Record Breaking Weather
(11-26-2019, 12:54 PM)GPnative Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:40 PM)Juniper Wrote: WTH?....you'd think it was the end of the world, the way the news is going on.  A cyclone bomb.  Why on earth would they give it a  name like that other than to increase paranoia and heighten fear?  This is why I don't watch the news.

It is so annoying to me....and I'm also sick of the news thinking they are our nannies. Telling me to check my tires and/or buy snow chains/tires is not news. Telling me how to drive on wet pavement is not news, telling me when or when not to leave my house for travel is not news. Telling me what to pack or fill my tank IS NOT NEWS.

And yet all of those things can and certainly do help people and maybe even save lives. Do what I do. Record the news. FF what you don't want to hear.
Reply
(11-25-2019, 07:40 PM)Juniper Wrote: WTH?....you'd think it was the end of the world, the way the news is going on.  A cyclone bomb.  Why on earth would they give it a  name like that other than to increase paranoia and heighten fear?  This is why I don't watch the news.

 By cracky you sound like you are 90 years old LOL Wink . The term was not made up to increase paranoia and heighten fear. It's actually a real thing and as you see below it's a specific kind of winter storm named by meteorologists and not news people trying to sensationalize the weather.
If you want to get pissed at something how about when they don't even show the actual temperature and they show what it FEELS LIKE Mad
That driver me nuts. It's not even accurate because the chill factor is based on the wind speed and that varies.
IMO that is indeed sensationalizing the weather.Even worse it doesn't accurately describe the weather/temperature.





If a winter storm is dubbed a bomb cyclone or “bombogenesis” by meteorologists, it means it is expected to rapidly intensify, dropping 24 millibars (or atmospheric pressure) over a 24-hour span, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A typical range in millibars is around 10 to 15.
Atmospheric pressure drops when air near the Earth’s surface rises “faster than it can be replaced at the bottom.”

When the fall in atmospheric pressure is sudden, the result is often called a “bomb cyclone” because the drop typically creates violent weather that arrives like a bomb going off. Some meteorologists use the term “explosive cyclogenesis” to describe the storm’s formation.
Bombogenesis, explosive cyclogenesis: whatever you call it, you should know it can bring “hurricane-force winds” and all that that suggests: downed trees, buckets of rain, suddenly roofless houses, impassable roads.
Reply
(11-26-2019, 02:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:40 PM)Juniper Wrote: WTH?....you'd think it was the end of the world, the way the news is going on.  A cyclone bomb.  Why on earth would they give it a  name like that other than to increase paranoia and heighten fear?  This is why I don't watch the news.


If you want to get pissed at something how about when they don't even show the actual temperature and they show what it FEELS LIKE

Yea, that's like when they get all cutesy with their forecasts and graphics, the "bus stop forecast" or "walk the dog forecast" etc. All that crap annoys me.
Reply
(11-26-2019, 02:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:40 PM)Juniper Wrote: WTH?....you'd think it was the end of the world, the way the news is going on.  A cyclone bomb.  Why on earth would they give it a  name like that other than to increase paranoia and heighten fear?  This is why I don't watch the news.

 By cracky you sound like you are 90 years old LOL Wink . The term was not made up to increase paranoia and heighten fear. It's actually a real thing and as you see below it's a specific kind of winter storm named by meteorologists and not news people trying to sensationalize the weather.
If you want to get pissed at something how about when they don't even show the actual temperature and they show what it FEELS LIKE Mad
That driver me nuts. It's not even accurate because the chill factor is based on the wind speed and that varies.
IMO that is indeed sensationalizing the weather.Even worse it doesn't accurately describe the weather/temperature.





If a winter storm is dubbed a bomb cyclone or “bombogenesis” by meteorologists, it means it is expected to rapidly intensify, dropping 24 millibars (or atmospheric pressure) over a 24-hour span, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A typical range in millibars is around 10 to 15.
Atmospheric pressure drops when air near the Earth’s surface rises “faster than it can be replaced at the bottom.”

When the fall in atmospheric pressure is sudden, the result is often called a “bomb cyclone” because the drop typically creates violent weather that arrives like a bomb going off. Some meteorologists use the term “explosive cyclogenesis” to describe the storm’s formation.
Bombogenesis, explosive cyclogenesis: whatever you call it, you should know it can bring “hurricane-force winds” and all that that suggests: downed trees, buckets of rain, suddenly roofless houses, impassable roads.

