Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Running out of Hurricane Names

CmdrTaco posted about 9 years ago | from the still-waiting-for-hurricane-taco dept.

Science 712

fm6 writes "LiveScience is reporting that the 21 names reserved for tropical storms and hurricanes in Atlantic Basic are almost used up. If there are more than 21 storms, they'll start using the Greek alphabet. The most storms ever recorded was 21 in 1933, before they started giving them official names. The connection between this record-breaking storm year and global warming remains controversial."

cancel ×

712 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Easy solution (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605702)

Use the Chinese alphabet. If you have a year where you run out, it's all just one big hurricane.

Re: Easy solution (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 9 years ago | (#13605898)


> Use the Chinese alphabet. If you have a year where you run out, it's all just one big hurricane.

Or FEMA could just stall and clean up two at a time, so we'd only need half as many names.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605704)

Hurricane AC gets first post?

What? (4, Funny)

Shads (4567) | about 9 years ago | (#13605706)

They can't get a baby book out and look up a few more names? They didn't even get a name for ever letter of the alphabet?! What are we paying them for!!?

Names... (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13605757)

They can't get a baby book out and look up a few more names? They didn't even get a name for ever letter of the alphabet?! What are we paying them for!!?

These will be a hit with techies...

"That hurricane isn't ready for release."
"Why not?"
"Because it's Beta!"

Thank you, I'm here all week.

Re:Names... (1)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | about 9 years ago | (#13605956)

Thing of the positive, comic book writers everywhere will be rejoying with the material they've just been given...

"Hurricane Gamma has come ashore"...

Re:What? (3, Funny)

jdray (645332) | about 9 years ago | (#13605795)

I was watching CNN last night, and they were displaying names for some of the displaced children from the area affected by Katrina. If they start using some of the names that are evidently common in that part of the U.S. (Shaniqua, Delwayne, etc.), they will never run out. I suspect if I lived on the coast and someone told me that Hurricane Shaniqua was on its way, I'd run like hell.

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605897)

ha ha, teh black are so gay!

Re:What? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605953)

I live in Atlanta.
I already board up my windows and hide my valuables from Shaniqua's and such. I also wear this shirt [tshirthell.com] .

Re:What? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605803)

It is George Bush's fault that there are so many hurricanes.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

RealProgrammer (723725) | about 9 years ago | (#13605920)

George Bush doesn't care about anonymous hurricanes.

Re:What? (1)

gid (5195) | about 9 years ago | (#13605807)

You try thinking up names for q, u, x, y and z. The names are reused every 6 years, retiring significant storm names.

Re:What? (4, Interesting)

oliana (181649) | about 9 years ago | (#13605888)

here, use this:

Naming Chart Coolness [babynamewizard.com]

controversial? (3, Interesting)

syrinx (106469) | about 9 years ago | (#13605713)

Everything I've seen says that climate scientists say there's no connection at all. The only place I've seen any connection put forward as a fact are people who write letters to the editor in the NY Times and similar papers.

The list of Pacific hurricanes uses X, Y, and Z (but not Q or U), whereas the Atlantic list doesn't use any of those five letters. Perhaps they should add X, Y, and Z names to the Atlantic list too now.

Return to the old? (1)

Brunellus (875635) | about 9 years ago | (#13605746)

There was a Hurricane Xenia in 1956...time to go back to the old naming conventions, I guess.

Re:Return to the old? (3, Funny)

minus_273 (174041) | about 9 years ago | (#13605841)

Hurricane Xena warrior princess..

Free Controversy Inside (1)

conner_bw (120497) | about 9 years ago | (#13605777)

Dude, the connection is BIBLICAL!

Re:controversial? (-1, Flamebait)

hungrygrue (872970) | about 9 years ago | (#13605891)

Everything I've seen says that climate scientists say there's no connection at all.
I take it you avoid all news sources but Fox then? I have seen articles in quite a few papers, as well as reports on the BBC, CBC, and NPR all stating that the number of cat 4 and 5 hurricanes has nearly doubled in the last 30 years due to rising water temperatures. There is also a near universal consensus in the scientific community that, while no single storm can ever be identified as being absolutely caused by any one thing, the number and severity of these storms *will* continue to increase as temperatures continue to rise. It is impressive and frightening that you have managed to isolate yourself to such a degree that every news source you watch/listen to/read has entirely neglected the issue.

