Hurricane Otis' Wind Speed Increased by 115 mph in 24 Hours. That's Normal... Right?

[Crick]

Ships recorded storms but nowhere the sophistication we have now with extended tracking because of satellites and air reconnaissance. Nobody would have been around to record an event that happened in Mexico or most parts of the rest of the world and all you spin won't change that you moron.

You Envionmental Wackos ain't too bright, are you? You deny real science and replace with your stupid AGW religion bullshit. You idiots are obsessed with it.

We do have records of hundreds of thousands of storms and thus have a very good record of how often rapid intensification takes place. You have yet to provide a shred of scientific evidence refuting my claims.

 

[ding]

We do have records of hundreds of thousands of storms and thus have a very good record of how often rapid intensification takes place. You have yet to provide a shred of scientific evidence refuting my claims.

Again... wind shear, water temperature and moisture in air.

 

[Crick]

Rapid intensification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Necessary conditions​

External​

In order for rapid intensification to occur, several conditions must be in place. Water temperatures must be extremely warm (near or above 30 °C, 86 °F), and water of this temperature must be sufficiently deep that waves do not churn deeper cooler waters up to the surface. Wind shear must be low; when wind shear is high, the convection and circulation in the cyclone will be disrupted.[2] Dry air can also limit the strengthening of tropical cyclones.[3]

Internal​

Usually, an anticyclone in the upper layers of the troposphere above the storm must also be present for extremely low surface pressures to develop. This is because air must be converging towards the low pressure at the surface, which the requires the air to rise very rapidly in the eyewall of the storm due to conservation of mass, which in turn also requires a divergence of wind at the top of the troposphere. This process is aided by an upper-level anticyclone which helps efficiently channel this air away from the cyclone.[4] Hot towers have been implicated in tropical cyclone rapid intensification, though they have diagnostically seen varied impacts across basins.[5]

 

[ding]

Rapid intensification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Necessary conditions​

External​

In order for rapid intensification to occur, several conditions must be in place. Water temperatures must be extremely warm (near or above 30 °C, 86 °F), and water of this temperature must be sufficiently deep that waves do not churn deeper cooler waters up to the surface. Wind shear must be low; when wind shear is high, the convection and circulation in the cyclone will be disrupted.[2] Dry air can also limit the strengthening of tropical cyclones.[3]

Internal​

Usually, an anticyclone in the upper layers of the troposphere above the storm must also be present for extremely low surface pressures to develop. This is because air must be converging towards the low pressure at the surface, which the requires the air to rise very rapidly in the eyewall of the storm due to conservation of mass, which in turn also requires a divergence of wind at the top of the troposphere. This process is aided by an upper-level anticyclone which helps efficiently channel this air away from the cyclone.[4] Hot towers have been implicated in tropical cyclone rapid intensification, though they have diagnostically seen varied impacts across basins.[5]

Repeat after me: cyclone development is a function of surface temperature, wind shear and the moisture in the air.

 

[Flash]

We do have records of hundreds of thousands of storms and thus have a very good record of how often rapid intensification takes place. You have yet to provide a shred of scientific evidence refuting my claims.

You idiot. You don't know jackshit about science. Only that stupid AGW religion you have.

How would there have been tacking on a hurricane say in 1903?

A coastal city would have recorded that it hit. Maybe even a guesstimate at the intensity. If it was a large city with a primitive weather station maybe measure rainfall and wind.

If another population area inland recorded it passing they would have a rough idea of the path.

They would have no idea on the marine path of the storm or how it intensified.

Maybe a ship at sea days earlier would have logged in seeing the storm. However, there was no database to connect the two.

There could have been thousands of these rapidity intensifying storms hit in the past and we wouldn't know.

Not as fast as the one hitting Mexico but Hurricane Andrew that hit Miami 30 years ago had rapid intensification pretty close to landfall. In fact it was Hurricane Andrew that caused NOAA to greatly increase its tracking capabilities.

Nothing to do with your AGW God, you moron.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The probability it has occurred before is unknown, which tends to the possibility it has occurred. We just have no evidence.

Uncle.

^note link, crankypants.

 

[Mushroom]

So you think that's normal?

Yes

 

[Mushroom]

conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"

I see, so to you, tropical storms are like puppies.

Maybe we should spank it and send it to bed without dinner for being a bad hurricane.

 

[Mushroom]

We do have records of hundreds of thousands of storms and thus have a very good record of how often rapid intensification takes place.

Over a time period of around 150 years.

On a planet that is over 4.5 billion years old, and a current continental arrangement that is only around 2.5 million years old.

That is something like taking a snapshot of the climate conditions at 11:59:30 PM, and saying that is the "normal".

But that's OK. Things are only going to get a hell of a lot worse from here. Because we know as we grow closer to a full interglacial, the storms will only increase. And push even farther inland. Hurricanes are amazingly efficient mechanisms for transferring huge amounts of water inland. And ultimately, they will be responsible for turning much of the arid regions of the planet green. Because a great many are going to need a thousand of years still or more to recover from what happened to them in the dry era of the current ice age.

Our planet is almost always much hotter than it is now, and much wetter. The geological and fossil evidence proves this. We are simply still in an exceptionally cold period, where it is trying to warm itself as much as it can.

 

[Flash]

The stupid Environmental Wacko Science Deniers look at odd weather as a sure sign that their AGW God is reaking havoc on us polluting humans.

How rare are tornadoes in Washington DC? None that caused any significant damage have happen in my lifetime and I was born when Harry Truman was President. There have been a few waterspouts but tornadoes are extremely rare in the area.

One happen in 1814. It was a bad one. The day the British turds tried to burn down DC. A massive tornado hit in the afternoon. Not only did it put out most of the fires the Brits started but it killed more soldiers than the American resistance to the invasion.

Was that caused by AGW?

 

[Mushroom]

And yes, our current "Climate Cycle" only began around 2.5 million years ago. The current arrangement of continents "broke" how our planet had almost always been in the past and is what put us on the almost endless cycle of ice ages. They planet wants to be be warmer, but the arrangement of the continents prevents that.

If somebody wants an idea of what geologists think of past climates, here is an informative video that should explain things a bit.



But if somebody wants to ignore all the preface parts and jump to the part about the climate, jump to around 6:30. That is where it starts to go into the climate and foliage.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Our planet is almost always much hotter than it is now, and much wetter. The geological and fossil evidence proves this. We are simply still in an exceptionally cold period, where it is trying to warm itself as much as it can.

Weeeeee! Witness choosy deniers, those most dedicated, zoom way off,.. far, far from any link to mankind let alone the Industrial Revolution.. Whoaaaaaa! Waaaahooo!

 

[Mushroom]

Witness choosy deniers

laughs

"Denier"? How am I a "denier", when I am saying that things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer. Because that has always happened in the past?

Welcome to Florida, during the last interglacial:

Notice that pretty much everything south of Palm Beach is underwater. We know this for a fact, because modern Miami is built upon multiple tropical coral reefs that formed during the past interglacials.

It is not "denial", it is simply recognizing that we are in yet another cycle that has happened before, and will happen again. And continue to happen for several million more years until continental drift finally breaks apart North and South America and our climate can start to return to what is more "normal" for the planet.

Tell me, do you deny geology? Because that is what I am using. The over 4 billion year old geological record.

Myself, I find the "ultimate deniers" are those that absolutely refuse to accept the geological record, and insist that the current climate and conditions are "normal".

 

[ding]

Weeeeee! Witness choosy deniers, those most dedicated, zoom way off,.. far, far from any link to mankind let alone the Industrial Revolution.. Whoaaaaaa! Waaaahooo!

You are getting schooled, bro.

Maybe you should use this handy dandy chart to gauge your responses. Elevate your game.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Denier"? How am I a "denier", when I am saying that things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer. Because that has always happened in the past?

You're denying the anthropomorphic aspect.. obviously.. like DUH!

 

[ding]

You're denying the anthropomorphic aspect.. obviously.. like DUH!

It would be wonderful if you actually understood that the feedback from their models is 2 to 3 times the radiative forcing effect of CO2 and that is what people are rejecting. There is no butterfly effect and if there were it certainly wouldn't be 2 to 3 times the GHG effect of CO2.

Because if that were the case, the planet would have never transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet with 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

 

[Mushroom]

You're denying the anthropomorphic aspect

And how exactly is it any different from every other interglacial we have ever had?

Do you think that the increasing intensity of tropical storms would not have happened if not for humans? Do you think that if not for humans most of Florida would not be slowly sinking underwater? So you think that if not for humans, we would still be inhabiting Doggerland and everything at roughly the US-Canada border still be under a mile thick ice sheet?

So you not believe in Evolution, and that all species must adapt or die to changing conditions?

Do you think the planet is static, and as it is now is how it should always remain into the future? Or do you accept it is a dynamic and changing planet that is always transforming and changing?

Do you believe in Plate Tectonics, and recognize that our current continental arrangement is a 2.5 million year old aberration that most geologists admit had likely never happened before and may never happen again?

I believe in science, and that is all I discuss. "Anthropomorphic" is a political phrase that has no real place in science.

In fact, I will go even one better. There was only one time in the history of the planet that living beings actually affected the planet. Changing the composition of the atmosphere and leaving a clear geological record. And that living being is not humans.

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Climate change - Energy Education

energyeducation.ca