Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming
jonathan
It's not that often we get to take a sneak-peak
at the future. Take a good look!
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/satellite.shtml
HURRICANE KATRINA DISCUSSION NUMBER 23
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
11 AM EDT SUN AUG 28 2005
THE AIR FORCE HURRICANE HUNTERS JUST MEASURED
A 166 KT FLIGHT LEVEL WIND IN THE NORTHEAST EYEWALL
...WHICH REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL UPWARD
ADJUSTMENT OF THE CURRENT INTENSITY TO 150 KT.
A DROP IN THE EYE GAVE A CENTRAL PRESSURE OF 907 MB.
KATRINA IS COMPARABLE IN INTENSITY TO
HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969...ONLY LARGER.
Rand Simberg
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
So, were we having global warming in 1969? Was Camille any less a
"sneak-peak at the future"?
The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
is hilarious.
Rand Simberg
simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>It's not that often we get to take a sneak-peak
>>at the future. Take a good look!
>>
>>http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/satellite.shtml
>>
>>
>>
>>HURRICANE KATRINA DISCUSSION NUMBER 23
>>NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
>>11 AM EDT SUN AUG 28 2005
>>
>>THE AIR FORCE HURRICANE HUNTERS JUST MEASURED
>>A 166 KT FLIGHT LEVEL WIND IN THE NORTHEAST EYEWALL
>>...WHICH REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL UPWARD
>>ADJUSTMENT OF THE CURRENT INTENSITY TO 150 KT.
>>A DROP IN THE EYE GAVE A CENTRAL PRESSURE OF 907 MB.
>>KATRINA IS COMPARABLE IN INTENSITY TO
>>HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969...ONLY LARGER.
>
>So, were we having global warming in 1969? Was Camille any less a
>"sneak-peak at the future"?
>
>The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
>is hilarious.
Ob: space policy, though, if this thing wipes out the ET plant at
Michaud, what does this do to the Shuttle (and SDV) programs?
jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:43430388....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
> is hilarious.
You like statistics eh?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqEdiaNS.html
Reed Snellenberger
@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
That's just a chart... where are the statistics?
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com
Rand Simberg
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
>> is hilarious.
>
>
>You like statistics eh?
>http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqEdiaNS.html
Any statistics over that short a time period are meaningless in the
context of historical temperature trends over centuries.
Ed Kyle
>
> Ob: space policy, though, if this thing wipes out the ET plant at
> Michaud, what does this do to the Shuttle (and SDV) programs?
Michoud has affected by hurricanes before, but I don't
think they were anything like this one could be if it
hits dead on. AIRC, Michoud is in a bad location,
windwise, relative to the projected path of Katrina.
It seems likely that Katrina will rough Michoud up worse
than the mild beating KSC took last year that ripped the
roof off of one building and stripped panels off the
VAB, etc.. I'm not sure how Michoud sits relative to
projected storm surge flooding, but I don't think it is
in those areas that might go 20 feet under water.
More worrisome for the average citizen may be the
effect Katrina has on New Orleans area refineries,
etc.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>
>> Ob: space policy, though, if this thing wipes out the ET plant at
>> Michaud, what does this do to the Shuttle (and SDV) programs?
>
>Michoud has affected by hurricanes before, but I don't
>think they were anything like this one could be if it
>hits dead on. AIRC, Michoud is in a bad location,
>windwise, relative to the projected path of Katrina.
>It seems likely that Katrina will rough Michoud up worse
>than the mild beating KSC took last year that ripped the
>roof off of one building and stripped panels off the
>VAB, etc.. I'm not sure how Michoud sits relative to
>projected storm surge flooding, but I don't think it is
>in those areas that might go 20 feet under water.
I think that the winds could strip it down to the slab, if it hits
directly. That would mean a complete rebuild of the plant and all the
tooling if they want to keep the program going. The same thing would
happen to the VAB, if a monster like this ever hit the Cape.
Here are some pictures of what Camille did, in the same area:
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>
>> Ob: space policy, though, if this thing wipes out the ET plant at
>> Michaud, what does this do to the Shuttle (and SDV) programs?
>
>Michoud has affected by hurricanes before, but I don't
>think they were anything like this one could be if it
>hits dead on. AIRC, Michoud is in a bad location,
>windwise, relative to the projected path of Katrina.
