Slashdot Mirror


Tropical Storm Alpha Sets Naming Record

vekron writes "Tropical Storm Alpha formed Saturday in the Caribbean, setting the record for the most named storms in an Atlantic hurricane season. This is the first time the U.S National Hurricane Center has resorted to using the Greek alphabet since it began naming tropical cyclones in 1953. The previous record of 21 named storms had stood since 1933. Alpha was the 22nd to reach tropical storm strength this year, and the season doesn't end until November 30. At 8 p.m. EDT, Alpha was 70 miles south of Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic. Tropical storm warnings have been posted for the entire coastline of the Dominican Republic and Haiti and for the southeastern Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The storm is moving northwest at about 15 mph with winds at the center of 40 mph and is expected to make landfall late Saturday or early Sunday. The National Hurricane Center is tracking this storm; it is offering updates about its development as an RSS feed."

344 comments

  1. So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by Sam+Haine+'95 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tropical Storm Aleph?

    1. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by a.different.perspect · · Score: 1

      How about Tropical Storm A? What, we got sick of our alphabet so quickly?

    2. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      "Hurricane 2005-47" seems good. I don't see what the problem with using numbers is anyway. Why do we need names? Calling a hurricane "Cutey Pie Susy" doesn't make it any less destructive.

    3. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It's easier to remember, and easier to communicate to the public in general.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naming hurricanes started with a weatherman who named them after his old girlfriends. Personification allows for villification.

    5. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by alerante · · Score: 1

      The end of the world.

    6. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      If it did get high with names and end up running out of greek letters (would happen after 45 named storms), they would most likely end up just having the storms and hurricanes keep their tropical depression #. (AKA hurricane #52, Tropical storm #54)

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    7. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      A smoking smear where the coastline cities used to be. After sixty nine storms, every sandy beach city lined with casinos would probably be wadded up and washed inland.

    8. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by superyooser · · Score: 1

      I can't wait till they get to Tropical Storm Chet. *wipes spittle off monitor*

    9. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by edbarrett · · Score: 1

      Tropical Storm Alpha 2
      Tropical Storm Alpha 3
      Marvel Super Heroes VS. Tropical Storm Alpha

    10. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious about what they will do if they have to retire the greek char.
      For example Katrina will not be used in the next rotation when it would be due, because of the damage associated with it.

      For some reason I feel reluctant to retire a greek character O_O
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    11. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      The weather service uses names for much the same reason the semiconductor uses codenames. It's just easier on the human mind.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    12. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by yuiop · · Score: 1

      Why did they miss off X, Y, and Z? I wanted to see Hurricane Xerxes.

    13. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      How about destructive monsters from popular mythology?

      Hurricanes Angel, Borg, Chewbacca and Dalek on their way right now...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:So what's after Tropical Storm Omega? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Nothing. After Omega hits, the whole world will get sucked into a spinning votex and disappear!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  2. 0h n03s! by mboverload · · Score: 0

    The 21 names! They do nothing!

    1. Re:0h n03s! by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess it would have been cruel irony to have Hurricane Xuxa (http://www.who2.com/xuxa.html) ravage Latin America.

  3. ...so? by cldellow · · Score: 1

    What is the bigger picture here? Are the storms greater in frequency, lesser in magnitude? There's 2 months left in the traditional "storm season", but the last 2 months rarely have more storms (as gauged by the NWS page). Anyone with background able to comment?

    --
    http://coughup.ca - Make your friends pay
    1. Re:...so? by eobanb · · Score: 5, Informative

      IANAM (I Am Not A Meteorologist) but I do know that since we started paying attention to frequency/size of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Gulf about 150 years ago, we've been on an approximate 50-year cycle, where every 50 years or so, the storms get greater in magnitude. In the 1950s, there were some particularly strong storms, as were there in the 1900s, such as one storm 1902 that killed about 8000 people on the Texas coast, making it one of the worst disasters in American history. Now it's 2005, so we're around that high point again.

      That said, we seem to also be having a few more hurricanes and tropical storms than usual, although I'd like to think this is more of just a coincidence than related to the magnitude cycle, although I wouldn't rule out that it could have something to do with global warming.

      I'm really not completely sure why the 50-year magnitude cycle occurs, but it's well-documented.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    2. Re:...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_Cyclone_E nergy you will see that the total energy of this years storms is large but not record breaking. Once Wilma is accounted for the ACE should be over 200, possibly over 205. It would take another two moderately large hurricanes to drive us over the record set in 1950,

    3. Re:...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a good chance we'll get to gamma this year. You're right
      that raditionally, the last months of a storm season have little
      activity. But there's an unreal amount of energy in the gulf
      waters, so even minor depressions flair up. (Wilma went from
      a TS to Cat5 in under a day--that shows you the fuel in the
      gulf waters.)

      This does not appear to be caused by surficial waters alone.
      There appears to be a shift in the normal flows from deep/trench
      ocean that transport cooler waters to the Gulf. In other words,
      the Gulf is not getting the pumped cool down it normally gets.
      Perhaps it will arrive later than usual, or perhaps we've crossed
      a tipping point, and the Gulf is now in a new state of higher
      temperatures where even lame TS or Tropical depressions get elevated
      to Category 4 and 5 in under 36 hours.

      Welcome to the new normal. It's an exciting time to be a meteorology
      student. (But hey, it's worth it. My SUV has FOUR cup holders,
      and they're chilled by the AC! And I can buy plastic salad spinners
      from China at like $5 each from Walmart. So making the Gulf
      states unlivable is fine by me!)

    4. Re:...so? by BRock97 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st to November 30th. So, there is only five weeks left, not two months. Also, less in magnitude is hard to say since Wilma set a record for the lowest pressure reading ever recorded in an Atlantic hurricane at 882mb (record lowest world wide belongs to Typhoon Tip in the northwest Pacific at 870mb). Wilma also set a record as the fastest growing. Finally, quite a few tropical storms were named that didn't make hurricane status (9, I believe) and 5 hurricanes were minimal category 1.

      --

      Bryan R.
      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
    5. Re:...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure why the Stock market goes up when the NFC wins the Super Bowl, but I'm a pretty firm believer in imaginary correlations.

    6. Re:...so? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      the Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1st to November 30th
      Just wondering - since November 30th is an arbitrary cut-off date, what are they going to do if there's another hurricane, but in December? Will the ne'er-say-dies who deny the greenhouse effect finally admit that the climate is changing? Or will they insist on "NO, it's after the hurricane season - its not a hurricane, it's just a big-ass freak storm."
    7. Re:...so? by Orp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      such as one storm 1902 that killed about 8000 people on the Texas coast, making it one of the worst disasters in American history.

      Actually it was 1900, and it was the city of Galveston which was hit, and the high death toll was largely due to the fact that nobody was evacuated, and this was due in part to a turf war between the weather forecast offices in Galveson and Cuba.

      "Isaac's Storm" written Erik Larson chronicles this storm and the events leading up to it. Highly recommended.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    8. Re:...so? by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      5 hurricanes were minimal category 1

      Is that the number to actually make US landfall? There have actually been 11 storms to reach hurricane level this year. Plus 3 of those reached category 5 (new record as well).

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    9. Re:...so? by jhines0042 · · Score: 1

      Seems more like a 52 year cycle. Maybe God's playing cards with the universe! (After all, Einstein said that he didn't play dice... so maybe its cards!)

      --
      42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    10. Re:...so? by AngryNick · · Score: 3, Informative
      INAME (I'm Not A Meteorologist Either). For those who like pictures, these links show the number of storms and their paths for each 10 year period. It's interesting to compare 1931-1940 to 1941-1950. Perhaps we are just getting started. Clipped from a great NOAA-National Hurricane Center report, The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Hurricanes from 1900 to 2000 :

      Figures 1 through 10 show the landfalling portion of the tracks of major hurricanes that have struck the United States 1901-1999 (there were no major hurricane strikes on the United States in 2000). The reader might note the tendency for the major hurricane landfalls to cluster in certain areas during certain decades. Another interesting point is the tendency for this clustering to occur in the latter half of individual decades in one area and in the first half of individual decades in another area. During the very active period of the thirties this clustering is not apparent.

      It appears to me that the trends are on 10-year cycles, more or less.
    11. Re:...so? by vondo · · Score: 2, Informative

      They name it, same as ever. If you look at the history (http://www.weatherunderground.com/tropical/ is great) you'll see that named storms in December have happened maybe 1/3 the time in recent years.

    12. Re:...so? by BRock97 · · Score: 3, Informative
      "There have actually been 11 storms to reach hurricane level this year."

      Heh, sorry, I was on my way out to exercise this morning and was afraid that comment was a little ambiguous; I should have clarified. My point was that of the 22 named systems so far this year (up through Alpha), 14 have been relatively weak storms. Plus, the number is actually 12 to have made hurricane force, not 11. The break-down is as follows:
      • Category 1: 5 (Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Stan, Vince)
      • Category 2: 1 (Irene)
      • Category 3: 1 (Maria)
      • Category 4: 2 (Dennis, Emily)
      • Category 5: 3 (Katrina, Rita, Wilma)
      --

      Bryan R.
      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
    13. Re:...so? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm really not completely sure why the 50-year magnitude cycle occurs, but it's well-documented.

      A 50 year cycle is confirmed after only 150 years of bookkeeping? This doesn't sound like a very solid prediction scheme. I'll stick with industry fueled climate change as the most likely suspect until I see hard data to the contrary.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    14. Re:...so? by Raghead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, you can swap one Voodoo prediction for another, no problem.

    15. Re:...so? by utnow · · Score: 1

      "Untill you can provide me with solid, incontrovertable evidence (and maybe even AFTER you do so) I'll just continue pretend that the sky is falling. It helps me to justify my elitest attitude."

      -- Average Baptist

    16. Re:...so? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the big picture
      Note, this graph does not yet include 2005, so we can look forward to another spike.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    17. Re:...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's also a oft-repeated special on the History Channel intitled "Isaac's Storm" that covers the majority of the background and happenings during the storm.

    18. Re:...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll stick with industry fueled climate change as the most likely suspect until I see hard data to the contrary.

      The hurricanes are being fueled by abnormally active solar winds. Things are as simple as that.

      Unfortunately, some groups of people (of which you are one) feel that it's OK to mislead folks who aren't scientifically inclined into fearing the use of fossil fuels as energy. I don't understand the mindset of people who believe that if they can't outright tell people what to do (freewill and all) that it's OK to trick people into doing what you want.

    19. Re:...so? by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You have three complete cycles. That is more then enough for the Nyquist Limit

      This cycle is known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The theory is that this is caused by interference effect between the sunspot cylces and El Nino/La Nina.

      And this would seem to affect fishery catches fishery catches

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re:...so? by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1

      Go for it, it's not like there will be any shortage of oil. The BBC are running an article on how it is becoming more and more attractive to exploit Arctic petroleum.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4356014.stm

      Spot the irony in the following statement;

      The rapidly retreating Arctic ice cap is believed to contain a quarter of the world's petroleum resources.

      Great, and burning this oil isn't likely to cause any further problems is it because all the ice will have gone :-)

    21. Re:...so? by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1

      Previous poster didn't say it was confirmed merely well-documented

    22. Re:...so? by Digitalia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, the Nyquist limit is inapplicable. It is not a valid tool for fitting a periodic relation to data.

      Second, the PDO is completely irrelevant when one is discussing increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic. In the Atlantic, only one periodic effect is widely observed, and that is the North Atlantic oscillation. The NAO, as the name might suggest, does not have an effect on hurricanes in the South, its period is not the same as the possible periodic hurricane effect, and it changed phase in the 80s making it exceedingly unlikely that the two events are actually related in any meaningful way. Even the Antarctic Cirumpolar wave is most likely irrelevant, as it has a period of four years and directly effects only the South Atlantic. There may very well be another effect in the Atlantic, but three cycles is most certainly not enough to definitively say. Climatologists accept the PDO because it has been observed in data going back to 1661. Until sufficient evidence is provided for this Atlantic effect, we must not presume that it exists. It may simply be coincidence.

      --
      Pax Digitalia
    23. Re:...so? by et764 · · Score: 1

      And how long have we been studying global warming? I think 150 years of book keeping seems to make a more likely explanation than chalking it up to global warming which that I know of hasn't been studied nearly as long, nor is it very well-understood as of yet.

    24. Re:...so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the number of really big storms it almost looks like we'll have to add another category at the top (Cat 5E anyone?). The Administration should like this since it will reduce the number of "most severe" storms.

    25. Re:...so? by Cally · · Score: 1

      hours and hours too late to mention this, but Real Climate,where the stores are written by serious academic climate prediction/modelling/reasearch types, had a piece on the hurricane/GW connection (or IS it?) that appeared just before Katrina, IIRC. Here it is: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181. If I recall correctly the bottom line is that models indicate loose coupling between the number of storms and GW factors, but that storminess (how energetic a storm is.) It's a couple of months since I read it and my memory's not great, though, so I wouldn't take my word for it ;)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    26. Re:...so? by rynthetyn · · Score: 1

      Fine, stick with what you want, I'd rather believe what meteorologists who spend their entire careers studying these sort of weather events say, and that is that there is no statistically significant evidence that climate change has any correlation with frequency and intensity of storms. I've lived in Florida my entire life, we've been waiting for this upswing to happen for the last 4 or 5 years now because we're actually a bit overdue for the cycle to start up again.

      --
      Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
    27. Re:...so? by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      Except one of those "Voodoo" predictions we can exact change over to eliminate as a potential cause, reaping secondary benefits in the process.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    28. Re:...so? by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 0

      Please stop trashing those that are religious. I apologize for whoever made you think that Christians were elitist. But honestly, your on slashdot. Who isn't elitist here?

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    29. Re:...so? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      ACE is not a measure of energy - it is a proxy for the energy. The correct energy calculation is the integral of the CUBE of the wind speed, which is what Kerry Emanuel calculated. That IS at a peak since the 1940s, and incidentally correlates well with sea surface temperatures. I haven't worked out 2005, but you might be surprised.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    30. Re:...so? by hawkfish · · Score: 1
      Also, less in magnitude is hard to say since Wilma set a record for the lowest pressure reading ever recorded in an Atlantic hurricane at 882mb (record lowest world wide belongs to Typhoon Tip in the northwest Pacific at 870mb).
      Careful here. Records will always be set - that is their nature. Plots of maximum windspeed and lowest pressure in the years since 1940 or so show no trend in maximal intensity. There appears to be some sort of physical limit.

      Now, within those limits, there appears to be an increase in the amount of energy dissipated that correlates well with sea surface temperatures, but there is a difference between saying that the overall intensity of the storms is increasing and saying that the maximum intensity is increasing.
      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  4. Alpha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alpha? pfft That is just the beginning, when hurrican Omega is on the the way, I will start to worry.

