On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 03:24 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:09:26 -0600, Bill Anderson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 18:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: > >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 05:46:02 -0600, Bill Anderson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> >I did some digging into the progress of Katrina. Here is a link followed > >> >by a summary. > >> > > >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168413,00.html > >> > >> > >> There sure are a lot of things missing out of that timeline. For > >> example, they neglect to mention that the governor of LA declared a > >> SoE a full day before the governor of Mississippi declared the same. > >> Looks like a politically biased timeline to me..... nothing new for > >> FOX News. > > > >A Typical response. everybody but you are politically biased and > >motivated. Glad to know that you never have any omissions .. wait you > >do ... > > > Of course I'm biased. I'm biased against the two-party cartel that is > thinly disguised as a democracy. I'm biased against the weakening > representation in the House (i.e, the "Second Senate"). I'm biased > against any polititian that opposes a constitutional amendment that > guarantees the right to vote, or works to prevent Americans from > having the opportunity to elect a third party or independent > candidate. IOW, I'm biased against -both- parties. So how does that > taint my perception that the aforementioned news agency has leanings > towards the Republican party?
It is evident of your bias against information that does not agree with your beliefs. > >Gee maybe they could have left in the Florida part of it? I note you > >make no comments on that. > > > >Tuesday: Tropical Depression is determined > >Wednesday: Now a Tropical Storm > >Thursday: BAM! Hello Florida! > > > >>From the NY Times (hardly a pro-Bush and/or pro-conservative > >publication): > >""" > >In an unusual manner, the storm kept its swirling shape and retained its > >strength as it quickly rumbled across the state. > >""" > >Most storms cutting over Florida lose strength and shape and normally > >drop from hurricane status to barely a tropical storm. Katrina did not. > >but there are other facets. > > > What part of "There sure are a lot of things missing out of that > timeline" didn't you understand? You made certain things missing a political issue as opposed to one of timely convenience. You made it a political issue. This raises questions about what you choose to leave out. > >> <snip> > >> >And now a few comments on the above reported timeline. > >> > > >> >First, the declaration of SoE and disaster areas. After years of > >> >governments doing this in advance, the effect has worn off. When we see > >> >such statements made due to grasshopper infestations, it kinda makes you > >> >go "Oh yeah another declaration. So what's for dinner honey?" > >> > >> > >> It was also done for the four hurricanes that hit Florida last year. > >> Nobody shrugged -those- warnings off as the government 'crying wolf'. > > > >Are you saying nobody stayed home? I believe that statement sir would be > >idiocy. > > > That wasn't what I said, was it? You claimed that the "effect" of an > emergency declaration has "worn off", yet hundreds of thousands of > people -- the vast majority of the population -- evacuated the area. Which is not a contrary statement. Many people were evacuating prior to the requests for them to do so. > So it's clear that your statement isn't quite accurate. And for you to > suggest that your statement is true because a few foolish people > willingly decided to ride out the storm is nonsense. A few? While in some contexts thousands or tens of thousands of people willingly decided to ride out the storm may classify as a few, in this case it is not a few as it is germane to the core of your assertions. > >For your failing memory two of the 2004 hurricanes were cat3, one cat2 > >and one cat1. People generally don't evacuate for cat1s or cat2s. They > >are minor hurricanes. > > > For -your- failing memory, Charley was a Cat 4 when it hit land. Not according to the NWS and Hurricane history site provided by it. According to the National Hurricane Center, his winds had picked up to cat 4 intensity, but fell sharply 12 hours prior to landfall. Tip: I don't rely on memory for these, but prefer to use reasonable sources, such as people who made it their ob to document these things. That said, it is conceivable that different agencies would revise their estimation of it's scale based on the varying criteria. > But > Frances and Ivan were just as devastating -- if not more so -- because > of their rapid succession in the wake of Charley. 