Hurricanes defying conventional science.

How am I being a jerk? I'm stating that i don't understand why you posted this like you did, or why you are making a big deal about the fact that they don't fit current models. When infact i'm telling you that in meteorology, like all sciences models may or may not work, so if one doesn't work its not a devistating blow to the science in question I get it fine, but I still wonder if you understand how science works, and the fact that they don't follow the model doesn't matter as much as you think it doesBtw how does insulting me help anything?

randman1954
December 30th.
hurricane Alice
continued on into 1955
only hurricane to continue into two years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

While I'm not meteorologist, I have studied for quite a bit about chaotic systems. The weather is a chaotic system. Because of this, it wouldn't suprise me if we encounter anomolous data that do not fit into our model.

Jar, does that mean if I stated "the storms from the last two years may lead to better understanding of tropical weather", you would be in full agreement that these 2 storms defied conventional models and that you, watching these news stories, would somehow then have seen that these storms defied conventional models.How can you explain rejecting basic data, the facts here, based on where you think someone is going with something?Doesn't that mean you were,...., well, lying earlier when you said the hurricanes didn't do anything unexpected?

So far the storms have not really done anything unexpected, any more than any other storm. Yes, this latest is over cooler water, but come on, even over ocean waters that are only in the seventies, there is a bunch of energy. The storms stiill behave according to the other weather systems, the current one blocked and trapped in a narrow band.There will be many other storms that don't fit the models. That's one reason they use 5 different models to project tracks. We learn form each one.The most you can say about these latest storms is "That's interesting?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The other issue, ReverndDG, is that randman seems to be suffering from the error that because something didn't follow the model absolutely perfectly, that must mean that the entire field is a piece of crap and should be abandoned immediately in favor of the "god did it" response.Notice that randman is fixated on the idea that hurricanes absolutely MUST weaken over colder water as if there were no other factors involved in the formation of a hurricane and its strength. Notice that he insists that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a hurricane form south of the equator during certain times of the year. All because of a couple of variables aren't quite what he thinks the model is (and note that he doesn't actually discuss what he thinks the model is but relies upon someone else to do all the work for him), then it NECESSARILY is the case that there couldn't possibly be a hurricane.It's as if upon watching two mathematicians argue over whether or not the six millionth decimal of pi is a 2 or not, that must mean that pi is really an integer.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Water that cold is suppossed to have a negative effect energy-wise, not a positive one.

Rrhain, you are following the same old evo deception footsteps as others.I have merely pointed out what mainstream meteorologists have stated, but because you are afraid that I might post a fact that could threaten your worldview, you cannot act in a normal fashion and say, yea, we need to go back to the drawing board to explain these 2 guys.You have an adversarial perspective, not one concerned with facts here.

hi, randy. your basic contention is that the hurricanes defied conventional science. that's the title of this thread. you seem to be taking every opportunity you can to take potshots at science, so it can be seen as not valid, somehow.you are, at the most basic level, attacking science. don't pretend that you're not. and this fundamental level, you misunderstanding what models are.a model for the path of a hurricane is a hypothetical, based on large amounts of data. there are 5 different groups that model projected paths, and storm strengths. the nhc, a sixth, averages those models and comes out with the typical "cone of destruction" probability map.that's all it is. probability, and hypothesis. they are very often, actually almost always, wrong. i've been living in south florida my entire life. these hurricanes didn't do anything unprecidented. unsuaul, maybe, but freak hurricanes seems to the par for the course this year (and last).hurricanes have formed as late as dec 30th before, intensified over cold water, done loop-the-loops, rotated the wrong way, and this year we had one come across florida the wrong way, and actually intensify over land before hitting us (on the east coast).weird stuff happens with large natural phenomina. we can't always predict everything. wilma, in particular, didn't take one of the projected paths -- it took something close to the average (i wasn't actually checking, we lost power quickly, so it was a total suprise when we got that huge eye over us). the conventional model is that a hurricane forms off the coast of africa, intensifies over the atlantic, and smacks somewhere on the east coast of the us.we've had a bunch of gulf hurricanes this year, a few back-tracking ones, and some general weirdness. it doesn't say the conventional model is WRONG, just that some weird stuff happened this year. it's not impossible, in our scientific understanding, just improbable. and the improbably can and does happen occasionally.science is not an input-output situation. it's not a math equations that we plug everything into and get the 100% truth. in this case, it's about modeling hypothetical outcomes. and the models aren't always right. this year and last year, they were off.we're heading into another intense hurricane cycle, something that we haven't had the opportunity to model before. we're bound to get a lot of stuff wrong. it doesn't mean that meteorology is a sham, or that god hates us, or that science is all bs. just that we don't know enough right now to make good predications. there's a common creationist saying: "facts are only true when they validate the bible." some prominent creationist said something to that effect (kent hovind?). it's always frustrating to see you sling arguments at us that apply to your camp a thousandfold.we're not saying the facts are wrong. we're saying that the models being inaccurate doesn't mean all that much, and a few failed hypothesi are not going to overturn science.

