Tropical Storm Zeta Forms in Atlantic 174
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.
japan... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:japan... (Score:2)
Re:japan... (Score:2)
I agree that the buried post was mal-informed, and most defintely a troll.. but to answer your question: Wasting time by calling each other idiots will not fix the problems. Good open discussions, scientific research, and experimentation is necessary. Which means even idiotic ideas must be allowed their voice.
Re:japan... (Score:2)
But what about after tomorrow? (Score:1)
Re:But what about after tomorrow? (Score:2)
Re:But what about after tomorrow? (Score:2)
Alice? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Alice? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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)
Re:Alice? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Alice? (Score:2, Informative)
After the female names run out, they use letters from the Greek alphabet. (alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta,
Re:Alice? (Score:4, Informative)
This is namned storm 27 for the Atlantic basin.
Re:Alice? (Score:2)
Re:Alice? (Score:1)
If a storm forms after January 1st, do they.... (Score:2)
Re:If a storm forms after January 1st, do they.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
global warming (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:global warming (Score:2)
But CO2 is the most significant of them (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them (Score:1, Informative)
Not according to my latest Greenpeace flyers.
And they list about a half dozen more on this flyer that I am not going to
Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them (Score:3, Insightful)
And we all know how neutral and objective Greenpeace is.
Re:But CO2 is the most significant of them (Score:4, Insightful)
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....
Re:global warming (Score:1)
Water Vapor? (Score:2)
Re:Water Vapor? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:global warming (Score:2)
Next time you get the opportunity, don't vote for "way of life" or "family values" or "defending US against THEM". Vote for someone who will take positive steps to ensure that people can live a sustainable lifestyle that will continue f
Re:global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:global warming (Score:3, Funny)
Re:global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:global warming (Score:2)
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.
Global Warming? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
No (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:2)
Do you know the difference between the Atlantic ocean and Oceania? BTW, if you read the link, you will notice it actually blames much of that on El Nino, another natural phenomenon.
" We already see the Atlantic current weakening and moving away from NA. The more it slows down, the more hot water will stay in the Gulf and tropics. Guess what? That's where the Hurricanes begin."
Got anything backing that up? Because in the world I live in (you k
Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:1)
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:3, Informative)
Since 1953, Atlantic tropical storms have been named from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center. [noaa.gov]
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
Now compound this with our inevitable tendency to view things in an anthropocentric as well as cronocentric manner and yikes!
Stop confusing everyone with your sciency, sophistimicated and TV-unfriendly words. Some of us are making a good living selling fear and we likes it that way!
to be fair... (Score:2)
So although this year was quite busy, we probably can't really say it is the definitely the busiest sin
Re:to be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
Does that make everything clearer to you, or do you want
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2, Informative)
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).
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:3, Informative)
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:2)
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:1)
And the guy you voted for is an idiot too.
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
That's a pretty safe assumption. You don't even have to know who he voted for.
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, like those "greenies" at NOAA [noaa.gov]:
The frequency of storms seems to be cyclical and unrelated to global warming trends. Their strength, however, is related to the temperature increase.
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"?
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
Anyway, could *someone* explain to me if it is the case that we used to only record hurricanes? From what I'm reading, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2)
Because we all know they didn't have ships, or barometers, or radio in 1933, eh? In fact, coverage in the 30's was quite good, because ships frequently reported weather conditions, and there were a lot of ships around.
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:2, Informative)
The signs of the formation of the tropical depression that became TS Bret [unisys.com] was noticed on satellite, and a hurricane hunter (WC-130, IIRC)just happened to be in the air to be sent out to verify it.
TS Gert [unisys.com] was very similar; a short-lived Bay of Campeche storm.
Ditto Jose [unisys.com]
Lee [unisys.com] was a tropical storm for only one advisory cycle (six hours). The upgrade to tropical sto
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:1, Troll)
No. You need to go back and learn basic comprehension.
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:1)
Ok, a little correction. Officially, the National Weather Service did not start naming hurricanes until 1953. Prior to that, from 1950 to 1952, they were named after the phonetic alphabet (able, baker, charlie). During World War II and afterwards, they were unofficially named after girl
Re:Stop naming tropical storms... (Score:1)
There are records of hurricanes and tropical storms in the western North Atlantic dating back to 1492.
Meteorologists have only been naming storms for about 60 years. The 2nd most active storm season was 1933, prior to the naming convention.
The World Meteorological Organization [www.wmo.ch] has very stringent rules on what a named storm is -- it requires that the storm be tropical storm strength or greater. We "greenies" can't just choose to start doing things differently.
And it wouldn't matter any
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1, Offtopic)
Since we live in the real world its best you listen to fact.
Not to rip on Wikipedia... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov [noaa.gov]
Re:Not to rip on Wikipedia... (Score:1)
Sorry to be a snit, but you reap what you sow
Happy New Year (Score:2)
Alice not necessarily dethroned (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Alice not necessarily dethroned (Score:1)
Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2, Insightful)
They have word that describes people's current thoughts about global warming, its 'p
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Regardless of the cause, the problem isn't the change in temperature, its the speed at which it is changing. In the past even rapid changes occured over thousands of years. Current models predict a much faster change. Sure the ecosystem will adjust eventually, but alot of people will be screwed in the process.
What people need to start working on is getting self sustaining colonies off this planet.
Don't you think
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
We'll figure out how to deal with the changes here. But we should still get a few eggs in other baskets. No telling when a major astroid or comet will hit the Earth or when the next pandemic will wipe out most of the population (can you say bird flu?).
And you are making the assumption that it is we that are causing global warming or tha
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
You can find alternate explanations for any argument. Tell me why you think the world is round, and I'll show you an alternate explanation consistent with the idea that the world is flat. But once the evidence starts mounting up, it's time to stop trying to explain it away and
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
I'm sort of the looking forward to the next hurricane season, which has great potential for settling the argument one way or the other. Of course, I don't live on the Gulf Coast...
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
I'm glad we use Celcius now - if we used Farenheit, the increase would have been *much* larger.
The joke used to be... (Score:2)
I hate to think what will happen if a committee ever did have the power to do something about it. Odds are, it would be the wrong thing.
On second thought... maybe we need more bureaus to work on this so-called problem. The way things are going, we need more bureaucracy to slow down those who think they know what should be done.
References: S
I have empirical evidence (Score:2)
All I'm sayin' is that the burners on my stove glow a little brighter than last year. Coincidence? I think not ...
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
http://uahnews.uah.edu/read.asp?newsID=574 [uah.edu]
"Previously, the long-term (December 1978 through July 2005) climate trend in the UAH satellite dataset showed average global warming at the rate of about 0.88 C (about 1.58 degrees Fahrenheit) per century. The new trend, which includes the extra warming in
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
We only have detailed reords for about the past 150 years, but on the longer timescales the ice-cores and tree rings give a general idea what the climate was like. The norms I was referring to however, only deal with the past 150 years.
I'm not "making stuff up". You misinterpereted what I said (or maybe I wasn't specific enough).
And that's not even the point I was trying to make.
Re:Global Warming Scare continues (Score:2)
Great! (Score:1)
Naming and PR (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Naming and PR (Score:1)
The Zeta Sorority (Score:2)
But really, the real problem is these hurricanes in the Brumuda Triangle. When compared to Zeta girls we at least know how many seman the Triangle has swollowed.
Bah, not worth staying up for (Score:2)
Of course, to live up to a name like that it'd better contain energy somewhat greater than Jupiter's red spot - which will be tough, given that spot is something like twice the surface area of the Earth.
Re:Bah, not worth staying up for (Score:2)
here is a decent picture of Zeta (Score:3, Funny)
I tried submitting this same story (Score:2)
Re:yep (Score:2)
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.
Re:SHIT! (Score:1)
Name it "Saddam" or "Al Quida" and maybe Bushie will do something
Re:SHIT! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The problem with slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
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