2004 was one of the > most expensive and deadliest hurricane seasons in many years. Cost is an inaccurate measure of devastation. Ivan did in fact strike Louisiana and Texas, causing "minimal damage", as it had weakened to a mere tropical storm. Charley walked the eastern shore. Your definition of rapid is quite broad it seems. Charley landed on Florida on August 13th and had dissipated by the 15th. Frances was born on August 24, then still a tropical depression. Frances did not land until September 5th, after sitting off Florida's coast for a day. Nearly a month between Charley and Frances. Ivan got his start as a tropical depression on September 2nd, not making landfall until September 16th, two weeks after Frances. While Frances and Ivan could be described as close, but not unusually so; to say that Frances and Ivan were a "rapid succession" of a month-prior hurricane is stretch at best. > >> >Next, when the warning for N.O. was issued, she was a cat 3. > >> > >> > >> She was a Cat 3 that had already suprised Florida resulting in 11 > >> deaths.... as a Cat 1! > > > >But I thought nobody shrugged off the declarations? How can people get > >killed if they didn't stay home? > > > It could have been worse. An irrelevance, herr professor. Indeed, it even appears to be a form of Fallacy of Exclusion. The fact is, it was not "worse". You are excluding the fact that Katrina was a minor hurricane with minimal devastation and destruction is ignored for your premise that it "could have been worse". You raised the 11 deaths in Florida (though so far media reports I've seen are only saying 9, I'll grant you 2 more) as a testament to th devastation Katrina was capable of, then when it is pointed out how many of those deaths were either a result of stupidity (yes I consider riding a hurricane out in a frigging houseboat an act of stupidity) or accidents not indicative of devastation or even flooding, your response is "could have been worse". True, but it is also true "could have been better". Fact is, *most* seaworthy watercraft survive a Cat 1 with little damage if any. People generally have to be outside to have trees fall on them. And of course, driving around in a Cat 1 is a risky proposition. However, every one of those activities is within the NWS recommendations for a Cat-1 hurricane. The human entity has an incredible ability to adapt to overcome continuous low level harmful effects. From adapting to slightly elevated radiation levels to the mind learning to treat common serious threats as commonplace. If you are unfamiliar with this phenomena, you are currently deliberately so. Indeed, your own rendition of your driving experience shows that despite the risks, you a) consider them an acceptable trade compared the the option, and you have in become desensitized to some extent to the inherent risks associated with automobile transport. To conclude that storms are an exception to this standard human behaviour is to further exclude clear evidence of it. > >Wait, wait here is how they played out as of the 28th: > >"Hurricane Katrina churned through the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, after > >cutting a swath through southern Florida and leaving seven people dead. > >Three people who died in the hurricane were crushed by falling trees. > >One man lost control of his car and rammed into a tree. Three others > >drowned, including two who tried to ride out the storm in a houseboat." > >-- NY Times > > > >So, of the 11 two were people trying to ride out the storm *IN A > >HOUSEBOAT*. If that ain't proof that people were not taking the warnings > >seriously, well I'm at a loss for words as to what would be. > > > According to former Governor Ventura, "People have the constitutional > right to be stupid". Again, irrelevant, herr professor. It is quite possible for intelligent people to conclude given what was known at the time that staying in the city and "riding the storm out" was a perfectly acceptable risk. Indeed many did precisely that. > >Of the others, three crushed by falling trees. Clearly they didn't > >leave. One lost control of his car. Honestly this may or may not be > >hurricane related we don't know for sure. > > > >Know who the first three deaths in Louisiana from Katrina were? Three > >elderly people who died during pre-approach evacuation. They died fo > >dehydration. > > > Belittling the casualties doesn't do much to validate your argument. And ad hominems does nothing to support yours. I merely pointed out the initial deaths and how they occurred. That you take that as belittling is an effect of your bias, not mine. I pointed out how these happened not to belittle, but to point out that your inferred solution was not without peril and risk of it's own. Evacuations are a risk as well. These deaths are and will remain attributed to Katrina, and will be included in the official death toll. However, it was the act of poor evacuation procedure and not the storm that resulted directly in these deaths. > >> Also, because of its slow turn and the warm > >> waters in the gulf, the NWS had predicted that the storm would > >> increase in intensity and make landfall as a Cat 4 or 5. And just 14 > >> hours before landfall the Hurricane Center at Slidell, LA issued an > >> uncharacteristically subjective report that this storm was going to be > >> the "worst case scenario" (yes, they used those exact words). > > > >Yup, less than 24 hours prior to landfall. Just as I mentioned. Not two > >days before. But the timeline is even shorter, see below. > > > That might be true if not for the fact that the Cat 4-5 prediction was > made