell was a 1000-year rain storm, although it did not result in a 1000-year flood.
How can we have a 1000-year rain that does not result in a 1000-year flood?
It comes down to a number of factors, including the pattern of movement of the rain storm in each particular watershed, the conditions of the soil and plant matter on the ground in the watershed, and the timing of rain storm in one watershed versus other watersheds, among other things. An example would be that ground that is saturated before 1 inch of rain fell would result in more water going into the stream that if the ground was dry and could soak up more of the rain. Also, less water will runoff into streams from 1 inch of rain falling in the summer with the trees full of leaves versus the winter when there are no leaves to intercept the rain. This is all the science of hydrology, which is the study of the movement and distribution of water on the earth. Of course, in South Carolina, many of the watersheds have streams that are regulated by dams.
Is this flood due to climate change?
USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.
A much bigger impact on flooding, though, is land use change. Without proper mitigation, urbanization of watersheds increases flooding. Moreover, encroachment into the floodplain by homes and businesses leads to greater economic losses and potential loss of life, with more encroachment leading to greater losses.
Why do the values for the 100-year flood seem to change with every flood?
The amount of water corresponding to a 100-year flood, a 500-year flood, or a 1000-year flood is known as a “flood quantile”. For instance, on a given river, the flood quantile corresponding to the 50-year flood might be 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or the flood quantile corresponding to the 100-year flood might be 15,000 cfs. The estimates of the flood quantiles (corresponding to various probabilities) are made from using actual data collected at a site in a statistical analysis.
So, for a particular river, USGS would collect data over time; determine the largest flood in each year and then run statistical analysis on that data. Now, the more years of data available, the more accurate the estimates for the various flood quantiles (the floods corresponding to the 50-, 100-, 500-year, etc). For example, if there are 40 years of data, that would yield a better estimate of the 50-year flood than if only 25 years of data were available. Moreover, if only 50 years of data exists, statistical models will do better estimating the 10-year flood quantile than the 100-year flood quantile.
As more years of data become available, the estimates become more refined, which can result in the quantiles changing. An example in the Southeast United States is the Broad River at Carlton, GA. That watershed had a wet period, with larger annual peak floods, from the late 1800’s to 1920, followed by a drier period since that time (at least in terms of flood peaks). The statistical analysis for the entire period (late 1800s to 2014), which includes the wet years prior to 1920, results in an estimate of a 100-year quantile that is 40 % higher than the one using the data from just 1920-2014.
But it seems like the 100-year flood is getting larger through time at a site near me, so you are saying that this is not necessarily from climate or land-use change?
Climate variability (dry cycles to wet cycles) plays a large role. There is a large amount of uncertainty around the flood quantile estimates (the value of discharge corresponding to the 100-year flood), particularly if there isn’t a long record of observed data at a stream location. For example, if there is only 25 years of data and a statistical analysis was done on that data to estimate the 100-year flood, uncertainty around the estimate would be quite large. It can look like flooding at that particular location is getting worse if there are 2 or 3 floods in a short period that exceed that estimate of the 100-year flood. However, if there were 700 years of data, it might show that what had been called a 100-year flood when there was only 25 years of data was really only a 10-year flood.
I would like to dig a little deeper into the meaning of 100-year flood, can you tell me more?
Instead of me doing that here, let me point you to something on the web that I prepared several years ago on this very subject. I titled it “100-Year Flood—It’s All About Chance”. You can see what I have said by going to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/106/.
Source: http://water.usgs.gov/floods/events/2015/Joaquin/HolmesQA.html
h/t to Marc Morano of Climate Depot
Note: about an hour after publication, the first paragraph was corrected for a typo and to read more clearly on the intended meaning.
The climate liars had this one well covered with their disinformation campaign.
I am surprised that I can still be surprised by how wrong so many can be about so much.
I couldn’t resist dropping this USGS article into the cesspool of Think Progress. The Rommulans had been doing their usual number on this event. I am anxious to see their responses.
http://nyp.st/1LuCCyY
I hope you can open the above link. It’s an Op Ed concerning Russia in the Middle East. I linked to it because the conclusion is similar to what scientists should consider concerning the intent of warmists.
Stop trying to only fight bad science w good science. Bad science wants to secure its interests. They will continue to do so via hyperbole and alarmism.
What other tools have you found useful other than boringly pounding the table about good science ?
Indeed, the equivalent of an almost retraction.
It’s also an opportunity to see what works in the debate.
The link below is to one of Mr Steve Schneider’s last public appearances. He died a few weeks later (RIP). It’s a few years old but becomes more valuable as I watch it. As the years go by, the emotion of the moment becomes more detached, I am more liberated from my immediate biases.
