It is because of beyond stupid fear mongering like this: Are Category 6 Hurricanes coming soon?
Really?
Lest people think this is some sort of “new” fear, I’ll remind them of this from 1969, well before CO2 was bogusly posited by Al Gore and other alarmists to be a “hurricane amplifier”:
From Yahoo Answers:
Hurricane Camille in 1969 broke the equipment at Keesler Air Force Base (home of the Hurricane Hunter aircraft) in Biloxi, MS when her winds reached somewhere around 205 to 210 mph. So we’ll really never know just how high her winds were.
Read the complete history of Camille here at NHC (PDF)
Then there’s this that they ignore:
Accumulated Cyclone Energy
Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy – 1972 to Present
Click to See Full Image: 24-month running sums of tropical cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy Ryan N. Maue PhD – http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/ Click to enlargeFor reference:
I wonder what Spinal Tap would say about this? After all, they were at the forefront of climate science……
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6321342126954230709
The degeneration of SciAm is sad. Gave up on it long ago, when I found I could not be sure that the very next issue might feature BatBoy.
American Scientist magazine has picked up the mantle. More science, less politics.
“Scientifik Amerikan” has been a German owned magazine for since the late 80’s, early 90’s, promoting German marketing of engineered German hardware. Most the Green gibberish has been conceived, planned and is being executed from Germany. Most of the IPCC, WWF, and Greenpeace verbiage may also be found in Siemens’ brochures (and in innocent scientifc “artkles” in S.A. (I have listed a small sample) here: http://greenfraud.blogspot.com/2011/03/neither-scientific-nor-american-but-all.html
S.A. reader 1968-1989 (I saw the light arount Copenhagen time)
Dang, wish I had a subscription just so I could cancel it…
Mike says:
August 24, 2011 at 3:42 pm
The Sci Am article seemed interesting and neutral. It is news that some researches want a new category and the article reports other criticisms of the current 5 point scale.
I’m with you. I saw no “stupid fear mongering” in this article at all. They played down the global warming angle and acknowledged natural conditions and uncertainty. Anthony, did you read past the headline?
A few years ago I was gifted with a subscription. Half that year’s issues still sit unopened.
As for seeing details: A higher resolution screen and/or graphics card would likely help. Modern software makes assumptions about graphics that older cards and screens aren’t up to.
Next up from a Cat 5 should be Cat 5e, shouldn’t it?
I gave up on their rag mag in the early 1990’s. But I am an older sci guy with standards obviously left back in the dark ages. Seems to me that you folks within the current circle of science that is taking the high road would publish your own science mag. Tell us what makes a rag like Scientific American meaningful with our ability to exchange our science instantly on www?
Just for point of interest, compare this with speed ratings for tires. It used to be H for up to 130mph, V for up to 149mph, and Z for above 149mph. Well, technology marches on, and I’m sure when they came up with a Z speed rating nobody dreamed there would be very many production cars capable of those kinds of speeds.
Eventually, it became obvious that not all Z rated tires could handle extremely high speeds very well, so they added W for up to 168mph and Y for up to 186mph (300km/h). There is also a (Y) for above 186, I’m wondering if they’ll need to expand on that some day.
So, although I haven’t read the article we’re discussing (yeah, as with others, I won’t even give it a chance anymore… S/A lost all credibility to me in the mid 90s), I can understand the potential need for having an extended scale. Of course, that’s not how it will be sold. An increase in sustained wind speeds of even 5mph is a significant increase in energy for something the size of a hurricane and more precise measurements or ratings could be important.
Gave up on SciAm over a decade ago when the advertising swamped the articles, which as a result became nigh on impossible to read.
It is a shame, it used to be something to look forward to each month for a dose of brain fodder.
I hope the editor(s) pass by here and read the comments about the damage that has been done to a once quality publication.
Rudi Salisbury says:
August 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm
“now we have the technology to control hurricanes, namely their direction. this will never be openly talked about in the MSM. the significance dawns when we think of the implications of ‘weaponizing’ the weather”
Yes, I’m sure someone in the DOD is right now saying “Let’s slam a hurricane into New England which will cause MILLIONS in damage so we can improve the economy by… sorry, I lost my train of thought. Oh, yeah New England…”
Protanomaly: I see green lighter than the average person, and red darker. But well enough to notice when the light is red at a stop sign.
The red colour selected is just too dark, and so is the orange beneath it.
As far as I know there are no glasses that correct protanomaly (or deuteranomaly). But at least I can support my hearing by listening to the TV with the help of an equalizer (which accentuates the high frequencies).
I understand that to make Kph fit in numerically with the real speeds these have been altered slightly. I bet this will lead to an increase in Cat 4+ hurricanes despite no actual change happening.
Sci Am died when Amateur Scientist and Mathematical Games disappeared. That was not the cause, but signs from a hidden cause.
Rosco notes-
‘From what I’ve observed about Australia’s strong cyclones….’
and goes on to mention the most destructive ones like Tracy and Yasi, readers should be aware that the most cyclone prone region of Australia is in the North West of Western Australia. Cyclone Trixie was more powerful and prolonged than Tracy which destroyed Darwin in the Northern Territory but the Onslow region is very sparsely settled and so gets little attention media-wise. There are large iron ore mines and natural gas rigs offshore in the region that have increased sparse populations but they’re largely fly-in fly-out operations and have more recent cyclone building codes (notably revamped afte Tracy hit Darwin in 74)
Here’s the lowdown on Trixie eventually cutting the Trans Australian Railway at Zanthus 1700km away and that’s an awful lot of water to still make it there over desert country
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/trixie.shtml
Here’s the lowdown on cyclones affecting big blow Onslow by the way and there’s a handy time series plot graph of them all and their intensities from 1910-2006 worth looking at for signs of global warming intensity. There isn’t any noticeable trend but we can see that nature took a breather in the 80s that we can put down to natural variability. http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/wa/onslow.shtml
As a long term subscriber to Scientific American I have always known the publication editor’s strong left wing basis. For example their defense related articles are always derisory.
It has become clear that the magazine isn’t making money and they have changed their format to more sensationalism and fear mongering. I understand the Darwinian survival of the fitness potential publication death response and perhaps would have done the same if entrusted with the magazine’s continued existence.
Nonetheless it is unfortunate that such an old and prestigious publication can debase science to a cult religion.
When it becomes clearer that Man Made Global Warming supporters are an amalgamation of Leftist social destroyers, Green religious zealots and self serving “Scientists” and the speculative hypothesis is discounted there may be feels of righteous retribution. Let us hope Scientific American isn’t causality.
And here was me thinking that fierce weather comes from the difference between hotter and colder air, and that evenly spread warming would and has in paleo time produced benign weather. Cooling can produce awful weather, if patchy geographically, same as warming, if patchy?
Cat 6 – must be worse than I thought.(/sarc)
It’s all them cosmic rays being hurled at us by little green men sitting on the moon, that cause all them damned clouds. LOL
I still subscribe. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer…
In between cheerleading for CAGW and Darwin worshippers there’s still some good articles in it.
This headline immediately reminded me of this famous Spinal Tap discussion (credit to imdb for the compilation with my own edits):
Sci Am Mag: The numbers all go to six. Look, right across the board, six, six, six and…
Anthony: Oh, I see. And most hurricanes go up to five?
Sci Am Mag: Exactly.
Anthony: Does that mean it’s louder? Is it any louder?
Sci Am Mag: Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not five. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at five. You’re on five here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on five on your scale. Where can you go from there? Where?
Anthony: I don’t know.
Sci Am Mag: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Anthony: Put it up to six.
Sci Am Mag: Six. Exactly. One louder.
Anthony: Why don’t you just make five louder and make five be the top number and make that a little louder?
Sci Am Mag: [pause] These go to six.
Yes, Scientific American is now as smart as Nigel and Spinal Tap . . .. . and soon Stonehenge will be in danger of being trod on by a dwarf.
Was in Biloxi (Keesler AFB) during Camille. Admittedly I was of an impressionable age and we didn’t have the S-S scale in those days, but I pretty much thought of Camille as Category “expletive deleted.” Though I will admit that the dozens of deep holes left after clearing away quite large pine trees that had been snapped off made for excellent fox-holes for playing “war.” I’m not certain that the adults found as much to be amusing.
Robinson says:
August 24, 2011 at 2:14 pm
###
Looked like a two to me also, and I have glasses!
Josualdo says:
August 25, 2011 at 2:49 am
Sci Am died when Amateur Scientist and Mathematical Games disappeared. That was not the cause, but signs from a hidden cause.
###
Since the late 80’s, if it were not for Mathematical Games, I would have not bought any issues at all.
I also do not subscribe to SciAm for the same reason and because some issues don’t interest me. What I do is look at their online material now and again and occasionally buy an issue that interests me at the news stand.
Dave W