Joe Bastardi says that the Northeast is due for a major hurricane, perhaps this year (note, probably not a permalink):

The current cycle and above-normal water temperatures are reminiscent of the pattern that eventually produced the 1938 hurricane that struck Providence, R.I. That storm killed 600 people in New England and Long Island. The 1938 hurricane was the strongest tropical system to strike the northeastern U.S. in recorded history, with maximum gusts of 186 mph, a 15- to 20-foot storm surge and 25- to 50-foot waves that left much of Providence under 10-15 feet of water. Forecasters at AccuWeather.com say that patterns are similar to those of the 1930s, 40s and 50s when storms such as the 1938 hurricane, the 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricanes and the Trio of 1954--Carol, Edna and Hazel--battered the coast from the Carolinas to New England. The worry is that it will be sooner, rather than later, for this region to be blasted again.

New York can't be complacent--there is potential for twenty-foot surges coming up the East and Hudson rivers, which could make New Orleans look like a kiddie pool.

It also says that this season will be another busy one, but not as bad as last year, when we ran out of names. A pretty easy prediction--just regression to the mean coming off a record.

Last chance to visit Johnny's Atlantic Beach Club in Newport, RI, before it's wiped off the face of the planet again!

If only we'd started driving hybrid cars sooner, this cycle never would have... oh, wait. It's cyclic. You can't come out of an Ice Age without warming up the planet...

As usual, I don't wish harm upon anyone living in coastal areas, and I lament the loss of proprty and life, but I'm even more upset by people blaming Oil for these sorts of things, as they are wont to do if something like this happens later this year.

First New Orleans, next the blue northeast.

You just have to know Pat Robertson will be piping up about this if it comes true.

OTOH, when hurricanes hit the Northeast, they tend to move fast. That means stronger winds (on the side that's blowing in the direction of motion), but might weaken their storm surge and overall harm they cause. Second, nothing in the Northeast is built in a depression like New Orleans is. Sure, if New York City takes a direct hit from a category 5, then it's going to be a mess merely because of the amount of stuff that is there to be broken. But the water will flow back out when the storm passes (unlike New Orleans where most of the damage occured after the storm had passed as water flooded the low lying parts of the city).

Also, New York City has more competent leadership and are better prepared for a disaster.

...if New York City takes a direct hit from a category 5, then it's going to be a mess merely because of the amount of stuff that is there to be broken.

That was my point.

Sorry, I guess my point was that New Orleans was really bad. If this had been back in the day when hurricanes weren't predictable, a good part of New Orleans would just be permanently gone.. I simply don't see an analogous threat from hurricanes to New York City. IMHO, the tsunami threat could make New Orleans look like a kiddie pool, but not a major hurricane.

This sounds like the ad for yet another bad Sci-Fi Channel movie of the week.

Hurricanes in the Northeast do a lot more widely scattered damage from swollen rivers, and much of the damage is inland. For example, hurricane Agnes in 1972 flooded Elmira and Corning NY. Elmira College dormitories above the flooded first floor were being used as shelters for the new homeless. The only business in Corning that had flood insurance was the glass factory museum / Steuben works.

OTOH, Agnes may have saved my life by floating my submarine off its trailer parked near a creek in PA and smashing it into a bridge piling. When I built the thing in High School (with lots of help from Dave Smock) I included a CO2 scrubber but no oxygen makeup into the life support systems. Hypoxia is a lovely way to die though.......

I can't remember which hurricane it was, in 96, was it Andrew? Andrew was said to be the worst catastrophe ever, and though it did massive damage to the carolina's, there were reports that it was originaly headed further north, maybe DC, or whatever, wasn't the capital evac'ed?

A tornado can hit chicago anytime, not likely, but possible, a tornado hitting the loop would be more devastating than 911, and there wouldn't be any warning, at least not a real one. Disasters happen, and you can't prepare for them, if you could, there wouldn't be disasters. All that can be done is to do your best to prepare for the worst case, and get ready to burn up your nike's running for the hills.

Sorry, no pitty. To quote my beloved brother who can summarize a political sentiment in just a few words. When watching a football game, some guy came up to him in a bar (a friend of his) decided to go into an anti-bush rant about Katrina, he then turned to my brother, and he said "did you give anything to N.O. after Katrina" to which my brother, being succinctly vile in his derision for the politicization of the "catastrophe" responded "not even 2 shits."

Big brothers rock.

It's come to my attention that B@st@rdi predicted last year's hurricane activity would all be in the Atlantic rather than in the Gulf.

So, now he's moved his prediction even farther away from the Gulf. I wouldn't want to be living on the Texas coast this season.

I can't remember which hurricane it was, in 96, was it Andrew?

Andrew was in '92. It slammed Florida, crossed to the Gulf, and came ashore not too far from New Orleans -- mercifully much weaker than when it hit Florida. My then-wife-to-be rode out Andrew's second landfall in Slidell.

I wish I could come up with the name of the '96 hurricane you're talking about, but my wife and I were living in Alaska.

Hurricane Fran?