HanKFranK
User
Reged:
Posts: 1841
Loc: Graniteville, SC
|
|
two things you should consider:
A) the earth is a closed system. in other words, if you push somewhere, some part of the system gives to compensate. for example, more CO2 means warmer temperatures mean more atmospheric moisture, more vegetation and cloud cover.. which result in knocking the temperature back down and reducing CO2. for another, bigger example, comet knocks a 100-mile wide hole in the crust.. earth compensates (has several times). there are multiple states the earth's climate can run in, called 'stability regimes'. the one we're in is slowly changing.. eventually it will reach a critical point and then skip into another regime. probably an ice age. this is theory, but it is the one that makes the most sense when looking at the geologic record. you hear a lot of scientists disagreeing about how much influence 'greenhouse gases' are having. anthropogenic (human-originating) effects on the atmosphere show a very small signature on the larger trend of warming. anyhow, the big 'switch' for northern hemisphere climate seems to be the gulf stream/north atlantic drift, which the geologic record suggests can slow to a crawl or alter course when/if too much glacial meltwater reduces its salinity, chokes it, and causes it to stop sinking in the arctic.. a natural kink in the system that develops over time and causes ice ages. so really global warming leads to global cooling.. which in turn leads to global warming. anyway, the point.. the earth won't get hot enough for a hypercane. built in standard safeguards, baby. that overwhelming and loosely tied bit said...
B)a hypercane would probably not be on your worry list if a large asteroid hit. lets take one like the 'dinosaur killer' hit just off the yucatan, 67 million bc. the initial hit would create a superheated pressure wave that would scour the land nearby... it would be like the world's entire nuclear arsenal (plus a couple more the chinese will build over the next few decades) was detonated in the same place. now for the hypercane.. atmosphere comes rushing back in, a huge convection current gets the coriolis effect working on it, and set the supercharged vortex spinning off.. over wasteland. you see, anywhere that has the leftover amount of heat to feed the beast has already been blown to hell. i'm sure you'd be getting all kinds of extreme weather all over the world, as the earth's atmosphere works frantically to dissipate all of that injected heat.. but all of that would be secondary.. bad but secondary. anywhere the 'hypercane' could exist would be gone... the shockwave would have killed and destroyed everything for hundreds of miles. i'm sure that volcanism would be rampant as the whole earth would have been jolted... and the encapsulating dust shroud would be bringing months of dusk and night for the world. but hey, those kinds of things only happen every few million years.. tens of millions for the big-uns.
and what's all this talk about deflecting asteroids? you wouldn't want to upset mother nature's way, would you?
we see the tip of the iceberg (ice age?). maybe we'll get to know a little more in our lifetimes.
this is off-topic.. some relevance (and nothing to track right now), but ed i won't blame you if it goes to inhabit.. uh.. what forum would this post belong in?
cheers, evvybody. watch the sky. and don't worry about hypercanes.
HF 0018z22june
|
LI Phil
User
Reged:
Posts: 2637
Loc: Long Island (40.7N 73.6W)
|
|
>>> lets take one like the 'dinosaur killer' hit just off the yucatan, 67 million bc
HF,
I don't mean to correct you, but I believe that was 68 million bc.
In all seriousness,
Movies like The Day After Tomorrow (killer special effects, hope Oscar remembers it), really do more to harm than help the tree-hugging global warming theorists. I don't want to say there is no such thing as global warming. Actually, I do believe it is happening, but not to the extent portrayed either in the movie or by the alarmists. And reducing CO's, aresol emissions, dirty air, etc. (remember, I live next door to NYC, so I know all to well about too much carbon monoxide releases, coal firing plants in PA, etc.), can only be good for mother earth. But the ice caps are NOT melting at levels which will cause armageddon in three weeks. Personally, I recycle everything and believe there is no good use for styrofoam (other than for packaging McDonald's burgers), but it's not going to cause 500 mph 'canes next week. HF made an excellent point that earth is a closed system, and every action will either directly, or indirectly, cause an equal and opposite REaction. Remember, hurricanes are actually nature's way of ventilating heat from the surface. She (or he) will never let it get to the point where a hypercane is necessary to do that. At least not in our, our children's, or our grandchildren's lifetimes.
Now, could a CAT V hit Rick in Mobile this year? Absolutely. Same chances as every year. However, is a 300' tsunami going to level lower Manhattan & the east coast. As James88 would probably opine,
"Not Bloody Likely".
Let's just keep focused on the tropics, and maybe we'll all get another Isabel Cat V to track later this year...which hopefully will spin the fish.
Truth be told, I love Rick's doom and gloom forecasts. Always gives the board excellent fodder, especially now, when we're unlikely to see anything for at least a week to 10 days worthy of interest.
