HawkShack.com

https://www.espn.com.au/nfl/story/_/id/ ... huge-storm

I sure hope everyone is ok, I have heard of hurricane forced winds, but never a "bomb cyclone."

4XPIPS wrote:https://www.espn.com.au/nfl/story/_/id/42512299/seattle-seahawks-training-center-loses-power-huge-storm

I sure hope everyone is ok, I have heard of hurricane forced winds, but never a "bomb cyclone."

Yeah, although the terms themselves have been around for a while, they use them nowadays to dramatize the weather so they can attract more viewers and hence more advertising revenue. "Atmospheric River" is another one that they've never used until recently. I guess it sounds a little more intimidating than the "Pineapple Express," which sounds like a laxative.

I live in the Tri Cities, and outside of a few fairly strong windstorms and light rain, not uncommon for this time of year, we haven't experienced anything abnormal. But thanks for your concern.

Always fun when the media gives something a nightmare name and then when it happens, it's just a bad windstorm.

Lot of lost power, fallen trees, branches, and leaves. Some downed power lines. But for the most part we're doing ok. I was lucky this time and my power remained on.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Always fun when the media gives something a nightmare name and then when it happens, it's just a bad windstorm.

Lot of lost power, fallen trees, branches, and leaves. Some downed power lines. But for the most part we're doing ok. I was lucky this time and my power remained on.

Glad you're doing OK. We have a self-contained motor home that we can retreat to if we ever lose power for a significant amount of time, but we've never lost power for more than a couple of hours. It's a little different landscape out here than it is in western Washington and the power lines aren't as subject to downed trees.

I can remember once when I was in jr. high in Walla Walla a weather event occurring that was referred to as a silver thaw. We received a heavy rainfall followed immediately by a deep freeze where the temps suddenly dropped into the teens. Thick ice formed on tree limbs, resulting in them breaking off and striking power lines. There were so many downed power lines that the police were telling everyone to stay indoors. We were without power for 3-4 days. The electrical utility called linemen in from 100-150 miles away to help restore power.

But silver thaw isn't nearly sensational enough to satisfy the media, which likely explains why we never hear the term being used.

4XPIPS wrote:https://www.espn.com.au/nfl/story/_/id/42512299/seattle-seahawks-training-center-loses-power-huge-storm

I sure hope everyone is ok, I have heard of hurricane forced winds, but never a "bomb cyclone."

We used to just call them big storms.
Apparently there is another one coming tomorrow for us but you might be okay if it tracks more north than the last one.

Stay safe out there.

I have heard of this before. They have called a couple on the east coast over the past many years. A newish term for usually really bad systems/weather, as we evolve with climate change weather forecasting.

Spohawk5092 wrote:I have heard of this before. They have called a couple on the east coast over the past many years. A newish term for usually really bad systems/weather, as we evolve with climate change weather forecasting.

Yeah, down here too, for at least the last ten years. I reckon Y'all ain't heard of them there cause you ain't had one since the term first became common. Our meteorologist on our local news loves explaining this kind of stuff; evidently the name comes from the scientific term “bombogenesis,” which is a storm "that drops 24 millibars of pressure over 24 hours".

You get these terms because they started letting the actual meteorology nerds be weathermen instead of the busty blond. Sheldon's vocabulary is different than Penny's.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yeah, down here too, for at least the last ten years. I reckon Y'all ain't heard of them there cause you ain't had one since the term first became common. Our meteorologist on our local news loves explaining this kind of stuff; evidently the name comes from the scientific term “bombogenesis,” which is a storm "that drops 24 millibars of pressure over 24 hours".

You get these terms because they started letting the actual meteorology nerds be weathermen instead of the busty blond. Sheldon's vocabulary is different than Penny's.

The terms, like a lot of terms, have been around for a long time. I don't think that anyone is questioning that. But it's only been relatively recently, ie within the past 10-15 years, that they started using terms like "bomb cyclone" and "atmospheric river." I've been watching both local and national weather broadcasts for decades, so I'm pretty confident of my assessment.

And those aren't the only weather-related terms that have increased in usage. The term "wildfire" is relatively recent, too. It used to be if an uncontrolled fire occurred in the woods, it was called a forest fire (remember Smokey the Bear? "Only YOU can prevent forest fires!"), and if it occurred elsewhere, like in the desert or plains, it was called a brush fire, prairie fire, or grass fire. But those don't have the same shock effect as does the term "wildfire."