---

אָרַח

Energy moves from a warmer source to a colder source. It's not the absolute temperatures but the difference between the air and water, as well as other factors.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

actually, hurricanes are low-pressure systems. while warm water contributes to hurricanes more than cold water, it is not the primary reason for the formation of a system.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

I don't think meteorologists are that concerned about evolution. So it's not that sort of thread.

---

quote:

---

You have an adversarial perspective, not one concerned with facts here.

---

cut it out randman. it's getting old.

---

אָרַח

You mean it's not an integer?On a serious note, there's a reason why chaotic systems are called chaotic. A slight change in any of the infinite variables could dramatically change the result. This is why we refer to it as the butterfly effect. A butterfly could flap it's wing in Brazil and cause a hurricane in the north atlantic.I think this is an area in science that most people are uncomfortable with. People have always been able to go to bed "knowing" that science is all about repeatability and predictability. Unfortunately, nonlinear systems defy this belief. Rather than giving a definite answer, like "on this day and time the hurricane will do this and this... there see I told you so," we are now forced to say "we have reason to believe that on this day and time the hurricane will have so and so chance that it will do this and so and so chance that it will do that..."In a way, we can't really blame people for being uncomfortable with what modern science tells us. Unlike classical science, we can no longer predict the future. It's pretty scary. The best we could do is predict what it will probably do.

I googled on "Hurricane Epsilon". I didn't find any web site that was saying anything as alarmist as your posts. Granted, I didn't read them all.You are way overreacting. It's a failure of yours. You repeatedly jump to absurd conclusions on the merest hint. We see this in your NDE thread; we see it in your "ID mechanism" thread; we see it in your "adaptive mutations" PNT.Get a grip. Stop acting like chicken little. The sky is not falling.

randman responds to me:

quote:

---

I have merely pointed out what mainstream meteorologists have stated

---

Question: What, EXACTLY, did they say?Did they say, "we need to go back to the drawing board to explain these 2 guys"? If they didn't, what is your justification for extending their comments that far?Be specific.Question: What other factors contribute to the strength of a hurricane? Are there any others? Are hurricanes driven solely by the temperature of the water over which they sit? In an absolute sense? That is, is it even possible to form a hurricane over 70 degree water?Hint: Think of pressure and temperature differential. Try to remember your thermodynamics regarding the efficiency of an engine and what factors are involved in that efficiency rating with respect to the high temperature and low temperature reservoir.Be specific.

quote:

---

You have an adversarial perspective, not one concerned with facts here.

---

Since you have provided none but merely asserted that these hurricanes are so bizarre, so far beyond what anyone would have predicted, it is quite difficult to analyze these missing facts. It would be helpful if you were to provide some. It is your argument, therefore it is your burden of proof.Which meteorologists said this? Where? What were the exact words? What models were they using? Can you provide any analysis at all of what is going on beyond your mere say so?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.