WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

AIr pollution forecasting

By: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:49 PM GMT on May 18, 2006

Over the past decade, more state and local agencies have begun air quality forecasting for their communities. Today, about 300 cities nationwide are issuing air quality alerts based on forecast concentrations of known pollutants such as ozone and particle pollution, but have been doing so without the benefit of the kind of high-powered national forecasting technology and guidance that supports local weather forecasts. However, this is changing this year, with the arrival of new NOAA forecasting guidance to improve forecasters� ability to predict the onset, severity, and duration of poor air quality. For communities in most of the country, this will be the first time that comprehensive air quality predictions, with hour-by-hour information for cities, suburbs and rural communities alike will be available.

Figure 1. Ozone pollution forecast for 7pm EDT May 18, 2006, generated by NOAA's new air pollution forecasting system. With a major push of clean Canadian air over the eastern half of the country, the usual pattern of pollution over the Northeast and Midwest is absent today.

NOAA, in partnership with EPA, has implemented the first stages of an air quality forecast (AQF) capability. Now providing ozone forecast guidance for the eastern U.S. (predictions available at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/aq), the AQF capability uses the National Weather Service�s most advanced operational computer weather models at NOAA�s National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) coupled with a community multi-scale air quality (CMAQ) chemical transport model to produce daily forecast guidance for surface ozone. Meteorological information such as current and predicted temperature, humidity, winds, cloudiness, and precipitation, combined with pollutant emissions data supplied by EPA, are input to CMAQ to predict ozone concentrations through the next day. In summer, 2006 an experimental version of the AQF capability will cover the lower 48 states. Currently, the AQF capability covers the eastern US from the Atlantic Seaboard to the Mississippi Valley, with hourly and 8-hourly forecast ozone concentrations out to midnight, next day, at 12 km (about 7 miles) grid resolution. This information, converted to EPA�s health-based Air Quality Index (AQI) is also available on EPA�s AIRNow website.

In the next few years, the operational ozone prediction domain will be expanded still further to include Alaska and Hawaii and the forecast range will be extended out to several days. Also in development are predictions of airborne particulate matter (PM). As a component of the eventual PM forecast capability, a daily smoke forecast tool is being tested experimentally. For this tool, NOAA�s National Environmental Satellite and Data Information Service provides fire locations of active fires from complex satellite-based imaging techniques. Smoke transported from these fires is simulated with a computer transport model called HYSPLIT linked to NWS� operational weather forecast models. Predictions of the smoke are updated each morning and provided on a web site at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/aq-expr. State and local air quality forecasters will be able to use the expanding guidance when they prepare their forecasts or issue local alerts for their communities. The public, especially those with greater sensitivity to poor air quality, will be able to see hour-by-hour trends for the entire Nation and take appropriate actions.

I'll conclude my series on air pollution tomorrow, with a look at why one of NOAA's P-3 weather research aircraft will be flying an air pollution research project this summer in Texas instead of chasing hurricanes.

Jeff Masters

Air and Water Pollution

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

So now we know which cities to blame for our bad air? A picture says a thousand words.
Looking forward to the blog tomorrow Dr M. I do a lot of air quality work and I'm interested to see what the P-3 will be up to.

I think forecasting specific ozone concentrations will be pretty tricky...and since there aren't that many monitors in any given metro area, there won't be a huge amount of data to validate the forecast models with.
kerneld...this picture is during a blast of fresh air coming down from the north. find me a picture of when the air is not being moved in a massive manner, and i suppose we can discuss things on a semi-factual basis.

all those sappy tourists here in florida don't even know about this, hah.
Business,
I realises that. I was more commenting on having this information available so that you could for instance look at a time lapse animation. I think it would be pretty easy to see the origins of the bad air effecting you, not that that means an awful lot, but it is interesting.
with all the clouds and cool weather from that low, there really won't be any ozone formation in the east for a while...
oh. word.
Watching the ozone forecast loop was interesting ... I noticed a couple of trends.

1. Ozone concentrations appear greatest during the hottest part of the day.
2. Ozone concentrations appear greater around areas of strong rain.
3. Ozone concentrations appear greater around big cities during the day, and less around big cities during the night. New Orleans, Chicago, St Louis, and Minneapolis are easily discernable.

Why would cities have less ozone at night than their surrounding rural counterparts?
Hi everyone, good update.

I have a dumb question, what is good to bad...

good being blue, green to yellow - orange with orange being the worse?

Usually they tell us SE florida has excellent air quality because we are always getting the ocean breeze..If above orange means bad, why is that??? the fires and lack of rain???

or is ozone concentrations different from air quality???
newt3d, I see what you mean on the prediction loop. Maybe it is interaction with other polutants in the absence of photochemical reactions? That doesn't make much sense to me though. Sunlight I would have thought would be breaking down the ozone so you would see more of a build up overnight.
Eastern US bias in weather reporting. ;)

Something I've noticed is that (with the exception of local forcasts by local news stations) there is a tendency for weather reporting to focus on the eastern half of the country at the expense of the western half.

Watch national weather forcasts on TV sometime with an eye to how long they spend on the different sections of the country. They often seem to spend 10 minutes covering the country from Oklahoma eastwards - and 2 minutes covering everything else - despite the fact that 50% of the country is west of there.

So I found it interesting that the initial rollout of the ozone forcast chose to start with the eastern half of the US with the rest of the lower 48 'to follow later'.

Is there a reason for this reporting bias such as the weather in the western half of the country is just simpler? Or is it a matter of most of the national forcasters being based in the east and so exhibiting a (perhaps unintentional) bias to report on weather 'close' to themselves? Or some other reason?

Curious minds and all that. :)
Sunlight I would have thought would be breaking down the ozone so you would see more of a build up overnight.


It's actually the opposite. Sunlight is required to form ozone. The ozone is formed in the cities and suburban/exurban areas during the heat of the day, then transported away from the cities and dispersed into the country at night.

Not sure why you are seeing a correlation between ozone and rain...probably because sunlight forms ozone and also destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to t'showers. Lightning can form ozone also but I don't think that forms enough to measure.
I guess no one is going to answer my question...will check back in later.

What is good to bad...blue to orange or orange to blue.

is Ozone different from air polution???
14. Alec
it appears blue to orange is bad...I suppose the fires(smoke) are making S FL a bit worse than normal
sefla: in general your area does have good air quality. that doesn't mean there will never be days where ozone concentrations are moderate as they are now. EPA standards are based on long-term averages (3 years). Overall, the entire state of florida is in "attainment" with EPA air standards, and that's amazing considering the population.

and ozone is part of air quality, but not the only part...
{{{{Alec}}}} thank you very much for answering my question!!!!!
sefla: look at the key at the top of the map. higher numbers are worse, so the warm colors are worse than the cool colors.
the smoke is probably not making the ozone worse, by the way. smoke adds particluates (soot, dust) but does not do much with ozone. this map is only showing ozone.
50% of the country is west of there.


but not 50% of the population...
20. Alec
you could also infer the blue is better than the bright colors because Jeff Masters said the "clean Canadian air" helped out the East(the blue originates from Canada)
but not 50% of the population...

