HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Another hurricane-killing idea
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:33:21 GMT
Reply-To: shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
Followup-To: sci.geo.meteorology
Organization: U of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography

In article <25AUG199222531905@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov>, packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
(Charles Packer) writes:
$>Nntp-Posting-Host: amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov
$>
$>Hurricane Andrew's strength was apparently reduced by
$>another storm that interacted with it for a while.
$>According to the NY Times,
$>
$>   "[Andrew's] energy had been sapped by a competing
$>   low-pressure system to the north. This second 
$>   storm not only competed for energy, its high-
$>   level winds also clashed with those of the
$>   hurricane, shearing and tearing the wall of
$>   thunderstorms that made up its core."
$>
$>Interestingly enough, the same thing happened with
$>Hurricane Hugo in 1989, if I recall. In each case,
$>the implication is that the hurricane would have been
$>even more dangerous had there been no competition,
$>however short-lived, from the other system.
$>
$>In view of what such a competing storm could do to reduce
$>the force of a hurricane, will it ever be feasible to
$>manufacture a low-pressure area to do this?
$>If so, how would it most likely be done?
$>

Hmmm.  To manufacture a low-pressure area with any staying power, you would have
to manufacture the energy to sustain the low.  That means you would have to
construct a large-scale temperature gradient (By large scale I mean about
1000-2000 km long).  This seems to me to be rather an intractable problem.  
Also, you would have to do this quickly (making it even more difficult), or
decide in advance where the hurricane is heading (a tricky problem these days,
although my impression is that NHC did a reasonable job with Andrew, meaning
they weren't off by 100s of miles).  A further problem is that there is no
guarantee that the presence of another low will be detrimental to the hurricane.
Look at Agnes in '72 for example, or Hazel in '55.  Both lived long, destructive
lives on account of getting mixed up with lows from the wrong side of the
tropics :-).

To summarize, it would be exceedingly difficult, and the results might not be
what you want.

Scott
--
   The only other sound's the sweep of easy wind and downy flake

shipman@zippy.gso.uri.edu 4017926509 URI GSO NBC Narragansett RI 02882
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: blanchard@nsslc.gcn.uoknor.edu (David O. Blanchard)
Subject: Re: Could a hurricane be destroyed?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:13:00 GMT

In article <10429@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes...
> 
>In the 50's[?] and the 60's, _Operation Storm Fury_ was being conducted.
>It was a field experiment in seeding hurricanes (did they also seed 
>potential storms?). It was killed due to politics - no one wanted to
>take the blame if something went wrong and the storm increased it's
>intensity *after* it was seeded.
> 

It is possible that politics entered the decision-making process, but science
played the most important part.  The primary goal of Storm Fury was to seed
the rain bands with AgI (silver iodide) and enhance the rain production.  The
theory was that if you could increase rain production in areas outside of the
eyewall, the increased latent heat release from condensation would be
generated in an area more distant from the eyewall, and hopefully  a new
eyewall would form at a larger radius with correspondingly reduced winds.

The flaw in the hypothesis lay in the fact that to use AgI and increase droplet
production presumes that the clouds have large amounts of supercooled water.
SC water is simply water vapor cooled below the freezing point, but not yet
frozen.  Many aircraft passes through the rainbands indicated that there was
very little SC water available.  In time, the experiment was droppped becuase
of this flaw in the hypothesis.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|David O. Blanchard   Boulder, Colorado  blanchard@nsslc.gcn.uoknor.edu    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: day@elmer.orl.mmc.com (Jim Day)
Subject: Data for Andrew
Organization: Martin Marietta (Orlando, FL)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:00:20 GMT

I just joined this News Group and wanted to know if there is any known site out
there on the Internet which would have all the "tracking information" for
Andrew.  I just installed a tracking program on my PC at home and would like to
input all the data for Andrew.  This program also will do some forecasting, etc.
based on the data you give it.  I need the following information:

coordinates, max wind speed, date, time, atmospheric pressure(inches of mercury).

Also, another quick question.  I have been getting some on-line data for the
current position, etc., but most of the data (for pressure) is in millibars.
Is there a conversion equation to convert from millibars to inches of mercury?


Thanks for any help you can provide. 
-- 
+------------------------------+---------------------------------+	
| Jim Day                      | Office: 407/356-9603            |
| Martin Marietta,  MP1269     | FAX:    407/356-6808            |
| P.O. Box 628007              | Internet: day@elmer.orl.mmc.com |
| Orlando, FL  32862-8007      |                                 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: kays@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Randy Kays)
Subject: Variation in barometric pressure
Organization: Lockheed Santa Cruz, CA.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 23:56:29 GMT

How much does the barometric pressure vary on any particular?  Obviously, I 
am looking for a rough or seat of the pants number.  However, if someone has 
a good reference on the variation in barometric pressure, please email mail 
it to me.

Thanks
Laters,
Randy
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike Cohler)
Subject: Re: Eye of the Hurricane
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:47:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.200832.5667@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, mkfeil@bcrki9.bnr.ca (Max Feil) writes...
>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
lines deleted
>these condiions? Would a jet engine be able to handle the severe winds

An aircraft is quite happy in any wind conditions, since it flies relative
to its local mass of air.   The turbulence is another matter, and every aircraft
has a limit to the speed through the air which will ensure safe flight
no matter what the tubulence is like.   However if an aircraft is built
to withstand flight at speeds up to say 140 knots without suffering damage,
there may still be conditions which may roll an aircraft beyond its 
ability to control the roll.  Then if the aircraft is not built to withstand
inverted flight, it may have its wings torn off.  So the limits are
not a straightforward thing to define..   as for the wind speed effect..
consider theplane flying at 140 knots into a region where there air was
moving at 150 knots in the opposite direction... the aircraft would be moving
backwards at 10 knots relative to the ground but still flying at 140 knots
relative to the air.     Hence if you want to go places inside a hurricane,
you need a reasonably high airspeed, and a high maximum limit for safe
flight into turbulence, as well as a very good control system to cope
with strong gusts of any kind, including those which might lift one wing
but not the other.  Certainly a light aircraft would be destroyed if
it flew into a region where the upcurrent on one wing was 25 knots, but
not on the other wing.
Hope this helps.
==============================================================
|                                                            |
|        Mike Cohler -  preferred email address:             |
|                       MDC1@VAXA.YORK.AC.UK                 |
|                   ie  MDC1%VAXA.YORK.AC.UK@UKACRL.BITNET   |
|                                                            |
|        UK PPL and Glider Pilot                             |
|                                                            |
==============================================================
From: gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Nathan Gasser ><>  )
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Andrew animation for Mac (update)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:13:44 GMT


Hi folks,

	As I mentioned before, I'm making a Mac QuickTime animation
of Hurricane Andrew from weather GIFs.  If anyone is seriously interested
in working with an animation of Andrew, you might want to contact me soon.
I will be posting the QuickTime animation, but it will be cropped to
the Gulf region only, due to size.  Also, anyone familiar with NIH Image 1.44
for Mac knows that Image's animation is much smoother and more precise
than QuickTime, plus Image includes utilities to analyize the images.
The disadvantage is that the Image raw files are about 3 Mb per day,
whereas a full-size QT movie is under 1Mb per day.

	If you want the Image "stack" files, please let me know
very soon, because I can't keep 10Mb lying on my unix machine too long.

Thanks,
Nate.

P.S.  NIH Image 1.44 for the Mac is public domain, FTPable, and awesome.



--

Nathan Gasser       ><>         
gasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
From: sh240031@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Models of Andrew
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:26:45 GMT
Organization: West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing

Not having access to the various models, I am wondering which one was the
did the best overall job of predicting Andrews path.

				Carl
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: tlm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Terry Matula)
Subject: Anti-Hurricane in the North Atlantic?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:07:43 GMT

I know very little about meteorology, but find storms and such interesting.

On Tuesday (8/25) afternoon I was watching The Weather Channel to see
Andrew churning around off the the Gulf Coast.  The little weather-person
was showing a nice satellite sequence of Andrew spinning around.  I noticed
that in the North Atlantic there was another large spiral of clouds.  This
spiral had a diameter many (10?) times larger than Andrew, but was spinning
in the opposite (clockwise) direction.  Heck, it even had a visible eye in
the center.  The weather-person must have noticed that my attention had
drifted over to this new, more impressive storm and quickly said that the
North Atlantic disturbance was non-tropical in nature and nothing to worry
about.