Do you know who owns the plant? Is it Lockmart's, and is it insured,
or is it government facilities that they lease? If the latter, then
the taxpayer will be paying replacement costs (though that could be
the case regardless).
Paul F. Dietz
> So, were we having global warming in 1969? Was Camille any less a
> "sneak-peak at the future"?
>
> The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
> is hilarious.
If sea surface temperatures rise, strong tropical storms (which
are driven by a vertical gradient, not horizontal, as temperate
storms are) could very well become more frequent. Consider
that Cat. 5 typhoons are more common the western Pacific, where
average water temperature is higher, than they are in the Atlantic.
Arguing that because Camille occured in 1969 (or that Labor Day
hurricane in 1935), global warming will not have an effect, would
be statistical ignorance.
Paul
Rand Simberg
Dietz" <di...@dls.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>> So, were we having global warming in 1969? Was Camille any less a
>> "sneak-peak at the future"?
>>
>> The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
>> is hilarious.
>
>If sea surface temperatures rise, strong tropical storms (which
>are driven by a vertical gradient, not horizontal, as temperate
>storms are) could very well become more frequent. Consider
>that Cat. 5 typhoons are more common the western Pacific, where
>average water temperature is higher, than they are in the Atlantic.
It could be, but this particular storm remains an anecdote, not data.
>Arguing that because Camille occured in 1969 (or that Labor Day
>hurricane in 1935), global warming will not have an effect, would
>be statistical ignorance.
I'm making neither argument.
Paul F. Dietz
>>Arguing that because Camille occured in 1969 (or that Labor Day
>>hurricane in 1935), global warming will not have an effect, would
>>be statistical ignorance.
>
>
> I'm making neither argument.
Then what argument are you making?
Paul
Brian Thorn
Simberg) wrote:
>>> Ob: space policy, though, if this thing wipes out the ET plant at
>>> Michaud, what does this do to the Shuttle (and SDV) programs?
>Do you know who owns the plant? Is it Lockmart's, and is it insured,
>or is it government facilities that they lease? If the latter, then
>the taxpayer will be paying replacement costs (though that could be
>the case regardless).
I think it's Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO).
Brian
Rand Simberg
>Rand Simberg wrote:
I'm making the argument that using Katrina per se as support for
global warming is as fallacious as using Camille.
Paul F. Dietz
>>>I'm making neither argument.
>>
>>Then what argument are you making?
>
>
> I'm making the argument that using Katrina per se as support for
> global warming is as fallacious as using Camille.
Ah. You're addressing an argument that the original
poster didn't actually make.
How... ironic.
Paul
Rand Simberg
>Rand Simberg wrote:
No? Then what's your interpretation of his post, including title?
Rand Simberg
Thorn <btho...@cox.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>>Do you know who owns the plant? Is it Lockmart's, and is it insured,
>>or is it government facilities that they lease? If the latter, then
>>the taxpayer will be paying replacement costs (though that could be
>>the case regardless).
>
>I think it's Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO).
That was my guess. Which means that NASA will have to pay to
repair/replace it, if it's wiped out.
Paul F. Dietz
>>Ah. You're addressing an argument that the original
>>poster didn't actually make.
>
>
> No? Then what's your interpretation of his post, including title?
That Katrina is an illustration of what we might expect
more of in the future, but not *evidence* that we might
expect more of it in the future.
Paul
Rand Simberg
>Rand Simberg wrote:
Well, then he has to actually make the case that we're going to get
more Katrinas in the future than we would in the absence of global
warming. He certainly didn't in that post.
Ed Kyle
Maybe only part of it though. I suspect that ET
production only occupies a portion of the massive
place, which was once housed wartime production
of, I believe, aircraft.
- Ed Kyle
Ed Kyle
>
> I think that the winds could strip it down to the slab, if it hits
> directly. That would mean a complete rebuild of the plant and all the
> tooling if they want to keep the program going. The same thing would
> happen to the VAB, if a monster like this ever hit the Cape.
>
> Here are some pictures of what Camille did, in the same area:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm
>
> http://www.maritimemuseum.org/camille/
A direct hit would be worst-case bad for Michoud, and,
since Michoud sits on the eastern edge of New Orleans
proper, for New Orleans itself. But the odds of a
direct hit are lower than the odds that the eyewall
will miss the city. Still, at its current speed, even
a near miss by this biggie is going to subject the city
to a pummeling by hurricane force winds (75-90 or more
mph) over a span of maybe 8-16 hours. It is not going
to be a pretty place on Tuesday.
