Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Colt Storm

Hurricane Maria

67 posts in this topic

HAARP did this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope she heads out to sea. Nobody needs another one. :cry:

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Business as usual, folks. Now move along...nothing to see here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Colt Storm said:

Maria becomes a hurricane and is forecast to continue strengthening as it approaches the Leeward Islands, northeast Caribbean, according to officials.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-maria-category-1-hurricane-caribbean-forecast-storm-track-live-updates/

Colt Storm, being that you like to track storms, may we nickname you 'Stormy'?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is putting a damper on recover efforts in the USVI. FEMA is bugging out tomorrow and the Army left this morning.

Last report I read said its anticipated to reach cat4 between now and late Tuesday when it hits the area. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With White Supremacist Trump in the Whitehouse, most hurricanes with hispanic names will not come within 100 miles of the coast (Jose).  But I think Maria is p***ed - better watch out.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Back in May the NOAA predicted this would happen (above normal hurricane year): http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/above-normal-atlantic-hurricane-season-is-most-likely-year

I had read this a couple months ago. Pretty accurate.

But the Global Warming people will jump all over this active season without looking back at the hurricane history.  Just look at that clown from CNN.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as NOAA couched its predictions for this season in probabilities, it is impossible to tell whether they were right or wrong without reference to past seasons.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Seeing as NOAA couched its predictions for this season in probabilities, it is impossible to tell whether they were right or wrong without reference to past seasons.

Doug

P.S.:  The next IPCC report will contain a section on the science behind attributing particular catastrophic events to climate change.  Might want to put off comments on our current round of hurricanes being a symptom of global warming until we get a chance to read that report.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, this (to be blunt) totally sucks for the poor people in the Caribbean.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurricane Maria strengthens to category five storm

"Hurricane Maria has strengthened to a "potentially catastrophic" category five storm, US forecasters say, as it bears down on islands in the Caribbean.

The island of Dominica is one of the first in its path, facing sustained winds of 260km/h (160mph).

Maria is moving roughly along the same track as Irma, the hurricane that devastated the region this month."

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

With White Supremacist Trump in the Whitehouse, most hurricanes with hispanic names will not come within 100 miles of the coast (Jose).  But I think Maria is p***ed - better watch out.

Doug

Was that really needed?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maria is now a CAT 5 and heading to many of the islands that were already abandoned because of Irma. The US and British Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbudos are set to be hit and other islands that weren't affected that badly by Irma. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-maria-path-track-caribbean-martinique-dominica-st-lucia/

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maria sweeps through the Antilles, headed to Puerto Rico and on a similar Northwest path like Irma...this is of special concern for the Bahamas and a serious matter for Florida. The problem is we're not going to get a specific path on any hurricane tracking model. Maria is thought to be a threat to the Carolinas and Georgia as well the east coast of Florida, esp. north of Miami, a more populated urban/metro area than where Irma's eye made landfall.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why their models have it turning north so early? Hope it makes that turn. I feel for the island people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some have it hitting Florida and some Georgia. It's on a little more northernly track than Irma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 10:33 AM, Doug1o29 said:

P.S.:  The next IPCC report will contain a section on the science behind attributing particular catastrophic events to climate change.  Might want to put off comments on our current round of hurricanes being a symptom of global warming until we get a chance to read that report.

Doug

Do they still have an economist in charge?  Did they have anything to say about there being less severe weather over the last 400 years?  Are you saying one year of severe storms is enough to prove AGW?  You have always preached that even a decade is not enough to predict eitehr way so just asking if you have changed your mind suddenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Do they still have an economist in charge?  Did they have anything to say about there being less severe weather over the last 400 years?  Are you saying one year of severe storms is enough to prove AGW?  You have always preached that even a decade is not enough to predict eitehr way so just asking if you have changed your mind suddenly.

I don't know who's in charge.  But I have to agree that an economist may not be the best choice.  IPCC's big defect is that politicians (and economists) are on many of its committees.  That's bad because it weakens the science, but on the other hand, scientists have a habit of saying it like it is without a sugar coating.  Most people find that off-putting.  So maybe having some non-scientists around leavens the final product a little.

Where did you get that 400 year figure?  I specialize in 19th-century Oklahoma storms and there have been quite a number of those, so I'm wondering how we managed to have a worse situation prior to the Little Ice Age.

And no I didn't say that one year of hurricanes proved anything.  I just think we ought to at least read that report before we try to ascribe those hurricanes to anything.  As I recall, NOAA predicted an increase in the number and strength of hurricanes several years ago (less than fifteen).  During the first few years there wasn't anything out of the ordinary.  So if we're going to decide whether NOAA was right or wrong, we're going to need to average all those years together.  And that means we're going to need another fifteen to twenty years of data.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I don't know who's in charge.  But I have to agree that an economist may not be the best choice.  IPCC's big defect is that politicians (and economists) are on many of its committees.  That's bad because it weakens the science, but on the other hand, scientists have a habit of saying it like it is without a sugar coating.  Most people find that off-putting.  So maybe having some non-scientists around leavens the final product a little.

It makes perfect sense when your primary objectives are to transfer wealth and damage the US economy.

8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Where did you get that 400 year figure?  I specialize in 19th-century Oklahoma storms and there have been quite a number of those, so I'm wondering how we managed to have a worse situation prior to the Little Ice Age.

40 years, not 400, my bad, but posted here many times and acknowledged by the IPCC.  

8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

And no I didn't say that one year of hurricanes proved anything.  I just think we ought to at least read that report before we try to ascribe those hurricanes to anything.  As I recall, NOAA predicted an increase in the number and strength of hurricanes several years ago (less than fifteen).  During the first few years there wasn't anything out of the ordinary.  So if we're going to decide whether NOAA was right or wrong, we're going to need to average all those years together.  And that means we're going to need another fifteen to twenty years of data.

Doug

The IPCC should no longer be trusted, I merely point them out as it is the high altar of your religion and thus infallible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

It makes perfect sense when your primary objectives are to transfer wealth and damage the US economy.

40 years, not 400, my bad, but posted here many times and acknowledged by the IPCC.  

The IPCC should no longer be trusted, I merely point them out as it is the high altar of your religion and thus infallible.  

You are ascribing motives to me that I do not share.  Why would I want to damage the US economy?  I depend on it for my livelihood.  You're not making any sense.

Storminess in continental interiors is increasing, but only on the bad end of the spectrum.  Doesn't seem to be much change among smaller storms.  Sort of hard to tell, though, as you have to be able to separate thermal storms from the rest.  You do that by timing the precipitation events and as that is something that wasn't done very much in the past, there are few records to fall back on.  One could also use barometric pressures.  I have a bunch of those for the 1870s taken at Fort Gibson.  I understand some more were recorded for Fort Sill, but I haven't checked.  Who knows?  Maybe I'll get around to a pressure study.

The IPCC has its problems, to be sure.  But did you ever notice:  they don't do any research of their own.  They write nice summaries and they suggest things that need to be determined, but they don't do it themselves.  Because of that, you can learn everything you need to know about climate without reading anything they put out.  Their bibliographies are handy, though.

Why would anyone consider them infallible.  Like I said, they don't do any original research, so they really don't have much to say.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.