Pretty close, actually. According to the US Census the 'mean center' of US population was in the middle of Missouri as of 2000 (and moving west slowly but steadily).

;)
A link to a map of where the ozone is bad in the US...aka "non-attainment areas" in EPA jargon. Kansas City metro area is not on this map due to the freakishly cool summer of 2004.

Link
middle of Missouri...about 400 miles east of the center of the country located here in the great state of Kansas...

if you want to see west-o-centric weather, turn on the weather channel after midnight eastern...
25. Alec
hey buster, do ya suppose your tunnels can cure FL's drought and the sewage problems?lol
I've always noticed that weather coverage was heavily biased to the east. I grew up outside Rapid City, SD ... and found it was easier to find out what the weather was like in Atlanta, GA or Chicago, IL than my own town. I think there might be several reasons for that though:

1. A majority of the west contains very few people. Aside from a couple interested ranchers, nobody really cares what the weather is there.
2. Various areas of the west have "boring" weather for a large part of the year: Seattle, San Diego, and Phoenix come to mind.
3. There is less severe weather in the west.
Oklahoma always has great weather coverage. Too much sometimes. I've always attributed that to the Meteorology School at OU in Norman, OK.

Seems like CA weather is "news", not "weather". All I ever see of CA weather is mudslides, traffic jams, and smog reports. The rockies seem to only have weather in the winter. Maybe that's when Easterners go to ski?
Zap
29. Alec
Here's a good one buster:
Do you think your tunnels can DIRECTLY fix our society's will to pollute? Dont think so...
assuming that enough water movement occurred to generate all that power...and pascal and bernouilli never built tunnels in the ocean so don't tell me they've proven it would work!
Let's stop beating a dead horse already. Cyclonebuster simply cant, or wont, accept that we dont believe him and wont be convinced by him. Just ignore him. He had shut up about his tunnels for a while, let's try and keep it that way.
33. Alec
Posted By: Alec at 12:13 PM EDT on May 18, 2006.
Here's a good one buster:
Do you think your tunnels can DIRECTLY fix our society's will to pollute? Dont think so...

Buster I dont think you got my question. I was asking about your tunnels directly affecting a society's WILL(a person's thinking frame)...your tunnels cannot DIRECTLY change someone's desire to pollute if they choose to do so....
34. Alec
I'll end it here Myles.....thanks for the heads up...
the tunnels also are an effective cure for simple, chronic halitosis...excessive ear hair...acne...and other nuisance conditions.
RE: Clear, clean, Canadian air.

I'm glad to see that our Canadian exports are appreciated on your side of the border.
Speaking of pollution, what our country needs is:

1. A large increase in nuclear power plants. One of these plants generates more electrical power than all of our hydroelectric plants combined! They're clean, environmentally friendly and can even generate hydrogen gas by electrolysis for fuel-cell vehicles to use. Europeans love them. If I had the money to invest, I would hire the French to build a nuclear power plant, supply the fuel and haul off the used radioactive waste. They have become leaders in this industry.

2. A massive program to build coal-to-oil conversion plants. Coal can be converted to oil by a process known as steam reforming. We have eight times more energy in proven coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has in oil.

3. Build more refineries. No new refineries have been built in this country in 30 years, mainly due to environmental regulations, and our production capacity isn't keeping pace with demand. This is not good for our people or for our national security.

Perhaps this cartoon explains what some of the problem is:

Building more refineries certainly won't reduce pollution, unless we take some of the older refineries off line. Blaming the lack of refining capacity on environmental rules is an over-simplification. Part of it is also the fact that refining is a more profitable business when the use is close to capacity. So there is no free-market incentive to build new refineries.

And the regulations that do apply to refineries are necessary and should not be relaxed. The amount of pollution emitted by refineries is huge. Many of them release more during "accidental" events than other industrial sites release all year...
I love the cartoon.

1. Ozone concentrations appear greatest during the hottest part of the day. This is because sunlight is greatest during those times, and the sun's UV light is required for ozone production. It's also when most ozone polluters are running.
2. Ozone concentrations appear greater around areas of strong rain. Ever 'smelled' rain coming? You're smelling a higher ozone concentration, because lightning converts the oxygen in the air it hits to ozone.
3. Ozone concentrations appear greater around big cities during the day, and less around big cities during the night. New Orleans, Chicago, St Louis, and Minneapolis are easily discernable. I don't know why they'd be lower at night, but most pollution happens during the day.

I was really bored earlier, so I worked this out [WARNING: Your head may explode if you're not a math person]:

1^i = 3.48*(10^-6), 525.4916555, 286751.3131, 1, and an infinite number of other numbers.

Proof [explanations in brackets]:

1 = e^(2k*pi*i) for any integer k [proof below]
1^i = (e^(2k*pi*i))^i [raise both sides to i power]
1^i = (e^(2k*pi*i*i)) [power to a power]
1^i = e^(-2k*pi) [i*i=-1]
1^i = e^(-2*pi*k) [this is an infinite set of real numbers]

Normally, of course, we take the principle value, when k=0:

1^i = e^0 = 1

But if we let k=1:

1^i = e^(-2pi), which is approximately .0018674427.

k=2 -> 3.48 x 10^-6
k=-1 -> 525.4916555
k=-2 -> 286751.3131

Proof that e^(2k*pi*i)=1 for integer k:

e^(theta*i) = cis (theta) = cos(theta)+i*sin(theta)
e^(2k*pi*i)
e^((2k*pi)*i)
cis (2k*pi) [property above]
cos(2k*pi)+i*sin(2k*pi) [definition of cis]
cosine of 2k*pi for any integer k is one, sine of 2k*pi for any integer k is zero. 1+0=1.
If we convert coal to oil and use it to run our cars, suddenly our 300 year reserves of coal will become 100 year reserves...
snowski..I beg to differ on the cause of high oil prices, but this is not the forum for that discussion.

Is there another cutoff low setting up around the Great Lakes again?
RW, building more refineries would increase pollution. With the exception of nuclear (covered below), any increase in power capacity that will lower energy (read:gas) prices will increase pollution. Shout hydroelectric or wind all you want, they're expensive enough to build and maintain that they wouldn't bring down the prices.

Nuclear, of course, has its own concerns. Nuclear is a very severe enviornmental hazard in the event of a meltdown, and a security threat if some of the material is stolen.
Yes, it looks like it. They're common at this time of year.
Newer, cleaner refineries; new, clean fuel reforming (including processing trash and waste as well as coal); efficient tar sand recovery; and newer, cleaner nuke plants would all make sense.