- Ed Kyle
jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:25:52 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
> Dietz" <di...@dls.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> >> So, were we having global warming in 1969? Was Camille any less a
> >> "sneak-peak at the future"?
> >>
> >> The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
> >> is hilarious.
> >
> >If sea surface temperatures rise, strong tropical storms (which
> >are driven by a vertical gradient, not horizontal, as temperate
> >storms are) could very well become more frequent. Consider
> >that Cat. 5 typhoons are more common the western Pacific, where
> >average water temperature is higher, than they are in the Atlantic.
>
> It could be, but this particular storm remains an anecdote, not data.
An anecdote!
This is the most powerful hurricane anyone has
every seen in this half of the world. EVER!
AN ANECDOTE!
Some have briefly reached a lower pressure or
higher wind speed. But the combined size and strength
of this defines the upper limit.
Living in Miami it's 'common knowledge' here that storms
have been getting more frequent and larger the last
fifteen years or so. I'd dismissed that as a short-term
fluke. But that chart I posted doesn't include last year's
16 storms, the third most in the last 60 years, and six
made landfall last year, only the fourth time that's
happened since1886, and one short of the all-time high
set the same year.
And now Katrina is the last straw in my opinion.
Compare these two charts, the first is storm totals, the
second surface air temp. The trend since 1980 is more
than an anecdote. It's 'statistically significant". Since
the trend stands out like a SORE THUMB.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/tcfaqEdiaNS.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
For the first time I have to conclude
.......singin'....
"It's nature's way of telling you ....through the breeze
It's nature's way of telling you ....dying trees"
"It's nature's way of telling you ...something's wrong
It's nature's way of telling you ....in a song
It's nature's way of receiving you
It's nature's way of retrieving you
It's nature's way of telling you ....something's wrong"
Jonathan
s
Paul F. Dietz
> An anecdote!
>
> This is the most powerful hurricane anyone has
> every seen in this half of the world. EVER!
>
> AN ANECDOTE!
>
> Some have briefly reached a lower pressure or
> higher wind speed. But the combined size and strength
> of this defines the upper limit.
Ok, Rand. I take that back.
Paul
jonathan
"Ed Kyle" <edky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125257801.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> > I think that the winds could strip it down to the slab, if it hits
> > directly. That would mean a complete rebuild of the plant and all the
> > tooling if they want to keep the program going. The same thing would
> > happen to the VAB, if a monster like this ever hit the Cape.
> >
> > Here are some pictures of what Camille did, in the same area:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm
> >
> > http://www.maritimemuseum.org/camille/
>
> A direct hit would be worst-case bad for Michoud, and,
> since Michoud sits on the eastern edge of New Orleans
> proper,
One thing learned in Andrew is how much more destructive
a hurricane is when walking through a major city than
an open area. The amount of building debris kicked
into the air adds to the destruction immensely.
Another thing Andrew showed was that under
the eye wall spin-up vortices would form.
They thought they were spinning at 60 to 80 knots
under a eye wall that was traveling over the
ground at 120 knots.
At this strength Katrina should produce gusts
at the eye wall up to 250 mph in places. And if
in a city, that would be gusts full of shingles, boards
and glass.
jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
Here's some radar loops of Andrew. The last loop still gives
me the creeps.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Storm_pages/andrew1992/radar.html
And my favorite Andrew pic.
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/wea00545.htm
Rand Simberg
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >If sea surface temperatures rise, strong tropical storms (which
>> >are driven by a vertical gradient, not horizontal, as temperate
>> >storms are) could very well become more frequent. Consider
>> >that Cat. 5 typhoons are more common the western Pacific, where
>> >average water temperature is higher, than they are in the Atlantic.
>>
>> It could be, but this particular storm remains an anecdote, not data.
>
>
>An anecdote!
>
>This is the most powerful hurricane anyone has
>every seen in this half of the world. EVER!
>
>AN ANECDOTE!
<snip>
>It's nature's way of telling you ....something's wrong"
What was that you were saying, Paul?
jonathan
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:CeWdnar6k9b...@dls.net...
It's both! The charts I posted, if you had bothered
to look, support that pretty clearly. Air temps have
been rising, and with it storm frequency and intensity.
