Slashdot Mirror

See where the northern hemisphere's aurora activity is currently going on.

Primus_sucks inhaled deeply, and then bellowed...

[Cool, no more endless searching of weather.com!]

Actually... this link gets you loads of weather information. Free. No pop-ups, no fluff, no spyware, no ads. The site doesn't even care if you have cookies disabled. Just lots of nice weather info, straight from the source.

[Awesome! I hate being .0006566547866787 pico seconds late for meetings!]

I solved that problem ages ago by simply ignoring meetings. ;-)

A precision time reference does have its uses (Ebay sniping). However, I don't see why we should depend on Gator for it when wonderful freeware like this exists.

I just popped in to be annoying. Your other comments are dead-center on, and most amusing. ;-)

The problems may extend further than just the converter. It may also be a weak signal, and it could be compounded by the run of cable between the two buildings.

The phone should have a data connection available as well - you might try hooking that up and running an rs-232 cable using the phone's internal modem.

But a cell phone is typically only going to give you 14.4kbps max, unless you have high speed access through one of many providers. It's a 3x speed increase, but read on...

Beyond that, I'd go back to the initial problem: Why do you need a faster than 4.8kbps connection? Turn images off the the browser. Use a lighter web interface, which most big sites now have (or news aggregators and just download RSS feeds) see Slashdot's PDA interface as an example (doesn't seem to be working right now?).

The underlying fact of the matter is that you can't type as fast than 4.8kbps, and you can't read that fast, so the only thing you are missing is visual information such as pictures. These can largely be cached. Weather forecasts can be had in text, and the satellite images are fairly small if you must download that sort of thing. Go straight to the horse's mouth to avoid all that advertising. Bookmark the direct links, and look into viewing the available pages as wml, which some desktop browsers understand (opera, I believe).

In short, there are free ways of going about this to get the same thing done. If you are sending/receiving serious amounts of data, then look into getting a satellite internet connection.

-Adam

expend a significant amount of money to defend themselves against these bogus charges

Unfortunately this appears to be what happens when you combine a society fixated with junk science with a political class ruled by trial attorneys.

The State of Missouri had an issue a bit more than a year ago with a state legislator that was trying to get all communication towers banned. The reason? "It might harm children." A few folks did some research on the legislator pushing the bill and guess who one of his largest financial supporters was? Incumbant local telephone companies (the competition to wireless providers). Save the children unfortunately has become code for political and legal system payola.

Unfortunately this poster touches on the reality of the current US legal nightmare: many defendents cannot afford the fight for what is right due to the complete lack of financial accountability of irresponsible plantiff attorneys and their clients. I'm predicting the school will back out and turn off their wireless devices. Their students will lack the access to information that other students might have. Unless other parents get vocal and oppose this luddite activity, they'll further the progress of their children towards a future job at Burger King.

Per the allegation that the school has been ignoring evidence that electromagnetic radiation from Wi-Fi networks poses health risks, I'd invite the luddite parents and their attorneys to have a radiofrequency engineer show them what the airwaves in the classroom (or better, at home) look like. 802.11b/a/g is background noise compared to many of the narrowband signals out there. Better shut off the FM, AM and TV broadcasters immediately. Throw away that cellphone (you don't hold that anywhere *near* your head, do you?) Better start packing candles in the kids lunch bag... those fluorescent lights are little RF monsters ("to quote: while the intentional radiation of fluorescent light tubes lies in the visible light range, such tubes also generate very low levels of microwave and RF white noise (Mumford, 1949)... microwaves? That's not a classroom lit by fluorescents, it's a Easy Bake Oven from Hell!). Lock up the school TV sets - what do you think that gunnplexer is firing at your eyeballs? Get weather, aviation and police radar shut off immediately (sure hope that speeder doesn't crash into the school bus). And god forbid you have one of those Air Force E-4B 747's fly over your home as they do mine... one of those bastards wipes out my TV amplifier every time it flies over my farm! Heck, we haven't even thought about RF experiments like HAARP that can probably melt a human in milliseconds!

Of course, the final step for the trial attorneys and their luddite clients will be banning the ultimate producer of raw RF. Once that's done, we can all rest assured that no RF deathrays will harm us.