The "feels like" doesn't bother me as long as they post the real temp also.  By the way, I'm feeling about 90 years old today.
Reply
Quote:History
In the 1940s and 1950s, meteorologists at the Bergen School of Meteorology began informally calling some storms that grew over the sea "bombs" because they developed with a great ferocity rarely seen over land.[5]
By the 1970s, the terms "explosive cyclogenesis" and even "meteorological bombs" were being used by MIT professor Fred Sanders (building on work from the 1950s by Tor Bergeron), who brought the term into common usage in a 1980 article in the Monthly Weather Review.[5][10] In 1980, Sanders and his colleague John Gyakum defined a "bomb" as an extratropical cyclone that deepens by at least (24 sin φ/ sin 60°)mb in 24 hours, where φ represents latitude in degrees. This is based on the definition, standardised by Bergeron, for explosive development of a cyclone at 60°N as deepening by 24 mb in 24 hours.[15] Sanders and Gyakum noted that an equivalent intensification is dependent on latitude: at the poles this would be a drop in pressure of 28 mb/24 hours, while at 25 degrees latitude it would be only 12 mb/24 hours. All these rates qualify for what Sanders and Gyakum called "1 bergeron".[10][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_cyclogenesis



So clearly, There have been more reports of bomb cyclones in the last 50 years, then all of recorded history. Further  proof of global warming.
Big Grin
Reply
(11-26-2019, 05:57 PM)chuck white Wrote:
Quote:History
In the 1940s and 1950s, meteorologists at the Bergen School of Meteorology began informally calling some storms that grew over the sea "bombs" because they developed with a great ferocity rarely seen over land.[5]
By the 1970s, the terms "explosive cyclogenesis" and even "meteorological bombs" were being used by MIT professor Fred Sanders (building on work from the 1950s by Tor Bergeron), who brought the term into common usage in a 1980 article in the Monthly Weather Review.[5][10] In 1980, Sanders and his colleague John Gyakum defined a "bomb" as an extratropical cyclone that deepens by at least (24 sin φ/ sin 60°)mb in 24 hours, where φ represents latitude in degrees. This is based on the definition, standardised by Bergeron, for explosive development of a cyclone at 60°N as deepening by 24 mb in 24 hours.[15] Sanders and Gyakum noted that an equivalent intensification is dependent on latitude: at the poles this would be a drop in pressure of 28 mb/24 hours, while at 25 degrees latitude it would be only 12 mb/24 hours. All these rates qualify for what Sanders and Gyakum called "1 bergeron".[10][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_cyclogenesis



So clearly, There have been more reports of bomb cyclones in the last 50 years, then all of recorded history. Further  proof of global warming.
Big Grin
Oh! So it's not a new thing?
Reply
(11-26-2019, 05:26 PM)Juniper Wrote:
(11-26-2019, 02:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:40 PM)Juniper Wrote: WTH?....you'd think it was the end of the world, the way the news is going on.  A cyclone bomb.  Why on earth would they give it a  name like that other than to increase paranoia and heighten fear?  This is why I don't watch the news.

 By cracky you sound like you are 90 years old LOL Wink . The term was not made up to increase paranoia and heighten fear. It's actually a real thing and as you see below it's a specific kind of winter storm named by meteorologists and not news people trying to sensationalize the weather.
If you want to get pissed at something how about when they don't even show the actual temperature and they show what it FEELS LIKE Mad
That driver me nuts. It's not even accurate because the chill factor is based on the wind speed and that varies.
IMO that is indeed sensationalizing the weather.Even worse it doesn't accurately describe the weather/temperature.





If a winter storm is dubbed a bomb cyclone or “bombogenesis” by meteorologists, it means it is expected to rapidly intensify, dropping 24 millibars (or atmospheric pressure) over a 24-hour span, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A typical range in millibars is around 10 to 15.
Atmospheric pressure drops when air near the Earth’s surface rises “faster than it can be replaced at the bottom.”

When the fall in atmospheric pressure is sudden, the result is often called a “bomb cyclone” because the drop typically creates violent weather that arrives like a bomb going off. Some meteorologists use the term “explosive cyclogenesis” to describe the storm’s formation.
Bombogenesis, explosive cyclogenesis: whatever you call it, you should know it can bring “hurricane-force winds” and all that that suggests: downed trees, buckets of rain, suddenly roofless houses, impassable roads.

The "feels like" doesn't bother me as long as they post the real temp also.  By the way, I'm feeling about 90 years old today.
I feel the same but I'm only talking about when they DON'T actually show the real temperature.