The evidence for global warming and it's effects on us
have been mounting, but debatable, for some time.
Katrina, I believe, will be the 'hammer' that drives
the point home.
Calling this event, combined with the context, an anecdote
is not a thoughtful or accurate characterization at all.
>
> Paul
jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> What was that you were saying, Paul?
He was saying the same thing you are. That neither of
you do your homework before speaking. And you
embarrass yourself as a result.
I mean anyone that doesn't know that a chart is a way
of displaying statistics needs to do more homework.
Paul F. Dietz
> He was saying the same thing you are. That neither of
> you do your homework before speaking. And you
> embarrass yourself as a result.
Remind me to never give you the benefit of the doubt
again, asshole.
Paul
jonathan
I don't want that, I want the doubt and the debate.
> asshole.
A real debate, not the fourth grade kind where someone
shouts 'you stink' then runs home with their bat and ball.
>
> Paul
Ed Kyle
Bill Harwood is all over this story already. He
actually got an interview with the Michoud press guy,
who was trapped in evacuation traffic with his family,
on his cell phone. How is that for reporting a
story?
There are seven completed external tanks in the place,
and several other partially completed ones. There is
a rideout crew on site with fingers crossed. The lowest
spot is 19 feet above sea level, and it is levee protected.
As for winds, a few miles one way or another could mean
the difference between a few weeks delay and an end to
the space shuttle program for either years or forever.
"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/28michoud/"
We'll know tomorrow.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Bill Harwood is all over this story already. He
>actually got an interview with the Michoud press guy,
>who was trapped in evacuation traffic with his family,
>on his cell phone. How is that for reporting a
>story?
Good work.
>There are seven completed external tanks in the place,
>and several other partially completed ones. There is
>a rideout crew on site with fingers crossed.
Are any on barges to the Cape?
>The lowest
>spot is 19 feet above sea level, and it is levee protected.
>As for winds, a few miles one way or another could mean
>the difference between a few weeks delay and an end to
>the space shuttle program for either years or forever.
>
>"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/28michoud/"
>
>We'll know tomorrow.
Yes, it could be a fateful day for more people than residents of that
area of the Gulf coast...
George
"jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:KzpQe.12047$N1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Umm. hurricanes are driven primarily by warm ocean water, not warm air.
Ed Kyle
> On 28 Aug 2005 19:00:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
> <edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >Bill Harwood is all over this story already. He
> >actually got an interview with the Michoud press guy,
> >who was trapped in evacuation traffic with his family,
> >on his cell phone. How is that for reporting a
> >story?
>
> Good work.
>
> >There are seven completed external tanks in the place,
> >and several other partially completed ones. There is
> >a rideout crew on site with fingers crossed.
>
> Are any on barges to the Cape?
>
> >The lowest
> >spot is 19 feet above sea level, and it is levee protected.
I misread this bit. It turns out that the lowest spot on
the *levees* is 19 feet above sea level. Michoud might be
a bit more flood susceptible than I first suspected.
> >As for winds, a few miles one way or another could mean
> >the difference between a few weeks delay and an end to
> >the space shuttle program for either years or forever.
> >
> >"http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/28michoud/"
> >
> >We'll know tomorrow.
>
> Yes, it could be a fateful day for more people than residents of that
> area of the Gulf coast...
One bit that caught my attention was that planners
believed there might be 100,000 people stranded in
the city tonight, but that there was only enough
space for 70,000 in the Superdome haven.
Good luck to our fellow citizens in the path of
this storm.
- Ed Kyle
pari...@gmail.com
Rand Simberg
pari...@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>CEV is also planned to be produced in Michoud, isn't it ?
How could there be any such plans, when a contractor has yet to be
selected?
Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2005 19:00:28 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
> <edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >and several other partially completed ones. There is
> >a rideout crew on site with fingers crossed.
>
> Are any on barges to the Cape?
No, at least not according to the latest STS Status Report
from KSC. Atlantis is still attached to ET-120 in the
VAB in the STS-115 configuration, but was to be demated
next week. ET-120 was slated to be returned to Michoud
in a few weeks.
ET-119, the third redesigned tank to be shipped to KSC,
is already on the Pegasus barge (it was loaded last
week) for shipment to Michoud, but transit has been
delayed by the hurricane. This ET is supposed to be
reworked and then returned to KSC for STS-121, which is
the next scheduled flight.