just after it crossed into the gulf. So they actually had more > than 3 days to prepare. That's makes the timeline -longer-, not > shorter. And the timeline was even -longer- when you consider that > emergency plans could have been devised and refined years before this > storm even formed. That's the job of FEMA and DoHS. (If they aren't > doing their job then where is all that money going?) No, that is actually the job of the local government. > >> > A lot of > >> >people in that area have weathered those before. > >> > >> > >> Yep. Betsy in 1965, which left half the city flooded and 60,000 > >> homeless. > > > >And killed 78. What political bias led you leave that out? > > > You tell me. It's your bias. > >> And, more recently, Andrew in 1992. But the history of > >> devastating hurricanes in that area goes back all the way to 1927. > > > >Ah an omission. Truth is they go back into the 1800's. > > > >A 1865 hurricane took out Dernier island....... > <snip for brevity> > > > Thanks for making my point. What that there was political bias in your timeline omissions? > >> > Second, the evac > >> >recommendation was for those in low lying areas. Now, personally I > >> >consider the whole damned area low lying. However, the residents do not. > >> > >> > >> I suppose that's why hundreds of thousands of people heeded the > >> warnings and -did- evacuate, huh? > > > >They predominantly lived in the low lying areas. > > > >What about the tens of thousands who did not? What about the people > >being interviewed prior to landfall saying they were going to wait it > >out? Why do feel a need/desire to leave these people out of your > >considerations? > > > I don't. If people refuse to acknowledge dire circumstances that's > their problem. Much like you refuse to acknowledge that the warnings > did indeed have an effect, as the mass evacuation have proved. I didn't they say they had zero effect, just that they were losing their effect. Geez herr professor, Can't you build better strawmen than that? > The > majority of people who didn't leave simply didn't have the means or > the strength, or had a responsibility to those that remained (hospital > workers, police, fire, etc.). There were a day ago still over 10,000 hew refused to leave even with the standing polluted water in their house. It is nor unreasonable t multiply that by a factor of three or even four when you lower the expectation of long term flooding. Contrary to your perception, the locals had a history of short term hurricane passings and based their expectations on that, not your hindsight. > The question of the hour is why there was no disaster plan to evacuate > those people. And if the plan was to house them in the dome and other > shelters, why there was no plan to provide for the survivors. Or, if > there -was- a plan, why it didn't work. Those are all questions that > will be answered in the coming months. But clearly something went > terribly wrong, and it -wasn't- because they didn't have enough > warning (additional proof of which you graciously provided above). Hah, you really reach for things. Shows the weakness of your case. Hurricanes that happened before most of these people were even born are not evidence to support your case. Indeed, the very fact that these hurricanes were hundreds of years ago leads away from your conclusion. Fact is over time less people are killed as a result of technological improvements. THe rest of us are aware of these. > >> >And I have confirmed that the French Quarter is indeed one of the > >> >highest points of the city/area. So add this up: > >> >* You've weathered these before > >> >* It's only a cat 3 > >> >* You don't live in a low lying area > >> > >> > >> You are missing a few points: > >> > >> * The area has a long history of devastating floods caused by > >> hurricanes > > > >And in fact *most* of the devastating floods in the area have had > >nothing to do with hurricanes. > > > Which further reinforces my point -- the area is very sensitive to > flooding. Flooding they handle with minor issue at most. Which supports the contention that a significant number of people who live in the area have a perception of risk that is lower than yours. > > MOST of the hurricanes in the area have > >not had devastating floods. > > > Wrong. ALL hurricanes that hit land create a storm surge and heavy > rains. Wrong. While all hurricanes have a storm surge, not all hurricanes have heavy rains. But again, you are ignoring the case. I specifically stated "devastating floods". You are again making a strawman. Specifically, Katrina dumped a mere 5-10 inches of rain on New Orleans. This caused no significant flooding. The levee and flood walls in fact survived the storm surge intact. The storm walls went down after the surge from the lake the next day. > The infrastructure (levees, dams, canals, etc) was built to > prevent flooding that would have occured naturally. By naturally if you include hurricanes, as well as normal rains and the fact that the city is under sea level, then sure. Otherwise one woudl have to claim the system was built to handle man made floods, which is irrelevant and incorrect. > They effectively > made an artifical flooding 