The Space Station Camera Captures New Views Of Hurricane Harvey From Space

Submitted by: fancylad 2 months ago in Science


From NASA: The National Hurricane Center (NHC) upgraded the remnants of tropical storm Harvey to a tropical depression on August 23, 2017 at 11 a.m. EDT (1500 UTC).  Harvey became better organized and was revived after moving from Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula into the Bay of Campeche. The warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico and favorable vertical wind shear promoted the regeneration of the tropical cyclone. This video includes views from The International Space Station recorded on August 24, 2017 at 6:15 p.m. Eastern Time.
There are 34 comments:
Male 41,141
I was wondering what the Flat Earth people think is on the "other side" eh?

"Sonny, it's turtles all the way down."

Answer: They have no idea:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-on-the-other-side-of-the-flat-earth-and-why-hasnt-anyone-ever-explored-it-or-the-edge

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60066.0
-1
Reply
Male 4,255
Let’s not all forget about some of these market driven innovations that may help easing the climate change anxiety some have:

https://www.google.com/search?q=harvesting+co2+from+the+atmosphere&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS754US754&oq=ha&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60l4j69i57.3413j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
0
Reply
Male 41,141
trimble Just be like the EU and give people lots of bribes rebates for buying Diesel-powered cars... then ban them 10 years later when it blows up in their faces! And blame everyone but the AGW Zealots.

We should get that CO2 level down to 100 PPM or less, and REALLY save the world! :-)
-1
Reply
Male 4,255
You know-it-all's can SMH, LOL, whatever else you do but the predictions have all been about as bad as it can get. Two more years until this gem dropped on us by lovely madduck around a year ago (vie the HuffPo) falls flat. The tropics will be fine. I plan on going there.

https://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/three-years-before-climate-change-hit-the-tropics-hard.html
0
Reply
Male 2,675
trimble
Sorry, what is something not yet proven true or false evidence of?

Did you know that while AGW supporting scientists tend to agree about climate change's effects on the average intensity of these storms, there is debate regarding frequency - Some say fewer.

For some reason, we don't often see the media reporting that climate change may cause fewer storms. :P
0
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm The MSM reports what fits their agenda, not the facts.

The AGW side said more storms, stronger and the MSM reported that prediction non-stop.

Reality said: zero Cat-2+ storms for 12 years... the MSM didn't think that was important since it conflicted with the meme. Embargo.

Any scientist who disagrees with "more, stronger" is labeled a heretic and burned at the stake. They are no longer valid scientists: they are skeptics the MSM tells us, and not to be believed. Facts do not matter.

When Trump pointed out this easy to prove fact? That there were more and stronger storms making landfall in the 1800's than the past decade? (1860's and 1880's iirc, and IDR exactly what was said, but that's the idea) The MSM went mental attacking him... even after it was shown beyond any doubt that what he said was true, they still attacked.
-2
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats
"And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.

What can we conclude from these studies? About hurricane frequency – not much; the jury is out, as they say. About climate change, we can say that these differing approaches are the very stuff of good science, and the science clearly isn’t settled! It is also obvious that researchers are not shying away from refuting associations with climate change, so we can assume they don’t think their funding or salaries are jeopardised by research they believe fails to support the case for AGW. The scientific method is alive and well." link

"Here we assess, in our model system7, the changes in large-scale climate that are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century by an ensemble of global climate models8, and find that Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm frequencies are reduced. At the same time, near-storm rainfall rates increase substantially. Our results do not support the notion of large increasing trends in either tropical storm or hurricane frequency driven by increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations." link
0
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm You linked things that came long after the time I refer to. And you disproved nothing I said. In fact you supported my stance that the AGW predictions were dead wrong: the skeptics were correct, again, as usual.

Your top link says the opposite of what you claim it says, and its data ends in 2005... the year the "Zero Storms" started...

You really are a troll. Bye bye!
0
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats 
My links support my arguments, despite your claims.

What do you think I'm trying to disprove?
1
Reply
Male 4,255
jaysingrimm Or that a little warmer is better for most species than a little colder.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
trimble 
I'm not suggesting we pump harmful aerosols into the atmosphere to try to force a cooling trend.

Also, consider that if even a few key species are threatened, it could have dramatic consequences on entire eco systems.

Your 'headline' is misleading.
0
Reply
Male 4,255
jaysingrimm Hmmm, not sure I understand but thats OK.
0
Reply
Male 41,141
trimble He's just a troll, I ignore him entirely.

He's a "question troll" who will hound you endlessly with questions and provocations regarding your accuracy, yet he himself will NEVER give a straight answer or provide more than a nonsense link to backup his side.
Look how fast the subject gets twisted and changed, look how he keeps asking such stupid things :/ the pure rubbish he throws out there:  a few key species threatened? By a tiny increase in average temperature?
Oh you can bet he never even looks at anything you link either... he's been this way for YEARS now.
-1
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats "I ignore him entirely."

By talking about me, after talking to me?

5cats "He's a "question troll" who..."

Dishonest people (such as yourself) are often bothered by questions.
1
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm See? He may not even be aware he's doing it, it might be pathological :-/ Not my problem.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats 
Who's "He", and if you want to ignore me entirely, why did you initiate dialogue with me yesterday?
0
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm You are pathological, I think. You do these psychotic things and either don't realize it or think that it's entirely normal.

Very occasionally I look at your comments, sometimes purely by accident. They are 90%+ the same: trolling garbage and bullshit.

You've make over 100 replies to me that I utterly ignored for many months, you recently seem to have given up. Good. Go away, your shit is repulsive.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats "..you recently seem to have given up."

