You won't have to wait for them to come into season, now they'll just start to form up spontaneously, and in places never seen before. Tornadoes aren't just for trailer parks anymore:
What was the name of the movie? I saw it but can't recall the name right now.
The CGI is beautifully done, artistic and appears to be physically accurate. The words with it say Into The Storm
Facebook took it down, but youtube has it
This one will have you in stitches- what drugs are the people who dream up this stuff on?
Toronado? Toreador? Grand Torino? Something like that maybe.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Sharknado?
John
Maybe the 1997 movie "Twister"? No super tornados, but those shown operate in some strange and amazing ways.
The first time I saw "Twister" was at Costco in the big screen section. The movie really held my attention. Well, not exactly the movie, CGI, actors, or plot. My attention was on the physics errors, which arrived at the rate of about one every 15 seconds during the action scenes. There were a few other shoppers also watching, so I began to point out the errors, which caused one teenager to stomp angrily away, muttering something about me ruining the movie for him. That was rather enlightening, as I then realized that movie audiences really don't want reality and much prefer illusions in its place.
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
start to form up spontaneously, and in places never seen before. Tornadoes aren't just for trailer parks anymore:
up this stuff on?
What were some of the errors? The stuff about people being able to hold ont o stuff and not get their clothes torn off and even be able to keep breathi ng in 300MPH winds is pretty unrealistic. I think the destruction of the ma sonry structures flying to pieces is wrong, that only happens when the hurr icane hits them with airborne debris. The destruction of the wood frame str uctures seems real.
Sharknado. It's as believable as AGW.
The evidence for anthropogneic global warming got convincing around 1990, some time after krw had stopped storing new facts.
Krw's belief system isn't a work in progress. It has ossified, probably fossilised.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Yep. 60 mph is about the limit for remaining upright without additional support. Above about 80 mph or so, any debris including dust is highly abrasive and will shred soft material including unprotected skin. As you note, most damage is from an impact.
One of the more memorable screwup was near the end, where the hero and heroin are overrun by a tornado, and jump into a shallow well to save themselves. They hang onto a conveniently placed metal bar that crosses the diameter of the well. As the tornado passes over, the eye of the tornado converts into a vacuum cleaner and sucks them upward while still holding onto the metal bar. They hang suspended, upside down, as the air passes by them. The problem is that the air is coming from inside the well. There's no way for air to get into the well from below. Also, the eye of a tornado is something like the eye of a hurricane with little wind.
Just before the above scene, they are chased by a tornado with an amazingly selective weapons system. The tornado gleefully launches heavy metal agricultural implements and structural parts in near horizontal trajectories, but forgets to launch the standing corn crop through which it passes.
The same tornado also has an amazing outer boundary. The hero and heroin are chased across the corn field with the tornado in hot pursuit about 20ft behind them. All the airborne debris is neatly contained inside the tornado, while nothing is affected outside the outer boundary. Judging by their hair and clothes, there's not even a light breeze outside of the tornados outer boundary. It's as if the tornado was contained inside a clear plastic cylinder.
It's been a long time, so I don't recall everything. I do recall my amazement at how a 2D radar can create a full motion 3D image of their sensor array spinning around inside the tornado. Also, how getting their sensors are all magically launched upwards, while everything else gets correctly launched horizontally.
When the hero correctly predicts an approaching tornado by looking skyward at a darkened sky, he forgets to check for the required cloud rotation, which is required to produce tornados. I'm not certain, but I don't recall seeing any cloud rotation anywhere in the movie.
Looks like the movie and some exerts are on YouTube:
-- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Unfortunately that phenomenon happens in far more situations than merely watching a movie :(
Cue the AGW leftists.
One of krw's favourite illusions is that anthropogenic global warming is a leftist conspiracy.
It is, in fact, an observed reality, and the people doing the observations are essentially a-political scientists.
The left-right polarisation comes from the fact that the obvious reaction t o the existence of anthropogenic global warming to dig up less fossil carbo n to be burnt as fuel, which doesn't suit a number of people who are making a lot of money out of that business. This does include the Koch brothers, who fund denialist propaganda and the Tea Party.
It's much the same reaction that prompted the right wing to try to trash th e evidence that smoking wasn't good for your health.
When forced to choose between scientific fact and the free market, some peo ple do give the free market the priority, and they do tend to be right-wing ers.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hmm, how to explain those of us who agree that burning carbon based fuels is short sighted both from a pollution point of view and using up what may be a non-renewable resource, but still think the case for CO2 is overblown? CO2 is an inverse IR trap, and we are pretty close to saturation.
