Hurricanes almost NEVER cross the equator. This is because (in the atlantic at least) they develop close to the equator as tropical depressions (whether in the northern OR southern hemisphere) and then move away from the equator as they get larger, ultimately becoming hurricanes.
click this link to see a picture of two hurricanes in different hemispheres. The one on the left is in the Southern Hemisphere (over the Northwestern coast of Australia it seems). FUN FACT: In Australia hurricanes are called "cyclones", in Asia "typhoons".
Read up on the coriolis effect, it's the reason hurricanes (and most storms for that matter) spin in different directions in different hemispheres, it's the same reason that hurricanes move away from the equator. wikipedia on the coriolis effect
where's my meteorology buffs at?
an inconvenient truth
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
Okay fine Andy, I'll tell you.
If (and this is practically impossible) a hurricane were to cross the equator, it would break into two different storms, one of those storms would turn around and head north again, and the other storm would head south.
And then, and remeber this is all hypothetical, the first storm would travel far north where it would combine with another storm to form a flawless tempest that would overcome and eventually destroy a boat carrying George Clooney & Mark Wahlberg (who will actually be playing fisherman).
The second storm would travel far south, where it would slowly become a bright opalescent color, and would gain strength, becoming an ivory cyclone that would eventually overcome and destroy a boat with Jeff Bridges and a bunch of prep school boys on it (of course Jeff Bridges would be playing a hard-nosed sailing instructor and the boys would all be actors).
How shitty would that be.
You're welcome.
If (and this is practically impossible) a hurricane were to cross the equator, it would break into two different storms, one of those storms would turn around and head north again, and the other storm would head south.
And then, and remeber this is all hypothetical, the first storm would travel far north where it would combine with another storm to form a flawless tempest that would overcome and eventually destroy a boat carrying George Clooney & Mark Wahlberg (who will actually be playing fisherman).
The second storm would travel far south, where it would slowly become a bright opalescent color, and would gain strength, becoming an ivory cyclone that would eventually overcome and destroy a boat with Jeff Bridges and a bunch of prep school boys on it (of course Jeff Bridges would be playing a hard-nosed sailing instructor and the boys would all be actors).
How shitty would that be.
You're welcome.
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
-
- kbadr Offline
- Posts: 3614
- Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 9:00 am
- Location: Austin, TX (Kareem Badr)
- Contact:
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
-
- nadine Offline
- Posts: 915
- Joined: November 28th, 2005, 1:05 pm
- Location: quantum probability
- Contact:
Wes, you should go see this movie. I just saw it yesterday... and it addressed a lot of the issues that you've brought up.Wesley wrote:I'm still on the fence about global warming, at least as far as humans are concerned.
One interesting thing Gore mentioned was the misconception that scientists are half and half divided on global warming:
A sample of about 900+ global warming articles from scientific peer-reviewed journals, and they all agreed on global warming.
And yet when sampling popular mass media, about 54% of them disagreed that global warming is happening.
It's part of the same media smoke and mirrors we see often nowadays.. to make global warming a "theory" rather than a "fact".
He also covered temperature trends and such, and what we're seeing now in a few years compared to the thousands of years before, and previous cycles of ice age and warming makes the current decade an anomoly.
Anyways, check it out. He explains it better then me. At the very least, it'll give you an idea of what people who believe in global warming think.
To reinforce the premise behind Nadine's assertion which restates Al Gore's statement that counters Wesley's statement regarding being "on the fence" about human contributions global warming (i.e., 100% agreement in over 900 peer-reviewed journals vs. nearly 50% disagreement in newspaper and popular media articles on the same subject)... this is why scientists generally hate the media.
(Full disclosure: I myself have an advanced degree in chemistry; I read actual scientific journals, which most people find very dry and boring and filled with too many "data" and "facts"; I find the science sections of newspapers to be laughable.)
As a scientist, one (ideally) reads and writes papers with the purpose of supporting a theory or discrediting a theory, by means of reporting data that can be reproduced and verified. Scientists who try to publish papers with shoddy work are generally shot down and openly castigated within the community. Scientists who seek personal fame and publish sensational, attention-grabbing papers are usually reviled. Scientists who go against the mainstream with unorthodox explanations for physical observations, however, are generally engaged in strong discourse by their scientific peers who review the work. This leads to more research, and eventually to more data to support of discredit each theory.
Newspapers, on the other hand, print stories that will stir readers to buy the paper. If a story can be controversial and inflame parties on both sides of an issue, then both sides will buy the paper to read that article, and the paper will sell. The directive to sell papers is, in my non-journalistic opinion, a greater priority than the directive to print truthful, well-researched articles. (Apologies to any journalists reading this, you yellow fictionalist tools.)
The argument Wes asserted that different methods were used to collect data, and thus led to improper comparisons, is many years old. After a few very public claims in the 1980s that the methods invalidated the conclusions, a number of scientists went back to compare studies and standardize methods. However, those didn't make for a good story, and they gave opponents of the conclusions no room for argument, so the same "inconsistent methods" claim kept on being trotted out. If anybody had actually bothered to do their homework and check out papers from respected scientific journals, they would have found what Gore did--complete agreement in peer-reviewed articles using standarized methods and reproducible data.
There are many scientific debates that are still open: dark energy, cosmic string theory, the cost-efficiency of solar power, and more. That human contributions to the atmospheric levels of CO2 are directly affecting global climate is not one of them.
p.s. If anybody wants to geek out about lasers and the new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD technology, that's what my grad school reseach was on. Some damn Japanese guy figured it out before I did though.
(Full disclosure: I myself have an advanced degree in chemistry; I read actual scientific journals, which most people find very dry and boring and filled with too many "data" and "facts"; I find the science sections of newspapers to be laughable.)
As a scientist, one (ideally) reads and writes papers with the purpose of supporting a theory or discrediting a theory, by means of reporting data that can be reproduced and verified. Scientists who try to publish papers with shoddy work are generally shot down and openly castigated within the community. Scientists who seek personal fame and publish sensational, attention-grabbing papers are usually reviled. Scientists who go against the mainstream with unorthodox explanations for physical observations, however, are generally engaged in strong discourse by their scientific peers who review the work. This leads to more research, and eventually to more data to support of discredit each theory.
Newspapers, on the other hand, print stories that will stir readers to buy the paper. If a story can be controversial and inflame parties on both sides of an issue, then both sides will buy the paper to read that article, and the paper will sell. The directive to sell papers is, in my non-journalistic opinion, a greater priority than the directive to print truthful, well-researched articles. (Apologies to any journalists reading this, you yellow fictionalist tools.)
The argument Wes asserted that different methods were used to collect data, and thus led to improper comparisons, is many years old. After a few very public claims in the 1980s that the methods invalidated the conclusions, a number of scientists went back to compare studies and standardize methods. However, those didn't make for a good story, and they gave opponents of the conclusions no room for argument, so the same "inconsistent methods" claim kept on being trotted out. If anybody had actually bothered to do their homework and check out papers from respected scientific journals, they would have found what Gore did--complete agreement in peer-reviewed articles using standarized methods and reproducible data.
There are many scientific debates that are still open: dark energy, cosmic string theory, the cost-efficiency of solar power, and more. That human contributions to the atmospheric levels of CO2 are directly affecting global climate is not one of them.
p.s. If anybody wants to geek out about lasers and the new Blu-Ray or HD-DVD technology, that's what my grad school reseach was on. Some damn Japanese guy figured it out before I did though.
Facts
Dudes
I'm late getting into this, but if you think there's any serious disagreement in the scientific community about global warming in the scientific community, then you've been swallowing too much Fox News.
The fact is that among studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals, there is close to 100% agreement about global warming: it's happening and we're causing it.
Most of the "scientists" being dispatched to cable news are funded by energy lobbies. Their purpose: to muddy the debate. To create the illusion of a scientific controversy.
I'm late getting into this, but if you think there's any serious disagreement in the scientific community about global warming in the scientific community, then you've been swallowing too much Fox News.
The fact is that among studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals, there is close to 100% agreement about global warming: it's happening and we're causing it.
Most of the "scientists" being dispatched to cable news are funded by energy lobbies. Their purpose: to muddy the debate. To create the illusion of a scientific controversy.
--Jastroch
"Racewater dishtrack. Finese red dirt warfs. Media my volumn swiftly" - Arrogant.
"Racewater dishtrack. Finese red dirt warfs. Media my volumn swiftly" - Arrogant.