- Ed Kyle
Allen Thomson
Ed Kyle wrote:
> There are seven completed external tanks in the place,
> and several other partially completed ones.
An updated version of this, with numbers as of a couple
of minutes ago:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/28michoud/
"We have seven substantially completed tanks that are
on site and another eight or 10 tanks in various stages
of production," Lanasa said.
If the facility rides this out, those might be interesting
stats to keep in mind while contemplating winding up STS
and moving on to the VSE heavy lifter.
jonathan
Andrew, about half the size of this, left 350,000 homeless
and the longest peacetime curfew in US history, six months.
If it had gone 20 miles north it would have been 1.5 million
homeless.
It was a week before most people saw any help aside
from helicopters flying overhead. You wouldn't dare
try to walk out to the aid stations because you might
not make it by dark. You couldn't see your hand in
front of your face after dark. There was virtually no
rain during Andrew or until later the next day. Until
then the fire hazard from the hundred square miles
of debris was substantial.
I can't believe anyone would stay inside the levy area
by choice. It was designed for a level 3 storm.
> - Ed Kyle
>
George
" George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:rjuQe.290617$_o.256370@attbi_s71...
I should also point out that Max Mayfield, of the National Hurricane Center
says that the recent increase in hurricanes and their intensities have
nothing to do with global warming. He says that there is a natural
variability in the number and intensity of hurricanes that is related to
currents in the North Atlantic. Per the NHC web site:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html
"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"."
The idea that a cycle exists fits well with the record for hurricanes over
the last 60 years. We apparently are in an upswing in the cycle, as
evidenced by the preponderence of hurricanes over the last two years. The
last such cycle occurred in the mid-late 1960s. The cycle before that
occurred in the 1940s, etc, etc.
George
>
> "Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> news:434b1f5a....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:25:52 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
>> Dietz" <di...@dls.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>> way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >Rand Simberg wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, were we having global warming in 1969? Was Camille any less a
>> >> "sneak-peak at the future"?
>> >>
>> >> The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
>> >> is hilarious.
>> >
>> >If sea surface temperatures rise, strong tropical storms (which
>> >are driven by a vertical gradient, not horizontal, as temperate
>> >storms are) could very well become more frequent. Consider
>> >that Cat. 5 typhoons are more common the western Pacific, where
>> >average water temperature is higher, than they are in the Atlantic.
>>
>> It could be, but this particular storm remains an anecdote, not data.
>
>
> An anecdote!
>
> This is the most powerful hurricane anyone has
> every seen in this half of the world. EVER!
>
> AN ANECDOTE!
No, actually, the hurricane that struck the Florida keys in the 1890s was
stronger.
> Some have briefly reached a lower pressure or
> higher wind speed. But the combined size and strength
> of this defines the upper limit.
There is no upper limit, Johnny. Once you've reach catagory five
(catastrophic), it doesn't matter what you call it.
> Living in Miami it's 'common knowledge' here that storms
> have been getting more frequent and larger the last
> fifteen years or so. I'd dismissed that as a short-term
> fluke. But that chart I posted doesn't include last year's
> 16 storms, the third most in the last 60 years, and six
> made landfall last year, only the fourth time that's
> happened since1886, and one short of the all-time high
> set the same year.
>
> And now Katrina is the last straw in my opinion.
Try reading the FAQ from those who know more about hurricanes than you do:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html
George
Correction. That hurricane struck in 1935, not in the 1890s.
Derek Lyons
>> >The lowest
>> >spot is 19 feet above sea level, and it is levee protected.
>
>I misread this bit. It turns out that the lowest spot on
>the *levees* is 19 feet above sea level. Michoud might be
>a bit more flood susceptible than I first suspected.
Looking at the topo maps - Michoud itself is at sea level, and there
doesn't appears to be *anything* of significance between it and open
waters. There are sea level canals on two side of the facility.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
kert
-kert
John Savard
Simberg) wrote, in part:
>The statistical ignorance of people who make these kinds of arguments
>is hilarious.
The trouble is, though, they're not ignorant of human psychology.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
pari...@gmail.com
As LSU Chancellor of course
Ken Wood
wouldn' hestitate to use that to bolster their arguments.
KW
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>Andrew, about half the size of this, left 350,000 homeless
Eh... you sure about that? Maybe 35,000?
