TD 2 Crossing the Yucatan, Bringing Heavy Rains

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 1:44 PM GMT on June 18, 2013

Share this Blog
52
+

Tropical Depression Two is slowly spinning west-northwest across Belize after making landfall late Monday afternoon in southern Belize. The storm is bringing heavy rain to Belize, Northern Guatemala, and Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, as seen on Belize radar and satellite loops. The center of TD 2 will remain over land all day Tuesday, but TD 2's west-northwest track may be able to bring the storm over the Gulf of Mexico's southern Bay of Campeche on Wednesday--if the storm hasn't dissipated by then. The Bay of Campeche is a region where the topography aids the spin-up of tropical cyclones, and TD 2 may have barely enough time to become Tropical Storm Barry with 40 mph winds before making landfall on Thursday between Veracruz and Tampico. However, the track of the storm may also keep it just inland during the remainder of the week, keeping it from ever getting to tropical storm strength. Heavy rains are the storm's main threat, but a ridge of high pressure over the Gulf of Mexico should keep any of TD 2's rains from reaching the U.S. Observations from an AMSU instrument on a polar orbiting satellite on Monday afternoon found that TD 2 had developed a modest warm core characteristic of a weak tropical storm, and it is possible that NHC will upgrade TD 2 to a tropical storm in post-analysis after the hurricane season is over. Elsewhere in the tropical Atlantic, none of the reliable computer models is showing tropical cyclone development in the next seven days.


Figure 1. MODIS satellite image of TD 2 taken on Monday afternoon, June 17, 2013. image credit: NASA.

Participate in Tuesday's live radio call-in show to talk climate change in Tea Party country
I spent last week in Granby, Colorado at the American Geophysical Union's conference on climate change communication. Approximately 100 of the world's top climate scientists and specialists in communication gathered to discuss how to effectively communicate climate change. Four of the speakers at that conference will be part of a radio call-in radio show on KCNR 1460AM from downtown Redding, the politically conservative heart of deep red Northern California. The show is today, Tuesday, June 17, from 10 am - noon EDT. The show will be live-streamed at http://www.kcnr1460.com/, and will be preserved in the archives as a podcast. KCNR is a Fox News radio station with all-conservative talk radio programming, featuring such guests as Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, and Mike Huckabee. Call in with questions today at 530-605-4565. The four guests will be:

1) Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS and RealClimate)
2) Simon Donner  (http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~sdonner/)
3) Bob Henson (Rough Guide to Climate Change)
4) Melanie Fitzpatrick (Union of Concerned Scientists)

Jeff Masters

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: 1047 - 997

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

1047. ScottLincoln
4:34 PM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Levi32:


You can't forget to set your own contour intervals when using ESRL for detailed analysis....it often sets them jumbo size based on the data extrema, which can lead to a bunch of data of sizable magnitude getting hidden as "neutral" when it is in fact not. The arctic is cold right now, especially compared to recent years. This year has been different all around.


I'm not sure that either of you guys should be eye-balling a Mercator projection of the arctic region (north of ~66deg latitude) to make conclusions about whether or not the temperature is above average, below average, or near normal.
The coldest parts of the Arctic are near the areas most-distorted (exaggerated) by Mercator.

Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2894
1046. vis0
3:00 PM GMT on June 19, 2013

Quoting hydrus:
I thought "pi" was a greek letter representing 22 over 7 or 3.14...:)
Ayé mí que cera de pí  ◄esTen► Oh ma whats become of pa.

The "◄esTen►" was an idea sent to yahoo  &
altavista ~1999 then Google in ~2002 as a
shorthand for translate links. es = Spanish T for
translate en = English i think the special characters
made it impossible for some browsers.
Member Since: December 15, 2006 Posts: 208 Comments: 319
1045. ScottLincoln
3:23 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


The reason I don't trust proxy data is I can debunk it in five minutes time based on things I absolutely know to be true.

I will be looking forward to your contribution to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It sounds like you are so knowledgeable compared to other climate scientists that your publication date must be imminent.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2894
1044. Birthmark
3:23 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
Testimony of a denier on this board.....

A week later. They come back. Say I was too much of a denier and that I had to see Nea.

Nea?

Nea. I was terrified of him. Everyone is terrified of Nea. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Nea.

What did he do?

He used.....

By chance, perhaps, my name is Doug. I was sitting in a roomful of people the first time I saw it, and everyone burst into laughter. I was a bit brutal verbally in those days.