You know I was kidding about the 90 year old thing. You don't normally sound like that Big Grin
Reply
(11-26-2019, 07:41 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-26-2019, 05:26 PM)Juniper Wrote:
(11-26-2019, 02:46 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-25-2019, 07:40 PM)Juniper Wrote: WTH?....you'd think it was the end of the world, the way the news is going on.  A cyclone bomb.  Why on earth would they give it a  name like that other than to increase paranoia and heighten fear?  This is why I don't watch the news.

 By cracky you sound like you are 90 years old LOL Wink . The term was not made up to increase paranoia and heighten fear. It's actually a real thing and as you see below it's a specific kind of winter storm named by meteorologists and not news people trying to sensationalize the weather.
If you want to get pissed at something how about when they don't even show the actual temperature and they show what it FEELS LIKE Mad
That driver me nuts. It's not even accurate because the chill factor is based on the wind speed and that varies.
IMO that is indeed sensationalizing the weather.Even worse it doesn't accurately describe the weather/temperature.





If a winter storm is dubbed a bomb cyclone or “bombogenesis” by meteorologists, it means it is expected to rapidly intensify, dropping 24 millibars (or atmospheric pressure) over a 24-hour span, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A typical range in millibars is around 10 to 15.
Atmospheric pressure drops when air near the Earth’s surface rises “faster than it can be replaced at the bottom.”

When the fall in atmospheric pressure is sudden, the result is often called a “bomb cyclone” because the drop typically creates violent weather that arrives like a bomb going off. Some meteorologists use the term “explosive cyclogenesis” to describe the storm’s formation.
Bombogenesis, explosive cyclogenesis: whatever you call it, you should know it can bring “hurricane-force winds” and all that that suggests: downed trees, buckets of rain, suddenly roofless houses, impassable roads.

The "feels like" doesn't bother me as long as they post the real temp also.  By the way, I'm feeling about 90 years old today.
I feel the same but I'm only talking about when they DON'T actually show the real temperature.

You know I was kidding about the 90 year old thing. You don't normally sound like that Big Grin

Laughing Laughing
Reply
Quote:With an average national temperature of 105 degrees, Tuesday was the hottest day ever recorded in Australia, the nation's Bureau of Meteorology said.
And the heat is only going to get worse.
“This hot air mass is so extensive, the preliminary figures show that yesterday was the hottest day on record in Australia, beating out the previous record from 2013 and this heat will only intensify,”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...688878001/
Reply
Quote:Extreme weather incidents in 2019 set more than 120,000 daily records across the U.S. according to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.

The 122,055 records set include record daily high and low temperatures as well as record rain and snow.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro...-us-report
Reply
I would love a simple yes or no answer to this question, but will not get it.

Do you believe that you can change the temperature of the planet by giving more money to the government?
Reply
What a nonsensical question.
At least you live down to expectations.
Reply
(12-31-2019, 08:25 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I would love a simple yes or no answer to this question, but will not get it.

Do you believe that you can change the temperature of the planet by giving more money to the government?

Giving money to the government is not the issue.
It's policies set by the government.
Like shutting down coal plants and encouraging solar and wind energy.
paying for research to develop Thorium salt reactors, etc.

This is about leadership, science and survival not monetary greed.
Reply
(12-31-2019, 08:25 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I would love a simple yes or no answer to this question, but will not get it.

Do you believe that you can change the temperature of the planet by giving more money to the government?

Wrong question.
Reply
(12-31-2019, 08:25 PM)Someones Dad Wrote: I would love a simple yes or no answer to this question, but will not get it.

Do you believe that you can change the temperature of the planet by giving more money to the government?

Or alternatively, can the government at this point, make a change in global warming by creating necessary standards that put planetary health over profits?
Reply
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/g...0-signs-2/

Laughing 

I would call it good news, wouldn't you?
Reply
(01-09-2020, 06:27 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/g...0-signs-2/

 

I would call it good news, wouldn't you?
You read, and trust the word of, Watts Up With That?

My bad for being surprised.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Reply
(01-09-2020, 08:58 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
(01-09-2020, 06:27 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/g...0-signs-2/

 

I would call it good news, wouldn't you?
You read, and trust the word of, Watts Up With That?

My bad for being surprised.



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

So, the facts don't matter?
Reply
And Ruskies gonna rusk.
Reply
(01-09-2020, 06:27 AM)Someones Dad Wrote: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/g...0-signs-2/

Laughing 

I would call it good news, wouldn't you?

Quote:One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking,”...

The initial signs were first put up more than 10 years ago based on forecasts by the U.S. Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN. Three years ago, the park was told the forecast had shifted, but the network reported there was no budget to change the already-installed signs.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-id...gns-update
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)