Re:controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605962)

Everything I've seen says that climate scientists say there's no connection at all. The only place I've seen any connection put forward as a fact are people who write letters to the editor in the NY Times and similar papers.
Shh, you'll upset the groupthink.

Anyway, while there is absolutely no link between the warming climate and the frequency of storms, there is (At least theoretically) a causal link between the warmth and the intensity of the storms, though it's likely to be negligible.

What? (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 9 years ago | (#13605717)

They are not inventive enough to develop new names? Also, why use personal names anyways. Why not simply call them Hurricane 2005_21 or 2005_145. Is this really a problem? And who decided on 21 reserved names? Why not 30 or 50? Why is this news?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605729)

RTFA. It's all quite well explained.

Re:What? (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 9 years ago | (#13605734)

How about "Hurricane Man-Are-We-Fucked-Or-What" or "Hurricane I-Hope-This-Drowns-Michael-Brown"?

Re:What? (5, Informative)

Fishstick (150821) | about 9 years ago | (#13605825)

The storms are named A-Z, with a few letters skipped.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml [noaa.gov]

Katrina was the (one, two three.. ) 11th tropical depression/storm/hurricane of the 2005 season.

Next year, the 11th storm will be named 'Kirk'.

Experience shows that the use of short, distinctive given names in written as well as spoken communications is quicker and less subject to error than the older more cumbersome latitude-longitude identification methods. These advantages are especially important in exchanging detailed storm information between hundreds of widely scattered stations, coastal bases, and ships at sea.

Re:What? (1)

Fishstick (150821) | about 9 years ago | (#13605875)

replying to my own post to make a correction...

> tropical depression/storm/hurricane of the 2005 season.

'Tropical Cyclones' is the correct term. These can apparently include hurricanes and tropical storms (winds below 74 mph).

Re:What? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 9 years ago | (#13605963)

Also, why use personal names anyways. Why not simply call them Hurricane 2005_21 or 2005_145. Is this really a problem?

Wow, you are a nerd reading the news! Surely, though, binary would be better?

"All everybody - we recommend you fill up a couple of old milk jugs with some tap water, buy a bag full of snack bars, and get on the bus, becuse Hurricane 01010010011010010111010001100001 is on the way!"

Nah, I think it's easier to look back on certain storms, for comparison's sake, with easier to remember names. "This one will be just about as bad as Camille" immediately resonates with people who were there, whereas "This will be a right proper 1969_03, this will!" just doesn't have the same cultural staying power.

Why is this news?

Because with a news summary like that, more poeple can Freak Out(tm) about how my SUV is causing us to run out of storm names.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | about 9 years ago | (#13605964)

why use personal names anyways.

For exactly the same reason we give names to ip addresses.

KFG

Bad PR (5, Funny)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | about 9 years ago | (#13605718)

The Greek thing may not be the best idea... after the big storms the US has endured so far, I doubt anyone would bee looking forward to HURRICANE OMEGA.

Re:Bad PR (4, Funny)

lgw (121541) | about 9 years ago | (#13605769)

I think hurricanes should have names that *encourage* evacuation!

Hurricane Killer
Hurricane Throat-Ripper
Hurricane Goatse

I mean, who would decide to "just stay here and weather Hurricane Goatse"?

Re:Bad PR (2, Insightful)

SlayerofGods (682938) | about 9 years ago | (#13605902)

Reminds me of Hurricane Ivan.
Which of course reminded every news caster in the country of apparently the only Ivan they've heard of; Ivan the terrible.
Certainly made the storm seem more imposing calling it that all the time.

Re:Bad PR (1)

justforaday (560408) | about 9 years ago | (#13605922)

Hurricane Goatse

"I've never seen an eye that large before!"

Re:Bad PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605772)

Well, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon and so forth are WAY before Omega...

Though currently, googling "Hurricane Alpha" returns some sorrority. I'm thinking some hot Girl-on-Weather-Front action!

Re:Bad PR (0, Troll)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 years ago | (#13605815)

The Greek thing may not be the best idea... after the big storms the US has endured so far, I doubt anyone would bee looking forward to HURRICANE OMEGA.

If it were french, some potlicker would say, "No, it's not Hurricane Pomme Frites, it's Hurricane Freedom!"

with any luck it'll hit the rich and loosen up some of those tax cut dollars into the economy.

Re:Bad PR (2, Interesting)

PaxTech (103481) | about 9 years ago | (#13605883)

with any luck it'll hit the rich and loosen up some of those tax cut dollars into the economy.

Yeah, totally, because all those rich bastards just take their tax cut loot and throw it on the money pile they keep under their mattress, right?

You should really refrain from comments about what would be good for the economy until you have two brain cells to rub together.

This my friend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605872)

is the funniest and yet most poignant thing I have read in a long time.

Re:Bad PR (3, Funny)

Phat_Tony (661117) | about 9 years ago | (#13605890)

I'm more worried about the first one- who wants to meet the Alpha Male of Hurricanes?

And yes, it would be male. They alternate genders, and the last hurricane on this year's list [about.com] is "Wilma." [nju.edu.cn]

Re:Bad PR (1)

mikeytwice (887535) | about 9 years ago | (#13605900)

It sure will appeal to Christian fundamentalists, though.

Re:Bad PR (1)

abb3w (696381) | about 9 years ago | (#13605934)

If they get to Omega, it will mean we will have had more than doubled the previous record year for hurricanes. While this looks like a monumentally bad season, even this year it's unlikely we'll get even halfway through the Greek alphabet by November.

Of course, they don't usually name Nor'easters, or the problem would be different. =)

Re:Bad PR (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 9 years ago | (#13605940)

If we have 50 major storms, I think the connotations of the latest storm name will be the least of anybody's worries.

greek alphabet .. (0)

Brigadier (12956) | about 9 years ago | (#13605721)



http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/alphabe t.html [ibiblio.org]

justa being the carma hore that I am.

Re:greek alphabet .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605789)

Why to spell karma correctly whore. :-P

Re:greek alphabet .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605832)

Your spelling skills make me want to rub myself with leftover salami.

It's "karma whore", you silly silly boy.

Re:greek alphabet .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605896)

Oh I'd like to rub your salami you silly silly NAMBL man.

Isn't it obvious??? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605730)

This is the beginning of the apocalypse .....

/rushes to burn bible for warmth

Global warming issue (1, Insightful)

PoderOmega (677170) | about 9 years ago | (#13605736)

If we have been only accurately tracking climate for 100 years, and the Earth has been around for hundereds of millions, why are we assuming that global warming is something that humans are doing??

Re:Global warming issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605827)

Apparently you aren't familiar with forensic climatology... Accurate (relatively speaking, of course) climate records go back a long long long long long time.

Re:Global warming issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605834)

Things like ice cores go back further then 100 years, and they give a fairly good indication of the sort of climate back then.

Re:Global warming issue (1)

TheBrakShow (858570) | about 9 years ago | (#13605849)

the Earth has been around for hundereds of millions

Yes it has. Just like those automobiles and factories that have been pumping waste into the atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. Nothing at all to worry about.

mods on crack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605859)

Parent is not offtopic. If you disagree with the poster, reply to him, don't mod him down inappropriately.

Re:Global warming issue (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 9 years ago | (#13605866)

well, we do have access to C02 and CH4 concentrations for over 1,000 years thanks to ice core samples, as well as temperature ranges. By all means educate yourself on the subject, lots of data.

Re:Global warming issue (5, Interesting)

djward (251728) | about 9 years ago | (#13605904)

We have records of atmospheric gas content going back many hundreds of thousands of years, from ice cores. We are rapidly approaching that point where the atmospheric CO2 levels are 100% HIGHER than the prior maximums over this time period.

Levels of methane, another potent greenhouse gas, are approaching 1000% higher than any previous peak on record.

BOTH of these curves begin a sharp exponential climb right around 1700 AD - the industrial revolution.

It is a fact that these gases contribute to a greenhouse effect, and it is also a fact that humans have contributed to the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.

Re:Global warming issue (2, Insightful)

djward (251728) | about 9 years ago | (#13605959)

I should edit - we are around 300% of prior maximum for methane.

Re:Global warming issue (1, Interesting)

qwijibo (101731) | about 9 years ago | (#13605908)

It makes us feel special to believe we caused it. Sure, the planet has been around for a long time. And true, we didn't keep track of most of this stuff until recently. But are those really reasons why we shouldn't take credit for what's happening? Nature won't respect our authority if we don't show it who's boss.

It also has a lot to do with the large number of people who strongly believe that correlation == causation. I suspect this belief is held by the majority.

Though, I think this is just an excuse to argue with people. After all, if global warming was a natural climate change, there would be no one to point the finger at. Environmental groups are all about whining about perceived problems. Imagine what would happen to our society if those people actually had to DO something for a living instead of mooching off other people's fears and making up sensationalist stories.

Re:Global warming issue (2, Interesting)

BWJones (18351) | about 9 years ago | (#13605909)

From your question, it appears that you have never studied science, but letting that go, I always have to wonder about what it is with people that seem so resistant to the idea of global warming. After all, what is it that you are objecting to? Not being able to drive your 9MPG SUV without having to pay more?

Lemme ask you this: How much of your future and your children's future are you willing to gamble on all us scientists being wrong?

The cavemen started it (1)

HermanAB (661181) | about 9 years ago | (#13605929)

Of course it is humans doing it. Those few thousand Neanderthals had to light freakin enormous fires to melt the glaciers 11000 years ago. It is all their fault.

However, in really ancient times the warming was all caused by dinosaur farts. The Honourable Ralf Klein, Prime Minister of Alberta said so, therefore it must be true.

Technology? (1)

Eunuch (844280) | about 9 years ago | (#13605738)

Global warming? Throw more technology at it. Science and technology are the answer (yeah, preaching to the choir here). Aesceticism is pretty much the "work harder, not smarter" option. SciAm ran a piece on diffusing hurricanes ago. Or let's just go to the moon! Transcend humanity with technology.

Someone has to say it (1)

o-hayo (700478) | about 9 years ago | (#13605740)

Worst. Naming-convention. Ever.

PING! (2, Interesting)

minus_273 (174041) | about 9 years ago | (#13605745)

wow FR linked to the front page of slashdot! I never thought I'd see the day. As everyone knows, cooreation is a really bad basis to draw conclusions from.

  You will also notice that use of gopher space has gone down with the rise of hurricanes this year. I think it is time we all dropped the internet and went back to gopher space.

so in another ten years (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 9 years ago | (#13605753)

we'll see if cyclical decrease in cat 4-5 hurricanes is a reality, or if a new trend is happening. that's fine, we'll still be pumping out more & more C02 so the base conditions of our little experiment won't be altered

Controversial? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605761)

Only for the global warming fetishists, apparently. National Geographic even had an article last month showing the water surface temperature cycle being a noticably cooler now than it was last time we had these storms kick up (1940s). If global warming were a major factor, why isn't it warmer now? Why did it cool so much in the 1970s and 80s?

Re:Controversial? (1)

stonedog1104 (141492) | about 9 years ago | (#13605853)

Global Warming, whether it exists or not, cannot be conclusively proven to be related to human activity. There simply isn't enough of a data record to make any conclusions. Doesn't stop anybody, of course, but that's what you get when you politicize science. Why did it get so cool in the seventies? Why was it so damn hot in the thirties? No one knows.

Re:Controversial? (3, Funny)

RapmasterT (787426) | about 9 years ago | (#13605921)

Why did it get so cool in the seventies?
The 50's were really the "cool" decade, the 70's were really more about "funky".

RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY! (5, Funny)

Dr. Transparent (77005) | about 9 years ago | (#13605762)

Oh Lordy it's rainin, must be global warming!

Oh Lordy it's snowin, must be global warming!

Oh Lordy a TORNADO! We never had those before global warming!

A WHOLE CITY FLOODED BY A HURRICANE! ACK! That surely couldn't happen without global warming!

For the love, what a bunch of fear-mongering horse shit.

Re:RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY! (1)

IceAgeComing (636874) | about 9 years ago | (#13605814)

For the love, what a bunch of fear-mongering horse shit.

Good for you. I'm hoping I can still sell my Florida home for high value, and it's people like you that will help that happen. Keep up the good fight.

Re:RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY! (1)

Dr. Transparent (77005) | about 9 years ago | (#13605887)

Haha. I was refering to the global warming fear-mongering.

Anyone who thinks that Florida will *ever* be out of hurricane danger hasn't been paying attention for the last two hundred years of recorded weather history.

That said I'm sure there are plenty of suckers out there, and with FEMA giving money to people when the hurricanes wipe out their homesteads every year it's becoming less and less of a risk!

Good luck to you!

Re:RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY! (2, Interesting)

KrackHouse (628313) | about 9 years ago | (#13605923)

What's with the outbreak of rational, non left-wing thought on Slashdot? Is everybody trying to be ironic?

greenhouse is ONLY IN A LAB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605965)

I agree.

CO2 emissions only cause a greenhouse effect in a LAB.

Until the green lobby manages to build a 1:1 scale model of Earth, IN A LAB, I am not going to believe any of that science stuff applies on a large scale.

It's just like that poo-pooing science on second hand smoke. When I exhale, the smoke gradually DISAPPEARS. It's only smoke in my lungs, and for a few seconds afterwards.

Science has a do-gooder agenda. In the case of global warming, they're making this stuff up to "share the wealth" and limit the US' ability to manufacture. I'm pretty sure outsourcing helps fight global warming anyways.

Only controversial if you're in denial (3, Interesting)

mspohr (589790) | about 9 years ago | (#13605764)

Interesting that a columnist for the "Free Republic" would be given the same weight as "Science" magazine.

The Bushies have been in denial about global warming and have been spreading FUD at every chance. Most real scientists have accepted the fact of global warming. This "controversy" is just another example of denial and FUD.

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"

These people aren't scientists, they are politicians.

Not linked to more, but will effect strength. (3, Interesting)

ERJ (600451) | about 9 years ago | (#13605848)

Actually, everything I have read indicates that we Global Warming don't know how global warming will effect the number of hurricanes. (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html/ [noaa.gov]

However, due to how hurricanes gain strength (by pulling heat from the water) global warming could be linked in an increase in strength.

Hmmm...should have used preview (1)

ERJ (600451) | about 9 years ago | (#13605889)

Guess I show have previewed my comment before declaring how Global Warming thinks it will effect hurricanes.

Re:Only controversial if you're in denial (1)

AndyG314 (760442) | about 9 years ago | (#13605892)

The question is not weather globel warming exists but weather it is linked to the increase in hurricanes.

Re:Only controversial if you're in denial (1)

Mantrid (250133) | about 9 years ago | (#13605928)

Seems to me that by definition, it's the global warmies that are the ones spreading FUD.

Trolling? (3, Interesting)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | about 9 years ago | (#13605768)

The connection between this record-breaking storm year and global warming remains controversial.

So we may hit a total that we hit in 1933. How is this evidence of a change or part of the global warming debate? Shouldn't we be seeing totals consistently higher than the past? Or is someone just trying to stir up a liberal/conservative debate?

Re:Trolling? (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 9 years ago | (#13605846)

What makes this really funny is how well you sig fits into your post :D

more intense != more storms (5, Informative)

danharan (714822) | about 9 years ago | (#13605781)

TFA article confuses more storms and more severe storms, and the editors blithely repeat that assertion.

It's pretty straightforward: the force of the storm depends on the temperature on the ocean's surface. Higher temperature means nastier storms.

Look, if you don't believe humans are affecting the climate with CO2, fine. If you think things aren't getting worse, fine. But can you quit mis-representing people's arguments and research conclusions?

Now back to reading that dupe about IE being more secure than FF. Gotta love editorial standards here.

1933 number is deceiving (5, Interesting)

ctwxman (589366) | about 9 years ago | (#13605786)

When you think back to 1933, please remember - no satellites or radar and much more rudimentary communications. It is the prevailing wisdom that 21 understates the actual number, since there were probably some storms at sea (which ships try to avoid) which aren't accounted for.

As to the Global Warming/hurricane connection, here are the words of hurricane guru Dr. William Gray:

Many individuals have queried whether the unprecedented landfall of four destructive hurricanes in a seven-week period during August-September 2004 and the landfall of two more major hurricanes in the early part of the 2005 season is related in any way to human-induced climate changes. There is no evidence that this is the case. If global warming were the cause of the increase in United States hurricane landfalls in 2004 and 2005 and the overall increase in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity of the past eleven years (1995-2005), one would expect to see an increase in tropical cyclone activity in the other storm basins as well (ie., West Pacific, East Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc.). This has not occurred. When tropical cyclones worldwide are summed, there has actually been a slight decrease since 1995. In addition, it has been well-documented that the measured global warming during the 25-year period of 1970-1994 was accompanied by a downturn in Atlantic basin major hurricane activity over what was experienced during the 1930s through the 1960s.
BTW - I am a meteorologist... or meaty urologist, I never quite remember.

Re:1933 number is deceiving (1)

CorruptMayor (915031) | about 9 years ago | (#13605882)

If that documentary "The Day After Tomorrow" has taught me anything, it's that the Gulf Stream controls everything. From this, I conclude that it has been disrupted resulting in centralized increase in tropical cyclones in the Atlantic ocean.

I'm calling for an evacuation of everyone to the right of California. We'll be moving these refugees to, of course, California.

Lame topic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605790)

Hurricane names??!! Why submit a lame story on hurricane names when you could have read about the world's smallest robot [livescience.com] ?

Celine Dion (1)

dzorz (706431) | about 9 years ago | (#13605793)

They should name it "Celine Dion" - no one will stay, guaranteed. I know I'd be scared as shit.

More descriptive huricane names (4, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | about 9 years ago | (#13605797)

"the organization adopted a rotating series of women's names"
I always wondered why they give them nice polite names.
I think "Hurricane Bastard" or "Hurricane Stalin" would be more appropriate .
Just name them after real scum bags ...

Greek alphabet? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 9 years ago | (#13605810)


What's the point in using the Greek alphabet, since all the US media is going to use English/Roman letters to report the names?

Re: Greek alphabet? (2, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 9 years ago | (#13605862)


> What's the point in using the Greek alphabet, since all the US media is going to use English/Roman letters to report the names?

I suppose they could use numerals: 0liver, 1ouanne, 2ebulun, 3lizabeth, 4arry, 5andy, 6ob, 7erri, 8???, 9ale, 10uis, ...

Science: controversial (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605811)

I have to point out that while the science is not necessarily clear on global warming, this doesn't merit the 'we'll just wait until we're sure' approach.

Note how institutions (like, oh, say the office of the president) tend to protect themselves despite attacks not being 100% certain. Note how secret service agents protect the president, even though not all law enforcement officials worldwide agree that it's completely certain that at 12:31 on november the 30th a bullet will enter the presidents head at a 30 degree downward angle fired by a middle aged assassin whose motivations have been understood fully.

That's a very valid approach - overprotect where the downside of a realized small risk would be great. I just wish we were as smart when it comes to protecting the species. As it is, we can't even protect the inhabitants of one city with days of advance warning.

High Tide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605812)

http://www.marklynas.org/ [marklynas.org]

Yes the connection remains controversial..... (1)

matth (22742) | about 9 years ago | (#13605817)

There is no connection between the Hurry-Canes and Global-Warming..... Hurry-Canes go in 10(ish) year cycles, just like sun spots go in cycles of being intense, and then dwindling off. STOP THINKING OF THINGS IN THE REFERENCE OF YOUR LIFE TIME PEOPLE!!!

Pirates (1)

solarlux (610904) | about 9 years ago | (#13605822)

Quite obviously, all of this has been caused by the dwindling number of pirates [venganza.org] (search on the word "pirates" in the preceding link).

Hurricane Alpha (1)

ehlertjd (694587) | about 9 years ago | (#13605824)

Is it just me, or does the idea of a "Hurricane Alpha" sound kinda scary?

so what they are saying is... (2, Funny)

night_flyer (453866) | about 9 years ago | (#13605829)

...that there was global warming in 1933?

Alpha and Beta Bugs (2, Funny)

liam193 (571414) | about 9 years ago | (#13605840)

Is there a correlation between Hurricane Alpha or Hurricane Beta and the number of mosquitos left by any flooding?

Recordbreaking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605861)

The stroy summary is contradicting itself. How is it possible that in 1933 they had more storms than we had so far this season, but yet, this is a record breaking season all at the same time.

Impressive! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13605863)

Look at the current satellite for North America. There are 5 huricanes at the same time! Map. [wunderground.com]

Controversial? (1)

MosesJones (55544) | about 9 years ago | (#13605880)


So on the one side we have Science magazine, a top scientific publication which extensively peer-reviews work before publication... on the otherside we have a bloke with a website.

There are some areas that are unclear, but its classic head in the sand behaviour (reminds me of creationists) to compare the output of Science (or Nature or any other top scientific journal) to the website of a bloke who goes by the name of "Ernest at the beach".

Sheesh...

I'll worry when... (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 9 years ago | (#13605885)

>> The connection between this record-breaking storm year and global warming remains controversial."

I'll start to worry when we get a year that has a hurricane named like an AOL email address.

"As you can see on Doppler Radar hurricane Edward476 is headed straight for Galveston>"

What people don't know about Global Warming (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | about 9 years ago | (#13605911)

Is that "Global Warming" is an extremely stupid name for global warming. Global warming isn't the entire world getting warmer. In a sense, the earth and sun form a closed system (I know this is grossly inaccurate, but the sun gives us about the same ammount of energy year after year ...). Weather systems redistribute the suns energies around the earth, and what we're seeing is a change in that redistribution -- some places are getting warmer (poles for instance) and other places are getting colder (such as California). So global warming should really get called something more like "holy shit california was barely warm this summer."

Global Warming? (1)

loraksus (171574) | about 9 years ago | (#13605926)

I suppose, but gee, the earth must of have heated up a bunch in the last year, after all, this is the year of "Global warming is causing all these hurricanes". Last year there was virtually no outcry of "global warming causes hurricanes" yet this year something magical happened.

Perhaps the advocates of global warming should realize people saying "OH NOS TEH GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES TEH HURRICANES!!111" just makes them look well.... unscientific.

Global Warming? No, pirates! (1)

AndreiK (908718) | about 9 years ago | (#13605944)

Everyone knows that the reason for global warming is lots of pirates. Look, yesterday was speak like a pirate day, and today, an article about global warming? 'Tis definitely the work of the great noodly one!

Was it Global warming in 1933? (1)

TheCeltic (102319) | about 9 years ago | (#13605950)

I'm sure it was... Yeah, right!

Just ask Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (1)

i is sqrt neg1 (857446) | about 9 years ago | (#13605951)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee [worldnetdaily.com] thinks that we should use 'black' type names.

"A sampling of popular names that could be used include Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn, according to the paper."

OH NOES!!! HERE COMES HURRICANE SHENEQUA!

Of course Global warming .. (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | about 9 years ago | (#13605960)

but why won't anyone discuss the direct inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global temperature?? In the last 100 years the number of pirates has decreased DRAMATICALLY, while global temperature has increased!

Wake up people!!! it's right in front of your face!!! Repent now and accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster before it's too late!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?