It's sensationalism aimed at attracting more viewers, and the reporting of the weather isn't the only field where it occurs. Hell, Howard Cosell used to make a MNF matchup between two 2-8 teams sound like the prelude to the Super Bowl.

These sensational weather terms fit in well with climate change hysteria. I watch the Weather Channel frequently and they never miss a chance to blame whatever they can on climate change.

trents wrote:These sensational weather terms fit in well with climate change hysteria. I watch the Weather Channel frequently and they never miss a chance to blame whatever they can on climate change.

Yep. And there is a branch of environmental science now that attempts to attribute a cost to environmental change so they can attempt to get governments to pay for it. And of course blame on first world nations with money with an expectation to shell out huge sums to third world nations for climate change which used to be called global warming until the government conducted marketing groups to come up with terms that better sold to the populace.

Yeah. read on bombogenesis. Just another name for the process that generates extreme windstorm due to the changing pressure. Not a new term or due to climate change. Been around for ages. It's a science term likely used as c-bob said because more science nerds doing the weather who know what all these terms mean. That part I don't mind as I haven't studied weather very much. Washington State mostly has super mild weather year round save for a few events a year.

trents wrote:These sensational weather terms fit in well with climate change hysteria. I watch the Weather Channel frequently and they never miss a chance to blame whatever they can on climate change.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Yep. And there is a branch of environmental science now that attempts to attribute a cost to environmental change so they can attempt to get governments to pay for it. And of course blame on first world nations with money with an expectation to shell out huge sums to third world nations for climate change which used to be called global warming until the government conducted marketing groups to come up with terms that better sold to the populace.

Yeah. read on bombogenesis. Just another name for the process that generates extreme windstorm due to the changing pressure. Not a new term or due to climate change. Been around for ages. It's a science term likely used as c-bob said because more science nerds doing the weather who know what all these terms mean. That part I don't mind as I haven't studied weather very much. Washington State mostly has super mild weather year round save for a few events a year.

Climate change is real and anyone who attempts to deny it is a fool with their head in the sand, but I basically agree with what the two of you have said.

You're right about Washington's isolation from big time weather events. The Rocky Mountains protects us from the thunderstorms and tornados that are common in the Midwest and the Pacific Ocean keeps us relatively warm vs other areas of the country, and the fact that we're on the east side of the ocean and far enough north not to be subject to hurricanes or tropical cyclones. The worst weather event we have where I live is wildfire smoke.

River Dog wrote:Climate change is real and anyone who attempts to deny it is a fool with their head in the sand, but I basically agree with what the two of you have said.

You're right about Washington's isolation from big time weather events. The Rocky Mountains protects us from the thunderstorms and tornados that are common in the Midwest and the Pacific Ocean keeps us relatively warm vs other areas of the country, and the fact that we're on the east side of the ocean and far enough north not to be subject to hurricanes or tropical cyclones. The worst weather event we have where I live is wildfire smoke.

I'm sorry, but the majority of humans wouldn't now if climate change is real or not, have no experience or idea of the science behind it, and couldn't make intelligent decisions based on climate change if they're life depended on it.

So now the default positions have become "climate change denier" and "If you don't believe in climate change, you're a fool" even if the person making this claim has no idea how to prove it. They have taken this position on faith using a broad term they barely understand writing world leaders and governments a blank check for action economically, legally, and politically. I'm sorry, I do understand the science of climate change, do read up on it, and do read upon the measures taken, and do invest it. Some of the measures being pushed with climate change are lies, bad policy, bad economically, and not in line with the existing science.

Since the vast majority of humans are easily frightened, lack the scientific acumen to determine what aspects of climate change are real, and have allowed the massive piggy backing of differing agendas to be tacked onto climate change, I'm very skeptical and want to ensure I read the data, science, and reasoning behind certain policies and what it means.

When something reaches the irrational frenzy of climate change where everything and their mother causes it or is caused by it, the natural skeptic in me starts to question how much of this is true? How much of this is hype and snake oil to sell something or give unprecedented power to government? I think far more humans need to rapidly enhance their scientific education because this world is becoming increase science based requiring better scientific education for decision making. Not just ragging on each other if they don't buy into the narrative being driven because they are educated enough to question elements of it.

