• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

And Hurricane Nate makes it 4...

Damn. Irma cut my power off for three days. I hope Nate doesn't do the same.
 
I'm seeing Nate sometimes called a tropical storm and sometimes a hurricane. Which is it now?
 
William Parcher said:
I'm seeing Nate sometimes called a tropical storm and sometimes a hurricane. Which is it now?
Click to expand...
As of 13 minutes ago it is a tropical storm. There are Hurricane alerts for it now though because it is reasonable likely to be a hurricane by landfall tomorrow night.
 
Nate is now a Category 1 hurricane and is expected to be Cat 2 when it makes landfall. The projected landfall location is almost exactly where Hurricane Katrina did the same.
 
I'm in Escatawpa, about ten miles north of Pascagoula. Nate is projected to make landfall around Biloxi/Ocean Springs, 20 or so miles west of us. That puts us on the storm's NE quadrant, the powerful part. Fortunately, we're far enough north that storm surge is not going to be an issue for us; we're surrounded by rivers (the Pascagoula and the Escatawpa), but not close enough to them to be considered in a flood zone. Our biggest concern is going to be the wind- lots of big old oak (and other) trees on the property to make for flying branches.

Across our front yard, from opposite ends. The back yard has more trees- I fully expect to spend most of tomorrow picking up downed limbs, and will count myself lucky if that's all I have to do. (Of course, we expect to be without power for a day or so)


Nate's not as big as Katrina was (I was here for that one too, as well as Camille in 1969, and most of the others in between); and, of course, it's nowhere near as powerful. Still, hurricanes aren't to be taken lightly.
 
According to the National Hurricane Centre, Nate appears to be approaching at quite a rapid speed of 23 mph (José was virtually standing still when it wasn't strolling at 9 mph).

4:00 PM CDT Sat Oct 7
Location: 28.4°N 89.1°W
Moving: NNW at 23 mph
Min pressure: 981 mb
Max sustained: 90 mph
 
I'm on holiday in New Orleans at the moment. I had to extend my holiday by a day (yes, first world problem) as my flight back to the UK this evening was cancelled. Luckily, it looks like Nate bypassed New Orleans. It's actually not too bad outside at the moment, just a bit of rain. Obviously, the biggest risk is from the water surges from the lake, so it's still wait and see what happens tomorrow and after.
 
Sorry, CNN, FOX and all the others, Nate wasn't as destructive as you'd hoped. Bring the camera crews back home.
 
mgidm86 said:
Sorry, CNN, FOX and all the others, Nate wasn't as destructive as you'd hoped. Bring the camera crews back home.
Click to expand...

What are they supposed to do,ignore that a Hurricane was heading for New Orleans

I agree that the build up and coverage of Irma was way over the top, but seems to be they got it right for Nate.

I love this blind hatred for the "MSM", ignoring the fact that as bad as the MSM often is, the "Alternative Media" is usually a lot worse.
 
dudalb said:
What are they supposed to do,ignore that a Hurricane was heading for New Orleans

I agree that the build up and coverage of Irma was way over the top, but seems to be they got it right for Nate.

I love this blind hatred for the "MSM", ignoring the fact that as bad as the MSM often is, the "Alternative Media" is usually a lot worse.
Click to expand...

How very dare you support the pre$$titutes

pravda means "truth" in Russian. How could you dispute something that even calls itself Truth?

More seriously. I'm not sure the coverage of Irma was over the top, as a slight difference in the track could have had a far greater effect on mainland US territory.
 
jimbob said:
More seriously. I'm not sure the coverage of Irma was over the top, as a slight difference in the track could have had a far greater effect on mainland US territory.
Click to expand...


I agree. I don't know why people think coverage of Irma was over the top. Unofficial cost estimates put it at over $62 billion. Preliminary estimates of Harvey's cost put it at over $70 billion. Irma was, again unofficially, the fourth costliest hurricane on record. Harvey was the third costliest.

No doubt there was a heightened sense of fear due to Harvey, but I don't think the coverage was off base. Most of the on-the-ground reporting during the Florida landfall was a bit bland, but most on-the-ground hurricane coverage is that way. I'm certainly not expecting these reporters to go into the most dangerous areas during a category 4-5 hurricane just so they can say, "Look! We told you it'd be bad!"
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
It's the first time in 12 years that 4 hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S. And it's only the fourth season in the past 50 years to see 4+ U.S. landfalls. (source)
Click to expand...

So the answer to my question is, "No, there is nothing remarkable or interesting about 4."

On the other hand, you mentioned the 12-year period wherein no major hurricanes made landfall, the longest such period in recorded history. Somewhat interesting. I give it a 4.
 
Dumb All Over said:
So the answer to my question is, "No, there is nothing remarkable or interesting about 4."

On the other hand, you mentioned the 12-year period wherein no major hurricanes made landfall, the longest such period in recorded history. Somewhat interesting. I give it a 4.
Click to expand...


*shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom