Hurricanes are getting stronger
Roger Coppock
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49334.html
Athiest 4 Bush
> Please follow this URL to see the press release with a graph:
> http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49334.html
This ignores the preceding period in which major hurricanes declined.
--
When the Rapture comes, can I have your car?
When global warming comes, can I have your coat?
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
> This ignores the preceding period in which major hurricanes declined.
No it doesn't. The ABSOLUTE number of larger storms is at a record
high.
Currently there are two named Pacific side hurricanes (Jova & Kenneth)
and a third growing (Lidia), plus another Atlantic side storm on the
path to hurricane force. There are several more moist air masses each
capable of developing into another hurricane. There is an ominous
swirling northwest of Hawaii which can hit the islands and later San
Diego. Either of the Pacific Hurricanes can turn back into the
prevailing winds aimed right at San Diego to Los Angeles.
YOU are the one IGNORING REALITY.
There was a lull period preceeding the current historic record period,
but a temporary lull should not lull you to sleep. PHYSICS says the
greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters -- this we can measure, and in
fact we find this to be true.
It is up to deniers to explain how the laws of physics can be broken to
accomodate thier complacent attitude. Those who acknowledge the current
LAWS of PHYSICS have already explained that hotter seas means more
intense storms, longer storm seasons, and more total storms. The more
intense storms prediction has been confirmed. The earlier storm season
start has been confirmed.
Science data often lags after events. It may be years before the
interval counts shows more total storms, even though they have already
blown the roofs off of homes -- that's just the nature of science
publications taking years to get into print after events have occurred
-- it doesn't mean the events are years in the future, they are NOW.
The science publications are the only things in the future.
The NOAA satellite pages give near-realtime images updated hourly or
half-hourly for trouble spots.
This is the link for the Atlantic satellites:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/trop-atl.html
This is the link for the Pacific satellites:
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/trop-epac.html
The National Hurricane Center webpage tracks storms once they reach a
certain scale. There are two Pacific side named hurricanes (Jova and
Kenneth) being tracked now.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
Jova -- http://tinyurl.com/bdk2o
Kenneth -- http://tinyurl.com/c9pvp
Here is a snapshop of six images which span the Tropic of Cancer and
equatorial storm birthing zones. Since the images change hourly, and I
want you to see the same thing, I saved these six images as talking
points.
http://ecosyn.us/1/Atlantic_1.jpg
http://ecosyn.us/1/Atlantic_2.jpg
http://ecosyn.us/1/Atlantic_3.jpg
http://ecosyn.us/1/Pacific_1.jpg
http://ecosyn.us/1/Pacific_2.jpg
http://ecosyn.us/1/Pacific_3.jpg
>From the top:
* Atlantic_1.jpg East Africa Coast, our first glimpse of potential
storm clusters appearing off Africa.
* Atlantic_2.jpg Carribean Sea and windward islands, usually our first
glimpses of storms appear here. In October most hurricanes form in the
souther Carribean below Cuba and enter the Gulf of Mexico.
* Atlantic_3.jpg The Gulf. Quite tonight.
* Pacific_1.jpg includes Central America and the Gulf of Mexico, shown
from a Pacific satellite view. Two named Hurricanes are shown and two
other nuclei are likely to become hurricanes under slight provacation.
* Pacific_2.jpg Central Pacific view includes Hawaii. Up to five
potential cyclones, or Pacific hurricanes are shown, including two
already defined as hurricanes.
* Pacific_3.jpg North Pacific view. A non-stop trail of potential and
actual hurricanes are illustrated from Africa to as far as our
instruments show in mid Pacific. According to reports of asian storm
battering, this girdle of storms continues all the way to asia.
Raymond Arritt
> There was a lull period preceeding the current historic record period,
> but a temporary lull should not lull you to sleep. PHYSICS says the
> greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters -- this we can measure, and in
> fact we find this to be true.
We expect warmer SSTs in an enhanced greenhouse climate, but to say that
"greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters" is not correct. Anyway I was
surprised to find that some HadCM2 data we obtained showed the Gulf of
Mexico to warm by about 2 degrees from the 20th century to the mid-21st.
That's a lot, and I would certainly expect such a change to have an
influence on Gulf hurricanes, all else being equal (but see below).
> It is up to deniers to explain how the laws of physics can be broken to
> accomodate thier complacent attitude. Those who acknowledge the current
> LAWS of PHYSICS have already explained that hotter seas means more
> intense storms, longer storm seasons, and more total storms.
True -- all else being equal. A complication is that we don't know
whether all else will be equal in a changing climate. Hurricanes are
affected by more factors than just SST, such as tropospheric wind shear
and wave disturbances propagating off the African continent. Changes in
these other factors could either strengthen or oppose the expected
changes from SST alone.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
>
> Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
>
> > There was a lull period preceeding the current historic record period,
> > but a temporary lull should not lull you to sleep. PHYSICS says the
> > greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters -- this we can measure, and in
> > fact we find this to be true.
>
> We expect warmer SSTs in an enhanced greenhouse climate, but to say that
> "greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters" is not correct.
With 70% of the globe covered with water, it is fully correct that
greenhouse gases trapping heat will store that heat in water. More
importantly, more than 70% of the equatorial belt between the Tropic of
Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn is covered with water, and a
disproprtionate amount of trapped heat will be stored in water in this
storm-formation zone.
> Anyway I was
> surprised to find that some HadCM2 data we obtained showed the Gulf of
> Mexico to warm by about 2 degrees from the 20th century to the mid-21st.
> That's a lot, and I would certainly expect such a change to have an
> influence on Gulf hurricanes, all else being equal (but see below).
>
> > It is up to deniers to explain how the laws of physics can be broken to
> > accomodate their complacent attitude. Those who acknowledge the current
> > LAWS of PHYSICS have already explained that hotter seas means more
> > intense storms, longer storm seasons, and more total storms.
>
> True -- all else being equal.
You should have stopped there. The physics we know for a certainty
include hotter seas spawn storms of greater intensity. YOU speak of
things YOU are unsure of. The "Precautionary Principle" rules -- when
in doubt take the course of least regret. YOU are in doubt. YOU may
gamble with YOUR life, but it takes fully informed consent to gamble
with anyone else's life. Since you don't have permission to gamble with
their lives, like the People of New Orleans were gambled with, the
moral course is to follow those certainties we possess, and not be
ruled by uncertainties we have no firm knowledge of.
Evidently you have no moral compas and do not know how to make moral
decisions. To help you make decisions in your weakness I want you to
understand that it is a capital crime to commit mass murder or be
accessory before the fact. "NO GAMBLING" or forfeit your life when you
lose.
> A complication is that we don't know
> whether all else will be equal in a changing climate. Hurricanes are
> affected by more factors than just SST, such as tropospheric wind shear
> and wave disturbances propagating off the African continent. Changes in
> these other factors could either strengthen or oppose the expected
> changes from SST alone.
"NO GAMBLING" or forfeit your life when you lose. You will be hanged
for mass murder by allowing deaths when the CERTAINTIES we already know
are: increasing sea temperatures increase severity of storms. We must
act on the knowledge we possess -- nobody ever has all the facts in any
situation. If inaction causes deaths, those who promoted inaction have
lost their right to breath the air on this world. You will not be
missed. You will be hanged.
Raymond Arritt
> Raymond Arritt wrote Sep 17, 6:01 pm
>>
>> Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
>>
>> > There was a lull period preceeding the current historic record period,
>> > but a temporary lull should not lull you to sleep. PHYSICS says the
>> > greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters -- this we can measure, and in
>> > fact we find this to be true.
>>
>> We expect warmer SSTs in an enhanced greenhouse climate, but to say that
>> "greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters" is not correct.
>
> With 70% of the globe covered with water, it is fully correct that
> greenhouse gases trapping heat will store that heat in water.
To say that greenhouse gases "trap heat", in water or elsewhere, is
incorrect and perpetuates a common misconception. Increased greenhouse
gases enhance downwelling infrared radiation to the surface by
increasing the effective long-wave emissivity of the atmosphere. That's
not the same as "trapping heat" (which is what a real greenhouse does).
A fairly good explanation of how the so called greenhouse effect
actually works, presented at an educated-layperson level, is given here:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
>
> >> We expect warmer SSTs in an enhanced greenhouse climate, but to say that
> >> "greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters" is not correct.
>
> > With 70% of the globe covered with water, it is fully correct that
> > greenhouse gases trapping heat will store that heat in water.
>
> To say that greenhouse gases "trap heat", in water or elsewhere, is
> incorrect and perpetuates a common misconception. Increased greenhouse
> gases enhance downwelling infrared radiation to the surface by
> increasing the effective long-wave emissivity of the atmosphere. That's
> not the same as "trapping heat" (which is what a real greenhouse does).
>
> A fairly good explanation of how the so called greenhouse effect
> actually works, presented at an educated-layperson level, is given here:
> http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
GROW UP. Greenhouse gases TRAP HEAT near the surface. The surface
absorbs the heat. The heat cannot dissipate because it is TRAPPED.
The misconception is not mine -- it is YOUR MISCONCEPTION. You believe
the liars at Fraser can lie away facts which can be measured with
thermometers.
TROPICAL DEPRESSION #17, now forecast to attain hurricane strength in
48 hours, is sitting on 80°C waters because the HEAT is TRAPPED in the
waters. It cannot radiate out through the greenhouse gases which
function like a real greenhouse. That's why they are called "Greenhouse
Gases" -- because they function like a real greenhouse.
TROPICAL DEPRESSION #17 has only ONE WAY to release that TRAPPED HEAT:
it must form a vortex which will draw up vast amounts of TRAPPED HEAT
right through the greenhouse layer up to the high atmosphere where the
heat can radiate away above the greenhouse layer. It is creating a
hurricane to accomplish this necessary compulsive act. It has no
choice, and it has no mercy for idiotic humans who believe the laws of
physics allow any other means of escape for excessive heat TRAPPED in
the water.
TROPICAL DEPRESSION #17 will kill you without pity when it gets to
hurricane strength if you are positioned in its path. It will not spare
you because you quibble over words. The PHYSICS are inexorable -- they
will not listen to your prayers. Hurricane whatzisname doesn't care if
you are a dumb fundamentalist taliban puppet, it does not care if you
are a red state republican who believes what Karl Rove tells you about
global warming, it does not care if you slept through physics classes
with a hangover.
Raymond Arritt
>>
>> >> We expect warmer SSTs in an enhanced greenhouse climate, but to say that
>> >> "greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters" is not correct.
>>
>> > With 70% of the globe covered with water, it is fully correct that
>> > greenhouse gases trapping heat will store that heat in water.
>>
>> To say that greenhouse gases "trap heat", in water or elsewhere, is
>> incorrect and perpetuates a common misconception. Increased greenhouse
>> gases enhance downwelling infrared radiation to the surface by
>> increasing the effective long-wave emissivity of the atmosphere. That's
>> not the same as "trapping heat" (which is what a real greenhouse does).
>>
>> A fairly good explanation of how the so called greenhouse effect
>> actually works, presented at an educated-layperson level, is given here:
>> http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
>
> GROW UP. Greenhouse gases TRAP HEAT near the surface. The surface
> absorbs the heat. The heat cannot dissipate because it is TRAPPED.
*sigh*
hanson
"Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz" aka
<bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> aka Auschwitzler, aka **Awe Shit**,
... ahahaha... cranks himself even here evermore now in message
news:1127012848.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Raymond Arritt wrote Sep 17, 7:08 pm
> >> We expect warmer SSTs in an enhanced greenhouse climate,
> >> but to say that "greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters"
> >> is not correct.
>
> TROPICAL DEPRESSION #17 will kill you .... it does not care
> if you slept through physics classes with a hangover.
>
what cranks you more, Awe Shit, .... ahahaha.... that...
[ ] Ray didn't agree with you.... creating green anxieties in you?
[ ] Ray knows more physics that you, even in a hangover sleep?
You must try harder, Awe Shit, my precious class 3 enviro... ahaha
ahahaha... ahahanson
PS: Study this here, long and deep, Awe Shit. All will become
very clear to you, for the first time, when you do accept these
** Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:**
Class (1)
Green shit(s): ...are the ones who advocate, promote,
support, legalize, institute and extort the permit charges,
the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax,
all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!,
and being responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
Class (2)
Green turd(s):... are the ones who are recipients and
beneficiaries from the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
Class (3)
Little green idiot(s):.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones
who think they do something for the "environment", when in
fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for (2) who
are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
>
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
every week.
"quick.net" does not exist. Report abuse to:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.178.129.232
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1122830436 209.178.129.232
(Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:20:36 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:20:36 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
http://tinyurl.com/9yuq4
Results 430 for author:han...@quick.net shits
http://groups.google.com
http://tinyurl.com/cyoq7
Results about 545 for shits Han...@quick.net.
http://www.google.com
Eric Swanson
Yes, he is being very simplistic. Yet, there is data which shows that ocean
warming is occurring and is doing so to much greater depths than previously
thought. This warmer water does represent stored thermal energy, and if it
does feed into storms as some have suggested, then those storms will likely
be stronger OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. Those other things are likely to
begin to change too, so it's simplistic to say that the net result will be
stronger or more frequent hurricanes.
I think it's too soon to say for sure which way the dice will fall.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Halpern
I had great hopes, but he clearly is not familiar with the language used
to describe radiation trapping and redistribution of radiation. The
greenhouse mechanism is correct, but a lot of the detail on that web
page is merely contentious. For example in the FAQ someone asked:
Question:
You make the silly assertion that “The surface of the earth is
warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere because it
receives energy from two sources: the sun and the atmosphere.” That’s
not an explanation, because the atmosphere just gets its energy from
somewhere else.
Answer:
The fact that the atmosphere gets its energy from somewhere else,
does not preclude it from being a source of energy for the Earth’s
surface. You would probably not object to the suggestion that you get
(much of) your energy from food. Yet, the energy in that food came from
elsewhere also. Indeed, you raised no objection to the suggestion that
we get energy from the Sun. Yet, the energy from the Sun, comes from the
Sun’s photosphere, and that photosphere gets its energy from elsewhere
just as assuredly as does our atmosphere. So, why are you content with
the one and not the other?
Me: For the same reason that if he wants to chop logic that way, a
frying pan is a source of heat for cooking. That issue is merely
semantic, essentially the same unprofitable tangle as to whether
hydrogen is a source of energy or a storage medium.
josh halpern
hanson
"Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz" aka
<bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> aka Auschwitzler, aka **Awe Shit**,
... ahahaha... cranks himself even here evermore now in message
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
So, it was not yours, "Awe Shit's", TROPICAL DEPRESSION #17
nor was it Raymond that made you crank yourself & is depressing
you in the process.... ahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA......
Could you please be so kind, Awe Shit, and explain to me
how and why you crank yourself with such a nebulous murky green
élan and a less the factual pale green distinction?.... ahahahaha......
You must try harder, Awe Shit, my precious class 3 enviro...
usually are... What exactly is it that you want, Awe Shit?
You seem to have all the answers....... you green dreidel!
ahaha... ahahaha... ahahanson
Raymond Arritt
That's the main reason I said the page was "fairly good" instead of just
"good." ;-)
Yes, it's unfortunate that the author has a tendency to veer off into
pedantry. As a result I don't recommend the site to students despite
its helpful explanations of certain phenomena. The concise summary
under "What does one tell one’s students?" is useful, though.
Pat Robertson [Bogus.]
jews in Auschwitz wrote:
> [...]
> It is up to deniers to explain how the laws of physics can be broken to
> accomodate thier complacent attitude. Those who acknowledge the current
> LAWS of PHYSICS have already explained that hotter seas means more
> intense storms, longer storm seasons, and more total storms. The more
> intense storms prediction has been confirmed. The earlier storm season
> start has been confirmed.
> [...]
Who created those laws of physics you tout so much? God of course,
and all will be well for those who trust in God.
My first point is that GW has not been sufficiently proven. My
President doesn't believe in GW, and I personally know him
to be a servant of God. God would not lead him astray.
My second point is that people who faithfully obey God
should have no fear. The Bible predicts major changes to
the earth just before Christ's return, so if GW is real,
and if it does lead to some of the problems you're
discussing, that just proves that His return is near.
When He returns, we'll be changed into a form that's
appropriate for the new environment, or He'll use his
power to correct the results of our errors.
You've probably already figured out that I'm smart enough
not to debate you on the science. The Laws of God are
superior to the laws of science, and I don't think that GW
is real because the President doesn't believe it, but
if GW is real, then Christ must return and return soon.
[Followups to alt.politics.bush]
--
I'm not really Pat, you know.
Bill Habr
"Raymond Arritt" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:E05Xe.338688$_o.222733@attbi_s71...
Double sigh
I wonder it these Chicken Littles realize the damage they do with their
constant "the sky is falling' refrain?
Trying to educate them gets you insulted.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
with others lives.
YOU can gamble with your life -- go hang-gliding, indulge in extreme
skiing, play russian roulette. THat is the limit on your homocidal
choices -- self-homocide. All other forms of homocide, even attempted
homocide, are severely punished.
The PHYSICS WE KNOW is not trumped by the uncertainties of the future.
We KNOW that thermodynamics creates spontaneous dissipation engines,
popularly called "storms, squalls, thunderstorms, tornadoes,
hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons.
What we KNOW is not cancelled by what we DON'T KNOW.
We NEED to be simplistic in speech because the homocidal deceivers are
using "uncertainty" and "debate" among science discussers as a reason
to "wait and see". We waited -- we saw -- Katrina ended the debate
about "killer weather is coming". That debate was decisively terminated
with predjudice. The naysayers are not allowed to spew their
mealy-mouthed lies at the megaphone any more.
Joe Sixpack needed to be alarmed to a level we can noe call "Katrina
Damage" alarm level. Joe was not fully and properly alarmed, so Joe
Sixpack did not do the proper level of preparation for Katrina.
Egotists debating fine points were used by homocidal persons to lull
Joe Sixpack into homelessness and drowning. Do not allow yourself to be
used by homocidal persons -- speak with clear voices about the correct
amount of alarm that Joe Sixpack needs to hear to get motivated to do
better for the next threat, which may be only weeks away.
Paul Revere was an "Alarmist" and a Patriot. He gave the correct
amount of alarm. The traitors were those who tried to drown out Paul
Revere's message with counter-comments lulling people back to sleep.
Paul Revere's message was not an elaborate treatise on Anglo-colonial
relations, and military tactics of mercenary soldiers. Paul Revere
spoke in plain language that Minuteman Joe Sixpack could understand:
"The British are Coming!" Simple, clear, direct, no quibbles, no
lengthy debate.
The amount of alarm needs to match the amount of threat. It needs to be
NOT OBSCURED by egotists parading insufficient science knowledge to
even predict a storm forming RIGHT NOW before the weatherguy tells you
about it. If you can't predict a storm even one hour before the
weatherguy tells you it's there, then you don't have ANYTHING to say
about storms in coming years and decades. Shut up, and pay attention to
your betters and learn how THEY PREDICT that which YOU CANNOT PREDICT.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
first place.
Paul Revere was an ALARMIST. He was a pariot and a hero. An ALARMIST is
a patriotic and heroic thing when the amount of alarm matches the
threat. Drowning out the alarm with lullaby-baby siren songs is a
treasonous and murderous thing when people die because their level of
alarm was below the correct amount needed to get them pro-actin before
tragedy overtook them.
People exactly like you betrayed people like yourself in the Katrina
storm impac zone.
Oil Billionaires "Killer Koch" brothers, who spent $60,000,000 on Cato
Institute, on Competitive Enterprise Institute and scores of other
lullaby websites, got a gutshot would from Katrina, which is still
bleeding, very painful, and might yet be fatal to them. The
Entergy-Koch Waterford Nuclear Power Plant is still offline, and
Entergy had to repair wiring to over 2,000,000 homes in their service
area. It's nice to know that only a QUARTER-MILLION people are still in
the dark, two weeks later. Too bad you aint one of them.
Koch spent $60 million dollars on lie-factories and lulled themselves
to sleep -- they weren't fully prepared for Katrina. The PATRIOTS who
tried to ALAM them were pounced upon by hired mercenary propagandists
at these lie-factories.
I'm pretty sure that all properly alarmed people had 100% coverage on
hurricane insrance, including personal property, and 100% flood damage
insurance. They also evacated first, with all their valuable papers and
records. They hired the rental trucks to take their bigger
irreplacables out of harm's way. The sleepheads got to the U-Haul store
after all the trucks were gone, after the U-Haul store itself was
evacuated and closed.
Why shouldn't PROVEN traitors be insulted -- I always thought tha was
part of the punishment for misleading your fellow citizens into death
and tragedy.
Of course nobody loves you -- probably even your mamma regrets now not
putting the pillow over your head in the cradle back then. Just think,
the ONLY people who can stand your company are all HOMOCIDAL
backstabbers just like yourself, and just like you they wear fake
smiles as they glad-hand each other looking for an opportunity to
exploit some weakness for personal advantage -- and that's your ONLY
FRIENDS.
Bill Habr
Learn what you are talking about.
>
> Paul Revere was an ALARMIST.
He knew what he was talking about, the British were coming.
Atlantic Surface Sea Temperatures have a cycle.
What is that cycle?
Why does it matter in the current debate?
Do you care or do you just hate?
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
> So you can't give a real science answer?
Lot's or REAL SCIENCE answers have been given in lengthy series of
posts -- endless repetition is wasted on people who forget as fast as
they read, and not required by people whose memories are properly
working.
> Learn what you are talking about.
I am talking about, in the message replied to, the SCIENCE of
PSYCHOLOGY and the documented existence of sociopaths and accesories
before the fact to homocide. The WEATHER SCIENCE of KATRINA DAMAGE
needs no discussion -- it is self-evident.
The lullaby-crooners of homocidal intent putting their fellow citizens
to sleep in graves was the subject. Learn what I am talking about.
>> Paul Revere was an ALARMIST.
> He knew what he was talking about, the British were coming.
People ALARMED by "Killer Weather is Coming" obviously knew more than
you do on the subject. Their voice should have been heard loud and
clear and your voice should have been silent. They accurately predicted
this level of damage, the KATRINA LEVEL OF DAMAGE, and you were wrong
then and are still wrong now.
> Atlantic Surface Sea Temperatures have a cycle.
> What is that cycle?
> Why does it matter in the current debate?
> Do you care or do you just hate?
I hate homocidal liars.
I hate murderers -- in fact I would see them hang by the neck until
dead.
I hate accessories before the fact to murder, who lulled victims into
graves. I would see them hung too for the same offense.
I hate "accesories after the fact to murder" who lie to help the
principals escape punishment. The "getaway driver" is equally guilty to
the "triggerman".
Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures do have cycles: whenever there is
high concentrations of heat the sea will get hotter. It happens on a 24
hour cycle from day to night, it happens on a seasonal cycle from
winter to summer. It happens whenever the greenhouse gases rise
excessively. These cycles are totally predictable and predicted.
You forgot to throw in the "kitchen sink". "What about the kitchen
sink" you are supposed to say to aid and abet murderers to get away
with murder which was predicted by ALARMIST patriots. Behaviors have
consequences. Effects have causes.
Killer weather was predicted, and it came true. There is no more debate
-- the body count is still in progress. The proper amount of ALARM is a
survival trait of the intelligent.
owl
wrote:
Cool! Start with an ignorant cheap-shot ... and then claim you're
being victimized.
Looks like all those years in Grade 3 finally paid off for ya.
Bill Habr
"Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz"
news:1127082943.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures do have cycles: whenever there is
> high concentrations of heat the sea will get hotter. It happens on a 24
> hour cycle from day to night, it happens on a seasonal cycle from
> winter to summer. It happens whenever the greenhouse gases rise
> excessively. These cycles are totally predictable and predicted.
>
If you knew what you were talking about you would know that the Atlantic Sea
Surface Temperatures have a century-scale cycle with multi-decadal
variability superimposed. You would also know that this matters because at
present those temperatures do not seem to be higher than they would be
because of human activity.
Your rantings make it harder to get people to believe the real science
global warming, This may be your reason for the unscientific rants or it may
be that you really believe that BS..
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
basin have record temperatures beyond anything ever measured by humans
-- that means it is not cyclic, but cyclic factors may be the
skaffolding upon which human damage is making a bad situation worse.
If you knew anything you would know that cat 4 and cat 5 storms have
increased beyond historical peaks into record numbers, showing this is
not cyclical.
If you knew anything you would know that Hurricane Kenneth is a
catagory 4 hurricane two weeks after Katrina -- talk about more peak
strength hurricanes.
If you knew anything you would keep your mouth shut because the message
Joe Sixpack needs to hear is the proper amount of alarm to act to save
his family and his life from "Killer Weather is Coming". Joe needs the
help of people smarter than himself to keep the confusion level down so
the message Joe Sixpack can understand comes through to him without a
load of static.
You are not a lot smarter than Joe Sixpack -- maybe even dumber -- and
you need to heed the message too that Killer Weather is Coming. Wishing
or being wishy-washy will not wisk away these waking bad dreams.
You were suposed to throw in the "Kitchen Sink" in your aguments, like
"What about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Shear factors and the
Kitchen Sink effects... blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada..."
Isn't that the way your Traitor boss Karl Rove and the Drug Addict Rush
Limburger-stink told you how to do it?
amcwill417
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1126984117....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Please follow this URL to see the press release with a graph:
>
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49334.html
>
How are the max winds (and hence category) of a hurricane determined? In
particular for those hurricanes which do not strike land how is the wind
speed measured? Have methods for doing this improved over the past 30
years? Perhaps one should wait for the article to be published in order to
see how the researchers collected the data and whether or not they address
these and other issues in some detail. In particular, and for example, if
airplanes are used are recent hurricanes monitored more frequently during
their lifetime than those 30 years ago?
Alex
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
needed -- just honesty to look.
Human beings have been flying in aeroplanes for a century. A 150 mile
per hour wind is nothing much to a plane which can fly 400 mph or
better -- it's still just air past airfoils.
Aircraft windspeed measurements are older than you are, maybe older
than your daddy.
It doesn't take big improvements in the technology. They were plenty
good enough before WWII.
Winds are often measured by ships today. The instruments sufficient to
measure within a percent or two were developed a century ago. Really,
does it matter if the winds were measured at 137 or 139 mph? The oceans
have been dense with ships for centuries. Not having satellite
warnings, ships got caught in them more frequently than today.
Bodies are still being recovered and you are pretending that KILLER
WEATHER is not coming. There's a force 4 Hurricane (Kenneth) out there
right now, this minute, only two weeks after Katrina. There's seven
named storms on the board at the National Hurricane Center RIGHT NOW.
One (Philippe) was just upgraded to Hurricane status at the last
scheduled forecast posted 8:00 pm EST. Another (Rita) is predicted to
upgrade to hurricane status by this time tomorrow, and two others (Jova
and Kenneth) are currently hurricane strength. One (Ophilia) is going
off the board but it was hurricane strength. TS MAX just ate TD LIDIA,
so Lidia is going off the board, but Max has been supersized.
Sport Pilot
"spoke in plain language that Minuteman Joe Sixpack could understand:"
Wouldn't that be Joe Keg? I don't think they had six packs back then.
Sport Pilot
early years were low, there does not seem to be any trend. This data is
compiled from the list of the most intense hurricanes (Cat 3 or higher)
in the Atlantic and Pacific east of the date line. Note that I assumed
the couple or so huricanes of unknown cat strength as Cat 3. The
first three columns are the number of hurricanes of that strength. The
total is the total of all huricanes of Cat 3 or higher. Cat*Num is the
total of the hurrican times its catagory, that is the number of
hurricanes of Cat 3 are multiplied by 3 and Cat 4 by 4 and Cat 5 by 5
and the sum totaled, the last is the averate catagory. By all measures
I cannot see a signicant trend.
Decade Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Total Tot Cat*Num Ave Cat
1851-1860 3 1 0 4 13 3.25
1861-1870 0 0 0 0 0 0
1871-1880 2 0 0 2 6 3
1881-1890 4 1 0 5 16 3.2
1891-1900 5 2 0 7 23 3.29
1901-1910 3 1 0 4 13 3.25
1911-1920 3 3 0 6 21 3.5
1921-1930 3 1 1 5 18 3.6
1941-1950 5 1 0 6 19 3.17
1951-1960 3 3 0 6 21 3.5
1961-1970 4 1 1 6 21 3.5
1971-1980 4 1 0 5 16 3.2
1981-1990 2 2 0 4 14 3.5
1991-2000 4 0 1 5 17 3.4
Sport Pilot
corrected tabulation of the most intense storms.
Decade Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Total Tot Cat*Num Ave Cat
1851-1860 3 1 0 4 13 3.25
1861-1870 0 0 0 0 0
1871-1880 2 0 0 2 6 3
1881-1890 4 1 0 5 16 3.2
1891-1900 5 2 0 7 23 3.29
1901-1910 3 0 0 3 9 3
1911-1920 3 3 0 6 21 3.5
1921-1930 3 3 0 6 21 3.5
1931-1940 3 1 1 5 18 3.6
Bill Habr
"Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz"
<bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> If you knew anything you would know that the south Carrib & Atlantic
> basin have record temperatures beyond anything ever measured by humans
> -- that means it is not cyclic, but cyclic factors may be the
> skaffolding upon which human damage is making a bad situation worse.
>
> If you knew anything you would know that cat 4 and cat 5 storms have
> increased beyond historical peaks into record numbers, showing this is
> not cyclical.
>
> If you knew anything you would know that Hurricane Kenneth is a
> catagory 4 hurricane two weeks after Katrina -- talk about more peak
> strength hurricanes.
>
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html
Subject: G4) Are we getting stronger and more frequent hurricanes, typhoons,
and tropical cyclones in the last several years?
Globally, no. However, for the Atlantic basin we have seen an increase in
the number of strong hurricanes since 1995. As can be seen in section E9, we
have had a record 33 hurricanes in the four years of 1995 to 1999 (accurate
records for the Atlantic are thought to begin around 1944). The extreme
impacts from Hurricanes Marilyn (1995), Opal (1995), Fran (1996), Georges
(1998) and Mitch (1998) in the United States and throughout the Caribbean
attest to the high amounts of Atlantic hurricane activity lately.
As discussed in the previous section, it is highly unlikely that global
warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or
intensity of hurricanes. We have not observed a long-term increase in the
intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked
the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less
than 4 hurricanes per year. Instead of seeing a long-term trend up or down,
we do see a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active
and quiet phases for major Atlantic hurricanes on the scale of 25-40 years
each (Gray 1990; Landsea 1993; Landsea et al. 1996). The quiet decades of
the 1970s to the early 1990s for major Atlantic hurricanes were likely due
to changes in the Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperature structure with
cooler than usual waters in the North Atlantic. The reverse situation of a
warm North Atlantic was present during the active late-1920s through the
1960s (Gray et al. 1997). It is quite possible that the extreme activity
since 1995 marks the start of another active period that may last a total of
25-40 years. More research is needed to better understand these hurricane
"cycles".
For the region near Australia (105-160E, south of the equator), Nicholls
(1992) identified a downward trend in the numbers of tropical cyclones,
primarily from the mid-1980s onward. However, a portion of this trend is
likely artificial as the forecasters in the region no longer classify weak
systems as "cyclones" if the systems do not possess the traditional tropical
cyclone inner-core structure, but have the band of maximum winds
well-removed from the center (Nicholls et al. 1998). These changes in
methodology around the mid-1980s have been prompted by improved access to
and interpretation of digital satellite data, the installation of coastal
and off-shore radar, and an increased understanding of the differentiation
of tropical cyclones from other type of tropical weather systems. By
considering only the moderate and intense tropical cyclones, this artificial
bias in the cyclone record can be overcome. Even with the removal of this
bias in the weak Australian tropical cyclones that the frequency of the
remaining moderate and strong tropical cyclones has been reduced
substantially over the years 1969/70-1995/96. Nicholls et al. (1998)
attribute the decrease in moderate cyclones to the occurrence of more
frequent El Nino occurrences during the 1980s and 1990s.
For the Northwest Pacific basin, Chan and Shi (1996) found that both the
frequency of typhoons and the total number of tropical storms and typhoons
have been increasing since about 1980. However, the increase was preceded by
a nearly identical magnitude of decrease from about 1960 to 1980. It is
unknown currently what has caused these decadal-scale changes in the
Northwest Pacific typhoons.
For the remaining basins based upon data from the late 1960s onwards, the
Northeast Pacific has experienced a significant upward trend in tropical
cyclone frequency, the North Indian a significant downward trend, and no
appreciable long-term variation was observed in the Southwest Indian and
Southwest Pacific (east of 160E) for the total number of tropical storm
strength cyclones (from Neumann 1993). However, whether these represent
longer term (> 30 years) or shorter term (on the scale of ten years)
variability is completely unknown because of the lack of a long, reliable
record.
amcwill417
"Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz"
<bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Have yiu read the article?
Alfred E. Newman
>>Bodies are still being recovered and you are pretending that KILLER
>>WEATHER is not coming. There's a force 4 Hurricane (Kenneth) out there
>>right now, this minute, only two weeks after Katrina.
Kenneth being a category 4 storm demonstrates that much cooler water can
generate powerful storms:
http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/
Lloyd Parker
Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
>>>
>>> Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
>>>
>>> > There was a lull period preceeding the current historic record period,
>>> > but a temporary lull should not lull you to sleep. PHYSICS says the
>>> > greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters -- this we can measure, and in
>>> > fact we find this to be true.
>>>
>>> "greenhouse gases trap heat in the waters" is not correct.
>>
>> With 70% of the globe covered with water, it is fully correct that
>> greenhouse gases trapping heat will store that heat in water.
>
>To say that greenhouse gases "trap heat", in water or elsewhere, is
>incorrect and perpetuates a common misconception. Increased greenhouse
>gases enhance downwelling infrared radiation to the surface by
>increasing the effective long-wave emissivity of the atmosphere. That's
>not the same as "trapping heat" (which is what a real greenhouse does).
>
GH gases absorb IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space and
re-radiate it, mostly back into the atmosphere. Thus, it is correct to say
they "trap" heat.
Lloyd Parker
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz"
><bush_au...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:1127089902.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> If you knew anything you would know that the south Carrib & Atlantic
>> basin have record temperatures beyond anything ever measured by humans
>> -- that means it is not cyclic, but cyclic factors may be the
>> skaffolding upon which human damage is making a bad situation worse.
>>
>> If you knew anything you would know that cat 4 and cat 5 storms have
>> increased beyond historical peaks into record numbers, showing this is
>> not cyclical.
>>
>> If you knew anything you would know that Hurricane Kenneth is a
>> catagory 4 hurricane two weeks after Katrina -- talk about more peak
>> strength hurricanes.
>>
>
>http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html
The article published last week is more current. Check it out.
Lloyd Parker
amcwill417
"Alfred E. Newman" <sp...@spam.spam.spam> wrote in message
news:P9zXe.9$8z1....@news.uswest.net...
amcwill417
Scott
Andrew and Mitch were both cat-5s in the 1990s, yet
you show only 1 cat 5. Hugo was also cat 5 (1989)
and there are no cat 5s shown in 1980s.
How many others have you missed? The ones I cite
are just those that I remember immediately. Oh
yeah, there's Gilbert (1988) Allen (1980) -- both
cat 5s, but not in your data. What's up with
that?
(sorry my quoting messed up your columns :) )
Scott
Sport Pilot
was a cat 3. There are only 3 known cat 5 hurricane's, Camile, Andrew,
and the Keys in 33.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
The warning this thread is about is increased Cat 4 & Cat 5 storms
increasing. By diluting the totals with Cat 3 storms you can drag down
the results. Further, the warning is GLOBAL storms, not just USA
landfall.
There used to be more milder Cat 3 storms, but now they are growing
into Cat 4 and Cat 5. That is the warning. All Cat 4 & 5 storms pass
through Cat 3, but more used to stop there.
Your data applies to entire decades. Both Charlie and Hugo hit Florida
within weeks at Cat 4 at landfall, but Hugo was Cat 5 at sea. That was
last year. This past month had Katrina Cat 5, and Kenneth dying down
now from Cat 4 three weeks apart. In one 12 month period we see DOUBLE
the number of Cat 5 hurricanes than any decade on your list. Rita now
brewing may hit cat 4 or cat 5 in the extra-hot waters in the gulf
TRIPLING the number from your phonied-up list in just one month's time.
Harold Brooks
hppil...@cs.com says...
> I think you were mistaken about some Cat 5 hurricanes. I think Hugo
> was a cat 3. There are only 3 known cat 5 hurricane's, Camile, Andrew,
> and the Keys in 33.
>
>
There are only 3 Cat 5 hurricanes at landfall in the US (Andrew,
Camille, and the Keys). Hugo was a Cat 5 before it made landfall. The
Webster et al. paper dealt with major hurricanes at any point in their
lifetime.
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com
Sport Pilot
They are recorded as the intensity they were when they hit land. I
don't think this data includes storms that did not hit land. Sorry but
that is how they were recorded on the data NOAA had. I admit that it
is only the storms NOAA records, but I don't think there is as good a
record of all storms world wide. You can look at the total of all
storms and end up with no trend. The numbers and strength of storms
you mention in no way breaks the trend. The at sea records were not as
good before the 50's so the best and most reliable records are storms
that hit land. I think you will see that most storms weaken when they
hit land and will be withen the numbers of the higher end of this list.
Sport Pilot
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastint.shtml
I did not include the three 2004 storms because the decade is not over.
Sport Pilot
Which IMO is a major error. At sea records were not reliable till the
50's when aircraft started flying into them. That misses some major
storms especially in the 20's, 30's, and 40's.
Sport Pilot
into Cat 4 and Cat 5. That is the warning. All Cat 4 & 5 storms pass
Fine drop off the cat 3 storms, then there is even less of a trend.
Then the most intense period for Cat 4 and 5 storms were in the 50's
and teens. No telling how many 4 and 5 storms out at sea back then.
Sorry but if global warming was causing more storms then we would see
more storms of all catagories.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
centuries. People sailed in all kinds of weather, which is how the
"Treasure Coast" in Florida got it's name, sailing in hurricanes with
ships holds full of booty.
You are grasping at straws, kid. Wake up to Post-Katrina reality --
Killer Weather is another name for Global Warming and even Joe Sixpack
accepts it as reality now. The debate is over.
We don't get suckered into arguing phoney "points" that make it look
like there is still uncertainty in the science. We KNOW Killer Weather
is real. Get with the program or get lost.
Raymond Arritt
> In article <432CCC1E...@hotmail.com>,
> Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>To say that greenhouse gases "trap heat", in water or elsewhere, is
>>incorrect and perpetuates a common misconception. Increased greenhouse
>>gases enhance downwelling infrared radiation to the surface by
>>increasing the effective long-wave emissivity of the atmosphere. That's
>>not the same as "trapping heat" (which is what a real greenhouse does).
>>
>
> GH gases absorb IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space and
> re-radiate it, mostly back into the atmosphere. Thus, it is correct to say
> they "trap" heat.
This common explanation of "trapping" heat implies that IR is somehow a
special kind of heat that can be separated from the overall energy
budget. It isn't. IR is just one of the components that go into the
energy budget of the earth-atmosphere system.
The atmosphere radiates IR because it has a certain temperature. That
temperature is maintained by input of heat from several sources, one of
which happens to be IR from the earth's surface. But there are other
energy inputs -- sensible heat, latent heat, and absorption of solar
radiation -- that are essential to maintaining the temperature of the
atmosphere, and thereby contribute to IR emitted by the atmosphere.
In other words the IR goes into a big atmospheric reservoir along with
all the other heat fluxes. The atmosphere then radiates heat in the IR
according to the total amount of heat that it gains from ALL of these
sources. This is different from the common explanation that implies the
atmosphere simply absorbs IR and then "re-radiates" it.
If one claims that the atmosphere "traps" IR, then one must also agree
that the atmosphere traps the latent heat produced when water vapor
condenses, traps turbulent fluxes of sensible heat, and traps sunlight.
Perhaps someone has said at some time that the atmosphere "traps" all
these forms of heat, but I don't recall ever reading it.
owl
wrote:
>I think you were mistaken about some Cat 5 hurricanes. I think Hugo
>was a cat 3. There are only 3 known cat 5 hurricane's, Camile, Andrew,
>and the Keys in 33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_Hurricanes
It appears that Scott was on the right track.
It's possible that the NOAA data (gotta link to it?) is putting the
hurricanes into the category they hit U.S. territory with. The nums
come up with 3 in the 70s and 80s, and 2 in the 90s. Big diff to the
NOAA tallies.
Sport Pilot
>centuries. People sailed in all kinds of weather, which is how the
>"Treasure Coast" in Florida got it's name, sailing in hurricanes with
>ships holds full of booty.
Sorry you are the one grasping straws. You cannot take a reliable wind
reading during a hurricane from a ship. In fact the waves usulally
tear off all of the equipment. Most wind readings from ships in the
past were only estimates. During Andrew the wind indicator at
Homestead Air Force base was ripped off when it hit 170+ MPH. You
think wind indicators of ships did better with waves crashing over
their bows. Most of them sank! So how is it you think they gave
credible readings?
I am not arguing phoney points, this is the first study I have seen
that has made a credible claim that GW was causing more or stronger
hurricanes. I am pointing out that based on other data it may be just
a temporary uptick, possibly well withen what has happened in the past.
But of course you prefer the chicken little story.
Sport Pilot
>measure within a percent or two were developed a century ago. Really,
>does it matter if the winds were measured at 137 or 139 mph?
Sorry but the wind indicator will be gone when the first 130 MPH wave
rolls over the deck. No ship intentionally goes out in the middle of a
hurricane. The only credible information they can give is the
barometric pressure. They have only been flying airplanes into
hurricanes since the 50's.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
> This common explanation of "trapping" heat implies that IR is somehow a
> special kind of heat that can be separated from the overall energy
> budget. It isn't. IR is just one of the components that go into the
> energy budget of the earth-atmosphere system.
You are the one fixated on IR wavelegth energy. If you understood what
Einstein won the Nobel Prize for explaining one hundred years ago, you
would know that energy comes in packets, quanta, and these can be
infrared, or other common wavelengths. Others elaborated that there are
finite discrete quata which could be absorbed in packets at one
wavelength and emitted later in packets of discrete units of other
wavelengths.
The problem of greenhouse gases is these exact particular molecules are
opaque to infrared wavelengths, which effectively blackens the sky to
radiation outflow. The "heat" is said to be "trapped". CO2 and other
greenhouse gases are transparant to higher bands of radiation frequency
-- they can come in, but once they impact anything they are transformed
into infrared and then are TRAPPED behind the opaque layer of gases.
> The atmosphere radiates IR because it has a certain temperature. That
> temperature is maintained by input of heat from several sources, one of
> which happens to be IR from the earth's surface. But there are other
> energy inputs -- sensible heat, latent heat, and absorption of solar
> radiation -- that are essential to maintaining the temperature of the
> atmosphere, and thereby contribute to IR emitted by the atmosphere.
Blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada... totally irrelevent spiel of
ignorant nonsense. The man simply does not "get it". Nobody is
concerned abut IR coming from the sun because it doesn't ever reach the
earth's surface directly. It is intercepted in outer layers. It's the
visible (and the invisible UV) bandwidths which penetrate to the
surface and are transformed by absorption and later re-radiated as
infrared which is the problem. That is the stored energy. It is stored
as Calories, or BTUs, or horsepower, or watts, or ergs, or joules. At
some point it is spontaneously released as photons in the IR
wavelengths. The trapping is calories not IR. The IR is radiation
output from mass containing calories. The calories are kinetic energy
and are measurable on a thermometer as heat.
> In other words the IR goes into a big atmospheric reservoir along with
> all the other heat fluxes. The atmosphere then radiates heat in the IR
> according to the total amount of heat that it gains from ALL of these
> sources. This is different from the common explanation that implies the
> atmosphere simply absorbs IR and then "re-radiates" it.
The atmosphere may look transparent to your eyes, which cannot see IR.
CO2 and other greenhouse gases are opaque to IR and absorb it. It does
not radiate out. It has a short cycle. The greenhouse gases absorb
their fill. Any further IR received causes IR re-radiated. It cycles
from sea to a thin layer on top of the sea and back into the sea again.
There is insufficient leakage to cool the sea sufficiently to avoid
storm formations.
Powerful storms, like those out there right now, create vortex forces
which wisk the trapped IR-laden moisture from 25°C to 30°C sea
surface temperatures to -70°C - 80°C high altitudes. THEN the IR can
radiate away above the opaque gases layer. There is 100 degrees C
difference between the sea surface and storm tops -- the difference
between freezing and boiling water. That's a lot of difference and a
lot of heat release. When you COUNT CALORIES you see the forces for
what they are. 100 calories are released in the upper atmosphere for
every gram, every CC, of water. When you figure the water in hurricanes
you get a picture of heat energy which was TRAPPED and released by the
storm.