Now, that doesn't satisfy my curiousity.  What the heck is/was it?  Anybody
else see it?  Here's my (uneducated) guess:

1. Hurricane = tropical storm = warm water = low pressure = westward movement
             = counterclockwise rotation = concern for North America

2. Anti-Hurricane = arctic storm = cold water = high pressure = eastward motion
                  = clockwise rotation = concern for Europe

Okay, now all you net experts can tell me how stupid I am. :)  But, really
what was that thing?  
             
--
Terry Matula
tlm1@ra.msstate.edu
matula@ee.msstate.edu
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
From: jackb@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jack Brindle)
Subject: Re: Eye of the Hurricane
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:57:30 GMT

In article <l9lmt1INNme0@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> calvins@suzies.Eng.Sun.COM (Christopher Klein) writes:
>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!

It took me a bit too. Nautical Miles... (as opposed to newton-meters ;-)

>>people on the ground see when the eye passes over head?  Blue sky?  Are
>>there birds and things flying around the inside?
>
>Blue sky, sometimes. Depends on the structure of the eye.  It can be
>very defined or rather undefined.  Chances are that it does not contain
>flying critters.

This totally depends on the size of the eye and the speed of the storm. While
passing through the eye of a tropical storm in 1985, I indeed did see birds
flying about. Things were quite calm, and the sky was quite blue. From our
position we were able to see the entire eye wall (360 degrees). It was very
impressive...

>>   When a recon plane flies into the eye, does it push straight in at a
>>right angle?  Has there ever been a recon plane downed by a storm?  Has
>>anyone out there ever ridden on one of these death-wish missions?
>
>Wht death-wish?  I'd much rather fly into a 'caine on a recon than a 
>commercial liner, safety wise.  Do you really think the scientists 
>doing the recon work would risk their lives?

Well, ever notice they fly propeller-driven aircraft int the storms? For
Andrew, I noticed the usual P3 was replaced with a C130. There are two reasons
for this. First, the pilots need to be able to go slow at times (such as
when inside the eye). The second is that it is far more difficult to stall
a propeller-engine than a jet engine. Injeesting lots of water and ice tends
to stall those suckers pretty well... So, when I'm on board a commercial
flight, I'd just as soon it stay far away from storms...

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

Any idea when that was? I heard that statistic, but then I also heard it
contradicted by someone ("who should know") saying that since 1954, no
aircraft had gone down. It would be interesting to see which was right...

-- 
==========================================================
Jack Brindle
ham radio: wa4fib
internet: jackb@mdd.comm.mot.com
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment,sci.misc
From: singley@helix.nih.gov (Erick D. Singley)
Subject: Re: BOOM! yet another hurricane-killing idea
Keywords: nuclear hurricane control
Organization: (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:06:12 GMT

Put in whatever safties you want, orbit and beam down where no one ever goes
and SOEMONE WILL STILL LOBBY IT DOWN. (oh, you're heating the ocean.. poor fish
poor birds flying by.  MY state wouldn't be able to contribute any parts. Think
of another idea that will)

I assume that's part of the reason why no orbiting power stations with micro
wave recieving stations aren't up there (beside other physical practical
considerations that is a different thread :-)   )

Erick
Xref: sparky sci.geo.meteorology:2907 sci.environment:10900 sci.misc:1518
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology,sci.environment,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Another hurricane-killing idea
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:54:57 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug26.155036.2273@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>In article <25AUG199222531905@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>What is the energy of a force-4 hurricane?
>A related discussion occurred in ca.earthquakes.
>It was noted there was nuclear test a few hours before the Landers quake.
>A large nuclear bomb looks like a magnitude 5 quake on a seismograph,
>or about 1E24 ergs.  The Landers quake, magnitude 7.5, was 2E27 ergs.
>An underground bomb has pretty good energy coupling efficiency, I'd
>guess at least double-digit percentage conversion to sonic energy.
>Could a nuke be powerful enough to disrupt a hurricane.