    1. Re:Alpha? by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      Hurricanes are bad enough, but when those cans start swirling around ...

  5. Don't feed the Zonk. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you start spouting off about global warming now, on either side, Zonk wins.

    1. Re:Don't feed the Zonk. by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      Forget global warming, judgement day is upon us !

    2. Re:Don't feed the Zonk. by kalel666 · · Score: 1

      I broke the dam.

      --
      I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
    3. Re:Don't feed the Zonk. by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 1

      Wow! Who knew the White House had an account here?

    4. Re:Don't feed the Zonk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I broke the dam

  6. When they said "use Greek letters"... by cperciva · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When they said "we'll have to use Greek letters if we run out", I assumed that they meant "use Greek names starting with the appropriate letters" (and use the Greek letters themselves as the single-character symbols on maps). Names "Athena", "Basileus", "Chronos", "Dionysus", etc. would have been really neat for tropical storms, and they'd have helped to make people more familiar with classical mythology as well.

    But no, apparently they're just using the Greek letters themselves. Quite apart from being unimaginative... what happens if Hurricane Epsilon is particularly destructive and NOAA decides to retire the name? They can hardly retire a letter of the Greek alphabet.

    1. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by eobanb · · Score: 1

      Uh, OK. If they were going to use Greek God names, then maybe they would have said something like "we're going to use Greek God names if we run out." But that's not what they said; they said Greek letters. I also don't see how it would have made people more familiar with Greek mythology any more than it would get people more familiar with the Greek alphabet.

      As for the "they can't retire a Greek letter" thing...of course they can. They just don't use it as a storm name anymore.

      Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's so damn hard to figure out?

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    2. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hurricane Balki has a nice ring to it, although of course he's Miposian, not Greek. Following that of course, would be Hurricane Cousinlarry.

    3. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Because of course, the primary reason for using names to identify hurricanes is because it's "really neat".

    4. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      I was actually a bit suprised by using just the letter as well. They don't use Hurricane A, Hurricane B, etc they use names using those letters. That is to allow for different names to these storms each year. Now the next time we run out of "normal" names it will just start at Alpha again? So year-to-year the first 21 storms will always get "unique" names, but all storms after that will use the same names? If it makes sense to use a naming convention to have differnt names year-to-year, why have it stop after 21? Just was a bit suprised by it myself and was expecting something else as well. That said, after a bit of thought it did make a bit more sense. What is a name with Alpha? Alpha = A, so we'd just get another hurricane beginning with A. Sure, it may be an ethnically greek name, but still it would be confusing. Which was the first and which was the 22nd?

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    5. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      This was just a contingency plan; they never expected to get to Wilma, let alone Alpha, Beta, or Gamma. That's why it wasn't thought through so carefully. I imagine that if they do get a "retireable" storm with a Greek-letter name, they'll come up with another contingency plan.

    6. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. If they weren't going for the neat factor, they'd simbly number them. Calling a hurricane something like "1998.14" would do perfectly well if they didn't need a neat name that makes people tremble in fear, such as "Wilma".

    7. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Fermatprime · · Score: 5, Funny

      Epsilon won't be particularly destructive. It'll be tiny.

      --
      I hate the one hundred and twenty character limit for signatures with an all-enveloping, all-destroying, incredible pass
    8. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Raghead · · Score: 1

      You know, they don't get unique names every year. There are only six lists of names that are cycled through. Only the really destructive names get retired.

    9. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by rubens · · Score: 1

      Epsilon won't be particularly destructive. It'll be tiny.

      Don't overestimate the mathematical knowledge of a slashdot audience...

    10. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Bill+Kilgore · · Score: 1

      Only the Committee for Unique Naming of Tropical Storms (CUNTS) would do something as brain-dead as limiting themselves to using only 21 letters of our fairly well-known alphabet. The feds once again demonstrate their incredible powers of idiocy by making Alpha, which has meant "first" for 5000 years, now mean 22nd.

      --
      Rediculous: A word indicating the writer is ridiculously ignorant.
    11. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Zathras26 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, they already do have plans in place for that. If Alpha (for example) ever needs to be retired, they'll simply skip it the next time they get to the Greek letters, and the next storm after the W name will be Beta. I don't think it's anything to be terribly concerned about in any event. Getting to the Greek letters at all is obviously quite rare, and that being the case, it's even less likely that a Greek letter will ever have to be retired.

    12. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my ex-wife's name is Wilma, and trust me, I tremble in fear every time I hear the name... and wasn't surprised that they named a hurricane after her.

    13. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      I don't think they've actually defined what they do for storm names 22+ in the year after they use Alpha. It's not like next year's 22nd storm can happen before they've decided, since they meet (to decide what names to retire and choose replacements) between seasons anyway. They only really need to have a plan for each individual year at the beginning of the year.

    14. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      Actually epsilon needn't be that small, but we can expect it to be bounded by some function of the size of hurricane delta, so you really ought to be watching delta closely if you have any concerns about epsilon.

      Jedidiah.

    15. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your fault for being stupid enough to marry that bitch. So shut the fuck up and stop whining about your fucking mistake.

    16. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by darklordyoda · · Score: 1

      What about Hurricane Pi?

      Mmmm...hurricane pi...

    17. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      If they run out, they'll have to start using combinations of Greek Letters, naming the storms after fraternities/sororities:

      "Miami Threatened by Delta Nu!"
      "Phi Beta Kappa creates chaos in Palm Beach!"

      That way the papers can reuse the same headline for two different stories.

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    18. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my. Math geeks!

    19. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the smallest tropical cyclone on record was also a rather powerful one. Cyclone Tracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Tracy was only 30 miles (50km) wide and she was at least a catagory 4 storm when she hit Darwin, Australia in December of 1974. It bascially leveled the entire city.

      So small tropical cyclones can and do cause severe damage.

    20. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by Poeir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but watch out for Hurricane Omega.

      --
      Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    21. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by sdnoob · · Score: 1

      well they did hit 22 named storms before they could come up with something better than alpha, beta...

      i would expect they'll have to retire the greek alphabet named ones if an affected country petitions for it, just like they do for the 'regular' named ones.

      considering this is the first time they've run out of names in the atlantic, the chances of exausting and retiring all the greek letters in addition to using up the first 21 names, while there is still anyone left alive to even name storms in the first place, is pretty unlikely.

      but they could just add a few more names like they did in the pacific back in '85 (when they did in fact run out of names)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Pacific_hurrican e_season
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_tropical_cyc lone_names#North_Pacific_east_of_140W

      if they had the common sense to add names to the pacific lists..... why not in the atlantic? after (or during) 1995's season of nineteen named storms (out of 21 names) would have been the time to add the extra names... and in august of this year, when the "experts" predicted up to a record-tying 21 storms could happen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurrica ne_season#Mid-season_outlook , they had another chance to add additional names (just like they did in '85 for the pacific).

    22. Re:When they said "use Greek letters"... by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Getting to the Greek letters at all is obviously quite rare...
      In fact, this is the first time it's ever happened — we've never had more than 21 named storms in a single season before. If you buy the theory that this year was just a peak in a long cycle, then it'll be another 80 years before we have to resort to Greek letters again. But if you buy the theory that global warming is generating extra hurricanes, we may run out of Greek letters awfully quickly. Though that'd be the least of our problems!
  7. Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now this is going to be very unpopular, but here's my little conundrum....

    America considers itself to be 'God's own country' and in particular the bible belt in the heartland of America believes this to be true. Now traditionally speaking, Hurricanes, Tornados, floods etc are considered to be 'Acts of God' so can someone please explain to me why these people who live in areas which are flattened year after year by 'Acts of God' don't actually start wondering if they're doing something to cause all these 'Acts of God'? I mean just read the Bible, there's chapter after chapter of destruction caused by God on the infidels and these people talk about the Bible every Sunday, have to evacuate their trailer park at least once a year and they still don't put two and two together?

    Me? I don't believe a damn of it but if you say you believe in God and your home gets trashed annually by 'Acts of God', please consider that it could just be because of the way you/your nation behaves......

    1. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting concept. So what do you think the tens of thousands of dead in Pakistan from the quake are guilty of? Or the Sri Lankans & Indonesians killed by the tsunami? Or do you propose those to be punishment of America, too?

      Why do so many people believe in a hateful God just itching to engage in slaughter? My God has better things to do, like help, not hurt. She also has a great sense of humor & is doubtlesslessy chuckling about the notion.

      --
      If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
    2. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Funny
      Ah, but it's all part of Gods' Plan

      Like all forms of suffering, you can just play the "Mysterious Ways" trump card, and be instantly absolved of explaining why a being that is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent permits suffering to happen.

      The obvious logical explanation is that either there is no such being ; either it is absent or a supernatural sentience does exist, but lacks at least one of those three qualities (i.e. it doesn't know, can't do anything about it or doesn't care).

      Of course, logical arguments are usually countered with the "La-la-la, I'm not listening." move or the "Repeat my viewpoint over and over again in lieu of actually providing a chain of logic" tactic.

      You could proabably make a trading card game based on this ... "Atheists vs <insert most culturally appropriate religion here>". Heck, you could have different sets of booster packs for each religion. I hereby patent this idea!

      "Theology : The Blathering"

    3. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do so many people believe in a hateful God just itching to engage in slaughter?

      Probably because that's how he's described in the Bible. Most religious people have read the Bible and not your mind.

    4. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You betcha. Its all that gay sex.

    5. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love that name! (ROTFL)

      Of course, if you wanted karma for the interesting/insightful part, you probably blew it...

    6. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      You see, that's just His way of saying: "Stop bothering me with your mindless drivel, you nimrods!" I mean, if a few million people would call me every day for some reason (with many of them just repeating some latin poetry that I have alreay heard a few billion times) I'd cerainly be a bit pissy.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by tehanu · · Score: 1

      Well, as the Chinese would say, it's the Mandate of Heaven in action baby! Or to be more exact, "Heaven" withdrawing its permission to govern from the ruler/s, presumably because they're evil, corrupt and generally crap.

      But I'm willing to bet that fundamentalist Christians in the US will just say that it's because the existence of sin in the US i.e. homosexuality, the teaching of evolution, etc. ignoring the fact that it doesn't really seem as if the liberal "sinner" states are the ones getting hit. In fact, even in New Orleans, it was the sinful gay pride French Quarter that survived best. God has bad aim it seems. Or maybe he just likes the French. Or maybe it's just because most of New Orleans was a sitting duck except for the French Quarter which was built on the highest bit of land in the area and it has nothing to do with God. But anyway, you'd better hope that US Christian fundamentalists *don't* start thinking about this too much as it would merely make them more fervent in their attempts to quash "sin" i.e. homosexuality, the teaching of evolution, abortion etc. In China, when talk started about the Mandate of Heaven it never led to secularism and introspection. It led to militant fanatic religious groups with a strong peasant base trying to take over the country. They always failed but the internal conflict inevitably weakened the government enough to cause its collapse.

    8. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always seemed to me that the God's Mysterious Plan explanation made the most sense. More sense, I mean, than even trying to understand anything that "God did/does/thinks." Allow me to explain. God is supposed to be some sort of infinitely intelligent, Good being, right? So why would we humans be able to understand anything that God does?

      Think of it this way: To an young boy who cannot understand what adults say, it makes no sense whatsoever that his father leaves every day (to go to work). Where does he go? Why does he go there? There is a whole system that provides the reason (father goes to work to do something for someone who gives him money which he obtained in a similar manner, that money is used to pay someone to do work for him, etc. "Money is exchanged for goods and services.") The child certainly doesn't know what his father is thinking, of all things. He doesn't even know what his father is doing.

      So it seems that it makes a Hell of a lot more sense that we have no fucking clue what God thinks.

    9. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by whopis · · Score: 1

      If you read all of the bible, you will see that god actually has a change of heart and personality at one point. While the earlier god is quick to start the smiting and the fire and brimstone, by the end god has really mellowed out and isn't such a angry god. It seems like there were some anger management classes sometime after the flood.

    10. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1
      Of course, your father is not reputed to be blessed with inifite wisdom and godly powers, even if it seems like it when you are of a certain age.

      The point being, that human beings believe that God is benevolent, and loves them. If he is omnipotent, he may arrange matters as he wishes. Therefore, if a person suffers, it is because God wishes them to suffer. Which makes a lie of the claim of benevolence. Or God is unaware of the suffering, which rules out omniscience. Or God cannot create conditions under which people are happy (or even lack suffering). Which rules out omnipotence. If a supernatural being exists, it must lack between one and three of these qualities which are usually assigned to God (or the being is absent), in order for the observable facts to be consistent.

      Yes, I agree that a superintelligent being would probably have some actions and motivations that would confuse me. But since we are simple beings, driven by simple urges, how can such a being i) Fail to understand what makes us suffer, and conversely, makes us happy (esp. since said being is our alleged creator). ii) Fail to be able to create an environment in which suffering ends.

      Anticipated card played by opponent .... "Free Will : Man Chooses to Suffer"

      Free will is horseshit. My free will sayeth : I will now fly around the room in my jimjams. It doesn't happen. That's because I lack wings/jetboots/antigrav belt. We never have free will, because we are always constrained by the limitations of our bodies, minds and environment. Who defined the bodies, minds, enviroment? They are either the result of an impersonal universe of forces, or someone who knew all along what he was creating, before he created it. If the latter, since it was inevitable that much suffering would occur (and he must have been aware of that, if he possesses the attributes detailed in various religious texts), that would make him a sadist of the highest order.

      My non-belief in God is just that ; a belief. It requires faith, as does the position the theist must adopt. I cannot disprove the existence of supernatural being(s). But my observations cannot reconcile the state of the world and its people with the stated religious dogma of the prevailing faiths. Hence, I find it far more comfortable to realise that nothing in the universe gives a shit, except those remarkable collections of matter within it that have attained sentience.

      I mean, if you believe in a deity that treats you like crap and perpetually keeps you in the dark about his plans for you, that's your problem. Sounds like something very similar to your Father/Son scenario.

    11. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I guess that means that God is indeed punishing the fundamentalists. Hmm.. combine that with the earthquake in Pakistan... Seems likely.

    12. Re: Can you just stop and think for a minute? by embrown · · Score: 1

      I've often asked myself why the religious zealots haven't questioned all the natural disasters in recent months. They're paying attention to some degree, as seen by their theories as to why New Orleans was flattened by Hurricane Katrina.

      So, if that is the case, what have Floridians done to deserve just seven storms in a little more than a year (besides screwing up the 2000 election and re-electing GWB in 2004)?

    13. Re: Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, if that is the case, what have Floridians done to deserve just seven storms in a little more than a year (besides screwing up the 2000 election and re-electing GWB in 2004)?

      Uhhh... You mean, other than being bloody stupid, and continuing to live on a hurricane alley?