My understanding is that none of the models explain the warming from the end of the LIA to 1950, and that also are match 1950 through 2010. (Without a lot of tweaking.)
Nor (AIUI) do they explain the LIA.
And why the temperature increase rate was much the same from 1900 to
1940 and 1970 to 2000.John
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd.
MOVED to #7 - 3979 Marine Way, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5J 5E3
(604)872-5757 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."
ote:
ss a leftist conspiracy.
ons are essentially a-political scientists.
on to the existence of anthropogenic global warming to dig up less fossil c arbon to be burnt as fuel, which doesn't suit a number of people who are ma king a lot of money out of that business. This does include the Koch broth ers, who fund denialist propaganda and the Tea Party.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has progressively less effect, but the ef fect doesn't actually saturate, and never goes into reverse.
Burning sulphur-rich coal dumped a lot of SO2 in the upper atmosphere, whic h has it's own effects, and installing SO2 scrubbers in power-station chimn ey stack also had an effect.
CO2 is not the only atmospheric contaminant that screws up the climate.
The Little Ice Age seems to be more of a North Atlantic effect than a globa l feature.
You have to look at the Multidecadal Atlantic Oscillation
which was first described in 1994, to get a handle on that. Something simil ar - possibly linked - happens in the Pacific.
h the evidence that smoking wasn't good for your health.
people do give the free market the priority, and they do tend to be right- wingers.
Other people are just plain ignorant.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
e:
ces
is a leftist conspiracy.
tions are essentially a-political scientists.
tion to the existence of anthropogenic global warming to dig up less foss il carbon to be burnt as fuel, which doesn't suit a number of people who are making a lot of money out of that business. This does include the Ko ch brothers, who fund denialist propaganda and the Tea Party.
pe effect doesn't actually saturate, and never goes into reverse.
I don't have the math to deal with HITRAN. All I can say is what I read in some of the earliest research papers on CO2 which show that CO2 absorption peaks around 400PPM and after that increase concentration pretty much does very little.
he
which has it's own effects, and installing SO2 scrubbers in power-station chimney stack also had an effect.
That has nothing to do with my point, unless you care to expand your reasoning.
lobal feature.
You may want to re-read:
Check near the bottom where it is stated:
"South America
Tree-ring data from Patagonia show cold episodes between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670, contemporary with the events in the Northern Hemisphere.[64][65] Eight sediment cores taken from Puyehue Lake have been interpreted as showing a humid period from 1470 to 1700, which the authors describe as a regional marker of the onset of the Little Ice Age.[66] A 2009 paper details cooler and wetter conditions in southeastern South America between 1550 and 1800, citing evidence obtained via several proxies and models.[67] 18O records from three Andean ice cores show a cool period from 1600?1800 [68]"
Also, the frequency of typhoons in China only escalated as the LIA ended
- track down "A 1,000-Year History of Typhoon Landfalls in Guangdong, Southern China, Reconstructed from Chinese Historical Documentary Records" by Kam-biu Liu, Caiming Shen, and Kin-sheun Louie
(if you can't find it email me and I'll send you the PDF)
So, the LIA was not a European/eastern North American phenomenon alone.
That one can relate climatic changes to a named process does not mean the process is understood. The reason for the oscillation is not understood and thus it is merely naming a symptom rather than defining the process.
imilar - possibly linked - happens in the Pacific.
ash the evidence that smoking wasn't good for your health.
me people do give the free market the priority, and they do tend to be ri ght-wingers.
And some people rely on one source far too much. Any source has biases built in, you need to expand your research as any good scientist knows -
go to the source, not the later papers. Which is all Wikipedia is after all - knowledge as accepted by the majority. And, of course, the majority is always right in science as in all other subjects, eh?
I hate to bring up this old chestnut, but it was Einstein who said ? ?Why
100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]?. You must recognize tha t the basis of climate change is still a theory - subject to revision and improvement (only as the old school dies off or retires from the battle). Those in power make sure the dissenting voices are ridiculed and belittled by calling them derogatory names (ad hominum attack = "deniers") instead of dealing with their questions and proofs of failures of various parts of the climate change theoretical base.At least you (Bill) proffer a respectable response - for the most part you assume the person's comments that you are contesting is intelligent and is willing to listen to your points, as much as they ask you to listen to theirs.
G'day!
John
e:
ces
is a leftist conspiracy.
tions are essentially a-political scientists.
tion to the existence of anthropogenic global warming to dig up less fossil carbon to be burnt as fuel, which doesn't suit a number of people who are making a lot of money out of that business. This does include the Koch bro thers, who fund denialist propaganda and the Tea Party.
pe effect doesn't actually saturate, and never goes into reverse.
does go into that early history - the 1920's, if I remember rightly.
The point is that where CO2 absorbs, it absorbs quite strongly, and the mea n free path of those photons at low altitudes is pretty short.
This doesn't actually stop that infra-red radiation from eventually making it out into space. What happens is that the photon bounce from molecule to molecule on their way up through the atmosphere, but as you go higher, the molecules get cooler (lapse rate). Eventually you get high enough that the photons have an even chance of making it out of the atmosphere into outer s pace - the effective emitting altitude, and the apparent temperature of the earth, at that wavelength, is the temperature at that altitude (which is l ot cooler than the surface).
More CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't have any effect on the photons moving up through the atmosphere, but it does make the effective emitting altitude h igher, where the atmosphere is even cooler.
There are a whole lot of minor effects involving pressure broadening of ind ividual IR absorbtion lines which make the lines broader in the lower atmos phere, but the effect is straightforward - more CO2 in the atmosphere means less IR radiation as the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs (and re-emits).
The effect doesn't saturate.
he
which has it's own effects, and installing SO2 scrubbers in power-station c himney stack also had an effect.
The point was that the models would have had to take a lot more phenomena i nto account than you seem to imagine - modern ones probably do.
The effect you are complaining about seems to be caused by the multi-decada l ocean oscillations, which do affect the average temperature of the earth.
The oceans transport a lot of heat from the equator to the poles, and the r outes they use influence the average global temperature. This is fairly obv ious with the El Nino/La Nina alternation. We've seen a bunch of those. The multi-decadal oscillations seem to have the same sort of effect, but we ha ven't seen enough of them to nail down exactly what is going on.
lobal feature.
Tasmania didn't seem to see much of it.
Since Julia Slingo has modelled the last thousand years of Chinese monsoons
with the HadCM3 model, the implication is more that you don't know what you are talking about.
So the South Atlantic was affected too. Big surprise.
We don't know much about deep ocean currents - the Argo buoys are telling u s stuff, but not all that fast. There's a lot of ocean and only about three thousand buoys.
We don't have to know too much about the currents to know that their moveme nt can chance the global average temperature. At the moment the global aver age temperature record looks noisy, and it is beginning to become clear tha t some of that "noise" is actually the signal from ocean currents moving ar ound.
Variation in CO2 level in the atmosphere does seem to explain a lot of the variation in global average temperature. It goes down to 180ppm during ice ages, and seems to have gone up a lot during Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maxim um
Bitching that the current models don't explain everything doesn't exactly s ubvert the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
imilar - possibly linked - happens in the Pacific.
ash the evidence that smoking wasn't good for your health.
me people do give the free market the priority, and they do tend to be righ t-wingers.
If you had been paying attention, you be aware that I also cite stuff from the Proceedings of the (American) Academy of Science from time to time. Whe n I first got interested, I ploughed through most of the American Institute of Physics web-site, and I do buy books from time to time
My copy - from 2009 - is ISBN 978-0-691-14811-3
Wikipedia is a handy source of links, but I do read what I cite to make sur e that it is telling the story I expect to see.
?Why
t the
Relativity is still a theory too. Climate change has been a subject of inte nse interest for some twenty years now, and the literature is full of attem pts to revise and improve the basic idea - most of which got falsified very rapidly.
The proposition that more CO2 in the atmosphere cause higher global tempera tures is about as well tested as an idea can be. Your objections to the pro position aren't of a nature to be taken seriously.
The deniers aren't ridiculed because they are dissenting. They are ridicule d because they don't do their own work, they "dissent" by quoting stuff out of context, and they keep on playing up attempted "revisions and improveme nts" which had been rapidly shown to wrong.
The denialist movement is a commercial operation, organised in the same way , and by some of the same people, as the crew who tried to shield the tobac co industry from the medical insight that smoking was bad for your health, as I've already pointed out. They deserve ridicule at the very least, and a prosecution for maliciously misleading and effectively defrauding the publ ic wouldn't be out of place.
I'm beginning to have doubts about your intelligence.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.