Slashdot Mirror


Patricia, Strongest Hurricane Ever Seen In Eastern Pacific, Strikes In Mexico

CNN reports that Hurricane Patricia has made landfall in Mexico; Patricia is notable for having the third-lowest barometer reading ever recorded, and as "the strongest hurricane ever observed in the eastern Pacific or Atlantic oceans." Slate points out that at one point, "satellite estimates of Patricia’s intensity broke the Dvorak scale, peaking at 8.3 on the 8.0 scale. ... In fact, Patricia is now very close to the theoretical maximum strength for a tropical cyclone on planet Earth." The Weather Channel is tracking the storm's path, and predicts "catastrophic damage ... along a narrow path as the eye slices into the interior of southwest Mexico Friday night." Here's a map from the National Weather Service showing Patricia's track as well as projected path.

78 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone understand the Dvorak scale well enough to comment on how this hurricane supposedly broke it and yet it can be accurately put on the scale as an 8.3?

    1. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dvorak is derived from sustained wind speed and pressure. The wind speeds are so high, and the pressures so low on this storm that they exceed the theoretical maximum (8.0) listed for Dvorak.

      I assume they calculated it at 8.3 by extrapolating from the existing scale.

    2. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What I'm curious about is the statement that this is 'near the theoretical maximum strength for a tropical cyclone on earth'. How does anyone know that the maximum strength is, and what are the underlying assumptions for making a calculation of the value of that strength?

    3. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does anyone understand the Dvorak scale well enough to comment on how this hurricane supposedly broke it and yet it can be accurately put on the scale as an 8.3?

      And more importantly, what is it on the Qwerty scale, which is the one that most of us know?

    4. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Glancing at the Wikipedia page, it appears that Dvorak scale goes crudely as a power (~1.25) of the velocity (1 minute sustained). The "theoretical maximum strength" is just bunk.

    5. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's why it's theoretical, duh! ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by theskipper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, some background. Dvorak is a well-known blowhard tech pundit. His blowhardness is so great that meteorologists unanimously decided to adopt the scale to measure the strength of hurricanes.

      To put this in perspective, imagine being in the same room with one Dvorak. Then imagine the same room filled with eight point three Dvoraks. That's how strong this hurricane is.

    7. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Dvorak is derived from sustained wind speed and pressure. The wind speeds are so high, and the pressures so low on this storm that they exceed the theoretical maximum (8.0) listed for Dvorak.

      I assume they calculated it at 8.3 by extrapolating from the existing scale.

      No - This hurricane goes the whole way to 11.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I am fairly confident they will remain subsonic

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me? I'm just hoping that the windspeed stays below escape velocity!

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    10. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your description sort of comes close. The scale was originally based on categories of visual features in satellite imagery, for use when direct wind measurements were not possible. They were roughly correlated with wind over time, but still is mainly a categorization scheme more than a scale. It is like the F and EF scales of tornado, which are roughly based on damage done to various structures. Both sets of scales have a max category, where a hurricane has the strong features or a tornado does the worst listed categories of damage. It is discrete, so there is no higher value on that scale, unless you try fitting a wind speed to it and extrapolating. But that is re-purposing and changing a scale that was not about raw wind speed into one that is.

    11. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      And more importantly, what is it on the Qwerty scale

      It's a hurricane, so we use the Sqwerty scale instead.

    12. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Qwerty? That's too sophisticated for me. Can someone distill it down to A9 for me?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    13. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for a car analogy.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    14. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Of course you were.

      :^)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it's nonsense, Dvorak scale only goes to 8.0 just as SSHS only goes to cat 5 regardless of strength beyond the minimum required to get to the highest number. there are no cat 6 hurricanes and their are no Dvorak 8.x hurricanes other than x=0

    16. Re: How did it fit on a scale it broke? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      News reports this morning put the max winds at landfall as 165.

      Sounds middle of the road to high. Not really record breaking.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    17. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dvorak is derived from sustained wind speed and pressure.

      No, it is not, and that is the problem. The scale was derived from how to analyse features in satellite imagery when pressure and wind speed were not available. The scale is correlated to wind speed and pressure, because the whole point is to have some sort of scientific, calibrated estimate of wind speed when you can't measure it directly. The scale stops at 8 not because of a theoretical maximum wind speed, but because there is a strongest category of storms for which certain features are visible. The scale doesn't give exact speeds, but usually a range for given effects. It is similar to the reason the Fujita scale for tornadoes and the Mercalli intensity scale for earthquakes can give a rough estimate of windspeed and magnitude, but are distinctly defined in terms of observed damage because that is sometimes all you have to go off of.

    18. Re:How did it fit on a scale it broke? by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when people start taking Salon seriously on matters of science, like climate and weather in this case. Hell, one can't even take the IPCC, who actually claim to be a science based club (rather than a political action committee, which they really are), seriously on their reports, so go figure!

  2. Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Informative

    As often happens with Pacific storms since ocean conditions for maintaining strength are rarely favorable near coastal areas in that part of the world. Winds were down over 50mph by the time it made landfall.

    1. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They've been saying that since the first news reports. Then it hit 33 degree celsius el Nino year coastal water temps and bam...Patricia was a big old five.

      My hat is off to modern day weather forecasting.

      I can view Doppler from the pocket cellie in a field far enough from town they can't hear you scream, but even now, predicting the path of a hurricane is still probabilistic.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by Rei · · Score: 1

      200-165=50?

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    3. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Winds were down over 50mph by the time it made landfall.

      Fifty miles per hour seems like a lot until you realize that means winds are still up to 150mph.

    4. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      160 MPH was an estimate at landfall based on satellite images. Having been through many hurricanes those estimates are many times wrong, esp for storms that are rapidly weakening as they approach land. It's not well understood but a storm that is strengthening as it approaches land is much more dangerous than a storm that is weakening, irrespective of absolute wind field values.

    5. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The news I heard said it was down to 190mph (down 10 mph), and the eye looked like it was still there. Yes, it will decrease quickly now, but that will just mean lots of water and storm surge.

    6. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure the ocean is to blame for the weakening. Patricia had a very compact inner core and a tiny eye. Strong hurricanes generally undergo eyewall replacement cycles, in which the inner eyewall contracts in and an outer eyewall takes over as the main eyewall. The NHC advisories emphasized the very compact inner core in the 11 AM EDT advisory. The 5 PM EDT advisory mentioned an outer wind maximum, which would be the outer eyewall. It sounds like Patricia was undergoing and eyewall replacement cycle as it made landfall in Mexico. Category 5 hurricanes rarely maintain their maximum intensity for very long. Eyewall replacement cycles typically result in the storm weakening while that takes place. Normally, cool waters associated with the California current (the cool northerly branch of the north Pacific gyre) do result in cool waters in the eastern Pacific, but I don't think that's the primary reason for Patricia weakening. I think an eyewall replacement cycle is primarily responsible for the weakening.

    7. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by quax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Anon comment nailed it, from wunderground:

      "Late-afternoon data from a NOAA hurricane hunter aircraft in Patricia indicates that the hurricane is forming concentric eyewalls, presaging an eyewall replacement cycle, where the inner eyewall collapses and is replaced by an outer eyewall that forms out of a spiral band. This process typically weakens the peak winds of the hurricane by up to 20 mph, but spreads out the highest winds of the storm over a larger area. This process typically reduces the wind damage from a storm, but makes a larger storm surge, leading to more storm surge damage."

    8. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the terrain and vegetation, and see what a drag it is on the wind.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      NHC did say that the 190 mph estimate in the last full advisory prior to landfall might be a "generous" estimate. The special advisory indicating that Patricia had made landfall estimated the winds at 165 mph at that time. However, the most recent advisory included an interesting comment:

      An unconfirmed sustained wind report of 185 mph and a gust to 211 mph was received from a NOAA/NWS Hydrometeorological Automated Data System (HADS) elevated station (295 ft) at Chamela-Cuixmala, Mexico near the time of landfall. This observation should be considered unofficial until it has been quality controlled.

    10. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Is that from an "eye" witness?

    11. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      When you look at the intensity history of hurricanes hitting that region nearly all of them follow the same pattern as Patricia - significant structural weakening as they approach the coast. This can't be explained as an eyewall replacement cycle.

    12. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Fifty miles per hour seems like a lot until you realize that means winds are still up to 150mph.

      It's like driving with the top down on the autobahn.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Fifty miles per hour seems like a lot until you realize that means winds are still up to 150mph.

      It's like driving with the top down on the autobahn.

      Its more like standing in the middle of the autobahn while traffic zooms past you. Its not the 150mph wind that gets you, its the 4x4s flying at 100mph that you have to worry about.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    14. Re:Eye collapsed well before reaching shore by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's like driving [at 150mph] with the top down on the autobahn.

      Have you ever tried it? Then shut the fuck up.

  3. 190 mph winds by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It'll crush the ocean-front vacation homes of the wealthy,

    and,

    the only homes of the poor.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:190 mph winds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Most Mexicans won't be hurt. Two-thirds of them already living in the US.

    2. Re:190 mph winds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other news bleeding heart liberals cry out for the poor citizens of Pompeii while taking the opportunity to bash the wealthy's island paradise.

      God the left can be so moronic.

    3. Re:190 mph winds by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You should have posted this anonymous so it was obvious.

    4. Re:190 mph winds by ultranova · · Score: 2

      You should have posted this anonymous so it was obvious.

      Anonymous posts are easy to ignore. But politics is serious business because the consequences can be quite devastating. So having one side of the political spectrum go ever further in their attempt to appeal to the worst elements of human nature, while the other desperately pretends everything's fine, is not a good thing.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Re:Keep her in Mexico! by harshath.jr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    lol. funny. not. derivative.

  5. Ever seen? Based on what. by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Life that could see has been in that area for millions of years.

    1. Re:Ever seen? Based on what. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      If it hasn't been written down it hasn't been seen. /sarcasm

    2. Re:Ever seen? Based on what. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Ever seen? Based on what.

      I wish I was so smart that I would be confused by that commonly used phrase.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  6. Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is what I predicted when I did my Ph.D in Climatology: a chaotic system will produce much larger storms than ever before. 30 years later it turns out I was right!

    1. Re:Get used to it by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Here's an interesting video where scientists explain why global warming intensifies storms and precipitation: https://youtu.be/2K2s2EjsXJI

    2. Re:Get used to it by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a chaotic system will produce much larger storms than ever before.

      I love it when people use phrases like "ever before" when they actually mean "in our brief recorded history".

    3. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I meant "ever before" I got my Ph.D. Did I mention I was a Scientist? With a Ph.D.?

    4. Re:Get used to it by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You know the AC really isn't a Climatologist, right?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Get used to it by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I meant "ever before" I got my Ph.D. Did I mention I was a Scientist? With a Ph.D.?

      Did you publish your PhD anonymously like your /. posts?

      If so, that must make tracking your citations a real bitch.

    6. Re:Get used to it by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Au contraire, it makes it really easy to make any old statement of what you predicted, because som AC somewhere undoubtedly said that, and the exact opposite of that. You can't possibly be wrong if you choose your targets after the arrow hits.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:Get used to it by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      This is what I predicted when I did my Ph.D in Climatology: a chaotic system will produce much larger storms than ever before. 30 years later it turns out I was right!

      You knew this was going to happen and yet you didn't warn the people of Mexico. You should be sent to jail.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:Get used to it by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      You know the AC really isn't a Climatologist, right?

      It doesn't matter. If you predict a system will become more chaotic, you will ALWAYS be right. Even if it becomes LESS chaotic you are still correct, because becoming LESS chaotic is only possible if something else became MORE chaotic.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  7. I've yet to see mention.. by subk · · Score: 1

    ..of the potential for flooding in Mexico City. Also, what kind of damage does a 50mph wind do to a shanty-town?

