This ******'s the size of England. About 126,000 sq. miles

Yowza

Where's it heading?

Nvm, just checked and from what I've just read this one is going to cause real carnage.

Butlins.

Sidney1st wrote:Where's it heading?

Nvm, just checked and from what I've just read this one is going to cause real carnage.

Cat 5's are insane and there's no Cat 6 so anything beyond 156mph winds is a Cat 5. even if it's got sustained winds of over 200mph which is why there's talk of creating new categories of 6 and 7.

But look at how much carnage Harvey (highest winds of 130mph) caused and remember that was "only" a Cat 4. Currently Irma has maximum sustained winds of 175 mph.

must be reassuring to know that when your house has blown down, the storm responsible had a nice name like Irma.

It looks as though it will do some real damage to a good number of the Caribbean islands

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-41156051

Imploding Turtle wrote:But look at how much carnage Harvey (highest winds of 130mph) caused and remember that was "only" a Cat 4.

Harvey's carnage was caused mainly by the fact it more or less stalled over a relatively small area of Texas. Dropping most of it's rainfall over a few hundred square miles causing massive overflows of groundwater, rivers and bayous.

why do americans insist on using the flimsiest of building materials for their houses ? every post hurricane footage shows their homes to be made from what looks like Balsa wood. Surely if you reside in a storm belt, Accy bricks would be a priority .

Wile E Coyote wrote:why do americans insist on using the flimsiest of building materials for their houses ? every post hurricane footage shows their homes to be made from what looks like Balsa wood. Surely if you reside in a storm belt, Accy bricks would be a priority .

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-Ameri ... efer-brick" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wile E Coyote wrote:why do americans insist on using the flimsiest of building materials for their houses ? every post hurricane footage shows their homes to be made from what looks like Balsa wood. Surely if you reside in a storm belt, Accy bricks would be a priority .

They're quick and cheap to rebuild every time a hurricane hits.

A brick-built building would still take a battering, and they're not exactly immune to trees falling on them.

bfcmik wrote:Harvey's carnage was caused mainly by the fact it more or less stalled over a relatively small area of Texas. Dropping most of it's rainfall over a few hundred square miles causing massive overflows of groundwater, rivers and bayous.

Imagine the carnage if Irma has a similar experience.

I think one stalled over Grenada (I think) a few years ago and almost completely destroyed the place. 'Luckily' for them they were very poor so, when the small amount of aid came along, it didn't take them long to rebuild the homes and hospitals that had blown away. Roads and communications took rather longer to replace though. Then the yanks decided to, effectively, buy the island and turn it into a US 'protectorate'.

Wile E Coyote wrote:why do americans insist on using the flimsiest of building materials for their houses ? every post hurricane footage shows their homes to be made from what looks like Balsa wood. Surely if you reside in a storm belt, Accy bricks would be a priority .

When I lived in Dallas we had a Tornado (nothing like a Hurricane) and it blew down a Petrol station and flattened the accompanying building. Said building was made from steel enforced concrete (not brick, concrete!) and it was flattened easily. Mother Nature s the single most powerful thing on our planet and those that underestimate her are incredibly foolish

I was in Barbados in 1980 (aged 8) when hurricane Allen came in - this was a CAT5 but the eye went over Jamaica so we didn't feel the full force. I do remember going to the beach the next day and all the sand had gone. Roads were blocked with trees and a few small cars had been blown over - otherwise it was pretty exciting....

Sutton-Claret wrote:I was in Barbados in 1980 (aged 8) when hurricane Allen came in - this was a CAT5 but the eye went over Jamaica so we didn't feel the full force. I do remember going to the beach the next day and all the sand had gone. Roads were blocked with trees and a few small cars had been blown over - otherwise it was pretty exciting....

The eye of a storm is the calmest

Hope we are safe in colne

joey13 wrote:The eye of a storm is the calmest

I'm sure he knows that.

DavidFishwicksDad wrote:Hope we are safe in colne

No. You're in Colne.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm sure he knows that.

If I was sure he knew it , I wouldn't have posted it

joey13 wrote:If I was sure he knew it , I wouldn't have posted it

I didn't say you were sure he knew it. I said i'm sure he knows it.

bfcmik wrote:I think one stalled over Grenada (I think) a few years ago and almost completely destroyed the place. 'Luckily' for them they were very poor so, when the small amount of aid came along, it didn't take them long to rebuild the homes and hospitals that had blown away. Roads and communications took rather longer to replace though. Then the yanks decided to, effectively, buy the island and turn it into a US 'protectorate'.

Wasn't that the place Clint invaded in the film Heartbreak ridge?

You know why it's called Irma ?

Cos Irma geddin' outta here......

evensteadiereddie wrote:You know why it's called Irma ?

Cos Irma geddin' outta here......

That post is the worst thing that has ever happened.

joey13 wrote:The eye of a storm is the calmest

Yes, but if the eye goes over Jamaica then by definition the strongest winds next to the eye also go over Jamaica. If you're in the eye of the storm, it means you've just had the strongest winds and that they're just about to come back again.

