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

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)]

>>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.<<

This is a good place to crowdsource problems. We've got a lot of smart people here!

:)

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

I am deeply pleased by the fact that I have assembled a fantastic think tank in my audience by telling cool stories and setting "don't be a dick" as a groundrule. <3

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

The intellectual offerings are very good!

And I did lurk about a bit before decloaking enough to leave comments - I'm usually fairly leery of internet commenting.

I think this is one of the four nicest [comment-filled] places I've found on the internet so far.

Re: Thoughts

[siberian_skys]

The monolithic style is so cool. I would think you'd have to free float an island and put the cabinets in it.

I've also thought about having a house built out of shipping containers. If they can take an ocean voyage that might be an idea as well. I suppose it doesn't matter if I can get out of this ridiculous state.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> The monolithic style is so cool.<<

I agree. Also, if you don't want it to look like gray concrete, you can:

1) Stripe it in green/brown (forest) or gold/brown (prairie) to blend in.

2) Paint it any typical house color.

3) Invite local graffiti artists to decorate it probably for free.

4) Pay a lot for an artistic mural.

>> I would think you'd have to free float an island and put the cabinets in it. <<

That's one option, but there are several that work well.

This is a basic wedge design in a small dome.

Here's a big dome with a central island and wedges. A clear winner in the big floorplans.

This large dome uses wedges but leaves the center open.

This is a variation of the wedge approach, using roughly half and two quarters.

This one is almost a Mies apartment (minimal walls) which reduces the straight/curve conflicts, but uses central cabinets for some division. Really nice for one person.

If you try too hard to make a round thing square, it turns into a real kludge. Don't.

>> I've also thought about having a house built out of shipping containers. If they can take an ocean voyage that might be an idea as well. I suppose it doesn't matter if I can get out of this ridiculous state.<<

Shipping containers can work if you understand their pros and cons. They are quite sturdy but need help with temperature control because they are metal. One container is plenty for a single person and acceptable for a couple. Two can be stacked, but you can also make a fantastic expansion by bridging a roof between them horizontally.

Here is a great set of flexible plans for a small shipping container -- these are ideal for disaster shelters.

This is a typical example for a large container.

This set shows a range of 1-3 bedrooms with 1 or 2 containers.

2-story plans can be found for small and large containers.

If you want to minimize your grid dependence, consider a composting toilet. You can buy one or make your own.

Re: Thoughts

[siberian_skys]

I like the idea of a composting toilet, but I don't know if I have the stomach for that.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

Check out the anti-grafitti murals in Philadelphia.

For insulation, an underground house or something encased in dirt (like a hobbit-house) might help.

Given that shipping containers are metal, I might worry about rust. There is good anti-trust paint, but it is very pricey per can.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

There was a guy who built a nuclear fallout bunker by (I think) burying a bunch of school buses encased in concrete.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have done all kinds of weird stuff. I suspect that concrete blocks would be easier and cheaper -- you can buy a few at a time and carry them by hand if necessary. They're like grownup Legos.

Re: Thoughts

[siberian_skys]

I'm amazed by peoples creativity. I saw a couple of different people that built in nuclear launch silos. I don't know what you're supposed to do with that much space, but you'd be safe down there.

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

[(Anonymous)]

More idle musing than anything else. I'm East Coast, and would ideally head north from here.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

Inland northeast has some pretty good territory. Once you're out of reach from the storms, there's not a lot else to worry about, except snow/cold which is ubiquitous at those latitudes. As population density is very low and many towns are emptying, quite nice property is available cheap in much of the northeast. I've seen it the most in Vermont but there are lots of similar places.

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...

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

Absolutely. That greatly reduces the chance of getting flattened.

Have you ever noticed that hardcore bikers have a medicine pouch on their handlebars? That is why. So they can go places like Sturgis and Bear Butte without having their bike fall apart. And they all tell stories about people who didn't do that, and wound up carrying their bike.

Re: Thoughts

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, the badasses I hang out with aren't /bikers/.

I'm thinking like a woman-socialized person who has traveled and is friends with travelers (for both recreation and survival).

So I'm thinking in terms of local knowledge of resources and threats, tapping into social networks and alliances, possible sharing of intelligence/resources, and the fact that being nice/kind/polite will often open doors (especially when everyone else is a horse's ass) combined with /the full awareness that you are not a hero just for being kind/.

Re: Thoughts

[fianna9]

Definitely. Anyone who knows the area and the local food supply should automatically be respected.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>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. <<

Plausible. While drought may be a concern, that area is far enough north that it won't overheat soon. However, the land is touchy as fuck, and if you annoy the Black Hills in particular, they may decide to beat you black and blue or throw your bike down the mountain.

>>There was a program on History Channel: Aftermath: Population Zero that talked about what areas and objects will last.<<

Excellent show. Life After People is another good one, and I am especially intrigued by the divergences between the two.

Re: Thoughts

[fianna9]

Both programs are interesting looking at possible futures.

Another area to look at is along the Appalachian Mountains in its entirety. Those mountains are old and fairly stable, and there are a variety of terrains with different water and soil compositions. There are people there who are also fairly adept at surviving so you can pick up tricks from them.

Re: Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Another area to look at is along the Appalachian Mountains in its entirety. Those mountains are old and fairly stable, and there are a variety of terrains with different water and soil compositions.<<

Some of it's good terrain, especially if you like forests. However, much has been poisoned by mining, and not just one valley, but everything downstream of that -- really bad shit like lead and other heavy metals. O_O

>> There are people there who are also fairly adept at surviving so you can pick up tricks from them.<<

Who also barely talk to you until you have ancestors buried in the local cemetery.

Another problem, serious for most people, is that much of Appalachia has extreme poverty. It's the one place full of white people that can give the reservations a run for bottom place. There are literally whole counties with NO jobs in them. While there are now plenty of nonlocalized jobs, many of those still rely on infrastructure, and Appalachia is very low on that in many places.

That said, consider identifying tourist areas, which have excellent resources -- and then scout the small towns nearby.