> If one claims that the atmosphere "traps" IR, then one must also agree
> that the atmosphere traps the latent heat produced when water vapor
> condenses, traps turbulent fluxes of sensible heat, and traps sunlight.
> Perhaps someone has said at some time that the atmosphere "traps" all
> these forms of heat, but I don't recall ever reading it.
Your ignorance is betrayed increasingly by the idiotic way you string
physics facts together in chaotic jumbles. Do you have a fishbowl full
of two-word and three-word science phrases which you pick from randomly
to string into sentences?
Heat is kinetic energy -- POWER. We use that fact in engines of all
kinds. Temperature DIFFERENCES is the secret between useful power and
just equilibrium hotness. A steel furnace can be full of heat, hotness,
but produce no "power". A Hurricane is another name for a heat engine
-- technically it is a spontaneously formed structure for dissipation
of energy in a system far from equilibrium.
When the difference between the hot pole is less than sufficiently far
from the cool pole of a system, no storm can occur -- a physical
impossibility. The magic number is about 25°C for the water. The upper
atmosphere doesn't change that much in temperature. When you get 95°
difference, storms can occur, depending on what else is happening in
the atmosphere. When you get better than 95° differences, storms are
inevitable, despite whatever else is going on in the atmosphere, but
their intensities, dissipative power is still determined by localized
disturbances or their absense.
You have to explain how many CALORIES are in that water, and how they
can escape given an opaque greenhouse gases layer blocking radiation as
an exit.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
norm after WWI, but many good wooden ships survived hurricanes.
You know less about the history of the sea than the teeny little you
know about weather.
Sport Pilot
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
You are the idiot. I doubt there has ever been a wooden ship that has
survived a catagory 3 or stronger storm. Many were lost in even a cat
1 storm. Look at the data and tracking charts of storms on NOAA, prior
to the 50's you will not see any windspeed data of storms at sea. In
fact the windspeed is missing on some of the stronger storms that hit
land. For example the weather office in Galveston was under water
during the 1900 Galveston storm, you think they had any accurate wind
data? Even during hurricane Andrew in 92 the windspeed indicator at
Homestead Air Force Base fell over at 170+ MPH so unfortunately we will
never actually know exactly how strong that storm was. Estimates are
as high as 200!
Sport Pilot
you go back in time the wind speed readings at landfall were measured,
and ususally estimated out at sea. Even landfall measurments are
suspect as many wind indicators break from wind or debris. Even form
the wikipedia list there is no real trend, except that there are
usually about 3 Cat 5 hurricanes per decade on that list, and we have
already had 3 this decade. Could mean that we won't have any more this
decade, or that we will have a decade higher than the norm, with the
next several at or below norm. Or that this is a true start of a new
trend, though I doubt the latter.
Joshua Halpern
I think the major difference is that without the greenhouse gases, the
radiation would escape to space moreover, radiation is by definition the
way in which heat escapes the system
Still, you make a useful distinction.
josh halpern
Scott
Well, I don't think the point of the Webster paper was to
record the changes over the entire 20th century, but rather
to discuss them since 1970. In that context it's not an
error at all but how the study was put together. You can
quibble with the structure of the study, but to call it
an error is a little harsh.
I now understand, btw, that you were discussing landfalling
hurricanes. Sorry, it wasn't clear from the context of
the earlier post. But Hugo was a 4 at landfall. I think
it was 935 mb at landfall.
Scott
owl
wrote:
>I admit that my list is made from landfall information, however when
Yea, there was time lag between my post and your followups - the NOAA
site indicates that it's the measured windspeed at landfall.
Agreed about problems with measurement, altho not because of breakage.
It's the change factor - Katrina was a 1 after it left Florida, peaked
at 5 and hit NO at 4. It's possible that one of Emmanuel's motives
for a whole new classification (dissapative power) was to get a new
perspective.
The forecast is for more turbulence and hurricane activity. Whatever
degree of influence SST heat has with stormpower, it's going to be
available.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
numbers we are talking about, and START dealing with the thread header.
It, this thread, is about a report published, which counts
high-intensity storms globally and finds an appreciable INCREASE in
them.
Cat 4 storms GLOBALLY have increased. Cat 5 storms GLOBALLY have
increased. Since all storms have to pass through cat 3 on the way to
cat 4 & cat 5, the data is ambiguous about increased storms when you
jumble in the earlier historic storms which arrested at cat 3 but do
not arrest there any more.
The record is not ambiguous. It is clear. More GLOBAL cat 4 & 5 storms
EVERYWHERE, including in the USA neighborhood.
By disregarding this decade you falsify the record. The record for the
decade of 2000 - 2010 already has more cat 4 and cat five storms than
most other decades.
When you throw out a RECORD because the decade is not finished yet, you
falsify what is ALREADY on the record. Hugo Happened. Charlie Happened.
Katrina Happened. Kenneth is still out there for a while longer -- it
Happened. That is the true record of this decade, not zero.
You are intentionally corrupt. You are intentionally cherry-picking
data to defraud the body politic about the actual threat level the body
politic has to prepare for. You are an accomplice before the fact to
negligent homocide for each unprepared person who dies believing your
lying statistics which are not true and not the record of the actual
threat level people need to acknowledge. You are not a nice person, and
should not expect welcome in science forums.
Now get OUT.
Bob Harrington
You spew your voluminous crap and then blast someone else for "not being
scientific enough"?
What a pathetic freaking joke...
Howard Tenke
I suspect when its all said and done Katrina will be upgraded to a Cat
5 storm like Andrew was. It takes some hardcore wind to generate an
estimated the 30 foot storm surge Katrina is reported to have had.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
GLOBAL WARMING covers the globe, there are more cat 4 and cat 5 storms
in the recent years than any period of recordkeeping, AND there are
more cat 4 & cat 5 storms in the neighborhood of the USA than earlier
record keeping.
You found a list of Patriotic landfalls and use it to deny GLOBAL
realities. You also forgot to list the last five years. If the list had
divided ten year periods starting with years ending in the numeral
five, then the most recent decade would be 1995-2005, and even your
list would then tell a different story. You are a liar and a weasle,
trying to defraud people with a skewed list to prove a skewed premise.
http://tinyurl.com/9h2xq
NEWS.GOOGLE.COM news stories for search terms More intense Hurricanes
Results about 1,290 for More intense Hurricanes.
http://tinyurl.com/avfn7
Google.com Results about 974,000 for More intense Hurricanes.
I am afraid your point of view is outvoted in credibility by a million
to one, LOSER.
Katrina ended the Global Warming debate. It's over. Now the issue is
planning the pathways of least regret.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
Harold Brooks
hopa...@wpis.net says...
I doubt if it will be a Cat 5 at landfall. Too many windspeed
measurements. It was a Cat 5 in the Gulf ~12-24 hours before landfall.
Those winds helped with the storm surge but the first landfall
(Louisiana) was lower than that and the second landfall (Mississippi)
was much lower.
Harol
St. John Smythe
Agreed. You lost.
Scott
Katrina carried a lot of history with her when
she came on shore. When a storm weakens, the
sea state does not equilibrate instantaneously
to the new wind speed. Put another way, the
winds relax much faster than the seas.
Scott
Sport Pilot
Storm surge is well outside the major winds. It has as much to do with
the size of the storm, tides, and pressures as the wind. Andrew did
not have a huge storm surge due to its small size, it was more like a
humongus tornado than a hurricane. The hurricane center did not
initally get the Homestead Air Force base wind readings because the
base was destroyed, that data came later when they retrived the data
after the base was up and running. Meanwhile they discounted similar
wind readings from amateurs and estimated the max winds at over 150
based on their wind reeding of over 130 MPH at Coral Gables, well
outside of the major damage. Countless studies of damage came up with
estimates of up to 200 MPH, but partly blamed them on a tornado effect
caused by a huge shear effect of the eyewall and slower air in the eye.
Meanwhile the Air Force coughed up their reading of something like 177
MPH (converted from knots) before the instrument was blown down by
debris. I helped rebuild the base and I can tell you that major navaid
instruments was gone, never to be seen again. I think an entire VORTAC
or ILS shed was completly blown away. The hurricane center resisted
even this data, claiming it was calibrated for lower speeds of less
than 50 knots. But I guess the preponderance of evidence eventually
overcame them.
Meanwhile lots of construction lawsuit cases were already lost because
the wind speeds were supposedly much less, so the construction must
have been supstandard, etc.
Sport Pilot
>EVERYWHERE, including in the USA neighborhood.
The record is very ambiguous. There is no continous direct readings of
wind data at sea even now. The aircraft must drop probes into the
strom and track them, this was very inaccurate at first, with radar and
hand computations, but improved with computers and GPS. Even now this
is not contenous and many storms could become Cat 5's for a short time
between flights. This would be especially true during the earlier
years, and many areas did not send aircraft out into hurricanes as
early as the US. The fact that their are more RECORDED cat 4 and 5
storms is most likely that. More are recorded because more planes are
now sent out and they are doing a better job at measuring wind speed.
