Slashdot Mirror


Tropical Storm Zeta Forms in Atlantic

APSR writes "Even though the Atlantic hurricane season official ends on November 30th, more storms can form and still count towards the total for the year! According to MSN.com Weather News, Tropical Storm Zeta was formed in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean on December 30th. This storm extends the record-breaking 2005 season to 27 storms, and it's the 6th storm named using the Greek alphabet. According to Wikipedia, Zeta is the latest a tropical cyclone was formed in the Atlantic, forming around 11 AM ET; this dethrones Hurricane Alice of 1954, which formed December 30th around 2 AM ET. The storm itself will continue to strengthen for 12-24 hours, then weaken; it will not likely make landfall." We've already set records this year, as previously reported.

174 comments

  1. japan... by amazon10x · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hear that Japan? you can still use your weather manipulator and we won't think the better of it

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

      I don't know if your (-1 Troll) rating was given for your idiotic Bush jab, or your obligatory "bad weather, oh no, must be caused by global warming!" knee jerk. Either way, it's well deserved.

      By the way, how can we take action to solve a global warming situation that's caused by the sun? Many think it's caused by greenhouse gas emitions. So then, what are we to do? Plug up each volcano as it develops to keep the PRIMARY EMITTER of greenhouse gases at bay?

      Idiocy.

    2. Re:japan... by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      I bet you're tons of fun at LAN parties.

      I agree that the buried post was mal-informed, and most defintely a troll.. but to answer your question: Wasting time by calling each other idiots will not fix the problems. Good open discussions, scientific research, and experimentation is necessary. Which means even idiotic ideas must be allowed their voice.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    3. Re:japan... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Sheesh. You think global warming is "caused by the sun", and you accuse me of knee-jerk reactions? As for "primary emitters", you obviously have no idea of mathematics, if you think that the primary source of anything is what pushes it beyond a natural balance into something we need to address.

  2. But what about after tomorrow? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Save every man you can.

    1. Re:But what about after tomorrow? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      No you fool. You save the females. If you ever played Black and White you would know that.

    2. Re:But what about after tomorrow? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Or, indeed, ever watched Dr. Strangelove. "Mr President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!" Ok, not the best quote on the topic, but I can't remember any of the others word-for-word and they're not on wikiquote, but in general you need 10 females for every male, and the females need to be picked partially on how attractive they are as, 'with little else to do, they would breed prodigiously'.

      --
      FGD 135
    3. Re:But what about after tomorrow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people have obviously never been in the same room as 10 women.

      Now, cut out their vocal cords, and then we'll talk.

  3. If Only It Would Make Landfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surfers could get once last great swell in for the already awesome hurricane season thus far.

  4. Alice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So how was hurricane Alice named? It can't have been the first one of the year if it was on December 30.

    1. Re:Alice? by amazon10x · · Score: 0

      They already went from A to Z and started at the beginning. I think they have gone through A and Z twice already.

    2. Re:Alice? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 4, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alice

      "Hurricane Alice is currently the only recorded tropical cyclone in Atlantic history to span two calendar years. It formed in late December of 1954, and lasted until early January of 1955."

    3. Re:Alice? by wfberg · · Score: 1, Informative

      They already went from A to Z and started at the beginning. I think they have gone through A and Z twice already.

      After the female names run out, they use letters from the Greek alphabet. (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, ..) Zeta is only the 6th letter, making for the 26+6=32nd storm of the year.

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    4. Re:Alice? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to Wikipedia, it was only detected in January, named according to that year's scheme, and then later proven that it must have reached naming-strength in December (which means it should've been named Irene).

    5. Re:Alice? by Liquidrage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except they don't use every letter of the alphabet. No Q, U, X, Y, or Z.
      This is namned storm 27 for the Atlantic basin.

    6. Re:Alice? by stfvon007 · · Score: 1, Informative

      It was named Alice because it was thought that it had formed in early January, but after naming it and going back through the record, they found that it had actually formed on December 30th, and not in January 1955 as was thought. Because it was already named, it was decided that the name would stay Alice, but it is still consitered the last storm of the 1954 season, giving that season 2 A storms.

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    7. Re:Alice? by 10scjed · · Score: 0, Redundant

      After the female names run out, they use letters from the Greek alphabet. (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, ..) Zeta is only the 6th letter, making the 26+6=32nd storm of the year.
      Actually, they don't use all the letters a-z, Q U X Y Z are not used. That throws your math off a bit, methinks...
      Reference

      --
      --10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
    8. Re:Alice? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      They alternate male and female names now to be more PC.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:Alice? by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of good old Roman names that start with Q. Quintus, etc. They could certainly use it.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  5. If a storm forms after January 1st, do they.... by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 1

    ....start with a new naming scheme for 2006, or does hurricane season start later in the calendar year?

    1. Re:If a storm forms after January 1st, do they.... by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently, everything starts over in the new year.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alice

      At the time, the National Weather Service used the same naming list each year, so the name given to this storm was "Alice" and it was designated as a part of the 1955 Atlantic hurricane season. However, it was found during post-storm analysis that the storm had actually formed on December 30, and was instead a part of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. Therefore, that season had two storms named "Alice": the first storm of the season, and the last. Had Alice been discovered in 1954, it would have been named Irene, the next name on the 1954 list.

  6. global warming by hostingreviews · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No one should be shocked by this. Expect to see another record breaking year in 2006. (duh-hoy) If we don't take positive steps to reduce emissions we will be extending the hurricane season into January very soon. We're only shooting ourselves in the foot - example being the mass production of SUVs, which fail any emissions standard for cars and trucks. So what do we do? Make a new catagory for them: "sport utility". They aren't sport utility, their soccer mom utility. We are getting our just reward for our carelessness. Ride a bike!

    1. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ride a bike. Ya, I'm sure.

      My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field. I can just see her and 5 seven year olds on their bikes going down highway 280.

    2. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Inevitably, we will reduce CO2 and other "greenhouse" emissions. And the temperature's going to keep right on doing what it's doing. Thousands of scientists who made their careers drawing statistically insignificant climate change predictions through a cloud of sampling noise will be discredited, and we'll all move on with life.

      I just hope we don't waste too much of our environmental awareness resources on the warming chimera, because it would be a pity to end up having eliminated a nonissue and still be stuck with polluted groundwater and cities.

      You should try walking to work sometime, by the way.

    3. Re:global warming by oc-beta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, an intresting view, 3 of the 5 major green house gases (accounting for 97% of the total climate forcing gases) have leveled off or declined since the early 1990's. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_greenhous e_gas_trends.png

    4. Re:global warming by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 2, Funny

      It'd be a funny sight though, you must admit ;-)

    5. Re:global warming by AoT · · Score: 0, Troll

      Unfortunately if this is global warming in effect, and I am guessing it is the beginning of it, then it will be quite a while before we are able to mitigate its effects. If we stopped driving, or putting any co2 into the air, right now, we still have the stuff we put up there to deal with. Things are going to get warmer, it is essentially inevitable at this point.