    14. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Ah poof, it's just an Ace Double:

      On one side: War God of Ancient Israel
      On the other: The Thing With Three Souls.

      No connection between the two whatsoever.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    15. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been blaming an angry God(s) for natural and personal disasters for thousands of years. Only 150 years ago in the US it was common practice to let homes burn if struck by lightning. They would help extinguish your neighbors house if your punishment started to spread, but your house was toast.

      When Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod it was considered blashphemy and an attempt to thawrt the Will of God.

      Blaming the victim is as old as religion and a way to make the finger-pointers feel safe and superior.

      Sorry about the AC post, but I am an all powerful moderator today!

    16. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Others have already addressed your rather weak "free will" argument. Your argument regarding the qualities of God is also lacking, as you are simply pointing out conflicts in stated principles. Anyone can generate conflicts in principles-- look at any rigorous legal, ethical, or moral code. I believe it would be wrong to kill people, but I am not necessarily a pacifist-- I might kill someone if they threatened to kill my family.

      Ah, but you'll say, God is omnipotent, God can make reality fit within whatever contrivances so desired, yet we don't see a reality matching those principles.

      To this point, although you have cited various qualities attributed to God, you have not specified any particular end or purpose of God. Perhaps I am a stingy guy, yet I purchase a new Porsche tomorrow-- am I no longer stingy? I submit to you that stinginess indicates that, all else being equal, I would prefer the parsimonious option. You do not know, however, my purpose for the purchase, which may invalidate cheaper options. You might choose to fight my argument by referring back to the omnipotence argument, that God could redefine all these options such that purposes and qualities all fit together. This, however, could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of understanding on the non-omniscient's part of those very qualities and purposes.

      To wit, if you were to buy into the Christian God story, a benevolent, omnipotent God apparently subjects himself (in the form of Jesus) to substantial physical agony. This strikes me as madness, as I cannot remotely claim to desire the same if I were to have such omnipotent or benevolent traits. Nonetheless, it does not disprove to me the existence of such a being who might choose to do so.

    17. Re:Can you just stop and think for a minute? by Petey_Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Popped by to say that this should be modded the hell up.

  8. A bit off-topic by FunctionalMethod · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But why did they start using the Greek Alphabet? I mean there are more then 21 names ( Rita , Katrina etc. ) so why not just continue naming them the same way?

    Just adding MALE names would give you atleast 20 more easy names. Why are storm names female? I suppose it comes from the old days when only men worked as sailors , and thus named everything female.

    Someone with a bit of backround in the thema can help , maybe?

    --
    -- TRUST ME! I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!
    1. Re:A bit off-topic by dink353 · · Score: 1

      They actually DO use male names for storms. This season already we have had Dennis and Nate, just to name two. The reason as to why they branched out into the greek alphabet is beyond me though.

    2. Re:A bit off-topic by eobanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      See, except, they DO name storms with male names. Remember Hurricane Andrew? The reason they went to the Greek alphabet was that they name the storms in alphabetical order, and once they get to the end of the alphabet, you COULD start with A again, but you wouldn't know (just from the name, at least) whether that storm occurred at the beginning or the end of the hurricane season.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    3. Re:A bit off-topic by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Informative
      Just adding MALE names would give you atleast 20 more easy names. Why are storm names female? I suppose it comes from the old days when only men worked as sailors , and thus named everything female.
      You might have heard of hurricanes Charley, Dennis, Frederick, or Hugo; the name pool isn't restricted to female names. Names for named tropical storms in the Atlantic are pulled from a list which rotates every six years, and the combined series of six lists contains an equal number of male and female names.

      More information is available at NASA's Hurricane Names page.
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    4. Re:A bit off-topic by danharan · · Score: 1
      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    5. Re:A bit off-topic by fcolari · · Score: 2, Informative

      Female names started in 1953. Male names didn't show up until '79. Way back in the past it was named after the partiuclar Saint's Day in which it showed up. Ref: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/reason.html "History of Hurricane Names"

      --
      "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces." --Aldo Leopold (Paraphrased)
    6. Re:A bit off-topic by Lilkeeney · · Score: 1

      They rotate between male and female names. Do you remember Hurricane Hugo, Bob, Andrew? All names are not female. Just Rita and Katrina were odd numbered storms.

    7. Re:A bit off-topic by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Why are storm names female?

      In 1975, just after cyclone Tracy obliterated Darwin in 1974 the Australian BOM decided to use a mix of male and female names for cyclones.

      I think this naming convention was just a slightly sexist joke on the part of the people who do the naming. In this day and age I think it would be best if these weather systems were just given numbers. It is not like people are going to forget they are there, after all./p.

    8. Re:A bit off-topic by FunctionalMethod · · Score: 1

      A yes now that you mention those I remember them. I don't live anywhere near regions where hurricanes form , so the only one I could remember where the last ones . That combined with the fact that most bad stuff are named female , I kinda jumped to conclusions.

      --
      -- TRUST ME! I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!
    9. Re:A bit off-topic by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      > The reason as to why they branched out > into the greek alphabet is beyond me though. I am sure those who had children with the names of hurricanes aren't too happy about it.

    10. Re:A bit off-topic by beaso · · Score: 5, Funny

      They name storms and hurricanes after women because when they come, they're loud and wet, and when they leave, they take your house and car.

    11. Re:A bit off-topic by Peyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am sure those who had children with the names of hurricanes aren't too happy about it.

      The millions of us named Andrew have trouble sleeping every night.

      --
      What?
    12. Re:A bit off-topic by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      Why are all storms given female names?

      I see you have never been married.....

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    13. Re:A bit off-topic by novus+ordo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why are storm names female?

      They scream when they're coming and take your house when they leave.

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    14. Re:A bit off-topic by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      The reason they went to the Greek alphabet was that they name the storms in alphabetical order,

      I think they should just use 7 bit ASCII names, and if that's not enough, go to Unicode.

      Just need to think of some names beginning with [, \, ], ..., then start over with cool lowercase names like djmurdoch and eobanb.

    15. Re:A bit off-topic by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      We had numbers out in the Bay of Bengal until this year. Starting this season, for easier record-keeping purposes apparently, all our cyclones will be named after abstract, gender-unspecific entities in four or five prominent languages spoken around the Rim.

      Unfortunately though, the names don't seem to have been tested for inter-cultural ironies. The name of the latest cyclone to hit India, Pyaar, for instance, was named in Burmese to mean 'flattened', but in Hindi, the same word means 'love'. We've just been flattened by love from the Bay of Bengal, you might say.

    16. Re:A bit off-topic by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1


      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!


      Is she hot?
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    17. Re:A bit off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why are storm names female?"
      Because otherwise they'd be "himicanes". Duh!

    18. Re:A bit off-topic by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Why are storm names female?

      Right, those classic female names Andrew, Charlie, Francis, Mitch, and so forth. Just like my dear papa.

    19. Re:A bit off-topic by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      Hell no, I still had the newspaper headline tacked up on my wall saying "Andrew wreaks havoc"

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    20. Re:A bit off-topic by DJH47 · · Score: 1

      They are not. It alternates between male and female names. It has just been that the three category 5 hurricanes were female.

    21. Re:A bit off-topic by mclaincausey · · Score: 1

      So, what are Ivan and Andres, drag queens?

      --
      (%i1) factor(777353);
      (%o1) 777353
    22. Re:A bit off-topic by WillerZ · · Score: 1

      One of the managers near me has the BBC headline "Souther US mops up after Dennis" on his wall. I think he appreciated having a hurricane named after him...

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    23. Re:A bit off-topic by shark72 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Why are storm names female?"

      Back in the day when hurricanes really were given exclusively female names, the common answer was because there's so such thing as a HIMicane.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    24. Re:A bit off-topic by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine we will be brave enough to name a cyclone Mohammed

    25. Re:A bit off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not any X Y and Z names? They are not used frequently, like well ever before this, so why not Xaviar, Yolanda, and Zane?

    26. Re:A bit off-topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know a lot of women named Ivan, Dennis, Andrew, Hugo, and Mitch?

    27. Re:A bit off-topic by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      I see you have never been married.....


      It sounds like you want to change that.

      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  9. Not to spout Zonk food, but by a.different.perspect · · Score: 1

    We really should be worried. The real test will be next year: if there are an enormous number of hurricanes then as well, we probably have a pattern. That's when the political shit really hits the fan (and gets swept up and distributed across the Gulf).

    1. Re:Not to spout Zonk food, but by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      It's going to take at least 5 years of consistent results before anyone that doesn't already have their mind made up starts noticing, if there does turn out to be a trend, and they will all blame the party they're not a part of anyway and nothing will change. Politics is awesome that way.

    2. Re:Not to spout Zonk food, but by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I don't have time to worry about that. I'm all busy worrying about that dangerous, growing Greenland ice sheet. Just like they said in the 70's, that Ice Age is coming. Or is the other way around? It's almost like there's a short, shallow supply of contradictory evidence and a lot of overblown political blather on every side! Almost like that, anyway. Causality shmausality.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Not to spout Zonk food, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Did you read the article, or just grab the link off a weblog? If you skipped the actual tedious reading, here's some relevant text which punnctures your flippant entire-scientific-community-dismissing pose:

      Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire ice cap was thinning.

      "The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 1.9 inches a year or 21.26 inches over 11 years," according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway.

      However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

      Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 32 Fahrenheit.

  10. It's just because they're unimaginative. by Harker · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can't come up with names beginning with X, Y, and Z.

    H.

    --
    When VCR's are outlawed, only outlaws will have VCR's.
    1. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      X,Y, Z... as well as Q and U

      Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Katrina, Lee, Maria, Nate, Ophelia, Philippe, Rita, Stan, Tammy, Vince, Wilma

      How about... Quincy, Ulysses, Xander, Yoda, and Zack?

    2. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by ziggamon2.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's because nerds would keep rushing towards, not from Hurricane Xena, and we wouldn't want that, would we? ;-)

    3. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't work. That would mean hurricane Alpha could have been called Xena. 'Xena' conjures up images of a sexy, athletic woman in leather with a curious fondness of her sidekick. Thats the sort of thing people would sit down and watch, rather than run in fear from.

    4. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by hattig · · Score: 1

      Quentin, err
      Ulrika, Ursula, Ulrich, Una, err
      Xanthe
      Yvette, err ... Yolanda umm
      Zardoz :p

      But I think you need to come up with a total of 5 female and male names for each letter for it to be a viable option. But that should be easy enough with the name lists that are readily available.

    5. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why don't sell the naming rights to tropical storms? They already sold the some monkey to goldenpalace.com - why not a hurricane? Just imagine the possibilities: A pump manufacturer could call a hurricane "And Once It's Over, XYZ Pumps Will Help Pump Out Your Basement". Countless possibilites, I tell ya.

      Especially if someone a the EFF decides to buy a nasty hurricane and hve it called "Software Patents" or something... "We're reporting live from Podunk, Texas, where fifty people were killed by Software Patents".

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Weird... my wife and I were looking at a baby book last night and just decided on Xander if we get a boy. What are the odds? (p.s. not 50-50)

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    7. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      ZELDA

      duh.. :P your geek creds are hereby revoked.

    8. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you _WATCHED_ Drawn Together?

    9. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK. Now come up with six of each since it's a six year rotation. Oh, and better make that eight in case some get retired. Oh, and please make sure that four of those are men's names and four are women's names.

    10. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably could, but I don't want to see in the news anything about hurricane Xexyz, Yar's Revenge, or Zanac.

    11. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by devinjones · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why don't sell the naming rights to tropical storms? They already sold the some monkey to goldenpalace.com - why not a hurricane? Just imagine the possibilities:

      You don't want that. MS can afford to buy a lot more names:

      "We're reporting live from Podunk, Texas, where fifty people were killed by Open Source Software".

      "Thousands left homeless by The GPL"

    12. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1
      --
      My rights don't need management.
    13. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by iabervon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, they have names for X, Y, and Z, but only for Northern East Pacific storms (and they're on a 2-year, rather than 6-year, cycle). Beats me as to why they've got 24 names for the Pacific side and 21 for the Atlantic side, when almost all of the storms in these areas are on the Atlantic (which is an east coast, and also has the big cyclone-generating area); all the major Pacific storms are in other parts of the ocean, where they get names from a different list.

    14. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, you're really going to do that to your kid? Asshole.

    15. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      Wilma
      Xavier
      Yvette
      Zachary

      I even stuck to the alternating male/female naming convention! Apparently NOAA doesn't use X, Y, or Z because there "aren't enough names beginning with those letters." The thing is, it's really, really, really rare that you would even get to W, so why not have what few names you can think of starting with those letters held in reserve for the last few storms of the season, should you ever get that far into the alphabet?

      I should run the Hurricane Naming Center!

    16. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      Hey congratulations man

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    17. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Bill+Kilgore · · Score: 1

      That's a crock of you-know-what. As far as we know, we have >21 namable storms once in ~75 years. One set and a few spares of X-Y-Z would be sufficient. Why do people just accept arbitrary arrangements as hard and fast rules?

      --
      Rediculous: A word indicating the writer is ridiculously ignorant.
    18. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Sun+Rider · · Score: 1

      Xochitl, Yolanda and Zenaida. Maybe for Hurricanes starting in the Spanish-speaking area.

    19. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Thanks!!! thats a much nicer reply than the guy who called me an asshole for naming a child Xander (short for Alexander by the way).

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    20. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by dacarr · · Score: 1

      I wonder when they're going to name one Zaphod.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    21. Re:It's just because they're unimaginative. by hattig · · Score: 1

      your geek creds are hereby revoked.

      Oh well, I'll live. :)

  11. Oh yes. Global warming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not since 1933(!) has there been 21 storms worthy of a name of its own! This year passed that. So, there was almost a global warming problem in 1933. Darn those T-Fords!

    Nature works in intervals. We got a warmer period now. It'll be colder again soon enough.

    And if I'm wrong, I've probably died from skin cancer before you can hold me up to it. =D

  12. Frequency vs. severity by Elrac · · Score: 4, Informative

    I heard a news commentary last night that seemed reasonably well informed to me. They said that the frequency of tropical storms (i.e. the reason they're running out of names at the moment) varies in a natural cycle which is probably not noticeably affected by temperature. On the other hand, the severity of the storms is directly a function of their energy, which they get from warm tropical water, which is directly affected by temperature.

    If this is true and if global temperatures are affected by CO2 emissions, then human activity is probably causing these storms to be (on the average) more severe.

    While I feel sympathy for the poor bastards suffering in NOLA and elsewhere, I feel it's a good thing that Katrina is making Americans sit up and think about possible connections between environmental cause and meteorological effect. It's human nature to tend not to think much about things that don't affect one personally. I wonder how GWB's stance on emissions would be affected if a storm were to dismantle his ranch in Crawford?

