is this The Big One? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-19-2005, 09:57 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:43 AM
is this The Big One?

[Q]Wilma Now Most Intense Atlantic Storm Ever
Oct 19 8:53 AM US/Eastern
By FREDDY CUEVAS
Associated Press Writer

SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras

Gathering strength at a fierce pace, Hurricane Wilma swirled into the most intense Atlantic storm ever recorded Wednesday, a Category 5 monster packing 175 mph wind that forecasters warned was "extremely dangerous."

Wilma was dumping rain on Central America and Mexico. A hurricane watch was in effect for the east coast of Mexico's Yucatan peninsula, parts of Cuba and the Cayman Islands, and forecasters warned of a "significant threat" to Florida by the weekend.

"All interests in the Florida Keys and the Florida peninsula should closely monitor the progress of extremely dangerous Hurricane Wilma," the National Hurricane Center in Miami said.

Wilma's top sustained winds reached 175 mph early Wednesday in the most rapid strengthening ever recorded in a hurricane, said meteorologist Hugh Cobb of the National Hurricane Center in Miami. At the same time Tuesday, Wilma was only a tropical storm with winds of 70 mph.

Its confirmed pressure readings Wednesday morning dropped to 882 millibars _ the lowest ever measured in a hurricane in the Atlantic basin, according to the hurricane center. The strongest on record based on the lowest pressure reading is Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, which dipped to 888 millibars.

Typically, the lower the pressure, the faster the air speeds. But because the pressure around each storm is different, lower pressure doesn't always correspond to a specific wind speed.

Forecasters said Wilma was more powerful than the devastating September 1935 hurricane that hit the Florida Keys, the strongest Atlantic hurricane to make landfall on record. But Wilma wasn't expected to keep its record strength for long, as higher disruptive atmospheric winds in the Gulf of Mexico around the hurricane should weaken it before landfall, Cobb said.

At 8 a.m., the hurricane was centered about 340 miles southeast of Cozumel, Mexico. Maximum sustained wind remained at 175 mph, forecasters said. It was moving west-northwest at nearly 8 mph and was expected to turn northwest.

The storm may dump up to 25 inches of rain in mountainous areas of Cuba through Friday, and as much as 15 inches in the Caymans and Jamaica through Thursday. Up to 12 inches was possible from Honduras through the Yucatan peninsula, the U.S. weather service said.

Jamaica, Cuba, Nicaragua and Honduras were getting heavy rain from the storm, though it wasn't likely to make landfall in any of those countries. Forecasts showed it would likely turn toward the narrow Yucatan Channel between Cuba and Mexico's Cancun region _ then move into the storm-weary gulf.

[...]

The hurricane is the record-tying 12th of the season, the same number reached in 1969. That is the most for one season since record-keeping began in 1851.

On Monday, Wilma became the Atlantic hurricane season's 21st named storm, tying the record set in 1933 and exhausting the list of names for this year.

The six-month hurricane season does not end until Nov. 30. Any new storms would be named with letters from the Greek alphabet, starting with Alpha.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/19/D8DB43VG3.html

[/Q]
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 09:57 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 04:43 AM

I certainly hope not
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 09:59 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:43 AM
I'm scared. I'm so tired of hurricanes I could scream, and here comes this monster.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 10:01 AM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:43 AM
how many records have to be broken before we run out of excuses?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 10:06 AM   #5
Refugee
 
wizard2c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 09:43 AM
reply

Yeah.......jumped from Cat 2 to Cat 5 almost immediately.........no wonder everyone was talking about Alaska this morning on the radio.

Makes one wonder.......it certainly doesn't help those caught in the path......but the news networks will have something to talk about the next few days.....{like vultures they circle}

Living in Florida we are always prepared for the worst.......when you live in paradise you never know what to expect.

__________________
wizard2c is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 10:24 AM   #6
War Child
 
MumblingBono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The State Good Bands Skip Over
Posts: 566
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Irvine, excuses for what? The majority of scientists do not associate the recent storms with global warming - it is widely accepted to be a cyclical event.

I know its fun and exciting to think of this as some sort of end times, with Mother Nature fighting back, but, really, they probably thought the same thing back in 1969 or the late 1800s, or during any other "active periods".
__________________
MumblingBono is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 10:45 AM   #7
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MumblingBono
Irvine, excuses for what? The majority of scientists do not associate the recent storms with global warming - it is widely accepted to be a cyclical event.

I know its fun and exciting to think of this as some sort of end times, with Mother Nature fighting back, but, really, they probably thought the same thing back in 1969 or the late 1800s, or during any other "active periods".


nope.

every agrees that as the water temperature goes up, so does the strength and intensity of hurricanse. the water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico is as high as it's been in recorded history. global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it makes them much worse. right now, it looks like we've got the worst of both worlds -- an upswing in the cycle combined with rising ocean temperatures.

but continue to ignore the consequences of global warming.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 12:16 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,415
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MumblingBono
The majority of scientists do not associate the recent storms with global warming - it is widely accepted to be a cyclical event.
What kind of scientists are you talking to here? Sociologists?

Any legitimate scientist with a vested interest in the environment will tell you that there is a warming pattern going on right now.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 12:20 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
nope.

every agrees that as the water temperature goes up, so does the strength and intensity of hurricanse. the water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico is as high as it's been in recorded history. global warming doesn't create hurricanes, but it makes them much worse. right now, it looks like we've got the worst of both worlds -- an upswing in the cycle combined with rising ocean temperatures.

but continue to ignore the consequences of global warming.
This is the same process by which we believe horoscopes are true.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 12:22 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This is the same process by which we believe horoscopes are true.
Er, no. It's not.

But I agree that once the hurricane season is over someone leads to step back and look at the evidence in an objective way.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 12:36 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Er, no. It's not.

But I agree that once the hurricane season is over someone leads to step back and look at the evidence in an objective way.
Er, yes, actually it is. Drawing simple lines between largely separated event may help you reinforce an idea you want to believe, but it is not supported by science.

That is how horoscopes work.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 12:45 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,146
Local Time: 04:43 AM
not really looking forward to this weekend down here I'm so sick of Hurricane's
__________________
YBORCITY is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 12:54 PM   #13
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Er, yes, actually it is. Drawing simple lines between largely separated event may help you reinforce an idea you want to believe, but it is not supported by science.

That is how horoscopes work.

garbage.

the scientific process is as follows:

· Observations form the basis of understanding.
· Understanding grows from recognizing patterns in observations and validly characterizing and explaining such patterns.
· A generalization from observations is a conjecture, that provides a basis for testing that eventually can support (or disprove, and possibly modify) the generalization.
· Testing can be in terms of known facts that relate to the conjecture – supporting or disproving it – or of proposed observations or experiments that bear on the conjecture’s validity.

you're ignoring the mountains of testing and evidence that have been complied that allows little organizations like, say, NOAA to release findings like the following:

[Q]Overview
The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricane will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

[...]

New Observational Evidence

Recently, two studies have been published which provide new observational evidence that hurricane intensities may have already increased markedly in recent decades as the tropical oceans have warmed. Emanuel (Nature, Aug. 4, 2005) reports that a measure of the power dissipated by tropical cyclones (proportional to the cube of their wind speed) has approximately doubled in the North Atlantic and western North Pacific, with most of the increase occurring over the past 30 years. Increases in both intensity and duration of tropical cyclones have contributed to this apparent increase. Emanuel's power dissipation measure is strongly correlated with sea surface temperatures in these basins, which have increased markedly over the same period. Webster et al. (Science, Sept. 16, 2005) find that the number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled globally over the past three decades. Although their analysis spans a shorter time period than Emanuel's, their results show that a substantial increase has occurred in all six tropical storm basins.

[...]

An increase in the upper-limit intensity of hurricanes with global warming was suggested on theoretical grounds by M.I.T. Professor Kerry Emanuel in 1987. In the late 1990s, Knutson, Tuleya, and Kurihara at GFDL/NOAA began simulating samples of hurricanes from both the present-day climate and from a greenhouse-gas warmed climate. This was done by "telescoping-in" on coarsely resolved tropical storms in GFDL's global climate model using the high-resolution GFDL hurricane prediction model (Figure 2). A research report describing this work was published in the Feb 13, 1998 issue of Science, with a more detailed paper in Climate Dynamics (1999, vol. 15). All of these studies, as well as our more recent ones, include the moderating effect of atmospheric stabilization aloft under high CO2 conditions, rather than simply increasing the sea surface temperature alone.

In a follow-up study, which appeared in the Journal of Climate (June 2001), NOAA scientists Knutson and Tuleya teamed up with Isaac Ginis and Weixing Shen of the University of Rhode Island to explore the climate warming/ hurricane intensity issue using hurricane model coupled to a full ocean model. The coupled model was used to simulate the "cool SST wake" generated by the hurricanes as they moved over the simulated ocean (Figure 3). The model simulations including this additional feedback still showed a similar percentage increase of hurricane intensity under warm climate conditions as the original model without ocean coupling.

[...]

According to this latest study, an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded) leads to roughly a one-half category increase in potential hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale and an 18% increase in precipitation near the hurricane core. A 1%/yr CO2 increase is an idealized scenario of future climate forcing. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is considerable uncertainty in projections of future radiative forcing of earth's climate. A criticism of our paper by Michaels et al. is being published soon in the Journal of Climate. Our response, which will appear in the same issue, is available here.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

[/Q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 01:19 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:43 AM
It looks like we've gone from step 1 to 3.

The meat of science is in step 4 - testing theories to validate and exclude other possibilities. As noted in a different thread, politics has interfered with this process regarding global warming. Scientists are rebuked if they try to truly test the theory and disprove.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-19-2005, 01:38 PM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
It looks like we've gone from step 1 to 3.

The meat of science is in step 4 - testing theories to validate and exclude other possibilities. As noted in a different thread, politics has interfered with this process regarding global warming. Scientists are rebuked if they try to truly test the theory and disprove.


where is this pressure coming from?

my undrestanding of the situation is that the scientists who are the most politicized in their findings are those working for either the bush administration or oil companies who have a much, much greater economic and political stake in the politics of global warming than do organizations like NOAA, or even a more political organization like the Sierra Club (who are like ants in the face of Exxon).

i think you're right to point out that science can be and often is politicized; i just think that in this particular issue, the political pressure comes from those who need something, anything, to cast some sort of doubt on the fact that human activity is warming up the atmosphere.

this is why Bush's whole "global warming needs more study" is every bit as absurdist and political as "the jury is still out on evolution."
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com