HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: pulsating hurricane
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:09:00 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation

It is interesting to see how Andrew expands and contracts in size over time
as it gains and loses energy over land.  I am looking at a 65 frame animation
starting from Saturday.

To the previous poster complaing about gaps in the images-
UIUC is just a link along chain I believe originating at the University of
Alabama.  Various computers and network connections along the way go down
at times.  I've noticed a 80% availabilty of UIUC images over time.
Xref: sparky sci.geo.meteorology:2986 sci.environment:11017
From: joeb@atmos.washington.edu (Joe Barsugli)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Storm surges/Ekman flow
Date: 3 Sep 92 07:24:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: eos1.JOEB.92Sep2232422
	<Aug30.050502.28645@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
	<Aug30.212457.51812@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
	<1992Aug31.000729.18089@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
Organization: Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

In article <1992Aug31.000729.18089@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> hamm@weejordy.physics.mun.ca (Craig Hamm) writes:


	   I've read in a few posts here that 'wind blows the water to the coast'
	   and/or similar statements.  Nobody has mentioned Ekman flow!!



I would imagine that Ekman flow plays a relatively minor role.  Since
Ekman transport is a result of the balance between the wind forcing
and the Coriolis "force" it should take about 1/(Coriolis frequency)
to set up.  At 30N this would be about 1 day, at 20N about 35 hours.
Since a fast moving storm like Andrew passes over any given location
in a few hours, I would guess that there is just not enough time for
Ekman flow to become important.  
                                 
Joe Barsugli (joeb@atmos.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: rbanksjr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Richard E. Banks Jr.)
Subject: Re: In-Hurricane analysis
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 15:42:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.190256.5445@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rbanksjr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Richard E. Banks Jr.) writes:
>
>Can someone elaborate on the research methods used by scientists
>where the actually go into the eyes of active hurricanes with
> and airplanes and all thier related data acquisition
>equipment on board.
>
>Richard Earl Jr.
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: BOOM! yet another hurricane-killing idea
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:54:35 GMT
Distribution: usa

Marc Roussel writes

+ Besides, given our current ability to warn people
+ ahead of time, what's the big deal?  

When it takes 72 hours to complete an evacuation, and at best one can
give 30-36 hours warning, then it IS a big deal. 

James
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: RE: Eye of the Hurricane
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:37:46 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, calvins@suzies.Eng.Sun.COM (Christopher Klein) wrote:
>In article <1992Aug25.174335.3563@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> walker@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Scott Walker) writes:
>>The latest report puts the eye of Andrew at about 30nm wide.  I know that
>>they eye of a hurricane is supposed to be relatively calm.  What do the 
> 
>Wow!  30nm?  That's one tight eye!

Nope.  Pretty average.  It was 10nm across at its strongest.  Hugo's
was about that size also out in the Atlantic.

>In the whole history of hurricaine flythroughs, only 1 plane has gone down.

In the Atlantic.  A number have gone down in the Pacific.

       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold
Xref: sparky sci.geo.meteorology:3007 bionet.sci-resources:178 sci.astro:9470 sci.research:1059 sci.research.careers:949 sci.med:16867
From: andromed@cs.dal.ca (Mike Boschat)
Subject: Any Aurora photos from weather satellites ? 
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:51:37 GMT

 Does anyone anyone know if there is an ftp site where I can get
satellite photographs of aurora displays that occur over the wetern 
hemisphere ? anyone in the military know ?
 Thank you..

