hurricane season in the gulf of mexico

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Vitamin 420, May 19, 2010.

  1. National Hurricane Center

    Starts June 1st. :cool: Okay guys, we got exactly two weeks to clean that spill up ... no biggy, right? We can do it...

    ... right guys?
  2. I live about an hour from the Gulf and from the Atlantic. We get the weak parts of hurricanes, but it still fucking rocks. Violent weather is the fucking man. Well, except for any lives lost and structural damage.
  3. Look out for Hurricane Halliburton! :laughing:

  4. It would get pretty nasty when those hurricanes suck up the oily ocean water and spray it down upon FL, LA, AL, GA, TX, etc
  5. It's already pretty nasty because there's a dead zone in the gulf as well; so many harsh herbicides and pesticides make their way into the gulf from the Mississippi river and it all gets dumped back on us. Many farmers in the mid-west manufacture GMO crops that are sprayed with harsh chemicals, and all of this run off excess nutrition has left a pretty enormous impact on the environment. More than 9,000 square miles is completely uninhabitable now.

    Just to give you an idea of how big that is, from Seattle to Miami (Northwest to Southeast tips) is about ~3,000 miles.
  6. where did that 9,000 square miles number come from? Just looking at a map you can tell you can't get 9,000 square miles out of the gulf. Just use your own distance, just looking at a map you can tell the gulf is not the size of the U.S squared. Yes there are dead zones but let's turn the volume down on the dramatics a touch.

    Unless of course your talking about total in the world but I doubt it, that number would have to be higher I would guess.

    Hurricane, Natures oil spill clean up crew!! I got 5 bucks says LA gets hit with the first Oilcane!!
  7. [ame=]YouTube - I Thought Hurricane Season Was Over[/ame]

    I had to :D
  8. Dead Zone Is Price Gulf Coast Pays as Farms Cash In on Ethanol -

    A 'Dead Zone' in The Gulf of Mexico -

    Gulf of Mexico dead zone to hit record size: NOAA | Reuters

    Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone' to grow dramatically due to federal biofuel mandate | MNN - Mother Nature Network

    Even in 2002 it was above 8,000.. and you think that I'm being dramatic? :rolleyes: Sorry man, but you know, before you criticize others for being incorrect, you should at least make sure you are. Here's a handy search engine which will answer a lot of questions for you:


    But you're right, the Gulf of Mexico doesn't look nearly as large as the US squared ... but it sure is. Hmmm... I wonder why that is. :confused: Read those articles if you're stumped.
  9. I wasn't criticizing you, just wanted to know where you got those numbers from. And yes there is a large difference from 8500ish to 9000 square miles. They get that number because the area is ~430 miles long by ~20 miles wide. I said dramatic because it makes a difference if you say an area 430 miles by 20 miles or 8500 square miles, one sounds like a larger area even though they are the same. Also 3,000 miles straight line distance is a whole lot different than measuring in square area, that's where my confusion came in with the size of the U.S., your example of distance has no relation to the size of the dead zone.

    The point being that it isn't more than 9,000 sq. miles it's 8500 (that would like be adding an extra 25 miles to the area) and I used the word dramatic because I am a fan of science and research but you do it a disservice when you overestimate it like that and then others will dismiss that there is even a problem because the number you used and the actual numbers are different so it throws the whole statement into question.

    My case and point, you said
    which is not correct on several levels. If you want me to be concerned with this issue don't give me facts that when I do a little research, turn out to be wrong.

    From all of your links we can find that it is at it's peak in July and at it's lowest in October. Hurricane's also dissapate it's effects. They measure it when it is at it's peak. If there haven't been any storms in the gulf to churn it up and dissipate it then it will be a large area in the gulf, if there have been then it is a smaller area. Is it a problem, sure. Is it going to end us, no.

    Giving me a link to Google is a douchbag move. It's your issue, you do the research and convince me and other people it's important otherwise I'll look just deep enough to see your numbers were off from what the real numbers were and then ignore anything else you say. If you want people to agree that your issue is important then you prolly shouldn't expect other people to do their own research on something you care about seeing as your trying to get them on your side of the discussion.
  10. Really?

    Rhetorical question, isn't it? After all, you proceed to answer it:


    Yeah, the "large difference" is about 5% ...

    Why is it my fault you are confused? After all, it is you who did not read anything about the dead zone in the gulf of mexico before telling me I was wrong, so it sounds like your confusion stems from your own lack of understanding of the issue. I read the same articles I linked you to, and it made sense to me, so why am I not confused? Besides, man, these two statements aren't exactly rocket science or anything:

    "The distance from Seattle to Miami is 3,000 miles"
    "More than 9,000 square miles [of the Gulf] is completely uninhabitable now"

    Sorry, it looks like just two words are incorrect in my statement: "more than" :rolleyes:

    You are "a fan" of "science and research", yet you did absolutely no scientific inquiry, investigation, or research when I presented the information? And thank you for telling me that I'm doing it a disservice by linking you to articles which confirm figures in the ballpark of what I was saying, whereas you, apparently being a diplomat / public relations officer for science or something of the sort, have continued to ignore the evidence at hand, which points to the dead zone being right around 9,000 miles.

