Category 6 Isn't Enough

[ysabetwordsmith]

I have said for some time that the current hurricane scale, which has 5 categories, is insufficient and needs a Category 6. Looking at the actual numbers on the scale and in recorded storms, this turns out to be insufficient also. It doesn't need one more category, it needs TWO.


The current categories average a range of about 20, some lower, some higher. Positing a scale that uses categories of similar size would yield something like:

Category 1 = 74-95 mph (range of 22)
Category 2 = 96-110 mph (range of 15)
Category 3 = 111-129 mph (range of 19)
Category 4 = 130-156 mph (range of 27)
Category 5 = 157+ mph [new 157-176] (standard range of 20)
Category 6 = 177-196 mph
Category 7 = 197-216 mph

At that, the revised scale would just barely cover Hurricane Patricia's ominous 215 mph peak sustained wind speed. O_O That means we should be ready to activate Category 8 (217-236 mph) in the foreseeable future.

Now, the government doesn't want to panic people, or get blamed for the fact that climate change is making hurricanes a lot more violent than they used to be and also now clustering. But wouldn't it be useful to know that the official "Category 5" now contains a wider range (58) than Categories 3 and 4 combined (46)? (Some people may argue that we only need three action-based categories: Ignore It, Batten the Hatches, and Run For Your Lives.) Happily, the forecasts customarily include the actual wind speed, so you can simply adjust the scale on your own.

Of course, wind speed isn't the only thing that makes a hurricane dangerous. As mentioned, clustering means they are now more likely to come in twos or threes. Even a sideswipe by a later storm after the first storm has cracked open a city will be more devastating. Global warming seems to increase the storms that show rapid intensification, which can turn a minor storm into a major one with little warning. Rising sea levels boost storm surges. Warmer air also means that hurricanes can dump more rain. Storm surge and rainfall make even the lower categories more destructive.

Don't expect the politicians and the people they direct to give reliable interpretations. Be glad that pretty accurate weather information is available for you to analyze yourself. Here's a list of weather apps and weather websites with varying degrees of detail. For the hardcore weather nerds, you can also get raw data. Explore the parts of a text Hurricane Forecast/Advisory.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'll argue that there are different evacuation settings for:
- running would be good (likely individual choice)
- organized retreat (likely organized/mandated on a mass scale)
- GETOUTGETOUTGETOUTGETOUT...! (At this point, you're evac-ing folks under the "as many as can fit, regulations be dammned," and also, it'll probably be random Heroic Bystanders hauling ass and collecting hangers-on, rather than anything official)

Cynically there'd also likely be a "We doomed no matter what" setting...but if we make that one official, we'll likely get a Screw the Rules, It's the Apocalypse.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I'll argue that there are different evacuation settings for:
- running would be good (likely individual choice)
- organized retreat (likely organized/mandated on a mass scale) <<

The government tries to do this, indicating areas of greatest risk, and suggesting that more vulnerable individuals evacuate for milder storms that able-bodied people might survive just fine. It would be more effective if the government was actually trustworthy. As it is, people often resist leaving their homes because they have repeatedly seen other storms where people that left were looted, not allowed to return, and/or otherwise got screwed. Doesn't do much to flee the storm only to be killed by a country that wants poor people to die. :/

>> - GETOUTGETOUTGETOUTGETOUT...! (At this point, you're evac-ing folks under the "as many as can fit, regulations be dammned," and also, it'll probably be random Heroic Bystanders hauling ass and collecting hangers-on, rather than anything official) <<

Time to hotwire a bus. \o/

>> Cynically there'd also likely be a "We doomed no matter what" setting...but if we make that one official, we'll likely get a Screw the Rules, It's the Apocalypse. <<

Well reasoned.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

>>It would be more effective if the government was actually trustworthy.<<

It would be more effective if the government facilitated transport (including medically-compatible transport) and housing at destinations.

I live with someone who has very specific medical needs for everything from vehicle accessibility to adaptive equipment to /specific features on a bed/. Evac plans must and do factor in these needs...

Less dramatically, pets, babies and old folks will have different needs than an able-bodied adult. Fortunately 'people with pet cats' and 'people with young children's will be numerous enough, and have similar enough needs that it is easier to plan for then individual medically-fragile persons.

>>Time to hotwire a bus. \o/ <<

...and pray they don't shoot you for looting. (Have a respectable-looking person do the hotwiring or supply runs, if you can. Preferably not single parents, caretakers, or medical personnel if you can avoid it.)

