Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space Science

Puzzling Electric Hurricanes 154

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the zap-me-like-a-hurricane dept.
SpaceAdmiral writes "Hurricanes seldom have lightning because they primarily consist of horizontal winds (as opposed to vertical winds). However, three of the biggest storms of 2005 (Rita, Katrina, and Emily) had plenty of lightning and NASA has an interesting write-up about it." Bottom line is "we still have a lot to learn about hurricanes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Puzzling Electric Hurricanes More

Puzzling Electric Hurricanes

Comments Filter:

  • Lightning? Not The Result of Global Warming (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:30PM (#14431840) Homepage Journal
    It's actually the aliens entering their war machines. See you in the sewers, mate!

    btw, keep away from my rat farm

  • Modesty and Knowledge. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:33PM (#14431853)
    "Bottom line is "we still have a lot to learn about hurricanes.""

    Bottom line: we have a lot to learn about a great deal.
    • Yeah, my first thoughts upon reading this were:

      In other news: Scientists admit that they don't know everything.

      • Re:Modesty and Knowledge. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Y2 ( 733949 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:08PM (#14432065)
        In other news: Scientists admit that they don't know everything.

        Which wouldn't be noteworthy, except for the numerous other factions that make no such admission, ever.

        • Which wouldn't be noteworthy, except for the numerous other factions that make no such admission, ever.

          http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-12.htm [bible.cc]

          I'd be quite careful with depicting religious belief as automatically and totally dictating truth.

          Any system of control will naturally claim to have all the answers, and some of the general pulic tends to have a misunderstanding that science has all the answers.

          In fact, science could be just as usable as a forced authoritarian doctrine to control a people as any relig

          • Re:Modesty and Knowledge. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:24PM (#14432147) Homepage Journal
            Your theology is sophisticated and admirable; unfortunately, it's also not typical of the people who use religion as a blunt instrument to attack science -- and like it or not, there are a lot of those people, and they have significant political power.

            Science could indeed be used as a doctrine of control, but if it were, it would of necessity be warped so far that it would no longer be "science" by any reasonable definition of the word. In fact, there are historical examples: Lysenkoism and Intelligent Design spring immediately to mind, and there are probably others. In order to function, um, scientifically, science requires freedom of both thought and action.
            • Your theology is sophisticated and admirable; unfortunately, it's also not typical of the people who use religion as a blunt instrument to attack science -- and like it or not, there are a lot of those people, and they have significant political power.

              I'll agree here. Religion makes a nice weapon for control. "If you don't do this, then you will be punished for all eternity."

              I had people argue with me about taking the Eukerist, and not believing in the Trinity.

              I was like, "I accept Jesus as my savior... B
          • ermm .. what're you talking about? science has been used, continually, as an authoritarian means of control for millenia. it is a primary fault of science that it is unable to cure itself of this fact.
            • Technology, not science, has been used as an authoritarian means of control. Only rarely has science been used for these ends.
            • ermm .. what're you talking about? science has been used, continually, as an authoritarian means of control for millenia. it is a primary fault of science that it is unable to cure itself of this fact.

              Except science hasn't been around for millenia. Especially in so far as we know it.

              Also, many modern conceptions of science do not allow it to be an authoritarian means of control, because you can prove your position and become the correct one. The same way Einstein was able to advance his theory, and replac
              • For example, Big Bang cosmology dominates science and dictates a lot of our decisions one way or another, yet relies upon many unproven (in some cases disprovable, such as the matter of the highly redshifted quasar sitting between us and NGC 7319 in Stephan's Quintet [nasa.gov] [innermost of the pair at 3 o'clock]) assumptions.

                There are also a number of Islamic scientists from a millennium ago (plus or minus) and Greeks from a couple of millennia ago who would be somewhat put out by your assertion that science as we k
                • There are also a number of Islamic scientists from a millennium ago (plus or minus) and Greeks from a couple of millennia ago who would be somewhat put out by your assertion that science as we know it is somehow new.

                  I'm not saying science is new. I'm saying science as we consider it is new. The part of scientific principle that asserts that things must be verifiable and provable. (thus ID is thrown out, because it is not verifiable and thus not "science", where as in the medieval ages, and in all the othe
          • If eugenics, the use of IQs to decide destinies, psychiatry, and endless studies on "what's good for you" aren't an abuse of science to control people, than what is?

            I would be extremely suspicious when "science" makes any pronouncements related to human life or nature that call for a change in public policy. If it just cures a disease, then by all means do it, but if it creates diseases to cure it's another story.

          • Abuse? (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            How about state sponsored scientific atheism as official policy? History? Soviet Union, Stalin? I'd say that counts as abuse, based on what passed for science then. How about current "scientific" pharmco practices, tied in with government so called oversight bureaucracies? Any abuse there? How about psychological "re education" camps? Forced drugging accompanied by brainwashing of children in public schools, curerently a popular "scientific" past time? How about in academia, any abuse noted where grant mone
          • And I'd be quite careful with making assumptions with regard to what is encompassed by the word "factions". We don't even have to bring religions in to the picture to get "factions" that do this; educational organizations do it ALL the time [see the major University's in the US and their leftist socialist dogma], hell scientific institutions do it too [the stem cell research over in south korea]. So don't worry, it's not just religion! There's a lot more people out there doing it!

            But I guess that's kinda

          • In fact, science could be just as usable as a forced authoritarian doctrine to control a people as any religion. The mere fact that it hasn't been yet so abused is not indicative of a fundamental nature of science.

            The guise of science could be used, but not actual science. Any means of authoritarian control requires a means to discard or ignore the inconvieniant and when necessary, invent 'better' facts to replace them. Science permits neither. So the 'science' that is used for authoritarian purposes wo

        • Re:Modesty and Knowledge. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @10:20PM (#14432693)
          Lest someone think you're referring to mainstream Christianity (as opposed to some radical groups):

          "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." -1 Corinthians 13:9-12.

          Or verses 9-10 according to Eugene Peterson's version: "We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled."

          "You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." Job 42:3

          "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain." -Psalm 139:6

          "The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out." -Proverbs 18:15. This implies that these people don't already have perfect knowledge!

          Christianity does not require nor imply knowledge of anything except that Jesus is Lord.
      • Scientists have always admitted that they don't know everything. Various anti-science types like to caricature scientists as claiming to know everything, but this has no relation to reality. It is probably not a coincidence that the anti-scientists tend to follow specific religious and political ideologies in which the claim of universal, absolute, and revealed truth plays a central part.
        • Scientists have always admitted that they don't know everything. Various anti-science types like to caricature scientists as claiming to know everything, but this has no relation to reality. It is probably not a coincidence that the anti-scientists tend to follow specific religious and political ideologies in which the claim of universal, absolute, and revealed truth plays a central part.

          Perhaps its human nature to do the same thing to someone else that they do to you. Blindly asserting that anti-scientist
          • Blindly asserting that anti-scientists must dictate claims of universal, absolute, and revealed truth.

            Except I didn't say that; please notice the use of the phrase "tend to follow" in my original post.

            In the same vein, Christianity in itself does not dictates absolute truth. There are a variety of Christianities out there, and fundamentally they agree on just a few points. There is a God, he had a son named Jesus who died to release us from our sins, and much of our most accepted foundations of faith are re
            • Very true, and you'll notice that I never specified Christianity as the ideology in question. Again, please read what I actually wrote.

              And I'll continue to read into your implied statements. I'm sick of people trying to get away with "Well, I didn't SAY that." No, you just implied it. Now shut up, and stop hedging your bets, so that if someone agrees with your implied statements they will agree, and if someone disagrees with your implied statements, you can say you didn't say it.

              In short, the problem isn

              • The second you admit that you accept that your "truthes" in science may be completely bogus if the true nature of reality were completely different from what it actually is, I'll let you go. But as long as you assert that science is absolutely objective; I will disagree with you.

                Not speaking for Daniel, but from an apparently similar position: of course his "truths" in science may be completely bogus. In science, "truth" is an unattainable goal. Science (or a scientist) produces falsifiable theories tha

              • This is a weird conversation; it's like you're responding to some set of posts that are only vaguely similar to mine.

                I'm sick of people trying to get away with "Well, I didn't SAY that."

                Sometimes, yes, people say things with lots of subtext and then try to deny the subtext. Other times -- more often, I think -- they say "I didn't say that" because, you know, they actually didn't say that. The things you seem to think I said, I really didn't say, nor did I mean to imply.

                Now shut up ...

                Wow, that's some soph
                • No, I'm really not; again, if you go back and read what I actually wrote, you'll see that I'm very careful to use phrases like "tend to" when I'm talking about personality types and beliefs, on both sides of the argument. I make no claims to absolutes.

                  This is what I generally mean why I say "hedge your bets".

                  You are occationally using vague language.

                  If you're possibly wondering why I'm occationally responding to posts that are only vaguely similar to yours, it's because generally you're being so vague, that
      • Heh. You guys all miss the point. The subtext is "scientists claim that further research should be funded".

        Practicing scientists pretty much never say "we know everything there is to know about my specialty". If someone is feeling particularly ornery they might say that after they retire.

        • Heh. You guys all miss the point. The subtext is "scientists claim that further research should be funded".

          Practicing scientists pretty much never say "we know everything there is to know about my specialty". If someone is feeling particularly ornery they might say that after they retire.

          I unfortunately never expected my intended to be funny post would be taken on such a tangent...

          *sigh*

          I guess that's the problem with joking about anything having to do with science or religion... someone is bound to get ups
    • Sure, we have a lot to learn about hurricanes, but this is not one of the deeper mysteries. It's long been noted that hurricanes undergoing very rapid intensification (such as Katrina and Rita) often have unusual amounts of lightning. The reason for this is that charge seperation requires vertical air velocities sufficient to create graupel (spongey small hail). Hurricane convection is set primarily by the underlying sea-surface temperature, which generally has small CAPE (convectively available potential

  • Storms (Score:4, Funny)

    by fireiceviperhotmail. ( 944265 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:34PM (#14431863)
    i hate it when they basicly say " we know nothing " after every sience articly i read on
    the web. I mean ok we get it we humans know nothing ... but do we have to be reminded of it every time ?

    Julien. http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fortune/ [hostdepartment.com]

  • Dorothy hit by lightning (Score:4, Interesting)

    by heavy snowfall ( 847023 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:35PM (#14431869) Journal
    Never got home to Kansas?

    Anyway, I was wondering: could the static/friction-causing ingredient be all the fine dust they pick up combined with the enourmous speeds at the eye?
    • I'd question that theory, granted that the article mentions that the hurricanes were over water, and being that there is less dust over water, the hurricanes would probably not use that as the source of static/lightning. The theory seems sound however and might be clsoe to an explanation perhaps?
    • That sounds like a valid point, especially when you consider that the extreme amount of debris and ash in a volcanic eruption's plume (and in resulting pyroclastic flows) leads to a significant amount of lightning activty.

    • Re:Dorothy hit by lightning (Score:4, Funny)

      by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:23PM (#14432143)
      I haven't watched The Wizard of Oz since I was compelled to do so in elementary school, but, I believe it was a Tornado that took Dorothy. Having been through both Hurricanes and Tornadoes, I can assure you that they're quite different.

    • Re:Dorothy hit by lightning (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @09:27PM (#14432492) Homepage
      You don't need some revolutionary lightning-causing *method* (and in fact, that wouldn't really work - read below, and I'm sure you'll spot why).

      In real thunderstorms, you have strong updrafts at high (cold) altitudes. You get several types of ice; among these are snow an graupel (ice pellets). Static between them creates small charge differences; the graupel tends to become negative and the snow positive. Were that all that was going on, that would be the end of the story, except that there's a sorting mechanism going on. The graupel is denser and falls down, while the snow is light and blows up. Now the charged particles are *very* far apart; discharges can't happen easily. So, charges build up, and up, and up, and eventually you get lightning. As the ground is more positive than the negative cloud bases, you can get cloud to ground lightning if the path is easier than the path up to the tops of the clous.

      Basically, what this means in the context of these hurricanes is that there were strong updrafts in cold air (even though this is a tropical system) - probably extremely high altitudes.

  • Pardon my Ignorance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by killkillkill ( 884238 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:39PM (#14431887)
    I don't know much of anything about the equipment they use, but could it just be that we're seeing more lightning because we're lookinging harder and with better equipment?

    • Re:Pardon my Ignorance (Score:1, Informative)

      by snib ( 911978 )
      From TFA: Indeed, the electric fields above Emily were among the strongest ever measured by the aircraft's sensors over any storm.

      I'm pretty sure these storms were different. Technology for measuring electric fields has been around for a while.

    • Re:Pardon my Ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:50PM (#14431967)
      Bravo!

      This is an important point that is sometimes forgotten when we study hurricanes. It's always amusing to hear news forcasters say that a certain hurricane is the most violent in 100 years or that it had some characteristic never seen before. How do they know? How do we know if Wilma was bigger than the Galveston hurricane when the Galveston hurricane was out to sea? Heck, how do we even know that the category system of hurricanes is related to energy? Katrina as a Cat 3 made Andrew as a Cat 4 look small. And Tropical Cyclone Tracy--a strong Cat 5--was barely 50 miles across. Then there is Tropical Cyclone Tip that was 1500 miles across. For some reason this seems to me to be like measuring the speed of a car by RPMs of the wheels without taking into account the circumference of the wheels--occasionally a tiny car with 3" tires looks likes its going Mach 3.

      • Re:Pardon my Ignorance (Score:5, Interesting)

        by windows ( 452268 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:51PM (#14432299)
        The winds in any cyclone, tropical or otherwise, are driven by the pressure gradient force. Tropical Cyclone Tracy had a minimum central pressure of about 950 mb but because of its compact size, there was a very strong pressure gradient. Typhoon Tip, on the other hand, had a minimum central pressure of 870 mb, but was much larger. Neither size nor central pressure are the sole factor in determining the maximum wind speed in a cyclone; but when considered together along with the influence of friction at the surface, they do control the wind speed. Typically when meteorologists compare the strength of typical cyclones, they look at either the maximum sustained winds or the minimum central pressure. And both are perfectly valid ways of comparing the strength of tropical cyclones.

        And for what it's worth, observations are far better today than they were in 1900 when the powerful hurricane hit Galveston. Many of our estimates of the strength of tropical cyclones at sea are based off satellite imagery, which of course did not exist in 1900. However, it is perfectly valid to say that Hurricane Wilma had the lowest minimum central pressure of any cyclone observed in the Atlantic. It is a fact that there has not been a lower minimum central pressure observed.

        With regards to lightning, a great deal of tropical cyclones have been observed in the Atlantic and in other basins around the world. The use of hurricane hunter aircraft is nothing new. And the article is merely saying that the three systems mentioned had something different from other systems observed and that meteorologists don't know why. It never said that other tropical cyclones in the past didn't have significant lightning activity like these three. It just said we haven't observed it. And considering that meteorological records are kept rather carefully, we can be pretty confident that we haven't seen such behavior before.
    • I'd say unlikely considering there is no metion of any other hurricains in this record breaking season exhibiting this unusual behavior.
    • Lightning can be detected with any radio or even a magnetic compass. (In fact, the effect on electrical and magnetic systems played a big part in the invention of the radio.)

      Now, if you were to suggest that nobody looked before, I'd find that all too believable. It is truly amazing how much gets "discovered" very late on, because of poor observations and hyper-cynicism. (The plasmas that rise up above some storm clouds, when there is lightning, were "known about" a LONG time before they were officially "dis

      • Trust me, everyone that experiences both (a) a hurricane and (b) a Florida tropical thunderstorm--which is to say, most of the population of the state--is immediately aware of absence of thunder and lightning in hurricanes. You don't need scientific instruments to identify the presence or absence of a phenomenon that causes the family dog (and the occasional owner) to run and hide under the bed almost every summer afternoon, quivering from the sound of thunderclaps.

        It's well known folk wisdom that hurrican

  • Plug the hole? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaveM753 ( 844913 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:40PM (#14431902)
    Judging by this picture, the moon looks just about the right size to plug the hole in this hurricane.
    Wouldn't that stop it?

  • Karma burning (Score:3, Funny)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:42PM (#14431917) Homepage
    http://www.the-electric-universe.info/welcome.html [the-electr...verse.info]

    Burn baby, burn

  • historic in other areas as well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bechthros ( 714240 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:46PM (#14431942) Homepage Journal
    All historically large and powerful storms [hurricaneville.com].

    Emily--Was another rare powerful July hurricane that formed in the Atlantic on the heels of Hurricane Dennis during the week of July 10th, 2005. The storm became the most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the month of July after its winds reached a peak speed of 155 mph, and its minimum central pressure dropped to 929 mb, or 27.43 inches of Hg. This just surpassed the levels previously established by Dennis, and was just slightly below Category Five Hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Although Emily ransacked the island of Grenada, which was still recovering from Hurricane Ivan's impact in September, 2004, the storm mercifully spared the islands of Jamaica and the Caymans as well as weakened before making landfall in the Yucatan. The storm did regain some steam after losing its punch over the plateau of the Yucatan Peninsula, and made a final landfall as a major hurricane in Northeastern Mexico with winds of 125 mph. The storm was responsible for 64 deaths, and initially $300,000,000 dollars in damage. It also contributed to the rise in oil prices by forcing the evacuation of employees of Mexico's primary oil company, PEMEX, from their offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Hurricane Katrina--Started out modestly on August 23rd, 2005 in the Bahamas as a tropical wave that emerged from the remnants of a tropical depression that had been in the Caribbean. It gradually grew into the season's eleventh named storm and fourth hurricane prior to making landfall in South Florida as a minimal hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 80 mph, and gusts up to 95 mph. After quickly crossing Southern Florida, Katrina emerged again over water in the Southeastern Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Keys, and strengthened to the 2005 season's third major hurricane before reorganizing into the most powerful storm in the Central Gulf since Hurricane Camille, and third Category Five Hurricane in as many years with winds as high as 175 mph, and a minimum central pressure of 902 mb, or 26.64 inches of Hg. It became the fourth most powerful hurricane of all time ahead of Camille and behind Hurricane Gilbert (1988), the Labor Day of Hurricane of 1935, and Hurricane Allen (1980). After coming ashore as a Category One Hurricane in South Florida, Katrina struck two more times along the Gulf Coast. First in Buras, Louisiana with 140 mph winds, and then near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi with 135 mph winds. It created a 27 foot storm surge in Gulfport, Mississippi and a 22 foot storm surge in Bay St. Louis. Winds as high as 90 mph were felt as far east as Mobile, Alabama, which experienced its worst flooding in 90 years. To make matters worse, part of an oil rig broke away in Mobile Bay and hit a nearby causway possibly causing damage there. Waves as high as 48 feet happened offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Some 50 people were killed in coastal Mississippi including 30 in an apartment complex in Biloxi. Katrina even ripped off part of the roof of the Louisiana Superdome, where 10,000 people were staying in the facility, which was being used as a shelter of last resort. Extensive flooding occurred in New Orleans, which was actually spared the brunt of the storm. The 9th ward in the Crescent City was underwater as well as 80 percent of the city. People fled to their attics to escape drowning and some were rescued by helicopters and boats. So far, the latest death toll is at 1,325 (Louisiana-1076, Mississippi-230, Florida-14, Alabama-2, Georgia-2, Tennessee-1) with damage estimates now ranging from $40 billion to $60 billion. Experts fear that the total cost for the storm could be $200 billion dollars, which would make Katrina the costliest hurricane and natural disaster in United States History.

    Hurricane Rita--The seventeenth named storm and fifth major hurricane of the 2005 season, Rita began near the Turks and Caicos Islands as a mere tropical depression on September 17th, 2005. However, as it passed near the Florida Keys
    • And don't forget that the Atlantic hurricane season ends nov. 30, yet:

      We have hurrican episilon, with advisories running Nov 29 to Dec.8

      And TS Zeta with advisories running from Dec 30 to Jan 6.

      Also, count the number of storms that formed off the coast of Europe or near Canada. I seem to recall one advisory starting 'if it looks like a hurricane...', the storm impacting Spain or Porugal. A facinating season. It is fun to talk about the weather.

      • The storm hitting Europe was Hurricane Vince, which was the first tropical cyclone ever recorded to hit Spain on October 11th as an extremely minimal tropical storm. There was a later storm that curved around and hit northern Africa - Delta, I think - which was also an extremely rare occurence.

    • Re:historic in other areas as well (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I know this will be considered largely anecdotal, but you can't tell me that the storm surge was only 22 ft. in Bay St. Louis. My family lives five miles inland, their house on stilts (probably about a 12' elevation), and they still got waist-high water inside the house, so 22' is a conservative estimate. Most of the locals are saying ~35'. It makes a lot more sense too considering that part of the reason storm surge occurs is because the reduced pressure inside the eyewall allows the water to rise inside t

  • haarp (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    it just proves they were induced by the Conspiracy! /me loosens tinfoil hat a bit

  • But there is Vertical movement... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JasperVal ( 944536 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:48PM (#14431949)
    Major storms, including severe Thunderstorms and Hurricanes are an oddity in atmospheric conditions specifically because there is vertical movement. Normally the atmosphere is in hydrostatic balance and the vertical speed of an air parcel can be ignored. In a thunderstorm there are severe downdrafts that overpower the pressure gradient force and updrafts stronger than the force of gravity. It's only in severe storms when the atmosphere isn't in hydrostatic balance. Hurricanes couldn't develop without vertical movement; the eye in the center is a result of the surface low "pulling" air from the upper atmosphere down and clearing the clouds; the bands are similar downdrafts with updrafts occurring at the eye wall. There's more to the lack of lightning than no movement.
    • Even further, according to my Atmospheric Studies textbook, and Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] "structurally, a tropical cyclone is a large, rotating system of clouds, wind and thunderstorm activity"

      You can't have thunderstorms without lightning.

    • Not quite. The atmosphere can be approximated by a hydrostatic balance only on large scales, this is a convenience of physics and math, not reality. IAAM and I assure you there's always vertical movement on some scale. When discussing it in the context of mesoscale severe weather, i.e. thunderstorms, tornados, the vertical scales of motion (updraft/downdraft) are similar in magnitude to the horizontal scales of motion (wind) and thus becomes significant. On the scale of hurricanes (as a whole) and synop

      • Because a "pull" is an anthropomorphic emotion exhibited by the storm? If you're going to call it a fallacy at least point towards a more correct one. Notice I didn't say "the low pressure wanted the air pulled towards it to be happy." And needless to say, I thought the quotation marks around the original were telling enough I was speaking of the end result, not the mechanism. For the record IANAM, and bow to your superior knowledge. I was merely pointing out, as you just did, the thought that there was no
      • That page consists of pure pedantry. If you were a less scientifically-minded person, you'd understand things like "language" which has concepts like "simile", "metaphor", and "anthropomorphism", which are all used to "explain" "ideas" and "help people understand things better" and "communicate ideas". (My apologies to the late Chris Farley.)

        The best one was: The atmosphere likes to absorb IR radiation so we have an imbalance. Yes. Yes it does. Perhaps you would prefer to replace "likes to absorb" with "has
    • What I don't get about the article is it seems to be saying that since there is little veritcal movement, lightening doesn't develop. But lightening is developed by the friction of droplets of water moving against each other.

      So my point is, what... horizontally moving droplets of water don't brush up against each other?

      You get the same static charge whether you rub your feet on a wool carpet or a wool wall decoration. Why wouldn't droplets of water do the same thing?
    • Aside from that, it would be inaccurate to say that hurricanes are not electrical. Hurricanes often spawn tornados, and tornados *are* inherently electrical.