    6. Re:global warming by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      Isn't that because there was a heavy ban in most countries of the use of CFC gases after the 80s? There is still a huge problem with C02 emmissions etc, and although I agree with grandparent's sentiments, it could be worded with a little more care and a little less sensation.

    7. Re:global warming by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field.

      Indeed. Fault the SUV and Hummer owners, but don't fault the soccer moms when you don't carpool yourself. The mile-man-per-gallon (à la man-month) of soccer mom's vehicles is often higher than the average Prius's.

    8. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wish I had mod poits for this gem... I willlet you figure how they would be spent.

    9. Re:global warming by kometes · · Score: 1

      Only the CFCs have leveled off since the early 90s. Learn to read, please.

    10. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe, it isn't a good idea to talk about global warming during winter as a bad thing. It's cold up here, and it's a pain to heat the house. Complain about it during summer when everyone is sick of the heat.

    11. Re:global warming by AoT · · Score: 1

      " Ride a bike. Ya, I'm sure.

      My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field. I can just see her and 5 seven year olds on their bikes going down highway 280."

      And twenty bucks says she takes the same car five blocks away to pick up one little thing at the store.

    12. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!

      Or do you Eco-freaks ignore the fact that this "global warming" has not been limited to this planet?

      Juipeter, Venus, Mars and Saturn all show signs of global warming... Pointing directly to a Solar increase in Infared radiation that is not measurable because we dont have the ability to measure that kind of radiation coming form the sun.

      idiot environmentalists.

    13. Re:global warming by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup and the trend of warmer summers and warmer winters is supported more by the increase in solar radiation than greenhouse gas global warming that causes warmer summers and HARSHER winters.

      Or the silly fact that we are coming out of an ice age globally of which we have almost zero information about the causes of ice ages on the planet and can certianly be solar system wide phenomonon cause by solar radiation output fluxuations as even the polar caps on mars are receeding as well.

      It all comes down to the simple fact that we do not know SQUAT about the environment that this planet has. All the prehistoric data these people throw about show us nothing about solar fluxuations, global volcanic eruptions on the southern hemisphere as compared ot the northern hemisphere, etc....

      Hell, noone can discount that maybe 90,000 years ago aliens had giant mirrors around the planet.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Death To women's Rights.

    15. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure YOU don't know squat, but some people do know enough to create mathematical models that are not that bad. Sure, they are not perfect, but they are on the spot most of the times.

      20 years ago (yes, I'm that old), I didn't believe those greenies and their predictions. Now, what they said was going to happen is here. Today, I believe them.

      Anyway you won't find a serious scientist who doubt global warming. So... tell me... why do YOU believe global warming is not real ?

    16. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was young I did ride a bike to go to the rugby field... What's wrong with that ?

      Ok, I was 11 at the time, but I also think that a 7 year old kid do not need a real soccer field to play... and they certainly should not be part of a competitive sport.

    17. Re:global warming by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      Where did you get this information?

    18. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let's drink deeper from the Pieran Spring:

      NASA has been directly measuring solar irradiance, from space, for several decades now. Confirmation (plus cross-calibration) has come from other nation's ground and space measurements. Results? While there is some increase in solar energy, it is not enough to account for Earth warming, over the same period, in any of multiple, independent climate models.

      So stop hyping a controversy that doesn't exist: Solar activity records extend back to the invention of the telescope. If you count isotopic ratios in polar ice cores, cross-correllated with live and fossil tree rings on multiple continents, we have solar records extending back for millenia. And yet the Holocene temperature record correlates quite closely with atmospheric constituents.

      Juipeter [sic], Venus, Mars and Saturn data, by contrast, extend back twenty to thirty years or so. The 'warming' you refer to on Mars is probable, but still being evaluated against the Martian year. The 'warming' on Venus is speculative, given that a Venusian day is only about an order of magnitude less than the span of detailed observations, plus it's ridiculously hotter on Venus than any firsthand experience we've had on Earth. Atmospheric dynamics on Venus are barely known; volcanic forcing is still possible. Jupiter and Saturn lie outside the majority of the zodiacal dust belt, which is still being measured. Thus, fine temperature modeling of the outer solar system is still in upheaval, because so is the amount of extant infrared.

      Friggin' backseat astronauts.

    19. Re:global warming by wrook · · Score: 1

      This all goes to show that not only do we need to reduce emissions, but we need to spend more money on research to figure out what's going on. My understanding is that most reputable scientists think that we're in for a big hurt in the next 20-50 years. But what can we do?

      Next time you get the opportunity, don't vote for "way of life" or "family values" or "defending US against THEM". Vote for someone who will take positive steps to ensure that people can live a sustainable lifestyle that will continue for as long as we want it to. In other words, vote for someone who will save our asses.

      Here in Canada we get a chance to vote very soon. If you are a Canadian, PLEASE vote for....

      umm....

      oh crap.

    20. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Perhaps because we have alot more ways of gathering tempreture all around the globe as apposed to 20+ years ago? How many weather satalites (spelling?) are circling the Earth now as apposed to then?

      I'm not really a coward.....just lazy :)

    21. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear God. Just stop for a moment. Think about your job/career - you're pretty good at it, right? You know a lot of stuff about it, right? And I bet a lot of public idiots make stupid statements all the time about things related to your job, because even though they have opinions they have very little knowledge...

      Well, you're in the same boat, mate. You know next to nothing compared to people who have made this field their entire professional careers.

      So stop spouting crap about "knowing squat" because you obviously are ignorant of the field and have just chosen an opinion based on your pre-existing ideology. (I'm guessing you're a Republican... You probably believed Bush about the WMD's in Iraq too...)

      If you really wanted to learn about the field, you could go to a professional climatologist's site, where they would explain everything to you, but you've probably got your li'l old Michael Crichton piece of crap to re-read, and an idol of Karl Rove to fellate.

    22. Re:global warming by si618 · · Score: 1

      If caring for the environment makes you an idiot, what does not caring make you?

      An American? ;-)

      Consider the possibility that the potential threat of global warming has led to an increased understanding and awareness about our world and our interaction with it. It may even help stretch out our non-renewable resources for a bit longer.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion
    23. Re:global warming by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "This all goes to show that not only do we need to reduce emissions, but we need to spend more money on research to figure out what's going on."

      Hell I can think of a dozen or so reasons to reduce emissions that have nothing to do with global warming. Smog, shortages of oil, foreign dependence on oil... ok, thats not a dozen but you get the idea. However, that does not excuse people like the origional poster on this thread who cry wolf whenever there is any (in this case perfectly natural) change in the weather. They only serve to push people in a state of panic in which they will support anything that claims to be pro-environment even in cases where any objective study indicates it will do more harm than good (coughKyotocough).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    24. Re:global warming by jo42 · · Score: 1
      And runs at least one red light and parks up on the sidewalk.

      I.E. Typical SUV behaviour around here.

    25. Re:global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can YOU prove that there were no aliens with mirrors around the planet 90,000 years ago? nope and not even the best scientists on this planet can.

      Think-a bout it.

  7. Global Warming? by oc-beta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Again last night I had that strange dream
    Where everything was exactly how it seemed
    Where concerns about the world getting warmer
    The people thought they were just being rewarded
    For treating others as they'd like to be treated
    For obeying stop signs and curing diseases
    For mailing letters with the address of the sender
    Now we can swim any day in November

    1. Re:Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking moron?

  8. Stop naming tropical storms... by tskibo · · Score: 1

    let's go back to only naming hurricanes.

    1. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is what the "greenies" forget. they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms. we only used to record hurricanes.

      How did I know this would be modded up? From the article:

      The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest on record, with 27 tropical storms, besting the old record of 21 set in 1933. Fourteen of them grew into hurricanes, among the Katrina, beating the record of 12 set in 1969. Hurricanes Dennis, Rita and Wilma also caused significant damage in the U.S.

    2. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why was this modded up? Other than the bits about unemployment (which are offtopic), there wasn't a word of truth in it. If you don't know enough about the topic to know that the poster was lying then maybe you should save your mod points for a topic you know some minimal amount about? Just a thought.

    3. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by ajs · · Score: 2, Informative

      "If you only count hurricanes, you will see this is a milder season than any we've had in the last 25 years except for some late 1990s years."

      That depends on how you measure "mild". For instance, we had the strongest hurricane ever measured in the Atlantic this year (by pressure).

      We also had two category 5 hurricanes, making it one of the most intense seasons on record.

      This was certainly an upswing in hurricane output. Of course, it's an upswing that had been predicted since the lull began, since hurricanes tend to come in waves. We should have an interesting next few years....

    4. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by therodent · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot --- it's been the heaviest hurricane season ever, subtracting the tropicals.

      And the guy you voted for is an idiot too.

    5. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by metternich · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    6. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem is that the years during which we were able to track hurricanes ends up being a very small sample set, and the years during which we were able to track all tropical storms is even smaller.

      Over a period of 100 years (which I believe is around the amount of time during which we were able to track anything), there is a 1% chance each year that that could be the record setting season.

      That doesn't mean this wasn't a bad year, it only means it wasn't the worst year in the history of Atlantic tropical storms, or even an out of the ordinary one.

    7. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your premises do not support your conclusion. The chance of any year being "the worst" has nothing to do with whether this year was in fact "the worst".

    8. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is what the "greenies" forget. they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms.

      Yeah, like those "greenies" at NOAA:

      "This hurricane season shattered records that have stood for decades -- most named storms, most hurricanes and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern times." -- Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.

      The frequency of storms seems to be cyclical and unrelated to global warming trends. Their strength, however, is related to the temperature increase.

      they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms. we only used to record hurricanes.

      The NOAA link I give above notes that in 1933 there were 21 named storms. So apparently they were recording and naming them seventy years ago. When exactly is it that you're claiming "we only used to record hurricanes"?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    9. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Descalzo · · Score: 1
      "And the guy you voted for is an idiot too."

      That's a pretty safe assumption. You don't even have to know who he voted for.

      --
      I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    10. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Saven+Marek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The NOAA link I give above notes that in 1933 there were 21 named storms. So apparently they were recording and naming them seventy years ago. When exactly is it that you're claiming "we only used to record hurricanes"?

      Here is the thing.

      Tropical storms could not be completely detected in 1933. Only ones that reached land in an area that shared information with the United States.

      Not all reached land, and not all reached land that shared info with the US. What you have to realise is that technology for detecting these things has improved.

      It is like the fallacy that cancer rates have risen since the middle ages. In the middle ages people fell ill and died. They were presumed to have been in ill health, or taken by various other reasons. But not recorded as cancer deaths even if they were recorded at all. Only visible cancers were detected, and others were not.

      It has only been since the age of satellites that can record all weather realtime that we can tell what is a tropical storm.

      So in 1933 there were 21 named storms. How many unnamed ones that did not get noticed were there? I put it to you that there were many more. If you think there were less then you are naive.

    11. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to be clear about this, you are now conceding that your statement that they only used to record hurricanes was just something that you made up because it supported your claims. Is that correct?

    12. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Saven+Marek · · Score: 0, Troll

      > Is that correct?

      No. You need to go back and learn basic comprehension.

    13. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by lbrandy · · Score: 2, Informative

      We also had two category 5 hurricanes, making it one of the most intense seasons on record.

      Just to add to your little stats refuting the first point:

      This season we had 3 of the 6 strongest hurricanes ever recorded (by pressure).

    14. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by carlislematthew · · Score: 1
      Interesting...

      Anyway, could *someone* explain to me if it is the case that we used to only record hurricanes? From what I'm reading, that doesn't seem to be the case.

    15. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid you do, chap. You explicitly stated such in your first post. It was an incredibly ignorant and incorrect statement. They have always recorded BOTH tropical storms and hurricanes. You were incorrect. Your later statement that they could only record storms which made landfall is completely true, but it doesn't make your previous statement true, as both hurricanes and tropical storms can and do make land fall. Even though they did not benefit from myriad sattelites in orbit to detect storms, their observations will generally be representative of the hurricane season as a whole, including storms they hadn't detected. The frequency and intensity of observed storms may be used as an indicator for overall hurricane activity during that year. Comparing the relative severity of hurricanes from this season to seasons past reveals quite obviously that this year was definitely more severe.

      Face it, chap. You shot your mouth off. It's not some greenie conspiracy. It's not a statistical anomaly due to increased observation. The season has been significantly worse than in the past. You owe several people an apology for being so stubborn, ignorant, and arrogant.

    16. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by niktemadur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've wondered about the fact that only in the past four decades we've had the ability to track storms AND measure their strength in a systematic manner, and even then there are problems, i.e. Katrina was originally thought to have struck the Gulf Coast as a Cat 4, yet about a month or two later a more detailed analysis of the data indicated that Katrina was actually a Cat 3.

      Furthermore, if you look up Pacific Basin hurricanes on the NOAA page, you will find that Hurricane Linda in 1997 was the strongest ever recorded in the area, but there is an intriguing disclaimer, which goes something like this: Due to lack of consistent monitoring in the Pacific Basin, we have insufficient data for any year before 1996.

      Which brings me to my question: How many tropical storms in the last century have gone unnoticed before the advent of satellites, and even if noticed by the occasional cargo boat in some remote shipping route (which is precisely where Tropical Storm Zeta is right now), have been dismissed by captain and crew as a northern gale that strayed too far south? Maybe they just passed tangentially across and thought "no big deal".

      As an example, a similar argument can be made for the increase of measured cancer and heart disease related deaths, which supposedly are statistically on the increase, yet in decades past a lot of passings have been categorized as sudden death or natural causes, especially outside the larger cities. You can see it, can't you? Millions of people all over the world going about their daily business in their small towns, with undiagnosed metatastic cancer, incredibly clogged arteries, or whatever else you can think of.

      My point is: In general, systematic and accurate compiling of information in some areas goes back less than half a century. Beyond the two parameters (geography and time), applied differently in each case, it's anybody's guess. Now compound this with our inevitable tendency to view things in an anthropocentric as well as cronocentric manner and yikes! How to make heads or tails of all this?

      Basically, our elders, through no fault of their own, left us a mess of incomplete info. And to be fair, even if we get our act together of compiling precise data, which we seem to be nobly attempting, there will always be something we missed that'll vex our offspring in a hundred years.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    17. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by VoiceOfSanity · · Score: 1

      The NOAA link I give above notes that in 1933 there were 21 named storms. So apparently they were recording and naming them seventy years ago. When exactly is it that you're claiming "we only used to record hurricanes"?

      Ok, a little correction. Officially, the National Weather Service did not start naming hurricanes until 1953. Prior to that, from 1950 to 1952, they were named after the phonetic alphabet (able, baker, charlie). During World War II and afterwards, they were unofficially named after girlfriends and/or wives.

      The first naming of storms was early in the 20th century by an Australian forecaster, who had a habit of naming them after politicians he disliked. But in the Atlantic, storms between 1900 and 1950 were not named. That's why you have names like "The Labor Day storm" in 1935 or the "New England Express" of 1938.

    18. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by hankdmoose · · Score: 1

      ACTUALLY:

      There are records of hurricanes and tropical storms in the western North Atlantic dating back to 1492.

      Meteorologists have only been naming storms for about 60 years. The 2nd most active storm season was 1933, prior to the naming convention.

      The World Meteorological Organization has very stringent rules on what a named storm is -- it requires that the storm be tropical storm strength or greater. We "greenies" can't just choose to start doing things differently.

      And it wouldn't matter anyway, since the record was for storms of tropical storm strength or greater. There were also records broken as far as hurricanes and major hurricanes (over category 3, so winds of 111 MPH or greater) go.

      If we counted tropical depressions as well as tropical storms and hurricanes, we would have had a whopping 2 or 3 more this year.

      If we didn't count the storms that were only detectable by satellite, we would have still been 4 storms over 1933's record.

      And I should know, as hurricanes are my area of expertise.

      Next time, research a bit before you start spewing forth your "information".

      --

      All my base are belong to them.
      - 11011
    19. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by RayBender · · Score: 1
      Tropical storms could not be completely detected in 1933. Only ones that reached land in an area that shared information with the United States.

      Because we all know they didn't have ships, or barometers, or radio in 1933, eh? In fact, coverage in the 30's was quite good, because ships frequently reported weather conditions, and there were a lot of ships around.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    20. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by usn2fsu03 · · Score: 2, Informative
      There were definitely tropical storms this year that either never would have been noticed or classified as such in 1933. To point out a few:

      The signs of the formation of the tropical depression that became TS Bret was noticed on satellite, and a hurricane hunter (WC-130, IIRC)just happened to be in the air to be sent out to verify it.

      TS Gert was very similar; a short-lived Bay of Campeche storm.

      Ditto Jose

      Lee was a tropical storm for only one advisory cycle (six hours). The upgrade to tropical storm was based off satellite imagery, see the discussion

      and so on...

      Also compare the 1933 chart to the 2005 chart Note how nothing was noticed east of 45 West. While it is possible that '33 was just a 'close in' season, I wouldn't bet the house that there were no tropical storms out in the mid to eastern atlantic

      Oh, and to clear up something that seems to be confusing some people... The practice of naming storms did not start until 1953 (1950, if you consider the phonetic alphabet to be names). However, meteorolgists tend to not be too literal when they talk about 'named storms'. That is, they will talk about how many named storms there were in 1933 even though storms weren't being named back then. In such cases, what is being referred to is the number of storms that attained tropical storm strength (storms that would have received a name had that been the practice).

    21. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by WeatherMatt · · Score: 1

      Actually, we had three "official" Cat 5 storms - Katrina, Rita, and Wilma were all Cat 5 at some point.

      I say "official" because the NHC is currently reviewing data as to whether or not Hurricane Emily was ever a Cat 5 (right now Emily's max winds are officially 155 mph, one short of Cat 5 intensity). This is not unprecedented for storms to be upgraded retroactively - Andrew was upgraded to a 5 a couple years ago 12 years after it hit Miami.

    22. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by tskibo · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    23. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what are the odds of a year breaking the record of last century by 6 storms?

    24. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by hankdmoose · · Score: 1

      It is indeed not the case.

      Tropical storms and hurricanes have always been lumped together because of the effects they have on shipping traffic in the oceans. It was far more important a century ago to record and track all such storms than it is today. However, today we have much better technology (satellites, long-range aircraft, etc.), and so we can track storms far better than we ever could before. That's not to say that most storms in the past were missed, as, again, shipping was far more prevalent in centuries passed than it is today.

      --

      All my base are belong to them.
      - 11011
    25. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by pthisis · · Score: 2, Informative

      This season we had 3 of the 6 strongest hurricanes ever recorded (by pressure).

      Kind of, but also kind of misleading because the numbers prior to 1970 are almost all pressure at landfall (rather than lowest pressure including off the coast). And if you count tropical cyclones worldwide then the strongest hurricane of 2005 (Wilma) is tied for 19th place.

      By deaths, 1780 is the worst year with 3 storms killing over 1000 people--including one that killed 22,000 and caused such damage that late-arriving observers mistakenly believed it had been accompanied by an earthquake.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    26. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Some year has to be the worst. The fact that this was the worst in the past 100 years (actually its less, hurricane seasons naturally have highs and lows, so to be accurate you should only count the high seasons) doesn't mean anything is out of the ordinary. It means we don't have enough data to know what it means.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    27. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      We don't have enough data to be able to compute those odds. That was the point you obviously missed.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    28. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some year has to be the worst.

      Agreed.

      The fact that this was the worst in the past 100 years (actually its less, hurricane seasons naturally have highs and lows, so to be accurate you should only count the high seasons) doesn't mean anything is out of the ordinary.

      Agreed.

      It means we don't have enough data to know what it means.

      No it doesn't. Again, the premises do not support the conclusion. Maybe we don't have enough data, but the fact that this was the worst hurricane season in the past 100 years does NOT support that conclusion. It does not "mean" that.

    29. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Now compound this with our inevitable tendency to view things in an anthropocentric as well as cronocentric manner and yikes!

      Stop confusing everyone with your sciency, sophistimicated and TV-unfriendly words. Some of us are making a good living selling fear and we likes it that way!

    30. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, I was assuming that the premise "Conclusions drawn from statistics are only valid if you have a large enough sample set" was known to be true (this is /., most people here have a decent knowledge of statistics). Then it becomes a simple Modus Ponens argument: We have too small of a sample set. If we have too small of a sample set, we cannot draw valid conclusions from this study. Thus, we cannot draw valid conclusions from this study.

      Does that make everything clearer to you, or do you want to continue playing anal logic teacher for a few more posts?

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    31. Re:Stop naming tropical storms... by conJunk · · Score: 1

      i don't know my oceanic history too well... what happened in 1780?

  9. SHIT! by RaNdOm+OuTpUt · · Score: 0

    Please, no more storms. Not only are they terribly worrisome, but the bush administration canot even clean up what's already happened.

    --
    13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
    1. Re:SHIT! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Please, no more storms. Not only are they terribly worrisome, but the bush administration canot even clean up what's already happened.

      Name it "Saddam" or "Al Quida" and maybe Bushie will do something :-)

    2. Re:SHIT! by lbrandy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please, no more storms. Not only are they terribly worrisome, but the bush administration canot even clean up what's already happened.

      It's not Bush's fault you godless heathens struck down Intelligent design. You are about to get Robertson'd.

    3. Re:SHIT! by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bad idea. We do not need tropical storms with rocket propelled grenades or chemical weapons.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    4. Re:SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Bush would try to sell them to the weather. I just love my CHEMICAL RAIN!

  10. Not to rip on Wikipedia... by Spazntwich · · Score: 4, Informative

    but I think the National Hurricane Center makes a much more relevent and useful link when it comes to HURRICANES.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov

    1. Re:Not to rip on Wikipedia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but then how do you drive traffic to MSN?

    2. Re:Not to rip on Wikipedia... by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      And since when is a tropical storm a hurricane?

      Sorry to be a snit, but you reap what you sow :P

    3. Re:Not to rip on Wikipedia... by hankdmoose · · Score: 1

      Can't... help... self...

      When its maximum sustained winds reach 74 MPH!

      (What do I win?)

      --

      All my base are belong to them.
      - 11011
  11. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do people freak out when the weather changes? This is a wobbly & bumpy planet and the weather has never been entirely predictable.

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

      Why do people keep building/rebuilding their houses in areas prown to this crap? Not me, sorry, I'm not that stupid.

      AND, why in the heck am I reading about a storm on Slashdot of all places. I'm a geek - I want computers and computer related stuff. I'm not a weather guy - I could care less!

    2. Re:yep by AoT · · Score: 1

      So name one place that does not have Hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, tornados or some other form of natural disaster as a possibility.

      Yeah, does not exist.People need to stop thinking of weather as an adversarial force and start designing buildings and infrastructure in ways that can deal with the weather instead of taking a destroy and rebuild approach.

    3. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm not trying to brag or anything, but actually most Scandinavian (hell, ALL of the Scandinavian) countries are fairly safe.
      We are too far away from any continental plates to have earthquakes, have too stable weather to get hurricanes or tornados, having a climate too warm for blizzards, etc. We're in a quite good spot from a "no natural disasters, please" standpoint.

      But as most of the times, natural disasters are quite unexpected, so who knows? We might get one here, but that'll be the first. Oh, and don't start with that "maybe you'll get a new ice age overnight lol", because that'll never happen. ;-)

      - Magnus

    4. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a lifetime Floridian, I'd like to remind people most structures in South Florida are built of concrete....not wood, and many well designed houses have cement or other hard -cemented in place- tile for a roof.....and we still get screwed.

      A minimum of 74MPH winds for hours; what the wind doesn't level blowing in one direction, will be leveled when it blows in the other direction on the backside, these also spawn tornadoes at the edges of the hurricane which do the real damage.

      Katrina wasn't too bad when it came through before it hit LA, Wilma wasn't a killer storm; though both times power was out for weeks, people were unprepared, and with just a few unprepared people panic sets in, it doesn't matter how well prepared /you/ are. No electricity, food, water, ice and gasoline and things turn bad. Yet people keep moving here.

      During Andrew it ripped the roofs off many buildings designed with the intent of surviving a hurricane, but when the winds are 165MPH you can't do much.

      There is no way to buid a hurricane proof building unless you spend millions.....Blue Lake in Boca Raton....where the IBM pc was designed.... is probably a very capable structure....but it looks like ass.

      Don't move here, you wouldn't like it!

  12. But CO2 is the most significant of them by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1, Informative

    And that's the one that's going up. And we're not seeing a dramatic drops in any of them.

    1. Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      "But CO2 is the most significant of them"

      Not according to my latest Greenpeace flyers.

      - Methane is about 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

      - Nitrous oxide is 296 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and remains in the atmosphere for 114 years.

      - Hydrofluorocarbons are up to 20,000 times more powerful greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide, and have atmospheric lifetimes of up to 260 years.


      And they list about a half dozen more on this flyer that I am not going to bother typing.

    2. Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not according to my latest Greenpeace flyers.

      And we all know how neutral and objective Greenpeace is.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them by RayBender · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But CO2 is the most significant of them"

      Not according to my latest Greenpeace flyers.

      - Methane is about 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

      That is on a molecule-by-molecule basis. But CO2 is hundreds to millions of times more common than methane or CFC's, and so is producing a more significant warming effect.

      The last two posts have been so wrong and misleading as to indicate one of two possibilities: either the authors are deliberately trying to confuse the issues, or they are just ignorant.

      Specifically, saying "3 out of 5 greenhouse gases which account for 97% of the warming" are flat is ignoring the fact that 90 out of those 97% comes from CO2, which is in fact increasing rapidly. So you are giving the misleading impression that the problem isn't getting worse, when in fact it is....

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
  13. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is an example of a post that uses the illusion of facts. that statements it makes are not true. see other replies for actual details, but in the meantime, don't give karma to liars.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Saven+Marek · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well you might call facts an "illusion" but the rest of us we call them "the real world" not fantasy.

      Since we live in the real world its best you listen to fact.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you still in denial about the FACT that there were more hurricanes this year than ever previously recorded? (14 compared to the previous record of 12?)

      Would you like to cite some sources in support of your fantasies?

  14. Happy New Year by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    HAppy New Year, and welcome... Alma?

  15. Re:Sounds good to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought all the young girls loved Alice. "Tender young Alice," they'd say. "If I give you my number, will you promise to call me? Wait 'till my husband's away."

  16. Alice not necessarily dethroned by usn2fsu03 · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the summary:
    Zeta is the latest a tropical cyclone was formed in the Atlantic, forming around 11 AM ET; this dethrones Hurricane Alice of 1954, which formed December 30th around 2 AM ET.
    From the second NHC Zeta discussion:
    THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS THAT ALICE OFFICIALLY BECAME A TROPICAL STORM AT 1200 UTC 30 DECEMBER 1954. MY WORKING BEST TRACK FOR ZETA CURRENTLY SHOWS STORM STATUS BEGINNING AT 1200 UTC THIS MORNING... WHICH TENTATIVELY ALLOWS ZETA TO TIE ALICE FOR THE LATEST FORMING TROPICAL STORM IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN. HOWEVER...A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR CONSIDERING ZETA A TROPICAL STORM AS EARLY AS 0600 UTC THIS MORNING. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FINAL ANALYSIS OF ZETA'S TRACK TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE ITS FORMATION FALLS RELATIVE TO ALICE'S.
    1. Re:Alice not necessarily dethroned by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Note that the text you quoted is UTC, which IIRC is 5 hours ahead of EST.

      --
      Lalala
  17. Global Warming Scare continues by drakethegreat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I feel like ANY abnormal weather has people on edge now. Since scientists brought up the idea of global warming we assume that anything that isn't average must be a sign of global warming. Now its possible that global warming may come but its not like hot air is causing tropical storms in DECEMBER. People may disagree but then I would like to remind them the average global temperature rose about .5 degrees Celcius this year.

    They have word that describes people's current thoughts about global warming, its 'paranioa'

    1. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by hostingreviews · · Score: 0

      Do you think 0.5 degrees isn't a lot? If that trend continues the math isn't hard. 40 years, 20 degrees. Instead of it being 30 degrees it'll be 50. Is it paranoia when the evidence is in front of you? Is it just a scare if the facts are verified? This is not a near-miss meteor, it's the temperature of our land.

    2. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by fm6 · · Score: 1
      I feel like ANY abnormal weather has people on edge now.
      Of course! It's all hysteria! We shouldn't make over-react to the fact that we had more hurricanes and tropical storms than any year on record, that we had more severe hurricanes than any year on record, and that we're still getting tropical storms in winter.
    3. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

      I was pointing out that it is normal. Thanks for not reading my post and giving me troll. Of course I'm not posting as an anynomous coward...

    4. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by carlislematthew · · Score: 1
      Only .5 degrees Celcius? Sweet! That's fractional! TINY!!! ;)

      I'm glad we use Celcius now - if we used Farenheit, the increase would have been *much* larger.

    5. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .5 degrees in one year ? So that make 5 degrees in 10 years ? And in a hundred years... 50 degrees ?! And you think it's paranoia ?!

    6. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course global warming is happening. The big problem is people thinking that people are the primary cause. Since the poles of Mars are melting as well it appears that there might be something on a much larger scale causing global warming like say, the Sun. Either that or the few rovers we sent to Mars are enough to cause global warming on Mars.

      The reality is that the climate changes over time, it has in the past and will in the future. We have been lucky the past 500 years or so. Now things are starting to warm up. Sometime in the future it will cool down too and there will be people screaming about global cooling.

      What people need to start working on is getting self sustaining colonies off this planet. Until that happens we as a species will be vulnerable to the global climate shifts and global catastrophes.

      But nobody reads this or understands or really cares. They would much rather spend their time trying to get SUVs banned and other ineffectual measures passed as law. Until then, if you live in hurricane country get prepared. If you are on the coast have plans to evacuate. If you are inland have supplies for a couple of weeks, generator, gas, tarps, water, food, etc. Be ready to survive for serveral weeks on your own. Don't count on help any time soon.

    7. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Informative

      We haven't been keeping comprehensive records of Atlantic storm activity for that long. The National Weather Service says this severe storm season is the result of several periodic climate factors peaking simultaneously, not due to the average global temperature increase that's been going on: thus far it's been too small.

    8. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by fm6 · · Score: 1
      That simply means that we can't be absolutely sure that 2005 was the worst (is!) the worst storm season ever. That subtracts a little from the evidence -- but there is a fucking huge amount of evidence, and getting bigger by the day.

      You can find alternate explanations for any argument. Tell me why you think the world is round, and I'll show you an alternate explanation consistent with the idea that the world is flat. But once the evidence starts mounting up, it's time to stop trying to explain it away and start considering it seriously.

    9. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Check your sources on that .5 degree C rise in 1 yr. The mosst reputable sources in the USA (Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA) if not the world says something different.

      http://uahnews.uah.edu/read.asp?newsID=574

      "Previously, the long-term (December 1978 through July 2005) climate trend in the UAH satellite dataset showed average global warming at the rate of about 0.88 C (about 1.58 degrees Fahrenheit) per century. The new trend, which includes the extra warming in the tropics, shows average global warming at the rate of about 1.23 C (about 2.21 degrees Fahrenheit) per century. " NOTE THAT THE WARMING RATE IS PER CENTURY (100 YRS) NOT PER YEAR (365 days).

      You can also look at http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glanc e.htm which references the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA among others.

    10. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the climate changes over time, it has in the past and will in the future.

      Regardless of the cause, the problem isn't the change in temperature, its the speed at which it is changing. In the past even rapid changes occured over thousands of years. Current models predict a much faster change. Sure the ecosystem will adjust eventually, but alot of people will be screwed in the process.

      What people need to start working on is getting self sustaining colonies off this planet.

      Don't you think you think it'd be easier to figure out how to not fuck up this planet (or at least how to deal with its changes) than how to survive on another planet? The earth at its worst is a hell of a lot more hospitable than any other spot in the solar system.

    11. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Paranoia is fear without reason. However, there are reasons to be concerned. It's plain to see the glacial retreats all over the world. It's also pretty obvious that the permafrost in the Sibera, Alaska, and northern Canada are thawing. It's also obvious that the forest line has been moving northward as well. The sea surface temperatures world-wide have been increasing. Warmer water aquatic animals have been trekking further northward (and southward). And yes, the weather has been straying from the "norms". Now maybe it's just coincidence that all this happens to coincide with the rapid industrialization of the planet, but I doubt it. But let's say this is just part of the natural cycle. In that case, we certainly are not helping the situation. Regardless, we need to start thinking about how this will impact the planet because it's going to happen and will happen quickly. And to correct your statement, excess energy does cause storms. If the Earth can't radiate the heat off into space, it has to go somewhere. Since most of the earth is covered by water, a majority of this excess energy goes into oceans. Ocean temps strongly impact weather. You can figure out the rest. All that aside, when would YOU start to take action? When the sea levels raise by 5 feet? When England and northern Europe no longer have "summer" due to the gulf stream being weakend? When an averge hurricane season has 30 storms a year? By that point, it's already far too late to do anything about it. Some scientist already think it's too late and are recommending we begin preparing for the climate changes. About 5,000 years ago there was a rapid global climactic shift that destroyed several civilizations. While I believe technologically we could definately survive such a change now, just imagine the problems that would be caused if the US midwest turned into a desert and bread costs $30.00 a loaf. ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    12. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Don't you think you think it'd be easier to figure out how to not fuck up this planet (or at least how to deal with its changes) than how to survive on another planet?

      We'll figure out how to deal with the changes here. But we should still get a few eggs in other baskets. No telling when a major astroid or comet will hit the Earth or when the next pandemic will wipe out most of the population (can you say bird flu?).

      And you are making the assumption that it is we that are causing global warming or that we can actually do anything about it. The best we are going to be able to do is adapt to the new environment. This will mean either relocating large portions of the population currently in coastal areas or creating massive dike systems. Probably a combination of both systems will be used.

      But let's keep everything in one basket. It is easier to deal with that way. :(

    13. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by Troed · · Score: 1

      And yes, the weather has been straying from the "norms"

      What norms? Last year? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1000 years ago?

      Don't make stuff up. Please.

    14. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by thogard · · Score: 1

      The two major currents around Australia (The East Australian Current and the Leeuwin Current) are flowing differently this year. The Leeuwin Current is responsible for getting water to Perth and at the rate things are going, it may not normal rain levels there for decades. The East Australian Current is not up to its normal summer speeds this year which may have a negative impact on the Great Barrier Reef. While may people think that just mean some dead coral, the area is the nursery for a significant amount of marine life in the South Pacific. If coral growth is down 25% there, then there will be a 25% reduction in fish stocks in the deep South Pacific next year.

    15. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      Don't you think you think it'd be easier to figure out how to not fuck up this planet (or at least how to deal with its changes) than how to survive on another planet?

      Well, no. If you're already inside sealed habitats (and have no native biosphere) you have the luxury of trashing the other planet/asteroid/etc as much as you want. Out there, there's no groundwater/rivers/oceans to pollute, cosmic rays are already bombarding you, so dump you radioctive waste in a (well-marked) pit, and CO2 in the atmosphere just makes Mars more habitable. On the other hand, living on Earth (for most people) means living unprotected and with some nature around, so small climate changes can be devastating, trace poisons are too much to handle, and every bit of fallout from a reactor leak means hysteria.

      I guess what I'm saying is that here, we choose to live as part of the ecology that's already here, and we have to understand it to avoid messing it up. Off of Earth we're going to have to isolate ourselves from the environment anyway, so we don't really have to understand it. In the long run, the first option really does sound harder.

    16. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Evidence of bad things happening from global warming is mounting up, like huge methane sinks (in permafrost and ocean) thawing and ocean ecosystems dying, BUT this storm season isn't it. This wasn't even the deadliest storm season nor was Katrina the deadliest hurricane on record.

    17. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Sure, one storm isn't proof of anything. 26 storms are quite another matter.

      I'm sort of the looking forward to the next hurricane season, which has great potential for settling the argument one way or the other. Of course, I don't live on the Gulf Coast...

    18. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the next couple years won't prove much, as the next TEN years (according to NOAA) are predicted to be very busy due to ~60 - 70 year hurricane cycle being in peak.

    19. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by fm6 · · Score: 1

      So tell me, what would it take to convince you?

    20. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      It almost scares me when I see myself nodding and agreeing with Troed about this global warming nonsense.

    21. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      about twenty to thirty more years of records, of course, to see that atlantic storm frequency & ferocity are or aren't greater than normal.

    22. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Your position might have scientific merit. However, 2035 is a little late to start talking about limiting greenhouse gas emissions. As with so many trends that build exponentially (I don't mean "real fast" I mean in the original mathematical sense waiting for the evidence to become irrefutable means waiting until it's too late to do anything about it.

    23. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average glabal temperature is rising. The concetration of greenhouse gases is rising. We have a mechanism which explains the correlation. How is it 'a big problem' to suggest a causal link?

      There are alternative theories around, yes. But none of them are as succesful as the greenhouse effect in explaining what we see.

      Most importantly we don't need to be 100% sure that it's us, who is causing the global warming. 80% is more than good enough. The reasonable thing to do is still to lessen our possible effect on the climate. (As long as the cost of doing it is less than 80% than the future cost of global warming. Which I believe it is.)

      As for geting off to another planet it's a non sequitur. Climate change won't kill off humanity. It won't even come close. That is not why it is dangerous. And more to the point space colonization could have zero effect on climate change here on Earth in the next 50 or even 100 years. We'll still get rising sea levels and changing climate and weather patterns with all its economic and human costs.

    24. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The norms for areas where we have records for. This includes tree rings and ice core samples which go back several thousand years.

      We only have detailed reords for about the past 150 years, but on the longer timescales the ice-cores and tree rings give a general idea what the climate was like. The norms I was referring to however, only deal with the past 150 years.

      I'm not "making stuff up". You misinterpereted what I said (or maybe I wasn't specific enough).

      And that's not even the point I was trying to make. The point is simple, the climate is changing. It's deviating from the averages that we have come to expect. That means we have to change with it.

      Regardless of whether we are causing it or helping it we have to anticipate the changes and adapt to them.

      The other choice is do nothing and watch, and hope we don't have the same climatic shifts that we've seen in the past. See http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary. html

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    25. Re:Global Warming Scare continues by Troed · · Score: 1

      My point is that the weather has always changed, and we've changed with it. No other points need to be made, right?

      "Norm", "normal" etc are words that don't even need to be said. There's no such thing as "normal weather", or "natural weather" - or "unnatural" of course. The Earth has its climate, and that's it.

  18. Great! by reset_button · · Score: 1

    I'm sure all the people who get screwed over by the storm will be thrilled that it will be counted towards 2005!

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in danger of falling apart out in the middle of the ocean, so nobody's getting screwed over - except the forecasters that have to work on New Year's Day.

  19. Re:Sounds good to me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but what can you expect from a sixteen year old yoyo?

    Here we are, quoting Elton John "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" lyrics on Slashdot. Sheesh.

  20. Water Vapor? by Descalzo · · Score: 1

    What about water vapor? How does that fit in to the picture? From what I've heard, water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, completely outweighing all other greenhouse gases combined.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:Water Vapor? by Yartrebo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Water Vapour is reactive and only serves to amplify other climate forcings. It actually is going up in sympathy with other greenhouse gases as the Earth is getting warmer. It will also continue to increase for centuries after C02 stabilizes in the atmosphere as the ocean has a very long lag time. Unfortunately, the only practical way to reduce H20 levels in the atmosphere is to cool down the planet because H20 is generated in such huge quantities by evaporation from the oceans and plants. Any attempt to reduce evaporation by means such as cutting forests will actually increase temps more by decreasing evaporative cooling and convection.

      PS: Why do so many people bring up the water vapour issue? If one is smart enough to know that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't one be smart enough to have a basic understanding of the water cycle?

  21. Naming and PR by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Zeta" sounds more menacing than "Katrina". Mean-sounding storms may get more people to react. If Katrina was instead named "Ball Buster" or "Alimony", then more people may have bothered to leave during the storm. Naming storms after ballerinas is not a way to get them to move their asses. Men will feel demasculated moving for something named after a mere ballerina.

    1. Re:Naming and PR by Supurcell · · Score: 1

      Oh, but they majestically twirl down from the heavens to dance upon our rooftops, leaping from one to the next. They are so graceful that the angels give them deafening applause, many are even moved to tears. You are invited to stay, but don't feel to bad about walking out in the middle of her performance, she cares naught.

    2. Re:Naming and PR by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      A the name are random (after picking the letter) (but the list in some cases is the same over time) B a True Ballerina (one that is part of a company) could very well if needed put your nose on the other side of your head. ballet looks easy but is it very hard C their "performances" both contain twirling about so..

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:Naming and PR by zerofret · · Score: 1

      Maybe we could have called it Darth Katrina

  22. Bah, not worth staying up for by sam_handelman · · Score: 1

    No, what I'm really looking forward to is hurricane Omega; so wake me up if we have a year with an additional, what, 18 storms?

      Of course, to live up to a name like that it'd better contain energy somewhat greater than Jupiter's red spot - which will be tough, given that spot is something like twice the surface area of the Earth.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Bah, not worth staying up for by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      3 times, actually. Which actually reinforces your point. :) Having the great red spot here would SO suck.

      --

      You are not the customer.

  23. The joke used to be... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    The old joke used to be "Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it!". That was a simpler time, when, thankfully, no one could do anything.

    I hate to think what will happen if a committee ever did have the power to do something about it. Odds are, it would be the wrong thing.

    On second thought... maybe we need more bureaus to work on this so-called problem. The way things are going, we need more bureaucracy to slow down those who think they know what should be done.

    References: See "road to hell, paved with..." and "unintended consequences, law of"

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:The joke used to be... by rts008 · · Score: 0

      "On second thought... maybe we need more bureaus to work on this so-called problem. The way things are going, we need more bureaucracy to slow down those who think they know what should be done." Think of the children...someone with mod points PLEASE,PLEASE mod this as +5 insightful. LOL!, but how true it has become.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  24. I have empirical evidence by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
    They have word that describes people's current thoughts about global warming, its 'paranioa'

    All I'm sayin' is that the burners on my stove glow a little brighter than last year. Coincidence? I think not ...

  25. here is a decent picture of Zeta by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  26. In 1933 we would never have known about Zeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were no satellites, no hurricane hunter planes. Maybe a few freighters would have sailed through a storm 1000 miles southwest of the Azores. No one would have known it was a "tropical storm" that needed a name.

    So it's hard to know of 2005 is really a "record year". Our data from anything more then probably 25-30 years ago is too spotty.

  27. Global Cooling by nefarity · · Score: 1

    Quick! Let's blame every natural disaster on global warming! That way when there's lots of natural disasters, we know that global warming is occuring. Anyone remember Global Cooling?

  28. Next name? by CrimsonScythe · · Score: 0

    We had the Katrina, and now there's the Zeta. Will the next storm be called Jones?

    --
    The view was horrible and the smell was even worse; Julie severely regretted becoming a proctologist.
  29. to be fair... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Before weather satellites went up in the sixties, we probably missed a lot of storms. I know we had boats all over the Atlantic, but there's plenty of reason to think we could have missed a couple. And of course, we didn't have pressure readings for most of them over most of their existence. Consistent pressure readings probably didn't come until we started flying planes into hurricanes (in the 70s? 60s?).

    So although this year was quite busy, we probably can't really say it is the definitely the busiest since 1933 for sure. And we surely can't say there never was a storm with a lower recorded pressure either, since we didn't start recording those well until very recently.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:to be fair... by thogard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A tropical storm used to be a storm that had an effect on the weather all the way to the edge of the ocean. Any storm that is even close to cat 1 will have a very strong influence on the pressure along the east coast or on one of the many islands. Keep in mind that the British, French, Dutch and Americans have been running manned weather stations on just about any major bit of dirt they could find for the last few hundred years. While they may have missed some smaller storms, I don't think any hurricanes have been missed in the last hundred years.

  30. Re:The problem with slashdot by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is possibly one of the funniest posts I've ever read on slashdot.

    And kudos to you coward, for not showing yourself. Obviously you do not believe in your own words enough to back them up.

    Also, please, get some help. If you have enough time to spew this worthless tripe onto slashdot, you definately need a hobby.

    I also suggest a course on concise writing. Filling a post full of obtuse adjectives and antiquated colloquialisms does little to get your point across. Instead of sounding intelligent, you come across as a pious, egotistical jackass. Your post screams that you are needy, pathetic, and are desperately craving attention. Your endless whining throughout your post also makes you sound like a spoiled little girl who didn't get a pony for Christmas.

    As you said in your post, using big words does not make you intelligent. Indeed, this is very true in your case. Why? Because I can express in three words what took you almost three pages of endless drivel to say:

    "Taco, you suck."

    Now, why don't you go read some self-help books and gain some social skills. There really is more to life than being an attention-starved egomaniacal sociopath.

    ~X~

    --
    ~X~
  31. Who's to blame?!? by Fei_Id · · Score: 0, Troll

    Its Bush's fault!!! Better blame those mudslides in the western US on him too while we're at it!!!

  32. Katrina, Zeta, Jones? by cciRRus · · Score: 1

    So there are hurricanes called Katrina and Zeta, but is there one that is called Jones?

    --
    w00t
  33. Don't you think MS has enough promotion? by Angelox · · Score: 1

    M$ gets more than enough promo with out your help. And besides Sites like weather.com are dedicated and much better source for weather news and info.

  34. No by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    This has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with natural cycles of strong and weak hurricane seasons. Yes, some models do suggest that global warming will cause more hurricanes (though others predict less). However, in those models the increases in hurricanes comes after substantial oceanic warming, not before. Stop blaming every natural variation in the weather on global warming, it is absurd, unscientific, and only hurts your cause (ever hear of the the boy who cried wolf?). You don't know what you are talking about, so please shut up.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like http://www.climatehotmap.org/oceania.html

      We already see the Atlantic current weakening and moving away from NA. The more it slows down, the more hot water will stay in the Gulf and tropics. Guess what? That's where the Hurricanes begin.

      Oh, and good luck with that...

    2. Re:No by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      " You mean like http://www.climatehotmap.org/oceania.html"

      Do you know the difference between the Atlantic ocean and Oceania? BTW, if you read the link, you will notice it actually blames much of that on El Nino, another natural phenomenon.

      " We already see the Atlantic current weakening and moving away from NA. The more it slows down, the more hot water will stay in the Gulf and tropics. Guess what? That's where the Hurricanes begin."

      Got anything backing that up? Because in the world I live in (you know, the real one), I've heard much about how it is moving towards NA, which is why more storms made it to the coast this year. BTW, that movement can also be seen in historical records, implying it is also a natural phenomenon.

      I'm not saying that global warming will not cause more hurricanes, rather it has not. Future global warming related events may affect future hurricane seasons, but they cannot have affected the current hurricane season due the nature of cause and effect relations, noteably that the cause has to happen first.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  35. I tried submitting this same story by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

    It's funny because I tried submitting it at 3:45pm using this article http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/living/ health/13520225.htm which contains a hell of alot more detail about the year's weather including wild fires in Alaska. And like any story I submit, it got rejected but yet this watered down, wikipedia-centric story gets the prize. Do you see a pattern emerging here Scully?

  36. Re:The problem with slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er...maybe it's just my imagination, but isn't this from a random complaint generator?

  37. The Zeta Sorority by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    It reminded me of the members of the Zeta sorority - they are loud and wet when they come and will give ya a good blow any time of year.

    But really, the real problem is these hurricanes in the Brumuda Triangle. When compared to Zeta girls we at least know how many seman the Triangle has swollowed.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  38. Re:The problem with slashdot by Celsius+233 · · Score: 1
    --
    Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
  39. Ho-Hum, this isn't really news by rrgg · · Score: 1

    So in 2005 we had 14 hurricanes, breaking the 1969 record of 12. The 1954 tropical storm record was just broken by 1. It was just reported that Katrina was a category 3 after all. We just learned that the NOLA levees were not built to spec (due to corruption).

    Why is there so much sensationalism about this like it's the End-of-the-World (tm)? Those records are only 51 years old or less. That wasn't so long ago.