Thanks for answering my questions about science. I now know, without a
doubt, the science is more about politics than actual science.

Now when I read a story about science, I will know that I can decide
to believe the story or toss it aside as pure politics.

Thanks for confirming this belief in me. I now have all the ammunition
I need for my belief system now.

I am glad I came to this group and asked a serious question and did
not get an answer.

I will now dedicate my life to recruiting people to fight against
government grants and support for science programs. Why should tax
dollars go for "science" which is really nothing more than a
combination of politics and political correctness.

And all it took was the non-response to one usenet post to change my
mind this dramatically.

Thanks and good luck with your snake oil from now on.

ps. I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I will do my best
to prove it's not 6,001 years old now.

On 2 Mar 2006 06:25:36 -0800, wrote:

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
Thanks for answering my questions about science. I now know, without a
doubt, the science is more about politics than actual science.

Now when I read a story about science, I will know that I can decide
to believe the story or toss it aside as pure politics.

Thanks for confirming this belief in me. I now have all the ammunition
I need for my belief system now.

I am glad I came to this group and asked a serious question and did
not get an answer.

Please drop the 'tude. No answers are guaranteed on
Usenet, especially by some unspecified deadline.
The number of people reading this NG has always been
somewhat limited and is getting smaller, the number of
people actually qualified to really discuss the science
is even smaller, and the number of people with time to
provide volunteer answers is less yet. Your questions
are valid, but when I read your long post it was clear
that providing adequate, thoughtful discussion would
take more time than I have during the week to write on
the subject. Since you couldn't wait for the weekend,
I guess you won't get a thorough answer from me. If
you want search for some answers to climate questions
yourself, I'd suggest reading _Plows, Plagues, and
Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate_ by
William F. Ruddiman, and two books by Brian Fagan:
_The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization_
and _The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History,
1300-1850_. Another book which I have but have not
had a chance more than skim yet is _A Climate
Modeling Primer_ by McGuffe and Henderson-Sellers.
As for your concerns about dangerous winds, I suggest
getting a weather radio with the automatic alarm feature,
keep a eye on the Weather Channel, and be ready to
take cover. Unfortunately that's about the best one can
do.

See. I do appreciate the answer[s] you offered. But my only problem is
that science people are quick to discuss and promote discoveries that
support the 'team'. I wanted someone to get down to real world
situations and discuss the macro scenarios. I could agree that pumping
large amounts of ozone into the air is a bad idea. My problem is that
most of these people are using computer models and deciding that the
model is accurate enough to make very broad predictions.

Also I have a problem with the assumption that very recent human
activities have created the climate problems. I find it hard to
believe that human beings, in less than 200 years, have created even a
tiny impact on the climate. Let's assume the earth is many many
millions [billions?] of years old. AM I to believe that the terrible
climate changes are a result of activities the are less than 0.0001%
of the span of time?

See, as a layman, I could say this is flat wrong. But as I am also not
a doctor, I cannot diagnose someone with a disease. But I could easily
look at a person and determine they were breathing without any medical
training. In fact, I could determine this if I had never went to
school or even knew how to read or write.

Even the most Ultra_Conservative person would demand changes if these
climate changes were truly the result of human activities.

No one will answer this simple question either: If humans have caused
harm to the climate in under 200 years, could we also "repair" the
damage in under 200 years?

Also people talk about hurricanes a lot. My thing is that people never
mention the fact that more people than ever before live on the gulf
and eastern coastlines. Katrina would have been a small story if so
many people didn't live in large cities along the coastline. It was a
Cat 3 storm, although serious in strength I do not see why it deserved
this much attention without mentioning the population part.

I also have noticed that tornadoes get little attention in comparison
to rare events. You could take the example of katrina. The vast
majority of hurricanes hit in areas which are not the same terrain as
new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.

We have on average 1500 tornadoes per year. We have even more
thunderstorms per year. These events get little attention even by
people who study tornadoes. No, I do not mean people don't study and
try to figure out these things. What I mean is we have a Hurricane
Center for this country but we do not have a Thunderstorm or Tornado
center. Why not?

Tornadoes can reach F5+ in intensity. I would say 318mph sustained
winds should gain more attention than events that happen about 4 times
per year.

