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: 648 - 598

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

Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


doing his, and studying for a physics exam tomorrow, sorry.

Good luck with the Exam, hope it goes well.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24307
Quoting Neapolitan:

Wow. Again, please tell me where I lied, or where I've attempted to mislead. I merely pointed out the straight, unadulterated facts, which are that record highs have outnumbered record lows by a wide margin over the past 24 hours. (Had you read with an objective eye, you might have noticed that I mentioned the record lows; it's not my fault that they have been so badly outnumbered for the past seven months or so.)

(While we're at it, record highs have outnumbered record lows by to 830 to 102 over the past week. Toasty...)


Good thing there is global warming or we'd have more that 102 record lows.
Member Since: July 25, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 596
Quoting Quadrantid:


When it comes to the variations due to Milankovic cycles, we do know that for sure :) We know the scale of the cycles, and how fast all the variables change (hell, all bar the variation in our axial tilt drop out in every single n-body integration I run). Also, the rate and scale of their effect has been well matched to data from ice cores - it's the Milankovic cycles that have been the key driver to the recent series of ice ages and interglacial periods.

The current warming trend, and the rate at which it is happening, are totally incompatible with the Milankovic cycles being the cause. Returning to an analogy I used earlier -- if the idea that those cycles were the cause of the observed climate change was the theory of gravity, then we've already had plenty of apples the refused to fall. The data don't fit the theory - so the theory is wrong -- Milankovic cycles are not the cause of the observed behaviour.

The same is true of solar activity, afaik -- recent studies have shown that the theory linking variations in recent Solar activity with the observed changes in the climate does not fit with the data -- so it isn't a working theory to explain the changes. That doesn't, of course, mean that another theory explaining the change in terms of Solar activity couldn't be put together - but it would quickly fall foul of the same data, unless it was something very radical and different.

As more and more data come in, and more and more observations are made, the non-human theories on the cause of GW are falling over. That doesn't mean observations won't be made in the next year/decade that do the same for man-made GW, but the only theory that explains the results that are coming in all the time with any degree of accuracy is that climate change is directly related to human activity.

While it is possible to construct ever more complicated explanations for how this isn't our fault, there has to come a point when Occum's razor comes into play. The simplest theory that successfully explains the observations is man-made global warming, in my opinion -- and so I'm of the opinion we should be doing what we can to counter it.

That's before we consider that investing in R+D and new technologies will, in the long run, benefit everyone, creating new jobs, and boosting the overall standard of living regardless of whether GW turns out to be man-made, natural, or non-existant.

I think we can all agree that pumping more money into science would be a good thing (and, as someone who relies on that funding to make a living, I'm doubly in favour ;)).


Right now im, a physics, and meteorology double major so that would be amazing. Im hoping to do a research project with NASA soon, and if it turns out it is AGW ill be the first to say I was wrong, and will be all for taking drastic measures.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6494
Quoting pottery:

True!
But not this weekend.
Due to the very nice weather recently, we will be attending a Birthday Party this weekend, Filled with Debauchery, on a small island, off the coast.
Rainy days and gloomy skies are not required....


Sure.. gimme rain... umm oh... can you hold it off a day or two.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
x
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
643. ackee
I THINK 90L will be shary soon and 92L TD or Tomas dontTHink 91L will devlop further guess we see
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting pottery:

The Volcanoes will save us....
Good to know that.

You are becoming obscure, you know.


doing his, and studying for a physics exam tomorrow, sorry.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6494
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Since we havent been through a cycle as a human race, im not quite sure we can definitely say that it is happening too quickly we just don't know that for sure. Another thing is that its funny how we are so worried about the warming, yet I believe one volcano eruption can take us back to below average temperatures in the blink of an eye. There are so many things that can happen that im not sure anyone really can grasp all the different variables that have occurred on this planet to get the climate to where it is, and what variables in the future can possibly do.



When it comes to the variations due to Milankovic cycles, we do know that for sure :) We know the scale of the cycles, and how fast all the variables change (hell, all bar the variation in our axial tilt drop out in every single n-body integration I run). Also, the rate and scale of their effect has been well matched to data from ice cores - it's the Milankovic cycles that have been the key driver to the recent series of ice ages and interglacial periods.

The current warming trend, and the rate at which it is happening, are totally incompatible with the Milankovic cycles being the cause. Returning to an analogy I used earlier -- if the idea that those cycles were the cause of the observed climate change was the theory of gravity, then we've already had plenty of apples the refused to fall. The data don't fit the theory - so the theory is wrong -- Milankovic cycles are not the cause of the observed behaviour.

The same is true of solar activity, afaik -- recent studies have shown that the theory linking variations in recent Solar activity with the observed changes in the climate does not fit with the data -- so it isn't a working theory to explain the changes. That doesn't, of course, mean that another theory explaining the change in terms of Solar activity couldn't be put together - but it would quickly fall foul of the same data, unless it was something very radical and different.

As more and more data come in, and more and more observations are made, the non-human theories on the cause of GW are falling over. That doesn't mean observations won't be made in the next year/decade that do the same for man-made GW, but the only theory that explains the results that are coming in all the time with any degree of accuracy is that climate change is directly related to human activity.

While it is possible to construct ever more complicated explanations for how this isn't our fault, there has to come a point when Occum's razor comes into play. The simplest theory that successfully explains the observations is man-made global warming, in my opinion -- and so I'm of the opinion we should be doing what we can to counter it.

That's before we consider that investing in R+D and new technologies will, in the long run, benefit everyone, creating new jobs, and boosting the overall standard of living regardless of whether GW turns out to be man-made, natural, or non-existant.

I think we can all agree that pumping more money into science would be a good thing (and, as someone who relies on that funding to make a living, I'm doubly in favour ;)).
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ackee:
Looks like 91L going to run into strong shears in the carrbean or proably run into south america not too concern

Dont try that!!
I am trying to send it North, LOL!
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24307
639. JLPR2
Quoting JRRP:
cargen sus RIPs


Todavía. XD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
638. JRRP
cargen sus RIPs
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Since we havent been through a cycle as a human race, im not quite sure we can definitely say that it is happening too quickly we just don't know that for sure. Another thing is that its funny how we are so worried about the warming, yet I believe one volcano eruption can take us back to below average temperatures in the blink of an eye. There are so many things that can happen that im not sure anyone really can grasp all the different variables that have occurred on this planet to get the climate to where it is, and what variables in the future can possibly do.


The Volcanoes will save us....
Good to know that.

You are becoming obscure, you know.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24307


Cosmic, mail.

Thanks for the lack of a strike so far in FL.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good evening, all... wow Doc Masters shows up at the NHC and all hell breaks loose!
Sure musst be neat time to be there with something going on. I'd imagine they have some pretty cool screens going everywhere.
Guess we'll soon find out!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Orcasystems:

I aim to please buds.. you asked for showers

True!
But not this weekend.
Due to the very nice weather recently, we will be attending a Birthday Party this weekend, Filled with Debauchery, on a small island, off the coast.
Rainy days and gloomy skies are not required....
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24307
633. ackee
Looks like 91L going to run into strong shears in the carrbean or proably run into south america not too concern
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Quadrantid:


With regards to the point on natural cycles -- I can say for definite that the changes we're seeing now are happening too quickly to be linked to the Milankovic cycles (the variations in the tilt of our axis, the precession of said axis, the precession of our orbit, and the variation in that orbit's eccentricity and inclination).

Recent research has show that the argument that the observed warming is linked to variations in the Sun's output is not considered valid any more - in fact, if climate was being forced by changes in the Sun's output, the planet would have cooled in recent years, rather than warmed.

Endogenic, rather than exogenic, cycles -- I'm not qualified to comment :) But I'm certain that nothing astronomical is driving the observed climate change :)


Since we havent been through a cycle as a human race, im not quite sure we can definitely say that it is happening too quickly we just don't know that for sure. Another thing is that its funny how we are so worried about the warming, yet I believe one volcano eruption can take us back to below average temperatures in the blink of an eye. There are so many things that can happen that im not sure anyone really can grasp all the different variables that have occurred on this planet to get the climate to where it is, and what variables in the future can possibly do.

Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6494
Quoting naviguesser:
Regarding palm trees in Greenland:

I remember reading a while ago that there was a theory that the poles of the Earth switch and move every x thousand years. A bit fuzzier recollection is that when this happens, where the "equator" ends up is dependent on where things stop after the shift. According to this line of thought, Greenland could have ended up on the equator and no Global Warming would have been required to grow palm trees there. I have no references for this, but seemed like a great time to stir the pot...