41:05 begins a vivid clue into the difficulty of publically debating CAGW. Media catering to choices of extremes to garner viewer interest, and a scientist discussing probability and how it reflects on their presentation of the risk.
Thanks for watching it.
Science found “x”
Risk assessors determine “y”
Risk managers debated “z”.
Profiteers ran free.
Now compare that moment with the concept of media latching onto doom or euphoria to garner interest. 1000 year flood ? A continuance of the attention grabber.
Media is supposed to sell an interest in stories. Some media hold to a higher standard, others dont. In a world where competing for attention has become other worldly, they have their work cut out for them.
On the other hand, science is trapped in a knot of a riddle. In order to regain the purity of what it is supposed to be, the field is very likely going to have to undermine its own appeal. It will have to admit to the fact that it is nothing more than an ATTEMPT to reduce uncertainty and fraught with the humbling reality that sometimes it doesn’t even know what questions to ask. Ah, but it can replicate the data for the question that may have nothing to do with the issue that is being discussed.
Despite the challenge, Im pulling for science.
Learn from this minor flood history correction. Perhaps acknowledging your own weakness as a field allows you the ability to undermine the bigger perversion of CAGW. You’ll survive. More humble, more centered back on the scientific method and da peoples may collectively learn a thing or two.
This post is too long. Sorry about it. I’ll work on cutting the point down.
Thanks for the link Knute. That gives me a much better idea of what Schneider was about.
He answers most questions well. It’s also pretty clear the educational reach of this web site in the questions he was getting thrown !!
The one bad response that he got away with was his bath-tub analogy. As the water gets higher the same drain whole will evacuate more water, not the same amount as he claimed.
The knowledgeable questioner pulled him up on this and mentioned to key word “homoeostasis” but this key point got lost in the tight schedule of a TV debate.
You are welcome.
I agree that he came across as a more reasonable scientist than this statement attributed to him:
” On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Also his apparent frequent reference to the models and the IPCC lead me to wonder if he was too dependent on questionable science in his replies hoping the audience was uninformed.
Knute, I appreciate what you’re getting at. It is critical that we understand the end game and how it is so devoid of environmental design. Appealing scientifically to the political machine that underpins IPCC is like expecting a fish to dig episodes of Bob Newhart. And good people like LMofB are right with you in activating political counter measures. But I think you are underestimating the political power inherent in the public discourse. A tide has turned, and largely due to the public’s exposure to the potential that CAGW is a NULL hypothesis. We have to falsify wild claims to the enth degree in order to humiliate the CAGW machinery, and that how numbers grow. Education bolsters against being co-opted down the road.
How can you declare a 1000-year flood with only 100 years of data? Statistics.
You cant, but that’s not the objective. The objective is to get attention. Take this instead from a polling request I received this morning,
“Donald Trump is clearly the most polarizing figure in the upcoming 2016 election. Whether you love him or hate him, he’s gathering massive amounts of media attention.”
‘he’s gathering massive amounts of media attention’.
And that’s the prize.
Get attention.
Good science is boring.
In the court of public appeal, your never going to compete and win with an alarmist by denying the cause for alarm exists.
Now consider a sexy, wealthy medical researcher gets up in front of the BBC and makes a total mockery of some popular drug. Now that’s news that shifts the debate. It stabs at the soft underbelly.
Do the same with perhaps a rocket scientist who explains how we are just really fortunate that thru trial and error (not models) we get to blow alot of stuff up before we successfully shove that big thing into orbit. Shock value.
Then find a an equally attention grabbing climatologist and have them rip a giant hole thru the uncertainty of their field and you begin to get people attention.
Headline reads
“Famous panel of scientists warn the world not to trust them as much as they do”
Would you watch it ?
I get the impression that the initial reporters simply wanted to bandwagon their favorite subject. The rainfall was heavy, but the stream gauges were inconsistent in what they reported. Surely a reporter would have asked the local authority what the go was. Instead they jumped the gun (shark) and reported an exaggerated version of the worst of the gauge reportage.
Because it sells.
Don’t ask a leopard to not be a leopard.
Learn how to make the leopard hunt for you.
Knute, like you I came at this from a polical understanding. I get the gamesmanship, the clickbate, the tools of statecraft. And i tried to unhand the fear campaign from that angle. But I need to be able to meet the gatekeepers in debate and crush them with the evidence. The strategy is to take out the foundation. Asking voters to fund a NULL hypothesis will seem silly.