There are those that think I am still. They are probably right.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
1043. 1900hurricane
3:23 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Uhhh...
Member Since: August 2, 2006 Posts: 45 Comments: 11569
1042. ScottLincoln
3:21 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting MechEngMet:


Riiiiiight, ...and in the 70's everyone was all in a tizzy about global cooling. Remember that?

Most people don't. Because it didn't really happen, at least beyond the tiny minority opinions that were exaggerated beyond all scientific reality. You know, like today.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2894
1041. BaltimoreBrian
3:11 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Testimony of a denier on this board.....
Quoting Xulonn:
So the hard, science-based facts won't work, but charm and niceness would? Quite frankly I've seen a lot of both here and at Dr. Rood's blog, and neither work on hard-core denialists dead set in their non-scientific beliefs and opinions.


A week later. They come back. Say I was too much of a denier and that I had to see Nea.

Nea?

Nea. I was terrified of him. Everyone is terrified of Nea. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Nea.

What did he do?

He used.....
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8067
1040. Xulonn
3:03 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting GeorgiaStormz:


[Neapolitan:]Your emoticons come off as sarcastic or demeaning sometimes, it's part of the whole bitter and angry thing.
Whether you are right or not, it certainly won't stimulate anyone to change and agree with you.
So the hard, science-based facts won't work, but charm and niceness would? Quite frankly I've seen a lot of both here and at Dr. Rood's blog, and neither work on hard-core denialists dead set in their non-scientific beliefs and opinions.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1147
1039. schistkicker
2:18 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


The reason I don't trust proxy data is I can debunk it in five minutes time based on things I absolutely know to be true.

There's obviously far more than one explanation for organisms being deposited in different ranges of locations. Temperature would be the last one to look at, quite honestly, because water currents, or regional disasters, or any number of other factors could influence the location of deposition. Deposition location doesn't even necessarily tell you where something lived, never mind what the temperature was, because you don't know absolutely how far it was transported before deposition.

There, is that enough for you? Or do you still think it's a "1 + 1 = 1" situation?

BTW, in previous debate, birthmark seemed oblivious to the topic of deposition, and denied variation in river or ocean currents. Maybe you should be giving them that "1+1=1" line.


Even if we stipulate that biologically-based proxy data are useless (they're not, and you've not presented anything other than your D-K-esque intuition that it's so, but for the sake of argument...), that's not the only type of proxy data.

What's wrong with the isotopic data, both cosmogenic and stable isotopic ratios, that also allow us to estimate temperature patterns and insolation during prehistoric time?
Member Since: June 13, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 287
1038. Thrawst
1:38 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
.
Member Since: July 18, 2010 Posts: 50 Comments: 1737
1037. Skyepony (Mod)
1:18 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
~
Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 156 Comments: 36167
1036. LurkyMcLurkerson
1:09 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:
On the chicken...I hate to be dogmatic, but I suggest cooking it in some way.


(HA!)
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
1035. Birthmark
1:09 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
On the chicken...I hate to be dogmatic, but I suggest cooking it in some way.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
1034. LurkyMcLurkerson
1:07 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


right, but you won't bother with it.

I took all this crap in college and passed it, BTW.

Understanding the claim, and finding obvious fault with the claim are two different matters.


Ha!

Really going. Good job on passing this crap. That means you're smart enough to know the difference between the argument you're making and the reality as it appears with the fuller context.

If I can't be bothered: to some degree, I'm exhausted, sick, and I have to make dinner, and to some degree, I am actually not sure where to even start. Making your verbal "opponent" blink and wonder how to even address it is not really the same as "making a solid point.

And I don't mean to be opponents, frankly. You're dedicated to being right, at this point, not to actually thinking about it and responding. If I'm coming off as a bit insulting, I don't mean to be, I'm actually just a bit on the peeved end feeling like you're grasping for any tiny straw that you can use here to "win."

Good luck. No, I don't know what I'm going to do with chicken, either. It's actually a question that haunts many days. But I have to answer it anyway, because I don't have a control dinner. :P
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
1033. Birthmark
1:05 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


Not so fast.

What part are you alleging I "Made up"?

You are in fact the person who denied deposition varied with currents and storms, aren't you?

Well, hopefully, if you are the right person, which I'm 99% sure you are, then you would be embarrassed enough not to admit it, so maybe I shouldn't bother...It has been several months though.

You made this up: "BTW, in previous debate, birthmark seemed oblivious to the topic of deposition, and denied variation in river or ocean currents." I guess that I'm part of the 1% finally.

Seriously, your side of this discussion has been scientifically vacuous.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
1032. HurricaneAndre
1:02 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


right, but you won't bother with it.

I took all this crap in college and passed it, BTW.

Understanding the claim, and finding obvious fault with the claim are two different matters.
.New blog #1005.Quoting Patrap:
New Blog #1005.
Member Since: June 11, 2013 Posts: 18 Comments: 2211
1031. RTSplayer
1:02 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:

Well between making things up and feeling stuff, you've pretty well destroyed climate science. LOL



Not so fast.

What part are you alleging I "Made up"?

You are in fact the person who denied deposition varied with currents and storms, aren't you?

Well, hopefully, if you are the right person, which I'm 99% sure you are, then you would be embarrassed enough not to admit it, so maybe I shouldn't bother...It has been several months though.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 32 Comments: 1503
1030. Patrap
1:00 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
1029. RTSplayer
1:00 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


(sigh)

I don't actually have time to refute this right now, in the many, many ways that you're using a piddling thing to negate something that it really cannot easily negate.

So I add this comment to say that I have other stuff to do, that I can't put off right now, not that I'm disappearing because I accept your argument, which I find immensely silly with the full context.

Yes, it is still a "1+1=1" problem. But that's only one problem there. There are other, vastly more direct problems with trying to use that argument as broadly as you have.


right, but you won't bother with it.

I took all this crap in college and passed it, BTW.

Understanding the claim, and finding obvious fault with the claim are two different matters.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 32 Comments: 1503
1028. MechEngMet
12:59 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


And because you hold someone to some mythological standard that you yourself would never follow, automatically absolves you of your responsibilities? Irregardless of the circumstances?

That logic really doesn't follow.


Actually it does. Oh and "irregardless" doesn't mean what you think it means. Look up double negative if you have the time.
Member Since: April 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 744
1027. Patrap
12:58 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Seems the flue is open and warming is occurring in that column.

click for Loop

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
1026. FOREX
12:57 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting sar2401:
NEW BLOG - CHECK POST #1005


Are you driving or flying to PCB tomorrow?
Member Since: August 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 846
1025. Birthmark
12:57 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


The reason I don't trust proxy data is I can debunk it in five minutes time based on things I absolutely know to be true.

There's obviously far more than one explanation for organisms being deposited in different ranges of locations. Temperature would be the last one to look at, quite honestly, because water currents, or regional disasters, or any number of other factors could influence the location of deposition. Deposition location doesn't even necessarily tell you where something lived, never mind what the temperature was, because you don't know absolutely how far it was transported before deposition.

There, is that enough for you? Or do you still think it's a "1 + 1 = 1" situation?

BTW, in previous debate, birthmark seemed oblivious to the topic of deposition, and denied variation in river or ocean currents. Maybe you should be giving them that "1+1=1" line.

Well between making things up and feeling stuff, you've pretty well destroyed climate science. LOL

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
1024. daddyjames
12:56 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Incorrect. A theory is a validated hypothesis, i.e one that stands up to the rigor of repeated testing.

Before you criticize Darwin's work, I suggest you read it. He came up with a hypothesis based on his observations. To validate that hypothesis, he performed research to see whether his hypothesis (evolution) was correct. This involved everything from tracking down various creatures to dissection. It was a lot more involved than simply looking around and saying "Hmmm. That's interesting."

A theory needs to make repeatable, testable, predictions.


I have read it - in fact, evolution, molecular evolution, is what I do.

He stated a theory based on a compendium of observational data that he collected over a significant period of time. Darwin did not conduct any experiments. He observed.

Mendel, on the other hand, conducted the experiments and collected the data that lent itself to Darwin's theory.

Was all of Einstein's Theory of Relativity testable at the time it was published? No.

Has it generated many predictions - which can be tested? Yes.

It is not as cut and dried as many of us, including scientists, would like to believe.

A theory exist to provide a coherent explanation for phenomena (plural).

A hypothesis is a question posed to test a phenomenon (singular). Otherwise, the experiment cannot be falsified.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
1023. sar2401
12:55 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
NEW BLOG - CHECK POST #1005
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 9956
1022. sar2401
12:53 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
*****NEW BLOG*****

CHECK #1005 FOR LINK
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 9956
1021. LurkyMcLurkerson
12:53 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


The reason I don't trust proxy data is I can debunk it in five minutes time based on things I absolutely know to be true.

There's obviously far more than one explanation for organisms being deposited in different ranges of locations. Temperature would be the last one to look at, quite honestly, because water currents, or regional disasters, or any number of other factors could influence the location of deposition. Deposition location doesn't even necessarily tell you where something lived, never mind what the temperature was, because you don't know absolutely how far it was transported before deposition.

There, is that enough for you? Or do you still think it's a "1 + 1 = 1" situation?

BTW, in previous debate, birthmark seemed oblivious to the topic of deposition, and denied variation in river or ocean currents. Maybe you should be giving them that "1+1=1" line.


(sigh)

I don't actually have time to refute this right now, in the many, many ways that you're using a piddling thing to negate something that it really cannot easily negate.

So I add this comment to say that I have other stuff to do, that I can't put off right now, not that I'm disappearing because I accept your argument, which I find immensely silly with the full context.

Yes, it is still a "1+1=1" problem. But that's only one problem there. There are other, vastly more direct problems with trying to use that argument as broadly as you have.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
1020. Xyrus2000
12:53 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting stormygace:
Less of a carbon footprint to stay home & teleconference, don't ya think? Especially if everyone travels by road or air. Loving the leadership by example action.


And because you hold someone to some mythological standard that you yourself would never follow, automatically absolves you of your responsibilities? Irregardless of the circumstances?

That logic really doesn't follow.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1227
1019. TomTaylor
12:49 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
The MJO is currently making it's way into the western Pacific. This cycle of the MJO will be important to watch because of its implications on the ENSO. In fact, the CFS forecasts that this MJO wave will be so amplified that it will send us pretty much directly into El Nino or at least Modiki El Nino conditions. At the surface the MJO influences the ENSO with zonal wind anomalies which reduce evaporative cooling and mixing. Under the surface, oceanic kelvin waves are excited which propagate westward warming sea surface temperatures. The state of the ENSO obviously has significant implications for the hurricane season so it will be important to watch the MJO and the equatorial pacific's response to the MJO over these next few weeks. How amplified the MJO can get will largely determine how much SSTs in the equatorial Pacific can warm. Looking at some of the forecasts, NCEP guidance (CFS/GFS) predict a very amplified MJO.

CFS MJO Forecast




GFS MJO Forecast -- ridiculous




UKMET agrees though a little less amplified. ECMWF is less aggressive.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 19 Comments: 4357
1018. LurkyMcLurkerson
12:49 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Incorrect. A theory is a validated hypothesis, i.e one that stands up to the rigor of repeated testing.

Before you criticize Darwin's work, I suggest you read it. He came up with a hypothesis based on his observations. To validate that hypothesis, he performed research to see whether his hypothesis (evolution) was correct. This involved everything from tracking down various creatures to dissection. It was a lot more involved than simply looking around and saying "Hmmm. That's interesting."

A theory needs to make repeatable, testable, predictions.


In fairness, given the rest of the conversation, I'm quite sure that daddyjames wasn't criticizing Darwin. I think that it was an argument about experimental data and observational data, and the word "test" got sort of muddled.

But yes, absolutely, you are correct. Darwin did a heap of research, and came to extremely solid conclusions after a lot of finding evidence that supported his hypothesis.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
1017. Birthmark
12:49 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:



It is circular reasoning because there were no thermometers in the pre-industrial era to take objective, independent temperatures. The proxy data is based on certain assumptions about the range of organisms relationship to temperature, which doesn't properly examine changes in currents changing the location of deposition.


The graph proposes a "natural causes curve" where there actually is no "natural causes" data set, and cannot be because there is only one system. There is no "control sample" in this "experiment" called "Earth".

It's actually a fraudulent product.

Again, you make wild assertions with zero support. IOW, those are your feelings, nothing more.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5284
1016. RTSplayer
12:47 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:A theory needs to make repeatable, testable, predictions.


So then we agree that the Big Bang is not a theory?
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 32 Comments: 1503
1015. RTSplayer
12:46 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting LurkyMcLurkerson:


Um, no, you're right, there isn't.

Guess we should just stop observing things that happen on earth and look for all the world, via the laws of physics and via measurable chemistry that is based on physics, then, since we don't have another whole earth to keep all unaffected and stuff. Right?

Look, there are things here -- it's almost like you're working off of a set of scientific ideals that we all learn when we're in 8th grade, but then the picture gets all crazy, and we learn math in more dimensions than we can actually think in, and we learn about observational studies, and metadata, and...

There are things here where, in order for it to _not_ be true, if you trace it back to the roots of the argument, you have to figure that 1 + 1 is 1.

I'm actually not exaggerating, with some things, where they can be math based. It comes all the way back, sometimes, to n does not equal n+1.

As a _real_ skeptical science type, I can't say for sure that there is no possibility, in any way, that 1+1 does, in fact, still equal 1. But, I mean, at some point, some of that is an awful lot like first year philosophy students having too much beer and trying to argue endlessly about how nobody can prove that anything exists at all, really.

True. Pointless.



The reason I don't trust proxy data is I can debunk it in five minutes time based on things I absolutely know to be true.

There's obviously far more than one explanation for organisms being deposited in different ranges of locations. Temperature would be the last one to look at, quite honestly, because water currents, or regional disasters, or any number of other factors could influence the location of deposition. Deposition location doesn't even necessarily tell you where something lived, never mind what the temperature was, because you don't know absolutely how far it was transported before deposition.

There, is that enough for you? Or do you still think it's a "1 + 1 = 1" situation?

BTW, in previous debate, birthmark seemed oblivious to the topic of deposition, and denied variation in river or ocean currents. Maybe you should be giving them that "1+1=1" line.
Member Since: January 25, 2012 Posts: 32 Comments: 1503
1014. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
12:46 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting MechEngMet:


Riiiiiight, ...and in the 70's everyone was all in a tizzy about global cooling. Remember that?
well to be honest we should be in a cooling phase but in fact its a abnormal warming phase occurring during a normal cooling phase period we have actually disrupted the overall pattern from the norm and there will be yet repercussions for that effect
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52383
1013. Xyrus2000
12:44 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting daddyjames:


A hypothesis is an educated guess designed to test one observed phenomenon.

A theory is an attempt to coherently explain a number of observed phenomena.

Darwin's theory of evolution was drawn upon a compendium of observation data - no hypotheses were tested to produce experimental data.


Incorrect. A theory is a validated hypothesis, i.e one that stands up to the rigor of repeated testing.

Before you criticize Darwin's work, I suggest you read it. He came up with a hypothesis based on his observations. To validate that hypothesis, he performed research to see whether his hypothesis (evolution) was correct. This involved everything from tracking down various creatures to dissection. It was a lot more involved than simply looking around and saying "Hmmm. That's interesting."

A theory needs to make repeatable, testable, predictions.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1227
1012. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
12:40 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
POSS T.C.F.W.
02L/TD/XX/XX
MARK
18.50N/92.35W



darkness falls
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 165 Comments: 52383
1011. MechEngMet
12:39 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


All of science is based on theories, with some having more evidence than others supporting them.

You don't seem to have any problems flicking a switch to turn on a light or riding in plane. Electricity and aerodynamics are both based on theories. Worse, modern day jets are designed based on MODELS. Oh the horror.

You also don't seem to have an issue with weather prediction and analysis, also based on theories. Or satellite data collection, also based on theories. Or any man made chemical compositions, or the high precision lithography used to make that CPU your computer is using or any other marvels of the modern world, all of which are based on theories and models.

As far as green house theory goes, it's been around for close to 200 years, originally proposed by Fourier in 1824. This isn't something new.


Riiiiiight, ...and in the 70's everyone was all in a tizzy about global cooling. Remember that?
Member Since: April 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 744
1010. LostTomorrows
12:39 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting sar2401:

In 2012, we already had TS Alberto, TS Beryl, Hurricane Chris forming, and TS Debby not too far behind. Assuming TD 2 becomes Barry, we will still be behind 2012 if nothing else forms by tomorrow, and two storms behind by June 23. May and June storms are not a very good predictor of the overall number of storms in a season and, particularly, US landfalling storms.


But also, 2012 was devoid of any activity in July. The reason many speculate that this season will be a potentially active one is where the storms are forming and how healthy some of the tropical waves are where they shouldn't be at this time of the year.

Member Since: August 26, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 558
1009. FOREX
12:38 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting sar2401:

In 2012, we already had TS Alberto, TS Beryl, Hurricane Chris forming, and TS Debby not too far behind. Assuming TD 2 becomes Barry, we will still be behind 2012 if nothing else forms by tomorrow, and two storms behind by June 23. May and June storms are not a very good predictor of the overall number of storms in a season and, particularly, US landfalling storms.


Are you driving or flying to PCB?
Member Since: August 17, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 846
1008. sar2401
12:38 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting interstatelover7166:
*POLL ALERT*


1)Do you think T.D. 2 will become T.S. Barry?

(A)Yes
(B)No

2)If you answered yes to #1, when do you think it will?

(A)11 PM tonight
(B)5 AM tomorrow
(C)11 AM tomorrow
(D)5 PM tomorrow

1. (A)
2. (B)

...but I'm usually wrong. :-)
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 9956
1007. HurricaneHunterJoe
12:37 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Member Since: September 18, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4576
1006. LurkyMcLurkerson
12:35 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Well, actually, I suppose there is a lovely proof that n never equals n+1. You have to go back farther than that to the assumptions, without which... we might as well figure we're all ether, and go poof.

^Yes, see, DETAILS WE CANNOT LET GO OF THEM. It's a feature _and_ a flaw.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
1005. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
12:35 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
1004. Bluestorm5
12:35 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting interstatelover7166:
*POLL ALERT*


1)Do you think T.D. 2 will become T.S. Barry?

(A)Yes
(B)No

2)If you answered yes to #1, when do you think it will?

(A)11 PM tonight
(B)5 AM tomorrow
(C)11 AM tomorrow
(D)5 PM tomorrow


Yes and 5 am tomorrow.
Member Since: August 1, 2011 Posts: 23 Comments: 7506
1003. sar2401
12:34 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting FIUStormChaser:
It's only June 18 and look what we have had already......



In 2012, we already had TS Alberto, TS Beryl, Hurricane Chris forming, and TS Debby not too far behind. Assuming TD 2 becomes Barry, we will still be behind 2012 if nothing else forms by tomorrow, and two storms behind by June 23. May and June storms are not a very good predictor of the overall number of storms in a season and, particularly, US landfalling storms.
Member Since: October 2, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 9956
1002. ProgressivePulse
12:34 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting Skyepony:
02L~ I half expect this to end up being a TS & I'm giving it an outside chance of becoming a hurricane.

According to Dvorak 02L just made it back over water.. 1014mb T#=1.0, scene is shear, located 18.41N 92.26W.

That wave at Windward Islands looks gamely.


Gotta watch the ones sitting on the SE side of a ULL.
Member Since: August 19, 2005 Posts: 5 Comments: 4863
1001. FIUStormChaser
12:34 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting CaicosRetiredSailor:
#971

"Please bare with me"

Hmmmmmm....


What?

By the way, the more TD2 moves north the more higher the chance it has of attaining TS Status.
Member Since: May 1, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 515
1000. Ricki13th
12:33 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting FOREX:


Do you see a slight NNW movement in the last few frames??


Yes a jog to the NNW over the BOC and closer to the convection as its trying to wrap it around. It will get nudge back to the WNW by tomorrow morning.
Member Since: May 28, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
999. interstatelover7166
12:33 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
*POLL ALERT*


1)Do you think T.D. 2 will become T.S. Barry?

(A)Yes
(B)No

2)If you answered yes to #1, when do you think it will?

(A)11 PM tonight
(B)5 AM tomorrow
(C)11 AM tomorrow
(D)5 PM tomorrow
Member Since: October 15, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 290
998. hydrus
12:32 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Told ya there,d be gamblin.. I,m all in... 45mph at landfall...:)
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 19606
997. LurkyMcLurkerson
12:32 AM GMT on June 19, 2013
Quoting RTSplayer:


There is no "control sample" in this "experiment" called "Earth".


Um, no, you're right, there isn't.

Guess we should just stop observing things that happen on earth and look for all the world, via the laws of physics and via measurable chemistry that is based on physics, then, since we don't have another whole earth to keep all unaffected and stuff. Right?

Look, there are things here -- it's almost like you're working off of a set of scientific ideals that we all learn when we're in 8th grade, but then the picture gets all crazy, and we learn math in more dimensions than we can actually think in, and we learn about observational studies, and metadata, and...

There are things here where, in order for it to _not_ be true, if you trace it back to the roots of the argument, you have to figure that 1 + 1 is 1.

I'm actually not exaggerating, with some things, where they can be math based. It comes all the way back, sometimes, to n does not equal n+1.

As a _real_ skeptical science type, I can't say for sure that there is no possibility, in any way, that 1+1 does, in fact, still equal 1. But, I mean, at some point, some of that is an awful lot like first year philosophy students having too much beer and trying to argue endlessly about how nobody can prove that anything exists at all, really.

True. Pointless.

Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368

Viewing: 1047 - 997

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog 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.