*scoove*

A sensor web is an exciting prospect, but data accuracy remains important consideration, and "full-dimensional" coverage is doubtful to happen.

As an air pollution dispersion modeler, I frequently use meteorological data collected across the US by the National Weather Service and NCDC. The current array of measurement sites provides an incomplete picture of micrometeorological events (small scale), and of course, the more sensors available the better, right?

Well, the biggest issue I have to deal with is data quality/accuracy. It doesn't seem that accuracy is addressed at all in the article. I guess if you have lots of sensors, you can cross-compare results from sensors not too far apart...

I object though to the claim that any sensor web will provide "full-dimensional" coverage of the earth. In the air, we only know about the upper atmosphere generally through the sparse, limited use of radiosondes (weather balloons that track back results via radio and can also be tracked from the ground with radar to figure out wind speed and direction). Unless we start seeing swarms of self-propelled flying sensors (a'la "Batteries Not Included"), I don't see "full-dimensional" coverage of let alone the atmosphere on the earth. Perhaps the author means "all variables of interest" but the term, "full-dimensional", but it still sounds like an exaggerated claim.

A sensor web is an exciting prospect, but data accuracy remains important consideration, and "full-dimensional" coverage is doubtful to happen.

As an air pollution dispersion modeler, I frequently use meteorological data collected across the US by the National Weather Service and NCDC. The current array of measurement sites provides an incomplete picture of micrometeorological events (small scale), and of course, the more sensors available the better, right?

Well, the biggest issue I have to deal with is data quality/accuracy. It doesn't seem that accuracy is addressed at all in the article. I guess if you have lots of sensors, you can cross-compare results from sensors not too far apart...

I object though to the claim that any sensor web will provide "full-dimensional" coverage of the earth. In the air, we only know about the upper atmosphere generally through the sparse, limited use of radiosondes (weather balloons that track back results via radio and can also be tracked from the ground with radar to figure out wind speed and direction). Unless we start seeing swarms of self-propelled flying sensors (a'la "Batteries Not Included"), I don't see "full-dimensional" coverage of let alone the atmosphere on the earth. Perhaps the author means "all variables of interest" but the term, "full-dimensional", but it still sounds like an exaggerated claim.

No we can't.

The idea behind rewarding a price for the commercial exploitation of space is not important, it's crucial. The purists among us might claim that space should be for all humanity, and that it should be used in an idealistic way, and that promoting commercialization of space leads to destructive capitalism out there.

However, please do wake up: as damaging as some of the forces of the free market might be, there is one thing in the free market that even governments have to a much smaller degree. That thing is money. As much as some of us (myself included) might dislike the greedy nature of mankind, fact is that if money is to be made, things will happen, and the end-result might be very good.

For example, look at the first satellites. Sure, the very first ones were launched for purely political reasons, but then the commercial communication-sats were lanched. Expericience with these kinds of satellites (launching risks, maintenance, reliability) has helped us to safely launch other kinds of satellites as well. E.g. at the moment there are a number of satellites watching over our ecosystem: the GOES, POES and others.

I firmly believe that if the exploration of space (and that's not limited to just LEO, but can also be extended to Mars or other places) must be a common venture of commercial and "idealistic" initiatives. And therefore I applaud the Heinlein Estate's prize.

However, I do have my doubt as to who might be able to win such a price: the regulations specifically exclude corporate or government-sponsored initiatives. This seems to mean that only individuals with a big bag of money can ever hope to win the prize. I've checked the main estate site, but haven't been able to find any nominations or ideas on what kind of initiatives might be nominated yet.

Any ideas?

The idea behind rewarding a price for the commercial exploitation of space is not important, it's crucial. The purists among us might claim that space should be for all humanity, and that it should be used in an idealistic way, and that promoting commercialization of space leads to destructive capitalism out there.

However, please do wake up: as damaging as some of the forces of the free market might be, there is one thing in the free market that even governments have to a much smaller degree. That thing is money. As much as some of us (myself included) might dislike the greedy nature of mankind, fact is that if money is to be made, things will happen, and the end-result might be very good.

For example, look at the first satellites. Sure, the very first ones were launched for purely political reasons, but then the commercial communication-sats were lanched. Expericience with these kinds of satellites (launching risks, maintenance, reliability) has helped us to safely launch other kinds of satellites as well. E.g. at the moment there are a number of satellites watching over our ecosystem: the GOES, POES and others.

I firmly believe that if the exploration of space (and that's not limited to just LEO, but can also be extended to Mars or other places) must be a common venture of commercial and "idealistic" initiatives. And therefore I applaud the Heinlein Estate's prize.

However, I do have my doubt as to who might be able to win such a price: the regulations specifically exclude corporate or government-sponsored initiatives. This seems to mean that only individuals with a big bag of money can ever hope to win the prize. I've checked the main estate site, but haven't been able to find any nominations or ideas on what kind of initiatives might be nominated yet.

Any ideas?

Meteorologist HAVE been doing this type of research for many years now. Here is the data you requested, the computed skill score of all current NCEP Operational weather models.

NCEP Skill Scores

If this doesn't convince you that much research is currently being done to improve weather prediciton, here is the fields most recent effort, the WRF model, a collaborative Operational/Research model.

WRF Model

Keep in mind, the model can only resolve a solution near that of the actual resolution of the input data, i.e. observed conditions. This is why weather prediction is still an evloving science. Not only must these supercomputers solve the non-linear multivariate/ multidimenional equations governing the atmosphere, but scientist must also devise methods to quickly, and more importantly, accurately input the most recent data so the products can be made in a reasonable time for the public.

Meteorologist HAVE been doing this type of research for many years now. Here is the data you requested, the computed skill score of all current NCEP Operational weather models.

NCEP Skill Scores

If this doesn't convince you that much research is currently being done to improve weather prediciton, here is the fields most recent effort, the WRF model, a collaborative Operational/Research model.

WRF Model

Keep in mind, the model can only resolve a solution near that of the actual resolution of the input data, i.e. observed conditions. This is why weather prediction is still an evloving science. Not only must these supercomputers solve the non-linear multivariate/ multidimenional equations governing the atmosphere, but scientist must also devise methods to quickly, and more importantly, accurately input the most recent data so the products can be made in a reasonable time for the public.

Wow, I'm surprised that a resolution of 10 cubic kilometers is enough to actually make any predictions besides the most general of weather trends.

Define "the most general of weather trends". Currently, at least for here in the US, the model of choice (something always of debate) is the Eta that typically is run at 44km (they have much higher resolutions, but those aren't as readily available). Believe it or not, this model has been great at forecasting for frontal based weather (like thunderstorms along a cold front) and winter storm systems (it is able to place the areas of heavy snow by county) Depending on how close the model run is the the event, the placement of this information is usually pretty close.

That isn't to say it is perfect. As you could imagine for a grid that size, the model will typically miss popcorn type showers and thunderstorms. Also, if you do any severe weather forecasting, you will miss the small scale features like a tornado or such.

They have something called the RUC which is run at 20km. I am not as familiar with this model, but a person I work with has used it to do tornado forecasting (check out the historic data towards the bottom) and has had incredible results.

Wow, I'm surprised that a resolution of 10 cubic kilometers is enough to actually make any predictions besides the most general of weather trends.

Define "the most general of weather trends". Currently, at least for here in the US, the model of choice (something always of debate) is the Eta that typically is run at 44km (they have much higher resolutions, but those aren't as readily available). Believe it or not, this model has been great at forecasting for frontal based weather (like thunderstorms along a cold front) and winter storm systems (it is able to place the areas of heavy snow by county) Depending on how close the model run is the the event, the placement of this information is usually pretty close.

That isn't to say it is perfect. As you could imagine for a grid that size, the model will typically miss popcorn type showers and thunderstorms. Also, if you do any severe weather forecasting, you will miss the small scale features like a tornado or such.

They have something called the RUC which is run at 20km. I am not as familiar with this model, but a person I work with has used it to do tornado forecasting (check out the historic data towards the bottom) and has had incredible results.

I wonder if the system releases only one pattern that the weather will follow or if it returns many different ways that the weather could go.