Enjoy the evening,
Peace & Cheers,
LI Phil 
--------------------
2005 Forecast: 14/7/4
BUCKLE UP!
"If your topic ain't tropic, your post will be toast"
|
Steve
Senior Storm Chaser
Reged:
Posts: 1063
Loc: Metairie, LA
|
|
I am a tree hugger (studied forestry in college), but I don't believe in global warming yet. I do believe that man can and will alter the climate, but effects are unknown over time. That's for another discussion.
>>steve, i need to get my thinking straight. telegraphed the mean bermuda ridge strength somewhat, if i remember correctly. also there was something about how it altered the SST trends in the equatorial pacific. wasn't it negative meant westerly flow, positive meant easterly flow? and didn't westerly mean trend to warming ? gotta help me out here.. i understood it at one time..
The can point to several different global climactic issues. The ones you listed are valid as well as it can predict amplifcation in the eastern USA, it can portend development in the WPAC. It clues you in to El Nino/La Nina conditions. It shows pulses of heat heading east across the Pacific. It's one of those indexes that points to many different things depending on the season, values, other global conditions, etc.
Steve
--------------------
MF'n Super Bowl Champions
|
LI Phil
User
Reged:
Posts: 2637
Loc: Long Island (40.7N 73.6W)
|
|
>>> I am a tree hugger (studied forestry in college), but I don't believe in global warming yet.
Steve,
I certainly didn't mean that in the perjorative sense. All kidding aside, I'm probably more of a tree-hugger than not.
Just wanted to highlight that there's no doomsday scenario right around the corner. Years from now, probably, could happen.
Back on topic, what's up with the strongly negative ? Joe B's been on top of it, but other than that, I'm not hearing/reading anything. This isn't going to tip 2004 into an El Nino, is it? Thought that was 3-4 months away.
Anyhoo, I just gotta ask...Is Rick gonna get his CAT V in Mobile Bay this summer/fall? (JK)
One last question, What about JB's teleconnections? I think he's a week off, but then again, I could be wrong. Next week in the gulf????
Thanks,
LI Phil 
--------------------
2005 Forecast: 14/7/4
BUCKLE UP!
"If your topic ain't tropic, your post will be toast"
|
Steve
Senior Storm Chaser
Reged:
Posts: 1063
Loc: Metairie, LA
|
|
>>Back on topic, what's up with the strongly negative ?
My opinion is that it's got more to do with the Super Typhoon, 98W invest and whatever the new one is called (if it's not the same one). That's preliminary of course.
>>Joe B's been on top of it, but other than that, I'm not hearing/reading anything. This isn't going to tip 2004 into an El Nino, is it? Thought that was 3-4 months away.
Too early to tell. In an earlier post in this thread, Cycloneye and I agreed that we didn't think El Nino was imminent. Neither of us sees any warm pulses in the western zones, but we could expect to see some type of measurable reaction if it stays as strongly negative as it has been.
>>Anyhoo, I just gotta ask...Is Rick gonna get his CAT V in Mobile Bay this summer/fall? (JK)
I think he's in one of the hotspots. Rick has as good of a chance as anyone to see a bunch of action this year. Time will tell.
>>One last question, What about JB's teleconnections? I think he's a week off, but then again, I could be wrong. Next week in the gulf????
The pulse teleconnection doesn't work when the is negative IMHO. He's trying to say it still might, but I have to disagree. I think the basin will be ripe, but I'd bet there's a close in EPAC or Mexican pulse up in tropical moisture. The only wrinkles in the lines on some of the models (and I think it was and maybe UKMET or ) were pretty close to the Texas Coast. So if something's coming up, it might be some monsoonal moisture from Mexico. I can't say one way or the other, but that would be my guess.
Steve
--------------------
MF'n Super Bowl Champions
|
tornado00
Weather Hobbyist
Reged:
Posts: 85
Loc: Maitland, Florida, USA
|
|
It looks like that this wave that moved into the carribean over night might have something going for it. If it gets through those hostile central Carribean winds, it might have the chance to develope into something. Well just have to wait and see....
--------------------
Derek Sutherland
|
summercyclone
Weather Hobbyist
Reged:
Posts: 69
Loc: Florida Big Bend
|
|
I am not into the 'humans are causing this' imbroglio---the whole ecosytem is just that, a system. We ARE part of that. Both 'sides' of the argument miss this--we are NOT apart from it! In the sense of outcomes, per se, therefore, it doesn't matter what the cause is. It DOES matter if we can (or should--there is another angle entirely) do anything about it. Which is not limited to if it is 'just' man-made, you know what I mean? The ramifications of if we DO 'interfere' with the warming cycle (or any cycle) are illustrated with the arguments about hurricane modification. Many scientists have concluded we shouldn't modify them even if we could, the outcome of that might be worse than what we experience now---the heat budget will balance some way, just as HF says. What if the way was a flurry of 10s or 100s of F5+ tornadoes every Spring, instead of what we have now? Or, conversely, sorta, terrible blizzards (yes, they run on heat too)--or northeasters that were thousands of miles across and much worse.
Or--what if the heating is helping to HOLD OFF a new ice age, or ameliorate it?? We need to be very careful fooling with things we don't understand that are much bigger than we are.
And--following the hurricane modification 'model'---where we mitigate/move people out of harms way....the same could/will apply to GW/SLR (sea level rise) issues. It is much safer that way, until we really understand the sea-air-land interface and how it works and all the interrelated factors.
Off my soapbox now.
sc 
|
Steve hirsch.
Unregistered
|
|
Back to the tropics, uh hem, watching the wave crossing the windwards. ULL over Hispaniolo will be moving NW as a trough gis into the western Caribbean. The wave may get in more favorable conditions if the ULL fills, and the ridge builds into the SW Atlantic. Ed, I was registered as Steve H. last year, but I can't post under that name this year. Can I re-register as Steve H. or should I register under a new alias? Cheers!!
|
rickonboat
Weather Hobbyist
Reged:
Posts: 90
|
|
The posts on global warming are all excellent, and I appreciate the input. I will however, offer this undeducated and totally unsubstantiated opinion.
Global warming is real, and will alter the climate earthwide....a few areas...such as Siberia, Russia...will welcome it...Islands in the South Pacific..that are losing land mass, will not...
It will become a major problem....and one we will experience more and more.....and soon realize is quite real.
The synopsis that the earth's ecosystem is a closed one is, of course correct. However, implications that balances and checks exist that make major changes unlikely is hopeful thinking.
in the last 20 years...I think 19 of them are the warmest temperatures recorded in history.
Big business, greed, and political mumbo jumbo will not save the earth and mankind from destroying the ecosystems. PERIOD.
Maybe a few cat 5's will wake em up...doubt it though.
Did anyone hear the rumor that the government tried to stop the "sensationalist" movie..."the day after"....granted, it was surreal...but the underlying message is real.
suprised so many of you are poo pooing the dire implications that global warming is giving us....
|
LI Phil
User
Reged:
Posts: 2637
Loc: Long Island (40.7N 73.6W)
|
|
Cat V Rick and all other posters, I'll bet Ed would give "global warming" it's own forum. Here's a link to the EPAs site on it. I'm sure we could all debate the topic ad infinitum.
Here's a brief snippet from the EPA:
"Complex systems, such as the climate system, can respond in non-linear ways and produce surprises. There is the possibility that a warmer world could lead to more frequent and intense storms, including hurricanes. Preliminary evidence suggests that, once hurricanes do form, they will be stronger if the oceans are warmer due to global warming. However, the jury is still out whether or not hurricanes and other storms will become more frequent.
More and more attention is being aimed at the possible link between El Niño events – the periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean – and global warming. Scientists are concerned that the accumulation of greenhouse gases could inject enough heat into Pacific waters such that El Niño events become more frequent and fierce. Here too, research has not advanced far enough to provide conclusive statements about how global warming will affect El Niño."
Rick, I didn't hear that the government was trying to supress the release of TDAT, though it wouldn't surprise me. If there has ever been a presidency that Hollywood opposed more than this one, you'd be hard pressed to find it. Actually, I would think they would have been supportive of TDAT, as it is so far-fetched and beyond the realm of possibility that it would make the global warming crowd look ridiculous.
Back on topic, Joe B hasn't yet posted and other than some convection in the gulf, all seems quiet.
A quick shout out to Steve -- thanks for answering all my ??s on the previous page. You really know your stuff!
And, SC, nice diatribe on the weather. Good reading!
Peace & Out for now
LI Phil
--------------------
2005 Forecast: 14/7/4
BUCKLE UP!
"If your topic ain't tropic, your post will be toast"
Edited by LI Phil (Tue Jun 22 2004 02:44 PM)
|
javlin
Weather Master
Reged:
Posts: 410
Loc: Biloxi,MS
|
|
Rick the time frame we have been keeping records is a blink of the eye to the Earth.The same scientist today were in the 60's and 70's calling for an Ice Age to come.The CFC's emititied by one Volcanic eruption(a good one)dumps more CFC"s in the atmosphere than man has done in his time on Earth.This not to say there are things we should not try to control in pollution and waste.The climate of Earth I would be best said goes through cycles and makes adjustments like HF commented on.
|
rickonboat
Weather Hobbyist
Reged:
Posts: 90
|
|
"The CFC's emititied by one Volcanic eruption(a good one)dumps more CFC"s in the atmosphere than man has done in his time on Earth"
absolutely NOT true.....they have burned half the known oil reserves on earth into the biosphere, and to assume that one volcanic eruption is the equivalent is absurd. Too many posts with completely unsubstantiated "facts"....
not to be demeaning...but global warming is real guys....
|
Steve hirsch.
Unregistered
|
|
I'm not John or Ed, but I think this would be better on another forum. Fortunately, the tropics are quiet. Cheers!!
|
LI Phil
User
Reged:
Posts: 2637
Loc: Long Island (40.7N 73.6W)
|
|
I don't think anyone who has responded has said that global warming isn't real. It's just that it's not occurring on a grand scale (yet). And it won't happen overnight, ala TDAT. Go read the EPA's website (which I posted above). Even the government acknowledges global warming.
Regarding the eruption of a volcano, I'd have to do some research on that, but it wouldn't surprise me that a monster eruption could have a much greater affect on planet earth than anything humans have been pumping into the air for the past 200 years.
Again, remember, until the industrial revolution, humans had little, if any, effect on global conditions. We now understand the ramifications of this and are taking (albeit baby) steps to rectify the problem we have created. But the environment has an amazing ability to adjust to climate change. Should we be concerned about global warming? Absolutely. Should we take steps to mitigate or even reverse it? Absolutely. Should we be worried about 500 MPH hurricanes hitting Moblie? NO! Not today, not tomorrow, not next season, not in 2045.
Yes, Rick, global warming exists, it's here and we know it. But it's not gonna kill us all in the next week.
PEACE!
LI Phil
--------------------
2005 Forecast: 14/7/4
BUCKLE UP!
"If your topic ain't tropic, your post will be toast"
|
James88
Weather Master
Reged:
Posts: 576
Loc: Gloucestershire, England, UK
|
|
I will agree that the world is on a warming trend, but I also agree that it goes in cycles. At the moment we just seem to be in a particularly fast upward trend. Here are some facts:-
-Since the beginning of the 20th century, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1.1º F (0.6°Celsius).
-Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).
-Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.
-Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Niños on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began.
Notice that most of these observations have been observed within the last 150 years. To get a good idea of the forces at work, we would need to be looking at a time scale of thousands of years. The evidence we have of the past has shown that temperature can rise and fall quite quickly, and has done for millions of years.
Global warming is definately real, but for the time-being, the sort of catastrophic weather that appeared in TDAT will not be becoming commonplace.
|
Old Sailor
Storm Tracker
Reged:
Posts: 293
Loc: Florida
|
|
Steve, there is to much wind shear going on, be hard for anything to get going under these wind shear conditions.
|
Steve hirsch.
Unregistered
|
|
Ya, looks like my thinking of a storm forming in June is out the window. Huge ridge building in the Atlantic will strengthen during the next week (check out globals) which is pushing deep tropical moisture into the SE states. But also the troughs and ULL over Hispaniola making it quite unfavorable in the western Atlantic/Caribbean for tropical development. May have to find another hobby to cover me for the next month  Let's see what next week brings. Cheers!!
|
javlin
Weather Master
Reged:
Posts: 410
Loc: Biloxi,MS
|
|
Only eight more days left in June could be interesting with the data that James88 supplied earlier.Active season possibily later.I do not particularly look forward to no CAT3 or above but the energy it supplies to the metropolis is unique .One can cut the tension in the air with a knife.That is why you stayed prepared.The weather here along the coast today is really tropical today.It has rained twice today already both times brief with intense thunder and some lighting.It stopped maybe 15 minutes ago and sounds like another volley starting.Time to sign off again.
|
summercyclone
Weather Hobbyist
Reged:
Posts: 69
Loc: Florida Big Bend
|
|
Got a swirl going there, has been developing all day, convection not well organized and can't tell if it is on the surface or elsewhere..... but, it is trying....or maybe not??
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/post-goes
sc
Edited by summercyclone (Tue Jun 22 2004 07:54 PM)
|
James88
Weather Master
Reged:
Posts: 576
Loc: Gloucestershire, England, UK
|
|
Following on from the earlier posts regarding E. Pacific activity vs. Atlantic activity - the NOAA released their experimental outlook for the E. Pacific a few days ago:-
There is a 45% probability of a below normal tropical eastern North Pacific hurricane season during 2004, a 45% probability of near-normal season, and only a 10% probability of an above-normal season
The 2004 tropical eastern North Pacific outlook calls for 13-15 tropical storms (average is 15 to 16), with 6-8 becoming hurricanes (average is 9), and 2-4 becoming major hurricanes (average is 4 to 5). This predicted activity is based on an expected continuation of -neutral conditions through August, combined with the overall reduced hurricane activity observed since 1995.
This could be the signal for an active Atlantic season, and when you consider that the E. Pacific has so far only had one named storm (compared to the 2-3 that have normally occured by now) it makes you wonder whether there will be a strong link this year.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