Imploding Turtle wrote:That post is the worst thing that has ever happened.

Nah, just a storm in a teacup, Imp.

Also, the eye of the storm is where there is the lowest air pressure so you get the biggest storm surge of the sea. These can reach 60 metres as they rush in with the movement of the storm.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm sure he knows that.

Yes I did know that..... its about 30 miles in diameter which is much much smaller than the island of Jamaica.

Call that a storm ? Why, over in America we have much bigg...........oh.

DavidFishwicksDad wrote:Hope we are safe in colne

If you are up holt house then you are in danger

And people think it's cool to get 'bargain' holidays in the Dominican Republic at this time of year

We saw the impact of a storm stalling with Harvey. I have many colleagues appallingly impacted. Here in NC, hurricanes reshape our Outer Banks - and we stick out a little into the Atlantic, making us a bit of a landfall target

JohnMac wrote:And people think it's cool to get 'bargain' holidays in the Dominican Republic at this time of year

If this hurricane hits the Dominican Republic, it'll be the 2nd category 5 hurricane to do so in the last 100 years. They've had 13 altogether in that time, but only two of them hit the tourist area on the east coast.

http://puntacanabavaro.com/news/dont-be ... eason.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Herbert was the first hurricane to hit the USA in 12 years. They aren't that common.

Wile E Coyote wrote:why do americans insist on using the flimsiest of building materials for their houses ? every post hurricane footage shows their homes to be made from what looks like Balsa wood. Surely if you reside in a storm belt, Accy bricks would be a priority .

They never understood the story of the 3 little pigs.

Watching this one carefully right now and saw latest update of 180 mph winds...

There's a lot of other countries in the path who have been hit time and time again in recent years and just don't have the support, infrastructure or money to deal with these. Haiti for instance, hit with a Matthew - Cat 5 in 2016, 2010 was Hurricane Tomas - Cat 2 but had 4 separate storms in 2008 (Fay - TS, Gustav - Cat 4, Hannah - Cat 1 and Ike - Cat 5).

In Cayman, there's a lot invested in Hurricane shelters and new buildings must comply to Cat-5 hurricane standards and I have to admit before kids it would be an exciting time when these hurricane watches were issued.

dsr wrote: Herbert was the first hurricane to hit the USA in 12 years. They aren't that common.

Lol. What?

Obviously the winds are destructive and people are right to focus on it, but storm surge does a huge amount of damage too. Hurricane Ivan in 2004 had a storm surge of 20-25ft. Worrying in Grand Cayman where the highest point on the island is 60ft above sea level.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. What?

Sorry, Harvey.

dsr wrote:Sorry, Harvey.

You're doing that thing where the news say things like "there hasn't been a major hurricane of category 3 or higher to his the US in twelve years" and then stupid, climate change denying, bullshit bloggers like Anthony Watts will turn that into something like "there hasn't been a hurricane for 12 years" and then uncritical people such as yourself will repeat it without checking that it's true.

There have been plenty of hurricanes to hit the United States since Katrina. The two that immediately come to mind are Matthew (because FCBurnley got really angry with me when i wished him well) and Sandy which devastated the east coast in 2012.

I was in Cuba when Hurricane Wilma hit the island. Stood outside drinking a cocktail whilst it ruffled the odd leaf or two.

Let's hope there are limited numbers of injuries/fatalities

Everyone turns in to Michael Fish all of a sudden, and we know how that 1 went.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're doing that thing where the news say things like "there hasn't been a major hurricane of category 3 or higher to his the US in twelve years" and then stupid, climate change denying, bullshit bloggers like Anthony Watts will turn that into something like "there hasn't been a hurricane for 12 years" and then uncritical people such as yourself will repeat it without checking that it's true.

There have been plenty of hurricanes to hit the United States since Katrina. The two that immediately come to mind are Matthew (because FCBurnley got really angry with me when i wished him well) and Sandy which devastated the east coast in 2012.

No, what I'm doing is responding to JohnMac's comment that suggested people are a bit daft booking holidays in the Dominican Republic at this time of year. Hurricanes that hit the USA, or affect the USA, are not all that common whether you want a literal or merely anecdotal definition of "hit". Nor are they common in the Dominican Republic.

Where the heck does climate change come into it? Would it help clarify my comments if I said "hurricanes are not all that common, but once upon a time they were either more common, or less common, I don't know which, and that difference may have come about as a result of climate change"? Because that's the first time I've mentioned climate change on this thread. Various ill-informed BBC reporters have mentioned in the past (though not recently) that the number of hurricanes had increased because of climate change, but they aren't scientists, so I disregarded them.

I do remember your comment (though not who it was to) about Hurricane Matthew, though. Ironically, your first comment was that you didn't believe it was happening, at least not where FC Burnley was. Though I don't think you ever did work out quite why FCB took offence.

dsr wrote:No, what I'm doing is responding to JohnMac's comment that suggested people are a bit daft booking holidays in the Dominican Republic at this time of year. Hurricanes that hit the USA, or affect the USA, are not all that common whether you want a literal or merely anecdotal definition of "hit". Nor are they common in the Dominican Republic.

Where the heck does climate change come into it? Would it help clarify my comments if I said "hurricanes are not all that common, but once upon a time they were either more common, or less common, I don't know which, and that difference may have come about as a result of climate change"? Because that's the first time I've mentioned climate change on this thread. Various ill-informed BBC reporters have mentioned in the past (though not recently) that the number of hurricanes had increased because of climate change, but they aren't scientists, so I disregarded them.

I do remember your comment (though not who it was to) about Hurricane Matthew, though. Ironically, your first comment was that you didn't believe it was happening, at least not where FC Burnley was. Though I don't think you ever did work out quite why FCB took offence.

It would help if you didn't parrot climate change denier propaganda. But doing that you brought climate change into it, as if it wasn't already part of the discussion anyway.

What evidence do youj have that those BBC reporters are ill-informed? It's a fact that the number of hurricanes has decreased and it's likely as a result of climate change. That's not unexpected. This is further evidence of your uncritical mind. You dismissed information purely because of the source. You didn't bother to even check if the information was accurate.

You said, parroting climate change denier bullshit, that there was no hurricanes to hit the U.S. for 12 years until Harvey. Hermine, Matthew, Humberto, Gustav, Isaac, Sandy, Irene, Arthur, Dolly and Ike say you're wrong.

And please find the comment to which you're referring when you said, "Ironically, your first comment was that you didn't believe it was happening, at least not where FC Burnley was." http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... +hurricane" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'll wait.

Imploding Turtle wrote:It would help if you didn't parrot climate change denier propaganda. But doing that you brought climate change into it, as if it wasn't already part of the discussion anyway.

What evidence do youj have that those BBC reporters are ill-informed? It's a fact that the number of hurricanes has decreased and it's likely as a result of climate change. That's not unexpected. This is further evidence of your uncritical mind. You dismissed information purely because of the source. You didn't bother to even check if the information was accurate.

You said, parroting climate change denier bullshit, that there was no hurricanes to hit the U.S. for 12 years until Harvey. Hermine, Matthew, Humberto, Gustav, Isaac, Sandy, Irene, Arthur, Dolly and Ike say you're wrong.

And please find the comment to which you're referring when you said, "Ironically, your first comment was that you didn't believe it was happening, at least not where FC Burnley was." http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... +hurricane" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'll wait.

No, you're right, it wasn't bogus sympathy - sorry. It was your impression that you thought he might be a bit of an idiot for not evacuating that I misremembered. Orlando, in the evacuation zone! (I shouldn't laugh, but I've been there. Disneyworld was once closed for a day, 40 years ago, but they didn't evacuate.)

The point of the BBC reporters was not that they said climate change had caused hurricanes to decrease, it was that they said climate change caused hurricanes to increase. In the run up to Katrina (2005) there was a bad few years, and the ill-informed BBC reporters blamed that on climate change. And OK, maybe they were right and hurricanes had increased because of climate change, but if they were right it was on the "blind squirrel" theory.

But let me make this perfectly clear - the relatively low incidence of hurricanes in any particular area is a long-running, constant, state of affairs. When you consider the number of hurricanes per year and the land area in the "target area", there is a lot more land than there are hurricanes to cover it, and so any given place has few hurricanes even over a long period of time. THIS IS NOT RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

Here's my source for the USA hurricane theory - Wikipedia. You may be right that this page was taken over by climate change denier propagandists, or at least that the editors are slow off the mark on this particular page. But that's where I got it from, and Wikipedia tends to be pretty reliable IMO. Feel free to correct it if they're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr wrote:
Here's my source for the USA hurricane theory - Wikipedia. You may be right that this page was taken over by climate change denier propagandists, or at least that the editors are slow off the mark on this particular page. But that's where I got it from, and Wikipedia tends to be pretty reliable IMO. Feel free to correct it if they're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Harvey" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very first ******* sentence proves me right and you wrong.
"Hurricane Harvey was the first major hurricane to make landfall in the United States since Wilma in 2005, ending a record 12-year period with no major hurricanes making landfall in the country."

How did you think this was going to help you? Did you even read your own source?

The power of nature is awesome when you witness such events.

That's a very good question about prevalent building materials in the U.S. Toronto and environs have always been "brick" cities (although my grandfather's farmhouse, which he inherited from his father, was made of clapboard.) That's because the predominant immigrant pool came from Scotland, and their wealth of bricklayers and masons, and the large red clay deposits in the immediate area. Buffalo, and most mid-west cities, just across the border, were wood cities made up of multi-unit family dwellings built on long lots with short street frontages. Buffalo is/was predominantly Polish. A good sociologist could do a great treatise on this.

They're predicting Irma to make a bee-line for Miami within a week. Don't say they haven't been warned.

The more you know,the more you think you don't the more you don't know, the more you think you do.