Strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest smashes all-time pressure records

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:09 PM GMT on October 27, 2010

Share this Blog
10
+

Tornadoes, violent thunderstorms, and torrential rains swept through a large portion of the nation's midsection yesterday, thanks to the strongest storm ever recorded in the Midwest. NOAA's Storm Prediction Center logged 24 tornado reports and 282 reports of damaging high winds from yesterday's spectacular storm, and the storm continues to produce a wide variety of wild weather, with tornado watches posted for Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, a blizzard warning for North Dakota, high wind warnings for most of the upper Midwest, and near-hurricane force winds on Lake Superior.

The mega-storm reached peak intensity late yesterday afternoon over Minnesota, resulting in the lowest barometric pressure readings ever recorded in the continental United States, except for from hurricanes and nor'easters affecting the Atlantic seaboard. So far, it appears the lowest reading (now official) was a pressure of 28.21" (955.2 mb) reduced to sea level reported from Bigfork, Minnesota at 5:13pm CDT. Other extreme low pressures from Minnesota during yesterday's storm included 28.22" (956 mb) at Orr at 5:34pm CDT, 28.23" at International Falls (3:45pm), and 28.23" at Waskuh at 5:52pm. The 28.23" (956mb) reading from International Falls yesterday obliterated their previous record of 28.70" set on Nov. 11, 1949 by nearly one-half inch of mercury--a truly amazing anomaly. Duluth's 28.36" (961 mb) reading smashed their old record of 28.48" (964 mb) set on Nov. 11, 1998. Wisconsin also recorded its lowest barometric pressure in history yesterday, with a 28.36" (961 mb) reading at Superior. The old record was 28.45" (963.4 mb) at Green Bay on April 3, 1982. The previous state record for Minnesota was 28.43" (963 mb) at Albert Lea and Austin on Nov. 10, 1998.


Figure 1. Visible satellite image of the October 26, 2010 superstorm taken at 5:32pm EDT. At the time, Bigfork, Minnesota was reporting the lowest pressure ever recorded in a U.S. non-coastal storm, 955 mb. Image credit: NASA/GSFC.

Yesterday's records in context
Yesterday's 28.21" (955 mb) low pressure reading in Minnesota breaks not only the 28.28" (958 mb) previous "USA-interior-of-the-continent-record" from Cleveland, Ohio during the Great Ohio Storm of Jan. 26, 1978 (a lower reading in Canada during this event bottomed out at an amazing 28.05"/950 mb), but also the lowest pressure ever measured anywhere in the continental United States aside from the Atlantic Coast. The modern Pacific Coast record is 28.40" (962mb) at Quillayute, Washington on Dec. 1, 1987. An older reading, taken on a ship offshore from the mouth of the Umpqua River in Oregon during the famous "Storm King" event on January 9, 1880, was 28.20" (954.9 mb)--slightly lower than the 2010 storm.

The lowest non-hurricane barometric pressure reading in the lower 48 states is 28.10" (952 mb) measured at Bridgehampton, New York (Long Island) during an amazing nor'easter on March 1, 1914 (see Kocin and Uccellini, "Northeast Snowstorms; Vol. 2., p. 324, American Meteorological Society, 2004.) The lowest non-hurricane barometric pressure reading from anywhere in the United States was a 27.35" (927 mb) reading at Dutch Harbor, Alaska on Oct. 25, 1977. The lowest hurricane pressure reading was the 26.34" (892 mb) recorded in 1935 during the Great Labor Day Hurricane.


Figure 2. Storm reports received by NOAA's Storm Prediction Center from the October 26, 2010 superstorm.

The six most intense storms in history to affect the Great Lakes
According to the Chicago branch of the National Weather Service and Christopher C. Burt, our Weather Records blogger, the following are the six lowest pressures measured in the U.S. Great Lakes region:

1. Yesterday's October 26, 2010 Superstorm (955 mb/28.20")
2. Great Ohio Blizzard January 26, 1978 (958 mb/28.28")
3. Armistice Day Storm November 11, 1940 (967 mb/28.55")
4. November 10, 1998 storm (967 mb/ 28.55")
5. White Hurricane of November 7 - 9, 1913 (968 mb/28.60")
6. Edmund Fitzgerald Storm of November 10, 1975 (980 mb/28.95")

So, the famed storm that sank the ore carrier Edmund Fitzgerald in 1974, killing all 29 sailors aboard, was weaker than the current storm. Indeed, I wouldn't want to be on a boat in Lake Superior today--sustained winds at the Rock of Ages lighthouse on Isle Royale were a sustained 68 mph, gusting to 78 mph at 3am EDT this morning!

Yet Another Remarkable Mid-latitude Cyclone so far this Year!
Yesterday's superstorm is reminiscent of the amazing low pressures reached earlier this year (Jan. 19-22) in the West, where virtually every site in California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, southern Oregon, and southern Idaho--about 10 - 15% of the U.S. land area--broke their lowest on record pressure readings. However, the lowest readings from that event fell well short of yesterday's mega-storm with 28.85" (977 mb) being about the lowest recorded at any onshore site.

Commentary
We've now had two remarkable extratropical storms this year in the U.S. that have smashed all-time low pressure records across a large portion of the country. Is this a sign that these type of storms may be getting stronger? Well, there is evidence that wintertime extratropical storms have grown in intensity in the Pacific, Arctic, and Great Lakes in recent decades. I discuss the science in detail in a post I did earlier this year. Here is an excerpt from that post:

General Circulation Models (GCMs) like the ones used in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report do a very good job simulating how winter storms behave in the current climate, and we can run simulations of the atmosphere with extra greenhouse gases to see how winter storms will behave in the future. The results are very interesting. Global warming is expected to warm the poles more than the equatorial regions. This reduces the difference in temperature between the pole and Equator. Since winter storms form in response to the atmosphere's need to transport heat from the Equator to the poles, this reduced temperature difference reduces the need for winter storms, and thus the models predict fewer storms will form. However, since a warmer world increases the amount of evaporation from the surface and puts more moisture in the air, these future storms drop more precipitation. During the process of creating that precipitation, the water vapor in the storm must condense into liquid or frozen water, liberating "latent heat"--the extra heat that was originally added to the water vapor to evaporate it in the first place. This latent heat intensifies the winter storm, lowering the central pressure and making the winds increase. So, the modeling studies predict a future with fewer total winter storms, but a greater number of intense storms. These intense storms will have more lift, and will thus tend to drop more precipitation--including snow, when we get areas of strong lift in the -15°C preferred snowflake formation region.

Invest 90L
A low pressure system (Invest 90L) in the middle Atlantic Ocean has developed a broad circulation, but has very limited heavy thunderstorm activity. NHC is giving 90L a 10% of developing into a tropical depression by Friday. Another area of disturbed weather a few hundred miles west of 90L is disorganized, and is also being given a 10% chance of developing.

Next update
I'll have an update on Thursday morning. I'm at the National Hurricane Center in Miami this week, as part of their visiting scientist program, and hopefully the weather in the rest of the country will slow down enough so I can write about goings-on here at the Hurricane Center!

Christopher C. Burt is responsible for most of the content of this post, with the exception of the commentary, which I wrote.

Jeff Masters

The Big Blow! (pjpix)
This photo and the other in my series were both take from the same spot ... just different directions and just a representative scene mirroring so many others here in the midwest. These were taken yesterday morning right after the thunderstorm front had gone through but the winds continued to increase in intensity as the barometer dropped ... to a record low in some midwest spots. The big Blow was the equivlant of a Cat 2 or Cat 3 hurricane and indeed a very unusual storm in the upper midwest for this time of the year.
The Big Blow!
Cell Rotation Animation (SunsetSailor)
Gif Created on Make A Gif
Cell Rotation Animation
()
Disappearing Pier 5 (mactoot)
I posted a video of continuous hits at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckrpWF-dXwU
Disappearing Pier 5
October Storm (cambuck1)
October Storm

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 348 - 298

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting AEKDB1990:


Calusakat, nowhere did scientists admit to falsifying data to fit their views. Every independent review has exonerated the global warming studies of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

So what you said is completely false.


Yes, they did, in leaked e-mail communications between each other. I am not surprised you feign not knowing. Apparently you don't read much except for left leaning blogs.

