Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Tropical Storm Zeta Forms in Atlantic

Posted by Zonk on Sat Dec 31, 2005 05:47 PM
from the dogs-and-cats-living-together-mass-hysteria dept.
Science
APSR writes "Even though the Atlantic hurricane season official ends on November 30th, more storms can form and still count towards the total for the year! According to MSN.com Weather News, Tropical Storm Zeta was formed in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean on December 30th. This storm extends the record-breaking 2005 season to 27 storms, and it's the 6th storm named using the Greek alphabet. According to Wikipedia, Zeta is the latest a tropical cyclone was formed in the Atlantic, forming around 11 AM ET; this dethrones Hurricane Alice of 1954, which formed December 30th around 2 AM ET. The storm itself will continue to strengthen for 12-24 hours, then weaken; it will not likely make landfall." We've already set records this year, as previously reported.
+ -
unknown
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Tropical Storm Zeta Forms in Atlantic 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • japan... (Score:4, Funny)

    by amazon10x (737466) <amazon10x@ho!tm! ... nus exclamations> on Saturday December 31 2005, @05:50PM (#14372151)
    Hear that Japan? you can still use your weather manipulator and we won't think the better of it
  • ....start with a new naming scheme for 2006, or does hurricane season start later in the calendar year?
    • Apparently, everything starts over in the new year.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alice [wikipedia.org]

      At the time, the National Weather Service used the same naming list each year, so the name given to this storm was "Alice" and it was designated as a part of the 1955 Atlantic hurricane season. However, it was found during post-storm analysis that the storm had actually formed on December 30, and was instead a part of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. Therefore, that season had two storms named "Alice": the first storm of the season, and the last. Had Alice been discovered in 1954, it would have been named Irene, the next name on the 1954 list.
  • Again last night I had that strange dream
    Where everything was exactly how it seemed
    Where concerns about the world getting warmer
    The people thought they were just being rewarded
    For treating others as they'd like to be treated
    For obeying stop signs and curing diseases
    For mailing letters with the address of the sender
    Now we can swim any day in November

  • Not to rip on Wikipedia... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Spazntwich (208070) on Saturday December 31 2005, @06:11PM (#14372230)
    but I think the National Hurricane Center makes a much more relevent and useful link when it comes to HURRICANES.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov [noaa.gov]
  • HAppy New Year, and welcome... Alma?

  • Alice not necessarily dethroned (Score:4, Informative)

    by usn2fsu03 (711294) on Saturday December 31 2005, @06:45PM (#14372337)
    From the summary:
    Zeta is the latest a tropical cyclone was formed in the Atlantic, forming around 11 AM ET; this dethrones Hurricane Alice of 1954, which formed December 30th around 2 AM ET.
    From the second NHC Zeta discussion [noaa.gov]:
    THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS THAT ALICE OFFICIALLY BECAME A TROPICAL STORM AT 1200 UTC 30 DECEMBER 1954. MY WORKING BEST TRACK FOR ZETA CURRENTLY SHOWS STORM STATUS BEGINNING AT 1200 UTC THIS MORNING... WHICH TENTATIVELY ALLOWS ZETA TO TIE ALICE FOR THE LATEST FORMING TROPICAL STORM IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN. HOWEVER...A CASE CAN BE MADE FOR CONSIDERING ZETA A TROPICAL STORM AS EARLY AS 0600 UTC THIS MORNING. WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FINAL ANALYSIS OF ZETA'S TRACK TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE ITS FORMATION FALLS RELATIVE TO ALICE'S.
  • I feel like ANY abnormal weather has people on edge now. Since scientists brought up the idea of global warming we assume that anything that isn't average must be a sign of global warming. Now its possible that global warming may come but its not like hot air is causing tropical storms in DECEMBER. People may disagree but then I would like to remind them the average global temperature rose about .5 degrees Celcius this year.

    They have word that describes people's current thoughts about global warming, its 'p
    • I feel like ANY abnormal weather has people on edge now.
      Of course! It's all hysteria! We shouldn't make over-react to the fact that we had more hurricanes and tropical storms than any year on record, that we had more severe hurricanes than any year on record, and that we're still getting tropical storms in winter.
      • Of course global warming is happening. The big problem is people thinking that people are the primary cause. Since the poles of Mars are melting as well it appears that there might be something on a much larger scale causing global warming like say, the Sun. Either that or the few rovers we sent to Mars are enough to cause global warming on Mars.

