JeanA and MonaP (and any other BBers in that area) - so glad you are safe. What a horrible experience!

I came across this and found it interesting:

The cities most at risk of major economic losses from natural catastrophes, as compiled by Munich Re, the world's largest re-insurer are:

1. Tokyo
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
5. Miami
6. New York
7. Hong Kong
8. Manila-Quezon
9. London
10. Paris

The cities in the developing world at highest risk of natural catastrophes with major loss of human life:

1. Tianjin, China
2. Dhaka, Bangladesh
3. Calcutta
4. Mexico City
5. Lagos, Nigeria

Sorry Chris,

I got the same interpretation.

I'm not sure all the talk about global warming can really explain the number of hurricanes. They do run in cycles of number and intensity. The 1950's were terrible to Florida (until Andrew, Donna was considered the worst to hit Florida).

Betsy in 65 was bad because Louisiana was unprepared and Camille in 68 the same in Mississippi. But it has been 40 years between major hits in this area.

The difference now is that we have weather satellites to show us all the storms we didn't know about before. How many tropical storms blew out without ever being noticed or named?

Haven't North Sea storms been terrible for Britain in the past?

Is it possible that "Global Cooling" ended with the Pleistocene and we are now in a long term reversal of that? The cycle may have nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

Glenn

We get the occasional bad storm, Glenn, but nothing even remotely on the scale of these hurricanes you experience; the seas around the UK are never warm enough to give weather systems that much energy. We get (which surprises many people) quite a few tornados in the summer which do considerable, but very localised damage.

Cheers,

Chris