Historical examples would include Dunkirk, the 9/11 evacuation of Manhattan, the Cajun Navy and the Great Needlework Drives of just last year.

And anyone who wants to object, can kindly offer a better alternative, thank-you very much. [Crickets] No-one? All right then, let's move!

[siliconshaman]

I'd suggest a revision of the classification system too.. wind speed is not the only factor determining how dangerous a storm is. Size matters. Speed too... both determine how long this storm is going to grind away at an area, and how far you have to run or even if you can out run it.

I would suggest combining spread and velocity so as not to overload people. Dividing spread by velocity of the system. So you'd have things like a Cat 5,10 (sustained windspeed of 160. 300 miles wide and moving at 30 miles an hour)

Although...kind of wish we could work in a Stormageddon in there...

[kengr]

It's actually *worse* than that. Wind effects don't go up *linearly* with velocity. More like the square of the velocity if I recall correctly.

Time for a re-read of John Barnes's Mother of All Storms

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

There are different ways to design a chart of intensity depending on what you want to convey. I looked at the current chart, noted that its previous categories were near 20, and expanded it based on that.

To make a chart reflecting effects vs. velocity as a square function, you would need to start over from scratch.

There is also something to be said for a chart based on actions derived from probable effects. Both Category 4 and Category 5 are often described as "complete destruction," like those pictures were there is nothing but flotsam left after a storm. I personally believe a more detailed chart would be helpful, but some people might just want "minor damage / take precautions and stay," "severe damage / evacuate," and "total devastation / run for your lives."

[erulisse]

And this would be a good portion of why we left Houston.....

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

That is very sensible of you. Houston seems like one of the places prone to environmental foreclosure soon.

[siberian_skys]

And that explains in a nut shell why I want to get out of a coastal state. Of course, I have no idea where to go. It seems like there's no place to go now.

[(Anonymous)]

Assuming you are in the continental US, I'd suggest:

A) Inland (to avoid hurricanes, costal flooding and tsunamis)

B) Away from fault lines (this eliminates much of the West Coast, also the midwest fault line is becoming active again)

C) Head north (to avoid heat, but be aware the Great Lakes region has some wicked cold snaps)

D) Lastly, pay attention to assorted regional stuff:
- Will the local river flood, and if so how badly?
- Is there a dam upriver?
- Is there a nuclear plant in the area? Are you in a possible fallout zone?
- Are there specific disasters common to your location? (Tornadoes, wildfires, landslides, dangerous wildlife...)
- How close are you to a city? Compare your need for city services vs the likelihood of Invading Refugees during a crisis/collapse.
- Are you a good fit for the local culture?
- How much can you plan for or live with any of these things?

E) Also, look at infrastructure - roads, medical care, utilities, communications. Do they fit your needs? How much damage can they take before being knocked out? Can you live with that?

F) If planning for an apocalypse / societal collapse, you'll want to check other things (local production of necessities, social net, defensibility...) but that's a whole different list.

[(Anonymous)]

Personally, I'd go for the Northeast, a bit inland - colder, can keep heading north if need be, away from cities, has mountains and nature, and I can live with the occasional polar vortex. Plus there are several lake and river systems that make for good transport if the roads go down, and they don't seem to have too many big storms.

Overseas? Iceland and Northern Europe might be a good bet, with Europe having the added benefit of making a run for the border if everything goes wrong...of course then everyone in Eurasia can do that, so Icelend might be a better bet...

[siberian_skys]

Thank you so much. I'm in Florida, so this is perfect. I've been thinking about my home state, which is probably not a great idea. I hadn't realized that our friendly neighborhood fault line has woken up. I grew-up in Indiana and I've been in 3 or 4 earthquakes. Nothing big, but enough to feel. I know it's way over due for a big earthquake. It can't be 1good when you consider that fault line turned around the Mississippi River and rang church bells in Boston in the 1800s. I don't remember the exact year. I just remember watching a documentary once. I'm bookmarking this. Thanks again.

[(Anonymous)]

You're welcome.

Another thought: I have heard that the panhandle part of FL is more stable than the peninsula part; I actually know people who chose (when moving to FL) to go to the northernmost parts where all the hurricane evacuees go. (I have suggested they not buy any more property...)

If a cross-country move is not currently feaseable, a northward move might be a slight improvement?

