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.
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.
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'
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.
And we all know how neutral and objective Greenpeace is.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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
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?
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.
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.