Slashdot Mirror
Hurricane Irma Reaches 185 MPH, Trailing Only Allen As Strongest Atlantic Storm On Record (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: We are quickly running out of adjectives to describe the destructive potential of Hurricane Irma. As of 2pm ET on Tuesday, the National Hurricane Center upgraded the storm's sustained winds to 185mph. This is near-record speed for a storm in the Atlantic basin, which includes the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico. Such high, sustained winds tie Irma for the second-strongest storm on record in the Atlantic, along with Hurricane Wilma (2005), Hurricane Gilbert (1998), and the 1935 Florida Keys hurricane. Only Hurricane Allen, which reached 190 mph in 1980 before striking a relatively unpopulated area of Texas, reached a higher wind speed. Globally, the all-time record for hurricanes is held by Patricia, which reached a staggering 215 mph in the Pacific Ocean in 2015. Although sustained winds capture the most public attention, meteorologists generally measure the intensity of a storm based upon central pressures, which are considerably lower than sea-level pressure on Earth, 1,013 millibars. Typhoon Tip, in 1979, holds this record at 870 millibars. For now, at least, Irma has a relatively high central pressure of 927 millibars. Why the storm has such an odd wind-speed-pressure relationship isn't entirely clear. According to the National Hurricane Center, Irma is expected to bring catastrophic winds and potential storm surges to the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and the UK territory of Turks and Caicos this week. The Florida Keys could get hit by late Saturday night or Sunday.
...probably reached 200 MPH, but the instruments at Keesler AFB were blown away when Camille hit Biloxi, so they can't count "sustained wind speed."
Reported, hopefully the storm slams some Caribbean island with mountains to take the edge off before hitting the US. Lovely.
Two storms of unusual magnitude, exceptional temperatures in parts of CA, but hey, climate change is worldwide con, right?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Nuclear winter is coming soon.
Gas prices will go up!
Or God. Or democrats versus republicans. Or good versus evil, a/k/a GvE! Which will win out? Stay tuned!
We'll all remember your instance that weather is climate the furst extreme cold snap that occurs this winter, which by your logic utterly disproves global warming...
I guess to you it's just an "inconvenient truth" how long it's been since we've even had any serious hurticanes hit the US.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One of the problems is the very phrase "climate change." First "Global Warming". then that proved to be a PR disaster. Now "Climate Change."
... is a losing strategy.
And yes - adding billions of tons of sequestered carbon is NOT a F**KING good idea. But crowing "Climate Change"; spewing predictions; then being quiet when the predictions fail to come true and then crow again
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
From my understanding, hurricane wind speeds near ground level are estimated from aerial observations. Furthermore, the calculation used to extrapolate such wind speed was changed about 20 or so years ago. The newer estimation method may be inflating near-ground wind speeds. It's interesting to note often ground-based hurricane wind measurements will fall far short. There have been articles written about it.
Point is it's fierce hurricane, but likely not quite as bad as being reported.
Basically a really large EF4 tornado, however these speeds are only found in the eyewall so it's not as bad as it sounds. The problem is a lot of these islands are mostly third world shitholes with shoddily built buildings that are going to get blown into kindling. This could wind up being the single most deadly disaster directly attributable to AGW that we have seen yet.
Yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
How long have we been measuring winds in storms that are still this far out? Would we have known if a storm was this strong at its current location 50 years ago?
So...it wasn't that bad right?
Hell, Irma is only a cat above it.
she is Irmese not an "irma"
"Superstorm: Nine Days Inside Hurricane Sandy" by Kathryn Miles
"Storm Surge: Hurricane Sandy, Our Changing Climate, and Extreme Weather of the Past and Future" by Adam Sobel
"Sandy: A Story of Complete Devastation, Courage, and Recovery" by New York Post
"The Gathering Wind: Hurricane Sandy, the Sailing Ship Bounty, and a Courageous Rescue at Sea" by Gregory A. Freeman
"The Disaster Profiteers: How Natural Disasters Make the Rich Richer and the Poor Even Poorer" by John C. Mutter
capuche: brutally
At what point will southern conservatives decide that intensified storms by climate change SUCKS, and do something about it?
So far this season, we've had 9 named storms, 4 of which have become hurricanes, 2 major hurricanes. While we've still got 3 more months, but the end of September is the end of the peak, with a few storms in October, and almost none in November. Predictions at the start of the season were for about 14 named storms, 6-7 hurricanes, and 3 major hurricanes. So we're on track for a really boring, average year in terms of Atlantic hurricanes.
The only reason both storms seem unusual is because until Harvey, the U.S. hadn't been hit by a major hurricane since 2005. Contrary to the doom and gloom scenario painted by climate change alarmists after Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, who warned us that 2005 was going to become the new norm for Atlantic hurricanes. Sometimes outliers are nothing more than outliers.
Two storms of unusual magnitude, exceptional temperatures in parts of CA, but hey, climate change is worldwide con, right?
Not a con, closer to a religion.
Scientists who want to speak out are threatened in various ways, the arguments are made by insult and bullying, some (read: some) of the methods are sketchy, and some of the data has been manipulated.
I used to be a climate change believer, until about a year ago when it was highlighted as a political issue, and not an issue of science. I had been blinded by everyone saying things like "the science is settled" and "all scientists agree" and so on. It was an epiphany to discover that something I held as "obviously correct" was based on, effectively, nothing.
Well, the science is not settled, the "all scientists agree" is taken out of context and doesn't refer to what you think it does, the data has been manipulated, and most importantly critique and debate are not allowed.
The whole issue also conflates the political decisions with the science. Anyone who disagrees with the political policy, such as carbon credits or reducing US birth rate, is called stupid for not believing in science.
Interpretation by a chosen elite, evidence in either direction supports the conclusion, disbelievers are harassed and threatened, discussion and disagreement are not allowed... that sounds like a religion.
Climate change is a religion.
Why the storm has such an odd wind-speed-pressure relationship isn't entirely clear.
Maybe because people think they understand weather and climate better than they actually do?
The related links section at the bottom of the page listed "Donald Trump Wins US Presidency".
Perhaps Slashdot's servers are on to something: giant sucking windbags, massive economic damages, and constant media attention. I understand how it could mistake the resemblement.
Why worry about global warming when we're about to have a nuclear winter with North Korea?
You missed the part about the 300 year holocaust which stripped Africans of their humanity and forced them into chattel slavery so that your ancestors could profit upon their freely provided labor (whether or not your ancestors actually owned enslaved persons is immaterial, you benefit from the system that they created to this day).
You missed the part about the fact that once these enslaved individuals were manumitted, they had to try to convince you for the next hundred years that they were human beings. That they have fought voluntarily in every single American "white man's" war to try and convince you that they too are Americans speaks volumes.
You missed the part about the fact that many of the policies and regulations that people like you create today are designed to marginalize and economically castrate these very people. The Italians and Jews of the 30's and 40's had the exact same criminal tendencies. But you gave them the civil service jobs and the police department jobs so they could stop the inner city violence. They got an economic hand up. These blacks could graduate high school and earn a living wage with their own two hands before you took the trade programs out of the schools. How else are they supposed to make a living? Oh, right, selling crack cocaine in the 80's and 90's and we know how that turned out.
You missed the part about the fact that these very people rarely feel part of American society, often don't give a rat's ass about society and have nothing to loose because of the generations of psycho-social-economic destruction and racially-tinted warfare that they and their ancestors have been subjected to.
Pick up a book and try not to act so ignorant of the reality that you do very well understand, but refuse to come to terms with. The fact that you are posting this damn near thesis sized post demonstrates your interest in maintaining the current status quo.
No, you were not. You read Breitbart, which clearly indicates your PoV.
