Sunday, September 25, 2005
Losing Patience
I know it. I admit it. It's a fault that I am developing. I've always had it to a certain degree. But, now, it's getting really bad.
I don't know if it's a year in Korea (which just happened to be when North Korea started all this nuclear weapons stuff) , then, almost back-to-back, year in Iraq, or I'm a few months away from 40, and I'm getting to be the "crusty old Sergeant".
I'm reminded of the train conductor in The Quiet Man who keeps telling his co-worker "If you knew your country's history ..."
Because, it is apparent that most Americans do not. I'm not talking about your basic redneck type, either. I'm talking about journalists, politicians, FEMA personnel, military personnel that refer to Katrina as the worst natural disaster in US history.
The only reply to that is "not even close." The San Francisco Earth Quake around the turn of the last century was much worse, in terms of natural disasters. The one in '89 was, probably, even worse than Katrina.
Not only that! But, it is not even the worst hurricane in US history ... no matter how you consider it. CNN has a great report on the worst hurricanes in US history. They look at it from several different perspectives: greatest loss of life, most monetary damage, most intense. In each of those categories, Katrina doesn't make the Top 10, because the report gives the Top 10 in each of those three categories.
What's frightening is that this storm should have come as no surprise. CNN ran this story in 2000 about the hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900 that was probably the worst hurricane ever to hit the US. They ran this story about the meteorologist that blew off the storm, at the time.
What's even worse is that you have "tree hugger" types blaming the intensity of Katrina, and Rita on global warming. If you read, and pay attention to any of these reports, then you will notice that the weather experts cite, almost every time, that hurricanes and tropical storms go in 30-40 year cycles.
Now, go back to the first CNN Special Report that I talked about. Look at the dates on those storms. The first group, chronologically, of those storms were on or around the year 1900. Then, there is a gap in the dates. The next ones, chronologically, were in 1935-1938. Clearly, within that 30-40 year cycle. Then, there is another lull, until the late 60's to 1970 (to include Camille that hit New Orleans in 1968).
There were a couple in the early 90's, Hugo and Andrew. But, they were not that intense, and there was not that much loss of life, comparatively. They caused a lot of monetary damage. If you read further, though, you found that they hit areas that were unprepared for storms, and, like New Orleans, they did not believe they would be hit. Both Hugo and Andrew were, actually, pretty low intensity storms, comparatively. The low intensity of both of those storms was a major contributing factor to the monetary damage that they did. I know it sounds weird, but lower intensity hurricanes move slower than those of higher intensity. So, Hugo and Andrew stayed longer in one place than, let's say, Katrina or Rita. Giving the storm more opportunity to cause damage to infrastructure than a more intense storm.
Back to our chronology!
We were in 1968-1970, before we made that detour for Hugo and Andrew.
That would be, what? 35-37 years ago, right? And, if you have been doing the math as we went along this timeline, then, you have noticed that each group of bad hurricanes has followed that 30-40 year cycle.
Assuming that the people who study the history of weather can do basic math, and have a fairly firm grasp of the obvious, then, 35-37 years ago for the last group of bad hurricanes would put us in prime territory, chronologically, for the next groups of storms, right?
So, my spray can of Right Guard deodorant, my parents SUV, etc. have less to do with the current storms than the structure of the Earth's atmosphere, the currents of the Atlantic, etc. ... in other words, the environment.
To all those "environmental" types out there (to include vegetarians), it has been proven that the methane from the farts of the world's cow population is more of a contributing factor, historically, than all of the cars, spray cans with flourocarbons, and industrial exhaust, ever, so, go do your part and go to McDonald's and have a burger to cut down on those bovine emissions.
I don't know if it's a year in Korea (which just happened to be when North Korea started all this nuclear weapons stuff) , then, almost back-to-back, year in Iraq, or I'm a few months away from 40, and I'm getting to be the "crusty old Sergeant".
I'm reminded of the train conductor in The Quiet Man who keeps telling his co-worker "If you knew your country's history ..."
Because, it is apparent that most Americans do not. I'm not talking about your basic redneck type, either. I'm talking about journalists, politicians, FEMA personnel, military personnel that refer to Katrina as the worst natural disaster in US history.
The only reply to that is "not even close." The San Francisco Earth Quake around the turn of the last century was much worse, in terms of natural disasters. The one in '89 was, probably, even worse than Katrina.
Not only that! But, it is not even the worst hurricane in US history ... no matter how you consider it. CNN has a great report on the worst hurricanes in US history. They look at it from several different perspectives: greatest loss of life, most monetary damage, most intense. In each of those categories, Katrina doesn't make the Top 10, because the report gives the Top 10 in each of those three categories.
What's frightening is that this storm should have come as no surprise. CNN ran this story in 2000 about the hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900 that was probably the worst hurricane ever to hit the US. They ran this story about the meteorologist that blew off the storm, at the time.
What's even worse is that you have "tree hugger" types blaming the intensity of Katrina, and Rita on global warming. If you read, and pay attention to any of these reports, then you will notice that the weather experts cite, almost every time, that hurricanes and tropical storms go in 30-40 year cycles.
Now, go back to the first CNN Special Report that I talked about. Look at the dates on those storms. The first group, chronologically, of those storms were on or around the year 1900. Then, there is a gap in the dates. The next ones, chronologically, were in 1935-1938. Clearly, within that 30-40 year cycle. Then, there is another lull, until the late 60's to 1970 (to include Camille that hit New Orleans in 1968).
There were a couple in the early 90's, Hugo and Andrew. But, they were not that intense, and there was not that much loss of life, comparatively. They caused a lot of monetary damage. If you read further, though, you found that they hit areas that were unprepared for storms, and, like New Orleans, they did not believe they would be hit. Both Hugo and Andrew were, actually, pretty low intensity storms, comparatively. The low intensity of both of those storms was a major contributing factor to the monetary damage that they did. I know it sounds weird, but lower intensity hurricanes move slower than those of higher intensity. So, Hugo and Andrew stayed longer in one place than, let's say, Katrina or Rita. Giving the storm more opportunity to cause damage to infrastructure than a more intense storm.
Back to our chronology!
We were in 1968-1970, before we made that detour for Hugo and Andrew.
That would be, what? 35-37 years ago, right? And, if you have been doing the math as we went along this timeline, then, you have noticed that each group of bad hurricanes has followed that 30-40 year cycle.
Assuming that the people who study the history of weather can do basic math, and have a fairly firm grasp of the obvious, then, 35-37 years ago for the last group of bad hurricanes would put us in prime territory, chronologically, for the next groups of storms, right?
So, my spray can of Right Guard deodorant, my parents SUV, etc. have less to do with the current storms than the structure of the Earth's atmosphere, the currents of the Atlantic, etc. ... in other words, the environment.
To all those "environmental" types out there (to include vegetarians), it has been proven that the methane from the farts of the world's cow population is more of a contributing factor, historically, than all of the cars, spray cans with flourocarbons, and industrial exhaust, ever, so, go do your part and go to McDonald's and have a burger to cut down on those bovine emissions.