    --
    When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
    1. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wonder how GWB's stance on emissions would be affected if a storm were to dismantle his ranch in Crawford?
      War On Storms, IMO.
    2. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wonder how GWB's stance on emissions would be affected if a storm were to dismantle his ranch in Crawford?
      War On Storms, IMO.
      Too true...
    3. Re:Frequency vs. severity by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I wonder how GWB's stance on emissions would be affected if a storm were to dismantle his ranch in Crawford?
      War On Storms, IMO.
      Nah, don't forget, there's a bunch of RWVs (RICH WHITE VOTERS) living there - you'd have federal disaster aid, the marines forwardly pre-deployed, etc. And room service in the "shelters", which would be double suites in hotels.
    4. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's a good thing that Katrina is making Americans sit up and think

      Go to hell. Or, more meaningfully, go to the 9th Ward. Or Waveland. Oops - they don't exist anymore.

      There is nothing - not a damned thing - good about Katrina.

    5. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It got rid of some americans, didn't it?

    6. Re:Frequency vs. severity by corbettw · · Score: 1

      If this is true and if global temperatures are affected by CO2 emissions, then human activity is probably causing these storms to be (on the average) more severe.


      Two 'ifs' in that sentance. Doesn't sound like something we should worry too much about.

      Oh, and did anyone else see the report that the ice caps are melting...on Mars? Guess there must be something else going on other than CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what could effect the tempature on the Earth, and on Mars, at the same time??

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:Frequency vs. severity by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      But both those 'ifs' are in fact facts.

      1) this IS a record breaking hurricane season, no 'ifs' about it.

      2) Global temperatures are inextricably linked to CO2 levels, its a simple fact, read any high school text book.

      There may be some, ableit public rather than scientific, debate about whether humans are causing the CO2 rise. Although I say public because the vast majority of scientists agree human emissions are the cause and many of the few that don't agree have vested interests like working for Exxon and friends).

    8. Re:Frequency vs. severity by tsajeff · · Score: 1

      The Bush family home in Kennebunkport, ME was heavily damaged in a tropical storm in 1991 and did not seem to change either one of their stances on emissions.

    9. Re:Frequency vs. severity by sunwolf · · Score: 1
      While I feel sympathy for the poor bastards suffering in NOLA and elsewhere, I feel it's a good thing that Katrina is making Americans sit up and think about possible connections between environmental cause and meteorological effect.
      It's not going to happen. They will mostly be concerned with how to abuse (transcript down a bit) their $2,000 FEMA debit cards than having lofty thoughts about the biosphere. You are probably among the 5% who did think about it that way, and you were already thinking it anyway.
    10. Re:Frequency vs. severity by c_forq · · Score: 1

      this IS a record breaking hurricane season, no 'ifs' about it.

      This is a record from data since 1830. There very well could have been much worse storms and many more in the 1700's, 1600's, and hell even B.C. If we had a record breaking earthquake would you assume it is the worst to have ever hit the earth?

      read any high school text book

      If you are using high school textbooks as a resource then I shouldn't even bother. There have been statements like "The Statue of Liberty is made of bronze" that have made it into high school textbooks. Just search google for "high school textbook mistakes".

      the vast majority of scientists agree human emissions are the cause and many of the few that don't agree have vested interests like working for Exxon and friends

      I grew up in a college town, as such most of my friend's parents are college professors. I've always heard that humans are hardly a drop in the ocean, especially compared to something like volcanos. The question is if our drop is causing a tip in the scale that wouldn't otherwise happen.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    11. Re:Frequency vs. severity by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 1

      It isn't RWVs (RICH WHITE VOTERS) that matter. It's RWDs (RICH WHITE DONORS). After all, counting the votes counts more than voting and counting the donations matters most of all.

    12. Re:Frequency vs. severity by ThreeE · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that there is a causitive relationship between human activity and global warming -- and I certainly don't believe there is one between human activity and these storms. Moreover, even if there was one, I wouldn't care or suggest a change in economic/energy policy. We'll adapt just like every other human generation has. Big deal.

    13. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative
      I wonder how GWB's stance on emissions would be affected if a storm were to dismantle his ranch in Crawford?

      Since Crawford is about 250 miles inland, if circumstances were such that a hurricane powerful enough to level it came about, then he'd be too busy dying with the rest of the world to have time to think about it. Same reason I don't have flood insurance on my house: if I ever actually needed it, I'd be too busy building an ark to care.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    14. Re:Frequency vs. severity by smithmc · · Score: 3, Funny

        I wonder how GWB's stance on emissions would be affected if a storm were to dismantle his ranch in Crawford?

      The "Axis of Evil" would become Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Mother Nature. (Mother Nature would come after North Korea because that's the order in which he would actually do anything about them.)

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    15. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It's record-breaking in terms of numbers, but in terms of overall storm energy, it's actually both lower than the record and lower than forecast. I am interested (as are a lot of climatologists, I imagine) in how it is that Wilma scaled from a Cat-1 to a Cat-5 so fast.

      Recent global temperatures correlate somewhat with increases in CO2, but what about the sudden upsurge from 1917 to 1944, where the global temperature increased by 0.59 degrees C in just 27 years before falling back off by 0.38 degrees in a mere 12 years? We're at a 0.66 degree increase in 28 years, inclusive of 2004 data, which isn't terribly much more than was experienced in the early part of the century. In fact, the peak seems to have been in 1998 so far, and 2005 looks on track to be a cooler year than 1998, though perhaps just a shade warmer than 2004.

      Data used

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:Frequency vs. severity by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I had forgotten about Diebold. /smack on side of head

      Of course, googling for diebold headquarters gets you this as #3 http://www.wanttoknow.info/votingproblems

      Voting Problems - Elections Cover-up

      Diebold's headquarters are located in Ohio, the state which decided the 2004
      presidential election ...

      .....
      30% of all U.S. votes were cast on touch screen voting machines. Most of them, including all of Florida's, lack paper records that could be used to verify the electronic results in a recount. Over 20 percent of the machines tested by observers around the country failed to record votes properly.
      .....
      Federal regulators have virtually no oversight over testing of the touchscreen technology. The three companies that certify the nation's voting technologies operate in secrecy, and refuse to discuss flaws in the voting machines.
      If you've ever worked on software that uses a touch screen, you KNOW how easy it is to screw it up in the field (piece of gum in an inconspicuous corner of the screen, and all votes are shifted over one, for example. Even if someone notices the gum, they won't touch it "Eww! Gross!") and won't connect it with the miscast ballot.

      Ditto for "recalibrating" the pointer.

    17. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say Mother Nature was the first target, actually.

    18. Re:Frequency vs. severity by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      Actually the latest data predicts that 2005 is on track to beat 1998 and be the hottest year ever recorded, or at the very minimum be the 2nd or 3rd hottest.

      Most major news organisations have run a story on the various reports, e.g.:
      The Washington Post
      Reuters

    19. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      That's one data source. NOAA's data, which I presume to be relatively accurate, says something different. Sometimes this happens in science -- two different data sets don't always agree. I suspect if we went looking, we might find datasets that support the ideas of it being warmer or cooler than the record. Simply writing off the data that NOAA has is being selective about your data, which can be used to invalidate a viewpoint.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    20. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syria will be breathing a sigh of relief

    21. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, that's also the order of who has the worst WMDs.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    22. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NOAA's data was presented back in June (i.e. before the northern hemisphere's summer). I remeber reading on the BBC news website that October's results (i.e. after this years extremely hot summer) show 2005 may still be the hottest year ever.

      Have NOAA published data since the Summer?

    23. Re:Frequency vs. severity by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1
      Every month, and it's at the link I provided. Here's the data from the last eight years:
      1998 12.63 13.00 13.37 14.43 15.41 16.10 16.42 16.25 15.49 14.51 13.37 12.69
      1999 12.46 12.73 13.10 14.12 15.05 15.82 16.05 15.91 15.31 14.34 13.28 12.58
      2000 12.28 12.63 13.22 14.21 15.13 15.82 16.05 16.02 15.29 14.29 13.16 12.47
      2001 12.44 12.55 13.35 14.22 15.28 15.99 16.23 16.17 15.44 14.52 13.52 12.61
      2002 12.71 12.88 13.49 14.30 15.26 16.02 16.28 16.06 15.44 14.45 13.43 12.56
      2003 12.60 12.62 13.30 14.21 15.28 16.02 16.28 16.19 15.54 14.62 13.49 12.77
      2004 12.52 12.77 13.41 14.28 15.15 15.92 16.17 16.08 15.48 14.59 13.58 12.71
      2005 12.62 12.57 13.37 14.35 15.31 16.10 16.37 16.18 15.60
      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  13. Last time was in the 30's by kelarr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Seems to me that we've just gotten better at finding the storms. I'm not sure that they've gotten that much more frequent. They didn't have satellites, radar, stormchasing planes, etc. until fairly recently. How many storms were missed?

    1. Re:Last time was in the 30's by Inaffect · · Score: 1

      This is a possibility. Who knows what kind of storms never made the record. It is somewhat weird though, that we're getting a hell of alot of powerful storms recently. Aren't the waters in the Gulf of Mexico about 5 degrees higher?

    2. Re:Last time was in the 30's by kelarr · · Score: 1

      With regards to the golbal warming issue, I don't think the fact can be denied (just ask the wooly mammoths). The earth was covered with ice 20,000 years ago, and it melted. So you might argue that we've been in a bit of a warming trend for the past few thousand years.
      Humans may be contributing, but to consider them as the root cause is a bit anthropocentric.

      Ocean Currents are complex, and we're jsut staring to understand them.
      There is a north atlantic current that seems to self-regulate temeperature. Shows how cyclical this climate change may be.
      http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/documents/pe-sp r04/atlantic.pdf

    3. Re:Last time was in the 30's by dbIII · · Score: 1
      How many storms were missed?
      Look at a satellite photo - these things are big, and all those islands have been inhabited by people who write a lot of stuff down for at least a couple of hundred years. It's hard to ignore something as big as a hurricane.
    4. Re:Last time was in the 30's by Detritus · · Score: 1

      We've had weather satellites for about 40+ years. I doubt that any major storms have gone undetected, unlike the old days, when they depended on weather reports from ships at sea.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:Last time was in the 30's by kelarr · · Score: 1

      Right... look at a "satellite" photo. Even if it's a ten year cycle, that means we're only seeing the second or third peak since we've been actively in space.

      Named storms are not always large. Hurricanes yes, not necessarily trpoical storms

      Many of these storms spin off into the atlantic (look at the track for Philippe) and don't come close to land. These are the ones that were probably missed before the modern era.

      http://hurricane.accuweather.com/hurricane/storm s.asp?partner=accuweather&ocean=atlantic&storm=Phi lippe

    6. Re:Last time was in the 30's by dbIII · · Score: 1
      These are the ones that were probably missed before the modern era.
      Read some very simple and basic history - look up "Atlantic trade" "Spain" "Mexico" - it's hard to ignore even a single hurricane when there are dozens or later hundreds of sailing vessels in the area at all times over a few centuries.
  14. Lucky we didn't waste $ on greenhouse reduction... by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... because we're going to need that money to pay for all the storm damage we've been getting lately...

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
  15. Because God wants to test them by xixax · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's easy for the literalists:

    If God Fearin' folk get hit by natural disasters, it's just like in Job and their faith is being tested.

    If Godless goat sodomising strangers get hit by natural disasters, they are evil and are being righteously punished for their sins.

    Simple eh?

    Fortunaately most Godbotherers are intelligent enough to understand that if you chose to live in a hurricane zone, you will get the occassional hurricane.

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  16. Aleph, No way by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Of course it should be the from the futhark. After all, who were more acqainted to rough seas than vikings! The aleph comes from a desolate desert.

  17. Number of letters by dave_mcmillen · · Score: 1

    Alpha was the 22nd to reach tropical storm strength this year, and the season doesn't end until November 30.

    Aren't there, like, 25 or 26 letters, something like that? And no, I will not RTFA (read the fucking alphabet) - it's early on a Sunday morning.

    1. Re:Number of letters by otomo_1001 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the "big" storms (think Hurricaine Mitch, of which I share the same first name) get excluded after massive amounts of deaths.

      So while you start out with 26 letters, those storms that are nasty get their name revoked forever.

      Which might indicate this really isn't THAT bad of a storm season. But you never know.

    2. Re:Number of letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the last few letters of the alphabet are reserved for the Pacific Ocean. That way people will not get them confused. There have been a few Tropical Storms and Hurricanes in the Pacific that could have caused damage to southern California or Hawaii, just not any recently.

      I remember one that was aiming for Baja California that was being watched carefully as it could have easily wandered north and hit San Diego, but that was years ago, I think back in '91.

    3. Re:Number of letters by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Quick, how many names do you know that start with Q, U, X, Y, or Z ?

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Number of letters by Zathras26 · · Score: 1

      That's not why there are only 21 named storms, though. They skip certain letters of the alphabet, such as Q, X, Y, and Z because there aren't really enough names beginning with those letters to be able to fill out the six lists that they use on a rotating basis.

    5. Re:Number of letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quentin, Ulysses, Xara, Yelena and Zora.

    6. Re:Number of letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need one for each list, but extras for when you have to retire some.

    7. Re:Number of letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only do you need at least six names for Q, U, X, Y, and Z (one for each cycle), you also have to consider that these names will be retired if they cause enough damage.

    8. Re:Number of letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quentin
      Urquhart
      Xavier
      Yvonne
      Zoe

    9. Re:Number of letters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cmon, you stingy-ass motherfuckers...mod parent up....its funny

      I laughed

  18. Naming system needs to be changed by minsyntax · · Score: 1
    I suppose by "alpha" they're referring to TS2005-22!

    I can imagine only a handful of things more moronic than naming storms. If you had a baby girl early this year and named her Katrina, which meteorological naming organization do you sue?

    And can anyone remember the name of the third storm in 2003? I can, it was 2003-3. They should just number them. The Japanese number their typhoons, and everyone can refer to them once they've passed. I suppose you could give North American hurricanes letter codes: K instead of Katrina. But numbers are better than letters. The set of whole numbers contains significantly more than 26 members, certainly enough for any hurricane season before Armageddon.

    And yes, there are definitions based on which hemisphere a storm originates in, where it's headed etc, but lettered prefixes can solve that.

    1. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2003-3 isn't very news friendly. Won't someone please think of the media?

    2. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by agraupe · · Score: 1

      I was named Andrew in 1989... two years before the hurricane that devestated South Florida. I take pride in that, and I'm rather displeased that Katrina has replaced me as the most destructive storm ever. You have to look at the bright side of life, too. Now, if they named a hurricane the same as your kid, and it destroyed your house, that's just bad luck.

    3. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by Peyna · · Score: 1

      From the NHC:

      Experience shows that the use of short, distinctive given names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and less subject to error than the older more cumbersome latitude-longitude identification methods. These advantages are especially important in exchanging detailed storm information between hundreds of widely scattered stations, coastal bases, and ships at sea.

      Also, distinctive names make it easier to remember year to year which storm you are referring to. So while you might find numbers more convenient, chances are most people will find it easier to refer to Hurricane Hugo than whatever number storm it was in 1989.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      I can imagine only a handful of things more moronic than naming storms. If you had a baby girl early this year and named her Katrina, which meteorological naming organization do you sue?

      And that's one of them :). Sueing a meteorological naming organization? Really?

    5. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

      They should just number them

      Well, I'm just glad that you can come here to 66.35.250.151 and post your comments! I mean, the 66.35.250.151 crowd will definitely know where you're coming from. I was about to wish you'd mentioned a couple of other web sites in your discussion of the non-naming of Japanese storms, but it's just as well, since we wouldn't want those sites to get 66.35.250.151'ed.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you had a baby girl early this year and named her Katrina, which meteorological naming organization do you sue?

      Wow... you must be a democrat.

    7. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by Mishra100 · · Score: 1

      I thought of the exact same thing... Geez I'm becoming too much like a nerd. I'm just used to hearing books say at the beginning say "They use names because numbers are harder to remember".

    8. Re:Naming system needs to be changed by Intocabile · · Score: 1

      I agree it only makes people live in the past. You won't see and "I survived hurricane TS2005-22" t-shirts.

  19. Hurricane beta by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope hurricane Beta is extremely powerful. Then I can say "Wow... That Hurricane must have been really buggy..."

    1. Re:Hurricane beta by LooseChanj · · Score: 1

      Being an act of God, I expect nothing less than perfection.

      --
      Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
    2. Re:Hurricane beta by rubens · · Score: 1

      Good idea, and perhaps they should introduce a "Hurricane Release Candidate 1" after "Hurricane Beta"

    3. Re:Hurricane beta by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Hurricane Beta will do alright at first, but will shortly fizzle out afterwards to be replaced by Hurricane VHS

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  20. Sarcasm of some sort, me thnks by hsoft · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure, but I think the grandparent was sarcastic. If I had GWB in front of me and I wanted to make him understand that there might be a connection between hurricanes and human behavior, that's exactly what I would say to him, even if I don't personally believe in God. I mean, GWB is way too stupid to acknowledge scientific facts.

    Well, I don't even think 'sarcasm' is the right term. More like when you try to explain something to a child and use metaphors because the plain thruth is just too much for them, like explaining that one of their relatives is dead.

    --
    perception is reality
  21. they're used to it by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, bear in mind that the heartland of the United States has been subject to the worst weather on the planet for as far back as anyone knows. Take a look here, for example, a map of tornado hits. From the link: "The United States has the dubious distinction of having the most severe, damaging tornadoes of any country in the world."

    It's also the case that the US Gulf Coast is arguably the only highly-industrialized, high-population piece of the First World to have been so regularly pummeled by hurricanes in this century. And let's not even talk about minor problems like lightning, which whacks a hundred or so people a year, and for which Florida is the worst place to be outside of central Africa and atop mountains.

    I've lived in the American Midwest (Colorado and Illinois). They're a tough breed. You don't stay if you're scared of big storms, or worry that they're a personal message from God.

    1. Re:they're used to it by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've lived in the American Midwest (Colorado and Illinois). They're a tough breed. You don't stay if you're scared of big storms, or worry that they're a personal message from God.

      Oh, please. I've been a Midwesterner most of my life (Colorado, North Dakota, and now Minnesota; BTW, whether Colorado is "Midwest" or just "West" is debatable, but there's no question about the other two) and people here are no more a "tough breed" than anywhere else. Every place on Earth has its hardships, and overall the life here is a lot easier than it is in a lot of other places. It's also a matter of what you, personally, find most tolerable -- blizzards and tornadoes, I can deal with, but basic training in the Georgia summer damn near killed me. A lot of my family lives on the Gulf Coast, and I think they're nuts for staying, given the way things are going, but then, they think I'm nuts for voluntarily living somewhere that regularly sees temperatures of -40 F. Etc.

      Anyway. The question of "toughness" is a straw man; the GP poster's question was about faith. Specifically, why is it that people turn to God for comfort after natural disasters, but seem unable to ask hard questions about why they're suffering from these "Acts of God" in the first place? And I agree; it's dumb. Millennia of apologists have come up with ever-more-baroque philosophical explanations for the Problem of Suffering (both natural and man-made) and not a single one of them has ever arrived at a convincing answer.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:they're used to it by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      Millennia of apologists have come up with ever-more-baroque philosophical explanations for the Problem of Suffering (both natural and man-made) and not a single one of them has ever arrived at a convincing answer.

      I've heard several plausible answers. Maybe by holding out for "convincing" you're setting the bar too high.

    3. Re:they're used to it by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2, Informative
      Specifically, why is it that people turn to God for comfort after natural disasters, but seem unable to ask hard questions about why they're suffering from these "Acts of God" in the first place? And I agree; it's dumb. Millennia of apologists have come up with ever-more-baroque philosophical explanations for the Problem of Suffering (both natural and man-made) and not a single one of them has ever arrived at a convincing answer.

      The explanation that makes the most sense is that bad things happen to everyone, regardless of what they believe or how good they are. Based on the Bible, if God really wants to eliminate the wicked, He does a pretty thorough job of it. Examples: Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the flood (Genesis 6-8), Jericho (Joshua 6). When God is punishing sinners, He general sends a warning first, so that there's no doubt about why things are happening (see pretty much everything that happened to Israel in the Old Testament). Therefore, anybody who wants to speculate about the nature of those who are suffering the hardships of hurricanes and tornados needs to take a closer look at the Bible. Although the people living in New Orleans, Texas and Mississipi may have done many things wrong, the hurricanes were not natural consequences (except possibly of pollution), and I doubt that they were the vengeance of God.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    4. Re:they're used to it by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I'm not bashing your logic, but Colorado, North Dakota, and Minnesota don't stand in the face of Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and southern Illinois in terms of gawdawful tornados. Since they were the GP's topic, I don't think that you are in the right discussion. Watch anvil-shaped cumulonimbus clouds tens of thousands of feet high storming at you while the air "greens out" several times a year and you'll know how to control that pounding heart you've got. There's a reason that the U.S. threw the native americans into Oklahoma and took it back last, you know, and there's a reason that the area is called "tornado alley."

    5. Re:they're used to it by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      We do get tornadoes on the outlying fringes, just not as often. Back when I was a medic, stationed at Minot AFB (North Dakota), I had the fascinating experience of sitting in an ambulance parked just off the flightline watching an F3 heading straight for the B-52's ... fortunately it veered off before it hit them, but I had visions of it picking them up and tossing them right into base housing. Which it would have done, if it had kept going the way it was. It's a rare occurrence, I agree; I think I've seen all of three tornadoes in my life, and maybe fifteen funnel clouds that didn't touch down. I understand that in Oklahoma it's a lot more common.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:they're used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give the parent a gold star. God created man, and in the beginning gave him a perfect body to inhabit and perfect place in which that body could exist. Man chose to turn his back on God, and as a punishment God took away the "perfect" elements of his existence and left him to survive on his own, with God more or less becoming a passive observer with a keen interest.

      I believe that God still loves his creation and offers a means of salvation, but has said, "This is your world now - you didn't want me in it, so I will not intervene in day to day stuff. For the rest of your existence you'll have to deal with the consequences of your actions". Such consequences include disease, suffering, and death along with the occasional natural disaster. God *is* omnipotent and omniscient, but I think it's a mistake to attempt to impose upon Him a human set of values and assume that He cannot prevent natural disasters simple because He chooses not to.

      I very much agree with the parent in that if there is any question whether an event is a willful act of punishment from God, it almost certainly isn't.

  22. Poor Haiti by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

    Alpha's "only" a tropical storm, but the latest track forecast has it going right over Haiti.

    From what I understand of Haiti, if it's edible or burnable, it's been eaten or burned - so there's virtually no tree cover left in some places. The wind isn't the problem; I worry that the rainfall will bring flooding, mudslides and mass death.

    Florida will be fine. Haiti? I'm worried.

    1. Re:Poor Haiti by jrp2 · · Score: 1

      From what I understand of Haiti, if it's edible or burnable, it's been eaten or burned - so there's virtually no tree cover left in some places. The wind isn't the problem; I worry that the rainfall will bring flooding, mudslides and mass death.

      Look at the bright side, at least falling trees won't be a problem. That seems to be one of the big killers for storms that hit the states.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
  23. Is that or ? by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Is that or ? (capital Alpha or small Alpha)

  24. Re:Lucky we didn't waste $ on greenhouse reduction by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Not to mention the extra equipment we'll need to measure the growing Greenland ice coverage.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  25. More to come by Astronomypete · · Score: 0

    It looks like there is still plenty to come.

    http://www.met-office.gov.uk/weather/satellite/ind ex.html

    More storms flowing off the Sahara.

    ----
    Everyone shoots the messenger..

    --
    Better is the enemy of good enough. - Russian proverb.
  26. fair enough by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Okey doke. I've mostly got no bone to pick with that.

    But do let me note I didn't say they in the Midwest are tougher than others, just that they are a tough lot. I agree every place has its hardships, but the response of people who live there varies. Some are whiners and some just get on with life. When I compare my neighbors in the Midwest with my regrettable neighbors in LA, I think the former look pretty good.

    I didn't think my post was entirely unrelated to the question. The point was to suggest that worrying about whether your weather is a personal message from God is rather a narcissist weenie kind of thing to do, and folks who routinely survive such weather are probably not the sort to be doing it. I hope I'm clearer now.

    I was in Eastern Colorado, so I'm going to go with Midwest. People on the western slope sure didn't seem to consider us real Westerners, and having spent a smidge of traveling time in Nevada and Utah I kind of agree. On the other hand, calling coastal Californians "westerners" is plain ludicrous, so what can I say? It's probably just a state of mind.

    1. Re:fair enough by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Some are whiners and some just get on with life. When I compare my neighbors in the Midwest with my regrettable neighbors in LA, I think the former look pretty good.

      Heh. There's different types of whining. When the Minnesotan says, "Oh, yah, sure, didja hear about Ole Nordqvist, went missin' last October, and they just now dug him out?" and the North Dakotan replies, "Well, ya know, oh for sad, and here, have some more lutefisk!" ... they're whining, just in a different way from West Coasters. ;)

      LA is an interesting contrast. Insanely mild climate, beautiful scenery, all the Stuff you could possibly want -- and sitting on one of the world's biggest time bombs. Here on the northern plains at least you know when the weather's coming to get you.

      I didn't think my post was entirely unrelated to the question. The point was to suggest that worrying about whether your weather is a personal message from God is rather a narcissist weenie kind of thing to do, and folks who routinely survive such weather are probably not the sort to be doing it. I hope I'm clearer now.

      Okay, I see what you're saying, I just don't agree. I don't think worrying about whether God is targeting you with the weather is narcissistic at all; if you believe in God, and you believe that He taketh heed lest a sparrow fall and is therefore presumably quite aware of hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis and tornadoes ... then it's reasonable to ask exactly what your faith in Him is going to get you, and if maybe there's something wrong the umpteenth time your home gets flattened. Or it would be reasonable, if there were anything reasonable about faith at all.

      I was in Eastern Colorado, so I'm going to go with Midwest. People on the western slope sure didn't seem to consider us real Westerners, and having spent a smidge of traveling time in Nevada and Utah I kind of agree. On the other hand, calling coastal Californians "westerners" is plain ludicrous, so what can I say? It's probably just a state of mind.

      Eastern Colorado is very Midwest, I agree; "West" pretty much begins at the Front Range, where I'm from. And yeah, West Coast is a completely different category. Of course, it's all arbitrary anyway, and a lot of it has to do as much with history as with geography. If "West" means cowboys and Indians, f'rinstance, then eastern Colorado and western Kansas are more West than the mountains are! Personally, I was always fascinated by the mining history in the Front Range, and wish that was played up more, rather than the cattle business that was never all that large a part of Colorado's history. It was the pickaxe and the shovel that built the state, not the saddle and the spur.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:fair enough by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      LA is an interesting contrast....

      Aye, but you forgot to add unbelievable traffic and insane real estate prices. On my morning commute I routinely pass a freeway choked with traffic to 20 MPH, and it has ten lanes in each direction. That's nuts. The cheapest two bedroom condos where I live sell for half a million dollars. That's nuts, too. People buy houses out in Riverside where they're only semi-insanely priced and then get up at 4 AM to drive 70 miles to work. Ah well. As you say, each place is interesting in its own way.

  27. actually, it's the reverse by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    People who live in areas frequented by natural disasters have a greater tendency to believe in god, gods or other mythic beings. You have to remember that the average IQ is around 100, that's pretty dumb really, so it's easier to attribute chance, natural disasters, anything detrimental outwith their control to mythical beings than it is to try to analyse the real reasons for them and to do something about it.

    We'll see them sacrificing money, posessions in order to attempt to appease their particular deities over the coming months. Church memberships will increase, as will takings. Politics will take a turn to the conservative, the literal word of the bible becoming even more important.

    It's a good time to start a religion or to use one to influence people.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:actually, it's the reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You have to remember that the average IQ is around 100"

      Yeah, by definition.

      "that's pretty dumb really"

      Are you smart for proving your own point?

    2. Re:actually, it's the reverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it when atheists attempt to assert that the rest of the population is dumb for being spiritual. The truth is, we are all spiritual, we all believe in things that can't be proved, and, at some level, we all believe in destiny. Atheists are people who are so deeply closeted about their own spiritual beliefs that they have even fooled themselves.

  28. Prhaps w should rtir on of our lttrs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thr's on lttr in nglish that's usd far too frquntly. Prhaps w could rtir it instad. (I know, you'r talking about storms, but work with m hr.)

  29. Naming convention...get it right! by SirPablo · · Score: 4, Informative

    IAAM (I Am a Meteorologist), and I don't understand why there is so much confusion on the naming convention.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml

    "Since 1953, Atlantic tropical storms have been named from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center and now maintained and updated by an international committee of the World Meteorological Organization. The lists featured only women's names until 1979, when men's and women's names were alternated. Six lists are used in rotation. Thus, the 2004 list will be used again in 2010. Here is more information on the history of naming hurricanes."

    You don't have letters like Q or X because you really don't have a large pool of names to draw from (equally male and female). Once a NAME is retired, it is never used again. A LETTER is NEVER retired (though I'm not sure what they would do if a an Alpha or Beta was retired).

    Names alternate male-female. The beginning sex alternates each year. The first storm this year was Arlene, the first one next year will be Alberto.