Sorry if I have burst your bubble.
John Black
hppil...@cs.com says...
Couple of hints. Anyone who screams "The debate is over" knows he can't
win the debate. Anyone who calls himself "Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen
coal to burn jews in Auschwitz <bush_au...@sbcglobal.net>" is an
obvious idiot.
John Black
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>I think you were mistaken about some Cat 5 hurricanes. I think Hugo
>was a cat 3. There are only 3 known cat 5 hurricane's, Camile, Andrew,
>and the Keys in 33.
>
You're thinking of cat 5s that struck the US as cat 5s. Other cat 5s may have
formed, but didn't strike the US, or weakened before doing so.
Have you read the Science article yet?
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>Out of curosity I compiled data from NOAA and except the fact that the
>early years were low, there does not seem to be any trend. This data is
>compiled from the list of the most intense hurricanes (Cat 3 or higher)
>in the Atlantic and Pacific east of the date line. Note that I assumed
>the couple or so huricanes of unknown cat strength as Cat 3. The
>first three columns are the number of hurricanes of that strength. The
>total is the total of all huricanes of Cat 3 or higher. Cat*Num is the
>total of the hurrican times its catagory, that is the number of
>hurricanes of Cat 3 are multiplied by 3 and Cat 4 by 4 and Cat 5 by 5
>and the sum totaled, the last is the averate catagory. By all measures
>I cannot see a signicant trend.
Have you read the article in Science? Or gone to NCAR's web page?
You've also got to look at global hurricanes.
>
>
>Decade Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Total Tot Cat*Num Ave Cat
>1851-1860 3 1 0 4 13 3.25
>1861-1870 0 0 0 0 0 0
>1871-1880 2 0 0 2 6 3
>1881-1890 4 1 0 5 16 3.2
>1891-1900 5 2 0 7 23 3.29
>1901-1910 3 1 0 4 13 3.25
>1911-1920 3 3 0 6 21 3.5
>1921-1930 3 1 1 5 18 3.6
>1941-1950 5 1 0 6 19 3.17
>1951-1960 3 3 0 6 21 3.5
>1961-1970 4 1 1 6 21 3.5
>1971-1980 4 1 0 5 16 3.2
>1981-1990 2 2 0 4 14 3.5
>1991-2000 4 0 1 5 17 3.4
>
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>This is no phonied up list. It is the actual record of intense storms.
But it isn't what the article addressed.
> They are recorded as the intensity they were when they hit land. I
>don't think this data includes storms that did not hit land.
But the article did, so your attacking it was baseless.
> Sorry but
>that is how they were recorded on the data NOAA had. I admit that it
>is only the storms NOAA records, but I don't think there is as good a
>record of all storms world wide.
Well, the editors and reviewers for Science think otherwise.
> You can look at the total of all
>storms and end up with no trend.
So you haven't read the article.
>The numbers and strength of storms
>you mention in no way breaks the trend.
Read the article.
>The at sea records were not as
>good before the 50's so the best and most reliable records are storms
>that hit land. I think you will see that most storms weaken when they
>hit land and will be withen the numbers of the higher end of this list.
>
I think you will see you're spouting nonsense. Read the article.
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>>The Webster et al. paper dealt with major hurricanes at any point in their
>>lifetime. .
>
>Which IMO is a major error.
Well whooop-de-doo. Write it up and submit it to Science, Mr. Wizard.
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
><i>There used to be more milder Cat 3 storms, but now they are growing
>into Cat 4 and Cat 5. That is the warning. All Cat 4 & 5 storms pass
>through Cat 3, but more used to stop there. </i>
>
>Fine drop off the cat 3 storms, then there is even less of a trend.
Read the article, doofus.
>Then the most intense period for Cat 4 and 5 storms were in the 50's
>and teens. No telling how many 4 and 5 storms out at sea back then.
>Sorry but if global warming was causing more storms then we would see
>more storms of all catagories.
>
No telling why you think we care about your crap.
Lloyd Parker
Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <432CCC1E...@hotmail.com>,
>> Raymond Arritt <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>To say that greenhouse gases "trap heat", in water or elsewhere, is
>>>incorrect and perpetuates a common misconception. Increased greenhouse
>>>gases enhance downwelling infrared radiation to the surface by
>>>increasing the effective long-wave emissivity of the atmosphere. That's
>>>not the same as "trapping heat" (which is what a real greenhouse does).
>>>
>>
>> GH gases absorb IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space and
>> re-radiate it, mostly back into the atmosphere. Thus, it is correct to say
>> they "trap" heat.
>
>This common explanation of "trapping" heat implies that IR is somehow a
>special kind of heat that can be separated from the overall energy
>budget. It isn't. IR is just one of the components that go into the
>energy budget of the earth-atmosphere system.
But it's really the only major way the earth gets rid of energy.
>
>The atmosphere radiates IR because it has a certain temperature. That
>temperature is maintained by input of heat from several sources, one of
>which happens to be IR from the earth's surface. But there are other
>energy inputs -- sensible heat, latent heat, and absorption of solar
>radiation -- that are essential to maintaining the temperature of the
>atmosphere, and thereby contribute to IR emitted by the atmosphere.
Yes, so? The point is, anything that interferes with the emission of IR has
the effect of trapping heat.
>
>In other words the IR goes into a big atmospheric reservoir along with
>all the other heat fluxes. The atmosphere then radiates heat in the IR
>according to the total amount of heat that it gains from ALL of these
>sources. This is different from the common explanation that implies the
>atmosphere simply absorbs IR and then "re-radiates" it.
But that is how the atmosphere traps heat.
>
>If one claims that the atmosphere "traps" IR, then one must also agree
>that the atmosphere traps the latent heat produced when water vapor
>condenses, traps turbulent fluxes of sensible heat, and traps sunlight.
> Perhaps someone has said at some time that the atmosphere "traps" all
>these forms of heat, but I don't recall ever reading it.
Sure you have. But we're talking about what GH gases do, as that's what has
increased and what is responsible for the current warming.
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>>Winds are often measured by ships today. The instruments sufficient to
>>measure within a percent or two were developed a century ago. Really,
>>does it matter if the winds were measured at 137 or 139 mph?
>
>Sorry but the wind indicator will be gone when the first 130 MPH wave
>rolls over the deck.
Huh? You're saying water is moving 130 mph?
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>>The oceans have been dense with sailing ships and fishermen for
>>centuries. People sailed in all kinds of weather, which is how the
>>"Treasure Coast" in Florida got it's name, sailing in hurricanes with
>>ships holds full of booty.
>
>Sorry you are the one grasping straws. You cannot take a reliable wind
>reading during a hurricane from a ship. In fact the waves usulally
>tear off all of the equipment. Most wind readings from ships in the
>past were only estimates. During Andrew the wind indicator at
>Homestead Air Force base was ripped off when it hit 170+ MPH. You
>think wind indicators of ships did better with waves crashing over
>their bows. Most of them sank! So how is it you think they gave
>credible readings?
>
>I am not arguing phoney points, this is the first study I have seen
>that has made a credible claim that GW was causing more or stronger
>hurricanes.
I seriously doubt you've seen it.
>I am pointing out that based on other data it may be just
>a temporary uptick, possibly well withen what has happened in the past.
So publish your idea.
> But of course you prefer the chicken little story.
Of course, you reject data and science.
>
Lloyd Parker
Have you read the article YET?
Lloyd Parker
The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was rather
good at record-keeping back then.
>Sorry if I have burst your bubble.
Sorry if you don't like science.
>
Sport Pilot
Sorry to tell you but the max wind speed of hurricane Andrew at land
fall was estimated! Before the 70's hurricane hunter aircraft was
infrequent and wind speed readings less precise. Probably why the Cat
4 and 5 hurricane numbers went up at that time. If the Cat 1 to 3
hurricanes had also gone up I would give some credance to this study,
but they did not.
Sport Pilot
Sorry to tell you but the max wind speed of hurricane Andrew at land
Bill Habr
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:dgp7je$esp$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>
> The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was
rather
> good at record-keeping back then.
>
Why didn't they look at before 1970?
Say go back to 1950 or 1960?
Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and wouldn't
show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from high to low and
back to high.
Sport Pilot
I did, did you?
>From the article.
"If we can understand why the world sees about 85 named storms a year
and not, for example, 200 or 25, then we might be able to say that what
we're seeing is consistent with what we'd expect in a global
warming scenario. Without this understanding, a forecast of the number
and intensity of tropical storms in a future warmer world would be
merely statistical extrapolation."
Sport Pilot
Yep! Carried by the wind. You think not? Fine go stand in the rain
on a windy day, doubt you know enough to get out of the rain.
Scott
Or maybe they couldn't find satellite data from back in the 1950s.
Scott
Bill Habr
"Scott" <Scot...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:dgpgnb$i84$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
So are you saying that presence of satellite data would show less activity?
If not you are making my point stronger.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
Weather IS COMING and KILLER WEATHER IS HERE.