The population of Homestead is only about 40,000 and it was by far the
largest of the hard-hit cities.
Brian
jonathan
>
> " George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
> news:rjuQe.290617$_o.256370@attbi_s71...
> >
> > "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:KzpQe.12047$N1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>
> >
>
> I should also point out that Max Mayfield, of the National Hurricane Center
> says that the recent increase in hurricanes and their intensities have
> nothing to do with global warming. He says that there is a natural
> variability in the number and intensity of hurricanes that is related to
> currents in the North Atlantic. Per the NHC web site:
I heard that quote today on NPR. I guess the question
is being asked. Personally I think the solar cycle is most
responsible for warming of the last few decades.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
But when you add to that the fact that, for instance, in the US 6.6 tons of
greenhouse gasses are emitted for ...each person...each year
we should be concerned.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html
Piling on to all this is a third world that is rapidly industrializing.
Project all this out 40 years or so and what do you envision?
In my hobby the future or pre-image can be seen easily by
determining if the change is caused by primarily internal
or external forces. If the force for change is internal, and
sufficient to drive the system far enough from equilibrium and
to the edge, then chaotic system behavior is certain to follow.
Wild swings with a very premature ice-age is rather likely.
If the system is driven to the edge by mostly external
forces then the system self-organizes. It gently returns
somewhat to the previous equilibrium but at a more
evolved and resilient state.
Internal driving forces are so much more powerful, and lead
to a chaotic future, since they are massively connected to
most other system variables. A small change is magnified and
cascades. Kinda like increasing the tension on a spring.
Everything is effected and threatened.
External forces are like a rumor to a stock price. The
spring has been plucked, but nothing has really changed
with the underlying system. A temporary or artificial
push from equilibrium that merely increases selective pressures
and forces the system to evolve to a higher state.
Increased solar activity and greenhouse gasses are
both internal forces. And they are large forces that
are driving our system from equilibrium.
Which to me is a very scary thing.
Nature can handle the solar changes, but if we pile
on another almost equally strong push at the ...same time
the spring just might break.
We have two, and only two, distinct futures as things stand
now. One future would be to settle around a new warmer equilibrium
capable of sustaining even more life than today.
Or near extinction from a self-inflicted ice age.
We should be clear about which future we desire and
what is needed to attain it. World-wide democracy and
a solution to fossil fuels should about do the trick imho.
And more, since democracy best mimics nature, we
can return this world to nature. Once and for all.
It's within our grasp! Right here and now that future
can be secured. The most beautiful future imaginable!
The Beijing Olympics offers a golden opportunity for
the first. And Nasa just dropped the ball on the latter.
But I'm an eternal optimist, success with democracy
will bring the rest around. Mother Nature will not
let us down in Beijing, freeing another Fourth of the world
will ensure and hasten the supremacy of democracy over man.
A turning point in human history like few others.
A world returned to Nature.
We must be able to see these all important critical
points, and in time to prepare an answer for them.
Jonathan
s
Jo Schaper
> World-wide democracy and
> a solution to fossil fuels should about do the trick imho.
> And more, since democracy best mimics nature, we
> can return this world to nature. Once and for all.
Man, you better go take an ecology class. Or population biology. Or ANY
natural science taught in school. "Democracy best mimics nature???" I'm
not sure which part of the statement I disagree with more--assuming that
democracy even exists in nature, or that 'nature' (assuming you mean
natural systems) follow any democratic rules.
The rules of nature and the rules of cutthroat capitalism are very
similar. But not the rules of democracy...
"Ok, you whooping cranes over there...you've been voted off the ark. Now
go commit hara-kiri!" "Ok, how many of you water molecules vote to
freeze at -20 C instead of 0? The majority has it...."
There is nothing in the slightest bit democratic about nature, except
perhaps that the species with the largest number wins in the short run
(provided they don't outstrip their living space and food supply). Which
says nothing about long-term survival.
Democracy is a human institution, dreamed up to provide a system to
bring shrewdly forethought balance to the opinions of despots and
overrule the biggest gorilla on the block. Democracy provides for the
rights of the minority out of compassion and self-interest--something
which nature does not give a whit about. Might and advantage makes right
in nature. Period.
jonathan
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9m17h1p08v09i32us...@4ax.com...