    1. Re:Naming convention...get it right! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They've been talking about the naming problem for months. Why not convene an emergency session around 'm' to decide on enough names to make it to the end of the alphabet? what if alpha and the other 'a' storm were both destructive? (and they mean to tell us they couldn't find (or just plain make up) 6 names starting with those letters?)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Naming convention...get it right! by SirPablo · · Score: 1

      How many names can you come up with that start with Q,U,X,Y or Z? And you have to come up with equal names for each sex (5 male, 5 female). If a name is retired, another name is adopted to replace it. There are likely hundreds of names for each of the other main letters (A, B, C, etc). It's really not that difficult.

    3. Re:Naming convention...get it right! by geobeck · · Score: 1

      Is there a precedent for re-naming a storm once a name has been applied? Alpha seems to have been poorly thought out, for reasons already mentioned.

      It's not likely that 22 or more names will be required for a while, but it has happened once, and will happen again eventually. The next time there are 22 storms, will they skip from Waldo to Beta (assuming there isn't a Beta this year)?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    4. Re:Naming convention...get it right! by Itanshi · · Score: 1

      these are mostly english names, could they not use foreign names? Xingua, Ubuntu, Yumiko, Yuri, Zoro

    5. Re:Naming convention...get it right! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I don't have to. someone already did.

      http://www.babynames.com/Names/X/

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Naming convention...get it right! by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Names are only retired if there was a particularly nasty storm with landfall.

      e.g. Katrina & Wilma will probably be retired, but most other names used this year will be recycled (in six years, iirc).

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
  30. easy by TomasDK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To avoid losing the name "alpha", they add "05" (the year) to the name if they retire it. The retired name would be "alpha05".

    1. Re:easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      what happens when there are a shitload of hurricanes in 2105?

      you're the one responsible for the y2k problem, aren't you?

  31. Wrong years? by psyon1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the first time the U.S National Hurricane Center has resorted to using the Greek alphabet since it began naming tropical cyclones in 1953. The previous record of 21 named storms had stood since 1933.

    Am I reading this wrong, or is that a typo? If they did not start naming storms until 1953, how were there 21 NAMED storms in 1933? Did they go back and name the ones in the past?

    1. Re:Wrong years? by The+Shrewd+Dude · · Score: 1

      This is the first time the U.S National Hurricane Center has resorted to using the Greek alphabet since it began naming tropical cyclones in 1953. The previous record of 21 named storms had stood since 1933.
      Am I reading this wrong, or is that a typo? If they did not start naming storms until 1953, how were there 21 NAMED storms in 1933? Did they go back and name the ones in the past?


      It may be that someone other than the US National Hurricane Center named storms before 1953. Or, it may be that tropical cyclones are not the same as "storms".

    2. Re:Wrong years? by nautile · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There wern't 21 named storms in 1933; there were just 21 storms. If they were naming storms back then, they would've gone through an entire list like we did this year. The point is that was the most tropical storms/hurricanes in a season ever recorded -- until now.

    3. Re:Wrong years? by Leiterfluid · · Score: 1

      Actually, there were 21 named storms in 1933. From the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory's Hurricane Research Division:

      During World War II, tropical cyclones were informally given women's names by US Army Air Corp and Navy meteorologists (after their girlfriends or wives) who were monitoring and forecasting tropical cyclones over the Pacific. From 1950 to 1952, tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean were identified by the phonetic alphabet (Able-Baker-Charlie-etc.), but in 1953 the US Weather Bureau switched to women's names. In 1979, the WMO and the US National Weather Service (NWS) switched to a list of names that also included men's names.

  32. Recent records by Finuvir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Keep in mind that the records only go back to the early 1900s when the hall of records was mysteriously blown away.

    --
    Why is anything anything?
    1. Re:Recent records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anybody blamed George Bush yet?

  33. Just wait until Corporate America hears about this by rocjoe71 · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm sure someone out there will convince someone else that these names are up for sale. I can hear it now...

    Hurricane Pepsi has strengthened to a "category 5 delicous" and is expected to be refreshing residents of the Florida coast by early Tuesday morning.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  34. Re: God's Country by SmartyGirlie · · Score: 1

    Tornados, Hurricanes, Floods, Freak Thundershowers that kill are NOT "Acts of God". Being a Catholic (the one true religion of God), these are acts of evil which God ALLOWS as part of his divine providence. Why, you ask? Because it draws his people closer to him. Everything, in the world, that destroys serves one of two purposes to God: 1.) testing those faithful to Him 2.) warning those who choose not to know Him

  35. Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a member of what most of you would call a 'fundamentalist' religion, probably
    'very fundamentalist' - one which is often made fun of here.

    We believe that hurricanes and tornadoes are caused by disturbances in the atmosphere -
    a purely physical phenomenon.

    Being hit by one is the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, which
    is sometimes due to your own foolishness, other times just an accident. Choosing to live in a place where such things occur is your own decision.

    Predjudice is never justified, especially when it is based on ignorance.
    Get a clue, slashdoters.

    1. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exodus 9:23-25
      "23 When Moses stretched out his staff toward the sky, the LORD sent thunder and hail, and lightning flashed down to the ground. So the LORD rained hail on the land of Egypt; 24 hail fell and lightning flashed back and forth. It was the worst storm in all the land of Egypt since it had become a nation. 25 Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields--both men and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree."

      Psalm 107:28-30
        "28 Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble,
                    and he brought them out of their distress.

              29 He stilled the storm to a whisper;
                    the waves of the sea were hushed.

              30 They were glad when it grew calm,
                    and he guided them to their desired haven."

      I WISH i were ignorant of all the idiocy in the bible. I'm far from it actually, that stupid book is inescapable in America today thanks to the poor misunderstood fundamental christ-nazis & their huge godplexes peppering the land.

      You have actually READ this book you claim to believe in havent you? Its chock full of examples of your childish god changing the weather to suit his whims.

      Now comes the part where you claim its not meant to be taken literally, (which, incedently is precisely against what "fundamental" is supposed to mean in this context)

      You are right about one thing tho, prejudice is never justified, please bring that up in your next fiery sermon against gays, evolution, science, logic and reason.

    2. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Homosexuality is wrong. Period. No way around it. Stated multiple times in Tbe Bible. So yes, I have a huge problem with it and will not tolerate it. The Bible does not ask you to tolerate sin -- in fact it says to flee from it. On the other hand, I am to have love and compassion for the sinner him/herself.

      Or is that too logical and reasonable?

    3. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol... looks like i touched a nerve.

      Matt 7:1
      1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

      Luke 6:36
      36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

      Matt 5:43-44
      43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
                      and hate thine enemy.
      44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you,
                      do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
                      use you, and persecute you;

      Matt 19:19
      19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
                      as thyself.

      John 13:34
      34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
                      as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

      1Thes 3:12
      12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward
                      another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you:

      I Jn 4:11
      11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

      looks like your god wants men to love one another, why all this hate toward gays? why all the animosity, isnt that precisely what your god is against? Is it about the buttsex? is that what it is? god hates buttsex? whatabout when heterosexual couples engage in buttsex? is that on the same level on the horrible & sinfulness scale? or is heterosexual buttsex not quite as bad? where is the line drawn? is oral sex okay? what about barnyard sex? Sometimes male dogs fuck eachother, should i shoot them when they do that? lest we draw gods unholy brimstone. Is it okay when they sniff eachothers assholes? or is that getting too close?

      Its all so silly, why not just live & let live, if people want to fuck eachother in the ass, fine let them, & if people want to believe that theyre going to disneyland after they die, fine let them. Neither one of those are something im into, but why all the animosity?

      Im just tired of christian doublespeak, seems the more someone reads this book thats supposed to be about love and kindness, the more they hate everybody that doesnt believe in their particular brand of jesus. Its sad, & i wish people could just stop.

      "The Bible does not ask you to tolerate sin -- in fact it says to flee from it. On the other hand, I am to have love and compassion for the sinner him/herself."

      its not logical or reasonable at all, it is contradictory, which is the opposite of logical and reasonable. I dont know how you christians can still function with all these contradicting logical fallasies floating around in your head all claiming to be the gospel truth. Perhaps thats why so many of you fail so utterly to grasp simple concepts like love & kindness.

      We could make heaven right here on earth if we werent so busy kissing gods ass to get into his afterlife amusement park.

    4. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that you don't "get it". Yes, we are commanded to love one another. I'm not arguing that point, and in fact am agreeing with you that we should not "hate gays". I don't hate the gay person. I hate the sin he/she is committing. I don't understand why you find that hard to grasp. I fail to see it is a contradiction.

      Homosexuality is wrong. No debate needed:
      Lev 18:22, 20:13
      Rom 1:26
      1 Cor 6:9-11
      Jude 7

      I can see that the point is lost on you, and the fact that you make bad jokes about God only proves your total disregard for His Word. I will pray for you that you may have your eyes & ears opened.

      God bless.

    5. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh, but dont you see? the 'sin' that you hate here is *LOVE*

      This may seem odd, but gay lovers *LOVE EACHOTHER* thats why theyre called lovers. The root word of lover is love, love is what they feel for eachother, when they look at eachother they feel love, & THAT love is what you hate.

      Can you see the contradiction now? Its not about what they put in eachothers orifices, its about LOVE, & people loving eachother is never wrong, ever, period.

      Its true i make jokes about god, & depending on which christian god you believe in, i will either be forgiven, or burn in eternal damnation. Or in my own opinion (and this seems much more likely) nothing at all will happen as a result of my joking about him/it/them.

      Just like when i joke about Zeus & Apollo & the invisible pink unicorn nothing happens. there are no omniscient creators, there are no superheroes living in the clouds, the universe consists of what we see before us & nothing else. For some people its too boggeling, & so they need fairy tales to prop up their (mis)understanding of the universe & its laws.

      By all means, pray for me, pray long & hard, for the more time you waste praying for me, the less time youll spend shoving your idiotic beliefs down others' throats.

    6. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, now that is twisted logic. I am not talking about their "love" for each other. I am talking about the immoral sexual acts involved in homosexuality. The Bible is quite clear on these acts. Do you not see? You cannot justify homosexual behavior, no matter how you try.

      Dismissing God is foolish.

      And for the record, I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat. Truth is truth, whether you choose to believe it or not. That choice is yours, and I cannot make it for you. As the saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". Calling the truth idiotic is a sad retort.

    7. Re:Where do you ignorant people come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      calling the bible truth is where you started down your path of idiocy. When the truth is subjective (as its undeniably going to be when you see the thousands of different ways the bible is interpreted) how can anyone really know what is the truth?

      None of it is testable, none if it is provable, its all based on blind faith in a book which condones slavery while also extolling the virtues of freedom, condones war while preaching love & frequently claims that the impossible happens.

      You are worshipping a god who will unjustly send you for infinite punishment for a finite amount of sin. Even if such a god did exist, he/she/it would be unworthy of praise & worship. Shame on you for promoting such a destructive religion! Shame!

      Dismissing god is foolish HAH! Promoting something you have no way to prove is the foolishness. Your truth is by its very nature unprovable, while my truth is testable, provable, & undeniable.
      I dare your puny god to do anything about it. If he does exist he is powerless, childish, weak, and pathetic. I laugh in his face & in the faces of all those who seek his favor. Fools!

      To give in to ignorance & call it god is premature, and will always be. There is nothing in the universe that is unknowable, but there are many people who are not interested in learning.

      Go ahead & tell me how this perfectly just god is going to send me into hell for eternity for my little faux pas, & then sit back on your little pedastal & tell yourself that YOU'RE the enlightened one. Thats the beauty of the christian schizophrenia, its circular logic compounds upon itself.

  36. Hebrew alphabet by panurge · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, most people won't be able to pronounce them. Or spell them consistently, since there are different ways of transliterating Hebrew into the Latin alphabet. (I was taught the system that starts Alev).

    However, if we have THAT many tropical storms in a year, we will have more to worry about than nomenclature.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  37. Could also be we just no longer miss them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We now have 24x7 coverage of pretty much the entire world. We didn't have that until recently, and we certainly didn't have it the last time whatever hurricane cycle there may be might have peaked.

    And all these "super strong" storms? They all seem to be really strong out in the middle of the ocean, and weaken right before they hit.

    Maybe hurricanes have done that all the time, and it wasn't until now that we could track them well enough to notice that.

  38. Al Qaeda - WMD !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Weather Machine of Destruction.

  39. Re: God's Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm. Might wanna check out The Bible. Many things about the Catholic (and the sibling Eastern Orthodox) faith do not hold up when scrutinized.

    Like, I dunno, try the laws & customs of the Pharisees (e.g. more intent on ritual than God's word). Try Mark 7:9, Gal 5:4, Isa 29:13. The RCC adds to The Bible their own laws, which is specifically against Christ's teachings.

    Or how 'bout Jesus stating not to call anyone "Father" except God?

    Or why is it that you pray to Mary? The following timeline is how the RCC came to view Mary -- not how The Bible relates her. Here again, "man's law", not God's.

            * 431AD - Mary Worship began
            * 600 - prayers directed to Mary (Ave Maria added in 1508)
            * 995 - canonization of saints
            * 1854 - immaculate conception of Mary (her sinlessness)
            * 1950 - assumption of Mary (she never died)
            * 1954 - Mary proclaimed Queen of Heaven
            * 1965 - Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church
            * 1980 - Mary proclaimed Spouse of the Holy Spirit

    Mary is not the mediator, as the RCC would have you to believe by praying to her. Try 1 Tim 2:5. And Matt 6:7-8. And Matt 6:9-13 -- does Christ anywhere in here tell us to pray via a mediator such as Mary? Additionally, Mary confirmed that she herself was a sinner in need of a Savior.

    How is it that your priest "forgives" you?

    These are but a few of the "issues" with the RCC.

    But then, there was a recent survey which found that Catholics are the least likely of the major Christian faiths to actively read and study The Bible. Which is also "not a good thing". Please do not fool yourself into thinking a ritualistic, ceremonial act is going to get you much. You are saved by grace alone through Christ.

    I'm not judging you, we all have our issues. I am only responding because of your "the one true religion of God" statement. Matt 16:18 does not, IMO, establish the Catholic church as the one true religion. Peter himself declares the rock to be Christ in Acts 4:11-12 (not him, as you would believe).

    Remember that the various Christian denominations were created by man...