I would hope so. The National Center for Environmental Predictions (NCEP) does this now with their model called the Global Forecast System (GFS) that goes out to 384 hours or 16 days. With this model, they do something called ensemble forecasts where they rerun the model another ten times at a reduced resolution from the master run with perturbations added to each. Then they compare the results and will, on some of the graphics, use all ten to perform a type of averaging to remove the really bogus forecasts.

My experience has been if you are doing any type of long range forecasting, the ensemble method is the way to go. I am not saying that it is exact, but has proven an invaluable guide past day 4 for good long range forecasting. My guess is that this project in Japan would be taking this into account and performing something like this type of ensemble method. If not, I would seriously question their results.

I wonder if the system releases only one pattern that the weather will follow or if it returns many different ways that the weather could go.

I would hope so. The National Center for Environmental Predictions (NCEP) does this now with their model called the Global Forecast System (GFS) that goes out to 384 hours or 16 days. With this model, they do something called ensemble forecasts where they rerun the model another ten times at a reduced resolution from the master run with perturbations added to each. Then they compare the results and will, on some of the graphics, use all ten to perform a type of averaging to remove the really bogus forecasts.

My experience has been if you are doing any type of long range forecasting, the ensemble method is the way to go. I am not saying that it is exact, but has proven an invaluable guide past day 4 for good long range forecasting. My guess is that this project in Japan would be taking this into account and performing something like this type of ensemble method. If not, I would seriously question their results.

Well, some people say this, but they don't really know what they're talking about. (I seem to recall some people saying that RHIC would be the downfall of all human civilization, by the way, yet we're still here.) Black holes decay via Hawking radiation. The smaller they are, the faster they decay, and the ones that might be produced at LHC would be mighty small. (...if they could even be produced at all, which is sort of doubtful in my mind) They would decay long before they even reached the inner wall of the detector.

I think that in general, it's a good idea to be sceptical about end-of-the-world scenarios like this. If it were possible to destroy the world by smashing particles together, it would have happened long before humans ever existed - Earth is continuously bombarded by cosmic rays that have **much** higher energies than anything we could ever hope to create in a lab. Any kind of strangelet, black hole, or whatever that could ever be produced in an accelerator has been produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. So don't worry about this sort of thing.

-Bill

You can just browse for state by state info, or get down to the detailed observations from small stations. VERY up to date watch/warning info, all in a (IMHO) rather well designed interface.

Besides intellicast, thats where I go when I need to know what is really going on.

Well, it'd be NICE to do it for under $200, but as of right now, it's not QUITE possible

You can setup a Moderately accurate temp and wind station for $79, BUT the temp sensor is enclosed (NOT vented), so it tends to read high, and you need a computer

Look at AAG Electronics

Adding humidity (which adds a more accurate thermometer), Pressure, and rain adds about $150

There IS quite a network in North America, with SOME holes in it - look at NOAA's Mesonet

NOAA provides a great deal of information for free already --- as they are a public service anyway, this only makes sense. It may not contain the precise details that you wish to research, but you can find information about the various forms of data, including ftp-accessible satellite data, at either of the following two sites: NWS Telecommunications Operations Center, or the National Climatic Data Center.

NOAA provides a great deal of information for free already --- as they are a public service anyway, this only makes sense. It may not contain the precise details that you wish to research, but you can find information about the various forms of data, including ftp-accessible satellite data, at either of the following two sites: NWS Telecommunications Operations Center, or the National Climatic Data Center.

Public Law 106-229(PDF)

But most environmentalists beg that question, and accept it as a given that "the weather is getting more extreme". I disagree with that premise and defy someone to show me figures showing drastic increases in precipitation, temperature, storm destruction, etc. over a 30+ year span (to leave out the 20-year sunspot/storm cycle).

Here you go, enjoy. I could find only ONE link that disagreed that weather was getting more extreme, from NASA:

Even with Needed Corrections, Data Still Don't Show the Expected Signature of Global Warming.

The rest say a definite YES that the weather is getting more extreme, most that it is caused by global warming, and some that this global warming is caused by humans:


NOVA and FRONTLINE join forces to investigate the science and politics of one of the most controversial issues of the 21st century: the truth about global warming.

I would especially like to draw your attention to

this graph.

2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


TESTIMONY OF THOMAS R. KARL, DIRECTOR NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICES NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE.


WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2001


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Global Warming - Frequently Asked Questions

Cheers,
Lars

3,000 years is not permanent.
3,000 years is old in a historical time frame.
3,000 years is young in geologic time frames.

OK -- so why is it only 3,000 years old?
What happened 3,000 years ago?
Hmm.. There was a burst of warmth about 3,000 years ago, then the temp dropped to our present cold period.

Leads? There's a word for the actual cracking and fracturing process "calving", but I think that only applies to glaciers and icebergs.

YLFI

Also, the current LASCO movie of the solar corona doesn't show any solar "storms" coming our way in the last few days (they show up as expanding halos all the way around the Sun), although there were several that went off to the side in that period.

For the latest on Isabel, take a look at the most recent advisories from the NHC.

That's right. There's also SARS patients, grizzly bears, incompetent politicians, no jobs, horrible traffic, we're right next to the Pacific Ocean (which routinely produces typhoons that kill thousands of people), nuclear power plants, deadly blizzards... we even have a place called Death Valley.

Hmmm... maybe I should reconsider. Here in Texas, we have West Nile Virus, alligators (though they leave people alone), incompetent politicians (wish they would), jobs that go away when oil prices dip, horrible traffic, we're in Tornado Alley (with a direct hit on downtown Ft. Worth), cement plants, 120-degree weather, and we have a 32,000 square mile region (larger than all of New England) called the Llano Estacado that is so flat, it slopes just 10 feet per mile, and barely gets 12 inches of rain a year.

Screw it all, I'm moving to Barbados!

For more on Isabel and the track it's expected to take, check out the latest information from the National Hurricane Center.

Although, NOAA has a lot of nice pictures, what I'd really like to see is a real-time vector analysis of the wind on the coast.

Generally good ideas, but taping windows is totally useless.

Would a nuclear blast have any effect on a hurricane?

No

I live in Norfolk, VA and it looks like Isabel is going to hit us dead on. The present NOAA trajectory guesses have the eye passing more or less right over my house, a few clicks west of downtown Norfolk.

Checking on Weather.com today I was struck by some ironic use of advertising (note pink arrow).

I've got plywood cut to board the windows unless we get some good news in the next couple of days. My main concern is evacuation... i.e., I don't wanna, but it's probably not in my best interest to refuse in the event of a mandatory evacuation like the one ordered today at Ocracoke Island, NC (there is concern there of the only road to the mainland washing out).

The Great Storm of 1933 tracked very close to Isabel's path, and was a smaller storm. The '33 storm flooded downtown Norfolk quite badly, destroyed lots of buildings and piers on the coast, and destroyed many boats and ships. In my native Mathews, that storm deposited fishing boats in the woods and was responsible for separating New Point Comfort Lighthouse from the mainland (I also believe that it separated the Hole in the Wall Beach from the mainland as well).

Wish us luck, and ask your diety or animistic spirit of choice to spare us from excess wrath.

Take backup twice a day and send out to remote location if you are in the path:

Projected Path

When making sites for a line office at NOAA (US gov't office), I always wrote for two browsers. You have to write for Internet Explorer because it'd bring, even in NOAA where NS 4.7 was pretty much forced on you, 90% of your hits, and Mozilla/Netscape 6+ "for everyone else".

The most important thing about Mozilla, and what impressed me most with the excellent browser, is that Mozilla's behavor was the same across platforms when it came to Javascript, CSS, and other rendering. More importantly, rendering errors showed the same behavior in the same version of Mozilla, regardless of platform! That's impressive.

Sure, fonts, icons, etc are *slightly* different, but I made some pretty dhtml intensive stuff (click "Query Storms") that behaved exactly the same on Linux on Windows, Linux, and both Mac OS 8-9 & OS X.

You basically have two choices. Make a Google-like site with such simple html that it'll render correctly everywhere, even in Lynx, or program higher-end, thicker client, dhtml jive for IE and Moz. That covers the vast majority of your hits (IE) and will give the option to most anyone on an alternative OS to, at worst, download a free browser that'll behave exactly as you'd expect (Moz). (Okay, three choices -- make two sites. One's dumbed down for lynx, the other for IE/Moz.) Now you've covered Mac, Linux, and heavens knows what else just by testing, give or take, on Windows. Mozilla's good enough that it is a platform.