'threshold'. And they knew where that > threshold was by declaring the levees could withstand a Cat-3 storm. > Yet history proves that any hurricane has the potential to change in > both direction and intensity. To sit on your hands and hope it doesn't > hit as a Cat-4 or 5 is not a very good disaster plan. To assume EVERY hurricane is going to be a cat 5 is not a very good disaster plan. Especially when history tells you most are not. > >> * Part of the city is -below- sea level > >Only you would make such an inane statement. I've been continually > >pointing out that much of the city is BELOW SEA LEVEL. But you miss the > >exercise entirely. The point is where *YOU* are is not. Not suprisingly, > >the places that were higher ground saw less evacuation. > > > Then what's the problem with making it a premise to an argument? When it is irrelevant, using it as a premise is a logical fallacy, herr professor. > And > it's a very important premise because the flooding of that area will > have a significant impact on nearby areas -regardless- of the height > above sea level, a fact has been proven by previous floods of the area > and again by Katrina. Again, it is irrelevant what flooding of other areas has to do with you when you are not in an area you expect to flood and your history has shown you that a day or so later and services will be restored, waters gone, and you can open up for business. Again, you are using hindsight. I am talking about the expectations of people prior to the hurricane striking N.O.. > >> * The city of NO is surrounded by three major bodies of water > >> * The water is held back by levees that have failed in the past > > > >And surrounded by levees that more often had *not* failed to prevent a > >city-wide inundation. > > > Yet some have failed. You might consider the failure rate to be small, > and that may very well be true. But that fact, when taken collectively > with all the other seemingly insignificant points, makes a very strong > inductive argument that casts significant doubt on the ability of the > area to withstand -any- approaching hurricane. No, *history* has shown that New Orleans in the last couple decades has withered all hurricanes up to Katrina without major incident. When you add in the fact that most hurricanes never even reach them, it only strengthens the resolve of people inclined to stay. > >> * Even when it was a Cat 3, the storm was predicted to have a storm > >> surge that could breach the levees. > > > >All reasons to not live there in the first place, IMO. > > > I agree 110%. > > But nonetheless > >YOU missed the point. The point is people CHOSE to stay. Also, the FQ > >was/is largely NOT underwater. > > > Of course some people chose to stay. But until you can tell me how > many chose to stay -willingly- as opposed to -reluctantly-, and how > many had no choice at all, your argument is nothing more than a long > winded speculative rant. Can you tell me how many people were forced to stay as opposed to willingly stay? If not your argument is nothing more than a long winded speculation rant. At least with mine, I have provided quotes from people who did stay that according to people actually in the area is representative. There have been interviews with survivors who still refuse to leave, and those who stayed and said they did not expect it to last more than a day or two at most. Many businesses had signs posted saying they would be back open Monday or Tuesday depending on conditions. See, you are arguing using hindsight and academic distance. I am arguing from reality. I've been there, I know people from there, and from experience in the area. > >Compare it to getting in a car. > >* Cars have a long history of killing their occupants > >* Part of the car leaves you exposed to direct injury from flying debris > >or other vehicles > >* While on the road your car will generally be surrounded by many tons > >of other cars, and you are surrounded by glass that can potentially > >kill/injure you, not to mention any loose objects being turned into > >lethal projectiles > >* Seat belts and air bags have failed in the past > >* Even at 20MPH you can get killed > > > >Do you still get into a/the car? I bet you do! > > > You're talking to a driver that's been hit 16 times in as many > years.... and once by an ambulance! I'm not dead yet. I account for > that because I have been able to see what's coming and take measures > to avoid or minimize the damage. IOW, I try to get the hell out of the > way if I see an 18-wheeler bearing down on me! Some people don't. Some > people cross railroad tracks right in front of a speeding train. Some > people drive drunk. Some people drive 55 in thick fog. I don't, and as > long as I avoid situations that are clearly unsafe then my odds of > survival are pretty darn good. Actually, your odds of survival are pretty good even if you don't take those measures. The point is you still take the risk. Residents of New Orleans call it a "Vertical Evacuation"; where they go to the buildings that have multiple floors so they can be above the flood. Then they wait for the pumps to remove the water, and go back to their daily lives. They took measures to minimize their