  40. Measured frequency, not actual by Solandri · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Keep in mind this is just a record for "storms we know about," not actual number of storms there were. In 1933, they didn't have spiffy satellite images and radar to detect hurricanes far from the coast. Back then, storms like Lee and Maria probably would've gone completely unnoticed. Irene might've even skipped notice since it looped around the Bahamas.

    http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200513.asp http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200514.asp http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at200509.asp

    1. Re:Measured frequency, not actual by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You have a good point, and it's one that I do bring up, but from a devil's advocate position, consider that there was enough transatlantic ship traffic by 1933 that it is unlikely, though not impossible or even improbable, that a large-scale storm would have slipped by unnoticed. Radios were in wide-spread use by then, and ships often had at least basic meteorological gear complete enough to warn of what we at least now know as tropical storms, and would have radioed other ships in the vicinity as a warning.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Measured frequency, not actual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what they used Barometers for.

  41. And so, the countdown begins.... by avasol · · Score: 0

    from Alpha, to Omega. :) God, please shove these turds away. :P

  42. Theyre worshipping the wrong god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Christ was a heretic, preaching about false gods. All these storms are punishment for not performing the annual human sacrifice to Tezcatlipoca.

    1. Re:Theyre worshipping the wrong god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It saddens me a great deal to see the rampant apostasy in the world today as is evident today on slashdot. I encourage all you "intellectual" /.'ers to spend a few minutes a day reading The Bible. You might learn something important.

    2. Re:Theyre worshipping the wrong god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think human sacrifice is only for pagans? think again!

      "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son ... Then shall his father and his mother ... bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die."
      -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (AV)

      "Some small boys came out of the city and jeered at [the prophet Elisha], saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And ... he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys."
      -- II Kings 2:23-24 (RSV)

      "God did tempt Abraham, ... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ... and offer him there for a burnt offering..."
      -- Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)

      "Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return ... will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." ... and the Lord gave them into his hands.... When Jephthah returned to his home..., who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! And he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin."
      -- Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39 (NIV)

      The sad part is, you claim to actually believe this crap, I was only joking about the annual sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca, although the aztecs took it very seriously...
      Dont forget to burn your virgin daughter at the stake, its what god wants. Although, you could just sell her to me.

      "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

      Ill make sure she keeps her mouth shut like a good woman should!

      "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
      -- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

  43. Linear? by tepples · · Score: 1

    It seems like there were some anger management classes sometime after the flood.

    Or you're not linearizing the timescales right. There were 16.5 centuries of human history before the flood, about 24 from the flood to the ministry of Christ, and roughly 45 centuries since. Have you looked up each major act of God in the Bible and in secular sources and noted the number of acts of God in each of the six biblical millennia?

    1. Re:Linear? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      45 centuries between 0005 and 2005 is a very rough estimate.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  44. Who started this tradition anyway? by MOBE2001 · · Score: 1

    Why not put 10,000 names in a hat (or a computer) and just pick one at random? Why does it have to be based on the alphabet? And why do they have to go to the next letter after each storm? I mean, is there an adevantage to this weird naming scheme? Do the storms care?

    1. Re:Who started this tradition anyway? by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be based on the alphabet?

      On the maps which show storms' predicted paths, it's much easier if you can write "K" to mark a storm's position rather than "Katrina". In order to avoid confusion between storms, you obviously need to use different letters; the "full names" are just invented because the general public finds it easier to talk about "Hurricane Katrina" rather than "Hurricane K".

    2. Re:Who started this tradition anyway? by MOBE2001 · · Score: 1

      On the maps which show storms' predicted paths, it's much easier if you can write "K" to mark a storm's position rather than "Katrina".

      Ah, thanks. Makes sense. Although I think it would probably be just as practical to use numbering scheme. But, not being a cartographer nor a meteorologist, I will defer to the wisdom of the profession. I am sure they are all very smart people who know what they're doing.

  45. Burn-in testing by tepples · · Score: 0

    explaining why a being that is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent permits suffering to happen

    Easy. Earth is currently used as a stress test environment for souls, which are created defective but can repair themselves by accepting grace through faith. Those that pass the stress test go to heaven, and those that fail are tossed in the landfill. Allowing souls to remain defective yet still pass wouldn't be "benevolent" for anyone involved.

    1. Re:Burn-in testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ***DING DING DING***

      You are correct sir.

      Quite possibly the best of all explainations. Ever.

      The incubation stage.

      The stumbling block after this is in getting a stiff-necked intellectual to understand that there is life after physical death.

      But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither, can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    2. Re:Burn-in testing by vDave420 · · Score: 1
      Easy. Earth is currently used as a stress test environment for souls, which are created defective but can repair themselves by accepting grace through faith. Those that pass the stress test go to heaven, and those that fail are tossed in the landfill [wikipedia.org]. Allowing souls to remain defective yet still pass wouldn't be "benevolent" for anyone involved.

      What a great explanation.

      Until just recently I was one of the hoardes of people who subscriped to the grandparent's thought process. Just recently i've begun to come to the conclusion that your statement is essentially correct.

      Bravo on the eloquent phrasing.

      -dave-

      --
      The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
  46. MOD PARENT UP! by c_forq · · Score: 1

    He even provides links to back himself up.

    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No, no... This is Slashdot. You mod him down for stuff like that because it refutes logic.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  47. It coud be worse by LazloTheDog · · Score: 1
    Its a good thing there's no global warming, then we have some real hurricane problems.

    JM

    --
    Oink, Oink!!
  48. Terminology by StupidKatz · · Score: 1

    Free will is horseshit. My free will sayeth : I will now fly around the room in my jimjams. It doesn't happen.

    "Free will" is not the same as omnipotence. "Free will" never once meant the ability to violate laws of physics because you "willed" it, etc. The concept of a "free will" means that an individual can choose his own course of (in)action within the limitations already present. It is this concept of free will that both causes such things as the D.C. "sniper" situation... and the lack of similar events happening everywhere else on a daily basis.

    1. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look you attacked the weakest point, but made no rebuttal against the rest of his very good points.

    2. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the most simple terms the rebuttal would be... faith.

  49. Microevolution in creationist theory by tepples · · Score: 1

    But I'm willing to bet that fundamentalist Christians in the US will just say that it's because the existence of sin in the US i.e. homosexuality, the teaching of evolution, etc.

    The teaching of evolution is not always a lie, as mainstream creationists such as myself believe in microevolution. The gist is that the Lord God created the animals according to their kind, which is broader than a "genus" but possibly more narrow than a "family". God created animals with genes for all sorts of niches such that through natural selection, descendant generations could cast off those genes that proved unhelpful in a given niche. This led to the genera and species we knew today. The teaching of mold to monkey to man macro-evolution, on the other hand, is considered a sin.

  50. Re: God's Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't have the URL handy during my previous post. Please consider the following site: http://www.carm.org/catholic.htm

    Good luck to you in your journey.

  51. Next year... by gmuslera · · Score: 1
    If this season was bad, and was caused by the (still increasing) global warming, what will happen next year? Past-omega names? one really massive and strong megahurricane (Wilma at one point was the strongest measured ever, i think in some point heard something about winds of 500km/h) where you will have to split naming between old style hurricanes and land cleaning ones? or even so continuous appareance of ones that will be thru all the season some active dangerous hurricane around?

    If this is just an isolated problem, and next year things go "back to normal" (?), keeping the actual naming system will be not so bad, but what about if things goes from bad to even worse next year? The cities/countries around caribe/mexican gulf would need to be somewhat permanently evacuated? or rebuilt in a way they could resist or not be so damaged by big hurricanes?

  52. Re:Lucky we didn't waste $ on greenhouse reduction by thue · · Score: 1

    Just a quote from the article you linked, so your comment is not taken out of context:

    However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

    Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 32 Fahrenheit.

  53. Re:Lucky we didn't waste $ on greenhouse reduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American media ist entirely in the hands of the rally big amerikkkan kapitalists (oli-companies, carmakers), they are lying and falsifying.
    Some facts, you dumb freak.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

    1. there ist global warming
    2. Its man-made.
    3. We have to cease CO2 Emission.
    4. New, alternative energy-sources are needed.
    Otherwise, we gonna die.

  54. Signs? by 4d49434841454c · · Score: 1
    Is this a sign of the return of Jesus?

    As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
    Matthew 24:3 (New International Version) MT 24

    "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.
    Luke 21:25 (New International Version) LK 21

    1. Re:Signs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Jesus is coming back. Send $100 to Mullah Robertson to secure your position on the Heaven Barge, express to Heaven.

    2. Re:Signs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope so.

      I've got this nagging leprosy thing he could help with. After that, if he's really such a nice guy, maybe he'll clean my gutters.

  55. Re:Just wait until Corporate America hears about t by ecko3437 · · Score: 1

    "And lets go to Tom on Florida's coast with more on Hurricane Linux. Tom?" "Hi, Bob. The scene here is just horrific. Linux has taken the coast by storm, you could say, and already it has devastated thousands of homes and killed hundreds of people. This storm is like someone gzipping a season DVD with verbose on! Just awful. Bob?"

    --
    -Eric Smith
  56. Just change one rule by The+Monster · · Score: 1
    The ocean regions that spawn tropical storms each have their own naming conventions. The Atlantic and Eastern North Pacific basins use 6 yearly lists of names (respectively 21 and 25 names in length: ENP omits Q, while Atlantic also skips U, X, Y, and Z), and the Phillipines area uses 4 yearly lists (which skip X, but go back to A after Z), but all other regions use lists in sequence without regard to the year.

    A simple rule change would put the Atlantic storms into that format. If the rule were in place now, Wilma would have been followed by Alberto. In addition, the last named storm of 2004 (TS Otto) would have been followed in 2005 by Paula, not Arlene.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  57. after alpha and beta... by theCat · · Score: 1

    the storm went RC1, and just off the coast of Florida they made it GM just in time for the project to be scrapped and the entire structure swallowed up by Wilma 1.0.

    Thank you thank you I'll be here all week.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  58. Re:Lucky we didn't waste $ on greenhouse reduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Otherwise, we gonna die.}
    Well, in your case, that wouldn't be sucha a bad thing - you piece of Eurotrash.

  59. I can concurr by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    I have been reading posts on slashdot for the last 3 minutes, and I am seeing a striking convergence of an insightful post every 1 minute, so a one minute cycle can be assumed, and if we see an in crease in storms, we can see that in approximately the same time frame this has happened, so it must be a pattern.

    I find pattern very weak, since patterns are the norm in this world - it is possible that there is a natural wobble in the frequency of tropical storms? is the earths wobble part of this? Does the sea temparature correlate with this wobble?

    Are we seeing 4 or 5 disparate wobbles of temperature gaining a positive interference? Is the receding ice shelf a wobble? permafrost no longer perma? Maybe it was just taking a break...

    I do not think patterns of any kinda can be relied upon, considering even a thousand years of accurate data may not encompass a suitable sample duration for any kind of realistic results. Who knows.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
    1. Re:I can concurr by shmlco · · Score: 1
      This being Slashdot, and given the fact that insigthful posts are rare, a higher frequency of such must have meaning. Most likely due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere due to global warming.

      My first theory is that the increased CO2 is impacting the higher brain functions of the idiots who post here, causing them to be less idiotic than normal.

      My second theory is that the increased CO2 is impacting the higher brain functions of the moderators, causing them to rate more comments insightful by mistake.

      Either way, it's a definite indication that global warming is real.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  60. And then there was.......... by jgmaynard · · Score: 1

    Hurricane Omega. Now that would be scary! LOL Sings: It's the end of the world as we know it........ LOL JM

    1. Re:And then there was.......... by argent · · Score: 1

      Cuba Territory: Record-breaking Hurricane Aleph, the 46th tropical storm of 2031, killed more than 400 people in the capital Guantanamo City on its way towards the Yucatan Penninsula and the state of Mexico. President-for-life Richard Cheney, speaking from an undisclosed location in the Mobile White House, declared a state of Emergency for the entire Central US between Ecuador and New Texas and updated the terror level to "goldenrod".

  61. Re: God's Country by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    And of course, those of us who have children, or even most of us who have been children, know what we call this behaviour.

    God is an abusive parent.

    Even if I believed in him, why the hell should I worship him?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  62. Re: Floridians & Hurricane Alley by SmartyGirlie · · Score: 1

    Being a Floridian, I feel I can state this: If you can't stand the season, move to Wisconsin.

  63. 45? by circusboy · · Score: 1

    2000 years == 20 centuries, no?

    judaic calendar currently dated 5766. (don't know if that has any bearing...)

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  64. CORRECTION: 16, 24, 20. by tepples · · Score: 1

    I reshuffled the comment around, inserting "24 from the flood" part, and forgot to remove those centures from the following part. Unlike God, the Preview Button is not all-powerful. Please substitute "20", as in the following:

    There were 16.5 centuries of human history before the flood, about 24 from the flood to the ministry of Christ, and roughly 20 centuries since.

    1. Re:CORRECTION: 16, 24, 20. by circusboy · · Score: 1

      okay, so your using Ussher's figure of 4004 B.C. rather than the judaic 5677 as the scale?

      --
      -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  65. In a word No. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Where's Isiah?

  66. Global warming? by /dev/trash · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The same that is causing the ice on Greenland to grow thicker?

    1. Re:Global warming? by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      You mean 'The same effect that is causing the ice in the center of greenland to grow thicker, whilst the edges thin, causing a net loss of ice and raising global mean sea levels, exactly in line with the predictions of global warming', I presume, and your post just got cut off slightly short.

      Otherwise that post would look a bit silly.

  67. Global Warming? by SirPablo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All of you screaming global warming need to relax. There is still alot of research to be done, it's not as clean cut as you think. As many others have mentioned, there are many background signals/cycles that occur in the ocean/atmosphere. Maybe there are a few cycles which just happen to coincide this year, resulting in strong positive reinforcement. Correlation != Causation

  68. Cue the global warming posts by MirrororriM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, we're going to see some "OMG! There are so many storms this year! It's global warming! Oh noes!!1!". It's inevitable with an article like this, so I'd just like to give my two cents on these multitude of storms and "global warming":

    What gets me is all of these "record breaking lows/highs" and along with it comes "it hasn't been this hot/cold/stormy/etc since (insert 30 to 70 year old year here)". Well what was the excuse back then? Seasons and temperatures fluctuate all the time. Records aren't broken every day, nor every year...they just get randomly broken.

    So please explain to me why exactly, when referring to 1933, there were 21 storms back then - was it global warming? No.

    Before you mod this flamebait or troll, I'm just trying to make a logical point. I'm not a believer or non-believer of global warming, I just get sick of the years-ago referrals as if it were significant without someone thinking it out logically and using it for their "global warming" agenda.

    --
    Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    1. Re:Cue the global warming posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also not going to attempt to resolve this debate, either. However, there's a difference between breaking one record that's stood for X number of years, and breaking a whole bunch of them (I don't follow these things closely, so I have no idea if that's the case this time).

      To use a neutral sports analogy, if someone breaks the world record in the high jump, well, good for them. They're a great high jumper, but it's not unusual. If someone breaks the world record in the high jump, the long jump, the triple jump, the pole vault, the hurdles, and the 100 meter dash, all in the same track meet, then you sit up and take notice. Maybe you re-run some drug tests or something, or look for timing problems, or maybe they really are the Lance Armstrong of track and field, but you don't just accept it as coincidence until you've investigated further.

    2. Re:Cue the global warming posts by cjb110 · · Score: 1
      I'm not a believer or non-believer of global warming

      Global warming isn't a belief, its a fact. It is happening, the climate will change and with out proper preperations we are fubar.

      How much of it is down to us scummy humans and not just the earths natural cycle is debateable though.
      --
      ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
  69. Re: God's Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget the moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday at the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century, which was done to accommodate the local pagan religions which worshipped on Sunday.

  70. Release-Ready by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Is climate change still a myth?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Release-Ready by SirPablo · · Score: 1

      Why would climate change be a myth? It's proven that the Earth is warming. The controversy is *why* it is warming. Jury is still out on that one.

    2. Re:Release-Ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps this would make for a real good MythBusters episode...

    3. Re:Release-Ready by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      That's about the same as saying 'the jury is still out on evolution'. The earth is warming and will continue to warm as a result of the extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere placed there by human activity; this is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, that dosen't stop people making a lot of money out of making unscientific attacks on the theories and models involved (just as with evolution); but the attacks have long since degenerated into political point scoring and deliberate ignorance. Slashdot stories involving AGW act as an excellent illustration of this.

      It is, of course, perfectly possible to reduce emissions by over 90% over the next couple of decades without anyone having to make any significant sacrifices (indeed, the solutions would probably be cheaper in the medium to long term than business as usual). However, that would require a debate based in reality, and apparently no-one wants that.

  71. YES! MOD THIS GUY UP! by zeephyz · · Score: 1

    thank you, your point is great, though probably it will go unnoticed as moderators seem to like links as opposed to a logical deduction (if it's on the web, it must be true!). And really, we don't have 3 cycles to base the evidence on. We have two cycles upon which they have based the theory and now a third which only adds to the data, but maybe now a prediction could be made and tested in 50 more years. you simply cannot predict after only two datapoints. And three is not exactly indisputable. There are way too many factors elsewise to consider.

    zee

  72. Xena, Yglesias, Zimbardo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, I can!
    Xerxes, Yuna, Zod!

  73. Re:Allah's revenge! by shokk · · Score: 1

    I don't buy it. If you were an omnipotent being who wanted to get rid of some people he didn't want around any more, wouldn't you just will them out of existence and be done with it? After all, these hurricanes might be killing off some of your own worshippers, too. My way is cleaner. =)

    --
    "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  74. Why didn't they use Y and Z? by Astart� · · Score: 0

    Where're Tropical Storms Yvonne and Zoe?

    Just asking...

  75. Re: God's Country by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the moving of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday at the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century, which was done to accommodate the local pagan religions which worshipped on Sunday.

    Speaking of pagan religions... Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox (this is why the date changes every year). Sound a little suspicious?

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  76. capital by J_Omega · · Score: 1

    It would be a capital "A" (which is close enough anyways) because it is formal name.

    aside: I'm glad I saw your post before I tried to copy over the characters.

  77. For That Matter... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    They're ignoring some perfectly good letters in the English alphabet! Why, we could still have had a tropical storm Xyzzy, or Hurricane Yog-Soggoth! Why quit early?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  78. Re:Lucky we didn't waste $ on greenhouse reduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sooo cooool - you are so proud of your stupidity. dumb as hell, the (empty) head filled with all the mainstream -media crap, and aggressivily proud of it.
    you would rather die then prevent global warming - simply disgusting.

  79. as predicted... by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

    Hurricane formation and intensity is very closely linked with ocean temperatures, for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricanes#Formation.

    Ocean temperatures have been rising, as predicted by climate change models.
    Hurricane frequency has been increasing, as predicted by climate change models.
    Hurricane intensity has been increasing, as predicted by climate change models.

    There is no part of this chain of causality that isn't proven scientific fact.

    Various attempts to deny the science in this are depressingly like the tobacco industry trying to deny the link between smoking and cancer.

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
    1. Re:as predicted... by MirrororriM · · Score: 1

      Africa is the driest place in the world. During one 59-year period, it received an average of only 3/100 inch (about 0.76 mm) of rain per year. (The driest place in the United States is Death Valley, California, which receives less than 2 inches, or about 5 cm, of rain annually).

      Mount Waialeale, on the island of Kauai in Hawaii, is the wettest place in the world, receiving an average rainfall of 460 inches (about 1,168 cm) per year--more than an inch per day. The most rainfall ever recorded in 24 hours was 73.62 inches (about 187 cm), which fell on March 15-16, 1952, on an island in the Indian Ocean. The most rainfall ever recorded in one year was 1,041.78 inches (about 2,646 cm). It fell on Cherrapunji, India, from August 1860 to July 1861.

      The most snow recorded in 24 hours was 76 inches (about 193 cm), or more than 6 feet. It blanketed Silver Lake, Colorado, on April 14-15, 1921. The most snow recorded during one year was 1,122 inches (about 2,850 cm). It fell at Rainier Paradise Ranger Station in Washington State in 1971-1972.

      Measuring 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) around, the largest hailstone fell in Coffeyville, Kansas, on September 3, 1970. It weighed 1.67 pounds (0.76 kg).

      On April 12, 1934, at Mount Washington, New Hampshire, the wind blew for five minutes at 188 miles per hour (about 303 kph), with gusts up to 231 miles per hour (372 kph), faster than in a powerful hurricane.

      Strongest tornado? It was Hurricane Gilbert, a category 5 storm that struck the West Indies and Mexico in 1988 and killed about 300 people. Weaker hurricanes that hit more populated areas have killed many more people.

      Lowest temperature ever recorded: On July 21, 1983, the temperature dropped to a frigid -128.6F (-89.2C) at Vostok Station in Antarctica. (The lowest temperature in the United States occurred at Prospect Creek, Alaska. On January 23, 1971, the temperature there fell to -80F, or about -62C.)

      Highest temperature ever recorded: On September 13, 1922, the temperature reached a fiery 136F (about 58C) at Al Aziziyah, Libya, in Africa. (The highest temperature recorded in North America occurred in Death Valley, California. On July 10, 1913, the temperature soared to 134F, or about 57C.)

      Out of all of those records, a lot are scattered throughout this century, but it appears that a considerable amount of records happened in the 20s and 30s. Was it global warming then?

      --
      Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    2. Re:as predicted... by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

      Thank you for so neatly illustrating the truth of my statement

      Various attempts to deny the science in this are depressingly like the tobacco industry trying to deny the link between smoking and cancer.

      Throwing in a bunch of unconnected factoids (Africa is the driest place on earth? Africa is fscking big, and has a very diverse range of climates) in an attempt to muddy the water, and avoid the actual cause-and-effect argument, is exactly what the tobacco lobby did for decades.

      Then
      Health Researcher: Tobacco is a proven carcinogen, and smoking it is bad for your health
      Big Tobacco: That's lab results in rats, you have no proof it happens in humans

      HR: We have statistics proving that smokers have greatly increased risk of many diseases, exactly as you'd expect from our lab studies on rats
      BT: That's just statistics, corelation doesn't prove causation, my granddad smoked a pack a day and lived to be 86, people were getting cancer in Europe before tobacco was brought back from the Americas.... blah blah blah...

      Now
      Climate Researcher: Our laboratory tests prove CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas, increasing levels of CO2 will cause global warming
      Big Carbon: That's laboratory tests, there's no proof it's causing real changes in the climate

      CR: We have statistics showing increased temperatures globally, increased incidence and severity of extreme weather events, etc...
      BC: that's just statistics, corelation doesn't prove causation, people were getting killed in storms decades ago ... blah blah blah...

      --
      Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
    3. Re:as predicted... by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
      Since you seem to like to use analogies, going by your thought process:

      CR: We have statistics showing increased temperatures globally, increased incidence and severity of extreme weather events, etc...
      BC: that's just statistics, corelation doesn't prove causation, people were getting killed in storms decades ago ... blah blah blah...

      Sales of new SUVs tripled from 1997 to 2003. Gas prices doubled over the course of 2001 to 2005. Hence, sales of new SUVs triple versus their current sales from 2003 to 2009, and gas prices will double again versus its current price by 2009. Hey, the data is there, so it must be true, right?

      Yeah, the Africa thing was stretching it, but why pick that one versus the record high and lows? Especially the record high? After all, the greenhouse gasses are making temperatures rise aren't they? In case you don't feel like reading my previous post:

      Highest temperature ever recorded: On September 13, 1922, the temperature reached a fiery 136F (about 58C) at Al Aziziyah, Libya, in Africa. (The highest temperature recorded in North America occurred in Death Valley, California. On July 10, 1913, the temperature soared to 134F, or about 57C.)

      Ok, forget Africa, there's California. 1913. Was that global warming? Then there's:

      On April 12, 1934, at Mount Washington, New Hampshire, the wind blew for five minutes at 188 miles per hour (about 303 kph), with gusts up to 231 miles per hour (372 kph), faster than in a powerful hurricane.

      Hmm...we're having tons of hurricanes, but they're not in the middle of New Hampshire obviously. Those wind speeds are darn near a hurricane and in a place that hurricanes just generally don't occur. Hmm...1934. Was that global warming?

      Not sure what the "Big Carbon" thing was about (though I'm assuming large corporate polluters), but let me assure you that I don't think pollution is a good thing. In fact, the company I work for is one of the largest recyclers in the world. And no, they aren't one of the biggest pollutors in the world too... (thought I'd nip that one in the bud)

      --
      Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    4. Re:as predicted... by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

      Again, you fail to address the cause-and-effect.

      I'm not just looking at one years strange weather and plucking a theory out of the air to explain it.

      There's an unbroken chain of proven scientific fact that leads from increasing CO2 levels, to increased ocean temperatures, to increased incidence and severity of hurricanes.

      If you want to refute the CO2 climate change theory, then you have to either...

      1. Show that the weather isn't actually changing. (good luck, the statistics for global warming are very powerful - and this year's on track for another record)

      or

      2. Accept that it's happening, but produce some coherent argument for why the known greenhouse properties of CO2 are not the cause.

      You've done neither, instead you persist in the "my granddad smoked a pack a day and never got cancer" water-muddying that the tobacco lobby was infamous for.

      Then, as now, the only people who believed it were the addicts who really, really wanted to believe.

      --
      Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
  80. If name Alpha is retired. (possible 1/2 answer) by J_Omega · · Score: 1
    From this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9439848/

    "It will go to the Swahili alphabet or something else," joked Jim Lushine, severe weather expert at the National Weather Service in Miami.

    Actually, when old names are retired, new names have to be drafted in to a database maintained specifically for Atlantic Ocean storms, said Mark Oliver, spokesman for the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, which maintains the database.


    Yeah... so.... it looks like the NWS doesn't know precisely what will happen either.

    (sorry for an MSN link, but that's what google found me!)
    1. Re:If name Alpha is retired. (possible 1/2 answer) by J_Omega · · Score: 1
      er... then I found this on the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane

      (If a Greek letter is retired, the name is scratched off the list and not replaced - for example, should "Beta" be retired after 2005, the 23rd storm in a future year would be "Gamma".)


      It was in parentheses... /shrug
  81. They don't watch TV by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Or they would have realized what a neat name for a storm "Xena" would make.

  82. Poetry Predicts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anybody seen this (from http://www.auntiejaynesolvesyourpoem.com/

    The snows of Kilamanjaro will soon be gone
    The dreamy Maldives drowned and overrun
    The polar bears will have no place to roam
    They'll lounge their listless lives on solid ground

    Casting storms across the Gulf of Mexico
    Will God's true aim hit Mickey Mouse and Co
    Or will countless sad old dreamers rue the day
    When the brothels of New Orleans are blown away

  83. Should have sold the rights.. by xtal · · Score: 1

    Then we could have hurricane Zathura..

    --
    ..don't panic
  84. CAPS by etzel · · Score: 1

    I just have one question:
    WHY DO ALL HURRICANE ADVOSRIES/WATCHES/WARNINGS/FORECASTS GO OUT IN ALL-CAPS?
    You would think that them PhD's know where the Caps Lock is. right?

    --
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
    1. Re:CAPS by zerofret · · Score: 2, Informative

      The all caps format on forecast products is a policy requirement. The applicable policy can be found at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/010/pd01017001a .pdf.

      The reason for the policy requirement is backward compatability. The first electronically disseminated weather forecasts were in the days of the ASR-33 teletype machine. Over time commercial software was developed that would decode the forecasts and build screen crawls for TV stations. Since much of the old software is still out there, and there may even be some ASR-33's, the products have to remain in all caps in order to not break the legacy stuff.

      What really annoys me about the requirement for all caps, is that the meteorologists leave the caps lock on when they leave the workstations. I usually type in a command or two before I realize nothing happened other than linux reminding me that LL, CAT and GREP are not valid commands.

  85. Re: God's Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be one of those who do not "believe" in spanking. How sad for you. God is not abusive. He's trying to get your attention... and each time you ignore Him, He must get louder and more forceful... just like with a child who doesn't listen to the first, polite "no"...or the second...or the slight hand spat...and eventually gets the pat on the rearend.

    But of course, I believe that one of the primary problems in this country is the failure of parents to properly raise their children. Hint: it isn't the state or federal government's job to raise your children.

  86. The day after tomorrow... by Baiken · · Score: 1

    Thanks given to god as my family and myself are living in Venezuela, but I cant stop thnking about this movie...

            tropical storms more frecuent, and more southward, and even more violent, its me or theres a pattern here, anyone can help me to clarify...

          BTW, a more real ending to the movie could be a full scale militry op to conquer all the countries in the thirld world, the name operation survival could be fit...

  87. Design Flaw by rrgg · · Score: 1

    It's pretty ballsy of some guys only 50 years ago to arbitrarily decide that 21 storms would be the max. The truth is that we haven't even been watching tropical storms very long.

  88. Hurricane season by asoft · · Score: 1

    The hurricane season extends normally till 30th November. You could expect a couple of more hurricanes before the season ends for the year! This will take the number of hurricanes for this season to a record high in the atlantic (North America) in a given year.

    --
    asoft
  89. That's right. by /dev/trash · · Score: 0, Troll

    You spin that.

    1. Re:That's right. by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      No, I tell the entire truth; you are the one trying to spin by telling half of it.

  90. The should start naming them after dictators! by Snaller · · Score: 1

    That would be more freighting that some silly girls name anyway. "Hurricane Hitler is approaching!" No more 'we'll tough it out' anymore. "Hurricane Stalin has been upgraded to a category 5!" - Eeek - run!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  91. See that's the problem. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    if you knew the whole truth, you're holding out on us, and not providing a solution. Come on. How do we stop the global warming?