  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by mistermicro ( 867091 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:50PM (#14431966)
    "Generally there's not a lot of lightning in the eye-wall region," he says. "So when people see lightning there, they perk up -- they say, okay, something's happening."

    incase the 100mph winds didn't have your attention already..

    sigh.. hurricanes and their egos.

  • Allow me to translate.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @07:58PM (#14432006) Homepage
    God is saying...

    "You're screwing up my planet, I'm going to kick your ass now."
  • "Randy, my boy, those idiots have flown into the eye of the shitticane." - Lahey

  • nah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by odinboy71 ( 587538 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:03PM (#14432027)
    Thats just a glitch in the Bush anti black-people weather machine, a firmware update is expected soon, should fix everything.
  • What intrigues me most is how people have resisted the pun in these shocking new discoveries. Damnit, looks like I broke the trend.

    If you must charge me with capital punishment for such a bad pun, might I suggest the electric chair?

  • Actually we have alot to learn about nature period (Score:3, Informative)

    by scronline ( 829910 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:18PM (#14432116) Homepage
    I don't know how many of you may have watched the History channel show last night on the little ice age, but things like that just show us we don't know jack about the weather, how it's affected, and how it affects us. A massive volcano errupted in the early 1800s that cause "The year without a Summer" in 1816. So much ash, sulfer, and sulfuric acid in the air the sun's rays simply couldn't get to the earth. People freezing to death in August, snow on the ground in July, freshly shorn sheep froze to death in June.
  • Being a person who went through Katrina and the aftermath. I didnt see any lightning during Katrina (waiting for the storm included) at all and no evidence of lightning strikes in the lightly hit areas. (the harder hit areas weren't there anymore, so I couldnt judge)
    • That's because your eyes don't see electromagnetic radiation and you weren't in all parts of the storm during all parts of its lifecycle.
      • your eyes don't see electromagnetic radiation
        [pedantic]outside 400 and 700 nanometers [/pedantic] and...
      • I got a large majority of it, trust me. Since my last post I've asked people from various areas about their experiences. No one remembers even any thunder. Where I was before landfall, there were quite a few tornados running around; I remember hearing the sirens blaring in midtown as I was driving home from work (idiot GM didnt think the hurricane was going to be much)

        Reading radiation in a storm... is that different from ACTUAL lightning strikes? Because we got a LARGE part of the storm; and I was awak
        • I got a large majority of it, trust me

          Amazing! Judging from this picture [futura-sciences.com], and the fact that the storm did not exist in one point of time but many, combined with your statement that you got "a large majority of it", we can only conclude that you must be an near-omnipresent deity which manifested over a region from the eastern Carribean though the Gulf of Mexico and up into the central and eastern US over a period of several weeks, and that you must be several hundred thousand square miles in area on average
    • Hurricane Katrina had tropical storm-strength winds extending 200 mi from center and hurricane-force winds extending 100mi at landfall, so you would have sampled a very tiny part of the storm. I'm guessing sound wouldn't carry very well with all that wind, so that accounts for the lack of thunder.

  • HAARP? (Score:4, Funny)

    by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) <jwsmythe@nospam.jwsmythe.com> on Monday January 09, 2006 @08:32PM (#14432200) Homepage Journal
    Lets just add some conspiracy to this...

        Some of my friends in Florida noticed some odd 'humming' from the MacDill AFB during the storms of the last two seasons.

        In a few documentaries, non-conspiracy type, there were mentions of HAARP being used to steer storms away from high value locations (such as MacDill AFB, home of SOCOM).

        HAARP is widely known to be Tesla's work. Tesla was well known for things that go zap.

        The government has interesting military busdget info [dod.gov] (PDF warning)

        Bumping a storm away from valuable places such as MacDill, and letting it damage some oil stuff is worth while. It runs the price of oil up, and the damaged oil equipment can be replaced. Of course, a few people may get hurt, but that's not the government's concern.

        I'm sure NASA won't be informed of the actions at HAARP, so they'll be investigating something where they will never receive the details of how it happened.