The ship of argument over CAGW is the distraction. And so you win the morale victory of being right but not in time for them to have gained momentum in wealth transfer.
They will get their carbon tax.
Have made money on alt schemes.
Picked up sizable positions in depressed fossil assets.
Warming won’t come.
The climate will cool.
You will be proven right.
The tax will go away.
We will buy fossils from them.
They’ll write a book about this in 100 years.
Sure, fight the battle of good science. It will matter someday when science matters again, but in the meantime you have very few options left to stop them. Pounding the table al la Cruz of being duped is good theatre … that’s all … off Broadway at best.
I’m a Canadian, the ruling party will decide to fund the IPCC and to set up a carbon tax..or emissions tax. If the federal Conservatives win we avaoid the tax, if they don’t, cue the sucking sound. This is a well concieved plan to set up the tax base for global governance. And through downward pressure more countries will sign up. That ship is sailing. But the political capital is not in stopping the ship, its in letting it sink.
OvG
“I’m a Canadian, the ruling party will decide to fund the IPCC and to set up a carbon tax..or emissions tax. If the federal Conservatives win we avaoid the tax, if they don’t, cue the sucking sound. This is a well concieved plan to set up the tax base for global governance. And through downward pressure more countries will sign up. That ship is sailing. But the political capital is not in stopping the ship, its in letting it sink.”
I cut n pasted cause I wanted to get your pov.
You opine that the ship has sailed, the tax is on its way and global governance is en route ?
You are hopeful that the federal Conservatives will save Canada but realistic that they will likely be sucked along as more countries sign up ?
My tidbits for your pov. ALL current political parties have their hand in the till. They either are in it overtly or positioned behind the scenes for when it comes. Hedging their bets … waiting to see to what degree the UN pulls off the scam. Federal conservative victory won’t matter because they are probably sold out and if not Canada doesn’t really pull enough weight to matter (I like Canada btw and have a place there).
Despite knowing that the inevitable is coming you are committed to exposing the ruse. Admirable from an integrity pov and the future of science, but ineffective for this variety of bulletless warfare. The IPCC has already told you it is not about climate change so why continue to belabor the point ? They already told you so.
They already told the world and the world yawned. In a bizarre twilight zone moment, the IPCC has admitted their cause is not CAGW and nobody bothered to stop and listen. Why ?
I opine that few took CAGW seriously in the first place. Yeah, they liked that it cracked the door open for new whiz bang energy and free grant money. New careers. Puppies for the girlfriend and cars that whirl. A pretty end where the means we’re corrupt, but so what. I’ve easily heard hundreds of times that “so what, it’s for a good cause”.
I think that’s why they were easily seduced.
Here a marvelous little site that does much better than I can concerning the status of the carbon tax. The UN does it for you while sprinkling in a Mann here and a pope there.
http://www.carbontax.org/blog/
The mob hates one thing more than others. They will blindly follow you here or give up their freedoms there. And, they will do it rather cheaply. But, if the mob knows that you plan to take away a painfully large portion of their earnings they push back.
So what do people think this will cost the average first tier nation citizen ? (yearly)
5%
10%
15%
Got any cites ?
I agree with your breakdown almost to the point. But there is more you want to say.
Although the USGS streamgage data in South Carolina does not seem to indicate a 1000 year flood, the amount of rainfall that fell over a 2 to 3 day period (greater than 16 to 20 inches in some locations) had, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a statistical probability of occurrence of 0.1% or 1 in 1000 chance.
I don’t know how they work their statistics out, but Hurrican Floyd dropped 17″ on Myrtle Beach in just two days in 1999.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/south-carolina-floods-a-thousand-year-rainfall/
The highest official figure I have seen this year is 14″ in three days at Charleston.
While there have been unofficial reports of higher rainfall in a few outlying localities, this is always likely to happen. It would have been extremely unlikely that the Myrtle Beach official measurement was the highest anywhere in the State on that occasion.
Clearly it is a nonsense to claim 1 in 1000, when a similar event occurred just 16 years ago.
“USGS puts the kibosh on ‘1000 year flood’ and ’caused by climate change’ claims over South Carolina flooding.”
The main problem I have with this and 1000 year rain event is you should never claim something longer than the data is long. It doesn’t matter how it compares with recent years statically, there is no way to know that it could have occurred nearly every 20 years 500 years ago for a century, but nobody knows.
Like the Met Office when they claim numerous year events they never go longer than the period of the data record is because this is the way scientists should behave and not make something up, that can’t be backed up because the data isn’t long enough to confirm it. The rain event was 1 in how long the data record is and no more because who knows? NOBODY.