To sum it up, there is a place between climate denier and questioning some of the climate science and policy on the basis of being ineffective or inaccurate to what is occurring in the world. I'm sorry, blaming every odd weather pattern falls into that category as wild weather phenomenon existed long before climate science was developed and even if every single human were gone from this world and the world restored to its most natural state, wild weather patterns like bomb cyclones, blizzards, and other extreme weather patterns would still occur. I think it is bad policy and disinformation to push every major weather event as caused by climate change. Very dangerous and another example of fear driven propaganda.

We have to be able to tell between the two to make good decisions.

I'll leave it there. But I do get tired of the group claiming anyone questioning something is some climate change denying fool when there is plenty of reasons to be skeptical of some of the claims and policy actions taken.

River Dog wrote:Climate change is real and anyone who attempts to deny it is a fool with their head in the sand, but I basically agree with what the two of you have said.

You're right about Washington's isolation from big time weather events. The Rocky Mountains protects us from the thunderstorms and tornados that are common in the Midwest and the Pacific Ocean keeps us relatively warm vs other areas of the country, and the fact that we're on the east side of the ocean and far enough north not to be subject to hurricanes or tropical cyclones. The worst weather event we have where I live is wildfire smoke.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm sorry, but the majority of humans wouldn't now if climate change is real or not, have no experience or idea of the science behind it, and couldn't make intelligent decisions based on climate change if they're life depended on it.

So now the default positions have become "climate change denier" and "If you don't believe in climate change, you're a fool" even if the person making this claim has no idea how to prove it. They have taken this position on faith using a broad term they barely understand writing world leaders and governments a blank check for action economically, legally, and politically. I'm sorry, I do understand the science of climate change, do read up on it, and do read upon the measures taken, and do invest it. Some of the measures being pushed with climate change are lies, bad policy, bad economically, and not in line with the existing science.

Since the vast majority of humans are easily frightened, lack the scientific acumen to determine what aspects of climate change are real, and have allowed the massive piggy backing of differing agendas to be tacked onto climate change, I'm very skeptical and want to ensure I read the data, science, and reasoning behind certain policies and what it means.

When something reaches the irrational frenzy of climate change where everything and their mother causes it or is caused by it, the natural skeptic in me starts to question how much of this is true? How much of this is hype and snake oil to sell something or give unprecedented power to government? I think far more humans need to rapidly enhance their scientific education because this world is becoming increase science based requiring better scientific education for decision making. Not just ragging on each other if they don't buy into the narrative being driven because they are educated enough to question elements of it.

To sum it up, there is a place between climate denier and questioning some of the climate science and policy on the basis of being ineffective or inaccurate to what is occurring in the world. I'm sorry, blaming every odd weather pattern falls into that category as wild weather phenomenon existed long before climate science was developed and even if every single human were gone from this world and the world restored to its most natural state, wild weather patterns like bomb cyclones, blizzards, and other extreme weather patterns would still occur. I think it is bad policy and disinformation to push every major weather event as caused by climate change. Very dangerous and another example of fear driven propaganda.

We have to be able to tell between the two to make good decisions.

I'll leave it there. But I do get tired of the group claiming anyone questioning something is some climate change denying fool when there is plenty of reasons to be skeptical of some of the claims and policy actions taken.

We can argue about the cause, whether it's a part of a natural cycle, increased sunspot activity, human activities, or a combination of all of the above. But unless you want to dismiss facts and observations as irrelevant or false, like historical temperature readings, core samples taken from ice sheets, and things we can see with our own eyes, like more wildfires and stronger hurricanes, climate change is happening.

But I do agree with your characterization of how most people are easily frightened, but I will also add that most people don't know how to process information. I don't blame people for not automatically trusting whatever the 'science' or speculation is suggesting or what their government is telling them. But when you have the opportunity to see what other scientists and governments from around the world are saying, ie basically the same thing, multiple, independent studies on the subject, and combine that with observations that you can make with your own eyeballs, like how the glaciers on Mt. Rainier have been disappearing, how snowcapped peaks that used to be white year-round now show giant bare spots in August and September, how every summer we have weeks with smoke so bad that you can't exercise outside, things that 20 years ago were unheard of, then that person is just plain ignorant.

Unfortunately, climate change has become highly politicized. The left will use it to try to scare people into voting for them, overreact by enacting silly, ill-advised laws like WA's carbon tax, while the right will deny that it's even occurring. It's not unlike the hysteria and misinformation over vaccines.