  • PMS? (Score:2, Funny)

    by DarkKnightRadick ( 268025 )
    My girlfriend suggests that it was just the hurrican's PMSing, I am inclined to agree given the severity of the storms.
    • No, this [slashdot.org] is a hurricane PMS'ing. Your girlfriend won't admit it, but the hurricane in this case was merely pretending to have a monthly in order to have an excuse to throw a garden-variety tantrum.
  • ...Since we haven't seen this much else, any ol' theory will fly about as well as another.

    It was a dusty summer in the Atlantic, though. Dry Sahara dust prevented the formation of 2-3 tropical storms. We normally think that stronger hurricanes saturate the dust and cause it to "go away". What if the dust got entrained in the system and caused additional friction to occur at high speeds, in spite of the extremely high water vapor values?

    Another theory — did the strength of the storm increase conduc

  • Katrina had lightning indeed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @09:13PM (#14432407) Homepage
    The same day that Katrina was nearing Louisiana, I got a picture [monogon.org] of lightning from a feeder band in Jacksonville, Florida -- over 500 miles away. The picture was shot with a Canon Powershot S2 [dcresource.com] (albeit in video mode -- I cheated by extracting the single frame that had lightning).

    • Katrina certainly did have lightning (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CiXeL ( 56313 ) on Monday January 09, 2006 @09:31PM (#14432506) Homepage
      I was in homestead, florida (just moved here from southern california this year) when katrina hit. The eye passed within 12 miles of us. I recall the lightning too because it was really eerie heat-lightning style flashes in a strobe like effect and i remember saying to myself, hurricanes aren't supposed to have lightning. After that the transformers all over the neighborhood started detonating and lighting up the sky with blue explosions and all the power went out. I was able to this all because everyone thought (due to bad predictions) that it was only going to hit as a tropical storm and no one put up their shutters. I remember looking out across the pitch blackness and seeing a faint glow on the horizon and knowing that someone somewhere out there had power. I will always remember the experiences of katrina and wilma... and get to experience them all over again NEXT YEAR =)

      Anyways if you'd like to take a look at some of my shots from katrina (mostly a rain event) and the resultant flooding look here: http://www.cixel.com/photo/thumbnails.php?album=3 [cixel.com]

      Also if you'd like to see some of my shots of hurricane wilma (mostly a wind event) and scads of damage look here: http://www.cixel.com/photo/thumbnails.php?album=9 [cixel.com]


      • Yikes. I saw a trasformer go in 1972 in an Arizona desert storm. It was more the direct lightening in the parent post picture. I had just got out of a vehicle, looked up and there was a direct strike in the back yard of my house. The picture does not capture how much power there is when you are 40 yards from it.

        The transformer ceramic flew on about 6 houses as white hot cinders. So it when from ducking to wondering to fighting fires in about 30 seconds.
      • My parents down in Orlando got to experience the eye going right near their house in 2004 when Charley came through... Although I haven't experienced it myself, I at least partially know what you went through. Us Floridians are definitely NOT looking forward to the increased hurricane count that meteorologists are predicting for the next ten years. I guess now is a good time to ask -- what made you move from SoCal to Florida? :^)

        BTW, nice shots on your LiveJournal -- the Everglades ones especially. Isn'
        • Socal was getting way too crowded and i realized it was time to move when i was the only one out of my coworkers not doing a 2 hr commute. our apartment was $1175 a month for 650 square feet (2 bedroom) and a mold factory that shouldve been declared literally a health hazard as the walls would bloom tons of circles of black mold every few months which we then had to bleach to kill. they raised the rent $100 just before we moved. Our place here is spectacular, we have wildlife (everglades 15 mins away), trop
        • yeah that was pretty damn hilarious. Its supposed to read Badcock and More. its a furniture store we've known about since we moved here. Thats nothing though. if you look further theres a picture of a billboard of a band that plays in the keys and the house band is "Big Dick and the Extenders"
  • NASA has an interesting write-up about it." Bottom line is "we still have a lot to learn about hurricanes."

    C'mon NASA. As part of the government, I'm sure you're in the know [weatherwars.info] about what's really going on.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close