Hurricane Florence is a Once IN A Lifetime storm

James___ wrote:
...We had these last year.

James___ wrote:
Maybe there needs to be a new standard of 100 and 500 year storms ?

James___ wrote:
It'd be kind of interesting to have some idea of the surface and at depth temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean from around west of the Saharan desert.

James___ wrote:
Since hurricanes are driven by heat is the equatorial Atlantic Ocean warmer than years past ?

James___ wrote:
It'd be almost interesting to see dedicated monitoring of the ocean's temperatures on the surface and at depth at the same points of reference.

James___ wrote:
I don't think something like that is happening though.

James___ wrote:
It'd mean keeping equipment on site 24/7.

James___ wrote:
..And it's expected to slow down in what seems similar to some of the hurricanes last year like Hurricane Harvey did last year.

James___ wrote:
...I don't think something like that is happening though. It'd mean keeping equipment on site 24/7......

still learning wrote:

James___ wrote:
...I don't think something like that is happening though. It'd mean keeping equipment on site 24/7......

See http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

James___ wrote:

still learning wrote:

James___ wrote:
...I don't think something like that is happening though. It'd mean keeping equipment on site 24/7......

See http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

...Thanks. It'd be nice though if they could use solar panels to keep them at the same longitude/latitude. Then they'd have specific points of reference.

James___ wrote:
..A Super Typhoon is heading towards the Philippines. It'll be bad but hopefully they can prepare for it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/philippines-starts-massive-evacuations-huge-typhoon-nears-n909256?cid=ed_npd_bn_fb_bn

GasGuzzler wrote:
QUICK question...

When they measure maximum sustained winds from aircraft, what altitude are they measuring from? I assume it's around 500 meters where the strongest winds are typically found...at the eyewall of course.

What I'm getting at is that Max sustained winds are always reported but rarely realized at the surface. Matter of fact, peak surface gusts rarely equal reported max sustained. Seems like a lot of crying wolf...
Is it the gov covering their butts or the media over hyping a storm to promote a religion? Prolly both.

James___ wrote:
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/how-powerful-irma-wind-speed-measured-feet/kBTbPeHeiRpIVaODI8ZfzN/

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
QUICK question...

When they measure maximum sustained winds from aircraft, what altitude are they measuring from? I assume it's around 500 meters where the strongest winds are typically found...at the eyewall of course.

What I'm getting at is that Max sustained winds are always reported but rarely realized at the surface. Matter of fact, peak surface gusts rarely equal reported max sustained. Seems like a lot of crying wolf...
Is it the gov covering their butts or the media over hyping a storm to promote a religion? Prolly both.

Into The Night wrote:
The gov doesn't need to cover its butt. They provide the service...take it or leave it.

It's rather impossible to hold your altitude in a hurricane. If they tried, it would overstress the aircraft. They just 'ride the rollercoaster!'.

That said, they tend to try to maintain something between 5000 ft and 10000 ft. They will break out into the eyewall somewhere near those altitudes. That's anywhere from 1524 meters to 3049 meters. 500 meters is only 1600 ft, barely above the traffic pattern at most airports (and below it at some airports!).

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

The reason you don't feel such winds is because:
a) You're at the surface, not at 5000 to 10000 ft. Winds are less at the surface. They may even change direction depending on the terrain.
b) The hurricane weakens as soon as it hits land or moves into more stable air (such as colder water or warmer air).

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
QUICK question...

When they measure maximum sustained winds from aircraft, what altitude are they measuring from? I assume it's around 500 meters where the strongest winds are typically found...at the eyewall of course.

What I'm getting at is that Max sustained winds are always reported but rarely realized at the surface. Matter of fact, peak surface gusts rarely equal reported max sustained. Seems like a lot of crying wolf...
Is it the gov covering their butts or the media over hyping a storm to promote a religion? Prolly both.

Into The Night wrote:
The gov doesn't need to cover its butt. They provide the service...take it or leave it.