The stats are all over the place. This site puts it at
a quarter million. Other sites claim 125,000 homes
were totaled in Dade county alone. Plus another
65,000 businesses destroyed.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1992andrew.html
It was a 100 square miles of fully developed suburban
sprawl with tornado like damage.
Even with the entire 10th mountain division
deployed and another 16,000 XVIII Airborne Corps
it still took a week for the 6000 Florida National
Guards deployed to walk into the center of
the damaged area. I remember it like it was
yesterday. They had to move in one block at
a time, secure it and set up a checkpoint. Then
move in another block and so on.
After a week of waiting finally the troops walk in
without any food, water or even ammo in their
guns. People were pissed!
It's just that they had to set up a series of checkpoints
leading from the perimeter to the interior before
anything could move in or out. They set up all these
aid stations around the perimeter and waited for
people to walk out. You couldn't though, few did.
They couldn't figure out why no one was walking
out, so they started to put up those military blimps over
the aid stations figuring the problem was no one
knew where they were.
But the problem was that at sunset you couldn't
see your hand in front of your face. And the complete
lack of landmarks meant it was easy to get lost and
not make it there or back by dark. Couldn't take that
chance of getting caught away from home after
dark.
At first there were armed gangs of looters working
some streets. Then some of the communities organized
their own armed gangs to patrol the neighborhoods.
Armed with shotguns and Winchesters, you had
to be there....
And after a couple of weeks when everyone
could drive around again, everyone was carrying
guns and ticked off big-time over one thing or
another. Losing the house or job and such.
With all the military, guards and police moving in
and a couple hundred thousand contractors the
place was wall-to-wall traffic with no stop signs
or lights at all. Every intersection was an adventure
in self preservation. Every one a chicken fight over
who would force the other direction to stop.
And if you didn't get home by dark you'd spend
the night in jail with the six month dusk to dawn
military curfew.
The night of the hurricane and the month after
was just one big stressful nightmare.
>
> Brian
jonathan
"Jo Schaper" <joschape...@2socketdot.no5net> wrote in message
news:11h78j4...@corp.supernews.com...
> jonathan wrote:
>
>
> > World-wide democracy and
> > a solution to fossil fuels should about do the trick imho.
> > And more, since democracy best mimics nature, we
> > can return this world to nature. Once and for all.
>
>
> Man, you better go take an ecology class. Or population biology. Or ANY
> natural science taught in school. "Democracy best mimics nature???" I'm
> not sure which part of the statement I disagree with more--assuming that
> democracy even exists in nature, or that 'nature' (assuming you mean
> natural systems) follow any democratic rules.
In abstract and ideal form the two are virtually identical.
I think you need more study with both.
Can't you see the mathematical relationships between
the self-tuning properties of natural selection and
democratic processes?
Can't you see the identical dramas playing out between
genetics v mutation, and laws v freedom?
That dynamic interplay between static and chaotic
realms produces natural selection and politics.
Both self-tuning to the creative middle.
Nature has three attractors.
Genetics, selection and mutation
Our democracy has three pillars.
Rule of law, elections and inalienable rights
The static, dynamic and chaotic.
The basis of the science of self organizing systems.
Not to mention the three branches of govt.
Three is the magic number, as in it takes
the dynamic interplay of the two extremes
to produce the creative middle, where life
intelligence and societies thrive.
The two are identical in form. It is a scientific
fact. Democracies have even more potential
as our intelligence can produce systems where
unsuccessful people are not culled, as in
nature, but bad ideas and actions.
>
> The rules of nature and the rules of cutthroat capitalism are very
> similar. But not the rules of democracy...
>
> "Ok, you whooping cranes over there...you've been voted off the ark. Now
> go commit hara-kiri!" "Ok, how many of you water molecules vote to
> freeze at -20 C instead of 0? The majority has it...."
>
> There is nothing in the slightest bit democratic about nature, except
> perhaps that the species with the largest number wins in the short run
> (provided they don't outstrip their living space and food supply). Which
> says nothing about long-term survival.
>
> Democracy is a human institution, dreamed up to provide a system to
> bring shrewdly forethought balance to the opinions of despots and
> overrule the biggest gorilla on the block.
Our democracy was dreamed up by some of the brightest
thinkers of the time.
> Democracy provides for the
> rights of the minority out of compassion and self-interest--something
> which nature does not give a whit about. Might and advantage makes right
> in nature. Period.