Back on topic, 3 AOIs this late in Oct... could be an interesting November


Good night.

I think if you look at agreement in the community we have basically folks that like to make money doing green stuff that, well, makes money, irrespective of whether it is really green.

The hard core denier mercenaries (Nea... they are to be pitied... they don't want to make money) are kind of the VLO and XSO of the world (Nea... Koch does not have a symbol).

Can we stop debating this and make money?

I do automatically reject all reconstructions that deny the MWP.

I also accept the Fourier experiment and the conclusions of the IPCC (which apparently make me a "denier" in some circles).

But goodnight....

Tomorrow I think we will see a new blog without any AGW content
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


First it makes the point that it could just be a natural cycle like it was in the previous years without the industrial technologies.


No offense, but that doesn't mean anything. I can just as well say it *could* be billions of invisible gremlins with billions of invisible cigarette lighters. It's possible, maybe, but useless. Unless you (or someone) can clarify what it is that is cycling and what evidence supports that as the cause, I'm afraid that that is no more useful as an explanation than my gremlins.


Second, I am not knowledgeable enough of science of the natural cycles to really get in to it, its just that is what I believe. Until there is concrete evidence that it is humans fault.


There is indeed concrete evidence. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by >30%. The ratio of C13/C12 has been decreasing. That is indicative of fossil fuel.

Another thing I know you didn't ask, is Ive never littered, I always recycle, Ive cleaned up parks. I am in no way for destroying the earth and I think we should do everything to clean and protect it. It just bothers me that people think that if you don't believe in AGW then you don't care about the planet.


I agree. That is unfounded. However, if they amend it to say if you don't believe in AGW, then you don't believe in science, I think that it's more accurate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
For those of you debating GW, why not discuss the effect that global deforestation has, or will have on earth's climatology? Why not consider facts like: "There are over 600 million motor vehicles in the world today. If present trends continue, the number of cars on Earth will double in the next 30 years."

Why not consider Sea contamination, and many other facts that can be measured, due to mankind's intervention?
What effect will all this have in earth's climatology (If you believe there is any)


That way you can have a more quantitative, scientific approach in your discussion???.....

Amazon Deforestation (Not considering other global deforestation areas)





NASA 2019s Landsat 5 satellite captured the left-side image on July 19, 1986, while NASA 2019s Landsat 7 satellite captured the right-side image on December 11, 2001. Densely forested areas are deep green.
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
Quoting WeatherfanPR:


I don't think so. 91L will be destroyed by 40kts and 50kts wind shear ahead.
Stranger things have happened this season....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunlinepr:
I think that second one is coming down to the SE.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting naviguesser:
Regarding palm trees in Greenland:

I remember reading a while ago that there was a theory that the poles of the Earth switch and move every x thousand years. A bit fuzzier recollection is that when this happens, where the "equator" ends up is dependent on where things stop after the shift. According to this line of thought, Greenland could have ended up on the equator and no Global Warming would have been required to grow palm trees there. I have no references for this, but seemed like a great time to stir the pot...

Back on topic, 3 AOIs this late in Oct... could be an interesting November


Equator doesn't move... it's related to the geographic poles, which don't change. You're thinking of a magnetic pole, which does shift, and the magnetic equator is in flux for a while, but the geographic poles never change. And this occurs on a factor of million years, not thousand. So Greenland's been up there for a while. The reason they found those trees is because they were petrified, or fossilized. It takes millions of years for something to fossilize. In that time, the tectonic plate that Greenland was on moved so that it's much closer to the north pole.
Member Since: October 15, 2008 Posts: 11 Comments: 2312
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
Quoting pottery:
Hello Orc!
Just when I thought I could go to bed, you come along with those nasty little squiggly lines over my house.
Your timing is dreadful.

I aim to please buds.. you asked for showers
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


First it makes the point that it could just be a natural cycle like it was in the previous years without the industrial technologies.
Second, I am not knowledgeable enough of science of the natural cycles to really get in to it, its just that is what I believe. Until there is concrete evidence that it is humans fault. Another thing I know you didn't ask, is Ive never littered, I always recycle, Ive cleaned up parks. I am in no way for destroying the earth and I think we should do everything to clean and protect it. It just bothers me that people think that if you don't believe in AGW then you don't care about the planet.


With regards to the point on natural cycles -- I can say for definite that the changes we're seeing now are happening too quickly to be linked to the Milankovic cycles (the variations in the tilt of our axis, the precession of said axis, the precession of our orbit, and the variation in that orbit's eccentricity and inclination).

Recent research has show that the argument that the observed warming is linked to variations in the Sun's output is not considered valid any more - in fact, if climate was being forced by changes in the Sun's output, the planet would have cooled in recent years, rather than warmed.

Endogenic, rather than exogenic, cycles -- I'm not qualified to comment :) But I'm certain that nothing astronomical is driving the observed climate change :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Regarding palm trees in Greenland:

I remember reading a while ago that there was a theory that the poles of the Earth switch and move every x thousand years. A bit fuzzier recollection is that when this happens, where the "equator" ends up is dependent on where things stop after the shift. According to this line of thought, Greenland could have ended up on the equator and no Global Warming would have been required to grow palm trees there. I have no references for this, but seemed like a great time to stir the pot...

Back on topic, 3 AOIs this late in Oct... could be an interesting November
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
620. JLPR2
Quoting 7544:
91L is really trying to from to a ts and fast may be the one to watch imo


Needs to organize more, 91L is currently the weakest of the three invests.(structurally)
92L's 850mb vort strengthened nicely in between updates.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:


What difference does it make if the planet was warmer in the past? How many technological societies, utterly dependent upon industrial agriculture, were there in those previous warm times?

(The major problem with the current warming is the *rate* of warming, not just the warming itself. Though the warming is still a big problem.)

Your second point is the result of my inelegant question. I apologize. Let me ask a bit more correctly. If human activity is NOT the primary cause of the current warming, then what IS the cause; and what scientific evidence is there to support that hypothesis?


First it makes the point that it could just be a natural cycle like it was in the previous years without the industrial technologies.
Second, I am not knowledgeable enough of science of the natural cycles to really get in to it, its just that is what I believe. Until there is concrete evidence that it is humans fault. Another thing I know you didn't ask, is Ive never littered, I always recycle, Ive cleaned up parks. I am in no way for destroying the earth and I think we should do everything to clean and protect it. It just bothers me that people think that if you don't believe in AGW then you don't care about the planet.
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6494
Quoting calusakat:
Just found this in that same article.

"The leaked emails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics," said the committee in its report. "

If it smells like a something rotting, most likely it is something rotting.



Morons like myself are rejoicing tonight as the top solar hot water company in Germany has been busted....

For false efficiency claims concerning their backup.

I am familiar with the problems in the statistics in the work in question and the Lord Oxbowdown (or whatever... like Lord CooKooFace in Madeline) report is quite clear on these deficiencies.

Climatologists are not statisticians and the statistical arguments are, well, to quote, Mark Twain, "There are lies, damn lies, and statitics".

Now, how much energy do you waste in an inefficient house? Even a moron like myself is wasting 50 dollars a year (circa 1980 ceiling fans).

If I can find some for less than 41 dollars.... PAYOUT
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:

Environment News Service says the e-mails were 'leaked', they should know. I didn't write the article.

And using your thought processes...let me guess...destroying evidence is not the same as altering it?

You funny.

Have a nice evening, its getting late, its been fun toying with you, AEKDB1990.

Night all.



As best I remember (was living in the UK when all this broke) - the scientists were hacked, and vast swathes of data were taken, including the e-mails. Certain sections of the stolen data were then leaked by the people who stole it - preferentially releasing things which made it look like a bit conspiracy.

So you're both right, in a way -- the data were stolen by hackers, and they were leaked.

However, the stuff wasn't leaked by the scientists -- that's the point over which you're both arguing (and hopefully the point I've cleared up!).

Happy to help!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 7544:
91L is really trying to from to a ts and fast may be the one to watch imo


High Wind Shear ahead !!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Hello Orc!
Just when I thought I could go to bed, you come along with those nasty little squiggly lines over my house.
Your timing is dreadful.
Member Since: October 24, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 24307
614. 7544
91L is really trying to from to a ts and fast may be the one to watch imo
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting calusakat:

Environment News Service says the e-mails were 'leaked', they should know. I didn't write the article.

And using your thought processes...let me guess...destroying evidence is not the same as altering it?

You funny.

Have a nice evening, its getting late, its been fun toying with you, AEKDB1990.

Night all.



The e-mails were stolen. Then they were leaked, whether by the hackers or others is unclear.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
Quoting LostTomorrows:
Is there any such thing as a landurricane? 'Cause that picture there certainly suggests it.
Actually, and I'm probably thinking this may freak people out, but that satellite imagery, and just what the system brought to a widespread area (extreme winter and summer storms alike) really makes me think that The Day After Tomorrow was indeed based on truth, and not just a terrible movie.

And, I think I read in an article that, after the 2005 season, if any season manages to get a named storm after W, then they start back at the letter A from the next year's list. So, if we make it to Walter and beyond - the next name would then be Arlene.

I'm thinking we'll at least see Shary by tomorrow afternon - the location of those three Invests looks like a very disgruntled face on the NHC homepage.


Nah, they still use the greek letters.
Member Since: October 15, 2008 Posts: 11 Comments: 2312
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


Only proof that this planet has been much warmer before. Its hard to prove something is not affecting something.


What difference does it make if the planet was warmer in the past? How many technological societies, utterly dependent upon industrial agriculture, were there in those previous warm times?

(The major problem with the current warming is the *rate* of warming, not just the warming itself. Though the warming is still a big problem.)

Your second point is the result of my inelegant question. I apologize. Let me ask a bit more correctly. If human activity is NOT the primary cause of the current warming, then what IS the cause; and what scientific evidence is there to support that hypothesis?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
609. JLPR2
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:


And 19th and 20th :P

I believe all of the invests will develop in the long-run...

1) 90L

2.)20%-er

3. 30-er


That would catapult 2010 to a hyperactive season and leave me jawless. XD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Local weatherman made good point saying total number of storms predicted may be right this
year of 23 or so, but until they can predict where they are going to hit these numbers pre season are useless. Example this year active but not for any of the US coastline. What do some of you think about that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LostTomorrows:
Is there any such thing as a landurricane? 'Cause that picture there certainly suggests it.
Actually, and I'm probably thinking this may freak people out, but that satellite imagery, and just what the system brought to a widespread area (extreme winter and summer storms alike) really makes me think that The Day After Tomorrow was indeed based on truth, and not just a terrible movie.

And, I think I read in an article that, after the 2005 season, if any season manages to get a named storm after W, then they start back at the letter A from the next year's list. So, if we make it to Walter and beyond - the next name would then be Arlene.

I'm thinking we'll at least see Shary by tomorrow afternon - the location of those three Invests looks like a very disgruntled face on the NHC homepage.
Lol.I was thinking about that movie to when I heard what this storm did.The size,and all of the extreame weather happening with it.
Quoting sunlinepr:
Hope this won't be real


The one near south america may need to be watched over the next few days.could we see a strong system?.We'll find out soon......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WeatherfanPR:


I don't think so. 91L will be destroyed by 40kts and 50kts wind shear ahead.


Thanks, for info....I just came back from the Metro area.... and I find this in this Cyclogenesis model....
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
Quoting AEKDB1990:
Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

And Calusakat have you apologized for slandering climate scientists by lying and saying they altered data to fit personal views when every review of the Climate Research Unit said otherwise?

Environment News Service says the e-mails were 'leaked', they should know. I didn't write the article.

And using your thought processes...let me guess...destroying evidence is not the same as altering it?

You funny.

Have a nice evening, its getting late, its been fun toying with you, AEKDB1990.

Night all.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 2, 2010 Posts: 21 Comments: 9814
Complete Update



AOI
AOI AOI AOI

AOI AOI AOI

TS BUSTED FORECAST ALIBI
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sunlinepr:
Hope this won't be real




I don't think so. 91L will be destroyed by 40kts and 50kts wind shear ahead.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is there any such thing as a landurricane? 'Cause that picture there certainly suggests it.
Actually, and I'm probably thinking this may freak people out, but that satellite imagery, and just what the system brought to a widespread area (extreme winter and summer storms alike) really makes me think that The Day After Tomorrow was indeed based on truth, and not just a terrible movie.

And, I think I read in an article that, after the 2005 season, if any season manages to get a named storm after W, then they start back at the letter A from the next year's list. So, if we make it to Walter and beyond - the next name would then be Arlene.

I'm thinking we'll at least see Shary by tomorrow afternon - the location of those three Invests looks like a very disgruntled face on the NHC homepage.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
599. 7544
92l as of 11pm moving west
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 648 - 598

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.