So, a big tornado ripped through Oklahoma. I still remember the images from 1999 that went through the same area. I can’t imagine living in the path of monsters like that. I know they’re political, and you’re not supposed to mention the political in the wake of tragedies that implicate policy concerns, but some thoughts come to mind:
-It’s good we have a federal government that can channel the resources of the rest of the country to assist people in the various states.
-It feels like big weather events are more common lately which raises concerns about whether any given one is the product of man-made climate change. If so, and if this pattern will get worse, it’s a horrifying prospect.
-However, the feeling of more common weather events might be fueled, in part, by the weather porn industry. The news channels were good at bringing objective information. But, when they start interviewing the victims within hours of the awful event, I can’t continue watching — not because I’m squeamish, but because the media is being ghoulish. (Talking to shell-shocked survivor: “How does it feel to lose everything?”)
-Do you rebuild in this area? If this is a tornado path, does it make sense to, once again, put up structures that might well get crushed by these kinds of town-destroying monsters? If Godzilla rampages through your town once, that’s just bad luck. If he does it again, maybe you think about relocating.
people who live in flood zones never move, since (other) taxpayers seem to subsidize their choice to rebuild time aftere time.
Some do remain, so me wiseup and move. Some municipalities are taking efforts to buy up floodprone properties and put floodplains back in place.
But I agree, taxpayers should not subsidize flood prone home. If the private market wants to, I guess it can.
” I can’t imagine living in the path of monsters like that.”
You’d better imagine it. Indiana has its fair share of devastating tornadoes. Just because it’s less common here, don’t get lulled into a false sense of security.
Exactly. It isn’t like it is the same town each time. If we start declaring states un-livable due to the natural disasters that can occur, we’ll all end up in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.
Then, we’ll run out of water.
Everywhere else has tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, earthquakes, and wildfires.
Jason, New Mexico is regularly ravaged by wildfires. And the droughts that cause them. And it gets it share of blizzards.
Ok, then Nevada & Arizona. Utah gets blizzards, too.
Or, maybe we should all agree that natural disasters will happen.
Some, such as seasonal flooding or erosion of beachfront, are quite predictable & could be viewed with less pity.
Almost all of the rest are a part of living on this planet.
I don’t think tornadoes are something you can move to avoid…like floods.
You can changing housing codes to deal with say..EF3’s…not sure you can do that for 4’s and 5’s. Those fuckers are just too powerful. Might as well live in a reinforced concrete bunker.
Getting people out of flood plains and not continually rebuilding people that live on sand bars and other things wiped clean by hurricanes is needed. I’m ok with helping people rebuild elsewhere, but if all that is left after a hurricane is a *reconfigured* spit of sand…sorry.
I’m all for using the resources of the group to help people fucked by natural disaster…but there is helping and then there is enabling truly stupid actions.
gizmo
New Mexico does not have many tornadoes. I did a disaster continuity plan for Albuquerque data hosting company. It is pretty safe from major disasters because of geography.
The south central midwest is close to gulf moisture and in the direct path of Canadian cold air. A bad combination.
What I kept thinking last night was that two of the five representatives from Oklahoma and both Senators voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy and now might be asking their colleagues for more help from the federal government. Not that the vast majority of folks in Congress are going to have a problem with doling out some cash for this – and they shouldn’t either….just to be clear – but the shear embarrassment that these four folks might have is something that I wish on no one.
My wife kept asking me last night why you would stay there after a major, major tornado has come through that same area three times in the past eleven years. So, Doug, you’re not that far off from asking the question.
I’d love to be the fly on the wall during a discussion with members of the Oklahoma and East Coast Representatives/Senators. Curious about how much crow is being served, and it might be a little tense.
There are risks in living. Period. Choosing to live in a flood plain is one thing. You pretty well know that if it rains a lot, the river might rise, and it usually hits the flood plain before climbing on up to drown the hill dwellers.
As for tornadoes, they can go anywhere, so the answer is not to just rebuild the same old types of houses and schools – boxes – but to put the architects to work to design buildings these storms will pass over without much damage. Kind of like a dome, maybe? And half under the surface of the surrounding land, maybe?
Say, I just had a thought! Maybe mobile homes WOULD work! Just leave a tractor hooked up to them, and when a storm approaches, fire it up and pull the mobile home out of the path. Yeah! That’s it!!
You’re right that tornadoes are somewhat unpredictable. But, it seems that the affected area is more likely to get hit by stronger tornadoes. It’s probably the case that having that the benefits from having that geographic area prone to stronger, more frequent tornadoes usable by humans outweigh the inevitable costs.
I wonder if it’s worth imposing a FEMA surtax or something to allocate the increased risks. I don’t know how far you go with that though.
With many communities in Indiana, people who live in floor-prone areas must buy flood insurance, and that isn’t cheap. Even then, once you have had a few floods, FEMA encourages you to get out.
Remember the town of English? It finally just moved up onto higher ground.
I understand that any below ground shelters are rare because apparently the red clay is hard and makes excavation more expensive.
“Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how did you like Dallas?” “Ghoulish” is the right word, and if you coined “weather porn,” good for you.
Agreed. “Weather porn” drives ratings numbers. If it bleed, it leads, is the old local newspaper adage.
For local TV, “if it Blows it shows (24/7).”
I don’t know about the enduring characteristics of the other areas, but I am familiar with Chicago and Evansville TV. Evansville TV is really focused on–even obsessed with==the weather. Maybe they don’t have much else to do, but these folks are really into it, to the point of one station calling their weather reporters “The Storm Team”, into showing pictures of tree(s) down and water in the streets, even if it’s only one tree among hundreds. Some weather guys almost rub their hands together as they discuss the probability of rain. Like that’s the only reason we are interested in the weather? Love the term “weather porn”.
Actually, while climate change has certainly likely had impact on some forms of significant weather events (hurricanes will likely become both less common and more powerful when they do occur, for example), the evidence is that as of yet it’s had no impact on the rate of tornado formation in either direction. In fact, from May 2012 to April 2013, the US had a record low number of tornadoes over a 12-month period, with just 197 rated EF1 or higher.
It’s pretty hard to have an intelligent discussion with some people about climate change, particularly the ones who are either anti-science or don’t have a clue about how science even operates. But they have their political horse to ride, or beat. Once you try to talk about what may or may not stem from climate change, up comes some guy who wants to use an anecdote to “disprove” climate change. The prevalence of tornadoes will be an interesting phenomenon to watch for a lot of reasons.
Justin,
Today, in an interview on Science Fridays (NPR), the president of the American Meteorological Assn. confirmed the content of your posting (and links). He referred to the research thus far on the relationship between tornadoes and climate change as “immature”. Hurricanes are a different story, though, as your posting and links have pointed out. Thanks.
Well, I’m way late with this comment, so probably no one will read this. Nevertheless, I feel some facts are in order here. Moore, Oklahoma is part of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. The population of the OKC metroplex was over 1.2 million in 2010, per the U.S. Census and Wikipedia. This is hardly a “town” that can simply be moved away from big tornadoes–as if such a thing were even possible without moving the “town” completely out of Oklahoma and/or completely out of the middle of the country, if it is to remain reasonably free from the risk of big tornadoes.
While we’re at it, maybe Indiana should depopulate, since it has been struck by many big tornadoes and tornado outbreaks over the years, including the Palm Sunday outbreak of 1965 and the Super Outbreak of 1974, not to mention the Tri-State Tornado of 1925–possibly a family of tornadoes, but it was still a horrific weather event.
I dunno, there’s always a whiff of self-righteousness whenever a disaster strikes somewhere else. “My house hasn’t been hit by a tornado, flood, earthquake, or hurricane, therefore I must be better and smarter than those who have suffered from the latest disaster.” If you and yours have not been hit, count your blessings, but don’t assume you can’t or won’t ever be in the location of a natural disaster.