Very good point. Any statistical projection on data from , say, the last 100y of records can only reflect the climate of that period. We know that climate was much colder during the LIA and warmer 1000y ago, so projection of statistics of the last century onto the climate of the last millennium is a falsehood.
The second issue is the two flips of a coin. One head does not make it more likely the next flip will be tails. Presenting the the 0.1% statistic as a “1000y storm” will CERTAINLY invite the conclusion in the mind of Joe Public that we should not see another one for a thousand years.
In short this not only bad science but wilful misdirection.
Patterns of weather often come in successive periods, so that is another reason why the 1000 year event is nonsense.
How could climate change be a factor when there hasn’t been any for the last 18+ years…..
simple, it has been just as hot and it is a well known fact that we have been having 1000y storms everywhere for the last 18 years.
/sarc
“Why do you think people have been calling it a 1000-year flood?” The answer is that this headline is the initial propaganda that the public remembers. Later scientific rebuttals of the cause being global warming or CAGW pass right over their heads, even if they did notice them. It is now all just a propaganda war. Science went out the door long ago.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Good information. Worth the time to read.
Severe damage; people died. Whether it was a 1000-year or 500-year is really esoteric.
If it was a normal sunny weekend, people would have died. Considering the flood depth and extent I think they did well. So the question really is, how good was the reporting of the flood event?
The reporting engaged and excited many people. Not the sort of stuff Perry White would have approved of, but, by today’s standards, it was great reporting.
There still seems to be confusion among the media and even folks here as to the difference between a 1000 yr flood event vs 1000 yr rainfall event. The USGS article mostly addresses flood events…but it does state that it could’ve been a 1000 yr rainfall event. NOAA apparently claimed it was a 1000 yr rainfall event.
And a 1000 yr rainfall event can be over various durations…1 hr, 2 hrs, 24 hrs, 48 hrs, 72 hrs, etc. So obviously “a 1000 yr event” should happen more than 1 in 1000 yrs in a given location.
And while it’s fair to use statistics and curve-fitting to estimate a 1000 yr rainfall event based on 100+ years of rainfall data, you won’t find any legit engineers or scientists standing by those figures. It’s too much of an extrapolation and has way too much error associated with it.
Pay attention to how opportunistic SC is compared to a state like NY. The conversation about USGS historical flooding is fun, but the real stuff of interest is what will SC take from the feds as compared to a State and city like NYC.
NYC is already capitalizing on Sandy by receiving additional flood protection money due to climate projections.
What will SC do ?
You build on a known flood plain, and are then surprised when you get flooded out? Is the human species really getting that dumbed down?
It might have been a 1/1000 year event for that location but not for the planet or even the country. Every year a 1/1000 year event will happen somewhere and in 999 other locations it won’t. This is the fallacy of the stats and the misinformation of the media who report them.
comprehensive, readable, convincing – enriching.
Thanks for Dr. Robert Holmes and USGS.
Regards – Hans
In the same time as the South Carolina flooding, there was a similar flooding though on a smaller area in the region of Cannes, french Riviera. 17 people died. And the same voices began to blame this flooding on the climate change saying it was “unprecedented” from man’s memory.
I am living on the mediterranean coast about 150 km west from Cannes. There is a carved mark on the wall of our city Hall that recorded the water level, about 6 ft high, of a flooding that occured on oct 19th 1858. The city Hall is located less than 100 meters from the sea shore (!), so it is difficult to imagine the huge water amounts the storm brought that day since there is no river in the vicinity.
Indeed, never a similar flood happened again since 1858 until now.
Never say “unprecedented”.
With 263 major river basins, there is a one in a 1000 year flood in one of them every 4 years on average.
Even if this were a 1 in a 1000, hmmpf.
The headline for the USA Today article appears correct to me.
Wha…? April Fool’s Day? No, it’s October. Alternate universe? Maybe. It IS very hard to believe that a government agency, even one formerly dedicated to science and truth, would dare defy climate doomsayers and purveyors of apocalyptic propaganda by distributing a statement composed of scientifically defensible concepts and common sense.
Or perhaps I’ve simply lost touch with reality and imagined this article.
The rainfall event although bad enough was nothing to numerous regions around the world that get far more rainfall on a yearly, monthly and daily basis.
The U.N. WMO (World Meteorological Organization) recently announced (2014) that a ‘new’ world record for a 48-hour (or two day) period has been confirmed following an investigation by a group of climatologists from around the world. The figure is said to be an amazing 2,493 mm (98.15”) at Cherrapunji, India that fell on June 15-16, 1995.