		


                                                 Clear skies

                                                  Mike Boschat 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
| "Our problems are man-made,      |    JOHN F. KENNEDY      |
|   therefore they can be solved   |                         |
|    by man."                      |  ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY  |
|                                  |                         |
|     JOHN F. KENNEDY              |                         |
 ------------------------------------------------------------                                     
Xref: sparky sci.geo.meteorology:2964 sci.environment:10931
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment
Subject: Re: sea surface elevation beneath a hurricane
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:15:46 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Aug29.202958.19515@cs.tulane.edu> makrisna@convex1.tcs.tulane.edu (Krishna Achuta Rao) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.032951.17627@morrow.stanford.edu> cleavy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Cleavy McKnight) writes:
>>
>>   What is the sea surface elevation beneath a hurricane?  Is it high,
>>   because of low atmospheric pressure? Is the change measurable? Have such
>>   measurements been recorded by satellite altimetry?  Anybody know
>>   a good reference?  Thanks!
>
>     Yes, the sea surface is raised in the low pressure area. I am not sure
>     about any references, but the local newspaper (The Times Picayune) had
>     mentioned upto 20 feet as the elevation of the surface above tide level
>     This moves with the low pressure and creates a "storm surge".This is 
>     very important especially for coastal areas in Louisiana which are 
>     easily submerged by the resulting wave. 

I guess we have to go through this again. The waters pile up because of the
WINDS, not because of the reduced pressure. The increased sea elevation out
at sea is relatively small; as the storm approaches the coast, the winds on
the right half of the storm (when facing the direction the storm is moving, in
the northern hemisphere) blow the water up against the coast, piling the water
up. The storm surge is worst to the right of where the storm hits the coast,
and is the cause of most hurricane deaths and the worst destruction. Waters
tend to pile up in toward the center of the storm because the strong winds
converge toward the center, so there is a smaller rise in water level
following along with the storm, but the big storm surge is because of the
wind-blown water piling up along the coast.

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: BOOM! yet another hurricane-killing idea
Keywords: nuclear hurricane control
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:40:53 GMT

In article <7195@lib.tmc.edu> mitchell@oac3.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Philip Mitchell)
writes:
>I seem to recall that
>chaos theory indicates that complicated systems (like the weather) are 
>very difficult to predict, and might be even more so to control.

     Chaotic systems are difficult to predict, but recent work suggests
that they may be controllable, even when the exact underlying dynamics
is unknown.

>A side issue would be:  If reducing hurricanes meant increasing the number
>of competing tropical storms, would the trade off be acceptable?  Or would
>the climactic changes be more devastating than the hurricanes?

     That is a question that we must answer before we even attempt to
disrupt hurricanes.  Besides, given our current ability to warn people
ahead of time, what's the big deal?  A little property destruction is
good for the economy.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
From: ks19@ellis.uchicago.edu (kyle leigh swanson)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Could a hurricane be destroyed?
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:19:27 GMT
Reply-To: ks19@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <10429@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>Nathan Gasser ><>   writes
>What is the energy use in a storm like this? It would be measured
>in megatons at the very least. Several orders of magnitude larger
>than a FAE, or even many nuke warheads.
>

The total energy is on the order of 10^18 cal/day, about .01% of the
total solar energy intercepted by the earth each day.  This is about
an order of magnitude larger than the largest thermonuclear weapon.

Kyle Swanson
Department of Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
k-swanson@uchicago.edu
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: RE: Eye of the Hurricane
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:56:15 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) wrote:
>The main reason is that the NHC doesn't have enough aircraft & crews
>to keep a 24 hour survillence on the storm, 

Actually, they don't have any.  Only NOAA and the Air Force have planes.
The AF has enough planes for 24 hour reconnaissance.

>Another reason is that a P3 can't take the same amount of abuse
>as a C-130. I think it was in Hugo (or perhaps Gilbert) that
>an C-130 encountered a *9g* updraft. I don't think a P3 would
>survive that.

It was the P3 which encountered 6g up followed by 3g down.  It survived,
but had to limp back to land.  The P3 pilots are not shy about flying 
strong storms.

       Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"It's always Beach Party Barbie, or Malibu Barbie....  That shit does not
prepare you for the true horror of a real woman's life.  Where is Single,
Abused, Trailer-Park Barbie?"             - Roseanne Arnold
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: orloff@surya9.cern.ch (Jean Orloff)
Subject: Re: Windchill formula: Not for Andrew!
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for Particle Physics
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:57:47 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:11:10 GMT, hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie) said:
Peter> weather office.  Note that for windspeeds below a few km/hr the
Peter> formula tends to give unrealistic values (e.g. for 0km/hr at
Peter> -40C the chill is only 884 W/m^2). This is because the formula

Peter> WC = (6.114*sqrt(u) + 12.12 - 0.3222u)*(33-T)

Peter> Where WC is in W/m^2 u is windspeed in km/hr T is air
Peter> temperature in degrees C.

I can understand the (33-T): this is just the difference of
temperature between the skin and the air.
But are you sure about the sign of the linear piece? It gives nonsense
for wind speeds>100km/hr or so: WC starts decreasing with u. So I
strongly suspect this formula to be inadequate for Andrew!

I would rather have seen a positive linear term for the convection
minus some correction (maybe in sqrt(u)) accounting for
vaso-constriction which tries to resist too high heat losses.

Sincerely,
Jean.


--
*************************************************************************
*	Jean Orloff		*	e-mail: ORLOFF@dxcern.cern.ch	*
*	TH-Division, CERN	*	phone:	(41-22) 767-3204	*
*	CH-1211 Geneva 23	*	fax:	(41-22) 782-3914	*
*************************************************************************
From: mkfeil@bcrki9.bnr.ca (Max Feil)
Subject: Re: Eye of the Hurricane
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:08:32 GMT

I posted this in rec.aviation several years ago...

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Flying in weather extremes.
Keywords: Hurricane
Date: 15 Nov 89 02:54:47 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada


Last night I watched an episode of Nova that I had taped from the week
before on Hurricanes. It showed a 4-engine propeller driven scientific
aircraft used by the U.S. hurricane center to take weather readings
inside hurricanes. The aircraft would normally fly at 5000' and make
successive passes through the eye of the storm to gather
wind/barometric/temperature readings and try to locate the exact
position of the center of the eye.  I was intrigued by the crew
conversation and view from inside the aircraft as it approached the eye
wall. In this particular case the crew decided at the last minute to be
safe and climb to 10000' since the radar and other reports indicated
extremely rough conditions.  At this point the crew was strapped in and
they were calling out readings like winds of 100 knots gusting to 200
knots, and 25 knot convection updrafts in the thunderstorms that line
the eye wall. A view outside the window of the wing showed extremely
heavy rain pouring down, and needless to say there was a whole lot of
shaking going on inside the plane. Things changed abruptly to a
spectacular view as the plane broke through into the eye, which was
very clearly defined, with blue sky above and blue white-capped ocean
below. The flight continued in this manner with successive passes for
many hours. This was hurricane Gilbert (Sept 88), a force 5 hurricane
at the time.

This testament of the ability of aircraft to fly in the worst weather
mother nature can dish out got me to wondering about just what it takes
to do this, for man AND machine. Stories from the net seem to indicate
a healthy respect among pilots for even moderate turbulance. The airplane
you are in is obviously a major factor. I don't know exactly what kind of
plane was being used, but the pilot did mention that he started flying
hurricanes in DC-5's. Would an aircraft need to be "beefed up" to handle
these condiions? Would a jet engine be able to handle the severe winds
and rain encountered? How would different planes (a commercial jetliner
for example) handle the situation?

It was also mentioned that no hurricane tracking aircraft has been lost
in action since 1955. Still, I think I'd pass up a ride if offered.

How about you?

