BE CAREFUL IT DOESN'T HIT YOU ON YOUR HEAD!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
BE CAREFUL IT DOESN'T HIT YOU ON YOUR HEAD!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
RUN AWAY!!!!!
BETTER YET. FIND A DEEP FRAIDY HOLE!!!
WIDESPREAD WARMTH LEADS TO THE FIFTH WARMEST SPRING FOR UNITED STATES, DRIEST SPRING ON RECORD ACROSS THE SOUTHEAST WORSENS DROUGHT
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2876.htm
And all this time I was happy that I have yet to have to water my yard in Austin, TX. I'm saving a fortune on water bills this year with all the rain we've been getting.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
LOL. This from a scientist? Ya, I guess if its raining alot in Austin, Tx. there cant possibly be a drought going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
You guys ready for the season? Cause its getting ready for you...
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42002
Now, dont get to gitty, but its about to rain again in Austin Tx in about 90 min....Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar...101111&loop=no
So why dont you take some of your water bill saving and apply it to the BB&B ATAC fund. Your shitin in high cotton Mr Scientist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
This is not an easy test. There are far too many factors that affect hurricane creation and strength that would be ommitted from the equation. As we have seen with hurricane coverage on the news, it only takes a little wave of energy to alter the stregth of a hurricane. I do agree that it would appear to give you an idea of a corrolation, but there is too much variability between each of the storms for them to be compared to each other.
Always remember, any good statistician can make the numbers say exactly what he/she wants them to.
DAWGY
that's really my point. if the correlation is as temperature-dependant as salty says, it should show up in a simple experiment like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgy Dog
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Here is a link to an article that shows some correlation.
http://www.livescience.com/environme...urricanes.html
"As a hurricane builds up energy, it feeds off heat from the water. As water heats up, it turns into water vapor. As water vapor rises, it cools, condenses into rain, and releases heat that fuels the hurricane. The higher the vapor rises, the more heat is released, and the more intense the storm."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...eut/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Bump for Salty. In this case, the Nature article is better evidenced than your livescience piece.
Not really. The LiveScience article used modern satellite data whereas the Nature article is based on conjecture about sea temperatures in the Caribbean during Europe's little ice age. All the Nature article shows is that during Europe's little ice age there were some intense hurricanes in the Caribbean. Doesn't refute the physical reality that higher sea temperatures lead to more intense hurricanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I don't think you actually read the Nature article. The CNN synopsis is at best an abstract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
randerizer, here is a newer article (june 7...Nature) that contends that intense hurricanes are due to wind-shear associated with El Ninos. In that regard it contradicts the May 24 article in Nature.
Note that the June 7 article places the key formational factors for intense hurricanes on wind-shear and sea temperatures.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070609/fob8.asp
It would seem to me that if one had higher sea temperatures and wind shear, more intense hurricanes will form, at least occasionally.
The writers at Nature do not think so. Instead, they posit in an introductory piece to the newer article that, taken together, the 2 works suggest that there are significantly more factors in hurricane activity than just temperature, as has been previously considered primary.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
They find a relation to wind-shear, but the article actually disputes a direct link to SST.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Like ULM winning a football game? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
From the June 7 article:
Furthermore, the current active phase (1995–2005) is unexceptional
compared to the other high-activity periods of
,1756–1774, 1780–
1785, 1801–1812, 1840–1850, 1873–1890 and 1928–1933 (Fig. 3),
and appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity,
despite the increase in SST.
Wavelet spectral analyses together with spectral analyses reveal the
existence of significant
,8–11 and,20–30-year cycles in the records
(see Supplementary Information). Decadal signals in occurrences,
formation areas, and landfalls of tropical storms and hurricanes have
also been identified elsewhere and linked to the North Atlantic
Oscillation
9,24,25.