Yeah, but before about a year ago I *didn't*.
Today I go to Breitbart first, to find out what's going on.
Then I check the MSM, to find out why it's Trump's fault.
If you want people to start believing in climate change, you should start using logic and science in your arguments.
Instead of, you know, insults.
Great, by the looks of it, Irma and I are both scheduled to land in FL at about the same time. Something tells me this isn't going to be as great of a vacation as I my wife had anticipated. Well, at least it won't be boring.
I see that link was JUST published (Aug 30 2017). Because after all, what we have seen this year is larger than average storms...
So of course your death cult needs a new story to back up it's belief system, by making predictions around things that have already happened.
However mankind had developed this thing called Google, and it shows the duplicity of your fellow cult members in stark relief to your assertions.
No matter that the link you just provided will be proven utterly false over the next five years, you'll just publish some new lies for the masses to consume.
There are MANY people who claimed Global Warming meant more frequent hurricanes, before we had a major lull in recent years...
That's because none of you seem to even understand physics, much less climate, or you would understand global warming means neither more frequent nor any change to the average size of hurricanes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Psssh. Cat 5? That's nothing. I have a Cat 6 Ethernet cable. Beat that, mother nature.
Sorry, here is a link to the many, many people who claimed Global Warming would cause more hurricanes.
It's also funny how the GFDL used to claim global warming would neither make hurricanes more frequent nor more powerful...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have TWO Cat 6 cables, so I can have Cat 12 connectivity!
He never stops exuding wind over that sind of the Atlantic.
This is a really difficult forecast for a number of reasons.
Most major hurricanes don't just gradually intensify to a category 3 or 4, let alone well into category 5. They undergo periods of rapid intensification, due to bursts of thunderstorms in the core of the storm with lots of hot towers developing. Harvey did this before making landfall in Texas. Irma has done this twice. However, forecasting when this will happen is generally beyond the current limits of meteorology. The Ships statistical model only called for a gradual intensification of Irma. Some of the dynamical models like the GFS, HWRF, and HMON did predict rapid intensification. However, they have been predicting that it was imminent for days, without actually happening. It's obvious when rapid intensification is occurring because the hot towers show up in infrared satellite imagery. But there's very little skill in predicting rapid intensification before it starts. It's related somewhat to ocean heat content, but it doesn't explain when there's high ocean heat content but rapid intensification doesn't occur. Most major hurricanes do undergo rapid intensification at some point, and it's very hard to predict.
It's very likely that Irma will take a hard right turn in a few days and move north. There is very good agreement among the models that this will occur. However, it's not clear exactly when this will happen. If it happens sooner, Irma could miss Florida entirely and move toward the Carolinas. This isn't especially likely, but it's possible. It could turn north a bit later and move across the Florida Keys into South Florida. There are also model solutions that bring Irma into the eastern Gulf of Mexico. This last situation also isn't especially likely, but is definitely possible. This doesn't include true outlier model forecasts, such as missing the United States entirely. Irma will also get close to Cuba, and moving over mountainous land for an extended period of time could wake Irma substantially. It just isn't clear yet whether this will happen or not. Hurricanes are steered by winds in the upper atmosphere around areas of high pressure (ridges) and low pressure (troughs). There are currently special upper air observations being taken every six hours in the central United States to help with forecasting Irma. There's an upper level trough over its area, that will interact with a ridge to the east, which has an impact on steering Irma. It's not clear whether these extra observations are helping with the forecasting of Irma, but it's definitely possible. Maybe these types of special observations well over a thousand miles from a storm have been taken before, but I don't recall seeing it. It's a very interesting idea for sure, to try to help improve forecasting of the storm's track in the 3-7 day time frame. Even though we know Irma will very likely take a hard turn to the north, relatively small differences in where this occurs will have a big difference on the impacts to the United States. And this is not at all unusual in hurricane forecasting.