Your insults and accusations aside, you seem to recognize that it's you that's been initiating dialogue with me.

As for your plea that I "Go Away": Sorry, but no - I can reply to comments you direct towards me, thank you.

If you want to ignore me, clearly it's up to you.
0
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm There were well over 60 comments by you over several months, not one got replied to.

You can make all the comments you like, I am very happy to ignore them. Because when I do look at them? They are worthless and stupid, just like you are! Look here in this posting, your link says the exact opposite of what you claim, you just read the first paragraph or two, but the ending is the conclusion: "more storms and stronger" which is my position on what AGW said back then. And meaningless to boot: it's data ends at 2005, the year the Zero Storms started...

So don't pretend you didn't do it, and don't pretend I'm the one encouraging your comments: I am not, I strongly prefer this time when you've stopped almost entirely. Feel free to ignore me for months at a time, ok? Bye!
0
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats "You've make over 100 replies to me that I utterly ignored for many months, you recently seem to have given up."

5cats "There were well over 60 comments by you over several months, not one got replied to."

Could you please try to be more consistent?

5cats "You can make all the comments you like, I am very happy to ignore them."

Thank you, you've been doing a fine job these past couple days.
0
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm You made 100+ in general over the course of many months (around 10-11? I don't care really) in the timeframe I refer to. Almost every one of them ignored and unread. Almost.

Of those? Around ~60 in a row were completely and utterly ignored. Look: "...not one got replied to" See? Different parameters. 

During that 100+? (which includes the ~60 string) I may have replied 2-3 times at most (but not during the ~60, you are so stupid I have to explain this, sigh!). Counting multiple replies like this as 1 (also your multiple comments as 1 as well, yes?). So 97%+ ignored. 
Yet. You. Still. Kept. Commenting. For. Months.

Completely consistent, as I always am. (Well, except for spelling :p thank heaven for spellcheck!!) You just are too dim to see it. 
0
Reply
Male 2,675
5cats "You've make over 100 replies to me that I utterly ignored for many months"

5cats "You made 100+...Almost every one of them ignored and unread. Almost."

You could still be more consistent.

Shall I look forward to hearing from you in the future?
0
Reply
Male 41,141
jaysingrimm Highly unlikely, since you're essentially the same as before. I do appreciate that you don't spam me like that though, a positive change there!

I ignored about 100 replies of yours (total), that's still true. Of the replies during that time? There were over 100 and almost all were ignored, maybe 2-3 were replied to. Essentially the same thing, the difference is trivial.

0
Reply
Male 41,141
trimble People have actually been using this single storm as "proof of AGW" and such.

It really beggars the imagination how dumb the so-called 'pro-science side' can be. At how they completely ignore the facts that don't fit and cling to 'models' which are proven wrong...

https://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/08/three-years-before-climate-change-hit-the-tropics-hard.html

Madduck's post. 3 comments :-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/climate-catastrophe-to-hi_b_4089746.html

The link there (it isn't link-y any longer, lolz!)
-1
Reply
Male 41,141
5cats Zomg the NONSENSE written by that HuffPo guy is monumental! Epic! And completely normal for AGW Zealots:

"According to this study, the tropics, ...that has thus contributed virtually nothing to global warming, will begin the period of permanent catastrophe starting in approximately 2020."

Eh? Permanent catastrophe? Like a switch will get flipped and BOOM! Unending disasters?

"so the species that constitute the ecosystems there cannot tolerate temperatures outside their narrow range, which has existed within that narrow range for thousands of years"

Eh? The Ice Age didn't lower the temperatures there? The temps never vary much? Critters cannot adapt to these changes, ever?

The existing impoverished economies, within around 2,500 miles of the equator (where average per-capita incomes are less than 10% of the average in the moderate-latitude countries such as ours), will become unlivable.

WOW! Too bad this is absolutely true and we "skeptics" cannot deny it eh? 
Take a look at how far "2500 miles" from the Equator is: all of Africa, India, most of China AND most of the USA too.
Even if he meant 1250 miles on either side? That still has most of India and part of China in the range.
ALL of that will become "unlivable" in less than 30 years... what a joke.

Note: This is the ranting of the guy who wrote the article, NOT actual stuff from the "study" (whose link no longer works, it's from a hyper-pro AGW site tho).
-1
Reply
Male 2,229
This is fake......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face.
1
Reply
Male 41,141
Climate-change "deniers" should ignore the post? Because it proves there is no AGW?

It was predicted there would be MORE storms of INCREASED intensity hitting the USA (specifically). Now, after 12+ years there is a 3+ storm, an unprecedented record of time between cat-3+ storms... and we're the "deniers".

The climate is changing, it always has been for 50,000 years. The Earth is warming, it has been since the Great Ice Age. Please deal with reality not 'computer models' that have all been 100% wrong thus far.
0
Reply
Male 8,068
5cats The fact this storm hit a Cat 4 in 1 day is incredible from a remnant low.  The Water of the Gulf is ridiculously warm.  
1
Reply
Male 41,141
normalfreak2 You have some proof this has never happened before in all recorded history? Or are you just trying to change the subject? As usual...

It sure didn't happen in the last 12 years. You know: the years with MORE and STRONGER storms hitting the USA mainland eh? Those 12+ years.
-1
Reply
Male 15,339
5cats smh
1
Reply
Male 41,141
Draculya At how correct I am, thanks! :-)
-2
Reply
Male 5,196
Draculya Ditto. I can't be bothered.
1
Reply