Nature doesn't care about minorities??? I guess you've
never heard the term symbiotic before. Let me quote
an absolutely wonderful amateur poem that shows how
Nature finds a place, a niche, for all kinds of 'minorities'.
_______________________________________
From The Nature Is Beautiful Department
_______________________________________
The common barnacle (Sacculina) begins its parasitic life as a
free-swimming larva. The female barnacle (as insidious as any woman!)
settles on a crab, crawls to a leg joint and pokes a small entry hole.
She then squeezes her soft parts inside (leaving her shell behind) and
wends her single-minded way to the abdomen where she dines on the
available nutrients. As she grows, she forms a protrusion in the crab's
shell and then sends out extensions - or "roots" - of her own body
throughout the crab, even to the very tips of its eye stalks. As a
result the crab soon no longer sheds its shell, grows, or produces eggs
or sperm. In essence, the crab becomes a zombie vehicle which lives only
to serve its parasitic guest.
As if that weren't disturbing enough, the female furthermore makes a
pinhole in the host's abdomen to attract the tiny male Sacculina, who
squeezes himself into the crab in the same fashion as the female had
earlier. They then fertilize each other for the remainder of their
lives, and manipulate the crab's hormonal system so that the crab
periodically scales a high rock, pushes out the parasites' young'uns,
and even waves its claws in the water to spread them on their merry way
- just as it would do for its own offspring.
By Dale Houseman
George
>
> " George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
> news:ifvQe.288399$x96.117255@attbi_s72...
>>
>> " George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
>> news:rjuQe.290617$_o.256370@attbi_s71...
>> >
>> > "jonathan" <wr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> > news:KzpQe.12047$N1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul
>> >>
>> >
>> > Umm. hurricanes are driven primarily by warm ocean water, not warm
>> > air.
>>
>> I should also point out that Max Mayfield, of the National Hurricane
>> Center
>> says that the recent increase in hurricanes and their intensities have
>> nothing to do with global warming. He says that there is a natural
>> variability in the number and intensity of hurricanes that is related to
>> currents in the North Atlantic. Per the NHC web site:
>
>
>
> I heard that quote today on NPR. I guess the question
> is being asked. Personally I think the solar cycle is most
> responsible for warming of the last few decades.
> http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
>
> But when you add to that the fact that, for instance, in the US 6.6 tons
> of
> greenhouse gasses are emitted for ...each person...each year
> we should be concerned.
> http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html
I guess you forgot about the global methane emissions map I pointed out to
you some time back. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2,
though admittedly, it doesn't stay around as long as CO2. And of course,
water vapor is an even stronger greenhouse gas:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservation/methane_1106644fig2_H.jpg
> Piling on to all this is a third world that is rapidly industrializing.
> Project all this out 40 years or so and what do you envision?
>
> In my hobby the future or pre-image can be seen easily by
> determining if the change is caused by primarily internal
> or external forces. If the force for change is internal, and
> sufficient to drive the system far enough from equilibrium and
> to the edge, then chaotic system behavior is certain to follow.
Umm, equilibrium? When has the earth ever been at 'equilibrium'? There is
certainly no evidence for it in the rock record.
George
"Jo Schaper" <joschape...@2socketdot.no5net> wrote in message
news:11h78j4...@corp.supernews.com...
I'll second that. Looks like we have a quorum.
mma...@my-deja.com
> But when you add to that the fact that, for instance, in the US 6.6 tons of
> greenhouse gasses are emitted for ...each person...each year
> we should be concerned.
Only if you believe there are positive feedback systems which will turn
a small temperature increase from CO2 into a large temperature
increase. Burning all the known fossil fuels in the world tomorrow
couldn't create the IPCC scare story scenarios without such positive
feedback...
> Living in Miami it's 'common knowledge' here that storms
> have been getting more frequent and larger the last
> fifteen years or so. I'd dismissed that as a short-term
> fluke. But that chart I posted doesn't include last year's
> 16 storms, the third most in the last 60 years,
You mean the third most since the 60-ish year storm cycle last peaked
around 1950... which was, oh, about 60 years ago? You think it's odd
that we're seeing a lot of storms around the time when the cycle peaks?
It would be funny to see global warmers latch on to any example of
extreme weather as proof that the sky is falling, if it wasn't such a
serious issue for the global economy.
Mark