You could take medical issues to make the point. We spend a lot of
money on AIDS research. However, cancer and heart disease kills many
many more people than AIDS has ever killed. So we spend more money on
less occurring and less deadly disease. As with tornado-thunderstorm
versus hurricane research and money.

I am not asking you all to spoon feed me these answers. I am just
interested in a little discussion on the layman level.

After all, if the layman is not educated in climate/weather, how can
you ever expect government funding?

If people don't know how serious something is then when money is asked
for research, people will roll their eyes and so no every time.

I also never ever see stories about the decaying orbit around the sun.
Common sense would say that if we are getting closer to the sun that
the greenhouse effect would increase over time. Does anyone dare list
this as a cause for global warming?

Also, when people keep saying that a decrease in greenhouse emissions
would slow down the problem I want to know how we're going to do this?
Do you honestly think our country could go to some alternative energy
quick enough? Seriously, how long would it take, for example, for us
to all use hydrogen cars? 20yrs? 50yrs? 200yrs? And when we made this
switch what jobs would be lost forever? Would a person with an
advanced degree in petroleum based energy just lose their job? How
would this be addressed?

I am positive the government could outlaw cigarettes. This would in
theory reduce the number of smoking related diseases which are very
expensive. But at what cost? You would have entire states with the
only option of raising state income taxes to make up the difference.
Tobacco is a cash crop in a very select group of states. Those people
who grow and process tobacco would immediately be without a job. How
do we remedy this ?

I know this has been long-winded but what I am really saying is that
it does not serve a purpose to simply state what is causing a problem
without also providing an answer to prevent or slow the problem.

What if you went to a doctor and he said you had cancer. And you asked
him what to do about it he just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'm
a doctor, all I do is diagnose diseases. You'll have to consult X to
solve the problem". That to me is essentially what the climate/weather
long term forecasts are about.

But what does a doctor in real life actually do? A doctor diagnoses
and discusses treatment options. Those treatments begin very soon.

Also, since we're concerned about the change in the climate, why are
we not also in agreement on climate/weather modification? If you could
modify weather and climate then why not do it.

I've heard more than a few people say, "We don't know why tornadoes
form but that may serve a purpose we don't yet understand." My thing
is why let something that is deadly happen when we have people with
ideas on how to modify the storms?

We have seat belts and air bags in cars because people realized this
would 'modify' the outcome of a car wreck. If these were not in cars
then a 20 mph crash would kill most people. Now, 55mph+ wrecks
frequently do not injure much less kill the occupants.

Dams and levees are designed to 'modify' flood prone areas. Let's get
rid of them because floods may server some purpose we don't yet
understand, right?

All these things need to be addressed.

Yes we need rain. Every place on earth needs some amount of rain. But
could we just have plain rain? Must we have deadly lightning and winds
from a thunderstorm? Must we have deadly tornadoes? All we are in need
of is the rain. Why keep the bad things when we have the power to at
least begin to try a few attempts at weather modification?

Hurricanes need water above a certain temp to grow and strengthen.
Could we not at least consider a method to control the temp of those
waters? Remember, we're not talking about making the water 32F or
anything. Even a 3-5F decrease would be dramatic in the formation of a
hurricane.

Tornadoes could be decreased in numbers and intensity if the highest
cloud tops were heated to decrease lapse rates. We would still get
rain without the dangerous wind/lightning/toarnadoes. How would this
be a bad thing to do?

I really think the opposition to weather modification by the
scientific community is nothing more the job security. If weather was
easily predictable and modified, then the need for advanced studies
would not be needed on the scale it is today. If tornadoes/violent
thunderstorms/hurricanes and tornadoes were to the point of being very
very rare then all these people would no longer be needed in the
numbers they are currently.

And no, I am not one of those people who believes global warming does
not exist. I am just skeptical as to why.

Psychics are dismissed mainly because the predict an event with few
details. Also they never tell you how to avoid what is going to
happen. People call them quackes.

Please don't make the population begin to believe that meteorologists
and climate scientists are like psychics. Much to predict but nothing
in the details for preventing or how that would impact the average
person.

READ BELOW

I will now dedicate my life to recruiting people to fight against
government grants and support for science programs. Why should tax
dollars go for "science" which is really nothing more than a
combination of politics and political correctness.

And all it took was the non-response to one usenet post to change my
mind this dramatically.

Thanks and good luck with your snake oil from now on.

ps. I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I will do my best
to prove it's not 6,001 years old now.

Good luck with that. If you succeed it will be a scientific
revolution, and all true scientists seek such truths.

Carbon dating is another one I love. I have asked this several carbon
dating lovers before with no answer.

Take an object with an age that is absolutely known. Now carbon date
this object. I would be surprised if the dating was within 10,000
years. Based on this how can we rely on carbon dating. I hear all the
time about some "thing" being found that is 1 million years old, and
of course carbon dating was used.

I even had a science teacher admit that carbon dating is really more a
theory than reality. He admitted that the error rate on this method
was likely near 75%, and he said that was being generous.

So the 1 million year old object is anywhere from 250,000 to 1.75
million years old. Precise isn't it?


thanks for reading this. I know some or all may not reply.
I have nothing but the highest regard for scientists and their work. I
hope nothing I have said has offended anyone. If it has then I
apologize for not expressing myself better.

again, thanks.

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.


I can think of no cat 5 hurricane that has killed less
than 10 people. My conclusion is that your memory may
be faulty.


Scott

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:


We have on average 1500 tornadoes per year. We have even more
thunderstorms per year. These events get little attention even by
people who study tornadoes. No, I do not mean people don't study and
try to figure out these things. What I mean is we have a Hurricane
Center for this country but we do not have a Thunderstorm or Tornado
center. Why not?

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
On 2 Mar 2006 06:25:36 -0800, wrote:

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
Thanks for answering my questions about science. I now know, without a
doubt, the science is more about politics than actual science.

Now when I read a story about science, I will know that I can decide
to believe the story or toss it aside as pure politics.

Thanks for confirming this belief in me. I now have all the ammunition
I need for my belief system now.

I am glad I came to this group and asked a serious question and did
not get an answer.

Please drop the 'tude. No answers are guaranteed on
Usenet, especially by some unspecified deadline.
The number of people reading this NG has always been
somewhat limited and is getting smaller, the number of
people actually qualified to really discuss the science
is even smaller, and the number of people with time to
provide volunteer answers is less yet. Your questions
are valid, but when I read your long post it was clear
that providing adequate, thoughtful discussion would
take more time than I have during the week to write on
the subject. Since you couldn't wait for the weekend,
I guess you won't get a thorough answer from me. If
you want search for some answers to climate questions
yourself, I'd suggest reading _Plows, Plagues, and
Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate_ by
William F. Ruddiman, and two books by Brian Fagan:
_The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization_
and _The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History,
1300-1850_. Another book which I have but have not
had a chance more than skim yet is _A Climate
Modeling Primer_ by McGuffe and Henderson-Sellers.
As for your concerns about dangerous winds, I suggest
getting a weather radio with the automatic alarm feature,
keep a eye on the Weather Channel, and be ready to
take cover. Unfortunately that's about the best one can
do.

See. I do appreciate the answer[s] you offered. But my only problem is
that science people are quick to discuss and promote discoveries that
support the 'team'. I wanted someone to get down to real world
situations and discuss the macro scenarios. I could agree that pumping
large amounts of ozone into the air is a bad idea. My problem is that
most of these people are using computer models and deciding that the
model is accurate enough to make very broad predictions.

Also I have a problem with the assumption that very recent human
activities have created the climate problems. I find it hard to
believe that human beings, in less than 200 years, have created even a
tiny impact on the climate. Let's assume the earth is many many
millions [billions?] of years old. AM I to believe that the terrible
climate changes are a result of activities the are less than 0.0001%
of the span of time?

Like I said, I don't have time to discuss these issues fully.
If one believes the arguments in _Plows, Plagues, and
Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate_ by
William F. Ruddiman, humans have not done this in 200
years, but closer to 10,000 years. He maintains that even
low (compared to today) levels of human activity over
thousands of years, including deforestation and methane
production by rice agriculture, have had a significant
cumulative effect. You'll have to read the book yourself
to decide whether or not to believe him.