I have heard that molten salts reactors and modified breeder reactors produce less nuclear by-products that must be disposed of and operate more efficiently as well. If you get the operating temps high enough you might also be able to disassociate hydrogen from water directly, without an inefficient nuke/steam/electric/electrolysis chain.

My point isn't to promote pollution, but to promote incremental improvements in ALL areas (including conservation at the demand side) that will make the inevitable (but not yet clear) transition to future power sources tolerable. Knee-jerk positions on any side only perpetuates the status quo, and makes the process of change more painful. Let's build new, replace the old, and research a bunch, and stay a world leader by doing so.

Zap
Colby..80% of the electrical power of the state of France has been nuclear for 30 years.
Now how are they able to do that without error? I can tell you that, but it is a little involved.
I'd support plenty of nuclear plants IF we had a place to permanently store the waste. But right now we don't, and it's all in "temporary" storage. Expanding nuclear can't even really be discussed until we cross this hurdle.

But pollution from coal plants causes many health problems and maybe 1000s of premature deaths per year...so if we can build nuclear plants instead of coal plants, that would be great...
I have heard that even the "clean" fuels emit chemichals into the air. They found out that Hydrogen and Natural Gas vehicles emit bihydro-monoxide. They have determined that this compund can have drastic effects on weather.
Hello all,

Granted that the topic about the air pollution that is over taking america. Aint this a tropical weather forum??? Sorry to be a prude but I have read the entire forum and saw that 1 person beating some1 up about this topic then 2 more pile on.

Can we focus on the tropical stuff, I is a bit more interesting.

Again sorry to be a prude
Hey spicey, it's a forum about whatever the good Dr. chooses as his topic of the day. Weather and air pollution are interrelated topics, and worthy of discussion.

If your sole interested is hurricane season, then wait a few weeks and we'll be focussed on that topic alone, I assure you!
what are people thinking about the Panama blob today?
I understand and I respect the good Dr. topic, i just thought i could catch a update into what is happening out in the tropics
I like seeing Indiana at the middle of that map (you should post more maps with Indiana in the middle Dr. Masters). I noticed that there is a deep blue spot, right where Indianapolis is. It is so nice to have good clean air.
and a blue spot near pittsburgh, a place always known for its clean air...lol

may be some kind of artifact in the forecast model, trying to deal with cloudy cool weather in urban areas?
ForecasterColby: so are you saying 2.718... times 2k x 3.4159... times the square root of -1 always equals 1 not matter what k is?
typo "no" matter
Correction 2.718... to the power of etc.

Is that some sort of hurricane forecasting tool?
you're right spicey meatball
I know this is off topic (maybe you can forgive me), but I think you will find it interesting.

Link
Is figure 1 suggesting that the cooler Canadian blue air sweeping into the the midwest has pushed relatively higher ozone levels eastward, then leaving it sit over the Atlantic? Does the jet stream assist the eastern populous by lessening elevated levels of ozone? Can wind alone distort the presence of ozone or must there be an organized flow like the figure suggests? As summer fast approaches, what weather patterns seem most alarming across the lower 48 states? Is it consistent that late springtime usually brings on flood or fire alert weather as the transition of seasons finds its balance? Or am I just a goof that doesn't have a clue?
nice to see the worse ozone is right around southern alabama. We are trying to be #1 at somethings. I guess this is one of them.
ForecasterColby ... if you want more mathy excitement ... remember that 1 = i^4.
Colby. my head just exploded. Thanks for the warning though
Check out...

http://alg.umbc.edu/usaq/

http://a href="http://alg.umbc.edu/usaq/"

target="_blank">alg.umbc.edu/usaq/

Hi everyone,
back from lunch and in between meetings.
thanks to those of you that gave me information and answers that I was asking about earlier today! :o)


Hope everyone has a great afternoon; and keeps and eye on the tropics!

Gamma
Thanks sefla! Always nice to have well-wishers on the BLOG. You have a great afternoon as well.
wind does affect ozone, and all pollutants. more wind = lower concentration of pollutants. stangant conditions lead to higher concentrations.

on this current map, what you are seeing on the ozone forecast is the influence of clouds...ozone needs sunlight, so the cloudy areas have lower levels and the sunny areas higher.
naples patty there is nothing to worry about in the tropics right now are for that matter another 8 days...the tropics have to much sheer for something to develop however the sheer is forecast to go way down by may 23...so keep tuned im watching the tropics...i will break in if i think anyone is in danger from a rapidly developing system....StormTop
Question for you all.

How did we detect hurricanes that stayed at sea before the invention of the satellite? I notice that the number of hurricanes were high samoe years before 1957 (year the first satellite was launched). Did all these hit land or were some of these at sea? How were they detected at sea, by a boat I would imagine, but what would a sailor define has a hurricane?

I am just wandering because wouldn't it be possible that alot of hurricanes were missed becaused they stayed at sea?

Thus isn't it possible that last year wasn't the most active season since 1886?

anybody please shed some light on this for me!!
bama,

Dr. Masters wrote a great post on this at the end of the last season. Check out the archives. Was it November? December maybe? It was the season that didn't seem to end after all...
There was a shift in the weather pattern for the Gulf of Mexico and most of the tropics in mid-February. Thi is south central Alabama, and the area can easily be called sub-tropical now. In February there were temps in the lower 80's with humidity. Then it changed, cooler in April than February. Very little humidity, and breezy as well. Now it seems to be changing again in the other direction.
bama,

Found it. See the post for November 19, 2005.

The short answer: no we can't be SURE, but the probablility is very high that this was the biggest season in living memory.
alright that was interesting. thanks for the help. I just never had seen anything about before. Thats why Im hear. You all talk about the cool stuff!!!
Im trying to get educated so I can back up hurricane #'s being on a cycle. Alot of people around here seem to believe that all the hurricanes were because of global warming.
Good to see ya bama. I have wondered the same thing. This is not really relevant to your question, but there are some historcial links that may have some information on what you are asking. So check it out and please let me know what you think in my blog.

StormJunkie.com

Thanks
SJ
Yeah, I'm saying that e^(2*pi*i*ANY integer) is one.

bihydro-monoxide is water, by the way.

No, numbers to complex exponents has nothing to do with the weather (unless one considers that they're an important part of higher-level physics).

I'm gonna use that ozone map as a good surface wind measurement.
Due to heavy spam on my site, I've implemented a new policy on registering. Take a look in the site information board for further enlightenment.
crazybowler. it got absorbed into that front. no storm this week its looking like.
I think it is pretty much dead bowler. Matter of fact

Check out the link in my previous post more information on the tropics.

Thanks
SJ
Sorry ya'll, got side tracked. ...matter of fact it was never much of a wave.

SJ
there is a weak low over central mexico that looks like its going to move over water. probably doesn't have a chance though
83. Alec
speaking of water, buoy #42058 in the central Caribbean has a pool of hot water that has moved under it. It's reading 86.4!
here is the link. the low is in the bottom left corner. Also notice the circle of clouds in the central gulf moving south. nothing i know but neat to look at.
Link


Posted By: bamaweatherwatcher at 8:42 PM GMT on May 18, 2006.

Question for you all.

How did we detect hurricanes that stayed at sea before the invention of the satellite? I notice that the number of hurricanes were high some years before 1957 (year the first satellite was launched). Did all these hit land or were some of these at sea? How were they detected at sea, by a boat I would imagine, but what would a sailor define has a hurricane?

I am just wandering because wouldn't it be possible that alot of hurricanes were missed becaused they stayed at sea?

Thus isn't it possible that last year wasn't the most active season since 1886?

anybody please shed some light on this for me!!


There were no "stealth hurricanes" one inch wide slipping between observations. Physics doesn't change over decades or centuries. What you see today is the same essential forces since the Earth formed.

Hurricanes are too large to hide.

Beginning with the gold rush of the Aztec and Inca treasury lootings of the Spainards the seas have been full of ships. First conquestadors, then colonists and missionaries, then pirates and seajackers from many nations, add traders and mail ships. The Spanish still have records from hundreds of years ago waiting for researchers with time on their hands to go back that far. The British had fleets in the Carribean for over 200 years (British Hondoras, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands) and each Brit ship was required to log weather in there seperate logs daily assigned to different officers. Those logs are archived by the British admiralty.

Slaveships, cotton, sugar, rum, tobacco, leather, salt beef, all plied the oceans. They crossed east-west, north-south from every destination to every destination. During the Gold Rush in San Francisco, 1949, thousands of ships left to California from Europe and the East Coast.. At one time there were over 700 derelict ships in SF bay abandoned by crew. Those ships all traveled first East towards the Canary Islands, then west to South America. One third of traffic to California went via Panama, crossing the Atlantic and Carrib to get there. Coastal traders and mail ships continued without pause.

Newspapers were far more common. Even a frontier city like San Francisco has 14 daily newspapers in English by 1951, plus several dailies in other languages. There were also weeklies, fornightlies and monthlies. All coastal newspapers reported ships arrivals and departure schedules, plus reported noteworthy weather events reported by ships at sea.

Sailors were far more skilled at reading weather than today -- their lives depended upon themselves alone and without help from satellites and govt forecasting. Ships ere equipped with barometers early, which is STILL TODAY the main instrument used to determine storm strengths. Wind-speed instruments were as likely to be destroyed then as today from the worst winds.

Storms then, as today, covered hundreds of miles in girth and tens of thousands of miles in area. Any given storm had some fishing boats or ocean-going ships encountering it. Two ships recording the opposite edges at simultaneous moments could recreate the diameter. Accurate clocks were the first important navl instrument -- without them one could not know their longitude, nor compute speed. The reason we still use Greenwich Mean Time is because all British ships had to go there to get their ships clocks sychronized with the official time.

Ships knew where they were and when they were there, and recorded that, then the sailors blabbed everything to reporters on the docks looking for interesting stories to print. There were no one-inch-thick hurricanes threading invisibly between observers -- not THEN, not NOW.

In 1914 there was war between the US and Mexico in Tampico, and later WWI in Europe. The whole world was on alert, and every ship at sea was all eyes for submarines or warships. NOT ONE hurricane is recorded for 1914. This is not because people were sleeping or not keeping watch, but because there weren't any hurricanes. Period. Both the Germans and the Allies were stocking up on strategic supplies during hurricane peak season. The US fleet was still thick in the Gulf of Mexico. The Panama Canal was open and ships were thick coming and going from all points east and west in the Atlantic. There were NO HURRICANES. Period.

The search is on for reported but uncounted old hurricanes. Plantation owners kept daily logs and journals. Old archives in state universities and history museums are being searched. One previously unreported hurricane every five or ten years may be rediscovered in this process. Landfalling hurricanes do not just impact one point on the beach, but cut a swath of destruction that goes for miles and hundreds of miles and thousands of miles. Any unusual swath of supersevere weather would have been observed and documented. There were NO STEALTH HURRICANES passing between two trees and not leaving any trace. Not THEN, not NOW.

By 1930 there was regularly scheduled airmail service between all points to all points around the Carribean and North Atlantic to suppliment the ships at sea. BY WWII there wasn't any possibility of a missing storm. By late WWII there was aircraft radar. There is not a chance that there were any stealth hurricanes by the 1940s.

The records you have are trustworthy on counts, but not trustworthy on strength or intensity. Where barometric records exist it is possible to come close to determining strengths, and for most of the record period barometric records exist for many of the storms.

There is no possibility of recovering data which was never kept in the first place, so the older history is muurky on this subject as it is on many other historical facts. You can rest assured that the record since the beginning of the 20th century is about as good as present records, and quibbling over one category, plus or minus, is useless distraction.

The record is unimpeachable that hurricanes are increasing in both frequency and in the numbers of strongest storms. There are no "historical cycles" in the record to find -- this is absolutely unique series of events, backed up by tornado records, backed up by temperature records, backed up by the record the corals have written in stone in cooral reefs now being read by astute scientists, backed up by cores drilled in sea floor, drilled on dry land, drilled in icepacks and glaciers.


alec. how do you get to that bouy? I can't find it on wu page.
5-16-06

5-23-05

Look at the sst info from these dates. After the heat wave the south is about to have things will heat up really quickly. The Carib seems to be warmer then last year and the upper Gulf stream seems to have dispersed more heat then it did this time last year. And again this is prior to the heat wave.

SJ
88. Alec
Here's the link. I found it on the National Data Buoy website.
Try this one bama. I just don't see it. I think what is left of the low is over open water now. Click the fronts tab on the radar.

Sat loop
thanks alec.
Interesting Alec, that should be right where the "low" in the carib is if I am correct. Look at previous link.

SJ
92. Alec
there appears to be pools of very warm to hot water temps down there in the Caribbean. The 82 degree water near the Yucatan channel is deep(about 50 meters in some places)link
my new blog is up
you guys are not giving up....there is not going to be a storm form down in the caribbean because of the sheer is to strong..check the ir sat pics...gee if something formed it would tear it to shreds...however im forecasting the sheer to be very light in the next 6-8 days then you might see some development...StormTop
is that 1008 low over mexico always there. like the bermuda high? I thought i saw the clouds moving towards water on that one. Just looking for things to talk about. hold us over until we get a real wave somewhere.
96. Alec
Stormtop, what are all the negative factors you alluded to the other day other than shear?
stormtop. we know already. we are just making weather talk.
98. Alec
bama, he has done this for days now...I'd like to see what Stormtop can contribute to the weather, other than coming in here saying we're all wrong....
Bush Says Border Fencing Makes Sense


if you like some some to talk about her some in my blog to talk about
yea i know... i was following your blogs for the past few days before i started. I have noticed that stormtop doesn't defend himself either. except with levi for some reason.
looks like a wave or two is coming off africa. too far south right now though.Link
Alec,

Does one not have to say they are right, or certain, before one can be wrong?