    --
    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
    1. Re:I've yet to see mention.. by jblues · · Score: 3, Informative

      ..of the potential for flooding in Mexico City. Also, what kind of damage does a 50mph wind do to a shanty-town?

      Here's the classification system that we use in the Philippines, where there on average 20 Typhoon's (your Hurricane's eastern twisted sister) per year. It describes the predicted effect at different intensity grades on builds ranging from very light to heavy construction materials. Note that metric units are used.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    2. Re:I've yet to see mention.. by plopez · · Score: 1

      I think Mexico City is safe from storm surge. If it isn't neither is the SW US.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:I've yet to see mention.. by gwolf · · Score: 1

      Oh, I live in Mexico City. We are over 1,000Km away. We haven't even got bad weather (mild rain yesterday night, beautiful day today).

      And about shanty towns... Of course we have some. But most of the city is much better built than what I've seen from the USA. No wonder we have that many 500 year old buildings in great shape.

  8. "Third-lowest barometer reading ever recorded" by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not quite so exclusive as it sounds. There are a lot of storms with the same barometer reading

    870mm - Typhoon Tip (1979)
    875mm - Typhoon June (1975)
    875mm - Typhoon Nora (1973)
    877mm - Typhoon Ida (1958)
    880mm - Typhoon Kit (1966)
    880mm - Typhoon Rita (1978)
    880mm - Typhoon Vanessa (1984)
    880mm - Hurricane Patricia (2015)

    The 1970s were a bad decade for storms in the West Pacific.

    1. Re:"Third-lowest barometer reading ever recorded" by DevilM · · Score: 2

      BTW, it turns out that many of the readings from the typhoons in the 60s were estimated incorrectly. See Black, P.G., (1992): "Evolution of maximum wind estimates in typhoons" ICSU/WMO International Symposium on Tropical Cyclone Disasters, October 12-16, 1992, Beijing.

    2. Re:"Third-lowest barometer reading ever recorded" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good thing pressure and wind speed aren't the same thing.

    3. Re:"Third-lowest barometer reading ever recorded" by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But are nearly perfectly correlated, so yes, effectively the same thing. It's the winds pulling away from the center that make the pressure lower there.

  9. This is a small fast storm by trout007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The hurricane force winds only extend about 25 miles which is way below the average of 100 miles. Katrina was around 125 miles. So while the peak winds here are fast it's a very small storm. Almost midway between a hurricane and tornado.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:This is a small fast storm by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      How about some perspective then?

      The storm was packing 200 mph winds. That is an EF5 tornado. An EF5 tornado is capable of tearing asphalt off the ground, leaving nothing but slabs where sturdy homes used to be, tossing big rigs around like toothpicks, tearing tree out of the ground and shredding them, so on and so forth. Take a look at some before an after pics of an EF5 tornado.

      An EF5 tornado will rarely approach a diameter of 1 mile, and is usually over in a couple of minutes.

      This storm was an EF5 that would have wiped something like New York City off the map. Not just a little path through downtown, but the whole damn city. Those winds would have lasted for an hour or more. You can't even begin to imagine what that would be like.

      That "only" would have been catastrophic if it hit a population center. Fortunately, it didn't (and several conditions occurred that manged to weaken the storm a bit before landfall).

      Dodged a bullet this time, but we keep reloading the gun.

      --
      ~X~
  10. Re:Perfect timing by Adriax · · Score: 1

    The Mexican government will just borrow that money from wall st. with a smaller government agency then declare it bankrupt.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  11. Re:It's cold out here in New England tonight by KGIII · · Score: 1

    And I got my coveted off-topic mod! I luff this game.

    Also, having seen your post concerning comedians. If you like highbrow, check out Emo Philips.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. Re:With the Republican's AGW... by rally2xs · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Oh, here we go again. Gloom and doom, etc. etc.

    What I always want to know is even with unlimited money, just what do you think you could do about "global warming?" Our whole society runs on energy, and without it our crops don't get grown and they don't get to market. The fuels to make electricity require energy to move them from the oil or coal fields to the generators where they are turned into electricity. And cars and trucks run on oil, there are millions and millions of cars, and nobody has invented the "magic battery" to allow us to run them without emitting.

