Hurricane Dorian. Change travel plans?

[TherapyBound]

We live in Orlando, and as far as we know it HASN'T made the northern turn yet. It wobbled north, but it's still very  much heading our way. If you can get out, at least to the Gulf side, now's the time to do it. We're definitely not out of the woods yet, and it looks like the coast will get some level of strong winds and rain, if not a Cat 1 or 2. We're already under a Tropical Storm Warning as far inland as Orlando.

We should know more by this evening, but as of 4:45pm on Monday, it has NOT yet turned north. We could definitely feel a direct impact.

We're not panicking in central Florida. We've been through this before. But we're hunkering down, and starting to see stray bands of heavy rain pushed ahead of the hurricane.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Bigthinkers

[agesilaus]

Stationary at 1800/6PM with the eye off W Palm. Look at the Miami radar and you can see the eye clearly. We are near Gainesville and if we have a problem here the weather guessers would be dead wrong. Not that that hasn't happened before...

But the main point is that it has stopped moving west and that means that the guiding high off georgia has been weakened and pushed out the sea as expected. The front moving down from Tennessee is supposed to take over and push it northwest turning northeast off the Carolinas.

[agesilaus]

OK if you want more than a superficial understanding of what is going on with this storm I really suggest you take 9 minutes and watch this daily (when a storm is near) Tropical Tidbits video: Tropical Tidbits 9-2-19 afternoon

You will get a college level explanation of storm steering, but in very plain language

[TherapyBound]

As of 11:40pm Monday, it's still stalled over Freeport. In theory, when it moves again (expected at some point Tuesday morning) it could wobble west before heading north or it could head north. Point, being, it hasn't headed north YET. 
Fort Wilderness at Walt Disney World will close by 3pm tomorrow. Here's hoping all RVers have found safety NOT on the coast in Georgia, the Carolinas or Florida.

[agesilaus]

LOL it is moving NW at 1 mph some people are just determined to have it over Florida...heh. Sitting in one spot means it is running out of warm water. Latest intensity seen by the Storm Hunters was 105 mph. It is expected to weaken slowly from now on.

I do know that these storms can do erratic things, I've been watching them since 1960 when we saw our first one down in south Florida. And we watched Donna go by. But they were so erratic back them because the weather guessers did not understand them and did not have the powerful tools that they now have. So their guessing is vastly improved. They were also much more common back then then they now are. We are in a minimal Hurricane period of history.

[Sehc]

Remember the effect of the storm is much wider spread than where it "makes landfall" I suggest you get your information here and not on the forum. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

The amount of rainfall will cause flooding in unexpected areas. 

When Sandy made landfall in Little Egg Harbor, it devastated Northern NJ and New York City, 200 mile away.

[agesilaus]

I don't get my information here, I get it from NOAA and as interpreted by the Tropical Tidbits vblog. I've been thru many hurricanes, tropical storms and depressions over almost 60 years and I am well aware of the wide spread footprints of these storms. Just how many have you personally lived thru?

Like most long time residents I have adopted a no panic but watchful attitude.

Also let me point out that Florida is vastly better prepared for storms than the northeast because of geology (most of us live on a bed of hundreds of feet deep porous sand), experience (we frequently get storms that have 60 mph winds and can dump 4 inches of rain on us all year long) and infrastructure (our cities are built to absorb sudden storms with lots of wind and rain). We also keep our politicians on their toes by loudly complaining about any problems that crop up.

The only flooding we see down here is for people live near some rivers or on the coast where they are affected by storm surge.

 

The northeast is a whole different situation, I won't comment on their corrupt governments other than pointing out that Sandy was either a weak Cat 1 storm or a tropical storm when it hit. And NYC could have avoided the major subway flooding that they had by building some sand bag dikes around the entrances to the subways. They were warned and did nothing.

 

We call a weak Cat 1 or tropical storm down here: A Rain Event not a multi-billion dollar disaster.

[FL-JOE]

I agree with you 100% on how Florida handles hurricanes and tropical storms.  In my estimation you are just the right distance away and monitoring everything correctly without panicking.  

It is almost like Florida was built for these types of events, on the other hand 10 or 12 inches or rain from this storm will put a good part of SC on it's heels for months.

I would think hunkering down anywhere between where you are and even Savannah GA for the next 48 hours is okay.  You would still have I-16 or I-10 to head inland or jump on I-75 and go south depending on how close and how fast it comes up the Florida coast, which I'm guessing won't be very close and will probably end up being a Cat 2 or 3.

[Kirk W]

[hemsteadc]

On 9/3/2019 at 7:04 AM, agesilaus said:

We are in a minimal Hurricane period of history.

What locations and time periods are you referring to?

Edited September 4, 2019 by hemsteadc

[agesilaus]

Well this cuts off at 2004 for some reason: NHC

This goes thru 2012: More stuff

and if you are really interested you can go here and let us know what you find

I believe I heard or saw a factoid that this season had the latest named storm of the last hundred years.

And for the more rational among us there is this article.

And This

 

[hemsteadc]

Thanks.  There are definitely different ways of looking at the data.

From :   https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp?region=at

I pulled the years with 10 or more hurricanes.  On the left is the year, center is number of hurricanes in North Atlantic, the figure on the right is the delta of years.  For instance, from 1893 to 1916 - it took 23 years to find another year with 10 hurricanes.  Notice how after 1995 they come with increasing frequency.

1893 10
1916 10  23
1933 10 17
1950 11  17
1969 12  19
1995 11   26
1998 10   3
2005 15  7
2010 12  5  
2012 10  2

 

[agesilaus]

Storms that disturb the fish out in the middle of the Atlantic do not concern me. Minimal tropical storms that go ashore in June in Texas or Mexico do not bother me either. That's just weather.

Major storms, Cat 3 and up, that come ashore in the US do concern me. And I saw one set of numbers that showed between 1910 and 1970 there were 14 or 15 and from 1970 to today there have been 3. This is the number that counts. Notice Dorian did not come ashore in the US and will not as a major storm. The 1940's was a very active period and the 1960's was active but as much as the 40's.

Bottom drops out

New paper

No more than the past

What you need to know

Fewer hurricanes in the last 600 years

 

I could post 20 or 50 more links if you link. That site above is 100% data driven.

Edited September 4, 2019 by agesilaus

[TXiceman]

We were headed to Charleston and Savannah next week.  Left NE North Carolina and now at the Charlotte Race with many other refugees.

With full time RVing, you plans are always firmly set in Jello.

Ken

[hemsteadc]

 

"I could post 20 or 50 more links if you link. That site above is 100% data driven."

That's ok.  Wikipedia describes the site you're citing (wattswupwiththat.com) as:

".. a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change"

So I doubt we'll be agreeing on anything.

Edited September 5, 2019 by hemsteadc

[agesilaus]

43 minutes ago, hemsteadc said:

 

"I could post 20 or 50 more links if you link. That site above is 100% data driven."

That's ok.  Wikipedia describes the site you're citing (wattswupwiththat.com) as:

".. a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change"

So I doubt we'll be agreeing on anything.

See that's the problem with people on your side. You wear blinders so you will never have to face reality. I look at far left pubs all the time, NYT, Washington Post, the Atlantic and so on. That's an advantage to having an open mind.

Almost all those links above show actual reference links to journal articles in major scientific peer reviewed journals.

If you want to argue data then do it, I was somewhat impressed by the fact that you seemed to be willing to enter a data driven logical discussion then you revert to form.

As for your quote above:

" I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled   … Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world … The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus "

Albert Einstein

Science does not work by consensus it works by experimental proof and data. Only on

Edited September 5, 2019 by agesilaus