I don't know the specifics of your situation: resources, limitations, other long-term goals etc, so you have to decide for you, but I thought I'd mention it.

O_O

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Thank you so much. I'm in Florida, so this is perfect. I've been thinking about my home state, which is probably not a great idea. <<

Run awaaaayyy!!!!

Florida will be submerging. The more water melts, the more will go under, but people will be driven out long before it all sinks. Sunny day floods drive out businesses and ruin homes.

https://news.wjct.org/post/rising-seas-may-mean-tampa-bay-floods-even-during-sunny-days

https://westontitle.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Roy-Oppenheim-Global-Warming.jpg

Furthermore, the tipping point is getting close, because ordinary people are starting to notice these things. The value of coastal housing is currently high, but when it crashes it will probably go very fast. Then people in places like Florida won't be able to sell out to idiots, and will probably just have to flee with what they can carry.

>>I hadn't realized that our friendly neighborhood fault line has woken up. I grew-up in Indiana and I've been in 3 or 4 earthquakes. Nothing big, but enough to feel. I know it's way over due for a big earthquake. It can't be 1good when you consider that fault line turned around the Mississippi River and rang church bells in Boston in the 1800s. I don't remember the exact year. I just remember watching a documentary once. <<

Another friend pointed out that, as icecaps melt, that causes the crust to spring up under where they were. That spring causes other adjustments elsewhere in the crust. Adjustments = earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. 0_o

>>I'm bookmarking this. Thanks again.<<

*bow, flourish* Happy to be of service.

Also ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Regarding disaster types, plan first for the ones that are more frequent and predictable. If you live in a snowy area, you know to keep plentiful resources in winter because at some point the roads WILL get blocked. Once you have covered those, plan for lower probability disasters.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> And that explains in a nut shell why I want to get out of a coastal state. <<

That is very prudent. Most coastal areas are vulnerable to storms and rising waters.

>> Of course, I have no idea where to go. It seems like there's no place to go now. <<

Well, nowhere is 100% safe, because that's life. But some places are much more dangerous than others. Factors to consider:

* Places that are already uncomfortably hot will become uninhabitably hot. Generally the population will shift toward the poles.

* Different places will see different effects from climate change. Think about what you can live with.

* Places subject to many threats are less desirable than places subject to fewer threats.

https://survivalskills.guide/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/bug-out-bag-list-map-nuclear-seismic-hazards.gif

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTSP1iwXUAEviEG.jpg

* Consider whether the threat is easy to dodge or mitigate. Small threats, like tornadoes, are not as dangerous as large ones like hurricans because undamaged areas will be nearby to assist in cleanup. A dome home or earthberm is resistant to storm, fire, and quake; a hillside house will elude floods.

* Geology can suggest durable areas too. A piece of continent that has been there extremely long, like the Canadian Shield, probably has lower risk of geologic hazards such as earthquakes and volcanoes that stir up the stones.

* Cities are not great places to be when the shit hits the fan. The less walkable they are, the more vulnerable they are to transportation failures. Happily, there are many towns and even small cities that are older and have good grids. The Midwest and Northeast are emptying out, and therefore cheap now, but much of that territory will become extremely valuable in the foreseeable future.

* Pick out a handful of possible places. Research the news for each, looking at the types of disasters they have faced in the last several decades. Consider that some of these -- such as storms and wildfires -- will be greatly exacerbated by climate change while others like volcanoes will have little or no impact from it. When you get down to househunting, do the same thing, and don't expect other people to be responsible about disclosing risks. Don't buy a place that has suffered flood, fire, or storm damage in ways that make it likely to recur, especially if it's already happened more than once.

* There are at least a couple of different major strategies from historic cultures faced with predictable disasters.
** Egyptian model: Build with really big rocks. When the Nile begins to rise, bug out to the desert carrying all your portable goods. When the Nile recedes, go home, rinse off all the mud, and put your stuff back.
** Japanese model: Build with really flimsy, fast-growing materials. When an earthquake or tsunami strikes, people are less likely to be crushed under debris, while cleanup and reconstruction are fast and easy.

In modern terms, a monolithic dome is Egyptian style and a yurt on a slab is Japanese style. There are even people who still like tipis because you can break down and bug out very quickly if something nasty is headed your way. Don't be afraid to mine the past for solutions to modern problems!

Re: Thoughts

[siberian_skys]

Thank you. I'm going to bookmark this as well. There is so much to think about. More than I was taking into account recently. I've been worried about water and fire more than anything else. I keep wondering why there isn't more dome building. It makes the most sense especially when you consider the hurricanes.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Thank you. I'm going to bookmark this as well. <<

I'm happy I could help.

>> There is so much to think about. More than I was taking into account recently. <<

If you look around online, or ask a librarian for help, you will see that many people have been mulling over these problems. So you can sift their materials for what you need.

>> I've been worried about water and fire more than anything else. <<

Wildfire risks cover about the western third of America. Flood risks are much patchier but include the entire east and south coastline due to hurricanes. Large parts of the interior have minimal risk for these two hazards.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/1a/77/6d1a7786baff5a06161084f8b840ff79.png

>> I keep wondering why there isn't more dome building. <<

The two main reasons are 1) it's way different than conventional housing and 2) trying to adapt square furnishings to a round building is a pain in the ass. I recommend considering traditional layouts from round structures, which often fit better. If you look at many different floorplans for dome homes, you'll see that some are much better than others.

This is my go-to reference site for concrete domes:
https://www.monolithic.org/
https://www.monolithic.org/domes
https://www.monolithic.org/press-fact-sheet
https://www.monolithic.org/homes
https://www.monolithic.org/homes/floorplans

Geodesic domes are modular:
https://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/dome_homes/

>> It makes the most sense especially when you consider the hurricanes. <<

No shit. You can't beat a spheroid for sturdiness. Storms roll right over them. If you are concerned about extreme weather, you can pay quite a lot extra for storm-resistant doors/windows.

A comparison of pros and cons:

https://legaleaglecontractors.com/dome-home-guide

And sources:

https://buildgreennh.com/dome-house-ideas/

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

Hmmm...I wonder about the feasibility of Japanese-style on the West Coast (USA), given our lovely supervolcano. Might not be the best fit for ash fall and fires though...

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

Japanese materials are flammable, but again, very fast and easy to replace.

If you want something less flammable for California, consider things like adobe, earthberm, concrete, or other earth-related building styles that offer little to burn. And don't build in fire chimneys.

Re: Thoughts

[fianna9]

If you want geologically stable there are areas in the Dakotas especially around Mount Rushmore that are expected to be around/stable for a long time. There was a program on History Channel: Aftermath: Population Zero that talked about what areas and objects will last.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

If moving there, I'd suggest being friendly to the local First Nations folks...

[erulisse]

When we were making the decision to relocate we looked at a few things:

- what is the general risk of flooding and is that likely to change as the climate shifts?
- is there access to a reasonably robust food supply?
- what kind of job market is there?
- what is the cost of living like? if it's higher, are there public services and/or a safety net that offset that somewhat?
- what is the climate like? what do projections say the climate will be like in thirty years?
- what is the risk of other disasters?

Where we ended up is a small town in upstate New York about an hour north of Albany city center. It is a little past the edge of anything that could be considered urban/suburban sprawl but comfortable commuting distance to some of the nearer suburbs, which is where I am currently working. This also means that we have good access to most city amenities within an hour drive but we also live close to a number of working farms and orchards and the local food situation is quite robust. The next town over has an independent butcher and grocery that sells all kinds of local products and that is where we do a significant amount of our shopping (including awesome local milk in returnable glass bottles!) but another couple miles down the road are big box groceries for everything else. There is some risk of flood here because the town we are in is on the the Hudson River but we are also upstream far enough that the risk is relatively limited (and certainly significantly less than what we were facing in Houston!) There is snow here and occasionally it dumps a significant amount (we had a storm the second week of December where we got thirty inches in eight hours) but overall we feel we found a good balance between risks and benefits. It's definitely a good bit better than what we left in Texas in many ways. (There are still bugs other than mosquitoes here, which our neighborhood in Houston had lost most of due to proximity to the ship channel).

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

There are various maps that find your city's "climate twin" for some date in the future.

http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2019/07/your-2050-climate-twin.html

Other resources suggest cities to avoid due to extreme changes.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2020/01/climate-change-the-cities-you-won-t-want-to-live-in-by-2040.html

[siberian_skys]

Up state NY sounds beautiful. I can't imagine Houston. I found the highways intimidating when we were there on a bus trip not to mention the power grid problems and hurricanes. Your list is very helpful. I'm going to need to go back to work, so the job market is something I need to take into account. I don't think I'm going to be able to flee this before this hurricane season peaks, but hopefully this will be my last one.