I haven't done the calculations myself, but I've seen it claimed in
several different journals that an average sized hurricane releases
more energy in an hour than all the nuclear weapons in the world
combined. Of course nuclear weapons release their energy in 30
nanoseconds instead of over an hour, so their localized effects
are more spectacular. 

A hurricane's energy is so much larger than anything man has tried
to command that I expect it's still very far out of our league to
disrupt a hurricane by brute force. If we have a chance at all of
controlling one, it will be by using finese to turn it's own energy
against itself. Weather modification tricks like cloud seeding might
release enough thermal energy, if done at the right place and at the
right time, to alter the wind patterns enough to turn the hurricane
out over colder water. That's what usually kills them, depriving
them of their energy feedback mechanism.

Gary
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: RE: Eye of the Hurricane
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:51:14 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, jackb@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jack Brindle) wrote:
>Well, ever notice they fly propeller-driven aircraft int the storms? For
>Andrew, I noticed the usual P3 was replaced with a C130. There are two reasons
>for this. First, the pilots need to be able to go slow at times (such as
>when inside the eye). The second is that it is far more difficult to stall
>a propeller-engine than a jet engine. Injeesting lots of water and ice tends
>to stall those suckers pretty well... So, when I'm on board a commercial
>flight, I'd just as soon it stay far away from storms...

Neither is the true reason.  The Air Force flies reconnaissance into
tropical systems in their C-130's.  The NOAA P3's are usually flown only
on research missions for HRD here in Miami.  The P3's only flew
the storms two days before landfall.  The Air Force was flying reconnaissance
at the same time.

The P3's have flow in storms equally as strong as the Air Force planes.


       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
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: RE: RSMAS is back in business
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:18:00 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, dean@coconut.rsmas.miami.edu (dean) wrote:
>Yes, it's true.  The yacht that landed in the middle
>of Rickenbacker Causeway belongs to the U.M.  It
>was donated.  Before the storm it was at RSMAS, how it
>arrived upon the middle of the Causeway has yet to be
>determined. 

For those who haven't seen it, it landed in the middle of a six-lane
highway about 1 1/2 miles from where it started.

A co-worker found an address plate in his yard from at least three
miles away.

Another friend left a piece of fast food wrapper in her front yard 
because she felt it would blow away.  All her trees are down, one
one her garage, power lines are down in the area, no electricity or
water, and the piece of fast food wrapper is still on her front lawn,
about three feet from where it started.

       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: joeb@atmos.washington.edu (Joe Barsugli)
Subject: Re: Maples are yellow in Denver
Organization: Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
	<1992Sep3.153719.15719@colorado.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:32:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.153719.15719@colorado.edu> cas@bjerknes.colorado.edu (Cathy Smith) writes:

   I noticed tress turning near Seattle in early August (a bit unusual, I
   believe).  Seattle, unlike most of the rest of the country was
   on the warm side this summer so I doubt temperature would explain it.
   I have heard that trees mainly turn based on light.  Does anyone know
   if Mt. Pinatubo might be responsible?


The explanation in the newspapers around here is that drought stress
is the cause.  

Joe (joeb@atmos.washington.edu)
From: stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Could a hurricane be destroyed?
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:44:08 GMT
Distribution: na

Nathan Gasser ><>   writes

+ 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?

Worst case: Andrew sucks up the released energy and continues on his
merry way. Note: this increases the amount of energy available.

Best case: minor fluctuations in the air flow, causing a slight
reduction of strength for a slight period of time.

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.

+ 	Any other thoughts on ways to alter a hurricane in any way?

In the 50's[?] and the 60's, _Operation Storm Fury_ was being conducted.
It was a field experiment in seeding hurricanes (did they also seed 
potential storms?). It was killed due to politics - no one wanted to
take the blame if something went wrong and the storm increased it's
intensity *after* it was seeded.

Alternate regions where considered (eastern Pacific hurricanes and
western Pacific typhoons) but where also politcially unpalatable.

At least that's what I've been told.

+ Have I been watching too much Sci-Fi?  

Yes. :)

James
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology