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.
Hear that Japan? you can still use your weather manipulator and we won't think the better of it
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."
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
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.
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
It'd be a funny sight though, you must admit ;-)
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
"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....
They've been naming Storms as well for over 50 years.
Since 1953, Atlantic tropical storms have been named from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Yeah, like those "greenies" at NOAA:
The frequency of storms seems to be cyclical and unrelated to global warming trends. Their strength, however, is related to the temperature increase.
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
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'
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.
"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.
Table-ized A.I.
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).
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.
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?
Bad idea. We do not need tropical storms with rocket propelled grenades or chemical weapons.
After all, I am strangely colored.
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
Here
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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?
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).
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~
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.
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
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.