Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
karhu

Omg Rita

Recommended Posts

Deserves a new topic.

...RITA BECOMES THE FIFTH MOST INTENSE HURRICANE ON RECORD...

DROPSONDE DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT RECONNAISSANCE

AIRCRAFT AT 416 PM CDT...2116Z...INDICATED THE CENTRAL PRESSURE HAS

FALLEN TO 904 MB...OR 26.69 INCHES. THIS MAKES RITA THE FIFTH MOST

INTENSE HURRICANE IN TERMS OF PRESSURE IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN.

RITA CURRENTLY RANKS BEHIND HURRICANE GILBERT IN 1988 WITH 888

MB...THE 1935 LABOR DAY HURRICANE WITH 892 MB...HURRICANE ALLEN IN

1980 WITH 899 MB...AND HURRICANE KATRINA LAST MONTH WITH 902 MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deserves a new topic.

...RITA BECOMES THE FIFTH MOST INTENSE HURRICANE ON RECORD...

DROPSONDE DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT RECONNAISSANCE

AIRCRAFT AT 416 PM CDT...2116Z...INDICATED THE CENTRAL PRESSURE HAS

FALLEN TO 904 MB...OR 26.69 INCHES. THIS MAKES RITA THE FIFTH MOST

INTENSE HURRICANE IN TERMS OF PRESSURE IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN.

RITA CURRENTLY RANKS BEHIND HURRICANE GILBERT IN 1988 WITH 888

MB...THE 1935 LABOR DAY HURRICANE WITH 892 MB...HURRICANE ALLEN IN

1980 WITH 899 MB...AND HURRICANE KATRINA LAST MONTH WITH 902 MB.

Two of the top five in one year. George W., this is no coincidence. Climate change is real. Accept it and deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tenant super
Deserves a new topic.

...RITA BECOMES THE FIFTH MOST INTENSE HURRICANE ON RECORD...

DROPSONDE DATA FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT RECONNAISSANCE

AIRCRAFT AT 416 PM CDT...2116Z...INDICATED THE CENTRAL PRESSURE HAS

FALLEN TO 904 MB...OR 26.69 INCHES. THIS MAKES RITA THE FIFTH MOST

INTENSE HURRICANE IN TERMS OF PRESSURE IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN.

RITA CURRENTLY RANKS BEHIND HURRICANE GILBERT IN 1988 WITH 888

MB...THE 1935 LABOR DAY HURRICANE WITH 892 MB...HURRICANE ALLEN IN

1980 WITH 899 MB...AND HURRICANE KATRINA LAST MONTH WITH 902 MB.

Blimey, just watched some satellite imagery of it, unbelievable thing. I suggest opening a new window and pasting in the following link - it takes a couple of minutes to load even on broadband, sustained wind speeds of 165mph.

http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/DATA/RT/float-vis-loop.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give an indication of how powerful these things are, read this from the met-office web site.

Great amounts of energy are transferred when warm water is evaporated from tropical seas. This energy is stored within the water vapour contained in moist air. As this air ascends, 90% of the stored energy is released by condensation, giving rise to the towering cumulus clouds and rain. The release of heat energy warms the air locally, causing a further decrease in pressure aloft. Consequently, air rises faster to fill this area of low pressure, and more warm, moist air is drawn off the sea, feeding further energy to the system. Thus, a self-sustaining heat engine is created.

Only as little as 3% of the heat energy may be converted mechanical energy of the circulating winds. This relatively small amount of mechanical energy equates to a power supply of 360 billion kilowatt hours per day - or six months' supply of electrical energy for the whole of the USA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omFg.... anyone just seen that animation on new24?

Goodbye galvaston with just a cat-3 hit.... total submersion

Lovely Rita meter maid.

Lovely Rita meter maid.

Lovely Rita meter maid.

Nothing can come between us,

When it gets dark I blow your heart away.

Standing by a parking meter,

When I caught a glimpse of Rita,

Kicking in a rig with her big white boot.

In a cap she looked much older,

And the bag across her shoulder

Made her look a little like a windy fan.

Lovely Rita meter maid,

May I inquire discreetly,

When are you free,

To take some tea with me.

Took her out and tried to win her,

Had a laugh and over dinner,

Told her I would really like to see her again,

Got the bill and Rita paid it,

Took her home I nearly made it,

Sitting on the sofa with a sister or two.

Oh, lovely Rita meter maid,

Where would I be without you,

Give us a wink and make me think of you.

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sustained winds now 175MPH! :blink: Some strengthening expected in the next 12 hours.

EDIT:

Just remembered this story about 90ft waves during hurricanes.

"Our results suggest that waves in excess of 90 ft are not rogue waves but actually are fairly common during hurricanes," lead author Dr David Wang, told the BBC News website.
Edited by gone west

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
absolute ********

You are, of course, right - few climate scientists would say this particular hurricane or even the particular ferocity of this season is due to climate change.

But few climate scientists would disagree that extreme weather events - like heatwaves, flooding and hurricanes - are predicted to get worse and more frequent with climate change. And most seem to think a significant contribution to the problem comes from man made sources with power stations being the largest emitters of greenhouse gases that cause it (with aviation being the fastest growing source).

The US compared with other countries is the biggest single source of greenhouse gases. How sure does the administration need to be before it will take action beyond agreeing to a single side of A4 of vague promises of working together on technology like it did earlier this year?

There will never be absolute certainty about climate change, it's causes and effects - science doesn't work like that - but IMO its definately more in the probable rather than possible camp now.

And before we all blame America - greenhouse gas emissions have been growing in this country (UK) over the last 10 years - and we are likely to breach our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol imminently.

Edited by greencat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the markets have factored in that this could happen EVERY YEAR and even become worse.

Yes, EVERY YEAR a few major US cities being wiped.

The market actually rose after Katrina, they seen the mass destruction as a good thing for the economy. Maybe we should destroy a city every week so we can all prosper!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the London insurance/reinsurance market exposure is to Katrina and now to a possibly 10x as devastating, Hurricane Rita?

Could loads of Lloyds toffs pre-empt a crash or is it all pension money gambled these days?

Ta, in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of interest:

Heatwave makes plants warm planet

By Richard Black

Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Summer of 2003; unusually and uncomfortably hot in Europe

A new study shows that during the 2003 heatwave, European plants produced more carbon dioxide than they absorbed from the atmosphere.

They produced nearly a tenth as much as fossil fuel burning globally.

The study shows that ecosystems which currently absorb CO2 from the atmosphere may in future produce it, adding to the greenhouse effect.

The 2003 European summer was abnormally hot; but other studies show that these temperatures could become commonplace.

In some parts of Europe, 2003 saw temperatures soaring six degrees Celsius above normal; hot enough that estimates of the deaths which it caused run into the tens of thousands.

It was also significantly drier than usual; and these two factors appear to have had a major impact on plant growth.

Up the tower

"The data we used mainly comes from a set of 18 flux towers which are set up across Europe," said Andrew Friend from the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (LSCE) in Gif-sur-Yvette near Paris, whose team published their study in the scientific journal Nature.

Harvests of some important crops declined in the heatwave

The towers, managed through a project called CarboEurope, measure the flow of carbon dioxide, water and energy between the atmosphere and the ground; most are set up n forests.

"About half of the mass of a plant is carbon; so by measuring the flow of CO2 into the plants, we can see how well they're doing," Dr Friend told the BBC News website.

The result coming from the 18 sites was that during 2003, plants took up less CO2 from the air and grew more slowly - a finding corroborated by satellite measurements of the area under leaf.

So much for natural ecosystems; but what about farmland?

Here, the researchers drew on data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, which showed a fall in European crop yields during the 2003 summer.

Putting all the data together, the headline figure is that overall, European lands were 20% less productive than during an average year.

"We expect that many crops will be affected by high temperatures, especially during critical phases of development such as flowering," said Professor Julia Slingo from the Natural Environment Research Council's Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling in the UK, who recently organised a Royal Society seminar on food crops in a changing climate.

"This study found that crops reaching maturity in August were particularly badly affected; some of the fall-off could be related to water stress, but could also have been related to high temperatures during flowering," she told the BBC News website.

"The heatwave also led to higher levels of ozone at ground level, and that can have damaging effects on plants."

Saint becomes sinner

Climate change: the science

The really surprising finding came with the calculation that during the heatwave, European plants and their ecosystems were putting more carbon dioxide into the air than they were absorbing.

"In the past we expected that climate change would benefit European ecosystems because growth tends to be limited by the short growing season," said Andrew Friend, "but this analysis hadn't taken into account the possibility of extreme events.

"The conclusion of our study is that this extreme event meant a loss of carbon across Europe - a loss which undoes many years of net uptake."

Plants can absorb and emit carbon dioxide and oxygen; the process of respiration takes oxygen in and releases CO2, whereas in photosynthesis, the reverse happens.

Other parts of the ecosystem such as soil bacteria can also contribute to the overall flow of these gases to and from the atmosphere.

During an average year, the net effect is that European plants absorb around 125 million tonnes of carbon (MtC).

But in 2003, according to this analysis, they released 500 MtC to the atmosphere.

By comparison, global emissions from burning fossil fuels amounts to about 7,000 MtC; by giving rather than taking, European plants were adding about 10% to the global total.

"This shows that short-term climatic events such as the 2003 heatwave occurring over regional areas like Europe can have major effects on the climate globally," commented Julia Slingo.

The heat to come

Europe's warmer future

The wider context for all this is a study published last year suggesting that summers as hot and dry as that of 2003 will become commonplace as the global climate changes.

"We concluded that on a middle-of-the-road scenario for emissions - assuming we don't do very much to combat climate change - temperature heatwaves as high as the one in 2003 would be occurring every other year by middle of this century," said Dr Myles Allen of Oxford University.

"By the end of the century, 2003 would be a cool year."

Plants could of course adapt to the changing climate, meaning that the switch from net absorption of CO2 to net production might not happen.

But, said Andrew Friend, this finding may be a sign of things to come.

"In the tropics, where it's already warm, higher temperatures are predicted to increase the flux of carbon from plants to the atmosphere," he said.

"We have generally assumed that in northern systems, we would see increased carbon uptake; but that might not be the case."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To give an indication of how powerful these things are, read this from the met-office web site.

"Only as little as 3% of the heat energy may be converted mechanical energy of the circulating winds. This relatively small amount of mechanical energy equates to a power supply of 360 billion kilowatt hours per day - or six months' supply of electrical energy for the whole of the USA!"

So... if we put a massive turbine in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico... we can generate power *and* reduce the energy of the hurricane. Sounds like a good idea to me. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember global warming is an unproven theory. Althought there is some evidence to support the theory, there is also evidence against it. See below.

Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember global warming is an unproven theory. Althought there is some evidence to support the theory, there is also evidence against it. See below.

Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.

We're not talking about global warming, which is a specific theory. We're talking about climate change, i.e., the fact that the actions of humans are having a direct & detrimental effect on our climate, probably for the first time in human existence. I guess some parts of the planet could become hotter, cooler, drier or wetter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're not talking about global warming, which is a specific theory. We're talking about climate change, i.e., the fact that the actions of humans are having a direct & detrimental effect on our climate, probably for the first time in human existence. I guess some parts of the planet could become hotter, cooler, drier or wetter.

Yes, I understand that, but isn't climate change blamed on global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive got an infinite wisdom that has been handed to me by the ancient gods, with this wisdom i have reached the unequivocal conclusion that...

The earth changes climate over many thousands of years but it is not a gradual change it comes in surges and snaps. The earth is in a constant state of change just like you and i ( i am not saying its a living entity though).

We have not caused global warming as such, we have just sped up what was going to happen by a couple of thousand years which in the grand scheme of the earth is nothing.

We cannot stop global warming, we can only slow it down to a point where mankind maybe in a better position to deal with it.

I hope that puts to rest any debate on global warming.

Edited by theChuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're not talking about global warming, which is a specific theory. We're talking about climate change, i.e., the fact that the actions of humans are having a direct & detrimental effect on our climate, probably for the first time in human existence. I guess some parts of the planet could become hotter, cooler, drier or wetter.

To say that because the ice sheet is expanding means that global warming is a flawed theory is logically inept...

There are theories to say that, as a result of increased mean temperature, there will be an increase of precipitation, and therefore an increase in ice-sheet. This is a temporary effect that will eventually be over-taken by the increased melt due to higher temperatures.

If its too cold, it won't snow... the air's capacity to contain moisture drops as the temperature drops...

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I understand that, but isn't climate change blamed on global warming?

I think that global warming is a simple theory going something like this... CO2 emissions (aka greenhouse gases) from burning of fossil fuels emissions decrease the amount of light that is reflected from the planet - thereby warming the planet. However, planet Earth has a huge buffering capacity and sinks this extra heat into complicated new weather patterns, e.g. hurricanes, and redistribution of the overall energy flow on the planet. For example, the gulf stream carries an immense amount of energy from tropic to northern temperate regions. If this were to change directions then Sweden would become a glacier in a few years.

I don't particlularly subscribe to the global warming idea and the public have a right to be skeptical. However, I do believe in climate change, for better or more probably for worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.