See, as a layman, I could say this is flat wrong. But as I am also not
a doctor, I cannot diagnose someone with a disease. But I could easily
look at a person and determine they were breathing without any medical
training. In fact, I could determine this if I had never went to
school or even knew how to read or write.

Even the most Ultra_Conservative person would demand changes if these
climate changes were truly the result of human activities.

No one will answer this simple question either: If humans have caused
harm to the climate in under 200 years, could we also "repair" the
damage in under 200 years?

Breifly, maybe, but not without significant decrease in
population, changes in lifestyle, new technology, or all
of the above.


Also people talk about hurricanes a lot. My thing is that people never
mention the fact that more people than ever before live on the gulf
and eastern coastlines.

Actually, people do mention that. I attended a talk by
Steve Lyons, Weather Channel hurricane expert, last week
and he talked about that and other things. He's not the first.
Everyone in the tropical meteorological community, coastal
disaster community, coastal erosion community, etc. talks
about it. I heard about it at a talk on barrier islands at
Goddard Space Flight Center 20 years ago.

Katrina would have been a small story if so
many people didn't live in large cities along the coastline. It was a
Cat 3 storm, although serious in strength I do not see why it deserved
this much attention without mentioning the population part.

I also have noticed that tornadoes get little attention in comparison
to rare events.

They get plenty of attention, too, but they tend to be highly
localized events so they don't get as much.

You could take the example of katrina. The vast
majority of hurricanes hit in areas which are not the same terrain as
new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.

True.


We have on average 1500 tornadoes year. We have even more
thunderstorms per year. These events get little attention even by
people who study tornadoes. No, I do not mean people don't study and
try to figure out these things. What I mean is we have a Hurricane
Center for this country but we do not have a Thunderstorm or Tornado
center. Why not?

Yes, it's called the Storm Prediction Center,
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/ . It is one of the divisions
of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, of
which the Hurricane Center is also a part.


Tornadoes can reach F5+ in intensity. I would say 318mph sustained
winds should gain more attention than events that happen about 4 times
per year.

You could take medical issues to make the point. We spend a lot of
money on AIDS research. However, cancer and heart disease kills many
many more people than AIDS has ever killed. So we spend more money on
less occurring and less deadly disease.

There is a new drug for restless leg syndrome. Now I'm
sure people with restless leg syndrome find it upsetting,
but for heaven's sake it isn't AIDS, cancer, or pandemic
flu.

As with tornado-thunderstorm
versus hurricane research and money.

I am not asking you all to spoon feed me these answers. I am just
interested in a little discussion on the layman level.

After all, if the layman is not educated in climate/weather, how can
you ever expect government funding?

I agree. Some organizations attempt to engage the public
in understanding these issues, but there is a lot to do
and few people to do it, especially as it is often fairly
unglamorous work.

Lunch time is over. Maybe I'll address more points below
in the furture.

Cheers,
Russell


If people don't know how serious something is then when money is asked
for research, people will roll their eyes and so no every time.

I also never ever see stories about the decaying orbit around the sun.
Common sense would say that if we are getting closer to the sun that
the greenhouse effect would increase over time. Does anyone dare list
this as a cause for global warming?

I don't think that is a significant problem.

Also, when people keep saying that a decrease in greenhouse emissions
would slow down the problem I want to know how we're going to do this?
Do you honestly think our country could go to some alternative energy
quick enough? Seriously, how long would it take, for example, for us
to all use hydrogen cars? 20yrs? 50yrs? 200yrs? And when we made this
switch what jobs would be lost forever? Would a person with an
advanced degree in petroleum based energy just lose their job? How
would this be addressed?

Valid points. There are no easy answers. The question is
will the problem be worse than the solutions? We do not
know, IMO, but there is a significant chance it will be.


I am positive the government could outlaw cigarettes. This would in
theory reduce the number of smoking related diseases which are very
expensive. But at what cost? You would have entire states with the
only option of raising state income taxes to make up the difference.
Tobacco is a cash crop in a very select group of states. Those people
who grow and process tobacco would immediately be without a job. How
do we remedy this ?

I know this has been long-winded but what I am really saying is that
it does not serve a purpose to simply state what is causing a problem
without also providing an answer to prevent or slow the problem.

What if you went to a doctor and he said you had cancer. And you asked
him what to do about it he just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'm
a doctor, all I do is diagnose diseases. You'll have to consult X to
solve the problem". That to me is essentially what the climate/weather
long term forecasts are about.

But what does a doctor in real life actually do? A doctor diagnoses
and discusses treatment options. Those treatments begin very soon.

Also, since we're concerned about the change in the climate, why are
we not also in agreement on climate/weather modification? If you could
modify weather and climate then why not do it.

I've heard more than a few people say, "We don't know why tornadoes
form but that may serve a purpose we don't yet understand." My thing
is why let something that is deadly happen when we have people with
ideas on how to modify the storms?

We have seat belts and air bags in cars because people realized this
would 'modify' the outcome of a car wreck. If these were not in cars
then a 20 mph crash would kill most people. Now, 55mph+ wrecks
frequently do not injure much less kill the occupants.

Dams and levees are designed to 'modify' flood prone areas. Let's get
rid of them because floods may server some purpose we don't yet
understand, right?

All these things need to be addressed.

Yes we need rain. Every place on earth needs some amount of rain. But
could we just have plain rain? Must we have deadly lightning and winds
from a thunderstorm? Must we have deadly tornadoes? All we are in need
of is the rain. Why keep the bad things when we have the power to at
least begin to try a few attempts at weather modification?

Hurricanes need water above a certain temp to grow and strengthen.
Could we not at least consider a method to control the temp of those
waters? Remember, we're not talking about making the water 32F or
anything. Even a 3-5F decrease would be dramatic in the formation of a
hurricane.

Tornadoes could be decreased in numbers and intensity if the highest
cloud tops were heated to decrease lapse rates. We would still get
rain without the dangerous wind/lightning/toarnadoes. How would this
be a bad thing to do?

I really think the opposition to weather modification by the
scientific community is nothing more the job security. If weather was
easily predictable and modified, then the need for advanced studies
would not be needed on the scale it is today. If tornadoes/violent
thunderstorms/hurricanes and tornadoes were to the point of being very
very rare then all these people would no longer be needed in the
numbers they are currently.

And no, I am not one of those people who believes global warming does
not exist. I am just skeptical as to why.

Psychics are dismissed mainly because the predict an event with few
details. Also they never tell you how to avoid what is going to
happen. People call them quackes.

Please don't make the population begin to believe that meteorologists
and climate scientists are like psychics. Much to predict but nothing
in the details for preventing or how that would impact the average
person.

READ BELOW

I will now dedicate my life to recruiting people to fight against
government grants and support for science programs. Why should tax
dollars go for "science" which is really nothing more than a
combination of politics and political correctness.

And all it took was the non-response to one usenet post to change my
mind this dramatically.

Thanks and good luck with your snake oil from now on.

ps. I don't think the Earth is 6,000 years old, but I will do my best
to prove it's not 6,001 years old now.

Good luck with that. If you succeed it will be a scientific
revolution, and all true scientists seek such truths.

Carbon dating is another one I love. I have asked this several carbon
dating lovers before with no answer.

Take an object with an age that is absolutely known. Now carbon date
this object. I would be surprised if the dating was within 10,000
years. Based on this how can we rely on carbon dating. I hear all the
time about some "thing" being found that is 1 million years old, and
of course carbon dating was used.

I even had a science teacher admit that carbon dating is really more a
theory than reality. He admitted that the error rate on this method
was likely near 75%, and he said that was being generous.

So the 1 million year old object is anywhere from 250,000 to 1.75
million years old. Precise isn't it?


thanks for reading this. I know some or all may not reply.
I have nothing but the highest regard for scientists and their work. I
hope nothing I have said has offended anyone. If it has then I
apologize for not expressing myself better.

again, thanks.

In article ,
says...
On 2 Mar 2006 06:25:36 -0800, wrote:

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
Thanks for answering my questions about science. I now know, without a
doubt, the science is more about politics than actual science.

Now when I read a story about science, I will know that I can decide
to believe the story or toss it aside as pure politics.

Thanks for confirming this belief in me. I now have all the ammunition
I need for my belief system now.

I am glad I came to this group and asked a serious question and did
not get an answer.

Please drop the 'tude. No answers are guaranteed on
Usenet, especially by some unspecified deadline.
The number of people reading this NG has always been
somewhat limited and is getting smaller, the number of
people actually qualified to really discuss the science
is even smaller, and the number of people with time to
provide volunteer answers is less yet. Your questions
are valid, but when I read your long post it was clear
that providing adequate, thoughtful discussion would
take more time than I have during the week to write on
the subject. Since you couldn't wait for the weekend,
I guess you won't get a thorough answer from me. If
you want search for some answers to climate questions
yourself, I'd suggest reading _Plows, Plagues, and
Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate_ by
William F. Ruddiman, and two books by Brian Fagan:
_The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization_
and _The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History,
1300-1850_. Another book which I have but have not
had a chance more than skim yet is _A Climate
Modeling Primer_ by McGuffe and Henderson-Sellers.
As for your concerns about dangerous winds, I suggest
getting a weather radio with the automatic alarm feature,
keep a eye on the Weather Channel, and be ready to
take cover. Unfortunately that's about the best one can
do.

See. I do appreciate the answer[s] you offered. But my only problem is
that science people are quick to discuss and promote discoveries that
support the 'team'. I wanted someone to get down to real world
situations and discuss the macro scenarios. I could agree that pumping
large amounts of ozone into the air is a bad idea. My problem is that
most of these people are using computer models and deciding that the
model is accurate enough to make very broad predictions.

Also I have a problem with the assumption that very recent human
activities have created the climate problems. I find it hard to
believe that human beings, in less than 200 years, have created even a
tiny impact on the climate. Let's assume the earth is many many
millions [billions?] of years old. AM I to believe that the terrible
climate changes are a result of activities the are less than 0.0001%
of the span of time?

See, as a layman, I could say this is flat wrong. But as I am also not
a doctor, I cannot diagnose someone with a disease. But I could easily
look at a person and determine they were breathing without any medical
training. In fact, I could determine this if I had never went to
school or even knew how to read or write.

Even the most Ultra_Conservative person would demand changes if these
climate changes were truly the result of human activities.

No one will answer this simple question either: If humans have caused
harm to the climate in under 200 years, could we also "repair" the
damage in under 200 years?

Also people talk about hurricanes a lot. My thing is that people never
mention the fact that more people than ever before live on the gulf
and eastern coastlines. Katrina would have been a small story if so
many people didn't live in large cities along the coastline. It was a
Cat 3 storm, although serious in strength I do not see why it deserved
this much attention without mentioning the population part.

There has been an enormous amount of discussion about the growth in
population on the coasts. Everyone that I've ever heard from the
hurricane community has talked about the change in the threat over the
years because of population growth. Katrina would have been the
deadliest hurricane in the US for at least 35 years even without any
deaths in Louisiana. The large cat-5 stage off the coast helped produce
the storm surge that devastated the Mississippi coastline, which doesn't
have any particularly large cities on it.


I also have noticed that tornadoes get little attention in comparison
to rare events. You could take the example of katrina. The vast
majority of hurricanes hit in areas which are not the same terrain as
new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.

Tornadoes killing dozens of people in the US are quite rare. In the 37
years since the Wichita Falls tornado of 1979 (42 dead), there have been
five tornadoes have killed 24 or more people. The most killed in a
single tornado has been 36. Typically, official counts of injuries from
significant tornadoes include only people admitted to hospitals.


We have on average 1500 tornadoes per year. We have even more
thunderstorms per year. These events get little attention even by
people who study tornadoes. No, I do not mean people don't study and
try to figure out these things. What I mean is we have a Hurricane
Center for this country but we do not have a Thunderstorm or Tornado
center. Why not?

The National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center
(http://www.spc.noaa.gov) has been in existence for over 50 years.


Tornadoes can reach F5+ in intensity. I would say 318mph sustained
winds should gain more attention than events that happen about 4 times
per year.


The last F5 tornado recorded in the US was in 1999. Over the long run
(back to 1921), we've averaged less than 1 per year.

[deletions]

I've heard more than a few people say, "We don't know why tornadoes
form but that may serve a purpose we don't yet understand." My thing
is why let something that is deadly happen when we have people with
ideas on how to modify the storms?

At this time, no one's come up with an idea that's physically plausible.


We have seat belts and air bags in cars because people realized this
would 'modify' the outcome of a car wreck. If these were not in cars
then a 20 mph crash would kill most people. Now, 55mph+ wrecks
frequently do not injure much less kill the occupants.

Dams and levees are designed to 'modify' flood prone areas. Let's get
rid of them because floods may server some purpose we don't yet
understand, right?

All these things need to be addressed.

Yes we need rain. Every place on earth needs some amount of rain. But
could we just have plain rain? Must we have deadly lightning and winds
from a thunderstorm? Must we have deadly tornadoes? All we are in need
of is the rain. Why keep the bad things when we have the power to at
least begin to try a few attempts at weather modification?

Rain rates are a lot higher from thunderstorms than weak convection (or
isentropic lift) because of the strong updrafts. There are currently
attempts at weather modification, mostly related to increasing rain out
of thunderstorms and reducing hail. (I have no desire to get into a
discussion about their efficacy, but serious weather mod work has been
going on for a long time.)


Hurricanes need water above a certain temp to grow and strengthen.
Could we not at least consider a method to control the temp of those
waters? Remember, we're not talking about making the water 32F or
anything. Even a 3-5F decrease would be dramatic in the formation of a
hurricane.

Tornadoes could be decreased in numbers and intensity if the highest
cloud tops were heated to decrease lapse rates. We would still get
rain without the dangerous wind/lightning/toarnadoes. How would this
be a bad thing to do?

1. There's no reason to believe it would work.
2. It would take an incredible amount of energy to do.
3. If you warmed the troposphere enough to eliminate lightning, you
would significantly lower the precipitation. Rain rates from
thunderstorms tend to be higher than in other situations.
4. The law of unintended consequences.


I really think the opposition to weather modification by the
scientific community is nothing more the job security. If weather was
easily predictable and modified, then the need for advanced studies
would not be needed on the scale it is today. If tornadoes/violent
thunderstorms/hurricanes and tornadoes were to the point of being very
very rare then all these people would no longer be needed in the
numbers they are currently.

"If weather was easily predictable and modified...." That's a huge if.
Most of the opposition is due to people understanding the phenomena
reasonably well and seeing physically-ludicrous suggestions for
modification.


[deletions]

Carbon dating is another one I love. I have asked this several carbon
dating lovers before with no answer.

Take an object with an age that is absolutely known. Now carbon date
this object. I would be surprised if the dating was within 10,000
years. Based on this how can we rely on carbon dating. I hear all the
time about some "thing" being found that is 1 million years old, and
of course carbon dating was used.

No one would ever use radiocarbon dating for a 1 million year old
object. 60,000 years is about the upper limit when the amount of C14
left can't be distinguished from the background production level.


I even had a science teacher admit that carbon dating is really more a
theory than reality. He admitted that the error rate on this method
was likely near 75%, and he said that was being generous.

Apparently, he didn't know much about radiocarbon dating. It's much
more accurate than that (unless you're using it inappropiately, such as
to date something a million years old.) The Wikipedia article is
helpful on the accuracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating


So the 1 million year old object is anywhere from 250,000 to 1.75
million years old. Precise isn't it?

If those were the error bars on the dating, you might have a point, but
since they aren't, you don't.




thanks for reading this. I know some or all may not reply.
I have nothing but the highest regard for scientists and their work. I
hope nothing I have said has offended anyone. If it has then I
apologize for not expressing myself better.

again, thanks.



--
Harold Brooks
Head, Mesoscale Applications Group
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:22:12 -0600, Scott
wrote:

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.


I can think of no cat 5 hurricane that has killed less
than 10 people. My conclusion is that your memory may
be faulty.


OK, then what about the fact that hurricanes takes days to arrive.
People are warning and they have every chance to leave. Those who end
up dying in hurricanes that make landfall in the US have no one to
blame but themselves for staying like fools. Tornadoes aren't the same
at all. Sure you might get a warning for a tornado but where are you
going to evacuate to? You newly built iron bunker 25 feet below?
People die in well built homes even when they go to a basement.
Also, there are a lot of tornadoes that come with no official warning
and others that can come from really minor thunderstorms.