Check for DOM (document.all and document.layers), give a warning to anyone who doesn't conform, and feel good that you've give people who *need* to see your pages an option without wasting hours and hours testing and writing for browsers that will make up a very low volume of your visits. Yes, you potentially exclude Granny Smith on dial-up with Mac OS 8.1 or Joe Apple Diehard who only uses Safari and won't even touch Camino, but let's face it, you're better off spending that time writing a new site and reaching 99% of a new audience anyhow.

Good luck!

When making sites for a line office at NOAA (US gov't office), I always wrote for two browsers. You have to write for Internet Explorer because it'd bring, even in NOAA where NS 4.7 was pretty much forced on you, 90% of your hits, and Mozilla/Netscape 6+ "for everyone else".

The most important thing about Mozilla, and what impressed me most with the excellent browser, is that Mozilla's behavor was the same across platforms when it came to Javascript, CSS, and other rendering. More importantly, rendering errors showed the same behavior in the same version of Mozilla, regardless of platform! That's impressive.

Sure, fonts, icons, etc are *slightly* different, but I made some pretty dhtml intensive stuff (click "Query Storms") that behaved exactly the same on Linux on Windows, Linux, and both Mac OS 8-9 & OS X.

You basically have two choices. Make a Google-like site with such simple html that it'll render correctly everywhere, even in Lynx, or program higher-end, thicker client, dhtml jive for IE and Moz. That covers the vast majority of your hits (IE) and will give the option to most anyone on an alternative OS to, at worst, download a free browser that'll behave exactly as you'd expect (Moz). (Okay, three choices -- make two sites. One's dumbed down for lynx, the other for IE/Moz.) Now you've covered Mac, Linux, and heavens knows what else just by testing, give or take, on Windows. Mozilla's good enough that it is a platform.

Check for DOM (document.all and document.layers), give a warning to anyone who doesn't conform, and feel good that you've give people who *need* to see your pages an option without wasting hours and hours testing and writing for browsers that will make up a very low volume of your visits. Yes, you potentially exclude Granny Smith on dial-up with Mac OS 8.1 or Joe Apple Diehard who only uses Safari and won't even touch Camino, but let's face it, you're better off spending that time writing a new site and reaching 99% of a new audience anyhow.

Good luck!

This page at noaa.gov mentions some of the environmental sources on infrasound: earthquakes, avalanches, meteors, large ocean waves, severe weather systems, and volcanos. Negative emotional responses to those sounds could well have been a survival trait in mankind.

This article (PDF, 8mB) provides a nice overview and discussion of atmospheric infrasound.

This page at noaa.gov mentions some of the environmental sources on infrasound: earthquakes, avalanches, meteors, large ocean waves, severe weather systems, and volcanos. Negative emotional responses to those sounds could well have been a survival trait in mankind.

This article (PDF, 8mB) provides a nice overview and discussion of atmospheric infrasound.

This page at noaa.gov mentions some of the environmental sources on infrasound: earthquakes, avalanches, meteors, large ocean waves, severe weather systems, and volcanos. Negative emotional responses to those sounds could well have been a survival trait in mankind.

This article (PDF, 8mB) provides a nice overview and discussion of atmospheric infrasound.

In 2002, a total of 55 people died in tornadoes, 37 of whom were in mobile homes, 12 in permanent homes, four in cars and two outside. In 2001, 40 fatalities were recorded, 11 of those in mobile homes, 18 in permanent homes, six in vehicles, three outside and two in buildings. In 2000, 29 of the 40 tornado deaths, or nearly 78 percent, were in mobile homes, four were in permanent homes, four in vehicles, one was outside and two were in buildings.
- NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory report

Seems like nobody mentioned this before. Here seems to be a better source for the answer.

I don't know about seismic issues, since I live in North Texas. But I do know about tornadoes.

ICF homes are rated for 200mph winds. Toothpick homes are good to about 100mph.

Having lived in Wichita Falls in 1979, tornadoes are something I pay attention to.

I don't know about seismic issues, since I live in North Texas. But I do know about tornadoes.

ICF homes are rated for 200mph winds. Toothpick homes are good to about 100mph.

Having lived in Wichita Falls in 1979, tornadoes are something I pay attention to.

I don't know about seismic issues, since I live in North Texas. But I do know about tornadoes.

ICF homes are rated for 200mph winds. Toothpick homes are good to about 100mph.

Having lived in Wichita Falls in 1979, tornadoes are something I pay attention to.

The URLs for the before and after blackout pictures were accessed from the following page: www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s2015.htm There are a few more pictures there and some explanatory text. I'm a little disappointed with the resolution of these "night" pictures. If you've flown over the region (admittedly at only 35,000 feet / 7 miles) you know how much interesting detail that can be seen on a clear night.

Southwest Ohio is not in the "after" picture at all -- you can see a pretty obvious border at the edge of the satellite sweep.

The more interesting question is why a major city like Toronto is so dark. Is there just substantially more backup-power used in some of the other cities, many of which still show up brightly. Or is all that light from a greater number of cars? New Yorkers standing outside shining flashlights upwards? :)

And the final consideration: Clouds? There are some cities up in Maine that must be covered by clouds in the "before" picture. Do we know for sure the rest of the region was cloud-free?

- Peter

Southwest Ohio is not in the "after" picture at all -- you can see a pretty obvious border at the edge of the satellite sweep.

The more interesting question is why a major city like Toronto is so dark. Is there just substantially more backup-power used in some of the other cities, many of which still show up brightly. Or is all that light from a greater number of cars? New Yorkers standing outside shining flashlights upwards? :)

And the final consideration: Clouds? There are some cities up in Maine that must be covered by clouds in the "before" picture. Do we know for sure the rest of the region was cloud-free?

- Peter

Also, the wind on 9/11 and 9/12 was more westerly than your image suggests. The debris and dust was blown over southern long island and out over the atlantic, not up over long island sound and into CT.

Looking at the data
here

You'll notice (Map is in GMT) that near the time there was the outage there's also a gap in the map. Not sure if it's a graphical fluke or an actual spike it did not read.

Also

Near the same time auroral dataplots as seen below

here

There's another 2 surges in activity near those times the power outage was to occur.

It still could of been lightning but only more so powerful since it's known that lightning extends far up into space and it's possible the grid actually met up with the some bend in the van allen belts due to a buffet from a solar flare which they're talking about M to X class flares possible from a sunspot facing the earth.

More info can be found at

http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/

http://sunspotcycle.com/

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html

Looking at the data
here

You'll notice (Map is in GMT) that near the time there was the outage there's also a gap in the map. Not sure if it's a graphical fluke or an actual spike it did not read.

Also

Near the same time auroral dataplots as seen below

here

There's another 2 surges in activity near those times the power outage was to occur.

It still could of been lightning but only more so powerful since it's known that lightning extends far up into space and it's possible the grid actually met up with the some bend in the van allen belts due to a buffet from a solar flare which they're talking about M to X class flares possible from a sunspot facing the earth.

More info can be found at

http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/

http://sunspotcycle.com/

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html

Generally the cold (gas absorbing) waters of the poles, sink to the ocean floor carrying large amounts of CO2 and O2. This dissolved oxygen is critical in keeping aerobic conditions in the deep sea (several early mass extinctions have been attributed to anaerobic organisms flourishing in oxygen depleted waters) and the dissolved carbon dioxide is attributed to the lower than expected climatic changes from greenhouse gas emmissions.

Why are we not freaking out about this??

This is the great engine of Earth (forget Deep Thought). It is responsible for the majority of heat storage and transfer in our environment, allowing disparate areas to acheive a modicum of energy equilibrium.

Without this "smoothing" force to even out the bumps - storms will become more violent as the coriolis effect is reinforced by the increasing density of the atmosphere as you travel towards the poles - sea currents will alter drastically, causing mass extinctions - seasons will be more extreme hot or cold.

All in all, this issue in no way deserves the (more than usual) flippant, offhand and dismissive treatment it is receiving.

Q.