The standard news media has repeatedly reported on statements by several agencies that they routinely alter data.

Nobody is lying, you are simply sadly mistaken.

Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
speaking of FL thunderstorms.. anyone notice the lack of thunderstorms we saw in rainy season in Florida? I had a supercell like thunderstorm in June, but most I had the entire rainy season was the occasional shower at best.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Save ya debatin about GW for post season.. still hurricane season as mother nature is reminding us.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Same as it ever was.....sigh....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

You neglected to mention Koch Industries, the huge privately-owned energy (and other industries) company that has bankrolled the pretend "grassroots" Tea Party from its beginnings.

I suppose it's understandable--if not at all logical--to refer to any regulation as "socialism". It's such an easy label, and one few understand. Unions that helped put an end to child-labor were considered socialist by those profiting from the children/slaves working in their factories, as was Ralph Nader when he helped force the auto industry to adopt reasonable safety devices in American cars, as were those who thought that cigarette ads shouldn't be aimed at children, and so on. Education here is the only key.


FWIW, I'm presently involved with a client who sells an item similar to the Blue Line, and I've answered your question before, several times. But that's almost beside the point; the first stage of breaking an addiction is working through the denial...and there are tens of millions in denial that anything needs to be done. Until that's done, ain't nothing happening, I'm afraid...

sigh...


Actually, wrt regulation, I have discovered the smart meter is a creation of... Republicans (energy bill of 2005).

There is no center is the problem
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting Jeff9641:
If Orlando hits 90 next Tuesday which is possible before strong thiunderstorms roll in late in the day that would go down as the hottest day ever recorded in November.
sorry, 90 not too likely in orlando next tuesday....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

...The problem arises, of course, when things get so heated that those on either side lose all sense of decorum and resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks, spouting of baseless "facts" and made up or unsourced "figures", and just general all-around trollish behavior (sock-puppeting, obfuscation, and so on).

However, having said all that, there's this: much as some would like to believe it were otherwise, both sides of the debate are not on equal scientific footing: ever since the days of Galileo, it's been proven that science trumps all. Always has, always will...


Yeah, like Venus has clouds so that means there are dinosaurs on the planet...or, the earth is flat.

It is NOT science that TRUMPS ALL as you would love to believe. It is FACTS that TRUMP ALL. Science is SUPPOSED to be there to INTERPRET those facts and come to conclusions.

Sadly, you have yet to address the fact that a 97% agreement is statistically a fantasy. Or that several agencies admit to altering the raw data upon which those supposedly scientific conclusions are based. Mirroring WIKILEAKS, leaked e-mail communications reveal that scientists in Brittan and around the world admitted to altering the data just so that it would fit their views.

Hardly scientific by any means of measurement.

AGW may well prove to be true, the very least they can do is use honest and unalterd data to support their conclusions. While they are at it, they really owe it to the entire population of this planet to use certified equipment and placement methods to further insure the absolute accuracy of their information as opposed to adjustments being an accepted methodology as is done today.

Doing anything less is simple unacceptable and reprehensible.

Member Since: October 10, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting EnergyMoron:
THE DENIAL IS NOT COMING FROM MOST IN "BIG ENERGY". Valero and Tesoro (VLO and TSO stock symbols) are the ones funding YES to proposition 23 in California

You neglected to mention Koch Industries, the huge privately-owned energy (and other industries) company that has bankrolled the pretend "grassroots" Tea Party from its beginnings.
Quoting EnergyMoron:
I deal with the gas folks daily and it is not the science that upsets them it is the socialism that accompanies the science.

I suppose it's understandable--if not at all logical--to refer to any regulation as "socialism". It's such an easy label, and one few understand. Unions that helped put an end to child-labor were considered socialist by those profiting from the children/slaves working in their factories, as was Ralph Nader when he helped force the auto industry to adopt reasonable safety devices in American cars, as were those who thought that cigarette ads shouldn't be aimed at children, and so on. Education here is the only key.

Quoting EnergyMoron:
So, Nea... my solar panels are doing great. What are you doing to reduce your energy use?

FWIW, I'm presently involved with a client who sells an item similar to the Blue Line, and I've answered your question before, several times. But that's almost beside the point; the first stage of breaking an addiction is working through the denial...and there are tens of millions in denial that anything needs to be done. Until that's done, ain't nothing happening, I'm afraid...

sigh...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting intampa:
mr neapoliton you forget... in todays world facts and science are looked down upon with suspicion. knowledge is of the devil and a questioning mind is evil. money is our new science and our new gods are big corporations.


Actually, I agree with this to a point (consumerism worship of money... get solar panels you are a producer not a consumer!) but it is the public that demands the lowest possible price.

Everybody complains about the high cost of energy in this country even at 4 dollar gasoline, even though it is dirt cheap.

It is John Q Public who wants cheap energy
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
So now, I ask, anybody have some really cool links to site that have to do with analyzing Severe Weather, Tropical Weather, and Winter Weather?
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32015
Hey Guys! I never really realized how cool Firefox was until I actually got it.

However, it wasn't voluntary. We got a virus yesterday, and when we got rid of it, we were forced to delete everything we had on the computer.

That means that all my pictures from this year were deleted...I have nothing.....
Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32015
wow another invest to ponder...just when I think we are all done blob watching for the season
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
mr neapoliton you forget... in todays world facts and science are looked down upon with suspicion. knowledge is of the devil and a questioning mind is evil. money is our new science and our new gods are big corporations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RipplinH2O:
You're quoteing my "an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas that it's possible" in an easter bunny example? On the GW discussion, you DO refuse to accept that the other side's ideas may be possible. As such, you will never get a legitimate debate. Your science lacks art...but preach on if you feel so inclined.

You seem to be (intentionally?) missing my point, so perhaps I made it too obscure for you. Please allow me to try again: those who believe in the Easter Bunny have no scientific backing. Those who believe the planet isn't warming have no scientific backing. Was that comparison clearer? ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
DOE Energy Efficiency Busts

I love it. I love it.

The company that sold me a green product (a very expensive solar one) that increased my carbon footprint (I have bills to prove it) was busted for violating US energy efficiency standards.

I love it. I love it.
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Quoting RipplinH2O:
You're quoteing my "an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas that it's possible" in an easter bunny example? On the GW discussion, you DO refuse to accept that the other side's ideas may be possible. As such, you will never get a legitimate debate. Your science lacks art...but preach on if you feel so inclined.


Actually, I was labeled a "denier" on another site for supporting the IPCC position.
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
You're quoteing my "an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas that it's possible" in an easter bunny example? On the GW discussion, you DO refuse to accept that the other side's ideas may be possible. As such, you will never get a legitimate debate. Your science lacks art...but preach on if you feel so inclined.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RipplinH2O:
Thanks for proving my point Neo, and I agree science does trump all. "Believers", "non-believers", "those who disagree with the theory of GW generally disbelieve what scientists have to say", "those who agree with that theory generally disbelieve what Big Energy CEOs have to say"...label, label, agenda, agenda, and an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas as possible. Your a math guy, but sometimes the interpretation of the numbers is more important that the numbers themselves, and interpretations are, by definition, subjective.

Ripplin: I've made it known long and loud and clear that I believe wholeheartedly that the planet is warming and that man's activities are to blame. No surprise there. I've also made it clear, I think, that the only logical way to debate this is with science versus science. That is, if someone can put peer-reviewed data--a basic plank of modern science--up against differing peer-reviewed data, I'll listen, and listen intently. But when some here respond to peer-reviewed scientific data only with things they've read on the ExxonMobil website or heard on one radio talk show or another, I simply won't listen. Not because I'm close-minded or agenda-driven, but because it's nothing more than baseless drivel that has no part in a serious scientific debate...and one on whose outcome nothing less than the fate of mankind may hinge.

You know, I can't "prove" that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, though if you presented me with reams and reams of peer-reviewed scientific data stating that he is indeed real, I'll be willing to change my mind. However, please don't accuse me of "an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas that it's possible" if all you can produce is marketing material from candy and plastic egg manufacturers, and news releases from the International Association Of Department Store Bunnies. ;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RipplinH2O:
Thanks for proving my point Neo, and I agree science does trump all. "Believers", "non-believers", "those who disagree with the theory of GW generally disbelieve what scientists have to say", "those who agree with that theory generally disbelieve what Big Energy CEOs have to say"...label, label, agenda, agenda, and an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas as possible. Your a math guy, but sometimes the interpretation of the numbers is more important that the numbers themselves, and interpretations are, by definition, subjective.


I am going to agree with you and back it up with logic and not ad hominem attacks.

Let's start with Dr. Hansen. He might be a lightning rod name but at least I respect his passion and knowledge and he has the right idea for solving things.

Link

"We had been going from coal to oil to [natural] gas, each one being less carbon-intensive. But now all of a sudden we're leaping back toward coal. That is the big concern, because that's where the huge potential CO2 amount is."--Dr. Hansen


Is coal the future of energy in America? The latest (Obama administration) EIA numbers say so.

The API (American Petroleum Institute) once again acted today against its own apparent self-interest

API insanity

1) They are against ozone restrictions
2) Greenhouse gas restrictions.

Why are they acting against there own interest?

Dated coal versus natural gas economics

Okay, maybe a new reality but basically states with dirty coal generation pay less than states with cleaner generation.

Hey guys, you want green, pay money. It is that simple. The API, while recognizing its product is green, just doesn't want to force you to pay more money for it.

It would be in the apparent best interest of the API to have greenhouse gas limits since COAL is cheaper and is the biggest offender (2.25 times on a pre-efficiency basis; coal is less efficient; coal takes railroads and barges to transport).

Hello. API is against something that is actually in their apparent best interest to embrace (AGW) since this really promotes CH4 as a good fuel (Hansen has good things to say about this).

THE DENIAL IS NOT COMING FROM MOST IN "BIG ENERGY". Valero and Tesoro (VLO and TSO stock symbols) are the ones funding YES to proposition 23 in California (my company has come out publically against it).

Stop blaming big energy... it is simply NOT in our best interests to not penalize coal.

I deal with the gas folks daily and it is not the science that upsets them it is the socialism that accompanies the science.

It is in the APIs best interest to ban coal. Period.

So, Nea... my solar panels are doing great. What are you doing to reduce your energy use?

Here is a great website:

Save money, go green

Save money, go green... methinks even free market folks will like that!!!
Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
Since I started this, it's not that I'm ignoring any posts for the next couple of hours, I'm just taking my bride to dinner. I think a debate on the art (notice I did not say science) of debate would do this blog some good. With this GW discussion (notice I didn't say debate), science without art is every bit as bad as art without science. I'll be back in a few and I'll also answer an WUmails should they arrive.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CJ5:


This is where you run into trouble trying to make your point. You can bash "Big Energy" all you want. It only reinforces the other side, as it clearly makes you look agenda driven. Big Energy is not the cause of AGW. Drop those little leftist attacks and you may actually get logical debate.

Come again? Since when is stating a truism "bashing"? Since when does repeating facts comprise a "leftist attack"? Again, I'm merely stating the obvious--in fact, the obvious as repeated by Big Energy folks. Please don't just cast aspersions on me without at least backing up those aspersions with facts; please tell me precisely where you feel that I attacked or bashed. That is, if you can...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good afternoon everyone, Is it August 27th or October 27th in the Central Atlantic?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting stormpetrol:
Kinda creepy looking invest in that area for this time of year


The only thing that bothers me is that models are quite conservative at least with 91L....
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
here is a nice movie called home give a watch its 1hr 30 so mins long

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Sorry, my friend, but discussing science at a mature level, and in as non-emotional way as possible, is absolutely not trolling. At least it fits no definition of the term that I've ever heard. GW is an oft-debated subject, so emotions do tend to run high at times, as the two basic sides in the debate each feel they have solid reasons for feeling as they do: those who disagree with the theory of GW generally disbelieve what scientists have to say, while those who agree with that theory generally disbelieve what Big Energy CEOs have to say. Believers rely on the overwhelming data, while non-believers rely on the words of those with a hugely vested interest in keeping things as they are--and never the twain shall meet.

The problem arises, of course, when things get so heated that those on either side lose all sense of decorum and resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks, spouting of baseless "facts" and made up or unsourced "figures", and just general all-around trollish behavior (sock-puppeting, obfuscation, and so on).

However, having said all that, there's this: much as some would like to believe it were otherwise, both sides of the debate are not on equal scientific footing: ever since the days of Galileo, it's been proven that science trumps all. Always has, always will...
Thanks for proving my point Neo, and I agree science does trump all. "Believers", "non-believers", "those who disagree with the theory of GW generally disbelieve what scientists have to say", "those who agree with that theory generally disbelieve what Big Energy CEOs have to say"...label, label, agenda, agenda, and an overall refusal to accept the other side's ideas as possible. Your a math guy, but sometimes the interpretation of the numbers is more important that the numbers themselves, and interpretations are, by definition, subjective.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Actually, three circles were added -- there's one in the Pacific as well.
Member Since: October 15, 2008 Posts: 11 Comments: 2312
F1 Tornado Mecklenburg VA:
Numerous large trees down, limbs torn off, and one old shed collapsed.
One tree fell on car. Path width approximately 1/4 mile (length approximately 1.27 miles.
Rating low end EF1, with max winds in the 70-80 mph range.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6485
Quoting sunlinepr:
Kinda creepy looking invest in that area for this time of year
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tornado Warnings lining up in Virginia:

TORNADO WARNING
VAC025-117-272230-
/O.NEW.KAKQ.TO.W.0044.101027T2138Z-101027T2230Z/

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
TORNADO WARNING
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAKEFIELD VA
538 PM EDT WED OCT 27 2010

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN WAKEFIELD HAS ISSUED A

* TORNADO WARNING FOR...
SOUTHERN BRUNSWICK COUNTY IN SOUTH CENTRAL VIRGINIA...
SOUTHEASTERN MECKLENBURG COUNTY IN SOUTH CENTRAL VIRGINIA...

* UNTIL 630 PM EDT

* AT 533 PM EDT...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR INDICATED A
SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO. THIS DANGEROUS
STORM WAS LOCATED 7 MILES WEST OF EBONY...OR 11 MILES SOUTHWEST OF
BRODNAX...AND MOVING NORTHEAST AT 30 MPH.

* LOCATIONS IMPACTED INCLUDE...
LAWRENCEVILLE...EBONY...GASBURG...BRUNSWICK...BOWENS CORNER...WHITE
PLAINS...VALENTINES...TRIPLET AND EDGERTON.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

TAKE COVER NOW. MOVE TO AN INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR OF A
STURDY BUILDING. AVOID WINDOWS. IF IN A MOBILE HOME...A VEHICLE... OR
OUTDOORS...MOVE TO THE CLOSEST SUBSTANTIAL SHELTER AND PROTECT
YOURSELF FROM FLYING DEBRIS.

&&

LAT...LON 3687 7773 3656 7776 3655 7812 3659 7817
TIME...MOT...LOC 2138Z 246DEG 28KT 3658 7807

$$

ALBRIGHT
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6485
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
300. CJ5
Quoting Neapolitan:

Sorry, my friend, but discussing science at a mature level, and in as non-emotional way as possible, is absolutely not those who disagree with the theory of GW generally disbelieve what scientists have to say, while those who agree with that theory generally disbelieve what Big Energy CEOs have to say. Believers rely on the overwhelming data, while non-believers rely on the words of those with a hugely vested interest in keeping things as they are--and never the twain shall meet.



This is where you run into trouble trying to make your point. You can bash "Big Energy" all you want. It only reinforces the other side, as it clearly makes you look agenda driven. Big Energy is not the cause of AGW. Drop those little leftist attacks and you may actually get logical debate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting aspectre:
30 VAbeachhurricanes "Increased precip won't cause the actual sea water to freeze more"

Actually it does. Precipitation is composed of fresh water, sea water is a saline solution.
Increasing salinity (the amount of salt in a given volume of water) lowers the freezing point. Conversely decreasing the salinity increases the freezing point.
Precipitation dilutes the surface layer of sea water with fresh water, lowering salinity and thus causing the surface layer to freeze at a higher temperature.


correct, but however the rain water falls onto the ocean, from where the moisture is evaporated from, therefore not changing the salinity. As the water is evaporated the salinity increases, then as it falls it goes back, in a constant state of fluctuation it remains average.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6485

Viewing: 348 - 298

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.