Slashdot Mirror
Kennedy Space Center Braces For Hurricane Matthew (cbsnews.com)
Hurricane Matthew, one of the most powerful storms to hit Florida's Space Coast in the last 50 years, is expected to pummel the Kennedy Space Center and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Thursday night and into Friday. "Kennedy Space Center is now in HurrCon 1 status, meaning a hurricane is imminent. Hurricane preparations at Kennedy were completed early last night, and remaining employees were then sent home," NASA spokesman George Diller said in a blog post today. CBS News reports: The National Hurricane Center is predicting heavy rain, dangerous storm surges and winds gusting up to 140 mph along Florida's east coast with the eye passing just off shore or directly over Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center. Satellite observations of Matthew show the hurricane features "a distinct eye surrounded by very deep convection," the National Hurricane Center reported in its 11 a.m. EDT update. "Data from an Air Force reconnaissance plane traversing the eye of the hurricane also indicate that Matthew has strengthened. Members of a 139-member "rideout" team will be stationed at various facilities across the space center to monitor critical systems "and report any significant events" to emergency operations personnel in the Complex 39 Launch Control Center where space shuttle launchings were once managed. "After the hurricane has passed, and winds have dropped below 50 knots, areas around KSC will be assessed and the damage assessment and recovery team will report for duty," said Diller. You can view satellite images of the storm here.
hi the latest image is at http://www.goes.noaa.gov/brows...
Seriously? There has been a long lull in major hurricanes for at least a decade which has directly contradicted the prophecies of the global warming cultist priests made 20 years ago. Yet more proof of a yet another false apocalyptic end of the world cult.
Though I believe the evidence of for global warming, this hurricane is not a part of it. Claims such as yours belong with those which claim that people not flying off into space is proof that the world is flat.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
On a related note, 300 people died in Haiti.
And this storm has really been a whole lot of nothing (obviously I still have my power).
That's because the eye and eyewalls of Matthew has stayed offshore. The outer eyewall will probably touch Cape Canaveral and it may actually make landfall in northern Florida, which will result in far worse conditions for those areas. The concentric eyewalls and the large outer eyewall help to keep the winds down a bit. The pressure isn't that low for a major hurricane, so any broadening of the low pressure will bring down the winds. I suspect that 120 mph may be a bit generous for the winds based on the data from the KMLB radar. Nonetheless, if the eyewall replacement completes and if the core can tighten up a bit, that could increase the winds. Also, if landfall occurs, that would bring the stronger winds onshore, though weakening the storm fairly quickly afterwards. Just because it didn't hit south Florida that hard doesn't mean it won't be quite a bit worse for northern Florida.
Even a rough googling or wiki'ing proves that to be incorrect.
Just the Atlantic, noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
How about this cyclone, part of a weather system that kept the majority of QLD flooded for most of summer that year? The year I finally bought a generator, because I got tired of throwing away perishable food.
Deaths are low these days because we see them coming, but they still smash infrastructure and leave economies limping for months or years.
What stronger? This is a Cat 3 storm. There are usually several every year.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What hills? Our highest elavation is 19 feet above sea level.
I've really been enjoying this. It's like the news is all abuzz about me being such a badass that people flee as I approach.
noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
Its not likely to shift westward as it moves up the coast. It is more likely hit up in South Carolina if anywhere, but should be significantly weakened by then.
Even a rough googling or wiki'ing proves that to be incorrect.
He meant 'hurricanes that damaged property in the USA.'
In his world, hurricanes, cyclones & typhoons that wreak havoc in 'other places' don't count.
Seriously? There has been a long lull in major hurricanes for at least a decade which has directly contradicted the prophecies of the global warming cultist priests made 20 years ago. Yet more proof of a yet another false apocalyptic end of the world cult.
AGW denialists only count the ones hitting the US, and even then, they know hurricanes are caused by gay marriage.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
The only ones that count are the ones that hit the USA. All others are irrelevant.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Though I believe the evidence of for global warming, this hurricane is not a part of it. Claims such as yours belong with those which claim that people not flying off into space is proof that the world is flat.
It's pretty difficult to claim that any one day's weather is the result of the 800 terawatts of radiative forcing that humans have pumped into the air. You simply have to look at trends.
As well, a lot of people forget the "global" part of AGW. It's the sort of thing that causes deniers to bray "So much for global warming!" As well, there are some folks who declare every hot day or weather related disaster on AGW.
Both are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
Given that hurricanes and tornadoes and other storms are nature's way of dumping excess or imbalanced energy, and its obvious that we've always had these events, no one event can conclusively be laid at the feet of AGW. The nature of nature is that imbalances happen and need taken care of.
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale. To date, they've done nothing of the sort. This puts them squarely in bed with creationists. Otherwise all they have is looking out the window when its cold.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes, hurricanes never happened before evil humans got in their cars and started using electricity. Never. Not once. No hurricane has ever happened until now.
What a bizzare statement. The nature of a complex atmospheric system like the one on earth inherently leads to energy imbalances. So storms are just the way these imbalances try to even out
Clearly the only solution to this is for all of humanity to die.
Nooo! You are wrong and silly, but we need you around as long as possible, if just to have someone to laugh at. Live long and prosper, and buy mountain land.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This would make for an interesting thriller movie premise. There's a murderer among the ride-out team picking off the other members one by one.
I totally get that you don't think we're going to be living in a Buck Rogers-like interplanetary or interstellar civilization anytime soon if ever. But do you deny that "death asteroids" have impacted the earth in the past with very negative global consequences? Whether or not the "space nutters" are right about colonizing mars, wouldn't it be nice to have some means of detecting and possibly deflecting species extinction level asteroid impacts?
If you have evidence that hurricane frequency or landfall is increasing, please share it with NOAA, for they have none.
If your argument is that the intensity is somehow increasing, kindly share that data also.
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Bring it on.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
All I can say is that I copy/pasted from the same column as the original AC a few years earlier.
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale.
And why is that a problem for the "denialists" and not for the people actually making the extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence?
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale.
And why is that a problem for the "denialists" and not for the people actually making the extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence?
1. There are some extremely basic laws of physics going on here. It's like denying Ohm's Law I make the claim that the laws of physics hold true. You do not. You need to prove they don't. DEspite your protesttions to the negative, the measurements hold up. So you have to prove how the measurements are either incorrect, or don't hold up using real science, not way outdated denials.
I point to the dat. You say it is wrong. You have th eextraordinary claim, you need to supply your proofs. And the proof isn't Michal Mann is an asshole, or long discredited (but unfindable on denialistwebsites - correlation between an Alabama university study and SAtellite data. If you are going to do that, you might as well pull out a T-O map, or claim that fossils are put there by Gawd to tempt people. It's in your court, and it is not my job to do your work for you. Good luck!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
DEspite your protesttions to the negative, the measurements hold up.
Do you understand these measurements well enough for that "holding up" to be relevant? From what I recall of your posting in the past, the answer is "no".
Let me point out there is a huge gap between "basic laws of physics" and global warming is severe enough that we should consider it our only priority. I grant that there is global warming and that it is likely that most of it is human caused. That doesn't mean that I agree that we should do something about it. There is a remarkable inability of the climate change crowd to show that doing something about global warming is better than doing nothing, even if your only care is global warming. There is a remarkable counterproductive aspect to global warming mitigation which has nothing to do with basic laws of physics.
Let me point out there is a huge gap between "basic laws of physics" and global warming is severe enough that we should consider it our only priority.
Let me point out that I never said it should be our top priority.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
My concerns at the moment, are that the rapid release of methane we've been experiencing lately are a wild card that wasn't mentioned nearly enough in the past several decades. While methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, it is much more powerful an energy retention substance then CO2.
But even then, we're going to witness whatever we've put in motion without being able to do much about it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you have evidence that hurricane frequency or landfall is increasing, please share it with NOAA, for they have none.
If your argument is that the intensity is somehow increasing, kindly share that data also.
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Bring it on.
Challenge accepted.
First, although altogether too many slashdot users claim strawmen when there was none, your claiming that AGW advocates are claiming that this hurricane is the result of global warming is a complete and total strawman. There are some assholes who might claim that, just the same as there are assholes who claim that the world was entering a new ice age back in the mid 1970's, but those are whacky outliers.
Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon, and fueled by temperature gradients (read energy) brought about by the rotation of a spherical object (the earth) and it's changing insolation on various regions. The weather created is a way to bring the energy level into balance. The same happens with thunderstorms and snowstorms. Can we agree on that much?