    And if you try to spend unlimited money, you end up throwing people out of work. They go into poverty. What is more dangerous to your health than smoking? Living in poverty is more dangerous than smoking as it can take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only "good" for a 7 year reduction in lifespan. Plus, those kids that are living in poverty and experiencing undernourishment will have their brains fail to develop fully, and this damage cannot be reversed later.

    And since the Chinese and the Indians don't give a flying F about the global warming scarecrow, they are going to continue to dig coal like it is going out of style. That means that the rest of the world that considers themselves "sane" will have to go to zero emissions. We can't do it. We don't have that tech yet. We may never get that tech. The only way we could achieve zero emissions is kill a really significant portion of the population and go back to animal-powered subsistence farming like the 1800's, but of course the lifespans would be like the 1800's. Izzat what we want to do? And, as many scientists claim, the AGW theory may yet be a hoax, and if so, we could kill millions for nothing.

    People can whine about global warming all day, but unless they have a SOLUTION, I don't want to hear it. "Doing a little bit" that is insanely costly and doesn't amount to 0.05 degrees of reduction is just torturing the citizens for no good reason. I want a full-up, "completely stop the warming" solution or I say we don't spend a damned dime toward it. Half measures just harm all.

  13. Re:Keep her in Mexico! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    The best jokes become integral to our culture.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  14. 8.3 by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Coincidence? I think not.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:8.3 by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The FAT filesystem is a symptom of climate change.

  15. Re: Keep her in Mexico! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the biggest joke of all might become integral to the whole world if the Republicans elect him president.

  16. Re:With the Republican's AGW... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Was it a SPECIFIC republican that created this storm, or did all Republicans have a hand in it?

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  17. Hurricane Opal by EthanDemurs · · Score: 2

    I was raised in Fort Walton Beach, Florida and I remember Hurricane Opal(1995) like it was yesterday. The highest wind speeds were captured just blocks from my home on Hurlburt Air Force base at 145 mph. I've seen, firsthand, the absolute destruction these wind speeds can cause. Homes built near the water that were supposed to be hurricane proof were absolutely leveled. Our 4 lane highway running through Okaloosa Island was torn away in massive chunks. The day after the storm boats of all sizes were found in peoples homes, parking lots, and many other random places around the city. I hope these people have strict building codes and have taken the best possible precautions available to them, things are going to be ugly.

  18. Re:It's cold out here in New England tonight by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Climate change is just something the SJW scientists made up to take away our masculinity and now Star Wars is all about a black person. Not a coincidence.

    This is a confirmed fact.

    The 'Troll' moderation of this comment suggests that it more 'Insightful' than it is 'Funny'.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  19. Re: With the Republican's AGW... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please help us all out by stop breathing. Blaming the Republicans for every thing is just beyond ignorant. Do you honestly believe that democrats are innocence just because they say something different?

  20. Re: Keep her in Mexico! by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    Without Mexico in the way, Texas would get the full force of the hurricane

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  21. Re:It's cold out here in New England tonight by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Emo is a Chicago boy. He used to warm up for bands in clubs around town back in the day before he made it to the comedy joints.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  22. Jim Stone lives in Mexico, says there was no wind! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist, is reporting that this storm is a hoax. So much of a hoax, in fact, that NOAA personnel have been told they will be charged with a crime if they tell the truth.

    His site is here: http://www.jimstone.is/circumv...

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  23. Hmmm by koan · · Score: 1

    Patricia is now very close to the theoretical maximum strength for a tropical cyclone on planet Earth

    Is that based on previous observations of Earth's weather before climate change started building?

    Some of the predictions I've seen for "worst case" storms imply they could be much larger.

    Side note: I misspelled "imply" as "implie" the spell checker gave me a possible correction of "pimplike" for "implie".

    pimplike....

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  24. Re: Keep her in Mexico! by dave.haku · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the kind words!