risks. > Now apply your analogy to Katrina; the radio says there's a lunatic > driving a tank around town and that it's headed your way. Do you sit > there and wait for it to drive over you and your car? Or do you get > the hell out of the way? Ahh another false dilemma herr professor? I look around, do I see the tank headed toward me? No? I continue about my business. Boise is a pretty large area for a tank to be roaming around in. Besides, I can outrun and outmaneuver a tank. And yes I know from personal experience. If my humvee could do it, so can my car. Do I close up shop and expect everything I own to be destroyed, for the entire area the tank is in to be destroyed for weeks? No. It is certainly possible for a tank to do tha tkind of devastation. But it is not the usual case. > >The National Weather service also has noted for years that people are > >getting complacent with regards to hurricanes just as people on > >California are to earthquakes. To quote: > >"The problem is further compounded because 80 to 90 percent of the > >population now living in hurricane-prone areas have never experienced > >the core of a "major" hurricane. Many of these people have been through > >weaker storms. The result is a false impression of a major hurricane's > >damage potential. This can lead to complacency and delayed actions > >resulting in injuries and loss of lives." > > > Your quote (whatever it's source) is misleading, giving the false > impression that 80-90% of the population -wouldn't- evacuate. That > might hold water if not for the fact that 80-90% -did- evacuate and > survived -despite- such "complacency". No, that is your reading of it. The source (THe National Weather Service as I noted above) makes no inference that 80-90% of people would refuse to leave. It specifically states that since most people living in these areas have never experienced a major hurricane but have experienced minor ones they have a false impressions of a hurricane's potential. They further stated that this can lead to complacency and delayed action. That you read it as meaning something else is your problem. > > > >Combine this with the state government declaring states of emergencies > >over minor hurricanes and you have a recipe for people staying home. > >This latter cause is due largely to a desire to get federal funding. > >Declaring the SoE is *primarily* about federal funds. > > > What a load of horse-hooey! When Blanco made the request for a federal > emergency declaration she only asked for $9 million and the use of > some federal resources. Oh how revealing that statement is. I make the assertion that the primary purpose in requesting a declaration of sate of emergency is to get federal funds and you counter that by declaring the person who did that requested millions of dollars by doing so. That's rich. Why only 9 million? Why did she not ask FEMA to be in her entourage? The LANG is under her authority for disasters. Why did she not deploy more troops than she did? Why did she not heed FEMA's warning a year prior about the impact of a major hurricane of Cat4 or above? FEMA conducted an exercise IN New Orleans last year showing major deficiencies in the city's and state's evacuation and preparation plans. This exercise was done with the state and city so they were well aware of it. FEMA made specific recommendations. Yet you insist on laying this at the feet of Bush and his administration. That said, they predicted millions would be trapped. Yet millions were not trapped. Another aspect about this is that most advance studies are usually highly inflated in death toll and damage estimation. > > > >Also, the NEW clearly states that the actual frequency of major (cat3-5) > >hurricanes is lower than the last three decades. Katrina is only the > >third Cat 4 to make landfall in LA since the scale was invented. There > >has been only one Cat 5 to hit LA at all, and only 3 Cat 5s to ever make > >landfall in the US Gulf Coast since records (and the scale) began. They > >were: > > > >Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 (naming not used yet) > >Camille: 1960 > >Andrew: 1992 > > > >Between 1970 and 1999 the majority of deaths due to hurricanes were from > >*inland fresh water flooding*. Storm surge accounted for less than 1%. > >here, storm surge is the primary cause. > > > More misleading information. Storm surge has not been a primary cause > of death recently because of modern weather information gathering > technology and better predictions. Overall (both before -and- after > 1970), storm surge -is- the leading cause of death from hurricanes. And you evidence for this? The NWS and NOAA fully disagree with your ignorant assertion. PDF: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/hurr.pdf&ei=ti4fQ92TMbC6YLDjoaQL PDF as HTML by way of google: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:nW9j8OJa-rcJ:www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/hurr.pdf+hurricane+preparedness+%22storm+surge%22+filetype:pdf&hl=en&lr=lang_en "Between 1970 and 1999, more people have lost their lives from freshwater flooding associated with landfalling tropical cyclones than from any other weather hazard related to tropical