Next we have the energy retention properties of the atmosphere on earth. There are some chemical compounds that retain or lessen energy retention. Water vapor is a biggie. It's the most potent Greenhouse "gas" we have, generally. Carbon Dioxide is another. It's a lot weaker in terms of energy retention, but we've released a lot of it lately, from sequestered sources like coal and oil. Then there is methan, which is now being released as normally frozen areas warm. It's not clear at present how much of this will be released, but it is a pretty potent greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouse gases, most are not as important to the discussion.
There are also anti-greenhouse gases, such as Sulfur Dioxide, which tend to allow the atmosphere shed energy much more quickly, so not as much buildup is possible.
The effect of this increase of atmospheric energy is that there ia a general warming trend, and the possibility of a larger energy exchange during storms.
No one storm is the result of this process. It is possible for damage to be increased when an area where sea level has risen when a storm surge of X feet ingresses X miles inland because of that rise. That might be attributable to AGW as a peripheral event, but the existence of the energy balancing effect AKA hurricane, is not. It's just a hurricane.
Okay. There's the start. Ball's in your court now. Be aware however, name calling or silly pejoratives like libtard or wingnut is an automatic disqualification, as is personal attacks on researchers involved. I often use the term denialist. Its a descriptive, not a pejorative. But since we're talking about science, no need to say that anywhere. And strawmen are most definitely not allowed, so game on?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Somehow I missed your data.
All else is indeed interesting discussion is analysis, without any hard analysis.
And I cannot tell the a*holes from the sincere apologists.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Somehow I missed your data.
All else is indeed interesting discussion is analysis, without any hard analysis.
And I cannot tell the a*holes from the sincere apologists.
Which specific data do you want?
And should I [present it in as concise a form as you have? Either answer the question, or decline the challenge.
SO far, you have said:
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Where do you want me to begin? The beginning with the retention of energy by substance? That the Coriois effect is th eprime mixer of atmospheric energy? I can go to elementary physics if you care, but you need to give me a level you want to operate at. Or you could at least say which exact data was manipulated. But I've discussed with your ilk before. You're getting challenged again. At this point, I'm calling you out as a true denialist, full of assertations and preciousl little to go on.
What data has been manipulated? Talk the big boy talk - I will understand it.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
We're all also going to die. I guess we better kill ourselves off now, the ride's been set in motion after all.
My concerns at the moment, are that the rapid release of methane we've been experiencing lately are a wild card that wasn't mentioned nearly enough in the past several decades. While methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, it is much more powerful an energy retention substance then CO2.
What rapid release of methane? They've been measuring methane concentrations in atmosphere. While they are increasing, it's not a rapid release.
But even then, we're going to witness whatever we've put in motion without being able to do much about it.
Incorrect. We can still create a sophisticated, technologically advanced, global civilization capable of handling whatever climate change throws at us. That incidentally is the default, "no action" choice right there.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
We're all also going to die. I guess we better kill ourselves off now, the ride's been set in motion after all.
You just look for shit to make smartass comments about? Or are you intellectually challenged, in which case I pologize because my mamma taught me to not pick pn retarded people.
Since it is not possible for you to comprehend what I wrote, it is this. Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, and we are going to have to live with whatever happens. Shit happens. Go troll someone else, you bore me, kid.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First, the temperature records are adjusted to somehow account for errors or influences. This leaves me suspicious.
Then the siting of recording stations in the US seems to risk both urban heat island effects as well as a bias to urban locations, both as sprawl engulfed older stations, and as rural stations have fallen into disrepair or been lost.
But the intentional manipulation of data, especially satellite data, leaves me questioning results.
If you're as aware as you seem to claim, you know what I'm referring to.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You just look for shit to make smartass comments about? Or are you intellectually challenged, in which case I pologize because my mamma taught me to not pick pn retarded people.
No, I'm making a point which should be obvious. Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean it is a good idea to rush it. This again goes back to my observation that we have other priorities than just mitigating global warming. You say you agree, but where is that in your reasoning?
First, the temperature records are adjusted to somehow account for errors or influences. This leaves me suspicious.
I asked for data.You have none.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
first, this
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.