Warming oceans means hurricanes weaken more slowly and inflict more destruction farther inland, new study shows
OKINAWA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (OIST) GRADUATE UNIVERSITY
Climate change is causing hurricanes that make landfall to take more time to weaken, reports a study published 11th November 2020 in leading journal, Nature.
The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.
“The implications are very important, especially when considering policies that are put in place to cope with global warming,” said Professor Pinaki Chakraborty, senior author of the study and head of the Fluid Mechanics Unit at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST). “We know that coastal areas need to ready themselves for more intense hurricanes, but inland communities, who may not have the know-how or infrastructure to cope with such intense winds or heavy rainfall, also need to be prepared.”
Many studies have shown that climate change can intensify hurricanes – known as cyclones or typhoons in other regions of the world – over the open ocean. But this is the first study to establish a clear link between a warming climate and the smaller subset of hurricanes that have made landfall.
The scientists analyzed North Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall over the past half a century. They found that during the course of the first day after landfall, hurricanes weakened almost twice as slowly now than they did 50 years ago.
“When we plotted the data, we could clearly see that the amount of time it took for a hurricane to weaken was increasing with the years. But it wasn’t a straight line – it was undulating – and we found that these ups and downs matched the same ups and downs seen in sea surface temperature,” said Lin Li, first author and PhD student in the OIST Fluid Mechanics Unit.
The scientists tested the link between warmer sea surface temperature and slower weakening past landfall by creating computer simulations of four different hurricanes and setting different temperatures for the surface of the sea.
Once each virtual hurricane reached category 4 strength, the scientists simulated landfall by cutting off the supply of moisture from beneath.
Li explained: “Hurricanes are heat engines, just like engines in cars. In car engines, fuel is combusted, and that heat energy is converted into mechanical work. For hurricanes, the moisture taken up from the surface of the ocean is the “fuel” that intensifies and sustains a hurricane’s destructive power, with heat energy from the moisture converted into powerful winds.
“Making landfall is equivalent to stopping the fuel supply to the engine of a car. Without fuel, the car will decelerate, and without its moisture source, the hurricane will decay.”
The researchers found that even though each simulated hurricane made landfall at the same intensity, the ones that developed over warmer waters took more time to weaken.
“These simulations proved what our analysis of past hurricanes had suggested: warmer oceans significantly impact the rate that hurricanes decay, even when their connection with the ocean’s surface is severed. The question is – why?” said Prof. Chakraborty.
Using additional simulations, the scientists found that “stored moisture” was the missing link.
The researchers explained that when hurricanes make landfall, even though they can no longer access the ocean’s supply of moisture, they still carry a stock of moisture that slowly depletes.
When the scientists created virtual hurricanes that lacked this stored moisture after hitting land, they found that the sea surface temperature no longer had any impact on the rate of decay.
“This shows that stored moisture is the key factor that gives each hurricane in the simulation its own unique identity,” said Li. “Hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans can take up and store more moisture, which sustains them for longer and prevents them from weakening as quickly.”
The increased level of stored moisture also makes hurricanes “wetter” – an outcome already being felt as recent hurricanes have unleashed devastatingly high volumes of rainfall on coastal and inland communities.
This research highlights the importance for climate models to carefully account for stored moisture when predicting the impact of warmer oceans on hurricanes.
The study also pinpoints issues with the simple theoretical models widely used to understand how hurricanes decay.
“Current models of hurricane decay don’t consider moisture – they just view hurricanes that have made landfall as a dry vortex that rubs against the land and is slowed down by friction. Our work shows these models are incomplete, which is why this clear signature of climate change wasn’t previously captured,” said Li.
The researchers now plan to study hurricane data from other regions of the world to determine whether the impact of a warming climate on hurricane decay is occurring across the globe.
Prof. Chakraborty concluded: “Overall, the implications of this work are stark. If we don’t curb global warming, landfalling hurricanes will continue to weaken more slowly. Their destruction will no longer be confined to coastal areas, causing higher levels of economic damage and costing more lives.”
###
Whaaat? Wait, wait, I thought it was TRUMP?
He made the hurricanes designate unusually fast this.
You’re way behind….
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/11/12/the-sound-of-settled-science-92/
That’s a pretty big oops there.
Journals need to lockdown submissions to flatten the curve so that reviewers can catch up to all of the scientists mistakes.
“This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm, hurricanes are more likely to reach communities farther inland and be more destructive.” This has nothing to do with science but with an OPINION. As opinions seem to rule the world these days, we (the western world ) is in danger.
The longer version published below by Mike Smith’s Maue link shows more graphs, but your link has this, beside the point like so many papers, interesting link, Snake eels have sharp tails that penetrate gastrointestinal walls, usually die becoming encapsulated. Never eat a live snake eel as lots of fish do, actually a dolphin was once found dead on a Texas beach with snake eels clogging its blowhole. Such events actually happened more than 50 years ago, bet there is a hurricane example then also.
Breder, C. M., Jr. 1953. An ophichthid [snake] eel in the coelom of a sea bass. Zoologica. 38:201-204.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/11/wild-photo-shows-snake-eel-burst-out-of-birds-stomach-in-midair/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
Assuming this has been pointed out to Nature, why is the article still posted there?
“But they forgot to remove storms that landfall & then go back over the ocean”
…they didn’t “forget”….without that…they had no paper at all
2 million people will read the paper……3 people will read the retraction
This “refutation” (by Ryan Maue) is clearly BS. The speed you deniers jumped up in joy when this appeared and the uncritical acceptance of twitter refutations is revealing.
– Ryan’s actually complaining that (among others) Jeanne (2004) appears twice in the database ‘cos it had a landfall in the Dominican Republic and later in Florida. So the article authors were CLEARLY factored in that hurricanes COULD leave land.
– The authors obviously extrapolated the “tau” value (hours before decay) for each landfall for hurricanes that reemerged over the ocean. Bonnie (1998) spent a bit more than 24 hours above land, and it’s given a 58 hour decay time. Bonnie was still traceable 100 hours after landfall, ie. the 58 hours is just an extrapolation using the first 24 hours. Ryan either doesn’t understand this or pretends he’s unable to understand. Neither is good. (Extrapolation, if done properly, is a good way to patch datasets.)
– Ryan also complained about the inclusion of “non typical’ hurricanes (like Hermine in 2016). Well, the authors “analyzed North Atlantic hurricanes”, all of them, not hurricanes deemed appropriate by Ryan Who-is-he. According to our good Ryan if we exclude these, the problem disappears. Ie. we should simply exclude inconvenient data. Actually I’m not even sure he’s right about the rest but excluding the most severe hurricanes is clearly an error.
Ryan Maue is not incorrect, nor is he “complaining”.
Typical trollop. Attack the person, not the facts.
Ryan pointed out facts. That is Doctor Ryan MAue to you.
Ryan also refers to the entire database of hurricanes, but only when they make full landfall.
You then ignore the facts and claim the authors “factored in” hurricanes that leave land.
A claim you make without referring to evidence. Ryan Maue specifies the exact detail when and where.
Using the life of a hurricane then applying statistics to smear long lived double landfall hurricane life spans over those hurricanes that do make landfall and proceeding inland is bogus.
This is hurricane Bonnie less than 24 hours after actual landfall.
Already it is described as remnants less than 24 hours after landfall.
Even when hurricane Bonnie crossed Florida it became disorganized. That is, well on it’s way to a depression. Only when Bonnie enter the Gulf of Mexico over warm water does it strengthen briefly.
100 hours, PFFT!
> Attack the person, not the facts.
??? I already addressed three points Ryan (and indirectly Pielke Jr.) raised, as an example. This is quite an acomplishment in this tweet-sized world.
> Ryan also refers to the entire database of hurricanes,
> but only when they make full landfall.
Ryan was “analyzing” the database of the original article, to be more specific. I don’t understand your point here.
> You then ignore the facts and claim the authors
> “factored in” hurricanes that leave land.
Yes, they did, Ryan, the Doctor may give you a helping hand:
“Hurricane Jeanne (2004) appears in LC20 dataset twice due to 2 landfalls: Hispaniola and Florida.”
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1326587536551055360
“Hurricane Georges (1998) appears twice in the dataset.” Because it crosses the island of Hispaniola and then Florida.
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1326597205617152001
> A claim you make without referring to evidence.
> Ryan Maue specifies the exact detail when and where.
See above. Perhaps you had problems understanding what even Ryan wrote.
> This is hurricane Bonnie less than 24 hours after actual landfall.
Khm, I carefully put down WHICH Bonnie I was talking about, and this was the Bonnie of 1998. You managed to dig up the Bonnie of 2010 if I’m not mistaken. Perhaps a bit of help again from Ryan:
“So, let’s first take a look at Bonnie (1998). […] Bonnie makes landfall along the North Carolina coast and outer banks.”
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1326586951483461634
You can check the tweet with the attached graph, Bonnie reached shore on the 27th, early in the morning, left land on the 28th (cc. 24 hours) and decayed completely on the 31th. That’s more than 4 days, more than 100 hours after landfall. You can check the decay time used in the report, it’s around 58 hours:
https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1326585183479402497
Actually, the last sentence in Ryan’s tweet is the most revealing:
“This is not a typical example of inland hurricane decay at all.”
Yeah, Doctor Ryan is trying to find reasons to exclude certain inconvenient data points.
Still typical alarmist drivel focusing on circular arguments to distract from errors.
All right, the Bonnie 1998 hurricane you mention barely made landfall. Period!
The storm always had major circulation over warm waters. Warm waters that provide warmth and moisture powering the hurricane cyclonic engine.
Did Bonnie actually make Land fall!? i.e. move inland after the center made landfall?
No.
Bonnie made technical landfall because the center of Bonnie crossed over a spit of land.
Which highlights the falsehood of including Bonnie 1998 in data for determining hurricane lifespan and strength after landfall.
The question then becomes why did the authors merge two different hurricane scenarios?
Scenario 1, hurricane makes landfall and moves inland – short hurricane lifespan.
Scenario 2) hurricane touches land then moves over warm waters. Waters that by themselves are suitable for hurricane formation?
Pielke and Dr. Maue provide extensive documentation for their comments and criticisms.
@ATheoK
> Did Bonnie actually make Land fall!?
> i.e. move inland after the center made landfall?
> No.
> Bonnie made technical landfall because the
> center of Bonnie crossed over a spit of land.
Oops, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were a hurricane expert, my bad 😉
By the way, please notify those guys at NOAA to update their glossary and include “technical landfall” as well. They are dwelling in a world of ignorance.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutgloss.shtml
First I read a graph that shows curves for 50 years ago, and “present”, after “…analysing half a century of data”. I scoffed. They found some curves, the best one 50 years ago, that suited their theory. But I read on, until I find “…each huricane in the simulation…”
I wasted a click. Thought this site was above that.
PG,
“Nature’s” publication is what should be “above that”.
JimG1
The article documents observations, paranoid.
“When we plotted the data, we could clearly see that the amount of time it took for a hurricane to weaken was increasing with the years. But it wasn’t a straight line – it was undulating – and we found that these ups and downs matched the same ups and downs seen in sea surface temperature,” said Lin Li, first author and PhD student in the OIST Fluid Mechanics Unit.
The scientists tested the link between warmer sea surface temperature and slower weakening past landfall by creating computer simulations of four different hurricanes and setting different temperatures for the surface of the sea.”
These are all legitimate procedures and good science. My only cavil is that the observations were only 50 years… hurricane activity follows multi-decadal oscillations.
…and, apparently they forgot to factor in hurricanes that moved back over the waters, in order to get the real world observations to match there models.
Also I am curious if the traveling speed of the hurricanes was tracked, for instance, Harvey hovered, which is why local rainfall was so heavy.
I can see that it is logical that slightly warmer SSTs would produce more rainfall, but how much? As to inland wind speeds, it is likely that the motion speed if hurricanes is more relevant to area rainfall.
“The scientists analyzed North Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall over the past half a century.”. Surely any credible study would use all available data. The obvious conclusion is that results from more than 50 years ago did not suit them.
Seems there are a rash of new users who seemingly are here to poo-poo the site. By willfully misunderstanding what was published.
This must fit into the US tornado count growing due to warming.. all the way down to the 25th percentile.
How strong a hurricane stays after landfall has to do with a huge number of factors.. where it hits, how fast is it moving, how strong it was at landfall, is there any dry air in the vicinity, what time of year is it, is there a front pulling it in, the size of the storm and the list goes on.
This year’s headlines of course are the large total number of Atlantic tropical cyclones. No mention of the average ACE points per storm which is way down and the total lack of western Pacific tropical cyclones early in the year. Now we are getting record warmth in the eastern US but not a word on the record cold in the western US. He who controls the press, controls the narrative.
I was wondering how they got the “data” for moisture in hurricanes 50 years ago. And how did they know exactly when the hurricane wind speed weakened? I don’t think they had Doppler radar in weather service 50 years ago.
Today the hurricane wind speed is read by satellites. Fifty years ago it would have been roof mounted cup or hot-wire anemometers. Heavens, there couldn’t possibly be a difference caused by the data collection methodology, now could there?
They should be able to compare the satellite readings they get today with the same type of readings they used before. Have they done that?
We don’ need no steenkin calibrations…
No. That would invalidate their ‘paper’.
I am dubious of the satellite data since they can’t see through the clouds to 10 meters above the ground, which is the specified location to make the measurement. I think they use a model to extrapolate from what the satellites can se to what is below the cloud deck. Same with central pressure, rarely measured directly now, usually predicted via a correlation of the wind speed near the eye.
” I don’t think they had Doppler radar in weather service 50 years ago.”
The weather folk were experimenting seriously with Doppler radar in the 1970s and could possibly have done some measurements on landfalling hurricanes. If they had radars in suitable locations, I doubt they would have passed up the opportunity. The equipment surely wouldn’t have been as capable as modern devices. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_radar#History
BTW, it’s not hard to see a tropical storm or hurricane on a standard radar. In the early 1960s, I watched one make its way up the US East coast on US aid defense radars. Not surprisingly, there wasn’t a lot of air traffic in the region that day so there wasn’t much else to watch.
Garbage in Garbage out. Just that simple.
What about the ACE index? Apparently they are not interested.
Education today – You pay for what you get – no smarts needed. PhD’s a dime a dozen.
This makes it very easy to acquire a SCIENTIST to support anything you want or need.
“SCIENTISTS SUPPORT ….” “SCIENTISTS NOW KNOW ….” ETC ETC ETC.
Dr. Ryun Maue has a Twitter threat that calls the paper into serious question: https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1326582980857516032 .
It appears the authors just threw in all landfalling hurricanes without regard to such factors as whether their track was perpendicular or along the coast, whether storms re-emerged over water, or whether it was a continental or island landfall. All are confounding factors that should have be considered. This is typical bad science. Just throw in all cases and draw a linear relationship. Jeez
So um models are now called simulations? What am I missing? Well anyway, that’s as far as I read. The bullshit never stops.
No, all studies should be mentioned and addressed, regardless of the problems with simulations and climate models.
Warmer oceans, yes, makes for stronger storms because there is a larger temperature difference between the water and upper troposphere, which is what fuels the heat engine of a storm.
However, there are more variables, such as the hurricane category. Category 1 hurricanes can become slow-moving monsters that deliver huge amounts of far water inland and actually lasting longer, containing less water than the more powerful but effectively drier higher categories.
And if “climate change” is cooling the oceans, then heat engines would be less effective. It is when the atmosphere is cooling, as it usually does so faster than the oceans, that the temperature difference between the oceans and air become greater.
If that were true, hurricanes would also last longer over the ocean, and there would be more landfalls. But a search for images “graph of continental US landfalling hurricanes“ shows randomness, not steady increase. So just another confirmation biased model study with no comparison to actual weather records.
If you believe in anecdotal science, I can tell you that Cyclone Debbie was a real bitch, she really outstayed her welcome. On the plus side, as a mental health social worker, MrsBud got two years work helping people who had suffered due to Cyclone Debbie.
Models all the way down! Models say what the model makers want them to say.
Also:
“These simulations proved what our analysis of past hurricanes had suggested…”
‘Simulations’ do not ‘prove’ anything.
Next…..Mother Nature is showing her displeasure at man’s creation of evil CO2….if man does not mend his ways, Mother shall hurl even more powerful storms…..and aim these storms specifically at these CO2 producers. You have been warned……stop the CO2.
The middle and eastern parts of the USA receive much needed moisture from these storms.
An increase is likely better than a decrease.
Where is my grant to study this hypothesis and build a model?
I can send you a quarter.
Whenever I see something “tested” by computer simulation, the argument becomes balderdash, horsefeathers, poppycock, all battered with a thick brown coating of Barnyard Substance.
From the article: “The researchers showed that hurricanes that develop over warmer oceans carry more moisture and therefore stay stronger for longer after hitting land. This means that in the future, as the world continues to warm”
Well, we don’t know that is going to happen, now do we? Continued warming, I mean.
Claiming the world will warm further is an unsubstantiated assumption.
The World has actually cooled 0.3C since 2016, so what warming are they talking about? This warming is only in their imaginations.
A whole Human-caused Climate Change narrative built on a foundation of sand, and made up of a mountain of assumptions and assertions, but no evidence for anything claimed.
I heard Janice Dean, the Weather Machine, the Fox News Channel Weather presenter, this morning talking about Hurricane Eta, and she loudly proclaimed that this year we in the USA had the most named storms “in all of time!”.
That’s a little bit hyperbolic, Janice. The current number of named storms exceeds by one the number of named storms in the year 2005, the year Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
So what happened after all those named storms in 2005? Why, there was a 12 year hiatus in category three, four and five hurricanes hitting the U.S.
So maybe after this year we won’t have a cat 3, 4 or 5 hit for the next 12 years, just like what happened after 2005.
And Janice, “for all time” doesn’t really give us the whole picture. We only have records for decades, not for all time, so we don’t know what happened before we started keeping records.
Not to mention, every patch of clouds that has a little bit of convection being given a name these days that, even as recently as the 50’s, would have gone undetected or, un-named, even if it was detected.
Max P
We do know that for a fact. Tropical oceans cannot warm and have not warmed. Any measurement showing otherwise is rubbish. This the last 40 years from the Nino34 region:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
Yep, that is a negative sign. I could get it positive if I selected a different start date. But give or annual and decadal variation it is a flat line – no warming.
Any measurement system that shows warming should be treated with scepticism.
Cyclones are a major source of cooling. They can reduce ocean surface temperature by more than 3C. They can block out midday sun so the surface is still cooling all hours of the day and night. Their clouds cover vast regions and pass over the extent of oceans and deposit vast amounts of precipitation onto land – energy given up by the ocean they passed over.
Monsoon and cyclones are the ocean shutters. It is so simple and yet there is all this stupidity around “greenhouse gasses”; just utter trash.
“If we don’t curb global warming, landfalling hurricanes will continue to weaken more slowly.”
Truly a time to bring out the chicken bones and rattles and impose sacrifices on the People appease to the climate gods.
Some African Zaouli dance to go with the multi-Trillion dollar sacrifices would likely improve the odds of mitigating climate change …
Now that there is impressive Joel!
They need to get those guys on skies to compete in the downhill competitions. Notice the leg action with minimal movement of the upper body, the endurance, and the balance? Those abilities are fundamental. Ski teams have a machine that bounces their legs while they’re in the tuck position for the skier to practice on to develop those abilities.
Same old story, cherry-pick some data and use the result to fear-monger.
Since any real climate scientist knows that earth’s climate is anything but naturally stable, what is the problem?
Maue nails it, along with finding lots of other errors.
His WaPo link contains comments from an ignorant Michael Mann. Wonder if Mann was one of the dolts that let this get through.
Didn’t Obama already healed the planet ?
Really! The climate alarmists are getting ever more sleazy.
“Stay stronger for longer”
Eh? Could you please confine that kind of talk to adult websites and book stores? And in Norway their favourite expressions is:
“Wetter and wilder”
One might wonder if they are compensating for something.
This is simply not true. If you assign a value from 1 to 5 for each landfalling hurricane where 5 is a cat 5 and 1 is a cat 1, the. 30s,40s and 50s absolutely blow away the past. 30 years. In fact its the opposite! The warming of the continents and lowering of pressure in the means in the hurricane season away from the equator is likely meaning long tracked mature storms unwind coming to the coast. In close development such as Laura, Harvey, Michale ( all by the way in phase. 2 of the MJO) are doing this in close to the coast as we saw with Laura, I showed our impact forecast in April and tweeted it maybe a billion times to show that we could see the in close season like this coming from APRIL. simply go and look This decade for instance is tied for the lowest majors/decade hits in 100 years ( 4). And another thing. The cat 4 Laura or Harvey can not hold a candle to the kind of monster carla was. HENCE MY POWER AND IMPACT SCALE. which takes into account radius of gales and hurricane force winds. It absolutely stinks that what we love so much is dragged into this sewer. I may be wrong about some things, and I know that, but I seriously doubt that these people doing this have the kind of love of the weather and respect for the majesty of this system that those of us who have lived it, loved it and breathed it since their first memory, Makes me sick. AND THE ACE/STORM because of all the naming has dropped THE DECADE OF THE 1950S IT WAS OVER 10 THE ENTIRE DECADE This year its barely 6. Even 2005 was barely 8. Sorry for my anger. Obviously these people dont forecast, Research is valuable and I am grateful but on line forecasting for some of these people is what is needed to put things in perspective.
They are not relating it to time. They are simply saying cyclones from warmer water travel further inland. They do not mention when the water was warmer. It is certainly not warmer now than it has ever been:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
The tropical ocean temperature cannot have a long term trend. There are POWERFUL negative atmospheric affects that block sunlight so the SST can only ever approach 32C; never exceed it.
The climate models “prove” the globe is warming so that is widely accepted as the Gospel of Mann.
Joe,
Logic and un-adulterated climate data departed the Climate debate 2 decades ago.
Now it is all about salesman-ship and selling a load of bullcrap to a naive public to keep them scared in order to fleece them with ruinous energy policies.
Energy is the Life blood of any modern economy. Tax that, control that, and one controls everything.
Summed up perfectly Joel.
Cyclones are a major source of global cooling. They are essentially sub-tropical monsoon under the influence of Coriolis acceleration.
What they fail to show is any relationship with time because, the fact is, the tropical oceans are not warming. The cyclones and monsoons prevent that.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg3j-MHBpf4wRGuhf
These dingbats do not recognise cause and effect. They have a myopic focus on irrelevant CO2 and the nonsense of “greenhouse gasses’ – just incompetent nonsense.
Is there an IPCC
sleasefestconference coming up?Climate change causes hurricanes to do what ever they happen to be doing when they come along
Then because the climate is changing, whatever the next hurricane does that differs from the last, is also caused by climate change.
These papers are soo 2000s
This is the stupidest study imaginable: of course stronger storms will last longer becsuse by definition they are stronger; yje correlation is mo surprise at all.
The real question is whether man’s contribution to CO2 is causing an increase in larger, stronger storms? My understanding is that there has been no such statistical increase. The undeniable fact that larger storms last longer proves nothing about man’s contribution to such systems.
The models “prove” that hurricanes weaken slower?
Send these clowns back to school…models never “prove” anything except that many scientists misunderstand their use.
The models might suggest, and then you set up studies to collect data so you can support your hypothesis. Using historical data might a;so build support if you can control for all other variables that are affecting the wind speed.
For example, if high altitude wind sheer has dropped because of some cyclical influence then hurricanes can survive longer over land. In some case it might be as simple as the exact location of landfall that is giving an appearance of change (so too small a sample to spot confounding variables). Better observation (Doppler radar) could give the appearance of a change over time.
But I am SURE their model provides much better data then real observations that are carefully thought out.
I am sure climate change has caused me to have to go under the knife for prostate and bladder problems. Who do I sue?
This is at least partially due to the NHC revised methods for estimating hurricane intensity of the past decade where storms are claimed to be majors but fail to record hurricane winds status on shore based wind gauges.
In simple terms, storms are simulated that way, because the program itself is a self satisfaction program returning what the program designer desires.
People in Mississippi told me that Camille was a two hundred mile wide tornado, and left damage like a tornado does.
A boss who was sent as an damage investigator into Camille’s landing told me about a ship, i.e. really big boat, washed inland. He was corrected by a local when he assumed the hurricane’s storm surge simply lifted the ship ashore. That ship sunk offshore fifteen years prior.
I also remember hurricanes that swept up through Pennsylvania during the 1950s and I served on flood cleanup crews following hurricane Agnes.
Only hurricane Isabel reminded me of those prior hurricanes.
I was stationed in New Orleans when hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida then strengthened again and hit just west of New Orleans as a major hurricane.
Even hurricane Andrew quickly dropped down to tropical depression status shortly after landfall:
?itok=JabVQrfg