Despite running tens of different computer models every six hours, it's really hard to predict where the storm is going to go. And yet the track forecasting has improved quite a bit over the past couple of decades, definitely outpacing intensity forecasts.
What are you talking about? What "PR disaster"? This isn't about marketing. "Global warming" is an oversimplification, because some localized areas may become cooler, have changes in precipitation rather than temperature, etc. It's more complicated than expecting every spot on the Earth to experience an increase in temperature. Climate change is a better term because it more accurately describes what is predicted.
Nobody expects predictions of a system so complicated to be perfect, and the predictions have always been stated to be a range: worst case, best case, and somewhere in the middle. It's like the current predictions for hurricane Irma: there's a cone for the expected path, some a little more north, some a little more south, but the overall trend is west (for now), until it is expected to turn northwards. That it's going to dissipate tomorrow, or suddenly turn east and come ashore in Africa instead of North America is not in the cards. That's far outside the model parameters. Likewise nobody expects the Earth's climate to change into that of Venus in a couple of decades. You can't expect exact predictions of rates, but the overall trend is obvious and is legitimate cause for concern even if there is a decent chance it won't be as bad as the worst case.
What failures are you referring to? That when someone casually says something like "As soon as [year]", and it doesn't happen by then, that it is a failure? If so, then you did not understand the phrase "as soon as".
There is a depression to the west and a Tropical Storm Jose just to the south east of IRMA. Jose is forming into another hurricane, which is likely going to help Irma strength.
we might have spotted that.
Anthropogenic global warming is still a useful term. Much of the climate change we are seeing is a result of global warming. The term "climate change" just encompasses all of the effects that include things besides warming.
Around blacks, never relax!
After Texas, Florida be like.. Hold my beer!
Hurricanes seem to come in two types. There are storms in which wind is the problem and storms in which rain is the real enemy and the winds quite tolerable. What happened to Houston was a wet storm that will cause massive property damage and very few deaths. Katrina was a wind storm that force the damns and levies to fail causing huge numbers of deaths. Irma is a wind storm and more so it is hell on a stick. If that storm strikes Miami I would expect almost all homes and buildings to be leveled. Winds of 185 mph. with gusts at 225 mph are sever enough to pretty much erase a city from the face of the Earth. there are about two million people in Miami. Evacuation is impossible. I am 110 miles north of Miami and a potential victim of this storm. God help Houston if this storm happens to strike them. Now I see on the radar that there are two more hurricanes trailing Irma. Now every right winger should shout at once "There is no global warming." That way when they open their pie hole I can shove a brick down their throats.
And how do they compare to their (and my) relatives that are still over in Africa? You know one may actually become president one day...
My ancestors? No, my ancestors suffered economic harm from those who could use free labor as a cheat. You're the one that needs to crack open a book. Your view of history sounds as sophisticated as a comic book from a pack of bubble gum.
The people that surround you in the hood are far more relevant then "how the man is trying to keep you down". Thug culture will ensure that any attempt to "be white" is discouraged. That includes ANY kind of academics including the vocational stuff.
This is why immigrants (illegal and otherwise) end up doing the those kinds of vo-tech jobs.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Hurricane Gilbert was 1988, not 1998.
Basically a really large EF4 tornado, however these speeds are only found in the eyewall so it's not as bad as it sounds. The problem is a lot of these islands are mostly third world shitholes with shoddily built buildings that are going to get blown into kindling. This could wind up being the single most deadly disaster directly attributable to AGW that we have seen yet.
I dunno. Super Typhoon Haiyan killed 6300 in the Philippines alone and had sustained winds of 195mph. That's a pretty hard act to follow.
Are you willing to go on the PERMANENT record (thanks to the never forgetting Internet) so that people you care about (friends, spouses, children, grandchildren) know that you:
Denied the overwhelming scientific consensus on Climate Change?
Thought Obamacare was a disaster?
Refused to believe in Evolution? (This is my particular interest, I am a genetic engineer. Now that we can see Evolution happening right down to the molecular level, disputing it is laughable. Not to mention "Nothing in Biology makes sense without it").
Or for that matter:
Think the Federal Government was planning to take over Texas in 2015 (The "Jade" something or other exercise)?
Believe that there is a Pizza parlor in Washington D.C. that was a front for Democratic pedophiles?
Think that because Trump criticized Clinton on Goldman Sachs he wouldn't end up in their pocket?
I could go on but you get the picture. How many times do you have to be proven WRONG and been a victim of FAKE NEWS before you learn some critical thinking? Not only are you hurting the republic by voting for idiots (Bush) or frauds (Trump) but you are really hurting yourselves by believing that these leaders will help you (the working class) instead of just making them and their super rich friends richer, and by making stupid decisions like buying waterfront property in places like Texas and Florida.
Anyway, if thinking won't get you to reflect on your positions; maybe shame will. How about you tell the ones you care about the social media accounts like slashdot where you post things? Assuming you at least have the balls to not post Anonymously, tell them your username. Let them see what you really think. (I have, in fact I'm proud to show them).
Of course if Climate Change really is a hoax, and the Republicans come up with a much better replacement to Obamacare and God LITERALLY created the animals in one go (and forever fixed their attributes), then your friends and children and grandchildren will see you as the genius you are!
So you don't deny his story, just excuse the behavior.
What do you propose? Just ignore it because wah wah wah?
Yes? I mean we have had more bigger storms, just like predicted.
Oh, this is just a statistical fluke, an outlier? Funny how you think of scatter now, innit.
Because that cycle you're talking about is us being in a warm interglacial 8000 years ago and now we're going to a glacial, as before. Not warming. Cooling.
Please, bet some more. But with your own stuff, not someone else's.
Had fuck all to do with the parent post but used a lot of idiotwords to pretend it did.
Ever done some work on thermodynamics before? Why do you wear a thicker coat when it's winter than you do when it's summer?
So when we have a thicker coat of GHGs..?
Wrong.
The predictions FAILED. Read that word again. FAILED.
No, you don't get to predict something, get it wrong for a couple of decades, then pretend you got it right when a couple of big storms finally pop up in one season.
This isn't about "scatter" or "statistical flukes." This is year after year after year of failed predictions, which are not made correct by one year of slightly-worse tropical weather.
Because things stay at rest or continue to move unless acted upon by a force. But if your assertion were correct, they'd move about randomly for no reason, no force.
More snow? All that requires is a lot of water and below zero air temps below warm wet air.
So "more snow" means shit.
You're condensing all climatology into a couple of unsourced predictions, and drawing a conclusion. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously?
'ER', excuse me but no record cold snaps
Ahh, typical revisionist liberal ignores history. And that was just last year alone...
Don't you get tired of lying and lying to try and protect your death cult? I can only imagine imagine the horror it wreaks on your psychology after a while. You must be fifty shades of fucked up by now, which I guess we can all see from your response...
*shakes head*
I'll let you have the last response, I don't think at this point you can even see reality any more, not even with "cold" hard proof in front of you... just sad to see a life wasted like that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
12 cats is far too many for any house.
Aunt Irma had arrived.
Hillary Lost is good news, but Trump winning is horrible news.
It's statistics. It is rare for several large storms to happen in the same year, but not indicative of a shift in the mean. It is rare to go several years between major storms, but that is also not indicative of there being fewer storms.
"Trailing Only Allen As Strongest Atlantic Storm On Record"
And apart from Wilma, Gilbert, "Labor Day" - based on wind speed.
And apart from Wilma, Gilbert, "Labor Day", Rita, Camille, Katrina, Mitch, Dean, "Cuba", Ivan - based on pressure drop.
My brother lives in AG, behind the Pismo Dunes. I really like this part of California, but it's quite a long drive from San Diego, which is why my mom takes the Amtrak back and forth.
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.