SJ
103. Alec
Hey SJ, the fact is, I would like STORMTOP to come out and at least discuss weather w/us other than coming out and telling us how wrong we are....
ScienceCop - very interest post. That has been my gut feeling all along, very well put. No 1" hurricanes LOL
ScienceCop,

While everything you mentioned was true, I don't think that every hurricane from 1800-1950 was observed and classified correctly.

I'd imagine most Cat3+ storms were noted correctly if observed, but it gets shady when talking about weaker hurricanes that could be confused with strong extratropical systems. I'm not sure how well the warm-core vs cold-core concept was understood in the 1850s. I also don't know if they had any way to measure this either. And I don't think sailors would really care one way or the other ... a storm is a storm and should be avoided.

There are also various places in the open Atlantic that sail boats tend to avoid due to lack of consistent winds. I think those areas are fairly favorable for cyclone development and it's possible some strong storms in these locations were missed.
i still ask how did a captain of a ship differ a hurricane from a normal storm?
107. Alec
You can also tell there's a hurricane out there without satellites by observing the surf...hurricanes propagate waves radially outward and reach the coastline way in advance...If the wave heights are around higher than normal and keep climbing higher then that's a good indication a storm is brewing....
I chewed a hole in the carpet, and just bit a plug out of my arm..but I have to say it.... Stormtop is right.
Nothing in the tropics can even begin counterclockwise spin, much less form a cyclone under present shear conditions.
Excuse me, getting nauseous, got to go.
bama...ships weather instruments. ie. barometer, wind guage, vane.. and the ability forecast by sudden fluctuations in the instruments readings. Also, ability to read cloud formations and recognize cloud types da da da da. Also, arrggh, it's in yer bones matie.
LOL franck - it's ok, despite his brusque and imperious manner STORMTOP is often right. It would be good if he could leaven his posts with some acknowledgement that he can also sometimes be wrong..
"i still ask how did a captain of a ship differ a hurricane from a normal storm?"

There are a few ways. Hurricanes generally have a very tight wind core - if one encounters a marine, synoptic-scale (that means big) storm center, it's probably a hurricane. Second, cirrus clouds can be noted blowing away at high altitudes, which is rarely seen in an extratropical storm. Third, a major temperature difference will be noted around an extratropical system, whereas a hurricane will have little to no temperature gradient.
Here's a highlight from today's radio show Earth & Sky~

DB: Rain or snow can wash these particles out of the air. The most efficient removal of tiny particles of haze or pollution comes when the particles are incorporated into clouds. Then the particles might fall to the ground within ice crystals or raindrops.

JB: And that's one reason the sky can look cleaner after precipitation. But another reason is that a rush of air from a cold front often moves into an area along with rain or snow. Air from the front can push out the polluted air that was previously sitting over the area.

DB: Because it can be raining or snowing at the same time a cold front blows through, people often think this precipitation cleans pollutants out of the sky. But what's actually happening is the polluted air gets blown away -- and clean air takes its place -- for a time.
wow what happened in here...

No one is talking..Or is it the Will & Grace is on...


Taco:0)
114. RL3AO
CSI is on
What's up taco.

Kind of a slow night.

For an interesting look check the sst maps in my blog.

SJ
Hey taco..If Will and Grace is on, I'm ready to talk. I have never seen the show nor do I plan to!!
Hey Ejstrick and StormJunkie,
Well after tonight there will not be any more Will and Grace... and the SST bother me a little bit...

Do you think that ST is right about the 23rd???


Taco:0)
I think the shear will die off around the time ST says. As for devlopment, we will have to see once we get the shear down.

SJ
No way!! Mid June at the earliest.
Sorry I was checking out StormJunkie.com man what a site...

Now I also think that it will be mid June.


15th - 18th

Taco:0)
First time we talked taco...Let me ask what your prog. is for this season.
Yo, new here. Saw Taco's comment about SST's. Seems to me it has a big influence on intensity but not that important for development of a system. Just an opinion. Seems like matching up surface low pressure with decent outflow above is key.
Sorry about that Ejstrick,
With all due respect I think there will be 17 storms and 10 Hurricanes 4 major and maybe 2 cat 5's...


I also think that Mid to south Texas will take the wrost one and Ga,Sc the other...

Remember this is what I think...

Taco:0)
I'd say either a South Florida or a North Carolina year.
Posted By: newt3d at 6:01 PM CDT on May 18, 2006.
ScienceCop,

While everything you mentioned was true, I don't think that every hurricane from 1800-1950 was observed and classified correctly.

I'd imagine most Cat3+ storms were noted correctly if observed, but it gets shady when talking about weaker hurricanes that could be confused with strong extratropical systems. I'm not sure how well the warm-core vs cold-core concept was understood in the 1850s. I also don't know if they had any way to measure this either. And I don't think sailors would really care one way or the other ... a storm is a storm and should be avoided.

There are also various places in the open Atlantic that sail boats tend to avoid due to lack of consistent winds. I think those areas are fairly favorable for cyclone development and it's possible some strong storms in these locations were missed.


newt3d,

Few wooden ships survived cat 3+ hurricanes, direct hits. People on the fringes had no way to know how big a storm was, or which way it might be going to try to sail out of the way. Data on the worst storms magnitudes went to Davy Jones Locker, but the storm itself was not missed. Those ships with tattered sails and broken masts knew they were in a gale, for sure. You can't play word games with this. Hurricanes are huge. At one moment in time hurricane Jeanne covered the entire state of Florida from the panhandle to the keys. Charlie blew up in two hours from a cat 2 to a cat 4 and punched inland suddenly in an area that was less inhabited 100 years ago than it is now, but it did punch through all the way to the Atlantic coast. The chances of that not being known to the folks of Saint Petersburg, one of the oldest restablished cities on the continent, are exceedingly thin even 100, 200, years ago.

By the turn of the century the US was a colonial power, occupying Cuba, Philipines, and increasingly Central American nations. These aggressive actions were supported by logistics trains of colliers and troops-supply ships, and the reason these ships were there in the first place was to guard a constant stream of merchant vessels carrying away loot for the profits of their yankee owners. In order to coordinate all this there were mail ships carrying intelligence, reports, and commands. Vessels sailed on schedules, their departures were known well in advance and their arrivals were expected by date certain ("when my ship comes in" carrying somebody's expected fortune).

In order for your premise to be true, that there were hidden, uncounted, hurricanes that skew the record, you need to invent a new physics, because the physics everybody else in the world does not permit that thesis to stand. You have to conjecture that storms were different back then then they are now.

After Lindbergh's famous flight in the late 20s, civil aviation took off. WWI already introduced flying to thousands and thousands in the teens. Flights are plotted on the most fuel-saving direct routes. Airmail connected regions and islands alike. There were no doldrums hiding storms. From the 1930s through 2006 there were no secret hurricane playgrounds. You have to be saying that the physics of weather was different earlier and significant numbers of storms which would unbalance our present confidence in the records played hide-n-seek before 1930s and stopped doing that afterwards. It would take a change in the laws of physics for that to happen.

Barometers were home instruments and ships instruments for well more than a century -- and they are still the primary instrument by which we measure storm strength. Satellites give an approximation which is disgarded whenever and wherever there is barometric data instead.

"Stealth Hurricanes" before aviation filled the skies cannot change the data for 75 years after flying, and likely can't change it before by much of significance. Statistical probability shoots down this canard theory -- you not only need a different physics, you need a different mathematics. In order to hide lots and lots of hurricanes in places people weren't, you need hurricanes to have congregated there more often than they do now, and that requires revision of the laws of physics.

Nope. The record we have is the best record we are capable of having, and casting doubts and aspersions on that record serves no useful or good purpose. There are persons with known criminal associations casting aspersions on the record to get their clients free from liability for the increasing damages caused by major storms.

One casting doubt on the records needs to explain their motives.

http://ecosyn.us/1/Tornadoes.html

http://ecosyn.us/1/1/stormy.html


Increasing Frequency, Increasing Intensity of dangerous storms in recent times.

I also think that the North Gulf Coast will have one or maybe 2 but I think they will only be Tropical Storms not a Hurricanes...

Sorry about that Texas

Taco:0)
hi taco2me61
Just take a look at all of the Category 4-5 storms in the Southern Hemisphere this year; even Chanchu was an anomaly; it was only the second super typhoon in the South China Sea (the other was in 1995).
Hey Super Dave,

Hows the Weather in Ca


Taco:0)
Ga is way over due taco, but I think the nubmers will be higher then 17 taco. If the shear dies, all bets are off. The heat will help the weakest low develop in a decent environment. Remember 10, 12, katrina.

Check out the sst maps in my blog.
I question your logic Colby

1 = e^(2k*pi*i) for any integer k

1=e^(2*k*pi*i)
ln(1)=(2*k*pi*i) aside:[ln1=0]
0=(-4*k^2*pi^2)^(1/2)
0=(-4*k^2*pi^2) for k=0
please correct me if i am wrong.
Taco rain by the week end
Super Dave you can send some of that rain this way when you get enough...


taco:0)
taco2me61 ok come on in the water is hot in my blog
I think that unfortunately we will have lots of Cat4/Cat5 storms, due in part to the atmospheric changes caused by the greenhouse effect. The increasing CO2 levels are exacerbating the effect, leading to a warming of the lower atmosphere and a cooling of the upper atmosphere (which in turn facilitates the explosive intensification of hurricanes and typhoons).
A cold upper atmosphere and warm lower atmosphere is one of the main reasons why spring is severe weather season; after July, the lower atmosphere starts to cool while the upper atmosphere gets warmer and the amount and severity of severe weather declines sharply (in the fall, it is mainly caused by the jetstream and air masses).
Michael is right, in the summer you don't get the clash between a warm air mass and a cold air mass so there is no instability.
138. Alec
severe weather actually retreats northward as the battle zone moves northward(cold air and warm air collisions retreat north as summer takes shape across the midwest)......
ScienceCop,

All I was trying to point out was that records from the past may not be the most precise, and understandably so.

I agree with you on many points ... and want to point out that I really appreciate the thoroughness of your post. You described the historic methods and reasoning very well.

- I agree that the physics of hurricanes hasn't changed too terribly much in the past 200 years.
- I agree that there was a lot of coverage from a LOT of different people across the Atlantic.

I simply question the exact accuracy of a story written by MANY people 100 years ago and interpreted today. The general knowledge of weather among people has changed tremendously in that time, and that could lead to some confusion. Surely there are some contradictory records that exist as well.

(I'm imagining 200-year-ago versions of louastu and STORMTOP ... they could both see the same swirl of clouds out there and have very different opinions about what is happening)

So, yes, the record we have is the best we'll ever get. It's not likely that we missed 15 hurricanes per year for every year before 1900. We probably did miss a couple though, and probably have less data about intensity and duration.

I think that the compilation of various ship reports, newspaper articles and other sources to recreate a record of hurricanes is great. I also think that in any scientific experiment, data collected with different methods needs to be considered with a grain of salt.
Tunnels AGAIN?

You know, I think that you are the most useless blogger on this site.

MichaelSTL i this mark that post as spam
... a tunnel a day keeps the hurricanes away? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
When will cyclonebuster realize that what he says is not true or will not work; in his last blog, he said that the comet would destroy the Earth. Well? It did not happen!
: MichaelSTL i this mark cyclonebuster for talking about his Tunnels i do not want or her about them or i think any one on her dos Please keep them in your one blog or or your post will be mark as spam when you talk about your Tunnels

sorry for the miss up there
When did it start asking if you are sure you want to mark a post as spam?
Posted By: newt3d at 10:20 PM CDT on May 18, 2006.
(I'm imagining 200-year-ago versions of louastu and STORMTOP ... they could both see the same swirl of clouds out there and have very different opinions about what is happening)

Wow, someone mentioned me. I feel important.
The question of the hour louastu, is how your 200-year-ago version would see things differently from STORMTOP's?
I don't really know. The 200-year-ago version of me is no longer alive, and he didn't leave a note.
If a tunnel a day keeps the hurricanes away, then what keeps the comets away???
Depending on the angle at which a comet (or any other space debris) approaches, the atmosphere. If an object approaches Earth at a shallow angle, it will skip back into space (kind of like skipping a stone on a pond).
154. Inyo
look
this is impossible to bash into the heads of the neocons but

THE AMOUNT OF OIL IN ALASKA IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!

at most it would supply 6 months of our oil needs.

THE REPUBLICANS PUSH FOR THE DRILLING ONLY BECAUSE IT SETS A PRESIDENT FOR PILLAGING OUR PUBLIC LANDS

a few people (oil ceos, etc) would beneifit from the drilling. the effect on gas prices would be BARELY NOTICIBLE if at all.

it's best to give up whining about this because even if you get what you want, it won't do any good.


and yes twc, etc are heavily biased towards the east... if you notice, the 'meteoroligists' almsot always stand right over California... blocking the view to the weather affecting over 30 million people. In the summer, it is true that 'california has no weather' (at least on the coast) but in other seasons the weather is quite variable.. in fact we had severe thunderstorms today over the southern San Joaquin Valley... with a radar-visible outflow boundary that would rival anything seen in the midwest.

The cliamte is warming. How much of this is caused by humans? Almost surely a good portion of it, probably not all. Storms seem to be increasing in severity. This week California has had August-style monsoon weather. Is this an indicator of greenhouse warming? probably not. But combine it with the intense hurricanes everywhere and various examples of abnormal weather... sorry repubnicans, but it's changing.

Gas prices are rising exponentially, partially beacuse of supply.. mostly so the oil CEOS can get 400 million dollar bonuses when they retire. I have no problem with paying extra at the pump to account for increased costs associated with production, refining, and technology to reduce harmful pollution. I sure as hell have a problem with paying extra to make a bunch of CEOs massively rich at my beneifit.

so there.
155. Inyo
also the comet is already gone. forget about it. I'm sure in the next 10,000 years some big comet will smack into the earth. this isnt it.
Posted By: cyclonebuster at 5:24 AM GMT on May 19, 2006.
Just build my hydroelectric tunnels and be done with it!


CycloneBuster,

I looked up your "tunnels", which you neglected to draw any pictures of and post on any free webhost or anywhere. If I understand your word-descriptions, you have submerged tubes vertically oriented up-down in the long dimension. You count on water movement over the open tops to be a sucking, drawing, force to raise cold water from the depths up to cool off the surface waters.

Is that a fair summation, so far?

If that is what you are calling "tunnels", it will not function as you describe. The "Bernouli" principle or the "Venturi" principle cannot cancel Newtons prime laws of physics.

Cold water is heavier than warm water. It has less vibrational energy, less heat-kinetic energy, so it does not occupy as large a volume in vibrating. More cold water molecules pack into denser space. Cold water sinks. Warm water molecules are loaded with more heat energy -- they vibrate more and occupy more territory, thus less of them fill a given volume.

Warm water floats on cooler water and the warm water wants to rise, by Archimedes bouyancy principle, while the cold water sinks by the same principle. Actually Archimedes Bouyancy Principle is an example of Newton's general laws of physics.

Raising cooler water is work. It requires expendature of energy. There is an equal and opposite effect of the application of any force. Gravity and Archimedes principle opposes suction drawing up any water. If water attempted to rise upwards it would create a partial vacuum or reduction in pressure, opposing that rise of water.

As a general rule of thumb, water has a pressure of half a pound (0.5) per square inch of surface per foot of depth. At two feet there is one pound of pressure per square inch. At 2000 feet there is 1000 psi. There is no suction you can do which can fight such power pressure.

At 32 feet deep the water pressure is 16 pounds per inch, which is roughly equal to surface air pressure. A suction drawing water up a column of water 32 feet creates an opposite pressure to the air above. This zero pressure point causes a drastic lowering in the vapor point of water, causing in essence "low temperature boiling". If you ever travel up mountains you will notice that decreases in boiling temperature accompanies high altitude -- that doesn't mean boiling water is as hot at high altitudes as boiling water is at sea level. Water can "boil" at below freezing temperatures in vacuums, and that is how "freeze drying" works to make "Astronaut Ice Cream".


The vaporization turns the water to gas, the gas bubbles move up the column (Archimedes bouyancy principle again), and the suction is broken. No suction-type pump can operate more than 30 feet deep on Earth Surface. Sorry. That's physics laws at work.

Deep pumps require submerging the pump down the well to push water upwards. Any well pump in a well more than 30 feet deep is of the pusher-type, not the suction-type. You can push water much higher than you can suck water, but trhe workload increases as the weight of the water increases. Water weighs one gram per CC, or "a pint's a pound the world around". One gallon of water weighs eight pounds. To push a gallon uphill takes energy, work. Carry a five gallon bucket of water up a flight of stairs if you want to experience how much work it takes.

Hurricanes require water to be hot down to about 50 meters depth, or at least about 150 feet deep. The Loop Current last summer was measured hot down past 500 feet deep. Suction-type devices can never affect those depths. The laws of physics prevent that.

You have misunderstood the Bernouli and Venturi principles and given them unwarranted magical powers that they do not possess. Newton's laws cannot be set aside. There is an equal and opposite effect from every application of force.

Molecules of water in a current will obey Newton's Law of inertia -- a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. Your tunnels will present a blockage in forward motion to those water molecules moving horizontally below the top of your submerged tunnel - these will merely slide around it. Those molecules above your tunnel will slide right over it as if it didn't exist. Only a very thin layer of molecules would actually slide over the horizontal mouth of your tunnel. There is no particular reason that their passage will exert any substantial suction against cooler water at depth pressures measured in at least 75 psi or greater. Because of the molecular nature of water some molecules would press down as well as some deflect upwards. The net sum of activity would be essentially zero. A thermocline would develop inside the tunnel tube of roughly equilibrium temperatures as outside of it. You still have the fundamental bouyancy problem that the warmer waters and cooler waters don't mix.

All that can happen is some warm water in the tunnel tops gets replaced by some warm water in the current at the topmost level of the tunnels, and that is the end of the process -- it never proceeds any further than that. Nothing is changed and the world is not saved. Eventually barnacles, algae scum and corals will colonize the tunnel tubes and choke it closed.

Posted By: snowboy at 2:05 AM EDT on May 19, 2006.
If a tunnel a day keeps the hurricanes away, then what keeps the comets away???


Hmmmm....a snowcone?
I have posted my first blog. Please take a look and tell me what you think.

I will be back later.
159. Abaco
Can anyone explain the orange north south line est of the Florida Keys in the Ozone Map?
Good morning all.

I have posted 4 detailed SST maps for the past four years in my blog. Ya'll check it out. It is pretty interesting.

Also stop by StormJunkie.com. Then let me know hat you think in my blog.

Thanks all.
SJ
Hey SJ, I couldn't find the SSTs on your site, where are they?
-Rob
So Cal people take note...

An unusually late season storm may bring heavy rain to
southwestern California late this weekend...

An unseasonably strong and cold upper low was taking shape in the
eastern Pacific this morning. This storm system is forecast to
continue to gather strength and moisture as it slowly drops
southward to a position several hundred miles west of San Francisco
by late tonight. The upper low is forecast to remain nearly
stationary Saturday and Saturday night... with an increasingly
moist and organized surface front developing off the West Coast.

This frontal system is expected to push into southwestern California
on Sunday... causing rain to become likely across the area. A few
computer weather models are indicating that the front will enhance
quite a bit as it moves across the area late Sunday and Sunday
night... possibly bringing heavy rain and even some thunderstorms to
the region. Strong low level southerly flow ahead of the front will
cause wind gusts over 40 mph in the mountains... with gusty winds
likely in many coastal and valley areas Sunday into Sunday night. In
addition... the southerly flow will further enhance rainfall in and
below terrain with a south or southwest exposure to the ocean.

Rain should turn to showers across the area fairly early Monday
morning as the front moves eastward. Since the system has not yet
completely developed... its evolution and its eventual effects on the
weather in southwestern California are still somewhat in question.
However... the potential exists for a fairly good late season soaking
across the area Sunday into early Monday. Very preliminary estimates
of rainfall with this storm are for one half to one inch in coastal
and valley areas... with one to three inches in the foothills and
mountains. Higher amounts are possible in orographically favored
locations. Snow levels will likely be above 7500 feet through
Sunday... then could lower to 6000 feet Sunday night... with several
inches of snow possible above this level.

Residents of southwestern California are urged to stay tuned to
later forecasts and statements concerning this late season storm
system. Stay tuned to NOAA Weather Radio or your favorite media
outlet through the weekend.
I noticed this in my local forecast discussion:

.DISCUSSION...
UNSEASONABLY LOW INDEX FEATURES...HIGH AMPLITUDE FLOW CONTINUES
WITH DEEP LOW OVER THE GREAT LAKES AND A GIHEMOUS RIDGE OVER THE
ROCKIES NOSING FAR NORTH INTO WESTERN CANADA.

What do they mean by a "gihemous ridge"?
I have no idea what gihemous means. I can't find it at Dictionary.com, and I can't find it's meaning doing a Google search either.
Very large? Is that what gihemous means? I know that ginourmous means very large, but ths is a different word.
Form the few Google results, it appears that the St. Louis NWS is the only place that uses that word.
Ok, I have done a little research, and this is what I have come up with. It is possible that "gi" means ginormous (big), and that "hemous" is a shortened version of hemionus (ass). Therefore, a "gihemous ridge" may simply mean "big ass ridge".
Just speculation.
Anyway, I have posted my first blog. I would really appreciate it if people would drop by, and tell me what they think. It took me about 2 weeks to gather information, sort the information, and decide what information should be included, so hopefully it is good.
That low which was setting up in earnest over the Great Lakes again yesterday is pretty impressive, 1000 milibars in several locations.
It is hauling Atlantic moisture into Mew England again. Wonder if it's going to be moving out as fast as forecast.
Don't know nutt'n about dat word 'gihemous' needer.
If you Yahoo search the word you'll see the same forecaster has used it before.
That is 'New England'. And here is gihemous:

http://www.arh.noaa.gov/arhdata/archive/FXUS63KLSX/FXUS63KLSX_03290084023
It is an obscure meteorolgical term?
At 32 feet deep the water pressure is 16 pounds per inch, which is roughly equal to surface air pressure.

ScienceCop,

I agree with your post in general. However, you were way off with this comment. The pressure at 32 feet is roughly 16 psig. You have to also add atmospheric pressure of 15 psi(at sea level) for a total of 31 psia.

Picky point considering the rest of the post is essentially correct. No offense intended.

Question everyone: No cringing needed, I'm guesing this one will be simple.

I posted the other day regarding some of the terminology that is used in weather discussions from NWS offices. To this lay person at this point in my self-education, it really seems encrypted. Now I see the recent posts about more befuddling terminology.

When a NWS office issues a weather discussion, is the individual forecaster given a great deal of latitude regarding terminology(please, no duh here) and content or are there guidelines that must be followed?

Not a world shifting question, just curious.

Thanks for any reply.
New blog up.
Posted By: cyclonebuster at 12:16 PM GMT on May 19, 2006.
ScienceCop,
Along with Pascal working for us at the tunnel entrance at depth it works just fine.


Pascal can't help you. In order to move water out of the mouth of the tube you need lower pressure above. Water passing over the mouth at any leisurely place creates no substantial low pressure. Very little expansion from within the tube can happen to expell any contents out the mouth of the tube. The reduced pressure at the tube mouth, and just below the mouth, cannot draw up a column of water going down a minimum of 500 feet. The inertia of a column of water 500 feet tall is too great to be affected by the piddling reductions in pressure.

The path of least resistance is water from the current will be drawn down into the top part of the tunnel in a shallow layer of turbulence. The water above is under far less pressure, and has far less column weight. You will achieve a shallow layer of turbulence and that is the end of it. Nothing more than that can happen.

Pascal is not here to defend himself, but nothing Pascal ever said or did can undo what Issac Newton accomplished. Bodies at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. You have described a weak outside force and a very deep massive body at rest. You postualte a suction force, which we know from well pumps all over the world for generations of experience CANNOT EVER SUCK WATER MORE THAN 30 FEET. You can't break the laws of physics and Pascal can't help you break the laws of physics.

An F5 Tornado cannot suck water more than 30 feet up a tube. There is no force on earth that can suck a column of water more than 30 feet up a tube at sea level air pressures. Pascal, Bernouli and Venturi never sucked water more than 30 feet up a tube. It has never been done in the history of the world, not even once by you or anybody else.

I explained it once. As you suck on the water you reduce the pressure, and as you reduce the pressure you expand the liquid. As the liquid expands to it's limit it changes from liquid to gas. These gas bubbles float upwards and break the suction with an air pocket. That's the end of the process. It never gets better than that. It's over. Finished. Done.

A leisurely current flow over the tops of tubes is not even substantial source of suction pressure. It just creates a barely noticable turbulence zone on the top of the tube area and nothing more. You have designed a dud. You can't take 50 feet of cheap irrigation plastic pipe and draw water up by suction no matter what device you try. You never even tried that simple experiment that costs $10 for plasic pipes. You quit learning too soon about the physical mechanics of the planet you live on and you put out a half-baked theory with no chance of success.
Posted By: swlaaggie at 8:49 AM CST on May 19, 2006.
At 32 feet deep the water pressure is 16 pounds per inch, which is roughly equal to surface air pressure.

ScienceCop,

I agree with your post in general. However, you were way off with this comment. The pressure at 32 feet is roughly 16 psig. You have to also add atmospheric pressure of 15 psi(at sea level) for a total of 31 psia.

Picky point considering the rest of the post is essentially correct. No offense intended.



Not in an open system with a pipe or tube axially oriented up-down with both ends open. The air pressure of the atmosphere is pressing on the whole ocean so that any pressure applied to the top of the tube by air pressure is countered by air pressure applied everywhere else other than the tube top and is transferred down to the depths to exert an equal pressure underneath the bottom of the tube, effectively cancelling the air pressure at the tube top.

Hydraulics is not a new subject. The entire industrial revolution came about because coal mines flooded and pumps couldn't keep up with it, so stream engines were invented to better pump water out of coal mines, which led to stream locomotives, blah-blah-blah, and so on and so forth, you and me talking on comuters in an pollution thread.

Some of the greatest genius of the human race has been applied to understanding hydraulics. I also fudged the numbers by rounding off 14.7 psi as 15 psi air pressure, and the water pressure is not precisely 0.5 psi per foot of depth, and the real numbers cannot be stated except under specific barometic and temperature conditions, plus there are few slight gravitational anomolies, so you have to specify latitude and longitude as well. "Close enough for government work".