Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NatCigg on September 27, 2013, 07:44:33 PM
-
seems to me a few years have passed without any major hurricanes despite predictions to the contrary. :noid
is the dry air not being estimated correctly? has global warming thrown a curve ball? or is mother nature winding up for a uppercut? :noid
:noid
:rofl
-
where do you live where i live we were slammed 2 years in a row
-
seems to me a few years have passed without any major hurricanes despite predictions to the contrary. :noid
is the dry air not being estimated correctly? has global warming thrown a curve ball? or is mother nature winding up for a uppercut? :noid
:noid
:rofl
All's well. Carry on.
-
Aliens
-
global warming is causing all hurricanes.....err I mean global cooling...........err I mean global warming...........err I mean global climate change....err I mean global aliens.....yea, that's the ticket!
-
Global Warming has in fact thrown a curve ball. As in, it doesn't exist. Never has and never will.
Can't believe a thing these climate "experts" say. Hell now some of them are saying we're experiencing global cooling.
:rofl :rofl
-
where do you live where i live we were slammed 2 years in a row
let me guess, new jersey? :rofl
-
Explain how burning trillions of tons of crap that's been locked inside the earth for millions of years can be a good thing for the planet. I'll wait.
-
let me guess, new jersey? :rofl
Not sure how thats funny :headscratch:
-
let me guess, new jersey? :rofl
:furious Rhode Island
-
Global Warming has in fact thrown a curve ball. As in, it doesn't exist. Never has and never will.
Can't believe a thing these climate "experts" say. Hell now some of them are saying we're experiencing global cooling.
:rofl :rofl
It does exist, however, it exists in a natural cycle every few hundred thousands of years. We as humans just sped it up (a lot).
Oh, and this is going to turn into a purse fight sooner or later.
-
Not sure how thats funny :headscratch:
A tropical low runs into a ridge and then is drawn into a arctic front causing the storm to strengthen and retrograde west, slowly dumping tons of rain and bringing some very strong winds to the north east. Wow, that was some storm. NOT much of a hurricane tho.
Thats whats funny.
It was not a powerful hurricane. More of a warning of what will come.
Just wait till a cat 3 or 4, with a 30 ft storm surge, hits New England. ohh baby, talk about buku bucks.
Heres the kicker, and they will still want to rebuild. 30 yards from and ten feet above the ocean. :rofl
HELLO, its a ocean, big thing man.
I know, I know, the hurricane season still has a month and a half to go. Just not seeing the nice round hurricanes i was getting used to following from the midwest.
I kinda like hurricanes. they can bring some good august and september rains to my area. :banana:
-
Explain how burning trillions of tons of crap that's been locked inside the earth for millions of years can be a good thing for the planet. I'll wait.
(http://static.bbc.co.uk/earthscience/images/ic/640x360/natural_disasters/volcano.jpg)
Keep waiting. We've survived nature unloading far, far more than we could ever imagine.
-
(http://static.bbc.co.uk/earthscience/images/ic/640x360/natural_disasters/volcano.jpg)
Keep waiting. We've survived nature unloading far, far more than we could ever imagine.
The difference being we already have atmosphere. Try again.
-
That atmosphere is mostly from co2. Without it, we are frozen, aka DEAD. The volcano puts it into perspective.
Easy now, imagine this (lets be real, we are all imagining this.), ALL CO2 was once in the air. With it, most of life evolved. Life WILL survive with more CO2. 47% of america just voted for change. If YOUR worst dream come true, the worst we will have is CHANGE.
Yes two cents and a quarter, big deal, deal with it, like april 15th.
:rofl
-
Explain how burning trillions of tons of crap that's been locked inside the earth for millions of years can be a good thing for the planet. I'll wait.
It is not good because it spreads pollution, not because it changes the climate.
...and no, CO2 is not pollution.
-
The global climate is changing. We know this because the earth is 1.33 degrees warmer over the last 100 years. Fact.
Could it be because Co2 emissions have increased over that same period? I'm not smart enough to know that, but the vast majority of science supports that conclusion. Nothing is 100% certain, but to put it into perspective; scientist debate more about cigarettes health effects than they do about global warming.
-
The global climate is changing. We know this because the earth is 1.33 degrees warmer over the last 100 years. Fact.
Could it be because Co2 emissions have increased over that same period? I'm not smart enough to know that, but the vast majority of science supports that conclusion. Nothing is 100% certain, but to put it into perspective; scientist debate more about cigarettes health effects than they do about global warming.
1.3 degrees or so is a "fact" in the scientific sense, which means that it has an uncertainty attached to it, and that uncertainty is quite large. But yes, most scientists will agree that there was a period of some warming. That is not the core of the debate.
The problems are the next two steps. First is the reason for this warming. Here you will start to find a much wider range of opinions among scientists. The answer "CO2" is highly debatable. It is not as simple as "more CO2 means more greenhouse effect", far from it. CO2 is a very inefficient greenhouse gas and the physics of radiation transfer through the atmosphere is quite complicated. In addition, CO2 does not like to be accumulated in the atmosphere and tends to be absorbed into the oceans. How much and how fast? again a complicated answer. There are many models that try to calculate these things and many of them are garbage. There are also other suggestions as to the cause of the warming. So, currently the real science is stuck in this stage of the physical "cause".
The next step *IF* you pin the warming on CO2 increase is whether or not human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2. Regardless of the answer, it is a hypothetical discussion until that *IF* is settled and them you can argue further about human contribution to CO2. The problem is that politicians and various ideological groups jump in and carry it from here. The "man made global warming climate change" theme debate is outside the realm of science. There chain of reasoning that leads from the measurements of global temperatures to "humans are to blame" is incredibly weak and this is what many scientists protest against. Yes many, there is no consensus about it.
Finally, the courses of action suggested to counter climate change are entirely ridiculous. No matter how much CO2 emission humanity can save by driving hybrid cars, CO2 quotas, and singing cumbaya, the achievement will be erased by the growth of the population within one generation. It is probably much more beneficial if we spend the money and resources to lean to live with the climate change than try to change the change. The OP had a few years without hurricanes - change is not bad for everyone.
-
Explain how burning trillions of tons of crap that's been locked inside the earth for millions of years can be a good thing for the planet. I'll wait.
CO2 is what plant life "breathe" during photosynthesis. More CO2 in the atmosphere means a more fertile Earth and more oxygen production. Right now our atmosphere is CO2 and oxygen deprived compared to earlier ages. Back in the ages of the Dinosaurs the Earth was a lot more fertile due to more CO2 and oxygen in the atmosphere (as much as 50% more). That's why plants and insects grew so big back then compared to now. Dragonflies back then had wingspans of two feet or more. More CO2 = more plant life = more oxygen = more animal life = bigger biosphere that can sustain more humans = win.
(http://i.imgur.com/rvWzr.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Photosynthesis.gif)
-
It does exist, however, it exists in a natural cycle every few hundred thousands of years. We as humans just sped it up (a lot).
Oh, and this is going to turn into a purse fight sooner or later.
Yes climate change exists and is very real. But like you said its a natural cycle. Global warming as the "experts" say is happening is just a fraud and a scam so they can pad their pockets.
-
Yes climate change exists and is very real. But like you said its a natural cycle. Global warming as the "experts" say is happening is just a fraud and a scam so they can pad their pockets.
Eh, still, I'd like to see the day where we no longer rely on limited resources. No "global warming" is just a nice side effect. :)
-
CO2 is what plant life "breathe" during photosynthesis. More CO2 in the atmosphere means a more fertile Earth and more oxygen production. Right now our atmosphere is CO2 and oxygen deprived compared to earlier ages. Back in the ages of the Dinosaurs the Earth was a lot more fertile due to more CO2 and oxygen in the atmosphere (as much as 50% more). That's why plants and insects grew so big back then compared to now. Dragonflies back then had wingspans of two feet or more. More CO2 = more plant life = more oxygen = more animal life = bigger biosphere that can sustain more humans = win.
(http://i.imgur.com/rvWzr.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Photosynthesis.gif)
The majority of life on earth lives in the ocean. 30-40% of man made Co2 is dissolved by Oceans and lakes causing acidification. Fact. If you don't believe me, do the chemistry, and see what happenes when you dissolve Co2 in seawater. Try again.
Blasting the earth with billions of tons of anything over a short period of time is not ideal. Not even if your a 2 foot dragon fly.
-
.
-
The global climate is changing. We know this because the earth is 1.33 degrees warmer over the last 100 years. Fact.
Could it be because Co2 emissions have increased over that same period? I'm not smart enough to know that, but the vast majority of science supports that conclusion. Nothing is 100% certain, but to put it into perspective; scientist debate more about cigarettes health effects than they do about global warming.
Dude, the CO2 humans produce by breathing is far far greater than that caused by all our factories and assorted crap. Getting rid of all the idiots who believe in human caused climate change (because nobody can deny that we have affected it) would literally go further towards reducing Co2 emissions than getting rid of all our cars would.
The fact is that the world was far more than 1.33 degrees cooler than average about 250 years ago. And then it started to warm up before any major population booms and before large industrialization. The fact is that thinking Humanity can truly affect the climate to so great an extent is pretentious in the extreme.
-
I can't believe people still believe these so called scientists' findings after they have been caught falsifying data to support their conclusions. :headscratch:
If you're old enough to remember the Global Cooling push in the 70's/80's and how they changed their minds to Global Warming you will understand why they now are touting Climate Change. :rofl :rolleyes:
Come on I know you people learned about statistics in school and how you can sway the outcome with selected data.
I live in NJ and we are still recovering from the power this planet has over us. (1 year ago OP) Nothing is going to save you when the grace of God is gone even if we are all back living in Huts eating dung for dinner.
-
The majority of life on earth lives in the ocean. 30-40% of man made Co2 is dissolved by Oceans and lakes causing acidification. Fact. If you don't believe me, do the chemistry, and see what happenes when you dissolve Co2 in seawater. Try again.
Blasting the earth with billions of tons of anything over a short period of time is not ideal. Not even if your a 2 foot dragon fly.
So now it is not a green house gas, it is acid. True CO2 is acid, but how much of it does you need in order to change the ph of the oceans? It seems like some people want the "CO2" to be the answer, they are just looking for the right question.
Humanity will not be able to reduce its CO2 emission without destroying modern society or killing billions of people. That is true whether man made CO2 has any effect on anything or not.
-
climate change = (http://www.google.com/imgres?sa=X&biw=1920&bih=985&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ie0H2EEe2VW_fM:&imgrefurl=http://www.wishtv.com/weather/us-wx-news/oklahoma-tornado-toll-expected-to-rise-nd13-jgr&docid=qLIJju3nh6nKcM&imgurl=http://sharing.wishtv.com/sharewlin//photo/2013/05/21/1_20130521044544_640_480.JPG&w=640&h=427&ei=XY1JUsm4FeTF2QXB5oCgBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:63,s:0,i:287&iact=rc&page=3&tbnh=183&tbnw=274&start=61&ndsp=42&tx=64&ty=149)
-
Ok, well apparently I do not know how to post pics on here :bhead but that was supposed to show complete devastation in Moore, Oklahoma earlier this year....If 3 EF5's destroying your city doesn't mean something is wrong with the weather, then what does? :noid
-
You can't use one small event like that. And even though one year doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, keep in mind there were fewer tornado's this year than any other year in recorded history with data beginning in the mid 1950's. I believe there's only been a little over 500 tornadoes this year. But just two year ago in 2011 we had the most active tornado season ever recorded with over 2000 tornadoes. It's hard to use something that inconsistent to "prove" global warming.
-
You can't use one small event like that. And even though one year doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, keep in mind there were fewer tornado's this year than any other year in recorded history with data beginning in the mid 1950's. I believe there's only been a little over 500 tornadoes this year. But just two year ago in 2011 we had the most active tornado season ever recorded with over 2000 tornadoes. It's hard to use something that inconsistent to "prove" global warming.
Small event? :huh I'm talking about total devastation man....Things like the 3 EF5's that have struck Moore in the last 15 years, the one that hit Alabama a couple of years ago, and the EF5 that killed Tim Samaras out by El Reno, Oklahoma with an almost 300mph windspeed, are happening all too often now. I'm not using this as an attempt to "prove" global warming. All I'm saying is something is wrong with the weather....you can't disagree that thing aren't slightly out of whack....
-
Also, I completely believe that things happen in cycles....the current cycle we are in probably happened eons ago...but you cannot convince me that that spraying silver iodide and other chemicals into the atmosphere to squeeze a little more moisture out is a good thing....
-
So now it is not a green house gas, it is acid. True CO2 is acid, but how much of it does you need in order to change the ph of the oceans? It seems like some people want the "CO2" to be the answer, they are just looking for the right question.
Humanity will not be able to reduce its CO2 emission without destroying modern society or killing billions of people. That is true whether man made CO2 has any effect on anything or not.
Co2 has changed the PH of the ocean, another fact.
Modern society won't survive without alternative fuels. Fossil fuel won't last forever. So yes, regardless of the Co2 debate, eventually things will change.
-
Fossil fuels will still be the primary source of energy for the next 50 to 100 years. After that we'll be producing the similar sort of bio-fuels.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12536.html
-
Always synthetic. IIRC, Germany used quite a bit during WWII.
-
Always synthetic. IIRC, Germany used quite a bit during WWII.
Not the same thing. Biofuels use the waste from microbes. The Germans were using coal.
-
It's kind of funny that there has been no measurable warming for the entire period of the debate and the models can't explain it. It's also funny that Hanson's "hockey stick" was produced by the Y2K bug. If anyone pushing climate change actually believed in it they would video conference instead of flying private jets to resorts.
-
Anyone doubting global warming is welcome to download and review NASA's climate records and related data here:
Global surface temperatures - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Clouds - http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/isccpDsets.html
Aerosols - http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/data_sets/
Precipitation - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/precip_cru/
Radiative flux - http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/flux.html
Scattering - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/mmishchenko/
Oceans - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/o18data/
And you can run NASA's climate simulation software on your own PC to play with the various inputs and outputs yourself:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
or use Columbia University's version, which is more user friendly:
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
or if understanding climate science for yourself seems like a lot of work, NASA has kindly made some movies to simplify it for you:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011376/
If you don't believe computer simulations are capable of usefully modelling reality - why are you flying Aces High?
If you believe computer simulations can be useful but that those fraudulent "scientists" at NASA are faking global warming to get more money, then the website you need is here:
http://www.venusproject.org/articles/science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-is-a-hoax.html
-
It's kind of funny that there has been no measurable warming for the entire period of the debate and the models can't explain it. It's also funny that Hanson's "hockey stick" was produced by the Y2K bug. If anyone pushing climate change actually believed in it they would video conference instead of flying private jets to resorts.
We can use satellites to measure the amount of heat that escapes the planet. You should look into those numbers.
-
seems to me a few years have passed without any major hurricanes despite predictions to the contrary. :noid
is the dry air not being estimated correctly? has global warming thrown a curve ball? or is mother nature winding up for a uppercut? :noid
:noid
:rofl
well hurricane sandy was mostly a tropical depression according to your standards. after all it only caused 285 something deaths and 68 billion in damages and that was last year. but hey why worry about the small storms when the really big ones should be coming soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
hey airlines cancelled 15,000 flights around the world.
http://www.livescience.com/24380-hurricane-sandy-status-data.html
it was only a 1000 miles wide.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/10/hurricane_sandy_the_superstorm.html
can you imagine if global warming was actually real?
semp
-
We can use satellites to measure the amount of heat that escapes the planet. You should look into those numbers.
I'm well aware of the hot air on the planet.
-
well hurricane sandy was mostly a tropical depression according to your standards. after all it only caused 285 something deaths and 68 billion in damages and that was last year. but hey why worry about the small storms when the really big ones should be coming soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
hey airlines cancelled 15,000 flights around the world.
http://www.livescience.com/24380-hurricane-sandy-status-data.html
it was only a 1000 miles wide.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2012/10/hurricane_sandy_the_superstorm.html
can you imagine if global warming was actually real?
semp
:rofl
Can you imagine more people more sensors more reporting more politics. The BIG one is coming AHHHHHHHHH! :bolt:
-
We can use satellites to measure the amount of heat that escapes the planet. You should look into those numbers.
The heat escaping is the same amount as heat absorbed if we assume that the earth is in a local thermodynamic equilibrium. Greenhouse effect does not change that, it only changes the wavelengths in which the radiation escapes.
Anyone doubting global warming is welcome to download and review NASA's climate records and related data here:
<snip>
I only looked at the Columbia page and their setup (the NASA one is down due to lack of government funding... this is so sad). They seem to be doing the classic error of assuming a 2D atmosphere - i.e. a uniform atmosphere without a vertical structure. This has been shown to be absolutely critical in order to solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, which IS the greenhouse effect.
-
Fossil fuels will still be the primary source of energy for the next 50 to 100 years. After that we'll be producing the similar sort of bio-fuels.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12536.html
Fossil fuels are used for much more than just energy.
-
A lot of people here don't understand the Carbon Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle), and how, for example, human's breathing is a neutral action, burning fossil fuels is a net positive action, and plants doing their thing is a net negative action. Not until everyone understands that is it even worth bothering to type more than this on this issue.
-
A lot of people here don't understand the Carbon Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle), and how, for example, human's breathing is a neutral action, burning fossil fuels is a net positive action, and plants doing their thing is a net negative action. Not until everyone understands that is it even worth bothering to type more than this on this issue.
Oh ok if we all ride carbon cycles we will save the planet I get it now. :aok
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/silverbackcyclist/cycle%20photos/Johns20CA_LR1.jpg) (http://media.photobucket.com/user/silverbackcyclist/media/cycle%20photos/Johns20CA_LR1.jpg.html)
-
I only looked at the Columbia page and their setup (the NASA one is down due to lack of government funding... this is so sad). They seem to be doing the classic error of assuming a 2D atmosphere - i.e. a uniform atmosphere without a vertical structure. This has been shown to be absolutely critical in order to solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, which IS the greenhouse effect.
I'm pleased you looked at EdgeCM - but how hard did you look? EdgeCM is simplified (it runs on PCs, not supercomputers, after all) but it is a fully 3D model with a fully 3D atmosphere. I'll just quote from page 13 of the user manual.
2.3 The GISS GCM Model II
The heart of EdGCM is the GISS GCM Model II (described in detail in
Hansen et al.), a three-dimensional model which solves numerically
the physical conservation equations for energy, mass, momentum and
moisture, as well as the equation of state. GISS Model II has a horizontal
resolution of 8˚ latitude by 10˚ longitude, nine layers in the atmosphere
extending to 10 mb, and two ground hydrology layers. The model accounts
for both seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations.
Cloud particles, aerosols, and radiatively important gases (e.g., carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides) are explicitly incorporated into the
radiation scheme. Large-scale and convective cloud cover are predicted,
and precipitation is generated whenever supersaturated conditions
occur. Snow depth is based on a balance between snowfall, melting and
sublimation. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are calculated using model derived
surface energy fluxes and specified ocean heat convergences. The
ocean heat convergences vary both seasonally and regionally, but are
otherwise fixed. This is the primary mixed-layer ocean model developed
for use with the GISS GCM (described in detail in Russell et al. and
in appendix A of Hansen et al.)
Certain boundary conditions necessary for simulations (e.g., levels of
various atmospheric gases, solar luminosity) can easily be adjusted for
customized simulations. Other boundary conditions, generally those that
are geography-dependent (e.g., alternate land mass distributions for
paleoclimate simulations; topography; vegetation) are not customizable for
the purposes of most EdGCM users.
Where did you get the idea it was 2D and unlayered?
Since NASA's website is down, you can also view their movie here http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/09/watch-climate-get-terribly-weird-nasa-simulation/7054/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/09/watch-climate-get-terribly-weird-nasa-simulation/7054/)
Now please don't think I'm some granola-head save-the-planet hippie. Not at all. I live in Canada. We make billions selling tar sands oil, and anything to warm up the nation is most welcome. Rev those Humvees boys! Daddy needs a new pool, and a couple more months of summer!
-
Small event? :huh I'm talking about total devastation man....Things like the 3 EF5's that have struck Moore in the last 15 years, the one that hit Alabama a couple of years ago, and the EF5 that killed Tim Samaras out by El Reno, Oklahoma with an almost 300mph windspeed, are happening all too often now. I'm not using this as an attempt to "prove" global warming. All I'm saying is something is wrong with the weather....you can't disagree that thing aren't slightly out of whack....
In the grand scheme of things, a tornado is a very, very small weather event. Even the El Reno tornado. It only affected a few square miles of the ENTIRE Earth. While the El Reno tornado was a freak of nature, these tornadoes are not any more common now than they were 50 years ago. I was chasing that day and it was just one of those days that every single ingredient for tornado formation came together perfectly. Insane instability, insane wind shear, just the right amount of cap, tons of gulf moisture, and a very turbulent outflow boundary stalled out over the entire OKC metro. It all came together in just the right way that day. Population has grown, more farmland is now city, and technology has improved so much it's hard to even imagine what the weather technology was 50 years ago. Few, if any, tornadoes go undetected now. If you look at the number of tornado reports per year in the 1950's and 60's and compare them to now, one would be led to believe we experience around 10X more tornadoes per year now. However, this is very wrong for the reason's stated in the last sentence.
Also between the 2007 Greensburg, KS EF5 tornado and 2011 Joplin EF5 tornado there were exactly 0 EF5 tornadoes. A few strong tornadoes, and even one freak of nature, do not = global warming.
-
A few strong tornadoes, and even one freak of nature, do not = global warming.
No - they don't. The overall increase in average surface temperature around the globe, as both historically recorded by NASA instruments and reasonably predicted by NASA simulations = global warming.
That link again is...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/09/watch-climate-get-terribly-weird-nasa-simulation/7054/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/09/watch-climate-get-terribly-weird-nasa-simulation/7054/)
-
No - they don't. The overall increase in average surface temperature around the globe, as both historically recorded by NASA instruments and reasonably predicted by NASA simulations = global warming.
That link again is...
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/09/watch-climate-get-terribly-weird-nasa-simulation/7054/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/09/watch-climate-get-terribly-weird-nasa-simulation/7054/)
Lol You can't believe any data that comes from the IPCC. The only thing thing they care about is lining their pockets.
-
1) IPCC doesn't collect data, it doesn't even process data. It produces reports which summarize the findings of the national research bodies of participating nations.
2) This particular research comes from NASA.
3) If you think NASA is faking its results on global warming to get money, then the link you need is...
http://www.venusproject.org/articles/science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-is-a-hoax.html (http://www.venusproject.org/articles/science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-is-a-hoax.html)
-
I'm not using this as an attempt to "prove" global warming. All I'm saying is something is wrong with the weather....you can't disagree that thing aren't slightly out of whack....
I'm not talking about global warming....I believe that the fear mongering of "global warming" is being used to make money....If the planet is heating up so be it...it has happened countless times in the life cycle of the planet...always followed by a period of global cooling. Do I think that humans might be the cause of it?...Don't really know or care, its not like my family and I can do anything to stop it....What I am talking about is weather modification (there I'll come out and say it, let me put my tinfoil hat on :noid ) I say this because you cannot convince me otherwise that the deliberate spraying of chemicals into the atmosphere is a good thing....But a person can come up with countless articles and government research documents that plainly state that they are "playing" with our weather. If you want links I'll put them up tomorrow...one is from the Air Force.
-
The Dust Bowl is a good example of man altering the weather and climate. Also, the heat dome put off by citys constantly changes the weather around them. As I watch radar, I often see thunderstorms flare over highways.
:noid
-
1) IPCC doesn't collect data, it doesn't even process data. It produces reports which summarize the findings of the national research bodies of participating nations.
2) This particular research comes from NASA.
3) If you think NASA is faking its results on global warming to get money, then the link you need is...
http://www.venusproject.org/articles/science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-is-a-hoax.html (http://www.venusproject.org/articles/science-proves-that-nasa-faked-the-moon-landings-moon-landing-is-a-hoax.html)
By data I was referring to their reports.. The earth has warmed .05C during the time frame they said it was going to warm .20-.25C. That's significantly less and basically 0. Several reports actually claim global cooling now and some of the "experts" are even saying we're now entering a period of cooling. So who do you believe? Why not just let the earth do its natural thing and we stop spending so much money "saving" something we have no control or affect on that's not even changing in the first place?
-
The heat escaping is the same amount as heat absorbed if we assume that the earth is in a local thermodynamic equilibrium. Greenhouse effect does not change that, it only changes the wavelengths in which the radiation escapes.
I only looked at the Columbia page and their setup (the NASA one is down due to lack of government funding... this is so sad). They seem to be doing the classic error of assuming a 2D atmosphere - i.e. a uniform atmosphere without a vertical structure. This has been shown to be absolutely critical in order to solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, which IS the greenhouse effect.
What happens when you change the way infrared radiation escapes the planet?
-
By data I was referring to their reports.. The earth has warmed .05C during the time frame they said it was going to warm .20-.25C. That's significantly less and basically 0. Several reports actually claim global cooling now and some of the "experts" are even saying we're now entering a period of cooling. So who do you believe? Why not just let the earth do its natural thing and we stop spending so much money "saving" something we have no control or affect on that's not even changing in the first place?
OK - when you say "data" you mean "reports". Those aren't really the same thing, so I have to ask - when you say "IPCC" do you mean "NASA"? Because I am talking about NASA's data, NASA's research, and NASA's findings, all of which show that global warming is continuing and accelerating. Don't take my word for it, click the links I gave you and see for yourself.
However, maybe when you said IPCC you meant IPCC, so let's talk about the IPCC reports. The most recent came out Sept 27, and you can read it for yourself here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UkuJEkBQ4Yk (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UkuJEkBQ4Yk)
I must have missed the parts that talked about cooling, or less warming than anticipated, or humans having nothing to do with the process. Please feel free to show me the relevant quotations. In the meantime, I'll show you the key points from the executive summary which have led me astray.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have
increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have
increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily
from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The
largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system.
But again, don't take me for some treehugger who's trying to save the planet. Here in Toronto it's October 1st, the leaves have barely started to turn and I've been in shorts all week. :banana:
-
But again, don't take me for some treehugger who's trying to save the planet. Here in Toronto it's October 1st, the leaves have barely started to turn and I've been in shorts all week. :banana:
Sounds like we're onto something.
-
I'm pleased you looked at EdgeCM - but how hard did you look? EdgeCM is simplified (it runs on PCs, not supercomputers, after all) but it is a fully 3D model with a fully 3D atmosphere. I'll just quote from page 13 of the user manual.
...<snip>...
Now please don't think I'm some granola-head save-the-planet hippie. Not at all. I live in Canada. We make billions selling tar sands oil, and anything to warm up the nation is most welcome. Rev those Humvees boys! Daddy needs a new pool, and a couple more months of summer!
Thanks for the correction. I only looked at the setup options and initial atmospheric conditions were rather simple. I clearly should RTFM :).
I never said you were a hippie ("granola-head", I liked that :) ). I consider myself more greenie than most and most of the scientists that I know who are opposed to the idea of CO2 as the main cause of climate change are even greener than I am. At least one of them says that his motivation to check the atmospheric calculations was that he felt that if CO2 was not clearly the culprit, humanity is spending way too much resources on fighting a negligible problem (reducing CO2) instead of fighting real pollution and at the same time damaging science. He by the way strongly supports reducing CO2 emission, but it has nothing to do with the climate.
A few years ago, when this was a hotter topic (pun intended...) I got to hear a few seminar both by people who were blaming CO2 and the opposition. I was more convinced by the criticism of the opposition to the physics implemented in the models used at the time. I don't know how much the improved. These were seminar for physicists explaining much of the nitty gritty of the calculations. Both sides were honest about the uncertainties in their calculations and arguments as it should be in a scientific discussion.
However, the opposition was painting a worrying picture about the cynical use political and ideological groups are doing with the results. They were personally threatened and journal editors were hesitant in publishing their papers. Half baked results that include large uncertainties intended for scientists to debate about are being plucked and published in the general media as facts, or used by politicians to drive their own agendas. The CO2 opposition (and myself I must admit) are worried about this practice and the consequences of investing billions, hampering progress and changing the way of life of whole nations on a "what if" that is instead labeled as "science says". Humanity has bigger problems to solve that can be solved and science is likely to take a big hit in the confidence and support of the general public if/when one of two things happen: 1) CO2 is found not to be the cause, or 2) inspite of all the efforts and money, climate continues to go astray because we will not be able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by any significant amount. Science in the western world depends on public support and confidence. We already see people who claim "bahh you can't believe these scientists" and extrapolate this to whole of science.
-
@bozon
There are always at least a few scientists who genuinely hold alternative positions on any developing scientific field. When that field becomes important for whatever reason the media inevitably uses them to make some kind of controversy to sell stories. Politicians then inevitably misrepresent it for political gain, corporations inevitably come down on the side that will make them money, and various interests just back whatever aligns with their interest.
None of this changes the underlying facts - although it does produce a lot of "facts" (distorted, misunderstood, and outright fabricated) which then get bounced around the mediasphere by all of the above, none of whom have any real understanding of what they're talking about.
Once upon a time learning the real facts took a lot of effort, so there was little the average person could do in the face of all this motivated distortion. However in the age of the internet the baseline facts are a click away. What astounds me is how many people choose to loudly demonstrate their ignorance rather than risk having to change a pre-formed opinion.
Anyway :salute bozon, for proving that educated debate remains possible on such a politicized issue. I think you'll enjoy putting an hour or two into EdgeCM, and I look forward to hearing your findings. Myself, I'm off to enjoy an hour or two of gorgeous October weather.
-
plenty of weather doom today even without hurricanes; tornadoes in SD, NE, IA and snow behind the cold front; and tropical storm in south;
http://www.weather.gov/
-
OK - when you say "data" you mean "reports". Those aren't really the same thing, so I have to ask - when you say "IPCC" do you mean "NASA"? Because I am talking about NASA's data, NASA's research, and NASA's findings, all of which show that global warming is continuing and accelerating. Don't take my word for it, click the links I gave you and see for yourself.
However, maybe when you said IPCC you meant IPCC, so let's talk about the IPCC reports. The most recent came out Sept 27, and you can read it for yourself here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UkuJEkBQ4Yk (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UkuJEkBQ4Yk)
I must have missed the parts that talked about cooling, or less warming than anticipated, or humans having nothing to do with the process. Please feel free to show me the relevant quotations. In the meantime, I'll show you the key points from the executive summary which have led me astray.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have
increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have
increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily
from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted
anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The
largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system.
But again, don't take me for some treehugger who's trying to save the planet. Here in Toronto it's October 1st, the leaves have barely started to turn and I've been in shorts all week. :banana:
I ain't reading all that... If you want to be stupid and worry your whole life about something that's not happening then so be it.
-
plenty of weather doom today even without hurricanes; tornadoes in SD, NE, IA and snow behind the cold front; and tropical storm in south;
http://www.weather.gov/
And its all coming together over Toronto. :noid
-
I ain't reading all that... If you want to be stupid and worry your whole life about something that's not happening then so be it.
What a great answer! I don't think I could have summed up this debate better myself. In fact, I'm sure I couldn't have. :aok
And its all coming together over Toronto. :noid
We had another record high on Thursday. I'm lovin' it! :cool:
-
seems to me a few years have passed without any major hurricanes despite predictions to the contrary. :noid
is the dry air not being estimated correctly? has global warming thrown a curve ball? or is mother nature winding up for a uppercut? :noid
:noid
:rofl
sandy
irene
-
I was born and raised on the coast of Mississippi. In a small city called Biloxi. The city had a lot of casinos, man-made beach, and a lot of tourist attractions. When I was 10, we were hit by Hurricane Katrina. Every since, I just pray we don't get hit by any hurricanes. I hate hurricanes, a lot.
Never thought I would play AH again after the hurricane hit, it hit a couple years after I started playing. :joystick:
:pray
-
What a great answer! I don't think I could have summed up this debate better myself. In fact, I'm sure I couldn't have. :aok
We had another record high on Thursday. I'm lovin' it! :cool:
The Debate was to be about hurricanes and why the lack of major hurricanes. NO irene and sandy were NOT major hurricanes. I know 1000 mile storm, 10' storm surge (at high tide), and hundreds dead. Thousand mile storms happen often. Watch up in alaska. A 950 low is due in the gulf of alaska and yes it will be a thousand miles wide.
Also, the Current weather "doom" ghi spoke of "will come together over toronto" Is my prediction that the low over the plains with the strong pull of cool air will draw up the tropical storm in the gulf creating another "Thousand mile storm" centered over Toronto. Time will tell, stay tuned. :)
p.s. buy some land in canada, good weather on the way, plus no ocean flooding, so long as the gulf keeps pumping moisture it wont turn back into the desert it once was. This being before the the mile thick sheet of ice that came down and carved the earth away.
-
Well, hurricanes are a function of climate, so it's hard to disentangle a change in a function of climate from the question of climate change.
The source below gives some attribution to the dip in the jet stream over the east coast of north america, which has steered major storms away from continental landfall.
http://www.livescience.com/39619-major-hurricane-landfall-drought.html
They attribute this to luck, which is fair enough. However jet stream energization, which facilitates such dips, is itself a function of global warming.
-
I was born and raised on the coast of Mississippi. In a small city called Biloxi. The city had a lot of casinos, man-made beach, and a lot of tourist attractions. When I was 10, we were hit by Hurricane Katrina. Every since, I just pray we don't get hit by any hurricanes. I hate hurricanes, a lot.
Never thought I would play AH again after the hurricane hit, it hit a couple years after I started playing. :joystick:
:pray
Guess ya didn't get the memo but Katrina hit New Orleans. The media had very little to say about the MS gulf coast.
-
global warming, cooling climate change ...whatever......
The main driver of our weather sits 93,000,000 miles over our head
-
seems to me a few years have passed without any major hurricanes despite predictions to the contrary. :noid
is the dry air not being estimated correctly? has global warming thrown a curve ball? or is mother nature winding up for a uppercut? :noid
:noid
:rofl
Is the sky blue on your home planet? :headscratch:
"Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as "Superstorm Sandy") was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, as well as the second-costliest hurricane in United States history...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy)
-
Guess ya didn't get the memo but Katrina hit New Orleans. The media had very little to say about the MS gulf coast.
wrong
-
It was sarcasm. Gulf coast resident my self and was raised in GulfPort 2 blocks from the coast. Had 5' of water in a rental property that was 26' above sea level.
Oh and Bino while that's true It was a very small storm compared to what the southern states deal with.
-
It was sarcasm. Gulf coast resident my self and was raised in GulfPort 2 blocks from the coast. Had 5' of water in a rental property that was 26' above sea level.
Oh and Bino while that's true It was a very small storm compared to what the southern states deal with.
Sorry surfinn - understand now, funny because my life is one constant sarcasm and I didn't see yours... :)
Wife and I have been to New Orleans and gulf coast miss. 3 times now helping rebuild some homes.. her more than me, for some reason I need to see how the blackjack tables have fared while i have been away ..... my theory has been that some of that casino losses will trickle into the local economy, at least that is my excuse.. :)
-
After Katrina the first thing I did was help my parents strip their house out, which had 6' of water in it. I stayed in the area for 6 months doing home inspections for FEMA claims. The Flood of volunteers to the area that were there simply to help people get started again was incredible. I saw several cases where these volunteer groups would strip peoples homes for them and then be back later to help start the rebuilding process. I cant express how greatfull people on the coast were for this assistance and how they still talk about it to this day. A huge :salute to you and your wife sir
-
It was sarcasm. Gulf coast resident my self and was raised in GulfPort 2 blocks from the coast. Had 5' of water in a rental property that was 26' above sea level.
Oh and Bino while that's true It was a very small storm compared to what the southern states deal with.
You don't say... One fit IN the Gulph, the other, well...
Katrina
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/katrina-08-28-2005_zps93f15d19.jpg) (http://s239.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/media/katrina-08-28-2005_zps93f15d19.jpg.html)
Sandy
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/hurricane_sandy_zps9bb440bb.jpg) (http://s239.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/media/hurricane_sandy_zps9bb440bb.jpg.html)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/HurricaneSandy660_zpsda41a8a9.jpg) (http://s239.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/media/HurricaneSandy660_zpsda41a8a9.jpg.html)
-
The Debate was to be about hurricanes and why the lack of major hurricanes. NO irene and sandy were NOT major hurricanes. I know 1000 mile storm, 10' storm surge (at high tide), and hundreds dead. Thousand mile storms happen often. Watch up in alaska. A 950 low is due in the gulf of alaska and yes it will be a thousand miles wide.
Also, the Current weather "doom" ghi spoke of "will come together over toronto" Is my prediction that the low over the plains with the strong pull of cool air will draw up the tropical storm in the gulf creating another "Thousand mile storm" centered over Toronto. Time will tell, stay tuned. :)
p.s. buy some land in canada, good weather on the way, plus no ocean flooding, so long as the gulf keeps pumping moisture it wont turn back into the desert it once was. This being before the the mile thick sheet of ice that came down and carved the earth away.
what do you consider a major hurricane. can you give us an example?
semp
-
what do you consider a major hurricane. can you give us an example?
semp
"Historic storms[edit]
A violent storm during the Crimean War on November 14, 1854, wrecked 30 vessels, and sparked initial investigations into meteorology and forecasting in Europe. In the United States, the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 led to Oregon's lowest measured pressure of 965.5 hPa (28.51 inHg), violent winds, and US$170 million in damage (1964 dollars).[43] A rapidly strengthening storm struck Vancouver Island on October 11, 1984, and inspired the development of moored buoys off the western coast of Canada.[44] The "Wahine storm" was an extratropical cyclone that struck Wellington, New Zealand on April 10, 1968, so named after causing the inter-island ferry TEV Wahine to strike a reef and founder at the entrance to Wellington Harbour, resulting in 53 deaths. The Braer Storm of January 1993 was the strongest extratropical cyclone known to occur across the northern Atlantic ocean, with a central pressure of 914 millibars (27.0 inHg).[45] In 2012, Hurricane Sandy transitioned to a post-tropical cyclone on the night of October 29; a few minutes later it made landfall on the New Jersey coast as an extratropical storm with winds similar to a Category 1 hurricane and a wind field of over 1,150 miles (1,850 km).
In the Southern Hemisphere, a violent extratropical storm hit Uruguay on August 2324, 2005, killing 10 people.[46] The system's winds exceeded 100 mph (160 km/h) while Montevideo, the country's capital with 1.5 million inhabitants, was affected by tropical storm-force winds for over 12 hours and by hurricane-force winds for nearly four hours.[47] Peak gusts were registered at Carrasco International Airport as 107 mph (172 km/h) and at the Harbour of Montevideo as 116 mph (187 km/h). The lowest reported pressure was 991.7 hPa (29.28 inHg). Extratropical cyclones are common in this part of the globe during fall, winter and spring months. The winds usually peak to 80110 km/h (5068 mph), but winds of 116 mph (187 km/h) are very uncommon.[47]"
-wiki
As for hurricanes...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg/800px-Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg)
Due to the Federal Government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. However, because the information this site provides is necessary to protect life and property, it will be updated and maintained during the Federal Government shutdown.
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climatology | Names | Wind Scale | Extremes | Models | Breakpoints
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed. This scale estimates potential property damage. Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes because of their potential for significant loss of life and damage. Category 1 and 2 storms are still dangerous, however, and require preventative measures. In the western North Pacific, the term "super typhoon" is used for tropical cyclones with sustained winds exceeding 150 mph.
Category Sustained Winds Types of Damage Due to Hurricane Winds
1 74-95 mph
64-82 kt
119-153 km/h Very dangerous winds will produce some damage: Well-constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.
2 96-110 mph
83-95 kt
154-177 km/h Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage: Well-constructed frame homes could sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.
3
(major) 111-129 mph
96-112 kt
178-208 km/h Devastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.
4
(major) 130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.
5
(major) 157 mph or higher
137 kt or higher
252 km/h or higher Catastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.
Conceptual animation illustrates the wind damage associated with increasing hurricane intensity - courtesy of The COMET Program
More Information
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
Funny joke i heard today. "do you guys know the difference between a hurricane and a tornado? no you dont! listen. A hurricane you watch on tv for a week and dont leave and you die. A tornado you sitting at home cooking meth and BAM your trailer get flipped over."
-
"Historic storms[edit]
A violent storm during the Crimean War on November 14, 1854, wrecked 30 vessels, and sparked initial investigations into meteorology and forecasting in Europe. In the United States, the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 led to Oregon's lowest measured pressure of 965.5 hPa (28.51 inHg), violent winds, and US$170 million in damage (1964 dollars).[43] A rapidly strengthening storm struck Vancouver Island on October 11, 1984, and inspired the development of moored buoys off the western coast of Canada.[44] The "Wahine storm" was an extratropical cyclone that struck Wellington, New Zealand on April 10, 1968, so named after causing the inter-island ferry TEV Wahine to strike a reef and founder at the entrance to Wellington Harbour, resulting in 53 deaths. The Braer Storm of January 1993 was the strongest extratropical cyclone known to occur across the northern Atlantic ocean, with a central pressure of 914 millibars (27.0 inHg).[45] In 2012, Hurricane Sandy transitioned to a post-tropical cyclone on the night of October 29; a few minutes later it made landfall on the New Jersey coast as an extratropical storm with winds similar to a Category 1 hurricane and a wind field of over 1,150 miles (1,850 km).
In the Southern Hemisphere, a violent extratropical storm hit Uruguay on August 2324, 2005, killing 10 people.[46] The system's winds exceeded 100 mph (160 km/h) while Montevideo, the country's capital with 1.5 million inhabitants, was affected by tropical storm-force winds for over 12 hours and by hurricane-force winds for nearly four hours.[47] Peak gusts were registered at Carrasco International Airport as 107 mph (172 km/h) and at the Harbour of Montevideo as 116 mph (187 km/h). The lowest reported pressure was 991.7 hPa (29.28 inHg). Extratropical cyclones are common in this part of the globe during fall, winter and spring months. The winds usually peak to 80110 km/h (5068 mph), but winds of 116 mph (187 km/h) are very uncommon.[47]"
-wiki
As for hurricanes...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg/800px-Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg)
Due to the Federal Government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. However, because the information this site provides is necessary to protect life and property, it will be updated and maintained during the Federal Government shutdown.
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climatology | Names | Wind Scale | Extremes | Models | Breakpoints
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed. This scale estimates potential property damage. Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes because of their potential for significant loss of life and damage. Category 1 and 2 storms are still dangerous, however, and require preventative measures. In the western North Pacific, the term "super typhoon" is used for tropical cyclones with sustained winds exceeding 150 mph.
Category Sustained Winds Types of Damage Due to Hurricane Winds
1 74-95 mph
64-82 kt
119-153 km/h Very dangerous winds will produce some damage: Well-constructed frame homes could have damage to roof, shingles, vinyl siding and gutters. Large branches of trees will snap and shallowly rooted trees may be toppled. Extensive damage to power lines and poles likely will result in power outages that could last a few to several days.
2 96-110 mph
83-95 kt
154-177 km/h Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage: Well-constructed frame homes could sustain major roof and siding damage. Many shallowly rooted trees will be snapped or uprooted and block numerous roads. Near-total power loss is expected with outages that could last from several days to weeks.
3
(major) 111-129 mph
96-112 kt
178-208 km/h Devastating damage will occur: Well-built framed homes may incur major damage or removal of roof decking and gable ends. Many trees will be snapped or uprooted, blocking numerous roads. Electricity and water will be unavailable for several days to weeks after the storm passes.
4
(major) 130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.
5
(major) 157 mph or higher
137 kt or higher
252 km/h or higher Catastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.
Conceptual animation illustrates the wind damage associated with increasing hurricane intensity - courtesy of The COMET Program
More Information
- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php
Funny joke i heard today. "do you guys know the difference between a hurricane and a tornado? no you dont! listen. A hurricane you watch on tv for a week and dont leave and you die. A tornado you sitting at home cooking meth and BAM your trailer get flipped over."
in other words the 68 billion of damages by sandy and the 280+ deaths were just a mild inconvenience according to you? good thing only 70% of jamaican resident went without electricity. and the 200,000 left homeless in Haiti as nothing. 15,000 homes destroyed in puerto rico. and in the usa it only affected 24 states causing 65 billion in damages. but hey. can you imagine if this actually had been a real hurricane?
semp
-
Obviously you did your homework. So, you are aware sandy was a category 3 hurricane in the caribbean? thats sustained wind speeds nearly twice what was from the storm in new england.
Also, by noaas definition "Major" is a term used when there is potential for significant loss of life and damage. hmmmm. Major Storm Sandy....aaahh super storm sandy. now i get it.
-
We had a tornado warned storm coming towards us earlier this year about midnight...I was outside watching taking video and the wife was watching the never ending tornado coverage on the tv....I came back in the house to check tv and looked in our storm shelter and my 6 year old daughter was sitting in there with a huge pile of toys from her room around her...I said "baby what are you doing with all that stuff?"...she replied "I don't want my toys to be blowed away."...I looked a little closer, she had her school backpack, even though it was june, clothes, food, and even the dogs, lol....I was so proud my little baby prepper was ready for our trailer to be blown away :)
-
Obviously you did your homework. So, you are aware sandy was a category 3 hurricane in the caribbean? thats sustained wind speeds nearly twice what was from the storm in new england.
Also, by noaas definition "Major" is a term used when there is potential for significant loss of life and damage. hmmmm. Major Storm Sandy....aaahh super storm sandy. now i get it.
Well, Sandy IS the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, AND it is holds the #2 spot cost-wise at ~ $68 Billion. It also claimed 268 lives. I would consider that fairly significant and so would the families of those folks.
It was bad enough to close the NYSE, which is a feat, in and of, itself. First time it has closed since 9/11/01.
-
Obviously you did your homework. So, you are aware sandy was a category 3 hurricane in the caribbean? thats sustained wind speeds nearly twice what was from the storm in new england.
Also, by noaas definition "Major" is a term used when there is potential for significant loss of life and damage. hmmmm. Major Storm Sandy....aaahh super storm sandy. now i get it.
you want super somewhere you got it. then of course according to you. this is just a normal storm.
http://news.yahoo.com/india-red-alert-super-cyclone-nears-east-coast-041317879--finance.html
semp
-
now thats scary. 160 sustained 195 gusts holy chit!
p.s. semp, take this. :bolt:
-
check out the latest gfs model of asia.
http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/NCOMAGWEB/appcontroller/Imageanis.php
Not only the super typhoon in the bay of bengal (this storm runs into the himalayas. lot of rain up there after the devastation on the coast.) but another very large typhoon forms south of japan and skirts the east coast of japan. :eek:
edit: link does not run. click back twice then select asia and gfs then 850_temp_mslp_precip and loop all.
-
A quick and easy breakdown.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html
-
CO2 makes my beer fizzy...
Please, lets keep it around for awhile... :pray
-
I wish they would get away from calling hurricanes/storms "super" and "major". It's only purpose is to give people some way of feeling special as in they are "unique". Sandy sucked for the NE and sucked an awful lot for the Carribean as well. Andrew was massively devastating as well, but it happened in 1992, so add 20 years of cost and imagine how expensive it would be in today's dollars.
We already have terms for them, let's stick with it.
-
Must be the same folks saying global warming is man made.
-
I wish they would get away from calling hurricanes/storms "super" and "major". It's only purpose is to give people some way of feeling special as in they are "unique". Sandy sucked for the NE and sucked an awful lot for the Carribean as well. Andrew was massively devastating as well, but it happened in 1992, so add 20 years of cost and imagine how expensive it would be in today's dollars.
We already have terms for them, let's stick with it.
yup sandy was so last year, I mean it was 68 billion dollars but that was way back then when 68 billion dollars was a lot of money.
semp
-
I wish they would get away from calling hurricanes/storms "super" and "major". It's only purpose is to give people some way of feeling special as in they are "unique". Sandy sucked for the NE and sucked an awful lot for the Carribean as well. Andrew was massively devastating as well, but it happened in 1992, so add 20 years of cost and imagine how expensive it would be in today's dollars.
We already have terms for them, let's stick with it.
According to NOAA the term "Major" storms has nothing to do with monetary damage, just the Saffir-Simpson Scale.
Named Storms = Tropical Storms, Hurricanes and Subtropical Storms
Hurricanes = Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale 1 to 5
Major Hurricanes = Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale 3, 4, or 5
It is right there at the bottom of the page of my previous link.
-
I wish they would get away from calling hurricanes/storms "super" and "major". It's only purpose is to give people some way of feeling special as in they are "unique". Sandy sucked for the NE and sucked an awful lot for the Carribean as well. Andrew was massively devastating as well, but it happened in 1992, so add 20 years of cost and imagine how expensive it would be in today's dollars.
We already have terms for them, let's stick with it.
I think the "Superstorm" moniker, for Sandy at least had to do with the fact that it was more than just a normal hurricane. It was a hurricane that should have blown out to sea, but instead, it grabbed some more fuel from the Atlantic Ocean, built-up steam and was blown back inland by a crazy jet-stream.
Not saying I totally disagree with you, just that I can see some of the reasoning behind it.
-
There only seems to be one real criterion for whether or not a hurricane is major or significant, or whether it actually happened at all, and that is whether or not it personally affected NatCigg. Sandy obviously does not fit into that category.
Even mundane rainstorms are more severe, the only reason Sandy killed almost 300 people is because North Easterners are pansies.
-
not really blown back inland. The system was blocked by high pressure and drawn into a arctic front. :ahand
It has been said by some the unusually strong blocking pattern off the east coast was made worse by global warming. Tho this is an educated guess because the science is so new.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/why-did-hurricane-sandy-take-such-an-unusual-track-into-new-jersey
Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog
Why did Hurricane Sandy take such an unusual track into New Jersey?
Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 4:33 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
+64
We're used to seeing hurricane-battered beaches and flooded cities in Florida, North Carolina, and the Gulf Coast. But to see these images from the Jersey Shore and New York City in the wake of Hurricane Sandy is a shocking experience. New Jersey only rarely gets hit by hurricanes because it lies in a portion of the coast that doesn't stick out much, and is too far north. How did this happen? How was a hurricane able to move from southeast to northwest at landfall, so far north, and so late in hurricane season? We expect hurricanes to move from east to west in the tropics, where the prevailing trade winds blow that direction. But the prevailing wind direction reverses at mid-latitudes, flowing predominately west-to-east, due to the spin of the Earth. Hurricanes that penetrate to about Florida's latitude usually get caught up in these westerly winds, and are whisked northeastwards, out to sea. However, the jet stream, that powerful band of upper-atmosphere west-to-east flowing air, has many dips and bulges. These troughs of low pressure and ridges of high pressure allow winds at mid-latitudes to flow more to the north or to the south. Every so often, a trough in the jet stream bends back on itself when encountering a ridge of high pressure stuck in place ahead of it. These "negatively tilted" troughs have winds that flow from southeast to northwest. It is this sort of negatively tilted trough that sucked in Sandy and allowed the hurricane to take such an unusual path into New Jersey.
(http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2012/sandy_acy_640.jpg)
Figure 1. Inlet section of Atlantic City, N.J., after Hurricane Sandy. Image credit: 6 ABC Action News.
The 1903 Vagabond Hurricane
The only other hurricane to hit New Jersey since 1851 besides Sandy was the 1903 Category 1 Vagabond Hurricane. According to Wikipedia, the Vagabond Hurricane caused heavy damage along the New Jersey coast ($180 million in 2006 dollars.) The hurricane killed 57 people, and endangered the life of President Theodore Roosevelt, who was sailing on a yacht near Long Island, NY, when the hurricane hit. However, the Vagabond Hurricane hit in September, when the jet stream is typically weaker and farther to the north. It is quite extraordinary that Sandy was able to hit New Jersey in late October, when the jet stream is typically stronger and farther south, making recurvature to the northeast much more likely than in September.
(http://www.wunderground.com/data/dhc_archive_charts/at_1903_charts_zoom/at190304.gif)
Figure 2. The path of the 1903 Vagabond Hurricane, the only other hurricane to hit New Jersey since 1851.
The blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey
A strong ridge of high pressure parked itself over Greenland beginning on October 20, creating a "blocking ridge" that prevented the normal west-to-east flow of winds over Eastern North America. Think of the blocking ridge like a big truck parked over Greenland. Storms approaching from the west (like the fall low pressure system that moved across the U.S. from California to Pennsylvania last week) or from the south (Hurricane Sandy) were blocked from heading to the northeast. Caught in the equivalent of an atmospheric traffic jam, the two storms collided over the Northeast U.S., combined into one, and are now waiting for the truck parked over Greenland to move. The strength of the blocking ridge, as measured by the strength of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), was quite high--about two standard deviations from average, something that occurs approximately 5% of the time. When the NAO is in a strong negative phase, we tend to have blocking ridges over Greenland.
(http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2012/sandy_jet.png)
Figure 3. Jet stream winds at a pressure of 300 mb on October 29, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy approached the coast of New Jersey. Note that the wind direction over New Jersey (black arrows) was from the southeast, due to a negatively tilted trough of low pressure over the Eastern U.S. caused by a strong blocking ridge of high pressure over Greenland. Image credit: NOAA/ESRL.
Arctic sea ice loss can cause blocking ridges
Blocking ridges occur naturally, but are uncommon over Greenland this time of year. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, blocking near the longitude of Greenland (50°W) only occurs about 2% of the time in the fall. These odds rise to about 6% in winter and spring. As I discussed in an April post, Arctic sea ice loss tied to unusual jet stream patterns, three studies published in the past year have found that the jet stream has been getting stuck in unusually strong blocking patterns in recent years. These studies found that the recent record decline in Arctic sea ice could be responsible, since this heats up the pole, altering the Equator-to-pole temperature difference, forcing the jet stream to slow down, meander, and get stuck in large loops. The 2012 Arctic sea ice melt season was extreme, with sea ice extent hitting a record lows. Could sea ice loss have contributed to the blocking ridge that steered Sandy into New Jersey? It is possible, but we will need to much more research on the subject before we make such a link, as the studies of sea ice loss on jet stream patterns are so new. The author of one of the new studies, Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers, had this say in a recent post by Andy Revkin in his Dot Earth blog: "While its impossible to say how this scenario might have unfolded if sea-ice had been as extensive as it was in the 1980s, the situation at hand is completely consistent with what Id expect to see happen more often as a result of unabated warming and especially the amplification of that warming in the Arctic."
Jeff Masters
-
"the only reason Sandy killed almost 300 people is because North Easterners are pansies."
and image one above!
-
"the only reason Sandy killed almost 300 people is because North Easterners are pansies."
and image one above!
I think the major reason is that some people stayed when the Governor said "If you are at the shore, GET OUT, there is a very large storm coming"
-
I think the major reason is that some people stayed when the Governor said "If you are at the shore, GET OUT, there is a very large storm coming"
I remember some horror stories from perfectly sane people that had to swim from their homes in the middle of the night. :O
Personaly, Im scared to swim in the ocean on a nice sunny day. :uhoh
-
I remember some horror stories from perfectly sane people that had to swim from their homes in the middle of the night. :O
Personaly, Im scared to swim in the ocean on a nice sunny day. :uhoh
The Governor was fairly clear about his instructions, even though he was wearing sweatpants.
-
I'm of the opinion that Sandy was poetic justice for that crap show, Jerzy Shore.
Although I would have been satisfied with a series of improbably fierce and ludicrously fast-spreading fires gutting the north east.
-
I'm of the opinion that Sandy was poetic justice for that crap show, Jerzy Shore.
Although I would have been satisfied with a series of improbably fierce and ludicrously fast-spreading fires gutting the north east.
I guess that is adequate justice for a bunch of spoiled, wanna-be Italians that aren't really from Jersey to begin with...
Homes destroyed and lives lost. Perfect trade for a crappy TV show any day... :rolleyes:
-
I hope to god you didn't take me seriously there....
Anyway, I do think it came largely as a result of stupidity. Build your house right on the shore, and stay when a hurricane is coming.
Now this may sound heartless, but if you're that stupid... Hell, you would have found a way to die in a kiddie pool.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-07/philippines-braces-for-haiyan-seen-as-2013-s-strongest-typhoon.html
Big storm here. Could be the strongest to ever hit land. :uhoh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0v6Gol83F0
190 mph sustained, 235 gusts, :O
(http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2013/650x366_11072034_haiyan-sat.jpg)
-
Philippines has high population density, poorly built homes/shelters, i'm afraid many people are going to die
-
Winds just reported to be 195 sustained. :(
-
That thing is a beast, and your right lots of lifes will be lost. Damn sad
-
Not sure how thats funny :headscratch:
Yeah right about that. Sandy people are still suffering, waiting on insurance to pay out. (lucky ones).
Ones without flood insurance pretty much SOL.
Still areas where houses are just as they were in the days after Sandy.
:cheers: Oz