Even good common sense won't save you from a tornado, but it will from
a hurricane.

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:22:12 -0600, Scott
wrote:


Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:

new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.


I can think of no cat 5 hurricane that has killed less
than 10 people. My conclusion is that your memory may
be faulty.



OK, then what about the fact that hurricanes takes days to arrive.
People are warning and they have every chance to leave. Those who end
up dying in hurricanes that make landfall in the US have no one to
blame but themselves for staying like fools. Tornadoes aren't the same
at all. Sure you might get a warning for a tornado but where are you
going to evacuate to? You newly built iron bunker 25 feet below?
People die in well built homes even when they go to a basement.
Also, there are a lot of tornadoes that come with no official warning

For some definition of 'a lot' I suppose. My impression is that
killer tornadoes are only rarely un-warned. The last one I
recall was in Evansville, IN around midnight in November or
December.

and others that can come from really minor thunderstorms.

Even good common sense won't save you from a tornado, but it will from
a hurricane.

Hurricanes do take days to arrive. However, the most accurate forecast
for landfall do not occur days in advance of landfall. It is
unreasonable to expect someone who is of very limited means and/or
mobility to up and move because a storm 5 days away *might*
hit them. If they have pets, what do they do with those pets
for five days? The problem is that by the time a good forecast
of landfall is in hand, it may be too late to leave. And
some people just don't have the means to escape. Or the will.

Perhaps you're arguing that people with good common sense won't
live near a coastline. If you're poor then, and that's where
you were born, what then?


scott

In article ,
says...
Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:22:12 -0600, Scott
wrote:


Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:

new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.


I can think of no cat 5 hurricane that has killed less
than 10 people. My conclusion is that your memory may
be faulty.



OK, then what about the fact that hurricanes takes days to arrive.
People are warning and they have every chance to leave. Those who end
up dying in hurricanes that make landfall in the US have no one to
blame but themselves for staying like fools. Tornadoes aren't the same
at all. Sure you might get a warning for a tornado but where are you
going to evacuate to? You newly built iron bunker 25 feet below?
People die in well built homes even when they go to a basement.
Also, there are a lot of tornadoes that come with no official warning

For some definition of 'a lot' I suppose. My impression is that
killer tornadoes are only rarely un-warned. The last one I
recall was in Evansville, IN around midnight in November or
December.

No. The Evansville tornado did have a warning out, issued almost 30
minutes before the first fatality. Fatalities in tornadoes without
warnings are very rare. I'm fairly confident the last unwarned event
with more than 2 is probably the Plainfield tornado in 1990, although I
haven't gone through every event.

--
Harold Brooks
Head, Mesoscale Applications Group
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory

Harold Brooks wrote:
In article ,
says...

Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:22:12 -0600, Scott
wrote:



Theodore Baldwin Boothe III wrote:


new orleans. I remember several hurricanes in the past that were cat
3, 4 and sometimes 5. None of these hurricanes killed more than 10
people. However, a tornado that hits even a small city can likely kill
dozens of people and injure upwards of 200 people. And injure is a
word without meaning. Injure could be anything from scratches to a
broken spinal cord.


I can think of no cat 5 hurricane that has killed less
than 10 people. My conclusion is that your memory may
be faulty.



OK, then what about the fact that hurricanes takes days to arrive.
People are warning and they have every chance to leave. Those who end
up dying in hurricanes that make landfall in the US have no one to
blame but themselves for staying like fools. Tornadoes aren't the same
at all. Sure you might get a warning for a tornado but where are you
going to evacuate to? You newly built iron bunker 25 feet below?
People die in well built homes even when they go to a basement.
Also, there are a lot of tornadoes that come with no official warning

For some definition of 'a lot' I suppose. My impression is that
killer tornadoes are only rarely un-warned. The last one I
recall was in Evansville, IN around midnight in November or
December.


No. The Evansville tornado did have a warning out, issued almost 30
minutes before the first fatality. Fatalities in tornadoes without
warnings are very rare. I'm fairly confident the last unwarned event
with more than 2 is probably the Plainfield tornado in 1990, although I
haven't gone through every event.


Thanks for the correction. Now I wonder what else I'm
mis-remembering

Scott