I disagree there...Bush had his nuts cut off after Katrina

GasGuzzler wrote:
and I think every local, state, and federal agency, responsible or not, is scared shitless of having the same done if thy fail in any way to help/rescue the idiots that didn't get out while the gettin was good.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Nobody is responsible for their own safety anymore.

GasGuzzler wrote:
In other words, I feel like the govmnts are literally trying to scare people out.

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is not the storm of a lifetime. Maybe rain, but not wind.

GasGuzzler wrote:

It's rather impossible to hold your altitude in a hurricane. If they tried, it would overstress the aircraft. They just 'ride the rollercoaster!'.

That said, they tend to try to maintain something between 5000 ft and 10000 ft. They will break out into the eyewall somewhere near those altitudes. That's anywhere from 1524 meters to 3049 meters. 500 meters is only 1600 ft, barely above the traffic pattern at most airports (and below it at some airports!).

Very interesting. So, how do they enter these things? Angle, altitude?

GasGuzzler wrote:
I assume into the wind?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Maybe for simplicity explain as a clock, with a westward moving hurricane moving 9 oclock.

GasGuzzler wrote:
O know zilch about flight, but I'd guess the cross winds would be an absolute no.

GasGuzzler wrote:

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

The reason you don't feel such winds is because:
a) You're at the surface, not at 5000 to 10000 ft. Winds are less at the surface. They may even change direction depending on the terrain.
b) The hurricane weakens as soon as it hits land or moves into more stable air (such as colder water or warmer air).

Just thinking about a Katrina or Andrew. 175 mph sustained winds measured by aircraft...at 5-10k ft. So the sustained winds were actually much stronger at the 1600 ft altitude? That's incredible!!

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
QUICK question...

When they measure maximum sustained winds from aircraft, what altitude are they measuring from? I assume it's around 500 meters where the strongest winds are typically found...at the eyewall of course.

What I'm getting at is that Max sustained winds are always reported but rarely realized at the surface. Matter of fact, peak surface gusts rarely equal reported max sustained. Seems like a lot of crying wolf...
Is it the gov covering their butts or the media over hyping a storm to promote a religion? Prolly both.

Into The Night wrote:
The gov doesn't need to cover its butt. They provide the service...take it or leave it.

I disagree there...Bush had his nuts cut off after Katrina and I think every local, state, and federal agency, responsible or not, is scared shitless of having the same done if thy fail in any way to help/rescue the idiots that didn't get out while the gettin was good. Nobody is responsible for their own safety anymore. In other words, I feel like the govmnts are literally trying to scare people out. This is not the storm of a lifetime. Maybe rain, but not wind.

It's rather impossible to hold your altitude in a hurricane. If they tried, it would overstress the aircraft. They just 'ride the rollercoaster!'.

That said, they tend to try to maintain something between 5000 ft and 10000 ft. They will break out into the eyewall somewhere near those altitudes. That's anywhere from 1524 meters to 3049 meters. 500 meters is only 1600 ft, barely above the traffic pattern at most airports (and below it at some airports!).

Very interesting. So, how do they enter these things? Angle, altitude? I assume into the wind? Maybe for simplicity explain as a clock, with a westward moving hurricane moving 9 oclock. O know zilch about flight, but I'd guess the cross winds would be an absolute no.

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

The reason you don't feel such winds is because:
a) You're at the surface, not at 5000 to 10000 ft. Winds are less at the surface. They may even change direction depending on the terrain.
b) The hurricane weakens as soon as it hits land or moves into more stable air (such as colder water or warmer air).

Just thinking about a Katrina or Andrew. 175 mph sustained winds measured by aircraft...at 5-10k ft. So the sustained winds were actually much stronger at the 1600 ft altitude? That's incredible!!

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
QUICK question...

When they measure maximum sustained winds from aircraft, what altitude are they measuring from? I assume it's around 500 meters where the strongest winds are typically found...at the eyewall of course.

What I'm getting at is that Max sustained winds are always reported but rarely realized at the surface. Matter of fact, peak surface gusts rarely equal reported max sustained. Seems like a lot of crying wolf...
Is it the gov covering their butts or the media over hyping a storm to promote a religion? Prolly both.