        The reality is that the climate changes over time, it has in the past and will in the future. We have been lucky the past 500 years or so. Now things are s
      • We haven't been keeping comprehensive records of Atlantic storm activity for that long. The National Weather Service says this severe storm season is the result of several periodic climate factors peaking simultaneously, not due to the average global temperature increase that's been going on: thus far it's been too small.
    • Only .5 degrees Celcius? Sweet! That's fractional! TINY!!! ;)

      I'm glad we use Celcius now - if we used Farenheit, the increase would have been *much* larger.

    • Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Xyrus (755017) on Saturday December 31 2005, @11:44PM (#14373127) Journal
      Paranoia is fear without reason. However, there are reasons to be concerned. It's plain to see the glacial retreats all over the world. It's also pretty obvious that the permafrost in the Sibera, Alaska, and northern Canada are thawing. It's also obvious that the forest line has been moving northward as well. The sea surface temperatures world-wide have been increasing. Warmer water aquatic animals have been trekking further northward (and southward). And yes, the weather has been straying from the "norms". Now maybe it's just coincidence that all this happens to coincide with the rapid industrialization of the planet, but I doubt it. But let's say this is just part of the natural cycle. In that case, we certainly are not helping the situation. Regardless, we need to start thinking about how this will impact the planet because it's going to happen and will happen quickly. And to correct your statement, excess energy does cause storms. If the Earth can't radiate the heat off into space, it has to go somewhere. Since most of the earth is covered by water, a majority of this excess energy goes into oceans. Ocean temps strongly impact weather. You can figure out the rest. All that aside, when would YOU start to take action? When the sea levels raise by 5 feet? When England and northern Europe no longer have "summer" due to the gulf stream being weakend? When an averge hurricane season has 30 storms a year? By that point, it's already far too late to do anything about it. Some scientist already think it's too late and are recommending we begin preparing for the climate changes. About 5,000 years ago there was a rapid global climactic shift that destroyed several civilizations. While I believe technologically we could definately survive such a change now, just imagine the problems that would be caused if the US midwest turned into a desert and bread costs $30.00 a loaf. ~X~

  • Naming and PR (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Saturday December 31 2005, @07:14PM (#14372443) Homepage Journal
    "Zeta" sounds more menacing than "Katrina". Mean-sounding storms may get more people to react. If Katrina was instead named "Ball Buster" or "Alimony", then more people may have bothered to leave during the storm. Naming storms after ballerinas is not a way to get them to move their asses. Men will feel demasculated moving for something named after a mere ballerina.
       
  • Here [imdb.com]

    • Re:Alice? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FinestLittleSpace (719663) * on Saturday December 31 2005, @05:54PM (#14372166)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Alice [wikipedia.org]

      "Hurricane Alice is currently the only recorded tropical cyclone in Atlantic history to span two calendar years. It formed in late December of 1954, and lasted until early January of 1955."

    • Re:Alice? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Saturday December 31 2005, @06:09PM (#14372218)
      According to Wikipedia, it was only detected in January, named according to that year's scheme, and then later proven that it must have reached naming-strength in December (which means it should've been named Irene).
    • It was named Alice because it was thought that it had formed in early January, but after naming it and going back through the record, they found that it had actually formed on December 30th, and not in January 1955 as was thought. Because it was already named, it was decided that the name would stay Alice, but it is still consitered the last storm of the 1954 season, giving that season 2 A storms.

      • Re:Alice? (Score:2, Informative)

        by wfberg (24378)
        They already went from A to Z and started at the beginning. I think they have gone through A and Z twice already.

        After the female names run out, they use letters from the Greek alphabet. (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, ..) Zeta is only the 6th letter, making for the 26+6=32nd storm of the year.
    • Actually, an intresting view, 3 of the 5 major green house gases (accounting for 97% of the total climate forcing gases) have leveled off or declined since the early 1990's. See for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_greenhous e_gas_trends.png [wikipedia.org]
      • Isn't that because there was a heavy ban in most countries of the use of CFC gases after the 80s? There is still a huge problem with C02 emmissions etc, and although I agree with grandparent's sentiments, it could be worded with a little more care and a little less sensation.
      • And that's the one that's going up. And we're not seeing a dramatic drops in any of them.
          • Not according to my latest Greenpeace flyers.

            And we all know how neutral and objective Greenpeace is.

          • Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them (Score:4, Insightful)

            by RayBender (525745) on Saturday December 31 2005, @09:52PM (#14372919) Homepage
            But CO2 is the most significant of them"

            Not according to my latest Greenpeace flyers.

            - Methane is about 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

            That is on a molecule-by-molecule basis. But CO2 is hundreds to millions of times more common than methane or CFC's, and so is producing a more significant warming effect.

