Guest MioMyo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be devastating due to Global Warming? More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms. Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems. Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics. The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity. Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the practice of naming tropical storms. "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, deputy director of the Miami-based center. What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more satellites to monitor storms from above. Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. Launch of QuikSCAT A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, out to sea. Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization. "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph. In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the relationship isn't absolute. Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system. If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in the northern Atlantic. "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little more conservative." Data inconsistencies The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm strength, he said. "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes. In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical storms probably were named. "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative or positive bias to any trend." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Pretzel Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 MioMyo wrote: > What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane > season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be devastating > due to Global Warming? > Huh? The "people" who claim that are... ...the idiot voices in your head, Meow Meow. The people who are real scientists claim Hurricaines on average will increase... ...in STRENGTH on AVERAGE, you stupid rightarded FUCK. > More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! > > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html > > With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is > brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several > borderline systems as tropical storms. > > Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, > say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have > failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. > > "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, > who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief > meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a > very questionable category, and maybe even six." > > Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at > least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of intensity - > suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems. > > Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have > significance far beyond semantics. > > The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical > records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies > use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to > scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable > impact on hurricane activity. > > Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the > practice of naming tropical storms. > > "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the > storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, deputy > director of the Miami-based center. > > What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more > accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of > reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more > satellites to monitor storms from above. > > Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread > satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical > storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. > > But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds > exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: > whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has > artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. > > > Launch of QuikSCAT > A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that formed > in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, out to > sea. > > Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, > because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have been > named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which measures > surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization. > > "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff > Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, a > popular resource for tracking hurricanes. > > As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a > tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low > pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and > winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their winds > reach 74 mph. > > In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane center > placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind speeds in > designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, Frank said. > Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the relationship isn't > absolute. > > Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly > measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system. > > If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during > Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His > forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, he > said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. > > That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as Tropical > Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After being upgraded, > Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in the northern > Atlantic. > > "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation supported > naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little more > conservative." > > > Data inconsistencies > The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some > longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather > Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes > today with the historical record is almost impossible. > > But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true > indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind > measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best technology > to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm strength, he > said. > > "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and > assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used > X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" > > Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine > whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes. > > In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been > overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the School > of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. > > Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between > tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical > storms probably were named. > > "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone > counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative > or positive bias to any trend." > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim E Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 "The Pretzel" <pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote in message news:474f856a$0$16455$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > MioMyo wrote: >> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane >> season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be >> devastating due to Global Warming? >> > > Huh? > The "people" who claim that are... ...the idiot voices in your head, Meow > Meow. > > The people who are real scientists claim Hurricaines on average will > increase... ...in STRENGTH on AVERAGE, you stupid rightarded FUCK. > > Another leftard religion of faith (AGW) begins its dissent to oblivion. Jim E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llorT kreM gliB Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 "MioMyo" <USA_unpatriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane > season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be devastating > due to Global Warming? > > More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! This kind of rightarded nonsense is why you KKKrooKKKed lying repugnigoons can't win elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llorT kreM gliB Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 "dum E" <YD639275@SVN.net> wrote in message news:5r9m5oF13eu47U1@mid.individual.net... > Another leftard religion of faith (AGW) begins its dissent to oblivion. This kind of rightarded nonsense is why you KKKrooKKKed lying repugnigoons can't win elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MioMyo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 "The Pretzel" <pretzel@chokeonit.org> wrote in message news:474f856a$0$16455$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > MioMyo wrote: >> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane >> season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be >> devastating due to Global Warming? >> > > Huh? > The "people" who claim that are... ...the idiot voices in your head, Meow > Meow. Before this year's hurricane season, your charlatan "the sky is falling" global warming alarmist indeed made such a prediction whether or not you lie about it or not. The fact that you're lying now shows how desperate your ilk is to wield control over others on the basis of voodoo science. > The people who are real scientists claim Hurricaines on average will > increase... ...in STRENGTH on AVERAGE, you stupid rightarded FUCK. Then again, such cycles is exactly what has happened over the centuries isn't it lib? looks like your voodoo prediction didn't go too well for you did it? >> More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! >> >> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html >> >> With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is >> brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate >> several borderline systems as tropical storms. >> >> Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil >> Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might >> have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. >> >> "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, >> who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief >> meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms >> in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." >> >> Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of >> at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of >> intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were >> non-tropical systems. >> >> Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have >> significance far beyond semantics. >> >> The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical >> records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance >> companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information >> is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had >> a measurable impact on hurricane activity. >> >> Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the >> practice of naming tropical storms. >> >> "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the >> storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, >> deputy director of the Miami-based center. >> >> What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more >> accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of >> reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more >> satellites to monitor storms from above. >> >> Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread >> satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three >> tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. >> >> But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds >> exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: >> whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has >> artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. >> >> >> Launch of QuikSCAT >> A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that >> formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, >> out to sea. >> >> Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, >> because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have >> been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which >> measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization. >> >> "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff >> Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, >> a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. >> >> As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a >> tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low >> pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and >> winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their >> winds reach 74 mph. >> >> In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane >> center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind >> speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, >> Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the >> relationship isn't absolute. >> >> Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly >> measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system. >> >> If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during >> Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His >> forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, >> he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. >> >> That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as >> Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After >> being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in >> the northern Atlantic. >> >> "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation >> supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little >> more conservative." >> >> >> Data inconsistencies >> The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some >> longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather >> Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and >> hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. >> >> But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true >> indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind >> measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best >> technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm >> strength, he said. >> >> "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and >> assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used >> X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" >> >> Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine >> whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of >> hurricanes. >> >> In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been >> overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the >> School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of >> Technology. >> >> Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between >> tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical >> storms probably were named. >> >> "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone >> counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net >> negative or positive bias to any trend." >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Filthy Democrat's Mangina Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Mo MO; See my response to Filthy and Dopey's moronic post of the same article. You three must share the same inbread family: 1. They never once mention that the increase in names is the doing of any Democrat or pressure from any global warming activist. The repugs have been in charge of the NHC since 2000 STUPID. 2. The purpose of the NHC is to monitor activity and warn people should storms become a threat to land or vessels out at sea. STUPID. 3. With the ever increasing temperatures in the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific ocean (remember El Nino, you assholes that that was a lie too until it was debunked), storms intensify faster and therefore need to be monitored by the NHC and brought to the public's attention. STUPID. 4. Frank completely contradictis the article title when he suggests monitoring central pressure is a better way to monitor storms. This actually costs MORE taxpayer's money. STUPID. 5. A lot has changed in technology since 1987. Can Frank say that 1987 technology was the same or better than todays? Nope. STUPID. 6. The NHC is not there to prove global warming exists. It's there to SAVE LIVES. STUPID. You three are truly fucking idiots. I B; Filthy Democrat's Mangina It's All For The Repulipdeohomo armchair generals waving their pom poms from the sidelines. "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... > What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane > season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be devastating > due to Global Warming? > > More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! > > http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html > > With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is > brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate > several borderline systems as tropical storms. > > Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil > Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might > have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. > > "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, > who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief > meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in > a very questionable category, and maybe even six." > > Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of > at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of > intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were > non-tropical systems. > > Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have > significance far beyond semantics. > > The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical > records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance > companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information > is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had > a measurable impact on hurricane activity. > > Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the > practice of naming tropical storms. > > "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the > storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, deputy > director of the Miami-based center. > > What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more > accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of > reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more > satellites to monitor storms from above. > > Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread > satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three > tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. > > But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds > exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: > whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has > artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. > > > Launch of QuikSCAT > A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that > formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, > out to sea. > > Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, > because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have > been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which > measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization. > > "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff > Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, > a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. > > As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a > tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low > pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and > winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their > winds reach 74 mph. > > In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane > center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind > speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, > Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the > relationship isn't absolute. > > Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly > measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system. > > If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during > Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His > forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, > he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. > > That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as Tropical > Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After being > upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in the > northern Atlantic. > > "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation supported > naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little more > conservative." > > > Data inconsistencies > The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some > longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather > Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and > hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. > > But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true > indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind > measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best technology > to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm strength, he > said. > > "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and > assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used > X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" > > Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine > whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of > hurricanes. > > In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been > overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the > School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of > Technology. > > Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between > tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical > storms probably were named. > > "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone > counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative > or positive bias to any trend." > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MioMyo Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 I take it you were still a swirl in your convict daddy's baggy when the 1960's global "Ice Age" alarmists were selling their wares by telling everyone the world would be a big glacier in 50-years unless falling in lock-step by following their alarmist political prescriptions. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! Also, consider the fact that the "Sun" you know that big thermal asteroid in the sky has sun-spot cycles and other anomalies, or the fact that the earth has endured many past warming-cooling cycles in its history never factors into the left's desires to control everyone's lives on the basis on their inconclusive pseudo-science, now does it lib? "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:8lT3j.17157$9F1.15405@read1.cgocable.net... > "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message > news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... >> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane >> season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be >> devastating due to Global Warming? >> >> More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! >> >> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html >> >> With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is >> brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate >> several borderline systems as tropical storms. >> >> Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil >> Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might >> have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. >> >> "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, >> who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief >> meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms >> in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." >> >> Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of >> at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of >> intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were >> non-tropical systems. >> >> Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have >> significance far beyond semantics. >> >> The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical >> records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance >> companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information >> is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had >> a measurable impact on hurricane activity. >> >> Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the >> practice of naming tropical storms. >> >> "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the >> storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, >> deputy director of the Miami-based center. >> >> What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more >> accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of >> reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more >> satellites to monitor storms from above. >> >> Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread >> satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three >> tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. >> >> But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds >> exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: >> whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has >> artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. >> >> >> Launch of QuikSCAT >> A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that >> formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, >> out to sea. >> >> Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, >> because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have >> been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which >> measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization. >> >> "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff >> Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, >> a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. >> >> As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a >> tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low >> pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and >> winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their >> winds reach 74 mph. >> >> In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane >> center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind >> speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, >> Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the >> relationship isn't absolute. >> >> Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly >> measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system. >> >> If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during >> Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His >> forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, >> he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. >> >> That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as >> Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After >> being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in >> the northern Atlantic. >> >> "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation >> supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little >> more conservative." >> >> >> Data inconsistencies >> The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some >> longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather >> Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and >> hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. >> >> But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true >> indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind >> measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best >> technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm >> strength, he said. >> >> "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and >> assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used >> X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" >> >> Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine >> whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of >> hurricanes. >> >> In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been >> overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the >> School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of >> Technology. >> >> Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between >> tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical >> storms probably were named. >> >> "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone >> counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net >> negative or positive bias to any trend." > Mo MO; > > See my response to Filthy and Dopey's moronic post of the same article. > You three must > share the same inbread family: > > 1. They never once mention that the increase in names is the doing of any > Democrat or pressure from any global warming activist. The repugs have > been > in charge of the NHC since 2000 STUPID. > 2. The purpose of the NHC is to monitor activity and warn people should > storms become a threat to land or vessels out at sea. STUPID. > 3. With the ever increasing temperatures in the Gulf, Atlantic and > Pacific > ocean (remember El Nino, you assholes that that was a lie too until it was > debunked), storms intensify faster and therefore need to be monitored by > the > NHC and brought to the public's attention. STUPID. > 4. Frank completely contradictis the article title when he suggests > monitoring central pressure is a better way to monitor storms. This > actually costs MORE taxpayer's money. STUPID. > 5. A lot has changed in technology since 1987. Can Frank say that 1987 > technology was the same or better than todays? Nope. STUPID. > 6. The NHC is not there to prove global warming exists. It's there to > SAVE > LIVES. STUPID. > > You three are truly fucking idiots. > > I B; > Filthy Democrat's Mangina > It's All For The Repulipdeohomo armchair generals waving their pom poms > from > the sidelines. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Filthy Democrat's Mangina Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message news:wMT3j.2603$NY.1873@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >I take it you were still a swirl in your convict daddy's baggy At least I know who my daddy is you inbread motherfucker. >when the 1960's global "Ice Age" alarmists were selling their wares by >telling everyone the world would be a big glacier in 50-years unless >falling in lock-step by following their alarmist political prescriptions. Care to enlighten me on how this is at all relevant to the original article you posted or my response to it? Didn't think so. Hmmm...nothing here as usual. Shocking! > > Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! I think Bush said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I&feature=related "Fool me once, shame on.....uhhh....ummm.....uhhhhh." What a tard. > > Also, consider the fact that the "Sun" you know that big thermal asteroid > in the sky has sun-spot cycles and other anomalies, or the fact that the > earth has endured many past warming-cooling cycles in its history never > factors into the left's desires to control everyone's lives on the basis > on their inconclusive pseudo-science, now does it lib? So, El Nino is not a hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere? I would love to see you prove otherwise. But you won't. Once again Mo Mo you have absolutlely nothing except repeats of what you heard on Druggie Limpballs yesterday. The article was saying nothing about how the global warming agenda has changed how the NHC does anything. They are just monitoring storms more closely likely by direction of their superiors (AKA your government, yes Republican government, STUPID) in light of recnt disasters like Katrina. Care to refute that? Next time try and stick to the subject. Then it won't look like you are running away from the actual questions like Bush at a press conference. Jackass. > > "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message > news:8lT3j.17157$9F1.15405@read1.cgocable.net... > >> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message >> news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... >>> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second hurricane >>> season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would be >>> devastating due to Global Warming? >>> >>> More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! >>> >>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html >>> >>> With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is >>> brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate >>> several borderline systems as tropical storms. >>> >>> Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil >>> Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might >>> have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. >>> >>> "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said >>> Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now >>> chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four >>> storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." >>> >>> Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of >>> at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of >>> intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were >>> non-tropical systems. >>> >>> Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have >>> significance far beyond semantics. >>> >>> The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical >>> records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance >>> companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such >>> information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global >>> warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity. >>> >>> Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in >>> the practice of naming tropical storms. >>> >>> "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the >>> storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, >>> deputy director of the Miami-based center. >>> >>> What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to >>> more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number >>> of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of >>> more satellites to monitor storms from above. >>> >>> Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread >>> satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three >>> tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. >>> >>> But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds >>> exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: >>> whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has >>> artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. >>> >>> >>> Launch of QuikSCAT >>> A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that >>> formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, >>> out to sea. >>> >>> Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, >>> because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have >>> been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which >>> measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's >>> organization. >>> >>> "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff >>> Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web >>> site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. >>> >>> As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of >>> a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of >>> low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms >>> and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when >>> their winds reach 74 mph. >>> >>> In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane >>> center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than >>> wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems >>> names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the >>> relationship isn't absolute. >>> >>> Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly >>> measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system. >>> >>> If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during >>> Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His >>> forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, >>> he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. >>> >>> That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as >>> Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After >>> being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in >>> the northern Atlantic. >>> >>> "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation >>> supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little >>> more conservative." >>> >>> >>> Data inconsistencies >>> The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some >>> longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's >>> Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms >>> and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. >>> >>> But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true >>> indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind >>> measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best >>> technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm >>> strength, he said. >>> >>> "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and >>> assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only >>> used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" >>> >>> Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to >>> determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity >>> of hurricanes. >>> >>> In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been >>> overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the >>> School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of >>> Technology. >>> >>> Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference >>> between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some >>> non-tropical storms probably were named. >>> >>> "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone >>> counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net >>> negative or positive bias to any trend." > >> Mo MO; >> >> See my response to Filthy and Dopey's moronic post of the same article. >> You three must >> share the same inbread family: >> >> 1. They never once mention that the increase in names is the doing of >> any >> Democrat or pressure from any global warming activist. The repugs have >> been >> in charge of the NHC since 2000 STUPID. >> 2. The purpose of the NHC is to monitor activity and warn people should >> storms become a threat to land or vessels out at sea. STUPID. >> 3. With the ever increasing temperatures in the Gulf, Atlantic and >> Pacific >> ocean (remember El Nino, you assholes that that was a lie too until it >> was >> debunked), storms intensify faster and therefore need to be monitored by >> the >> NHC and brought to the public's attention. STUPID. >> 4. Frank completely contradictis the article title when he suggests >> monitoring central pressure is a better way to monitor storms. This >> actually costs MORE taxpayer's money. STUPID. >> 5. A lot has changed in technology since 1987. Can Frank say that 1987 >> technology was the same or better than todays? Nope. STUPID. >> 6. The NHC is not there to prove global warming exists. It's there to >> SAVE >> LIVES. STUPID. >> >> You three are truly fucking idiots. >> >> I B; >> Filthy Democrat's Mangina >> It's All For The Repulipdeohomo armchair generals waving their pom poms >> from >> the sidelines. >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MioMyo Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:2TX3j.17096$xa2.11694@read2.cgocable.net... > "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message > news:wMT3j.2603$NY.1873@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >>I take it you were still a swirl in your convict daddy's baggy > > At least I know who my daddy is you inbread motherfucker. > >>when the 1960's global "Ice Age" alarmists were selling their wares by >>telling everyone the world would be a big glacier in 50-years unless >>falling in lock-step by following their alarmist political prescriptions. > > Care to enlighten me on how this is at all relevant to the original > article you posted or my response to it? Didn't think so. Hmmm...nothing > here as usual. Shocking! I would but you've just shown that critical thinking is a wee bit out of your league lib! >> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! > > I think Bush said it best: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I&feature=related > > "Fool me once, shame on.....uhhh....ummm.....uhhhhh." What a tard. > >> >> Also, consider the fact that the "Sun" you know that big thermal asteroid >> in the sky has sun-spot cycles and other anomalies, or the fact that the >> earth has endured many past warming-cooling cycles in its history never >> factors into the left's desires to control everyone's lives on the basis >> on their inconclusive pseudo-science, now does it lib? > > So, El Nino is not a hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere? I would > love to see you prove otherwise. But you won't. So you think El Nino is a hole in the Atmosphere! ROFLOL... Quick, better go tell the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I'm sure they will be delighted to hear your illogic! > Once again Mo Mo you have absolutlely nothing except repeats of what you > heard on Druggie Limpballs yesterday. The article was saying nothing > about how the global warming agenda has changed how the NHC does anything. > They are just monitoring storms more closely likely by direction of their > superiors (AKA your government, yes Republican government, STUPID) in > light of recnt disasters like Katrina. > Care to refute that? > Next time try and stick to the subject. Then it won't look like you are > running away from the actual questions like Bush at a press conference. > > Jackass. > >> >> "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message >> news:8lT3j.17157$9F1.15405@read1.cgocable.net... >> >>> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... >>>> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second >>>> hurricane season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would >>>> be devastating due to Global Warming? >>>> >>>> More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! >>>> >>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html >>>> >>>> With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is >>>> brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate >>>> several borderline systems as tropical storms. >>>> >>>> Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil >>>> Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems >>>> might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. >>>> >>>> "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said >>>> Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now >>>> chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four >>>> storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." >>>> >>>> Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds >>>> of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of >>>> intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were >>>> non-tropical systems. >>>> >>>> Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes >>>> have significance far beyond semantics. >>>> >>>> The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of >>>> historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. >>>> Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such >>>> information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global >>>> warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity. >>>> >>>> Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in >>>> the practice of naming tropical storms. >>>> >>>> "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the >>>> storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, >>>> deputy director of the Miami-based center. >>>> >>>> What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to >>>> more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number >>>> of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of >>>> more satellites to monitor storms from above. >>>> >>>> Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread >>>> satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three >>>> tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. >>>> >>>> But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds >>>> exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: >>>> whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has >>>> artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. >>>> >>>> >>>> Launch of QuikSCAT >>>> A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that >>>> formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the >>>> northeast, out to sea. >>>> >>>> Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, >>>> because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have >>>> been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which >>>> measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's >>>> organization. >>>> >>>> "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff >>>> Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web >>>> site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. >>>> >>>> As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of >>>> a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of >>>> low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of >>>> thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to >>>> hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph. >>>> >>>> In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane >>>> center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than >>>> wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems >>>> names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but >>>> the relationship isn't absolute. >>>> >>>> Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be >>>> directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical >>>> system. >>>> >>>> If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during >>>> Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His >>>> forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure >>>> fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm. >>>> >>>> That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as >>>> Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After >>>> being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in >>>> the northern Atlantic. >>>> >>>> "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation >>>> supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little >>>> more conservative." >>>> >>>> >>>> Data inconsistencies >>>> The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled >>>> some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's >>>> Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms >>>> and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. >>>> >>>> But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true >>>> indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind >>>> measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best >>>> technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm >>>> strength, he said. >>>> >>>> "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining >>>> and assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who >>>> only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" >>>> >>>> Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to >>>> determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity >>>> of hurricanes. >>>> >>>> In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been >>>> overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the >>>> School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of >>>> Technology. >>>> >>>> Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference >>>> between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some >>>> non-tropical storms probably were named. >>>> >>>> "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone >>>> counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net >>>> negative or positive bias to any trend." >> >>> Mo MO; >>> >>> See my response to Filthy and Dopey's moronic post of the same article. >>> You three must >>> share the same inbread family: >>> >>> 1. They never once mention that the increase in names is the doing of >>> any >>> Democrat or pressure from any global warming activist. The repugs have >>> been >>> in charge of the NHC since 2000 STUPID. >>> 2. The purpose of the NHC is to monitor activity and warn people should >>> storms become a threat to land or vessels out at sea. STUPID. >>> 3. With the ever increasing temperatures in the Gulf, Atlantic and >>> Pacific >>> ocean (remember El Nino, you assholes that that was a lie too until it >>> was >>> debunked), storms intensify faster and therefore need to be monitored by >>> the >>> NHC and brought to the public's attention. STUPID. >>> 4. Frank completely contradictis the article title when he suggests >>> monitoring central pressure is a better way to monitor storms. This >>> actually costs MORE taxpayer's money. STUPID. >>> 5. A lot has changed in technology since 1987. Can Frank say that 1987 >>> technology was the same or better than todays? Nope. STUPID. >>> 6. The NHC is not there to prove global warming exists. It's there to >>> SAVE >>> LIVES. STUPID. >>> >>> You three are truly fucking idiots. >>> >>> I B; >>> Filthy Democrat's Mangina >>> It's All For The Repulipdeohomo armchair generals waving their pom poms >>> from >>> the sidelines. >>> >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Filthy Democrat's Mangina Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 And you have shown, once again, you are a stupid useless inbread motherfucker. How's that life working out for ya? Once again, I gave you the opportunity to disprove the what I cited about the article and the NOAA/NHC and you did nothing because you have <snicker> nothing. :-) Bye for now Mo Mo! "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message news:Rs34j.66370$RX.20024@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > > "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message > news:2TX3j.17096$xa2.11694@read2.cgocable.net... >> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message >> news:wMT3j.2603$NY.1873@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >>>I take it you were still a swirl in your convict daddy's baggy >> >> At least I know who my daddy is you inbread motherfucker. >> >>>when the 1960's global "Ice Age" alarmists were selling their wares by >>>telling everyone the world would be a big glacier in 50-years unless >>>falling in lock-step by following their alarmist political prescriptions. >> >> Care to enlighten me on how this is at all relevant to the original >> article you posted or my response to it? Didn't think so. >> Hmmm...nothing here as usual. Shocking! > > I would but you've just shown that critical thinking is a wee bit out of > your league lib! > >>> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! >> >> I think Bush said it best: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I&feature=related >> >> "Fool me once, shame on.....uhhh....ummm.....uhhhhh." What a tard. >> >>> >>> Also, consider the fact that the "Sun" you know that big thermal >>> asteroid in the sky has sun-spot cycles and other anomalies, or the fact >>> that the earth has endured many past warming-cooling cycles in its >>> history never factors into the left's desires to control everyone's >>> lives on the basis on their inconclusive pseudo-science, now does it >>> lib? >> >> So, El Nino is not a hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere? I would >> love to see you prove otherwise. But you won't. > > So you think El Nino is a hole in the Atmosphere! > > ROFLOL... > > Quick, better go tell the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration > (NOAA). I'm sure they will be delighted to hear your illogic! > >> Once again Mo Mo you have absolutlely nothing except repeats of what you >> heard on Druggie Limpballs yesterday. The article was saying nothing >> about how the global warming agenda has changed how the NHC does >> anything. They are just monitoring storms more closely likely by >> direction of their superiors (AKA your government, yes Republican >> government, STUPID) in light of recnt disasters like Katrina. >> Care to refute that? >> Next time try and stick to the subject. Then it won't look like you are >> running away from the actual questions like Bush at a press conference. >> >> Jackass. >> >>> >>> "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:8lT3j.17157$9F1.15405@read1.cgocable.net... >>> >>>> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... >>>>> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second >>>>> hurricane season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would >>>>> be devastating due to Global Warming? >>>>> >>>>> More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! >>>>> >>>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html >>>>> >>>>> With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is >>>>> brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate >>>>> several borderline systems as tropical storms. >>>>> >>>>> Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil >>>>> Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems >>>>> might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. >>>>> >>>>> "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said >>>>> Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now >>>>> chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four >>>>> storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." >>>>> >>>>> Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds >>>>> of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of >>>>> intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were >>>>> non-tropical systems. >>>>> >>>>> Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes >>>>> have significance far beyond semantics. >>>>> >>>>> The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of >>>>> historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. >>>>> Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And >>>>> such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether >>>>> global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity. >>>>> >>>>> Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in >>>>> the practice of naming tropical storms. >>>>> >>>>> "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the >>>>> storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, >>>>> deputy director of the Miami-based center. >>>>> >>>>> What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to >>>>> more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased >>>>> number of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the >>>>> presence of more satellites to monitor storms from above. >>>>> >>>>> Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread >>>>> satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three >>>>> tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived. >>>>> >>>>> But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds >>>>> exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: >>>>> whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has >>>>> artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Launch of QuikSCAT >>>>> A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that >>>>> formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the >>>>> northeast, out to sea. >>>>> >>>>> Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, >>>>> because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have >>>>> been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which >>>>> measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's >>>>> organization. >>>>> >>>>> "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff >>>>> Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web >>>>> site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. >>>>> >>>>> As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition >>>>> of a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center >>>>> of low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of >>>>> thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to >>>>> hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph. >>>>> >>>>> In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane >>>>> center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than >>>>> wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems >>>>> names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but >>>>> the relationship isn't absolute. >>>>> >>>>> Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be >>>>> directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical >>>>> system. >>>>> >>>>> If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph >>>>> during Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been >>>>> named. His forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central >>>>> pressure fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a >>>>> tropical storm. >>>>> >>>>> That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as >>>>> Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After >>>>> being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in >>>>> the northern Atlantic. >>>>> >>>>> "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation >>>>> supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little >>>>> more conservative." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Data inconsistencies >>>>> The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled >>>>> some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's >>>>> Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms >>>>> and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible. >>>>> >>>>> But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true >>>>> indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind >>>>> measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best >>>>> technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm >>>>> strength, he said. >>>>> >>>>> "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining >>>>> and assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who >>>>> only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" >>>>> >>>>> Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to >>>>> determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity >>>>> of hurricanes. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been >>>>> overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the >>>>> School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of >>>>> Technology. >>>>> >>>>> Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference >>>>> between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some >>>>> non-tropical storms probably were named. >>>>> >>>>> "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone >>>>> counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net >>>>> negative or positive bias to any trend." >>> >>>> Mo MO; >>>> >>>> See my response to Filthy and Dopey's moronic post of the same article. >>>> You three must >>>> share the same inbread family: >>>> >>>> 1. They never once mention that the increase in names is the doing of >>>> any >>>> Democrat or pressure from any global warming activist. The repugs have >>>> been >>>> in charge of the NHC since 2000 STUPID. >>>> 2. The purpose of the NHC is to monitor activity and warn people >>>> should >>>> storms become a threat to land or vessels out at sea. STUPID. >>>> 3. With the ever increasing temperatures in the Gulf, Atlantic and >>>> Pacific >>>> ocean (remember El Nino, you assholes that that was a lie too until it >>>> was >>>> debunked), storms intensify faster and therefore need to be monitored >>>> by the >>>> NHC and brought to the public's attention. STUPID. >>>> 4. Frank completely contradictis the article title when he suggests >>>> monitoring central pressure is a better way to monitor storms. This >>>> actually costs MORE taxpayer's money. STUPID. >>>> 5. A lot has changed in technology since 1987. Can Frank say that >>>> 1987 >>>> technology was the same or better than todays? Nope. STUPID. >>>> 6. The NHC is not there to prove global warming exists. It's there to >>>> SAVE >>>> LIVES. STUPID. >>>> >>>> You three are truly fucking idiots. >>>> >>>> I B; >>>> Filthy Democrat's Mangina >>>> It's All For The Repulipdeohomo armchair generals waving their pom poms >>>> from >>>> the sidelines. >>>> >>> >> >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest llorT kreM gliB Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 "MioMyo" <USA_unpatriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message news:Rs34j.66370$RX.20024@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... > I would but you've just shown that critical thinking is a wee bit out of > your league lib! This kind of rightarded nonsense is why you KKKrooKKKed lying repugnigoons can't win elections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MioMyo Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Ah... the truth hit a bit too close to home for ya eh lib! "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:Ol54j.17418$9F1.1240@read1.cgocable.net... > And you have shown, once again, you are a stupid useless inbread > motherfucker. > How's that life working out for ya? My life is working out just great, thank you for asking you miserable f ck. > Once again, I gave you the opportunity to disprove the what I cited about > the article and the NOAA/NHC and you did nothing because you have > <snicker> nothing. :-) And you proved yourself too stupid to understand the simplest of concepts. > Bye for now Mo Mo! Okay, I'll be kicking your ass around in another journey! > "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message > news:Rs34j.66370$RX.20024@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message >> news:2TX3j.17096$xa2.11694@read2.cgocable.net... >>> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message >>> news:wMT3j.2603$NY.1873@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com... >>>>I take it you were still a swirl in your convict daddy's baggy >>> >>> At least I know who my daddy is you inbread motherfucker. >>> >>>>when the 1960's global "Ice Age" alarmists were selling their wares by >>>>telling everyone the world would be a big glacier in 50-years unless >>>>falling in lock-step by following their alarmist political >>>>prescriptions. >>> >>> Care to enlighten me on how this is at all relevant to the original >>> article you posted or my response to it? Didn't think so. >>> Hmmm...nothing here as usual. Shocking! >> >> I would but you've just shown that critical thinking is a wee bit out of >> your league lib! >> >>>> Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! >>> >>> I think Bush said it best: >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I&feature=related >>> >>> "Fool me once, shame on.....uhhh....ummm.....uhhhhh." What a tard. >>> >>>> >>>> Also, consider the fact that the "Sun" you know that big thermal >>>> asteroid in the sky has sun-spot cycles and other anomalies, or the >>>> fact that the earth has endured many past warming-cooling cycles in its >>>> history never factors into the left's desires to control everyone's >>>> lives on the basis on their inconclusive pseudo-science, now does it >>>> lib? >>> >>> So, El Nino is not a hole in the ozone layer of the atmosphere? I would >>> love to see you prove otherwise. But you won't. >> >> So you think El Nino is a hole in the Atmosphere! >> >> ROFLOL... >> >> Quick, better go tell the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration >> (NOAA). I'm sure they will be delighted to hear your illogic! >> >>> Once again Mo Mo you have absolutlely nothing except repeats of what you >>> heard on Druggie Limpballs yesterday. The article was saying nothing >>> about how the global warming agenda has changed how the NHC does >>> anything. They are just monitoring storms more closely likely by >>> direction of their superiors (AKA your government, yes Republican >>> government, STUPID) in light of recnt disasters like Katrina. >>> Care to refute that? >>> Next time try and stick to the subject. Then it won't look like you are >>> running away from the actual questions like Bush at a press conference. >>> >>> Jackass. >>> >>>> >>>> "Filthy Democrat's Mangina" <me@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:8lT3j.17157$9F1.15405@read1.cgocable.net... >>>> >>>>> "MioMyo" <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:hcL3j.21627$4V6.11@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net... >>>>>> What I'm wondering about, is what ever happened to this second >>>>>> hurricane season (since Katrina) that all the GW alarmists said would >>>>>> be devastating due to Global Warming? >>>>>> >>>>>> More VooDoo science from the Left, that's what happened to it! >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5337583.html >>>>>> >>>>>> With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy >>>>>> is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to >>>>>> designate several borderline systems as tropical storms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil >>>>>> Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems >>>>>> might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status. >>>>>> >>>>>> "They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said >>>>>> Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now >>>>>> chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least >>>>>> four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six." >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds >>>>>> of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure - another measure of >>>>>> intensity - suggested they actually remained depressions or were >>>>>> non-tropical systems. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes >>>>>> have significance far beyond semantics. >>>>>> >>>>>> The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of >>>>>> historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. >>>>>> Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And >>>>>> such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether >>>>>> global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in >>>>>> the practice of naming tropical storms. >>>>>> >>>>>> "For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, >>>>>> the storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill >>>>>> Read, deputy director of the Miami-based center. >>>>>> >>>>>> What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to >>>>>> more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased >>>>>> number of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the >>>>>> presence of more satellites to monitor storms from above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and >>>>>> widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one >>>>>> to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were >>>>>> short-lived. >>>>>> >>>>>> But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds >>>>>> exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate >>>>>> debate: whether even more modern technology and a change in >>>>>> philosophy has artificially inflated the number of storms in recent >>>>>> years. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Launch of QuikSCAT >>>>>> A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that >>>>>> formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the >>>>>> northeast, out to sea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, >>>>>> because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't >>>>>> have been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, >>>>>> which measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's >>>>>> organization. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff >>>>>> Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web >>>>>> site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes. >>>>>> >>>>>> As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition >>>>>> of a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a >>>>>> center of low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of >>>>>> thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to >>>>>> hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph. >>>>>> >>>>>> In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane >>>>>> center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than >>>>>> wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems >>>>>> names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but >>>>>> the relationship isn't absolute. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be >>>>>> directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical >>>>>> system. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph >>>>>> during Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been >>>>>> named. His forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central >>>>>> pressure fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a >>>>>> tropical storm. >>>>>> >>>>>> That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as >>>>>> Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After >>>>>> being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day >>>>>> in the northern Atlantic. >>>>>> >>>>>> "In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation >>>>>> supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a >>>>>> little more conservative." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Data inconsistencies >>>>>> The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled >>>>>> some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of >>>>>> Houston's Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of >>>>>> tropical storms and hurricanes today with the historical record is >>>>>> almost impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true >>>>>> indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind >>>>>> measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best >>>>>> technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical >>>>>> storm strength, he said. >>>>>> >>>>>> "An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining >>>>>> and assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who >>>>>> only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to >>>>>> determine whether global warming has increased the number or >>>>>> intensity of hurricanes. >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have >>>>>> been overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of >>>>>> the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute >>>>>> of Technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference >>>>>> between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some >>>>>> non-tropical storms probably were named. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone >>>>>> counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net >>>>>> negative or positive bias to any trend." >>>> >>>>> Mo MO; >>>>> >>>>> See my response to Filthy and Dopey's moronic post of the same >>>>> article. You three must >>>>> share the same inbread family: >>>>> >>>>> 1. They never once mention that the increase in names is the doing of >>>>> any >>>>> Democrat or pressure from any global warming activist. The repugs >>>>> have been >>>>> in charge of the NHC since 2000 STUPID. >>>>> 2. The purpose of the NHC is to monitor activity and warn people >>>>> should >>>>> storms become a threat to land or vessels out at sea. STUPID. >>>>> 3. With the ever increasing temperatures in the Gulf, Atlantic and >>>>> Pacific >>>>> ocean (remember El Nino, you assholes that that was a lie too until it >>>>> was >>>>> debunked), storms intensify faster and therefore need to be monitored >>>>> by the >>>>> NHC and brought to the public's attention. STUPID. >>>>> 4. Frank completely contradictis the article title when he suggests >>>>> monitoring central pressure is a better way to monitor storms. This >>>>> actually costs MORE taxpayer's money. STUPID. >>>>> 5. A lot has changed in technology since 1987. Can Frank say that >>>>> 1987 >>>>> technology was the same or better than todays? Nope. STUPID. >>>>> 6. The NHC is not there to prove global warming exists. It's there >>>>> to SAVE >>>>> LIVES. STUPID. >>>>> >>>>> You three are truly fucking idiots. >>>>> >>>>> I B; >>>>> Filthy Democrat's Mangina >>>>> It's All For The Repulipdeohomo armchair generals waving their pom >>>>> poms from >>>>> the sidelines. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.