It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Decisions to name storms draw concern - Another Hit on Global Warming

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Decisions to name storms draw concern - Another Hit on Global Warming


www.chron.com

With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms.

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status.

"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."

Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.

Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Global Warming Theory takes a hit!
Global Warming's Senseless Consensus
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
Global Warming Theory takes a hit!




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Just another example of how Global Warming scaremongers try to shove hurricanes and global warming down our throats.....

Just because it reached a sustained wind of 39 miles an hour for a brief period of time.....name it....and yell about it....and blame MAN and GW Bush for it!

They are also naming storms regardless of where they form. If a storm forms far away from any coastline and never threatens land...should it really be named????

The other day winds were blowing close to 50 miles an hour at my house, granted they were gusts, but I did not start screaming tropical depression or tropical storm...... I did not demand that the weather pattern be named storm trader....



www.chron.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by traderonwallst
 

If I'm not mistaken, the determination on whether or not to name a storm is based on where it rates on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. If a storm meets the minimum criteria for a tropical storm, it gets named. That's pretty much how it's always been as far as I know.

Oh, and random storms don't become named tropical or sub-tropical storms because of wind speed. The origin of the storms is of importance, the type of rotation, etc. All storms with high speed winds are not automatically tropical storms, sub-tropical storms, or hurricanes.

Err, slight edit. While tropical depressions and storms are not explicitly covered on the Saffir-Simpson scale, it seems to be a generally accepted "addition" in that the qualifications are more or less standardized (wind speed/barometric pressure).



[edit on 11/29/2007 by shoran]



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by shoran
 

If you read the article it was pointed out that tropical depressions were being named as soon as they hit 39 miles per hour. Where he went on to explain that under his leadership he would wait more like a day before naming such storms.

I am just trying to point out that during the past few years, it has been global warming fearmongerers pointing to the increased amount of NAMED storms and have blamed htis on global warming, hence mankind and what we do, hence its Bush's fault. Just a little tired of the monotony going on there.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I think they're naming storms "more than they used to" because more of them are strengthening enough to be considered tropical storms. Once they're no longer tropical storms, they'd be downgraded to tropical depressions, and the majority from this past season seemed to stay tropical storms for an extended period of time (at least several days). But, the NHC is saying that they've been consistent in naming storms for the past 20 years. If you'll notice, that lines up pretty evenly with when the former director of the NHC left. Perhaps he was just more conservative at the time? The whole "global warming" thing hasn't been that much of an issue except within the past several years, and living in a hurricane prone area, I've not noticed much deviation from the norm aside from a greater number of stronger storms.

This past season was relatively quiet, though. A lot of named storms, but not many that did a whole lot. That's sort of a shame, because sometimes they can be pretty exciting!



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I think we are in for a super storm this year in the North East. Mainly because I get this feeling when it happens. Not a hurricane though, a blizzard storm. Which, by terminology, will only put another spike in this global warming scam.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
I think we are in for a super storm this year in the North East. Mainly because I get this feeling when it happens. Not a hurricane though, a blizzard storm. Which, by terminology, will only put another spike in this global warming scam.


Why would a super blizzard "put another spike" in the "global warming scam"? Or are you under the impression that increased temperatures only makes everything hot, and doesn't affect weather in other ways?

If it isn't obvious, I don't buy into the "zomg teh globul w4rm1ng is teh h0ax0rz" silliness. Climate change is real, can be observed relatively easily, and can hopefully be stalled by various consumption reforms. Whether or not people will step up to the plate, though, is another matter.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Climate change does exist, I will agree. The temperatures go up and they go down. CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES.

Its that easy. Please read the other threads I connected to in the first post.

Global warming is nothing more than the eart heating and cooling on its OWN!!!!!



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Listen, you guys can scream 'scam' all you want,

but a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this year for the work that somebody did to promote awareness and understanding of this very real problem we are having with our planet. The UN has had sessions with the sole purpose of learning more about and addressing the issue.(Al Gore)

You know, if the UN thinks it's a big enough problem to form a committee to address it, that's good enough for me to take a long hard look at the issue and try to help.(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

Denying the existence of the issue will not make it go away.

By the way, and this part is somewhat off topic, Have you ever stopped to look at Al Gore, who now has a shiny Nobel Prize, and say: "There but for a rigged election goes our President."?



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Listen, you guys can scream 'scam' all you want,

but a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this year for the work that somebody did to promote awareness and understanding of this very real problem we are having with our planet. The UN has had sessions with the sole purpose of learning more about and addressing the issue.(Al Gore)

You know, if the UN thinks it's a big enough problem to form a committee to address it, that's good enough for me to take a long hard look at the issue and try to help.(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)


This is the same UN that was illegally dealing with Saddam Hussein in a oil for food scandal? This is the same UN that can't handle the problem in Darfur? The same UN that disregards its own rulings over and over and allows countries to trample all over it????



Denying the existence of the issue will not make it go away.


Denying the existence of what? Climate change or MAN MADE global warming? I don't deny the existence of climate change, weather changes every day. It changes every week, every month, every year. There are a million variables that go into climate change, YET we blame global warming on MANKIND! I guess you just won't be happy until we are being taxed for every action we take. I just can't believe some people can't see the conspiracy in the global warming CROCK, but see a conspiracy in every other event that takes place in the world???



By the way, and this part is somewhat off topic, Have you ever stopped to look at Al Gore, who now has a shiny Nobel Prize, and say: "There but for a rigged election goes our President."?


See...another conspiracy. a rigged election. Do you know that despite several recounts by major newspapers around the county they still found that BUSH won...or do you deny that just for the sake of denying it? Yeah, the NOBEL peace prize was said to have been awarded for him getting the issues out there, but I am sorry when you use flawed data to get your point across your nothing more than flawed yourself. The IPCC at least puts a caveat on their work, letting you know in their Appendix (appendix A) that data and information can change and be updated if it is found to be incorrect, but their premise will not change regardless of what the data shows. Come on....how hypocritical is that????

[edit on 30-11-2007 by traderonwallst]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
They can give awards to Hitler. Does that make him automatically right?

GLobal Warming = scam to make poor poorer and Rich Richer.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Listen, you guys can scream 'scam' all you want,

but a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this year for the work that somebody did to promote awareness and understanding of this very real problem we are having with our planet. The UN has had sessions with the sole purpose of learning more about and addressing the issue.(Al Gore)

And a lot of it was outright lies. He only got it because he had people lobby for it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join