The issue is no longer do we need to prepare better than we did, maybe
change behaviors (such as lax zoning laws) or change our construction
style (like building that don't dissolve in a storm) or change our
energy policies (like 2,000,000 out of power every time a blow comes).
We should be talking these discussions, not arguing this people with
fossilized thinking whom are incapable of adjusting their knowledgebase
to take in enough information.
The Global Warming Debate is Over. Katrina ended it.
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
> Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz wrote:
> > The debate is over.
> Agreed. You lost.
I lost over 800 Americans because I couldn't convince people that
Katrina-like Killer Weather is Coming. I lost an American city because
my pursuasiveness was insufficient to counter $100,000,000 of corporate
propaganda.
That much I acknowledge I lost.
You lost your soul and you lost your humanity when you became an
accomplice before the fact to mass negligent homocide, and afterwards
became an accomplice after the fact to mass negligent homocide to help
killers get away with city-murder.
I lost bigtime, but I think you lost more than me. Koch Brothers who
put up $60,000,000 into a bunch of lie-factories like Cato Institute
and Competitive Enterprise Inst lost the Waterford Nuclear Power Plant
of their Entergy-Koch division. The Entergy-KOCH power company lost
power to 2,000,000 homes. The Killer Koch brothers lost cash profits
with all the repair bills. The insurance business is losing about
$40,000,000,000 on insured losses alone. Citibank holds the mortgage
papers on lots where houses used to stand. These guys lost some
$300,000,000,000 accumulated total economic activity which they depend
on. Now there is wounded billionaire blood in the waters, and the
sharks are circling, circling, circling. Some of them are not at the
end of their losses yet.
THEY paid minimum wage interns like YOU to post stuff like you do, and
bought themselves a painful gutshot wound. The debate is over, not
because I won or lost, but because they won't be paying people like you
to keep it up any more. They will just walk into the cattlepen of
cubicles where you guys work and say "You're all fired, security will
strip-search you on your way out, so don't try to steal any company
pencils or staplers".
Lloyd Parker
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>news:dgp7je$esp$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>>
>> The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was
>rather
>> good at record-keeping back then.
>>
>
>Why didn't they look at before 1970?
>
Probably to keep with the best record-keeping, although that's only a guess.
>Say go back to 1950 or 1960?
>
>Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and wouldn't
>show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from high to low and
>back to high.
>
Huh? A dip from 1970 to 1955? Sorry, not what the study found. The number
of storms stayed fairly constant, but the percentage of major storms went up.
Try reading the article.
>
>
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <1127221015.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>> >>The record is not ambiguous. It is clear. More GLOBAL cat 4 & 5 storms
>> >>EVERYWHERE, including in the USA neighborhood.
>> >
>> >The record is very ambiguous. There is no continous direct readings of
>> >wind data at sea even now. The aircraft must drop probes into the
>> >strom and track them, this was very inaccurate at first, with radar and
>> >hand computations, but improved with computers and GPS. Even now this
>> >is not contenous and many storms could become Cat 5's for a short time
>> >between flights. This would be especially true during the earlier
>> >years, and many areas did not send aircraft out into hurricanes as
>> >early as the US. The fact that their are more RECORDED cat 4 and 5
>> >storms is most likely that. More are recorded because more planes are
>> >now sent out and they are doing a better job at measuring wind speed.
>> >
>>
>> The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was
rather
>> good at record-keeping back then.
>>
>> >Sorry if I have burst your bubble.
>>
>> Sorry if you don't like science.
>>
>> >
>
>Sorry to tell you but the max wind speed of hurricane Andrew at land
>fall was estimated!
Since the study didn't use wind at landfall but max wind period, irrelevant.
> Before the 70's hurricane hunter aircraft was
>infrequent and wind speed readings less precise. Probably why the Cat
>4 and 5 hurricane numbers went up at that time. If the Cat 1 to 3
>hurricanes had also gone up I would give some credance to this study,
>but they did not.
>
So you think we missed lots of hurricanes in the 1970s? We had satellites
then! That's not the Dark Ages!
Lloyd Parker
Don't put words in someone's mouth, doofus.
Scott
I'm not sure what you mean.
It was my understanding that the study used satellite
data. How many weather satellites were flying the 1950s?
Scott
Bush Grandpa sold Thyssen coal to burn jews in Auschwitz
Don't comment on studies you haven't read -- then you won't get
embarassed in public saying stupid things.
Sport Pilot
I double checked, the word satellite does not appear in the document.
I see no reason to leave out prior data. You could make a case that
storms might not be detected before satellites, but I think the issue
would be huricane hunter aircraft which I believe began in the 50's.
Sport Pilot
>of storms stayed fairly constant, but the percentage of major storms went up.
>Try reading the article.
You are the one not reading the article! The study did not address the
issue of storms before 1970. If it had it would have found that the
storms of the 50s nearly numbered the present ones and the graph would
not have looked like an uptrend! Bill is entirely correct!
Bill Habr
Question:
Leavingout all data from before 1970 enhances the study?
My point is that by using a period of time of below normal activity the
study skews.
Example:
Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, North Atlantic Hurricane
Activity.
1950 to 1971 inclusive (22 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 11
Normal 7
Below normal 4
1972 to 1994 inclusive (22 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 3
Normal 7
Below normal 12
1950 to 1994 inclusive (44 seasons)
Seasons with activty:
Above Normal 14
Normal 14
Below normal 16
Harold Brooks
hppil...@cs.com says...
>
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > It was my understanding that the study used satellite
> > data. How many weather satellites were flying the 1950s?
> >
> > Scott
>
> I double checked, the word satellite does not appear in the document.
> I see no reason to leave out prior data. You could make a case that
> storms might not be detected before satellites, but I think the issue
> would be huricane hunter aircraft which I believe began in the 50's.
You didn't read it carefully:
"Cyclone intensities around the world are estimated by pattern
recognition of satellite features based on the Dvorak scheme (25). The
exceptions are the North Atlantic, where there has been continuous
aircraft reconnaissance; the eastern North Pacific, which has occasional
aircraft reconnaissance; and the western North Pacific, which had
aircraft reconnaissance up to the mid-1980s. There have been substantial
changes in the manner in which the Dvorak technique has been applied
(26). These changes may lead to a trend toward more intense cyclones,
but in terms of central pressure (27) and not in terms of maximum winds
that are used here. Furthermore, the consistent trends in the North
Atlantic and eastern North Pacific, where the Dvorak scheme has been
calibrated against aircraft penetrations, give credence to the trends
noted here as being independent of the observational and analysis
techniques used. In addition, in the Southern Hemisphere and the North
Indian Ocean basins, where only satellite data have been used to
determine intensity throughout the data period, the same trends are
apparent as in the Northern Hemisphere regions."
Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry, and H.-R. Chang, 2005:
Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming
Environment. Science, Vol 309, Issue 5742, 1844-1846 , 16 September
2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1116448]
Harold
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com
owl
wrote:
>Question:
>
>Leavingout all data from before 1970 enhances the study?
He didn't. He concentrated on global data from the 70s fwd because it
met the requirements. There's a myth around that he didn't look at
data before this, and focused incorrectly on the Atlantic basin.
Neither are true.
>My point is that by using a period of time of below normal activity the
>study skews.
Using bad data does the same thing. Emmanuel's primary contribution
to the process is the new perspective of total energy dissapation.
Studying temporal satellite data allowed him to do that.
>Example:
>Using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, North Atlantic Hurricane
>Activity.
>
>1950 to 1971 inclusive (22 seasons)
>Seasons with activty:
>Above Normal 11
>
>Normal 7
>
>Below normal 4
>
>
>1972 to 1994 inclusive (22 seasons)
>Seasons with activty:
>Above Normal 3
>
>Normal 7
>
>Below normal 12
>
>
>1950 to 1994 inclusive (44 seasons)
>Seasons with activty:
>Above Normal 14
>
>Normal 14
>
>Below normal 16
>
Now you're the one making the error because you've focused on the
Atlantic Basin.
"The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology shows for the first time that major storms
spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have
increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent."
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_050731_hurricanes_stronger.html
And the number of events world-wide has not changed from a range of
low 80s to about 90. So your objection that he chose a low to accent
the growth - is incorrect.
Altho your criticism doesn't reflect knowledge of Emmanuel's study, if
you read the article it's pretty clear that this is a new look in a
new way. And the right approach comes from the science - chew on it
for a while before any saying yea or nay to any conclusions or
connections.
Sport Pilot
H'mm, that doesn't appear in the article, perhaps the study itself, if
so please provide a link.
Joshua Halpern
> "Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:dgp7je$esp$1...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
>
>>The article covers time since 1970. Believe it or not, the world was
>
> rather
>
>>good at record-keeping back then.
>>
>
>
> Why didn't they look at before 1970?
How many weather satellites were there before 1970 with global coverage?
>
> Say go back to 1950 or 1960?
>
Not many satellites.
josh halpern
Spencer
I say,
"Bring 'em on!"
Roger Coppock wrote:
> Please follow this URL to see the press release with a graph:
> http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49334.html
cliff...@yahoo.co.uk
about the same thing:
". . .a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and
typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30
years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface
temperatures.
The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50
percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry
Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricane...