Cyclones and Bangladesh. Why are they so destructive?

     Throughout the year 2017, cyclones have ravaged parts of Madagascar and Australia. Both of these countries have had their own long histories with tropical cyclones. However, Bangladesh, another country on the Indian Ocean, has also had it's own history of tropical cyclones including Cyclone Mora. While Cyclone Mora, a storm with near 75 mph winds, may not have been as powerful as Cyclone Debbie that hit Australia with near 160 mph winds, it still caused extensive rainfalls and some winds that bought Bangladesh down. However, the question is why does a category 1 storm cause 500,000 people to be displaced with around 3 people killed while a category 1 storm elsewhere causes less?
   
     Well, there are many factors that cause Bangladesh to cripple when cyclones come. One of these is that the geography of Bangladesh is very low level with lots of water and rivers in it. In fact the Ganges river empties out pretty much in Bangladesh and makes it almost like a delta. There are no high mountains in Bangladesh that greatly weaken the cyclone after landfall. The area as a result is prone to heavy rains and heavy flooding because of this geography. While people may not have to worry about mudslides, flooding is very potent, especially in the monsoon season. In fact, this monsoon season from June to October brings about 1600 mm (about 62 inches) of rain in the monsoon season alone! This makes it hard for people to rebuild before the next monsoon season comes because just when one thinks he or she is okay, a huge rainstorm would come on through and flood their homes again.

(Video From Mint, a user on Youtube)

     The geography and the monsoon seasons do play huge roles into why Bangladesh hasn't been able to build infrastructure capable of protecting themselves from these floods. However, a huge population in Bangladesh with such a small area makes these statistics from these cyclones be so bad. It is a small country with millions of people in it and when an evacuation happens from a storm, people have very few options on where to go. The infrastructure as well as a result of this consistent monsoon season with many cyclones takes a beating and can't ever be built well because shelter has to be built very quickly so people can have it when the next storm comes a few days later.
     Besides this, Bangladesh has had a history of bad cyclones that have ravaged their land. Just last year, Cyclone Roanu caused severe damage like that of cyclone Mora with around 75 mph winds and lots of rain. This cyclone still had it's effects still potent in Bangladesh today, and Cyclone Mora continued them. However, the worst tropical disturbance for Bangladesh was the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone that bought 155 mph winds and rainfall over 10 inches that killed 135,000 people in one storm. This storm was one of the worst cyclones in weather history not only because of its' 155 mph winds and over 10 inches of rain amounts, but just the sheer amount of deaths that happened from it.

 
  If you thought that storm was bad, the Bhola cyclone of 1970 was even worse with near 500,000 people killed, over 145 mph winds, and rainfall totals over 12 inches. This storm statistically speaking is the worst tropical cyclone in all time.
     Overall, there is actually many more cyclones that have ravaged Bangladesh like Cyclone Sidr, Aillia,and Cyclone Akash. If one thought that this cyclone that recently hit Bangladesh was bad, then one really needs to remember it can always be worse.
Next Post: June 19

How the Great Hurricane of 1900 helped Galveston Texas.

     This hurricane that hit Galveston Texas in 1900 proved to be one of the deadliest storms in world history. It killed near 10,000 people in the Galveston Texas area, flooded all buildings in Galveston, and destroyed almost everything in sight. It bought 145 mph winds, heavy storm surge, and flooding rains that made Galveston Texas look like a ghost town after the storm. Worst of all, it came without warning.
     However, out of all this, how in the world could this have helped Galveston Texas? While there was a lot of the money that put Galveston into further debt, most of it was actually issued to make the impact of a hurricane less and prevent another tragedy like the hurricane of 1900 from happening. The best idea of all this rebuilding was an 18 ft tall seawall put in for Galveston. This seawall prevented waves and storm surge up to that height from extensively flooding the city. Also, this seawall project raised the city of Galveston as a whole and made it almost twenty feet higher in elevation. At the time, Galveston was only 9 ft above sea level. With this tall storm wall and raising of the city, the city now stands over 20 ft tall.
     However, many hurricanes have challenged this sea wall in the past. Hurricanes like the ones in 1961 and 1983 were very powerful and caused lots of damage, but didn't heavily flood the city. Hurricane Ike in 2008 was a near category 3 hurricane that bought 160 mph hurricane equivalent storm surge going over the 18 ft sea wall. While it caused lots of damage to buildings and killed 117 people in the U.S., compared to that of the 1900 hurricane, it wasn't the worst hurricane ever for Galveston Texas  thanks to modern warning systems and technology.

 If all of these storms had come without that sea wall in Galveston Texas, then there would be many more deaths and much more catastrophic destruction that would have made people want to move away and leave Galveston Texas a forgotten city.
     Today, many cities along the coastlines face this same decision that Galveston faced in 2008. Should they raise the city and make a sea wall with heavy monetary costs? While rising sea levels is a big issue today, dealing with hurricanes and how to prepare these cities for them is much more important as Hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy have shown. Galveston is a great example of making changes to stop weather phenomenons like hurricanes from killing many innocent lives; and many other cities should make big changes like Galveston did to save lives today and in the future.

War of 1812: British Victory instead? How?

     The war of 1812 for America had a final end result of both sides, the Americans and British, no gains or losses of any territories from before the war. However, what if the Americans and British didn't tie up/ How would that have happened?
     Well, one major event that did change the war was the tornado that hit Washington D.C. This tornado and severe weather hit Washington D.C. the day after the British started setting fire to important buildings like the Library Of Congress. The fires however grew too much and were going to start putting people's private properties ablaze which the British didn't want to do. Luckily, these tornadoes and severe weather stopped the fires for the British while at the same time wreaking havoc among the British soldiers moving out of D.C. It weakened the morale of the British army to fight while also destroying artillery and major supplies that the British needed to fight the war. Many British were also killed when buildings were lifted off the ground and were leveled as some of the British took shelter in them. this forced the occupation of Washington to be cut short.

     However, what if this severe weather didn't happen? Could the outcome of the war changed? It probably most certainly would have. no severe weather or tornadoes would have let the fires continue tog row and burn all types of buildings. The British would have been successful with their occupation of Washington D.C., and the war would have become a much bigger and costly war for both sides. The British would then inflicted more of heavy losses at Fort McHenry, and perhaps our own national anthem would have not come from there as a result. General William Henry Harrison then would have possibly had to fight more than just an invasion into Canada.
     Overall, the severe weather that hit Washington D.C. saved the Americans and even the British as private property wasn't ravaged. The British then did not have to deal with a larger confrontation from people who lived on private properties and had their houses burned by the British. Severe weather here, depending on your point of view, proves that it can be helpful and not always destructive.
Next Post: May 21

What if there was no San Fransisco Earthquake of 1906?

     Just this past week, on April 18, 2017, it was the 111th anniversary of the powerful San Fransisco Earthquake of 1906. It was a 7.8 magnitude earthquake that seemed to do the destruction of an even higher magnitude earthquake. While sources from 1906 say only 800 at the most had died from this earthquake, it did level hundreds of buildings in the San Francisco area and the fires from broken gas lines led to engulfing fires that destroyed most of what was left of the city.

     However, what if none this earthquake actually didn't happen? Would our perception of what earthquakes can do change or our knowledge on earthquakes, especially on the San Andres Fault area?
     Well, we first need to take a look at what we gained and lost from this earthquake. For one of the few gains and most important ones from this earthquake, we were able to define the Elastic-Rebound Theory that defines earthquakes still today. This, founded by Henry Fielding Reid and according to this website , states that as rocks along both sides of a fault shift, form, and slightly move, energy from these actions is formed and causes these fault lines to a very slow rate change form until the internal strength within the fault line is exceeded.  It also, in a way, led to the creation of the golden Gate Bridge and what it is today. Because of that earthquake in 1906, builders of the Golden Gate bridge had to make it sustain powerful and destructive earthquakes.
     With this earthquake, there were many losses including destruction of the San Francisco city hall, destruction of hundreds of buildings, losses of almost 800 people, and many years of rebuilding to get the city back up. It cost lots of money to do this, but in the end, some of the rebuilding helped San Fransisco make more potent buildings capable of dealing with earthquakes today. However, there is still a great number of buildings that aren't sufficient to deal with earthquakes like that of 1906 even today.
     Now, if there was no earthquake of 1906, we would have not lost many innocent lives or many historical buildings from that time that we could preserve today. However, Henry Fielding Reid may not have made his elastic rebound theory as a result and vital knowledge of earthquakes would have not been found for years to come. The Golden Gate bridge might have also been around, but it would have been much weaker and more susceptible to earthquakes like the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and any in the future.

(Oakland Bay Bridge Collapse)

     Overall, the San Fransisco earthquake of 1906 was needed in order for California and the rest of the world to be aware of what earthquakes can do, how they function, and how to make infrastructure capable of withstanding them. Without this earthquake, many lives would be saved in 1906, but would the number of lives saved be worth it in the next 111 years that lead up to today?

Easter, The One Holiday That Severe Weather Happens Somwhere

    Any date from March 22- April 25, is when Easter can be. For that range of over a month, there is  the possibility of rain or snow in not only North America, but also Europe.
     In North America, just last year the U.S.A. experienced very severe thunder storms with near baseball size hail . These thunder storms bought lots of wind, lightning, and even a few tornadoes that flattened parts of towns.

     In this year too, the southern U.S. also had severe thunderstorms where damaging winds, hail and tornadoes caused destructive damage too. What is it with this destructive weather on Easter in the United States?

     Well, for one, Easter is in the early spring, a time close to prime for severe weather, especially in the southern United States. For the United States, warm fronts come through during the spring time and allow for almost summer like temperatures to come. Moisture from the gulf of Mexico enhances the area after the warm front crosses and the cold front crosses causing rain and strong to severe thunderstorms that can be destructive and cause lots of flooding especially right after the spring melt of the winter snow further north.

     In England, stormy weather this last year for Easter had also caused problems, but certainly not as bad as the United States. Los of rain over a period of a few days in northern England especially caused some flooding with rainfall totals near 50mm or 2 inches. This rainfall weren't the only issue as especially along the coast, strong winds caused minor tree damage and major airport delays. This storm system would have been ok to deal with a week later than Easter, but with millions of people in England traveling for the Easter holiday, it caused major travel problems and headaches.

     Easter weather in history throughout Europe and the United States can be a major problem with severe weather and torrential rains. However, even with this severe weather, most people can agree on one thing; at least it isn't snow. Just watch out next year when Easter is on April 1 in 2018. 

The Australian Cyclones. How bad are they?

March 27, 2017, tropical cyclone Debbie had hit Australia with close to 160 mph winds and bought lots of destruction to north eastern Australia. Over 52,000 were still without power three days after the storm. About 500 mm or about a half a meter of rain at the minimum fell in most of the area hit by Debbie. This rain has caused terrential floods and even has bought sharks into the streets in which no one sees everyday. While this was a tremendously strong storm in the first place, it raises the question of how bad has it been for Australia with cyclones?

                                    If we look back in history, there has been many cyclones that have hit Australia. There has been so many that are as strong or even stronger than Debbie. For example,  Cyclone Tracy, in the year 1974, 71 people were killed by the cyclone that bought lots of rain and close to 155mph or 250km per hour winds. It came right around Christmas time, and over 24,000 people were homeless after wards in northern Australia. Another bad cyclone was cyclone Ingrid in 2005 which didn't get that close to Australia to cause severe impacts. One thing about this storm may not be what it did, but how in the Atlantic Ocean there was a powerful hurricane named Ingrid that impacted Mexico as well. That raises the question that is should we have the same named retired in both the south pacific and Atlantic as you can see these two storms both named Ingrid caused huge impacts. However, these storms compared to the massive cyclone of 1899 that affected Australia are still not the worst Australia has seen. This cyclone named Mahina came right across northern Australia at Bathrust bay and killed over 400 people. A whole pearling fleet of 50 ships was destroyed from this storm and could not make it back to shore. Some Aborigines were also killed while trying to save some of the people or just by this unexpected storm in general. Radar at the time would have helped greatly decrease the number of deaths from this storms as the Great Galveston hurricane of 1900 also proved in the U.S.A.
    
The list of cyclones go's on and on for Australia, but it is safe to say that Australia has about as worse of a hurricane season or even worse hurricane season than the U.S.A., Mexico, and the Caribbean. Australia is just about as bad as Madagascar almost, but that is also true because of the greater amount of people affected by Australian cyclones compared to that of Madagascar. A cyclone is never any breeze; and anyone who has lived and been in the impact of a hurricane, typhoon, or cyclone can most likely say the same.

Mini Ice Age 1816-1817, What if it didn't happen?

Global warming. This issue has been shown to be true and false since the late 20th century. However, has the term global cooling ever been used. Well, in history, it hasn't bee prevalent, but there are a few times in history where we have wondered is the Earth going to warm up? Well, in the years from 1816 to about 1818, winter was in full control. A huge volcanic eruption at mount Tambora in 1815 and in Indonesia that became the reason for this as global temperatures throughout the Earth stayed very below average throughout Europe and North America. The eruption was so big that it blackened or blocked some of the sun rays from getting into the earth causing very below average temperatures. Only in the month of July from places from England, France, to North America was there never any temperatures below the freezing mark. For the month of August alone, North America had freezes from Quebec to Washington D.C. while Europe had freezes right around the same time that hindered crop growth. Some might ask why didn't they plant crops earlier in the season, but that wasn't a possibility as freezes from the winter of 1815-1816 extended all the way to very late May or even early June as snow still sometimes fell. All of these freezes and early  snowfalls led to food shortages and people freezing to death as winters around this time were even harsher with highs and lows very close to if not like that of Siberia Russia or Alaska in the United States. These highs ranged from -5 Celsius to as low as -40 Celsius. This mini ice age cause many problems throughout Europe and North America as economies still mainly run on agriculture went down.






 However, what if this mini ice age didn't happen; would the world have done better? Well, there would have been better food production and higher temperatures that would have helped these European countries and the USA possibly industrialize and advance or recover further, especially after Napoleon's destruction of Europe along with France's own destruction. With England, they might have been able to profit more from Canada with an above average 1816-1819 which could have led to more of a reliance for England on Canada as a good economic booster and not a cold, frigid tundra. France could have been able to have more say in it's colony's and colonial areas that it still had as well with a better economy in France.

   All of these are major factors into figuring out if the year without a summer could have done if it was a year with a summer. Some could say that this year without a summer hit France very hard because of Napoleon himself and his belligerent ways of conquering and running over all of Europe for himself so France could run Europe. Some might see this year without a summer as payback to France. The year without a summer hindered everyone and everything in the world with the huge problem of a mini ice age. Now, this problem has shifted to being the heat age in which we don't know if it is mini or huge. One thing for sure, you will need to stay cool and stay warm for whatever comes your way as mother nature has a mind of it's own.