            The last two posts have been so wrong and misleading as to indicate one of two possibilities: either the authors are deliberately trying to confuse the issues, or they are just ignorant.

            Specifically, saying "3 out of 5 greenhouse gases which account for 97% of the warming" are flat is ignoring the fact that 90 out of those 97% comes from CO2, which is in fact increasing rapidly. So you are giving the misleading impression that the problem isn't getting worse, when in fact it is....

      • What about water vapor? How does that fit in to the picture? From what I've heard, water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, completely outweighing all other greenhouse gases combined.

        • Re:Water Vapor? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Yartrebo (690383) on Saturday December 31 2005, @07:43PM (#14372558)
          Water Vapour is reactive and only serves to amplify other climate forcings. It actually is going up in sympathy with other greenhouse gases as the Earth is getting warmer. It will also continue to increase for centuries after C02 stabilizes in the atmosphere as the ocean has a very long lag time. Unfortunately, the only practical way to reduce H20 levels in the atmosphere is to cool down the planet because H20 is generated in such huge quantities by evaporation from the oceans and plants. Any attempt to reduce evaporation by means such as cutting forests will actually increase temps more by decreasing evaporative cooling and convection.

          PS: Why do so many people bring up the water vapour issue? If one is smart enough to know that water vapour is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't one be smart enough to have a basic understanding of the water cycle?

      • Re:global warming (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Lumpy (12016) on Saturday December 31 2005, @07:42PM (#14372555) Homepage
        Yup and the trend of warmer summers and warmer winters is supported more by the increase in solar radiation than greenhouse gas global warming that causes warmer summers and HARSHER winters.

        Or the silly fact that we are coming out of an ice age globally of which we have almost zero information about the causes of ice ages on the planet and can certianly be solar system wide phenomonon cause by solar radiation output fluxuations as even the polar caps on mars are receeding as well.

        It all comes down to the simple fact that we do not know SQUAT about the environment that this planet has. All the prehistoric data these people throw about show us nothing about solar fluxuations, global volcanic eruptions on the southern hemisphere as compared ot the northern hemisphere, etc....

        Hell, noone can discount that maybe 90,000 years ago aliens had giant mirrors around the planet.

          • "This all goes to show that not only do we need to reduce emissions, but we need to spend more money on research to figure out what's going on."

            Hell I can think of a dozen or so reasons to reduce emissions that have nothing to do with global warming. Smog, shortages of oil, foreign dependence on oil... ok, thats not a dozen but you get the idea. However, that does not excuse people like the origional poster on this thread who cry wolf whenever there is any (in this case perfectly natural) change in the

      • It'd be a funny sight though, you must admit ;-)

      • Re:global warming (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Saturday December 31 2005, @06:14PM (#14372242)
        My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field.

        Indeed. Fault the SUV and Hummer owners, but don't fault the soccer moms when you don't carpool yourself. The mile-man-per-gallon (à la man-month) of soccer mom's vehicles is often higher than the average Prius's.
      • " Ride a bike. Ya, I'm sure.

        My wife picks up 4 of my kid's friends and drives 10 miles to the soccer field. I can just see her and 5 seven year olds on their bikes going down highway 280."

        And twenty bucks says she takes the same car five blocks away to pick up one little thing at the store.

      • Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:5, Informative)

        by d34thm0nk3y (653414) on Saturday December 31 2005, @06:14PM (#14372240)
        This is what the "greenies" forget. they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms. we only used to record hurricanes.

        How did I know this would be modded up? From the article:

        The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest on record, with 27 tropical storms, besting the old record of 21 set in 1933. Fourteen of them grew into hurricanes, among the Katrina, beating the record of 12 set in 1969. Hurricanes Dennis, Rita and Wilma also caused significant damage in the U.S.

        • Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by niktemadur (793971) on Saturday December 31 2005, @08:38PM (#14372732)
          I've wondered about the fact that only in the past four decades we've had the ability to track storms AND measure their strength in a systematic manner, and even then there are problems, i.e. Katrina was originally thought to have struck the Gulf Coast as a Cat 4, yet about a month or two later a more detailed analysis of the data indicated that Katrina was actually a Cat 3.

          Furthermore, if you look up Pacific Basin hurricanes on the NOAA page, you will find that Hurricane Linda in 1997 was the strongest ever recorded in the area, but there is an intriguing disclaimer, which goes something like this: Due to lack of consistent monitoring in the Pacific Basin, we have insufficient data for any year before 1996.

          Which brings me to my question: How many tropical storms in the last century have gone unnoticed before the advent of satellites, and even if noticed by the occasional cargo boat in some remote shipping route (which is precisely where Tropical Storm Zeta is right now), have been dismissed by captain and crew as a northern gale that strayed too far south? Maybe they just passed tangentially across and thought "no big deal".

          As an example, a similar argument can be made for the increase of measured cancer and heart disease related deaths, which supposedly are statistically on the increase, yet in decades past a lot of passings have been categorized as sudden death or natural causes, especially outside the larger cities. You can see it, can't you? Millions of people all over the world going about their daily business in their small towns, with undiagnosed metatastic cancer, incredibly clogged arteries, or whatever else you can think of.

          My point is: In general, systematic and accurate compiling of information in some areas goes back less than half a century. Beyond the two parameters (geography and time), applied differently in each case, it's anybody's guess. Now compound this with our inevitable tendency to view things in an anthropocentric as well as cronocentric manner and yikes! How to make heads or tails of all this?

          Basically, our elders, through no fault of their own, left us a mess of incomplete info. And to be fair, even if we get our act together of compiling precise data, which we seem to be nobly attempting, there will always be something we missed that'll vex our offspring in a hundred years.
      • "If you only count hurricanes, you will see this is a milder season than any we've had in the last 25 years except for some late 1990s years."

        That depends on how you measure "mild". For instance, we had the strongest hurricane ever measured in the Atlantic this year (by pressure).

        We also had two category 5 hurricanes, making it one of the most intense seasons on record.

        This was certainly an upswing in hurricane output. Of course, it's an upswing that had been predicted since the lull began, since hurricanes
        • We also had two category 5 hurricanes, making it one of the most intense seasons on record.

          Just to add to your little stats refuting the first point:

          This season we had 3 of the 6 strongest hurricanes ever recorded (by pressure).
          • This season we had 3 of the 6 strongest hurricanes ever recorded (by pressure).

            Kind of, but also kind of misleading because the numbers prior to 1970 are almost all pressure at landfall (rather than lowest pressure including off the coast). And if you count tropical cyclones worldwide then the strongest hurricane of 2005 (Wilma) is tied for 19th place.

            By deaths, 1780 is the worst year with 3 storms killing over 1000 people--including one that killed 22,000 and caused such damage that late-arriving observer

      • Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Mr. Slippery (47854) <tms AT infamous DOT net> on Saturday December 31 2005, @06:43PM (#14372333) Homepage
        This is what the "greenies" forget. they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms.

        Yeah, like those "greenies" at NOAA [noaa.gov]:

        "This hurricane season shattered records that have stood for decades -- most named storms, most hurricanes and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern times." -- Navy Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.

        The frequency of storms seems to be cyclical and unrelated to global warming trends. Their strength, however, is related to the temperature increase.

        they get all up in arms about there being more storms in a hurricane season when we never used to record storms. we only used to record hurricanes.

        The NOAA link I give above notes that in 1933 there were 21 named storms. So apparently they were recording and naming them seventy years ago. When exactly is it that you're claiming "we only used to record hurricanes"?

        • The NOAA link I give above notes that in 1933 there were 21 named storms. So apparently they were recording and naming them seventy years ago. When exactly is it that you're claiming "we only used to record hurricanes"?

          Here is the thing.

          Tropical storms could not be completely detected in 1933. Only ones that reached land in an area that shared information with the United States.

          Not all reached land, and not all reached land that shared info with the US. What you have to realise is that technology for detect
      • So name one place that does not have Hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, tornados or some other form of natural disaster as a possibility.

        Yeah, does not exist.People need to stop thinking of weather as an adversarial force and start designing buildings and infrastructure in ways that can deal with the weather instead of taking a destroy and rebuild approach.
    • No you fool. You save the females. If you ever played Black and White you would know that.
      • Or, indeed, ever watched Dr. Strangelove. "Mr President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!" Ok, not the best quote on the topic, but I can't remember any of the others word-for-word and they're not on wikiquote, but in general you need 10 females for every male, and the females need to be picked partially on how attractive they are as, 'with little else to do, they would breed prodigiously'.
    • This is possibly one of the funniest posts I've ever read on slashdot.

      And kudos to you coward, for not showing yourself. Obviously you do not believe in your own words enough to back them up.

      Also, please, get some help. If you have enough time to spew this worthless tripe onto slashdot, you definately need a hobby.

      I also suggest a course on concise writing. Filling a post full of obtuse adjectives and antiquated colloquialisms does little to get your point across. Instead of sounding intelligent, you come a

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.