Into The Night wrote:
The gov doesn't need to cover its butt. They provide the service...take it or leave it.

I disagree there...Bush had his nuts cut off after Katrina and I think every local, state, and federal agency, responsible or not, is scared shitless of having the same done if thy fail in any way to help/rescue the idiots that didn't get out while the gettin was good. Nobody is responsible for their own safety anymore. In other words, I feel like the govmnts are literally trying to scare people out. This is not the storm of a lifetime. Maybe rain, but not wind.

It's rather impossible to hold your altitude in a hurricane. If they tried, it would overstress the aircraft. They just 'ride the rollercoaster!'.

That said, they tend to try to maintain something between 5000 ft and 10000 ft. They will break out into the eyewall somewhere near those altitudes. That's anywhere from 1524 meters to 3049 meters. 500 meters is only 1600 ft, barely above the traffic pattern at most airports (and below it at some airports!).

Very interesting. So, how do they enter these things? Angle, altitude? I assume into the wind? Maybe for simplicity explain as a clock, with a westward moving hurricane moving 9 oclock. O know zilch about flight, but I'd guess the cross winds would be an absolute no.

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

The reason you don't feel such winds is because:
a) You're at the surface, not at 5000 to 10000 ft. Winds are less at the surface. They may even change direction depending on the terrain.
b) The hurricane weakens as soon as it hits land or moves into more stable air (such as colder water or warmer air).

Just thinking about a Katrina or Andrew. 175 mph sustained winds measured by aircraft...at 5-10k ft. So the sustained winds were actually much stronger at the 1600 ft altitude? That's incredible!!

...I guess what's being missed in all of this is what is natural climate change and what isn't. This is what can screw scientists, betting on the wrong horse. Things should be about understanding the natural order of things and how we are changing that. It's not IMHO.

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
Define 'climate change'. This is still a meaningless buzzword.

James___ wrote:
..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
Define 'climate change'. This is still a meaningless buzzword.

I go away then come back and you are still at it, don't you get bored of asking the same dumb question over and over again?

James___ wrote:
It looks like the typhoon (Typhoon Mangkhut) that hit the Philippines will now be heading towards Hong Kong.

When it made landfall in the Philippines Saturday morning at 1:40 a.m. local time, Mangkhut was packing winds of up to 270 kph (165 mph), 120 kph (75 mph) stronger than Hurricane Florence that hit North Carolina.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/15/asia/typhoon-mangkhut-hurricane-philippines-death---intl/index.html

..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

Great video! What joke the weather channel has made of itself. I believe it was ITN that recently said this:

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
Define 'climate change'. This is still a meaningless buzzword.

I go away then come back and you are still at it, don't you get bored of asking the same dumb question over and over again?

Don't you get bored of ignoring and evading that question?

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

Great video! What joke the weather channel has made of itself. I believe it was ITN that recently said this:

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

It was. That quote is accurate.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

Great video! What joke the weather channel has made of itself. I believe it was ITN that recently said this:

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

It was. That quote is accurate.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

Great video! What joke the weather channel has made of itself. I believe it was ITN that recently said this:

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

It was. That quote is accurate.

Could not be more accurate, and proven true within hours of posting. You working for the Weather Channel just so you can be right?

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

James___ wrote:
..And if everyone needs a laugh, there is this. Watch the 2 guys walking behind the reporter. https://www.facebook.com/shannon.james.5688/videos/10216347165019242/?t=21

Great video! What joke the weather channel has made of itself. I believe it was ITN that recently said this:

The media over hypes pretty much anything they get ahold of. The difference between the National Enquirer and the Associated Press is smaller than most people like to think about. Just remember how they deal with a tornado story. They'll show some trailer park that was mashed by some tornado, leaving pretty much everything else untouched, and cry "Total Devastation!". Then they get that gal in the mumu (does she work on their staff?) to describe how horrible it all was.

It was. That quote is accurate.

Could not be more accurate, and proven true within hours of posting. You working for the Weather Channel just so you can be right?

...Do you 2 mean like this ? Nearly 1 million lose power

James___ wrote:
.I guess that is hype.

James___ wrote:
Of course if that much damage was done

James___ wrote:
then we're back to your statements being nothing more than a fallacy inversion which used buzzwords and circular arguments. ie., if you don't think much of what happened then it's just hype of which the 2 of you seem to like hyping your own fallacy which would make it an inverted fallacy.

James___ wrote:
That's an argument based on one's ego which has no merit outside of the ego, ie., the self that created it.

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

Into the Night wrote:

That's not even an argument. It wasn't even English.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

That's a pretty vague accusation. Who are you referring to?

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

That's a pretty vague accusation. Who are you referring to?

I know you can act mindblowingly obtuse when you want to be but you aren't dumb you know exactly what you are doing.

Just to spell it out I am referring to you and people like you when I use the phrase chucklehead. its all a joke to you but people fooled by your act genuinely suffer in instances like this.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

That's a pretty vague accusation. Who are you referring to?

I know you can act mindblowingly obtuse when you want to be but you aren't dumb you know exactly what you are doing.

Just to spell it out I am referring to you and people like you when I use the phrase chucklehead. its all a joke to you but people fooled by your act genuinely suffer in instances like this.

I did not tell those people to stay or go. I did not cause any floods. I did not cause the hurricane. I did not direct it into North Carolina. Most people who DID stay survived.

While I appreciate the gesture, I do not have god-like powers here.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

That's a pretty vague accusation. Who are you referring to?

I know you can act mindblowingly obtuse when you want to be but you aren't dumb you know exactly what you are doing.

Just to spell it out I am referring to you and people like you when I use the phrase chucklehead. its all a joke to you but people fooled by your act genuinely suffer in instances like this.

I did not tell those people to stay or go. I did not cause any floods. I did not cause the hurricane. I did not direct it into North Carolina. Most people who DID stay survived.

While I appreciate the gesture, I do not have god-like powers here.

You say that experts are wrong all the time.

spot wrote:
You said that the reaction to the storm was over-hyped

spot wrote:
you pretend to know what you are talking about.

spot wrote:
I doubt you personally are responsible for anything but that's not for want of trying.

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

The "experts" were calling for a strong Cat 3, maybe a 4. It was a Cat 1. However, everyone was told to evacuate....so yeah, ITN, Trump, and George Bush are all responsible for any loss of life. Whatever.

Spot, I know you'd love to blame the blazin hot earth for this storm, but a quick dig shows that North Caronlina is actually overdue for a strong storm, stronger than the one they just got. Take a look at the 50s! Man, that was a tough decade! Was your CO2 doing it's thing back then?

James___ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:
As far as I can tell 18 have died and plenty of people are stranded in miserable conditions. How many are suffering because instead of heading advice thought; "what do experts know I'm riding this out/going for a drive as normal.". You encourage this. Your chucklehead philosophy gets people killed.

The "experts" were calling for a strong Cat 3, maybe a 4. It was a Cat 1. However, everyone was told to evacuate....so yeah, ITN, Trump, and George Bush are all responsible for any loss of life. Whatever.

Spot, I know you'd love to blame the blazin hot earth for this storm, but a quick dig shows that North Caronlina is actually overdue for a strong storm, stronger than the one they just got. Take a look at the 50s! Man, that was a tough decade! Was your CO2 doing it's thing back then?

...gasguzzler, have been seeing a lot of Republicans with your attitude. It's like President Trump said, 3,000 people didn't die in Puerto Rico as the result of a hurricane. Did he cause the hurricane ? No ? Then don't blame him for those people's deaths.

James___ wrote:
Yep, when something happens to someone else Republicans become the victim.

James___ wrote:
It's like Sarah Huckabee, the White House press secretary said about herself, she's a daddy's girl and her father is Mike Huckabee a Republican. She knows that you have to be nice to victims and that Republicans are the victims in America.