Hurricane Rita

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:54 pm

It's up to a cat 5 now! Holy crap. Be safe guys.

star-phoenix · Post by **star-phoenix** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:55 pm

And it is still growing . . . has 3 days before it hits land.

glorff · Post by **glorff** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:05 pm

This is not a Hurricane to be trifled with, although there is a substantial band of cooler water near the Texas coast that will take a lot of power out of the storm in the last 12 hours before landfall. Right now the eye pressure is at 914 mb which, if it stays that way would be the third lowest eye pressure to make major landfall. We are talking a Camille type storm.

If you are between Corpus Christi and Beaumont you should listen to the warnings and get the hell out of there. This storm is about to expand and the high winds will be about 400+ miles across and will almost definitely spawn tornadoes. Do not head straight north because that is where it will be going. Dallas is forecast to have winds over 60 mph and a lot of rain. Head west, the traffic on 45 is already outrageous and there will be gas shortages.

PS Do it now, don't wait

Lynxa · Post by **Lynxa** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:14 pm

They're not contraflowing Houston and the surrounding area?

Guess I'll be brushing off the sleeper sofa too, just in case more family or friends need to camp out up here. Houston is where Loyola went to reopen for the semester.

glorff · Post by **glorff** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:18 pm

My business partners wife just called and was sitting in traffic. She had gone ten miles in an hour and forty five minutes. I thing they are going into full evacuation mode at 8 PM tonight.

Baakay · Post by **Baakay** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:33 pm

yep, and it's down to 904 milibars at the moment. Nasty.

The really scary thing to me is this: the clouds overhead here at the moment are on a frontal boundary that should clear by sometime tomorrow, and the low center will clear the Divide and be out over the flats. Rita just slowed down and turned north a little, which, if that front pushes just a bit, could put it smack over Louisiana at landfall.

God. We really don't need that to happen.

We'll just keep our fingers crossed that the cool water cripples it a little.

glorff · Post by **glorff** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:42 pm

Thankfully even the worst case scenarios don't show landfall much east of Galveston, but all they are is projections. 904

Shampoo · Post by **Shampoo** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:12 pm

All I have to say over the matter is watch it closely

because 80% of the time the news always seems to be wrong.

You never know where its gonna hit until its just half a day away.

But its better to be prepared then scrambling to get ready.

Good luck!

------------------
Now over the matter in a general aspect,....

I dont care if I get slammed for this but
Im gonna say it.

I hope this is a final eye opener to the fucking gov and ignorant
masses to take enviromental issues more seriously.

Honestly, these storms and tremedous natural disasters have
been accumulating more power and frequency for yrs
but noone gave a damn until it got more U.S. news-media coverage.

So mother nature is giving the middle finger to us,
you know what? We deserve it.

We treat her like crap and the kinda priorities that the country has are always industry, war, or money-related issues.

Lynxa · Post by **Lynxa** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:23 pm

*Gives Shampoo a standing ovation*

glorff · Post by **glorff** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:19 pm

I will return rasberries to the comment. The frequency and severity of Hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming or anything other than the natural cycle of the earth. ALL of the hurricane experts are saying the same thing. We should expect the cycles and know that there will be more and higher severity hurricanes for ten to twelve years before the cycle changes and we return to the relative calm of the 90's

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:19 pm

I'm not sure if I am ready for that yet.

Lynxa · Post by **Lynxa** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:30 pm

glorff wrote:I will return rasberries to the comment. The frequency and severity of Hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming or anything other than the natural cycle of the earth. ALL of the hurricane experts are saying the same thing. We should expect the cycles and know that there will be more and higher severity hurricanes for ten to twelve years before the cycle changes and we return to the relative calm of the 90's

So......you think we should continue to ignore important global environmental issues?

While the FREQUENCY of hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming, the INTENSITY of hurricanes probably does. (Not that this is the only reason we should be working to reduce emissions by any means.)

Here's what the geophisical fluid dynamics laboratory website (working closely with the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration) has to say about it:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

glorff · Post by **glorff** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:57 pm

As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is considerable uncertainty in projections of future radiative forcing of earth's climate.

An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

Key words here are implication and may. This is done with a 1% CUMULATIVE CO2 forcing, something that is not really possible over the 80 year period of the projection because we do not have the oil available to accomplish this.

I am not trying to say that we should not do everything that we can to stop polluting our home, but most of these studies are done with exagerated models to show the results that they want. When I was a kid they told us that it was not safe to eat the fish from Lake Erie because of the mercury buildup. When I looked into it I discovered that you would have to eat 300 fish a day for 20 years to reach the levels that they were showing.

Always remember that the flaw of the scientific method is that a scientist is trying to prove an earlier supposition, so if someone starts with an agenda he can inevitability find a way to prove it, however flawed the original theory may be.

Baakay · Post by **Baakay** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:12 pm

All of which is true...

But note that this is only the third time we've seen two Cat 5's in the same year. Intensity, no?

Come now, let's not squabble about environmental matters. We do treat the earth very badly, there's no argument over that. You used to be able to go to pretty much any mountain stream and drink it safely, and now you'll be lucky if the worst you get is the runs. And that's just in my lifetime. And why do we do this? The almighty dollar.

There also is a really good chance we're on the far end of the environmental swing that followed the last ice age (nobody alive now has good enough info to know for sure). The earth IS warming, but it may have nothing to do with us at all. Nobody knows for sure.

What we do know for certain is that she's down to 898 now. If I lived anywhere other than a cowtown in a dry spot, I'd be looking for higher ground. But that's just me.

P.S. Random thought generated by a re-reading of Glorff's post: If we don't have enough oil available to last 80 years' worth of CO2 increases (assuming the projections aren't subject to the same sorts of invalid base assumptions he mentioned) that why the heck are we sitting on our collective duffs and not doing more with wind power? Lordy, it's not like we don't have enough wind out here. That really set me back to read... what a scary thought. I won't be around in 80 years but my kids likely will be. I hope there's SOMETHING left for them...

rayd · Post by **rayd** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:45 am

glorff wrote:
... they told us that it was not safe to eat the fish from Lake Erie because of the mercury buildup. When I looked into it I discovered that you would have to eat 300 fish a day for 20 years to reach the levels that they were showing.

Always remember that the flaw of the scientific method is that a scientist is trying to prove an earlier supposition, so if someone starts with an agenda he can inevitability find a way to prove it, however flawed the original theory may be.

Do not confuse the scientific method with pseudo-science of the neo-conservative theo-economic agendas, the scientific method consists of Observation, Question, Hypothesis, Prediction, Experiment, Analysis and Decision. Do not create a semblance of controversy where it doesn't actually exist. For the past two decades global mean temperatures have risen more than the previous century, this is fact and will not be without consequence. Next you will be telling us that creationism is a valid theory and not dogma. As for the merury build up i suggest you read the effects it has on a fetus developing and the amount it takes to create anomolies.