Why all the Hurricanes?

[PHIL121]

With RITA bearing down on the Gulf coast, I figured it's time to start a topic on Hurricanes.

It's interesting to note since 1851, there has NEVER been two Cat-4 hurricanes make landfall in the US in the same year.

And the only year that was close? LAST YEAR (2004) when Charley(Cat-4) and Ivan(Cat-3) hit Florida.

Most Intense Hurricanes 1851-2004

Thoughts?..Comments?[/url]

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Well, that is a rather short time span-less than 200 years...so, it's hard to say that over the timespan that the earth existed, that such events never happenned.

[PHIL121]

Yet in the span of two years, something that's never happened in 200 has occured. Plus, Idon't think there is any record in Colonial times of the US getting hit with so much devestation.

Certainly seems like it's a 'blue light special'!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Yet in the span of two years, something that's never happened in 200 has occured. Plus, Idon't think there is any record in Colonial times of the US getting hit with so much devestation.

Certainly seems like it's a 'blue light special'!

If we take the current climate models and plug in scientific global temperature data going back to several ice ages ago we can see that there is a cyclical pattern. As to human activity speeding up the current warming trend, this is still up in the air.

[PHIL121]

Climate models are so much hocus pocus.

The governing equations of the weather are non-linear, and thus a small change in initial conditions, causes a BIG change in the results. A butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause it to rain in New York.
This is what is known as "chaos theory".

Man has had enough effect on the climate, that even the long term climate models don't tell us anything valuable.

And as far as short-term, just keep track of those five day weather forecasts you see on TV. They're usually correct for the first two or three days, but after that it's about 50/50 as to whether or not they are right.

Plus, look at the how the track of Hurricanes change on a daily basis. Yesterday RITA was headed right at Galvaston, now the track has moved north.

There are simply some scientific problems all the computer power in the world will never solve.

[bob2010]

numerous factors are playing into the increased number and power of hurricanes. the cyclical nature of the weather, recent global warming, loss of wetlands due to development, loss of barrier islands due to 1930s flood control measures along the mississippi river. there wouldnt be much of a record of big storms in colonial times because rather few people lived along the gulf coast.

[PHIL121]

Still the most Cat 4 or 5 storms to strike the US in a decade was three, several times.... Hurricanes by Decade

Rita will be the 3rd Cat 4 Hurricane in this decade ALREADY.

There's also an interesting paper at that NOAA site I've started to read. It has hurricane data back to 1492.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Climate models are so much hocus pocus.

The governing equations of the weather are non-linear, and thus a small change in initial conditions, causes a BIG change in the results. A butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause it to rain in New York.
This is what is known as "chaos theory".

There are simply some scientific problems all the computer power in the world will never solve.

Not quite, systems described by chaos theory actually have an order behind the chaos.

The models have been becomming incrementally more accurate as the years pass. I suppose you don't remember the days when Hurricanes would hit and people would be caught off gaurd.

[PHIL121]

YES, quite.

You seem not to possess an understanding of non-linear differential equations.

There IS NO order to chaos theory. Oh sure there's the Mandelbrot set and all that, that seems to have order out of choas, but that's a special case.

The FACT is the solutions to non-linear equations that govern things like the weather are HIGHLY dependant on knowing the initial conditions precisely. Unlike linear equations, where a small error in the intial conditions only lead to a small error in the solution.

This is why before the advent of computers, engineers traditionally "linearized" non-linear systems to obtain a solution. Now, computers have enabled scientists and engineers to solve non-linear equations directly and quickly, yet because of the inherent instability of such solutions,as I've mentioned before, the 'solutions' often suffer from GIGO (Garbage In...Garbage Out)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

YES, quite.

You seem not to possess an understanding of non-linear differential equations.

There IS NO order to chaos theory. Oh sure there's the Mandelbrot set and all that, that seems to have order out of choas, but that's a special case.

The FACT is the solutions to non-linear equations that govern things like the weather are HIGHLY dependant on knowing the initial conditions precisely. Unlike linear equations, where a small error in the intial conditions only lead to a small error in the solution.

This is why before the advent of computers, engineers traditionally "linearized" non-linear systems to obtain a solution. Now, computers have enabled scientists and engineers to solve non-linear equations directly and quickly, yet because of the inherent instability of such solutions,as I've mentioned before, the 'solutions' often suffer from GIGO (Garbage In...Garbage Out)

Now what would happen as more and more of the innitial conditions are measured and used in the computations?

You can't be saying that the models are complete garbage because they are being used to determine which communities should be evacuating. They do a pretty adequate job of "guessing" the most likely path of the Hurricane. Something which could not be said a decade ago.

[PHIL121]

YES, quite.

You seem not to possess an understanding of non-linear differential equations.

There IS NO order to chaos theory. Oh sure there's the Mandelbrot set and all that, that seems to have order out of choas, but that's a special case.

The FACT is the solutions to non-linear equations that govern things like the weather are HIGHLY dependant on knowing the initial conditions precisely. Unlike linear equations, where a small error in the intial conditions only lead to a small error in the solution.

This is why before the advent of computers, engineers traditionally "linearized" non-linear systems to obtain a solution. Now, computers have enabled scientists and engineers to solve non-linear equations directly and quickly, yet because of the inherent instability of such solutions,as I've mentioned before, the 'solutions' often suffer from GIGO (Garbage In...Garbage Out)

Now what would happen as more and more of the innitial conditions are measured and used in the computations?

You can't be saying that the models are complete garbage because they are being used to determine which communities should be evacuating. They do a pretty adequate job of "guessing" the most likely path of the Hurricane. Something which could not be said a decade ago.

No I'm just saying there WILL ALWAYS BE a limit to their accuracy. Look how the projected track of RITA has changed in the last few days, bending north.

At least the media has become savvy enough to present several different models, so viewers can see what the different possible tracks are.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Now what would happen as more and more of the innitial conditions are measured and used in the computations?

You can't be saying that the models are complete garbage because they are being used to determine which communities should be evacuating. They do a pretty adequate job of "guessing" the most likely path of the Hurricane. Something which could not be said a decade ago.

No I'm just saying there WILL ALWAYS BE a limit to their accuracy. Look how the projected track of RITA has changed in the last few days, bending north.

At least the media has become savvy enough to present several different models, so viewers can see what the different possible tracks are.

You may be correct in assuming that there will Always be a limit to the accuracy of climate models, but that is still a far cry from HOCUS POCUS you claimed in the original post.

Having two CAT 4 hurricanes strike in the same year may be a statistical anomaly or a trend. However there is still insufficient data to determine either way.

[PHIL121]

Having two CAT 4 hurricanes strike in the same year may be a statistical anomaly or a trend. However there is still insufficient data to determine either way.

Didn't bother looking at this link I see...

The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492-1996. The only year that compares to 2004 and 2005 in 1780 (the year before America gained its independence) when three strong hurricanes hit the Lesser Antilles, Cuba ,and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Of course, the strength of these hurricanes is unknown, and in those days a Cat 2 could cause a lot of deaths and damage.

What's occured in the last two years with FOUR Cat 3+ hurricanes hitting the US, is more than a "statisical anomoly"; it's unprecidented since the discovery of America.[/url]

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Having two CAT 4 hurricanes strike in the same year may be a statistical anomaly or a trend. However there is still insufficient data to determine either way.

Didn't bother looking at this link I see...

The Deadliest Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, 1492-1996. The only year that compares to 2004 and 2005 in 1780 (the year before America gained its independence) when three strong hurricanes hit the Lesser Antilles, Cuba ,and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Of course, the strength of these hurricanes is unknown, and in those days a Cat 2 could cause a lot of deaths and damage.

What's occured in the last two years with FOUR Cat 3+ hurricanes hitting the US, is more than a "statisical anomoly"; it's unprecidented since the discovery of America.[/url]

I have taken the time to put the data in graphical format,
what evidence do you have that it is more than a statistical anamoly?

[PHIL121]

As someone on another forum pointed out to me, this link...

The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1851-2004

...doesn't include ALL Cat 3 Hurricanes just the most intense, in terms of lowest recorded barometric pressure.

Katrina and RITA will be on the chart, most probably in the top 10, perhaps even the top five. In no single year year have two such intense storms struck the US.

And in the last two years, three of the top 17, four of the top 21, and five of top 41 (I forgot about Jeanne last year) have hit the US.

That's more than a "statiscal anomoly"; it is unprecidented.

[/url]