The difference between 17 inch and 20 inch relatively, may be only a couple more hours of extremely heavy rain. Just put this into perspective, although it was rare for a local region many areas around the world have received greater rainfalls. Who’s to say it’s not this regions turn for some greater falls this century, when the data record only represents mainly one century out of last ten thousand years from the recent past during the current inter-glacier.
The past century could have been easily one of driest over the past 10,000 years.
“…The rainfall event although bad enough was nothing to numerous regions around the world that get far more rainfall on a yearly, monthly and daily basis…”
That’s why each location has its own criteria for what makes it a 1,000 year event. Cherrapunji averaged 129 inches of rain in July from 1971-1990 and 464 inches per year. Charlestown, SC, is around 5.4 inches and 44 inches, respectively. What constitutes a 1000 yr rainfall event in Charlestown isn’t the same as that of Cherrapunji.
And the difference between a 17 inch and a 20 inch rain event can be huge over a large area. That 3 inches is 7% of Charlestown’ average annual rainfall. And it’s not falling on unsaturated ground.
“Only a couple more hours of extremely heavy rain” turning a 17 inch rain event into a 20 inch one makes a huge difference.
…not to mention that this was over a 2-3 day period, not a monthly or yearly basis. And you’d be hard pressed to find “numerous regions around the world that get far more rainfall on a…daily basis.” Cherrapunji’s wettest month averages 4.3 inches/day.
Nothing makes it a 1000 year event, until you know over a 1000 years that it is the wettest weather event. Of course locations have there own mean standards compared to extremes, but my point is only over a tenth of the period leaves a lot of room for variation when compared to a unknown nine tenths of the period.
What I mean if the same weather event occurred again even if it had been 200 years ago, it would only need to last a bit longer to cause significant difference. A mean of weather over a month has been a generally pointless statistic because it is often the result from average of extremes. Places rarely experience average weather every single day for the entire month.
http://listdose.com/top-10-rainiest-places-on-earth/
Daily basis I really meant like 2/3 days like experienced by this event. Cherrapunji average is very misleading because monsoons make them very variable and 98.15 inches over just 2 days is an awful amount of rainfall. Charlestown had a awful lot of rainfall compared to usual there, but it was no more than a 100+ year event based on the length of the data.
Use of porous concrete can help with these floods, it can’t be used in high traffic areas like a highway, but could be used on the shoulders. It costs more than asphalt, but a little long term thinking might be required from our civil engineers.
Engineers don’t pay the added costs upfront or with maintenance. Bureaucrats do.
I’ve seen impressive demos of porous concrete, but this sort of rain event is overwhelming. And rapid infiltration to the subsurface is only good until the ground becomes saturated.
” So, rather than someone saying this was a 1000-year flood, it is more accurate to say that “statistically speaking”, the rainfall that fell was a 1000-year rain storm, although it did not result in a 1000-year flood.”
Climate change won’t cause a thousand year flood directly, it will cause the conditions that create the thousand year flood. The rainfall is the fingerprint, not the flooding, which will vary depending on numerous other variables.
“Fingerprints”. Implying they are Man’s? Ma’ Gaia doesn’t have any?
This piece of news alert in relation to historic floods in Carolina, US , in the first week of October 2015 was circulated about 12 days back by this Vedic astrology writer though the prediction of this writer was in existence since June last:- October 2015 has just begun. News reports suggest that a powerful hurricane Joaquin is wanting to lash US coastal areas. It seems concerned officials in US have advised residents in places likely to be affected to be in preparedness. In this regard , this Vedic astrology writer wants to agree with the concerned officials while emphasizing that astrologically speaking, it is advisable to be fully prepared to face the hurricane Joaquin in coming days in US coastal areas or nearby States which usually has an impact. This writer’s prediction about danger from strong storms or sea tsunamis in vulnerable areas near some islands located near sea to come in October 2015 was published in article – Total lunar eclipse of 28 September 2015 and world – in the Summer 2015 ( June) issue of The Astrologer’s Notebook , a quarterly publication from North Port , Florida. Just reproducing the related parts from the article : -“During second half of 2015 , among other things , dangers from sea or in sea like strong storms or sea tsunamis could be likely in vulnerable regions. Power dams and electricity could bring to surface substantial concern. Natural calamities such as floods , landslides and earthquake could sadden.” The prediction further goes in the same article : “ Some islands located near the sea may need to take some precaution .Though second half of 2015 seems to be causing concern , months October and November of 2015 are likely to trigger many unwelcome things out of above mentioned aspects or areas of life”.
The unique contribution by way of appropriate , accurate and well- timed contribution of this writer in alerting the concerned people deserves to be noted.