    You chose one figure out of the entire statement I had made, and completely blew it out of proportion. Now the rest of what I said is apparently "thrown into question", all because I estimated a 5% increase of a statistic that is a few years old? And here you are, being a pompous, arrogant ass, talking about how "others" will dismiss it because I was slightly off in an estimate of the size of the dead zone, but you know you can't talk for "others", you can only talk for yourself, and it seems like you're wanting to throw it out the window, not because of any facts/figures concerned with it, but how I responded to you last time. Seems as though there is a personal issue here. Ego much?:cool:

    You haven't done any research. Nice try though.

    I never said it was going to end us, I said it's just in time for hurricane season. Also, you may have missed the first link I posted, where states that the hurricane season starts July 1st ... now, knowing that the dead zones are "at it's [sic] peak in July", can you imagine what happens to the hypoxic waters as they're picked up and dumped back onto us? This isn't about measuring the dead zone, because if you'll look at the thread title, it's named "hurricane season in the gulf of mexico" and the original post has to deal with the oil spill. The dead zone is merely icing on the cake, and I'm not trying to debate it's ecological effects by pointing out its size, I'm trying to paint a realistic picture of what happens when that water, which can no longer sustain life, is dumped back on the land.

    It was warranted. A simple two second search would have yielded some good results, but you chose not to look up the issue before debating it. Why? That seems like douchebaggery more than giving a "fan of science and research" a link to what may quite possibly be the most useful tool on the internet :D

    I expect you to do some research when you call me out on the information I present, not when I present information to you. How you choose to react to it is up to you, not me, so why do I care if you agree or disagree?

    You disagreed because the Gulf of Mexico "doesn't look" like it's more than three times the size of the United States. That was the ONLY reason you disagreed. Now you're trying to act cool and save your ego by throwing a shit-fit over the "large difference" between "around 9,000" miles and "9,000" miles; or even between 8,543 and 9,000.

    You crack me up man.
  11. ^^^^^^

    Let it go man. You're right, hes wrong.

  12. A square with a distance of 3,000 miles per side would give an area of 9,000,000 square miles, not 9,000.
  13. #13 Drivenone, May 21, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2010
    Sorry again. You have it wrong. The oil will prevent hurricane activity and prevent the storm from gaining more water. the truth is out there. A study was done that shows a 1 molecule thick layer of oil is all that is needed to kill a hurricane. This time it's free. If anything, the East Coast will see a number, ZERO for the Gulf.
  14. no it wasn't a rhetorical question I was really asking where you got that number then made a guess as to where it came from.

    yea and a 5% error in my Phy 2 class will get me a failing grade so why is it ok here?

    never said it was your fault, I asked a question in the hopes you would give me a response. You took it as if I was attacking you personally. You're right, i didn't read anything on it before posting, hence the questions because what you said didn't seem right to me. I can either ask you what you know or go look it up myself, I like asking other people because they usually have more insight than a website I find via the Google.

    "More than" can mean 5 more miles or 7 million miles. Excuse me for wanting something a little more accurate. And yes, those two little words make the whole sentence incorrect.

    when you gave the links, i read them all and some links that were in those you gave. That's why I asked where you got that number. No I'm not going to look beforehand and try and find the information because it's a non-issue to me. Your links show that there was 1 year that it was ALMOST 9,000 square miles. They also show that hurricane's dissipate the size of the dead zones but you didn't mention that part.

    I said your doing a disservice by posting information that isn't correct. If your guessing at what the number is why not say it rather than post it as if it's accurate or just post the link in the first place. Your link also shows it was right around 2,000 miles, why not mention that or that it fluctuates depending on 1)how much farming is done and 2) if there have been major storms in the area. It's because you wanted to paint a particular picture.

    The problem is I'm expecting that if you post a number that it is accurate or if it's a guess then it's stated along with the number. That's my fault, your right. From now on I'll assume the information you post is just a guess at what the numbers really are.

    You don't think people do that? ok fine, I personally have met many people that do that and use it as an excuse to disregard information they don't want to hear. If me pointing out that that really happens is pompous fine, I like to cover all possible ways someone can say my information is wrong.

    I can't talk for others but I can talk from experience of how people argue against something you (the presenter) are trying to present.

    I thought I said that?

    so what's the impact? the links you gave say that storms make the dead zones smaller (from churning them up) and that the area's effect life in the water or close to shore if the dead zones move closer to shore. They say nothing of the impact of the animal life on land other than the poor fishermen that have to go farther out into the gulf to fish. I suppose I have to go find the study that talks about hypoxic water and it's effects on land animals also, even though your the one making the claim.

    I didn't look it up because it's not an issue to me. I simply asked where you came up with those numbers. I'm not going to go look it up and then guess at where you came up with the numbers you used. If I try and make a case that fish in the Gulf of Mexico are all growing thumbs I would expect someone to ask for proof rather than expect them to go find out for themselves. It's called being helpful and saving people time. You obviously know where the information is so why not share it from the start rather than giving a link to Google and saying go find out what I've already learned. Oh that's right, it's not your responsibility to give people information.

    Is it unreasonable to ask where you got your information from? Apparently so. So your right, I'll never question your posts again. You care enough to reply and give the information I asked for, that's all I was looking for. From now on I won't try to explain why I was confused on something you said because apparently you take it as a personal attack on your view. I thought it might be useful to someone else where I was confused, that's why I posted it.

    a shit-fit? ok sure. You win, I'll stop trying to explain where I am coning from, yours is the only view that matters.
  15. Because there is no teacher.

    There is no homework.

    There are no grades.

    This is not a classroom.

    If my example of linear distance between Seattle and Miami is irrelevant, then I believe your comparison of an internet chat forum to a classroom setting should also be rendered invalid.

    I don't knowingly or willingly post information that is not accurate, but you have to understand, I don't have a 100% complete understanding of the issue. Nobody does. When new information pops up then I'll change my theory to fit the data that has been accumulated.

    Initially, I thought the "dead zone" was a constantly growing phenomena that had no real fluctuation, but doing some more research I find that yes, it has peaks and troughs during the year, and its activity can be influenced by a wide variety of weather conditions. This changes things slightly, as I can no longer say that it is right around 9,000 miles in size, so instead, I will say that at its maximum/peak size, it can be as large as ~9,000 square miles.

    I think you overweigh the significance of that particular number. Does it matter if it's 8,543 miles or if it's "around 9,000" or "roughly 9,000", or "~9,000" ? Does the impact that it has on the environment really change so drastically when it's 8,543 miles as opposed to "around 9,000" ?

    I'm making the claim that hypoxic water, when picked up and dumped on the land, will have an affect on plants and animals, not from any research I've done, but because I don't think it's arguable. If you find some evidence that counters this claim, I will be more than happy to evaluate the information and re-asses my theory.

    Keep in mind what I say is not meant to be taken as matter-of-factually, it's just my opinion and I choose to share it. If I'm wrong, let me know.

    For years, scientists have theorized that there may be a way to weaken hurricanes. One idea is to spread a thin layer of vegetable oil on the ocean's surface in the path of the storm. The Gulf of Mexico may turn into a big laboratory this summer as the oil spew may give us the first real-world test of this theory.

    Already, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) is seeing changes created by the oil slick. Bill Read, Director of the Center, says they've noticed smaller waves in areas of the Gulf where oil is present. The oil on the surface reduces the friction between the wind and water, reducing wave production.

    And, the leak could have another effect. Oil slows evaporation of the warm Gulf water. Hurricanes rely on that evaporation to develop and strengthen. However, according to the NHC, the chance that the oil will actually prevent the development of powerful hurricanes in the Gulf is slim.

    A bigger threat is that a large hurricane moves into the Gulf of Mexico and spreads the oil violently through the body of water and onshore on a broader scale.

    Oil spill may be giant lab for Hurricane Season - KOLD News 13

    There's little information about what would happen if a hurricane hit the spill, experts said.

    "My 'oh, no' thought is that a hurricane would pick up that oil and move it, along with salt, up into interior regions of the state that I am convinced the oil will not reach otherwise," said Robert Twilley, an oceanographer at Louisiana State University.

    I suppose we'll just have to wait and see? :p
  16. fair enough

    For me it does only because normally with things involving the environment they typically have a tipping point where once you cross some point the spiral out of control and the system crashes. I am overly weary of the numbers because it could be that that 500ish difference is the difference between a crappy environmental situation and a collapse of a area's system because, like you said, we really are only just learning about these types of systems.

    I do thank you for sharing your view, i don't mean to come off as dismissing your viewpoint. Afterall if you didn't share it I would have never learned about the dead zones in the first place. I do admit I get carried away in the details sometimes.

    The positive side of these types of events is that we learn so much more about the world we live in. Rouge waves is my fav. example, people use to think it was just a myth until some scientist made up an experiment and found out how they could happen even in open waters.

    For me that is the scariest part. Also how I came up with Oilcane (tm). I joke but it is sad that we are breaking into new ground if a hurricane hits those oil patches. Not really something a generation wants to be remembered by.

    and to Driveone saying "this time it's free". I assure you the large group of dead animals that WILL result from this wouldn't count it as a "free" lesson on how to prevent a hurricane.

Share This Page