cyclones" Storm surge accounted for 1% of the deaths, less than any other cause. That's a fact, Jack. > However, it does reiterate my point: Hurricanes do hit that area, and > the damage from them can be devastating. And most are not. > >Camille, a Cat5, struck the Mississippi gulf coast with 25 foot storm > >surges. > > > And Camille hit in 1969, not 1960. Sorry, 9 is right next to 0 n my keyboard nd I didn't catch it. Bit then again, if that's the best argument you have on that, it is telling. > >> >Do you leave? Not suprisingly, a significant portion do not. > >> > >> > >> Yet a significant portion..... in fact, MOST residents.... DID leave. > >> Those who couldn't, didn't. > > > >Thank you Captain Obvious. A key factor you refuse to acknowledge is > >those who chose not to. Not everybody who could leave, did. > > > Where, in any of my posts, did I suggest anything to the contrary? By arguing that those who remained were those who could not. > > > > Indeed, in > >Florida the towns and cities basically boarded up and many people were > >literally sitting on the porch watching it roll in. > > > All, most, some, few, none..... How many stayed willingly? How many > stayed reluctantly? How many stayed because they had no choice? Put up > some numbers and then maybe I'll agree. You made the initial assertion, herr professor therefore the burden of first proof is on you. > >Here are some items for your ponderance: > >"We call it a vertical evacuation," -- Joseph Fein, owner of the Court > >of Two Sisters, a French Quarter restaurant. > > > >He said they and the citizens were responding to it (the hurricane) as > >they always do. Go for the taller buildings, get in the middle, and wait > >it out. This was on the 28th. > > > > > >> >Now put yourself in the shoes of the government. You are prepped for a > >> >cat 4 (and in some laces a cat4). You've taken cat 3s before, several > >> >times. What disaster response to you prepare for? Most likely a cat 3. > >> > >> > >> Putting yourself "in the shoes of the government", you knew decades in > >> advance as to the possible devastation of any significant hurricane to > >> hit the area. > > > >No, you haven't been there for decades, get a grip. None of the current > >officials have been there for decades. You are operating entirely from > >hindsight and as such your opinions based on said hindsight are > >irrelevant. > > > It seems that you have a reading comprehension problem. Try reading > this line one more time: "Putting yourself 'in the shoes of the > government'". Those were -your- words, and I used them in the very > same context. If you were "in the shoes of the government" then you > would have access to historical weather data to as far back as it has > been collected and recorded. Suggesting that such data is invalid if > not collected personally is nothing but a piss-poor attempt at > obfuscating the issue. Seems the reading comprehension issues is yours. At no point did I say you can't use data that was available prior to Katrina making landfall, only data AFTER it. Another strawman, herr professor. Seems that what you took out of your class was how to MAKE fallacious arguments, not how to avoid them. That said, have you ever been in disaster preparation and recovery programs? I have been. I can assure you they do not pull up all data instantly, nor do they go back 50 years. They look at what they have right now. > >A cat three is a significant hurricane, and they've hit the area for > >decades without this impact. > > > Again, you are ignoring the fact that hurricanes are dynamic systems; > they change. No, it is merely irrelevant. You are lecturing on the use of historical data and when that historical data shows clearly that the majority of hurricanes, indeed every hurricane to hit the area, has never caused this much damage to New Orleans you then switch to "well it is dynamic". Your arguments are pot shot and inconsistent, and you again commit the fallacy of exclusion. > They don't suddenly appear out of nowhere as a Cat 3 and > stay that way until they suddenly vanish over land. My what a big field of straw you have herr professor. > Regardless, -many- > hurricanes have hit that region without the impact of Katrina. But > -some- have come close. And there always exists the possibility that > the biggest is yet to come. Ahh NOW the historical data is is irrelevant! And now your fallacy of the dark side err exclusion is complete. > >Katrina was unique in it's characteristics. The storm itself is > >unprecedented in the last hundred years. See below for details. > > > So was Ivan. So was Charley. So was Andrew. So was..... blah, blah, > blah. The fact that the hurricane was unusual should have given even > more weight to the warnings. Not really. If you act as if every storm will be a cat 5, and in fact most are not, then you further weaken the impact of your attempts to save people. > >> History has proven that it can be catastrauphic. Add to > >> that the NWS recent predictions as to the increased frequency of such > >> storms, poor management by both the state and the federal government > >> of the surrounding wetlands, and the economic impact of such a storm > >> in today's economy. Put it all together and you have a recipe for a > >> major disaster. The problem is that everyone was acting on assumptions > >> and nobody bothered to read the recipe. > > > >The whole recipe is an assumption. On average, since 1871, a tropical > >storm or hurricane should be expected somewhere within the state every > >1.2 years. A hurricane should make landfall every 2.8 years. > > > >As to increasing frequency, the 1980's cyclone strikes to Louisiana > >totaled 9 (4/5 hurricane/storm). In the 1990's they totaled 5 (3/2). > >Here are the decadal totals starting with the 1850's: > >4,9,9,10,9,9,5,5,10,12,9,5,7,9,5 > > > >Those are not assumptions, those are fact as best we have them. What > >trend if any is there? > > > Hey, I didn't make the prediction. If you want to argue weather > statistics contact someone at the NOAA or the NWS. Actually, I'm using their data and assertions, why should they have to argue? They and I are in agreement. It is you with your head in the sand > <snip boring statistics> Naturally, they confront your conclusion. > >Landfall is describes as when the eye touches land. Do not forget the > >hurricane precedes the eye. You Lidell reference coming 14 hours before > >landfall means 14 hours before the eye made landfall. This means that > >several hours prior the hurricane winds and rain were already pounding > >shorelines. This means there was even less time. > > > For some reason you can't seem to recognize the fact that even though > hurricanes are dynamic in nature, they are somewhat predictable. In > fact, projected paths and strengths are becoming more and more > accurate every year. Yeah so accurate that the path of Katrina was given a as range from Louisiana to Florida. Have you looked at a map lately? > After entering the gulf, Katrina was predicted to > make a beeline straight for New Orleans. It did. It was also predicted > to land as a Cat-4 or 5. It did. But whether it did or not, those > predictions came three full days before landfall. There was -PLENTY- > of time. Not according to the archive of NWS bulletins on Katrina. > >Now, there is also the matter of what the NWS was advising and the > >probabilities they were providing. Your position gets much weaker when > >these are taken into account. > > > >On Saturday the 27th the NWS issued it's latest update (at 10PM Central > >time that night) which gave Katrina a 3% chance of coming within 75 > >miles of Buras, LA from then through 7PM Sunday, a 23% chance of it > >coming w/in that range between 7PM Sunday to 7AM Monday, and a 1% chance > >of it coming w/in 75 miles of Buras, LA from 7AM to 7PM Monday. Twelve > >hours earlier it was less than one%, followed by 3% followed by 14%. > > > I'm going to snip this "report" and postpone my response until you > provide a link; It is called National Weather Service as I stated. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA.shtml? http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/prb/al122005.prblty.019.shtml? Specifically, the above "boring statistics" are strike possibilities. > the report is contrary to what was reported in the > news, and contradicts the reason Blanco declared a state of emergency > just one day -prior- to the report. IOW, something smells fishy. Try bathing? ;) Seriously though, as YOU stated (and I am accepting) Blanco issued the statement but ONLY asked for 9 million and some federal resources. Yet she did this, according to you, when facing a Cat-4 or Cat-5 prediction and a direct hit on Ne Orleans. If that is the case, then yes something DOES smell fishy. After all, she had 9000 National Guardsmen at her disposal, city and school buses, trains, airplanes, etc.. Why did *she* not make use of them? Why did she, when faced with such a catastrophic prediction only request minimal assistance? Perhaps because it was not as clear cut as you make it out to be. "THE NOGAPS AND GFDN MODELS HAVE MADE A LARGE JUMP TO THE WEST OVER LOUISIANA...WHEREAS THE MAJORITY OF THE NHC MODELS TAKE KATRINA INLAND OVER THE NORTHEAST GULF COAST. THE OFFICIAL FORECAST TRACK REMAINS IN THE RIGHT PORTION OF THE MODEL GUIDANCE ENVELOPE." http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al122005.discus.012.shtml? That was from 10 AM on the 26th. Things *changed*. ON Friday the NWS issued an update indicating they expected her to move to a "major hurricane". As I've said before, officially that means a Cat3 to Cat 5. Saturday at 11PM central: "MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS REMAIN NEAR 115 MPH WITH HIGHER GUSTS. KATRINA IS A CATEGORY THREE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS...AND KATRINA COULD BECOME A CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE ON SUNDAY." Thursday the 24th: "ALL INDICATIONS ARE THAT KATRINA WILL BE A DANGEROUS HURRICANE IN THE NORTHEASTERN GULF OF MEXICO IN ABOUT 3 DAYS." > > it was not flood protection levees that went down. It was > >flood walls for the shipping lanes. Three flood walls were breached: > >those along the Industrial Canal, the 17th Street Canal, and the London > >Avenue Canal. We've all been referring to them as levees (self included) > >when in fact, they were not part of the actual levee system. > > > Call it what you want; levee, dyke, flood wall, a big pile of dirt > with a little Dutch boy at the bottom plugging a hole with his > finger.... I don't really care because your post is abhorrently long > and it's really not necessary. Ahh again the fallacy of exclusion. Never mind that the system was designed to withstand a DIRECT hit from a Cat 3, and (as can be expected) actually withstood a glancing blow from a Cat4. That part is irrelevant. Lemme guese it COULD have been much worse? > > > >OK hotshot, it is Sunday afternoon. You've got a city that is 80-80% > >evacuated, > > > Wouldn't have happened. I, unlike LA's gov and the Shrub, was paying > attention to the predictions. Apparently you don't even know what they were. Blanco's action were clearly evident of one not expecting this level of devastation. Even your own "defense" of her actions indicate this. According to you (Which I am not disputing) she made a request for "9 million" and "some federal resources". These are not the actions of someone expecting a cat5 or at4 to drop on New Orleans and destroy the city. > <snip> > >> >However, there is one significant action I do take issue with: > >> >Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco says everyone still in New Orleans — an > >> >estimated 50,000 to 100,000 people — must be evacuated. > >> > > >> >This is after the city is 80-85% flooded. IMO, that's a bit late there > >> >Gov., and not terribly helpful. > >> > >> > >> It is essential. The city is now a breeding ground for dysentery, > >> cholera, plague, yellow fever, malaria, or any other nasty bug that > >> nature has cooked up in recent years. If they don't get those people > >> out of there ASAP there is a very -real- possibility that a disease > >> could be contracted without any symptoms, then spread to the general > >> population -after- evacuation. The sooner they get them out the > >> better. > > > >And what good does a proclamation that ignores reality do? > > > While reading your post I have been asking myself the same question. I > have also been asking what good a reply would do when you are so > dead-set against looking at the issue from a historical standpoint, or > providing any facts that support your arguments (instead of providing > facts that support -my- arguments). Every tried stand up comedy? Where are your links, where are your "facts"? You've posted nothing of the sort and in fact have posted your assumptions and mistaken beliefs and proclaim them to be fact. You started the whole thing off by a post that was rife with bias and incorrect data. > I have come to the conclusion that > such an endeavor is worthy if for no other reason but to discourage > other would-be propoganda distributors from preying on the more > gullible members of our society. So feel free to proclaim all the > ignorance you want, Bill -- I'll fill in the reality for you. First you have to experience it for yourself. > > > It furthers > >the problem, and does nothing for the solution. You've got a city that > >is 85% underwater and you announce everyone has to leave? First, nearly > >everyone left has no power, no tv, no radio. They are in their attics or > >on their roof, or out wading through water trying to leave, or are > >surrounded by water because they are in one of the non-low-lying areas. > >Just how the hell do you propose they evacuate themselves? > > > More obfuscation: She never said that they must evacuate -themselves-. Well she wasn;t providing the resources to do so, what else is left. "You must evacuate" and not providing the means to evacuate people is an action that clearly shows who is responsible for evacuation. I fI tell you to leave your house and provide no means for you to do so, who is to do the evacuation? > Is this how you think you can win arguments? By misquoting people? > spinning the issues? ignoring the facts? Better think again, Bill, > because over the years I've caught just about every trick in the book. And mastered using them, it appears. > It helps when you earn a 4.0 in Logic -- and go on to teach the class > for a semester the next year. Oh herr professor, mea culpa I only got a 3.89. But at least I can still spot your fallacies. Not that it is hard to do so. Clearly you must be new around here. > But if you really think you can pull a > fast one then by all means keep trying. > > Oh, and do try to be a little more economical with your rants; I have > to work for a living and simply don't have as much spare time as you > evidently have. Then perhaps you should use that time more wisely. Such as getting real data and not your personal assumptions. If you don't have the time to do the research, then don't get into it. If you don't have the time to back up your assertions, don't make them. If you aren't prepared for and don't have the time for discussion on this list, don't start them, or don't participate in them. And lastly, if you don't like responding to my posts, don't read them or don't respond to them. -- Random Fortune of the moment: The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering. -- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil" _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
