dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
23
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to rblizz

Premium Member

to rblizz

Re: CC Disaster

said by rblizz:

This "storm" actually caused more damage than Katrina.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?
gweidenh
join:2002-05-18
Houston, TX

gweidenh

Member

oh snap, we are already altering history? a bit soon, no?
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704 to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

said by rblizz:

This "storm" actually caused more damage than Katrina.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

While I hate that this has degenerated into a comparison of two great tragedies, I note this:

Hurricane Sandy is the second most powerful hurricane in modern history, with its might exceeding even that of Katrina, according to a measurement of the hurricane's strength in relation to its size.

Researchers have found that Sandy's Integrated Kinetic Energy index, or IKE, which quantifies the power of a hurricane based on how far out tropical-storm force winds extend from the center, ranked second only to Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

Hurricane Sandy's IKE was 140 Terajoules, which was about 20 Terajoules higher than Katrina's, according to Brian McNoldy, a senior researcher at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marin and Atmospheric Science.

»www.dailymail.co.uk/news ··· ina.html

David Greenlaw (of Morgan Stanley) says he doesn't expect "significant permanent job loss" or energy impacts in the wake of Sandy. "On the other hand, it seems like Sandy caused significantly more damage to transportation infrastructure than Katrina."

»www.csmonitor.com/USA/20 ··· -Katrina

Katrina caused many more deaths, although if there had not been criminal negligence of the levees in Louisiana there would have been far fewer deaths and damage....

[rblizz] will have to speak for himself, but I would assume that part of what he meant was that Sandy affected so many millions of people in the key financial, transportation, and communication hub of the US, and so many tens of millions of people in the northeast states.

Really, though, I don't think this sort of comparison is useful....

Each was bad in its own way.
rblizz
join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX

rblizz to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

said by rblizz:

This "storm" actually caused more damage than Katrina.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

I don't know where I read it initially, but here's an article about Sandy had "more total energy at landfall" than Katrina.

»www.washingtonpost.com/b ··· log.html

In the article you will read ...
quote:
Hurricane Katrina was “only” a Category 3 storm at landfall, yet ended up being the most costly natural disaster in our nation’s history due its impact on a vulnerable, highly populated low lying city. Sandy had Category 1 winds at landfall yet was able to create very significant storm surge over hundreds of miles of highly populated coastline. Katrina’s IKE was more concentrated, Sandy’s IKE was more spread out. This metric - more than wind speed - encapsulates the respective storms’ horrific effects. Sandy may end up as the second most costly storm in U.S. history. Given its top ranking IKE and the area it impacted, that should come as no surprise.
Point being, this was no ordinary "storm" as was implied in the post I was responding to.
rblizz

rblizz to gweidenh

Member

to gweidenh
said by gweidenh:

oh snap, we are already altering history? a bit soon, no?

Oh snap, someone hasn't been doing their homework.
rblizz

1 edit

rblizz to PX Eliezer704

Member

to PX Eliezer704
said by PX Eliezer704:

[rblizz] will have to speak for himself, but I would assume that part of what he meant was that Sandy affected so many millions of people in the key financial, transportation, and communication hub of the US, and so many tens of millions of people in the northeast states.

Really, though, I don't think this sort of comparison is useful....

Each was bad in its own way.

My point wasn't really to compare the two storms, it was to point out that Sandy was a major disaster not merely "a storm."

EDIT -- and here's probably the most significant figure when discussing CallCentric and power outages ...

Peak Power Outage, Katrina -- 1,700,000. Sandy -- 8,428,078. Obviously the density of the population in New York is the reason, but still a very major disaster.

»www.huffingtonpost.com/2 ··· 432.html
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704

Premium Member

Definitely.
gweidenh
join:2002-05-18
Houston, TX

gweidenh to rblizz

Member

to rblizz
said by rblizz:

said by PX Eliezer704:

[rblizz] will have to speak for himself, but I would assume that part of what he meant was that Sandy affected so many millions of people in the key financial, transportation, and communication hub of the US, and so many tens of millions of people in the northeast states.

Really, though, I don't think this sort of comparison is useful....

Each was bad in its own way.

My point wasn't really to compare the two storms, it was to point out that Sandy was a major disaster not merely "a storm."

But you did... and it doesnt matter. Was their building damaged? They lost power. Whether it was caused by a mouse chewing the lines, or a Cat5 storm, the fact is they lost power.

Lets stick to the facts rather than glamorize the storm...
voip_wire
join:2010-07-02

voip_wire to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

said by rblizz:

This "storm" actually caused more damage than Katrina.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

To add to that, per CNBC article, the cost of Sandy is estimated between $30 billion to $50 billion. Katrina's financial impact was $146 billion.

I understand that damage and financial damage can be drastically different, but given that Katrina hit areas with lower population density, the damage caused by Katrina was probably an order of magnitude more.

Please note that I am not trying to minimize or down play the impact of Sandy. If anything, it saddens me that we have declared 2-3 days of loss of connectivity a disaster.

However, as Andy wrote to Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. I hope that folks directly affected by the storm recover soon. I hope that CC moves forward with wisdom and strength. I hope that both people who leave CC and those who stay are content with their respective choices.

And above all, I hope that this thread would come to an end.

Cheers,
-m
rblizz
join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX

rblizz to gweidenh

Member

to gweidenh
said by gweidenh:

But you did... and it doesnt matter. Was their building damaged? They lost power. Whether it was caused by a mouse chewing the lines, or a Cat5 storm, the fact is they lost power.

Lets stick to the facts rather than glamorize the storm...

And your point is ... (what exactly?) That a major storm caused a major disaster? Is telling the truth about the effects of this storm "glamorizing" the storm? What part of the world do you live in where there are never natural disasters? And should any description of any disaster be referred to as "glamorizing" it?

Yeah, loss of power is why CallCentric went down -- but that loss of power, considering the situation and the force of the storm, was unavoidable. Sorry if that is considered "glamorizing" in your opinion. I call it "facing reality."
rblizz

rblizz to voip_wire

Member

to voip_wire
said by voip_wire:

And above all, I hope that this thread would come to an end.

Yeah, I'll second that. I just wish people could, occasionally, put themselves in someone else's shoes.
madjeff
join:2005-04-30
united state

1 recommendation

madjeff to rblizz

Member

to rblizz
Rblizz, I was going to type out a long reply and then realized it's a moot point. You continue to completely ignore the whole point with this "but... but... the disaster" argument. It's like watching a kid with his hands over his ears yelling LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING...

You win.