Cheers,
Max
--
Max Feil  mkfeil@bnr.ca | Disclaimer:
Bell-Northern Research  |   What do I know? I'm just a Nerd on the Big Ranch.
P.O Box 3511 Station C, |
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.| "Enrich The Soil, Not EveryBody's Goal" Peter Gabriel
Xref: sparky sci.geo.meteorology:2962 sci.environment:10930
From: kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment
Subject: Re: sea surface elevation beneath a hurricane
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:24:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University -- Atmos Sci

In article <Aug30.050502.28645@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:
>
>1) There is a sea level rise due to decreasing pressure, but it's minor
>compared to sea rise due to wind stress. I think the ratio is something
>like 1 meter per 10 mb drop in pressure
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oops, I have a typo here. This should be 1 meter per 100 (one hundred) mb
pressure drop. Or, put another way, 1 cm per mb drop. This hydrostatic
rise of sea level is known as the "inverse barometer" effect.

The main point is that the elevation of the ocean due to dropping pressure
is minor compared to other effects that contribute to the storm surge.

*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************

Here's something else to consider when forecasting the storm surge -- the
shape of the coastal bays and estuaries. Certain shallow water basins
have a better "funneling" effect than others. For example, hurricane Carla
has a 4 meter surge along the open coast, but in Lavaca and Galveston bays
the surge reached 6 meters.

Pat Fitzpatrick
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: orloff@surya4.cern.ch (Jean Orloff)
Subject: Re: Tidal waves...
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for Particle Physics
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:03:12 GMT

>>>>> On 3 Sep 92 06:09:08 GMT, harris@drvax3.msfc.nasa.gov (Mitch
Harris) said:

Mitch> After hearing of the tidal waves that recently hit the
Mitch> Nicarauguan coast, I was wondering if someone could tell me how
Mitch> far inland tidal waves would go? These waves were supposedly
Mitch> ~30' high. Is there some formula to calulate how far inland
Mitch> they would travel, based on wave height?  Thanks!

I have no such formula, but it clearly depends very much on the beach
deepness curve (like any reflection/transmission coefficient), not to
speek of the coast shape, angle between coast and wave etc. In
Holland, where 50% of the land is below see level, you can imagine how
far it can go!

Jean
*************************************************************************
*	Jean Orloff		*	e-mail: ORLOFF@dxcern.cern.ch	*
*	TH-Division, CERN	*	phone:	(41-22) 767-3204	*
*	CH-1211 Geneva 23	*	fax:	(41-22) 782-3914	*
*************************************************************************
--
*************************************************************************
*	Jean Orloff		*	e-mail: ORLOFF@dxcern.cern.ch	*
*	TH-Division, CERN	*	phone:	(41-22) 767-3204	*
*	CH-1211 Geneva 23	*	fax:	(41-22) 782-3914	*
*************************************************************************
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Lightning Photography Query
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:47:58 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

Just for people who are as brutally unclear on the concept as I
sometimes am... we're usually talking about time exposures here.
I've shot for as little as one second (when feeling especially
tricky) and for long enough to get several degrees of star tracks.
Neither extreme was really satisfactory.

The lightning phenomenon I most wanted to get a picture of, I missed.
It was a chain-of-beads stroke from one part of a cloud to another
at night.  Me and a couple of guys from Sandia out on the roof with
cameras, and none of us were pointed in the right direction with the
shutter open when it happened.  Be warned: photographers can be as
bad about "the one that got away" as any fisherman!

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie,4805)
Subject: Re: Windchill formula: Not for Andrew!
Originator: hardie@herald.usask.ca
Reply-To: hardie@herald.usask.ca
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:27:01 GMT

From article <ORLOFF.92Aug27135747@surya9.cern.ch>, by orloff@surya9.cern.ch (Jean Orloff):
>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 1992 18:11:10 GMT, hardie@herald.usask.ca (Peter Hardie) said:
> 
> Peter> WC = (6.114*sqrt(u) + 12.12 - 0.3222u)*(33-T)
> 
> Peter> Where WC is in W/m^2 u is windspeed in km/hr T is air
> Peter> temperature in degrees C.
> 
> I can understand the (33-T): this is just the difference of
> temperature between the skin and the air.
> But are you sure about the sign of the linear piece? It gives nonsense
> for wind speeds>100km/hr or so: WC starts decreasing with u. So I
> strongly suspect this formula to be inadequate for Andrew!
The sign is correct. As I mentioned, I got the formula from the weather office
so the formula may be simplified from a more general one so that it applies
specifically to our Saskatchewan winters - when we are concerned about WC.
The fact that it gives nonsense for winds >100km/hr is not a concern here
because we rarely get sustained winds that high and, anyway, if the wind is
>100 km/hr and the temperature is much below zero C, then nobody in their
right mind is going to need to know the windchill. It's COLD. STAY INSIDE! :-)
> I would rather have seen a positive linear term for the convection
> minus some correction (maybe in sqrt(u)) accounting for
> vaso-constriction which tries to resist too high heat losses.
vaso-constriction does not change the value of the windchill.
I would have thought that with a hurricane on the way the concern would not 
be with the wind chill but solely the wind speed!
> Sincerely,
> Jean.
Pete hardie@herald.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: ks19@ellis.uchicago.edu (kyle leigh swanson)
Subject: Re: Why do Hurricanes Travel West?
Reply-To: ks19@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:34:39 GMT

In article <17farjINNpgi@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu (Mike Gross) writes:
>
>This is certainly well out of my field (I'm a cosmologist), but I thought
>the number of cells had to do with the radius of curvature of the planet
>surface. For example, a glance at the Voyager pictures of Jupiter will 
>reveal that that planet  has on the order of a dozen different bands,
>each circulating in the opposite direction of its neighbors. Saturn and
>Uranus also show banded structure, but the contrast between the bands
>is not so pronounced, so the pictures aren't quite so spectacular.
>
>There are clearly visible eddies in between the bands, and this is a sign
>that there is a large velocity gradient.
>
>Corrections/clarifications are requested.
>
>Mike Gross
>Physics Board
>Univ of California             GO SLUGS!!!!!
>Santa Cruz, CA 95064
>gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu 
>

The banded structure that one sees on the giant planet has little
to do with convection.  For a fast rotating planet (Earth, Jupiter,
etc.), the fluid motion is essentially 2-D, and recent work
(Panetta, JAS 1989, and a yet to be published paper) has shown
that the formation of "banded" jets to be an attracting solution
if the flow is baroclinically unstable.  The eddies you see
are responsible for the formation of the jets -- they act to 
some extent like "negative viscosity," and can be quite long
lived.

Kyle Swanson
k-swanson@uchicago.edu   

Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment,sci.misc
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Another hurricane-killing idea
Followup-To: sci.geo.meteorology
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:57:17 GMT

  [followups to sci.geo.meteorology]

cp> Charles Packer

cp> In view of what such a competing storm could do to reduce the force of a
cp> hurricane, will it ever be feasible to manufacture a low-pressure area to
cp> do this?

  Unlikely. The magnitude of the energies involved are incredible. For example,
  even a mundane ol' thunderstorm expends more energy over its lifecycle than
  the entire US does for some non-trivial length of time.

cp> If so, how would it most likely be done?

  There's a meteorological fiction book called "Blizzard" in which submarine
  nuclear reactors are used to create a cone of warm water near the US east
  coast, but a problem arises when they can't be shut off and a semi-perma-
  nent ultra-low pressure system is created. The blizzard of the title gets
  to the point where winds are hurricane-force and drifts reach 60-70 feet
  and more. I suppose it would be possible, but I view the scientific basis
  of the story to be suspect.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nathan Gasser ><>  )
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Could a hurricane be destroyed?
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:32:47 GMT


Hi all,

	A friend and I got to thinking, would there be any way
to destroy, distract, or otherwise alter the course or makeup
of a hurricane?  Say, for example, a fuel-air bomb were released
near the eye of Andrew.  This would cause some sort of disturbance
in wind patterns, no?  What would happen to Andrew in this situation?

	Any other thoughts on ways to alter a hurricane in any way?
Have I been watching too much Sci-Fi?  

Nate.


--

Nathan Gasser       ><>         
gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu     

Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology