Borderline Plays
The post-season baseball play is starting to become interesting. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1945, and the Boston Red Sox have not won any since 1922. Further, I was near Chicago, studying for my doctorate in mathematics, in 1969 when the Cubs led most of the way, only to falter to the Mets near the end of the season. So I started looking at the games. To me the most interesting plays are the borderline plays.
These are plays that are close to the borderline to being other plays. An example of what I mean is a batted ball that bounces just along the left foul line and stays fair. This could be a single. Just a little bit, an epsilon (mathematicians use this Greek letter to denote a small quantity) to the left and it's a foul ball. A single and a foul ball have vastly different effects on the game. So this is a borderline play. In this case the border is physical: the foul line. On the other hand, a long fly to center is caught by the center fielder. If it veers in any direction about a foot way from this, the center fielder would still catch it. So this play is "in the middle", and is not a borderline play.
There have been several borderline plays in the pennant playoffs. One Yankee hit a long fly ball that was caught at the fence by one of the outfielders for an out. A little epsilon higher, and this Yankee would have had a home run. In another case, with bases loaded and one out, a grounder was hit to the shortstop, who threw to second baseman, who threw to first. The throw to second resulted in an out, but the throw to first was just a microsecond too late. A run scored, nearly tying the game.
The biggest one happened though on the night of 2003 October 14. The first batter flied out, and the second (Pierre) doubled. Castillo hit a foul ball right on the boundary of the stands. Into the stands, and it's a foul ball, a strike. Within the ballpark, if fielder Alou could catch it, it's an out. Alou just barely made the catch, only to have a fan strike the ball and deflect it away. The result was an eight-run Marlin outburst. Here is the play by play:
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
controversial foul ball deflected by fan
Castillo walk 110 (0) 1
Wild pitch advances Pierre 101 (0) 1
Rodriguez singled in run 110 (1) 1
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 111 (1) 1
Derrek Lee double scores two 011 (3) 1
Lowell walk intentional 111(3) 1
Conine sacrifice fly 011 (4) 2
Hollinsworth intentional walk 111 (4) 2
Double Mordecai scores all the runners 010 (7) 2
Pierre single scores Mordecai 100 (8) 2
Castillo popped out 100 (8)
My notation 010 (1) 2, for example, means no runner on first, a runner on second, no runner on third, one run scored in the inning, and two out. Now what would have happened had Alou caught Castillo's ball?
Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
Castillo fouls out to Alou 010(0)2
Wild pitch advances Pierre 001 (0) 2
Rodriguez singled in run 100 (1) 2
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 110 (1) 2
Derrek Lee double scores one 110 (2) 2
Lowell walk intentional 111(2) 2
Conine flyout ends inning 111 (2) 3
Now the Marlins score only two runs, and quite likely the Cubs would have won the game. But is that so? How do we know the Marlins would then be scoreless in the ninth and the Cubs in the eighth? Here the butterfly effect occurs. If there are a lot of borderlines, the system becomes unstable and unpredictable. The stepping on a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. For that matter, would Lowell have been walked if the fan had not interfered? With runners on first and second, two out, there is a play at any plate. What advantage is there in getting one at home, too? If Lowell had been pitched to, then maybe he would have hit and scored runners, and the Marlins would have won anyway.
So if you tiptoe over the borderline, the whole universe goes awry and may not seem what you think. In particular, it is not necessarily true that the fan's interference with the ball lost the Series for the Cubs.
A Journey through Blogrealm
2003/10/15
The Nine Dwarfs
I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:
Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.
Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.
Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B
John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B
Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B
Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A
Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A
John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B
Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+
In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.
Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.
I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:
Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.
Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.
Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B
John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B
Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B
Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A
Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A
John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B
Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+
In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.
Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.
2003/10/14
Pledge of Allegiance to be Heard
Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.
It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.
So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.
As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:
I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.
It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.
So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.
As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":
I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.
Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:
I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.
2003/10/08
Enforcing a contradiction
I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.
Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.
For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.
I am fortunate to have a workplace near a small national park. Therefore, I run at lunch hour into the park, something I have been doing since the late 1970s. I notice that recently they have been closing trails due to water damage, ice storms, and the like and I notice that when they do that they often do it inconsistently. That is, they will put up a sign saying that it is prohibited to enter that trail, but it will still be possible to get to the other side of that sign by other ways that have not been signed. My feeling is that I should not cross such a sign or tape from the outside to the inside, but there is nothing wrong with going the other way, from inside the "forbidden" area to outside. Indeed, if I can do this, there is something wrong with the signs. They are not consistent. If they are going to bar certain trails to the public, then they should do so everywhere and consistently, so that the only way to cross a sign from behind is to have crossed a sign from in front, defying its wording.
Isabel uprooted hundreds of trees in the park, so they closed most of the trails. But I notice that there is one way to enter the park without encountering a sign or tape, in such a way that the signs are inconsistent. But I found out that not only did they put the signs up inconsistently this time, but they are also enforcing it by having a ranger at some of the places. Yesterday, I ran into the park through a trail that had no signs on it. Someone in a truck stopped me and said it is open, but look out for the workmen fixing things up. I turned left towards the main road of the park, which was open. Today I ran to the same spot but turned right, towards the part that was taped off. There the officer was, asking me if I parked there, and telling me that I should be heeding the yellow tape. I told him that I saw no such signs or tape when I entered the park. I don't know if he got the message.
For inconsistent signs make me feel uneasy. The reason is that the sign that prohibits tell me that -T, where T is the statement that I may enter the park at that point, and that nothing at all tells me I can enter, which is T. This means they are enforcing T and -T, which is a contradiction. A contradiction implies any statement, so this implies that they can enforce any law or rule, even one that they dream up on the spot. That is Gestapo or 1984 law - a law of men rather than of words. They should put up signs that prohibit entering the area at all possible places, or they should tear them all down. But don't enforce a contradiction.
Globalization is a bad name
I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".
I hear that "globalization" of the world economy, and the enforcement of a free market, hurts poor people and countries, because all the goods go to the rich. There are protestors whenever globalization meetings meet, in Seattle, in Europe and other places. For a while I did not understand this. These people are apparently against freedom. Why should we oppose a free market? Then I read that globalization is not globalization after all. When "globalization" is used without adjectives, it means ALL globalization, or global globalization. However, the anti-globalization literature make it clear that they oppose it because the corporations benefit. If so, then it should be called "corporate globalization". If it is expressed in this manner, then yes I am opposed to it because I believe in freedom for all, not just corporations and their leaders. So don't say "globalization". Say "corporate globalization".
2003/10/05
Transgender Hurricane
I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.
Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?
Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.
I have been looking at the hurricane map to see if any more storms threaten our neck of the woods. Juan formed but then went north to hit Nova Scotia. Kate formed; she headed north, then northeast, then back to the southwest, and now west. She is heading first for Bermuda and then for the Carolinas. But the weather forecasters say this big beautiful too cold for this time of the year air mass over us is going to block Kate and make her go north, about now. So we don't have to worry about her.
Then there's Larry. He formed deep in the Gulf of Mexico near Honduras, and has been sitting there the past few days. Then they said he was going to cross to the south and get out into the Pacific, where it will climb up the coast as a Pacific hurricane. This means supposedly that he gets a new name, since the Pacific has their own system of hurricane names. Hurricanes have changed names before. Fifi changed her name to Orlene after causing thousands of deaths in Honduras. That was back when they named all hurricanes after women. Himmicanes did not come into existence until 1979. But when they did, that brought up the possibility that a hurricane will undergo a sex change. The latest attempt at this was Himmicane Cesar in 1996, which was going to become Chantal or something like that when he crossed Central America. But some other storm became Chantal instead, and so Cesar merely changed his name to Douglas. But now Larry wants to get into the Pacific. If so, the latest tropical storm in the Pacific is Olaf, near Cabo San Lucas. The next name is Patricia. So will Larry become Patricia? Will a tropical storm change gender? Is Larry transgender?
Then I read in the 12 noon hurricane report that if Larry retains tropical storm strength as he crosses Central America, he will retain the name of Larry in the Pacific, but if he dissipates (I suppose become depression or lower), then regains strength as a tropical storm in the Pacific, then it becomes Patricia, provided another storm hasn't appeared first in the Pacific. Besides, the latest predictions call for Larry to dissipate and stay dissipated. That's that with transgender hurricanes; apparently it won't happen.
2003/10/01
C4ISR
I note that the Department of Defense has a lot of acronyms, such as DOD, TRADOC, METT-TC to name a few. I feel one of the more interesting ones is C4ISR. This acronym is actually growing over the years as if it were a tree! Maybe some of the reason for its growth is that it refers to the most abstruse area of the military: electronics and technology. Initially it was a simple, humble C2. That stood for Command and Control. But then people saw that intelligence was part of this. So now it was C2I. Then computers came along and became an essential part of Army technology. So then it became C3I. And then it was C4I and now C4ISR, which stands for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. I hunted for acronyms that begin with C4I and found a whole bunch including Ts for Targeting or Technology, EW for Electronic Warfare, and I for Information. So I combined these together to form the acronym C3I3T2SCREW, which stands for command, control, communications, information, intelligence, Internet, technology, targeting, surveillance, computers, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. I can just imagine a military unit having a C3I3T2SCREW officer. A what kind of officer?
Another possible acronym is CITRICC CITIES, which omits the W in warfare. That suggests where centers of CITRICC CITIES for the military should be - in places like Naranja, Florida (naranja is Spanish for orange, a citrus fruit). In any case I expect the acronym to continue to grow. It may grow to C6I6T4G3BRAVONEWSTATUS by 2100, at which point they may decide the acronym right there and go back to the old command and control (C2).
I note that the Department of Defense has a lot of acronyms, such as DOD, TRADOC, METT-TC to name a few. I feel one of the more interesting ones is C4ISR. This acronym is actually growing over the years as if it were a tree! Maybe some of the reason for its growth is that it refers to the most abstruse area of the military: electronics and technology. Initially it was a simple, humble C2. That stood for Command and Control. But then people saw that intelligence was part of this. So now it was C2I. Then computers came along and became an essential part of Army technology. So then it became C3I. And then it was C4I and now C4ISR, which stands for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. I hunted for acronyms that begin with C4I and found a whole bunch including Ts for Targeting or Technology, EW for Electronic Warfare, and I for Information. So I combined these together to form the acronym C3I3T2SCREW, which stands for command, control, communications, information, intelligence, Internet, technology, targeting, surveillance, computers, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare. I can just imagine a military unit having a C3I3T2SCREW officer. A what kind of officer?
Another possible acronym is CITRICC CITIES, which omits the W in warfare. That suggests where centers of CITRICC CITIES for the military should be - in places like Naranja, Florida (naranja is Spanish for orange, a citrus fruit). In any case I expect the acronym to continue to grow. It may grow to C6I6T4G3BRAVONEWSTATUS by 2100, at which point they may decide the acronym right there and go back to the old command and control (C2).
2003/09/30
2003: The weird year
This has got to be one of the weirdest years of my life. It's even weirder than 2000 was (see the link). Aren't the weirdness and trust, both public and private, related? You expect something to happen, and instead something else happens. If "it" were a person instead, then you would expect the person to do something, and instead he does something else or doesn't do it. That leads to mistrust. You can't mistrust natural things such as hurricanes, so I am not sure of the term here. In any case it makes you feel more insecure. But it also gives an excuse to do weird things, doesn't it? After all, if the rest of the world is weird, why not be weird yourself. In any case, these are among the events that make this year weird for me:
1. The US makes charges that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and attacks that country and overthrows it, only to discover (so far) no weapons of mass destruction there after all.
2. I was assigned to duty at an installation operations center for a month, where I did almost nothing.
3. Hurricane Isabel came roaring through here at a weird angle.
4. The election in California. This is the intersection of the Weird State with the Weird Year, and so is doubly weird.
5. Rain and snow and cold snaps in every month in the spring, following a year of extreme drought.
6. Four famous people die recently including this year at age 100: Count Basie, George Burns, Bob Hope, and Strom Thurmond.
7. The weirdest of all. A tree leaning against another tree in our yard because of Isabel mysteriously gets chopped down. Nobody has to pay the bill, apparently.
This has got to be one of the weirdest years of my life. It's even weirder than 2000 was (see the link). Aren't the weirdness and trust, both public and private, related? You expect something to happen, and instead something else happens. If "it" were a person instead, then you would expect the person to do something, and instead he does something else or doesn't do it. That leads to mistrust. You can't mistrust natural things such as hurricanes, so I am not sure of the term here. In any case it makes you feel more insecure. But it also gives an excuse to do weird things, doesn't it? After all, if the rest of the world is weird, why not be weird yourself. In any case, these are among the events that make this year weird for me:
1. The US makes charges that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and attacks that country and overthrows it, only to discover (so far) no weapons of mass destruction there after all.
2. I was assigned to duty at an installation operations center for a month, where I did almost nothing.
3. Hurricane Isabel came roaring through here at a weird angle.
4. The election in California. This is the intersection of the Weird State with the Weird Year, and so is doubly weird.
5. Rain and snow and cold snaps in every month in the spring, following a year of extreme drought.
6. Four famous people die recently including this year at age 100: Count Basie, George Burns, Bob Hope, and Strom Thurmond.
7. The weirdest of all. A tree leaning against another tree in our yard because of Isabel mysteriously gets chopped down. Nobody has to pay the bill, apparently.
2003/09/23
Hurricane Damage: Our Fault?
Last week Hurricane Isabel breezed in to North Carolina, Virginia, and other states and caused massive power outages that may take two weeks to fix in some cases. At least this is not like Planeattack where we can say that some group of people caused it. It was a perfectly natural event; a windstorm with 40-60 mph winds that caused a lot of damage to this area. Or was it completely natural?
60 mph winds should not cause that much damage! Just how did Isabel wreak such destruction with only gale-force winds? Firstly, note that just about all damage due to Isabel was due to trees falling down on things: power lines, homes, cars, trailers. Almost none of it in central Virginia was due to direct effects of the winds. Only on the Outer Banks and surrounding areas did that occur. Second, take a look around the neighborhood. Go through the streets and go into the woods. What do you find? Trees that are all by themselves are the ones that fell. Trees that are with other trees are less likely to have fallen. If you go into the forest you find that almost all trees are intact. If there is a wide path through the woods, the path is probably impassable with fallen trees, but the forest is just as before. It is just like it was before the hurricane. It is easy to see why that is the case. Trees around other trees are not subject to the same winds as trees all by themselves, because they protect each other Trees on the edge are more likely to get knocked down by the winds, and isolated trees are even more likely.
Which brings up a human cause for the damage: the developers. The developers, it seems, don't care anything about who lives in the houses afterwards. They just want to throw up houses quick, chop down trees quick, collect their bucks, and leave isolated trees to fall during hurricanes. When building houses, developers need to either leave no trees in the yard or a continuous area of them. If they leave isolated trees, they leave bombs which later on damage the homes they build. So it is not all nature's fault. The developers had a hand in it, too.
Last week Hurricane Isabel breezed in to North Carolina, Virginia, and other states and caused massive power outages that may take two weeks to fix in some cases. At least this is not like Planeattack where we can say that some group of people caused it. It was a perfectly natural event; a windstorm with 40-60 mph winds that caused a lot of damage to this area. Or was it completely natural?
60 mph winds should not cause that much damage! Just how did Isabel wreak such destruction with only gale-force winds? Firstly, note that just about all damage due to Isabel was due to trees falling down on things: power lines, homes, cars, trailers. Almost none of it in central Virginia was due to direct effects of the winds. Only on the Outer Banks and surrounding areas did that occur. Second, take a look around the neighborhood. Go through the streets and go into the woods. What do you find? Trees that are all by themselves are the ones that fell. Trees that are with other trees are less likely to have fallen. If you go into the forest you find that almost all trees are intact. If there is a wide path through the woods, the path is probably impassable with fallen trees, but the forest is just as before. It is just like it was before the hurricane. It is easy to see why that is the case. Trees around other trees are not subject to the same winds as trees all by themselves, because they protect each other Trees on the edge are more likely to get knocked down by the winds, and isolated trees are even more likely.
Which brings up a human cause for the damage: the developers. The developers, it seems, don't care anything about who lives in the houses afterwards. They just want to throw up houses quick, chop down trees quick, collect their bucks, and leave isolated trees to fall during hurricanes. When building houses, developers need to either leave no trees in the yard or a continuous area of them. If they leave isolated trees, they leave bombs which later on damage the homes they build. So it is not all nature's fault. The developers had a hand in it, too.
2003/09/21
Isabel and Dark Skies
Isabel caused a lot of power outages, damage to homes caused by trees, and other destruction. But when it left, it left behind a jewel. I went outside yesterday (2003 September 19) to see the stars, and I saw the darkest, most brilliantly star-studded sky that I have ever seen from my house. About 80-90% of the surrounding area did not have power. Therefore, the sky glow from light pollution was a lot less. I could easily see all the stars of the Little Dipper, and the Milky Way was visible from horizon to horizon. I went out with my telescope to try to see Mars, but I had trouble aligning my telescope, and I think part of it was that it was running on batteries. I did see it eventually and saw a dark stripe across the middle of the Red Planet. It was a real treat seeing a sky so dark from my house and I realize that this is something that occurs only about once every 50 years, when a hurricane as powerful as Isabel comes through here. I know that a teen-age woman named Jennifer Barlow has been trying to get people to turn off their outside lights in order to provide for a dark sky; in particular, declaring a Lights Out day. That was not too successful. It seems that Jennifer couldn't get people to turn off their lights. But Isabel could, and did. What is this society we belong to coming to anyway, when we need a hurricane to be able to see the night sky? I say make every day a Hurricane Isabel day. If you could not turn on an outside light during Isabel, then don't turn it on at all. I know some lights are needed for safety, but these may be far fewer than most people think. If everyone would do this, dark skies and knowledge about astronomy, especially among young people, would return.
Isabel caused a lot of power outages, damage to homes caused by trees, and other destruction. But when it left, it left behind a jewel. I went outside yesterday (2003 September 19) to see the stars, and I saw the darkest, most brilliantly star-studded sky that I have ever seen from my house. About 80-90% of the surrounding area did not have power. Therefore, the sky glow from light pollution was a lot less. I could easily see all the stars of the Little Dipper, and the Milky Way was visible from horizon to horizon. I went out with my telescope to try to see Mars, but I had trouble aligning my telescope, and I think part of it was that it was running on batteries. I did see it eventually and saw a dark stripe across the middle of the Red Planet. It was a real treat seeing a sky so dark from my house and I realize that this is something that occurs only about once every 50 years, when a hurricane as powerful as Isabel comes through here. I know that a teen-age woman named Jennifer Barlow has been trying to get people to turn off their outside lights in order to provide for a dark sky; in particular, declaring a Lights Out day. That was not too successful. It seems that Jennifer couldn't get people to turn off their lights. But Isabel could, and did. What is this society we belong to coming to anyway, when we need a hurricane to be able to see the night sky? I say make every day a Hurricane Isabel day. If you could not turn on an outside light during Isabel, then don't turn it on at all. I know some lights are needed for safety, but these may be far fewer than most people think. If everyone would do this, dark skies and knowledge about astronomy, especially among young people, would return.
Isabel the Windy Storm
This is my last report on Isabel. It was hard to see from radar just where this storm was going. Its wobble first had it seemingly scraping the coast, then at another time, it seemed to be headed straight to Raleigh. But it followed pretty much what the models and NOAA had been saying about what the storm would do. Floyd in 1999 was a rainy and floody storm. Isabel was a windy storm - not too much rain fell.
I was afraid of the high winds that would come here. They were predicting 75 mph winds for Petersburg. They canceled my place of work for two days, so I was at home when it occurred. In the morning it was a gentle but steady breeze. It started to increase by lunchtime. It seemed like it was almost calm at ground level - our maple tree did not sway much, but the tall trees, about six stories high, swayed back and forth. In the afternoon, the wind got much fiercer, blowing twigs off the trees, but then it eased up about 3 pm to 5 pm. They started picking up after 5 pm, and we lost power at 1729 (5:29 pm). At that time the center of the storm was just crossing into Virginia. I did not get any more visual pictures after that; the TV station was broadcasting over radio, and I could hear what the weatherman was saying. At 1852 a roar occurred outside. When it arrived, the trees in our back yard started bowing way to the left at a 45 degree angle or more, and one tree bowed over straight. It was falling down! It landed harmlessly along our back yard boundary, although it missed our telephone box by about two feet. The storm continued from 7 pm to 10 pm, howling and producing more wild bendings of the tree. I heard that the TV station recorded a gust of 63 mph - on the boundary between whole gale force and storm force - now I know what a whole gale is like. Sure enough, it uproots trees. After 10 pm the winds died down considerably, and the rain ebbed to a mere drizzle. Hardly any rain, but the wind was still fast and howling. I went to bed and heard them and it seemed soothing in a way, like there was something going on out there and I was safe in bed - it was the same sort of feeling as when I get when I hear a train pass about two miles way.
The next morning, I went out at 7 pm. Guess what? There was a party going on in the street. The weather was beautiful. There was lots of clear sky and some altostratus clouds, and it was nice and cool. We went out in the neighborhood to see the damage. I found out that a tree had fallen on another tree near our house. On one corner of our house, about 10 feet away, there are three trees and I was afraid that a storm some day would blow them on our house and cause serious damage. So I wanted to get rid of them, but an association board member and a tree surgeon told me that they were sturdy trees - the house would go before them. So I never got around to having them chopped down. Good thing I didn't. One of those trees protected my house from being hit from the tree behind it in my neighbor's yard. If I had had those trees removed, the tree from the neighbor's yard would have damaged my house. I will probably leave them there, then; they are guardian angel trees. The neighborhood had lots of trees down, including an attractive willow. Two houses were damaged by a tree hitting a corner of their house.
Phone service went out with the power, and I figured I would have to wait a day or two for power. But surprise. It came on at 1519 yesterday (2003 September 19), and so did the phone service, but not cable TV. But still I seem to be in a favored class. 325,000 out of 425,000 customers of Virginia Power currently don’t have power. So cable TV (and high-speed Internet) seem to be small potatoes. It does indeed affect me still. The gasoline stations are closed because of lack of power, and those that are open have huge lines at them. This suggests what will happen when the Big Petroleum Shortage Rollover occurs, probably near the end of the decade, from what some geologists say. The banks are closed, and I am afraid to use ATMs for fear they will swallow my card. It was to be an active weekend, but Isabel wiped out four, or possibly six, events that I was maybe going to.
It was the worst storm ever to have hit the area that I lived in. It was worse than Fran and Floyd. Fran gave us a 2.5 hour power outage, and we never lost power during Floyd. The only storm that comes close was the Great Christmas Eve Ice Storm of 1998, which caused a 21-hour power outage at my house. The unusual thing about it is that 16 days before, on 2003 September 8 (it looked like it would hit on the 24th then) I knew that it could hit the East Coast. At that time I saw a virtual storm coming. Well, the virtual storm headed straight towards the real storm and came together right over my head.
Look at my weather page. I had not changed this in a while, but I am going to be converting this to a page on Isabel, including all the blogs that I have made to Blogtrek on this hurricane.
This is my last report on Isabel. It was hard to see from radar just where this storm was going. Its wobble first had it seemingly scraping the coast, then at another time, it seemed to be headed straight to Raleigh. But it followed pretty much what the models and NOAA had been saying about what the storm would do. Floyd in 1999 was a rainy and floody storm. Isabel was a windy storm - not too much rain fell.
I was afraid of the high winds that would come here. They were predicting 75 mph winds for Petersburg. They canceled my place of work for two days, so I was at home when it occurred. In the morning it was a gentle but steady breeze. It started to increase by lunchtime. It seemed like it was almost calm at ground level - our maple tree did not sway much, but the tall trees, about six stories high, swayed back and forth. In the afternoon, the wind got much fiercer, blowing twigs off the trees, but then it eased up about 3 pm to 5 pm. They started picking up after 5 pm, and we lost power at 1729 (5:29 pm). At that time the center of the storm was just crossing into Virginia. I did not get any more visual pictures after that; the TV station was broadcasting over radio, and I could hear what the weatherman was saying. At 1852 a roar occurred outside. When it arrived, the trees in our back yard started bowing way to the left at a 45 degree angle or more, and one tree bowed over straight. It was falling down! It landed harmlessly along our back yard boundary, although it missed our telephone box by about two feet. The storm continued from 7 pm to 10 pm, howling and producing more wild bendings of the tree. I heard that the TV station recorded a gust of 63 mph - on the boundary between whole gale force and storm force - now I know what a whole gale is like. Sure enough, it uproots trees. After 10 pm the winds died down considerably, and the rain ebbed to a mere drizzle. Hardly any rain, but the wind was still fast and howling. I went to bed and heard them and it seemed soothing in a way, like there was something going on out there and I was safe in bed - it was the same sort of feeling as when I get when I hear a train pass about two miles way.
The next morning, I went out at 7 pm. Guess what? There was a party going on in the street. The weather was beautiful. There was lots of clear sky and some altostratus clouds, and it was nice and cool. We went out in the neighborhood to see the damage. I found out that a tree had fallen on another tree near our house. On one corner of our house, about 10 feet away, there are three trees and I was afraid that a storm some day would blow them on our house and cause serious damage. So I wanted to get rid of them, but an association board member and a tree surgeon told me that they were sturdy trees - the house would go before them. So I never got around to having them chopped down. Good thing I didn't. One of those trees protected my house from being hit from the tree behind it in my neighbor's yard. If I had had those trees removed, the tree from the neighbor's yard would have damaged my house. I will probably leave them there, then; they are guardian angel trees. The neighborhood had lots of trees down, including an attractive willow. Two houses were damaged by a tree hitting a corner of their house.
Phone service went out with the power, and I figured I would have to wait a day or two for power. But surprise. It came on at 1519 yesterday (2003 September 19), and so did the phone service, but not cable TV. But still I seem to be in a favored class. 325,000 out of 425,000 customers of Virginia Power currently don’t have power. So cable TV (and high-speed Internet) seem to be small potatoes. It does indeed affect me still. The gasoline stations are closed because of lack of power, and those that are open have huge lines at them. This suggests what will happen when the Big Petroleum Shortage Rollover occurs, probably near the end of the decade, from what some geologists say. The banks are closed, and I am afraid to use ATMs for fear they will swallow my card. It was to be an active weekend, but Isabel wiped out four, or possibly six, events that I was maybe going to.
It was the worst storm ever to have hit the area that I lived in. It was worse than Fran and Floyd. Fran gave us a 2.5 hour power outage, and we never lost power during Floyd. The only storm that comes close was the Great Christmas Eve Ice Storm of 1998, which caused a 21-hour power outage at my house. The unusual thing about it is that 16 days before, on 2003 September 8 (it looked like it would hit on the 24th then) I knew that it could hit the East Coast. At that time I saw a virtual storm coming. Well, the virtual storm headed straight towards the real storm and came together right over my head.
Look at my weather page. I had not changed this in a while, but I am going to be converting this to a page on Isabel, including all the blogs that I have made to Blogtrek on this hurricane.
Update - Wesley Clark for President?
Earlier I had said that if retired general Wesley Clark was going to run, then he should run as an independent or as a Republican, challenging Bush. True, if he did these things, he could cause a Lichtman key to topple, perhaps leading to Bush's defeat. But then I found that Allan Lichtman himself said that Wesley Clark was possibly charismatic. I said earlier that who the Democrats pick does not make any difference, but there is one exception: if he is charismatic, he causes Key 13, challenger charisma, to fall. If he is indeed charismatic, then that topples Key 13. All that is needed to defeat Bush then would be a bad economy. Indeed, Clark seems the ideal candidate in some ways. He has military experience but is opposed to the war in Iraq. He has the same views as former President Clinton in many areas. So Clark appears to be a Clinton opposed to the war in Iraq and without the stained dress. Indeed, he could be charismatic. If he is nominated, then the Bush candidacy would depend even more on keeping the economy perking, for none of the dissatisfaction keys (third party, challenge to nomination, and social unrest) would need to fall to ensure Bush's defeat.
Earlier I had said that if retired general Wesley Clark was going to run, then he should run as an independent or as a Republican, challenging Bush. True, if he did these things, he could cause a Lichtman key to topple, perhaps leading to Bush's defeat. But then I found that Allan Lichtman himself said that Wesley Clark was possibly charismatic. I said earlier that who the Democrats pick does not make any difference, but there is one exception: if he is charismatic, he causes Key 13, challenger charisma, to fall. If he is indeed charismatic, then that topples Key 13. All that is needed to defeat Bush then would be a bad economy. Indeed, Clark seems the ideal candidate in some ways. He has military experience but is opposed to the war in Iraq. He has the same views as former President Clinton in many areas. So Clark appears to be a Clinton opposed to the war in Iraq and without the stained dress. Indeed, he could be charismatic. If he is nominated, then the Bush candidacy would depend even more on keeping the economy perking, for none of the dissatisfaction keys (third party, challenge to nomination, and social unrest) would need to fall to ensure Bush's defeat.
Isabel and nautiluses
On 2003 September 17, Hurricane Isabel changed from its normal spiral galaxy-like shape to a spiral shape reminding me of a nautilus. It was interesting how the
storm looked on radar when it was about 24 hours from landfall. The hurricane looked like a smaller copy of itself with a spiral tail coming from it. This means that the smaller copy looked like an even smaller copy of itself with a tail coming from it. A nautilus has a similar structure, and it is remarked that the ratio of the size of the nautilus to the smaller copy of itself is 1.618033989 or (sqrt(5)+1)/2, the golden ratio. However, Isabel's spiral did not fit that description. I used Paint Shop Pro to make an estimate of the sizes of the smaller copy of Isabel and its tail, and found the ratio to be somewhere between 1.29 and 1.35. This means that the tail is not in a square box, like it is for the nautilus. It is more of a rectangle, and one can build spirals with any kind of a winding ratio. I wonder if this ratio of about 1.32 is common among hurricanes or if anyone has studied it. I tried to estimate the rotation speed. I got first of all about one rotation every 12 hours and then a little while later, it was one every 6 hours. I tried to make a prediction of intensity levels based on this - it would get strong on Thursday afternoon, then weak later in the afternoon, then really strong at night in two separate bands. I was pretty much correct - I observed these things actually happening.
What caused the nautilus structure? I think that all spirals, including spiral galaxies and hurricanes, have this type of structure, although it may look like a disk. Most hurricanes and unbarred spiral galaxies have several spiral arms that make it look like a solid disk. Isabel caught a collection of cold, dry air in its western periphery, and this cold air got into it destroying some spiral arms. Only one was left, and this enables one to see the spiral structure easily. It looked like Isabel had several eyes at one point. In any case, it did not affect the predicted (which turned out to be actual) effects of Isabel, as one of the worst hurricanes of our lives.
On 2003 September 17, Hurricane Isabel changed from its normal spiral galaxy-like shape to a spiral shape reminding me of a nautilus. It was interesting how the
storm looked on radar when it was about 24 hours from landfall. The hurricane looked like a smaller copy of itself with a spiral tail coming from it. This means that the smaller copy looked like an even smaller copy of itself with a tail coming from it. A nautilus has a similar structure, and it is remarked that the ratio of the size of the nautilus to the smaller copy of itself is 1.618033989 or (sqrt(5)+1)/2, the golden ratio. However, Isabel's spiral did not fit that description. I used Paint Shop Pro to make an estimate of the sizes of the smaller copy of Isabel and its tail, and found the ratio to be somewhere between 1.29 and 1.35. This means that the tail is not in a square box, like it is for the nautilus. It is more of a rectangle, and one can build spirals with any kind of a winding ratio. I wonder if this ratio of about 1.32 is common among hurricanes or if anyone has studied it. I tried to estimate the rotation speed. I got first of all about one rotation every 12 hours and then a little while later, it was one every 6 hours. I tried to make a prediction of intensity levels based on this - it would get strong on Thursday afternoon, then weak later in the afternoon, then really strong at night in two separate bands. I was pretty much correct - I observed these things actually happening.
What caused the nautilus structure? I think that all spirals, including spiral galaxies and hurricanes, have this type of structure, although it may look like a disk. Most hurricanes and unbarred spiral galaxies have several spiral arms that make it look like a solid disk. Isabel caught a collection of cold, dry air in its western periphery, and this cold air got into it destroying some spiral arms. Only one was left, and this enables one to see the spiral structure easily. It looked like Isabel had several eyes at one point. In any case, it did not affect the predicted (which turned out to be actual) effects of Isabel, as one of the worst hurricanes of our lives.
2003/09/15
Report 7: Isabel surprises
Just as it seems the models are in agreement and Isabel is headed right up the Chesapeake Bay straight towards the Washington Monument with 120 mph winds, Isabel pulls some surprises. They were talking about some shear affecting her progress. Today she got clobbered by it and her winds, despite an incredible tornado-like 236 mph gust in the clouds, dropped from 145 mph to 125 mph. Her huge eye, as if it suddenly looked into the bright sun, shrunk and shrunk until it vanished. She is predicted to hit another shear tomorrow and become even weaker, but she may grow stronger over the warm Atlantic, but then she may get weaker in coastal waters. It's a "good news, bad news" game. And now she has pulled another surprise tonight. The GFS, ETA, and all of the "SHIPS" runs now show Isabel hitting further south in North Carolina, like at Morehead City, then heading northwestward into western Virginia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The Canadian GEM still shows her shooting up the Chesapeake but not as severe as before.
So what does it mean? Maybe Washington, Baltimore, and especially Hampton Roads are off the hook. It would be headed straight for Richmond, but go south of there and because of crossing over all that land, it weakens to tropical storm force with some hurricane winds over water. There would be no major catastrophic storm; as Gary Gray says, the Atlantic Coast won't fall off into the sea.
But keep alert, because more surprises may be coming. She may head to New England. She may hit South Carolina and produce floods there. She may even get into western Virginia, wheel around, and head back to Philadelphia and New York. Hurricanes are notoriously unpredictable and we should keep alert. Gov Warner was right in calling a state of emergency in Virginia. Hope he can deal with this emergency without the National Guard troops that can't help because they are in Iraq.
Just as it seems the models are in agreement and Isabel is headed right up the Chesapeake Bay straight towards the Washington Monument with 120 mph winds, Isabel pulls some surprises. They were talking about some shear affecting her progress. Today she got clobbered by it and her winds, despite an incredible tornado-like 236 mph gust in the clouds, dropped from 145 mph to 125 mph. Her huge eye, as if it suddenly looked into the bright sun, shrunk and shrunk until it vanished. She is predicted to hit another shear tomorrow and become even weaker, but she may grow stronger over the warm Atlantic, but then she may get weaker in coastal waters. It's a "good news, bad news" game. And now she has pulled another surprise tonight. The GFS, ETA, and all of the "SHIPS" runs now show Isabel hitting further south in North Carolina, like at Morehead City, then heading northwestward into western Virginia, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The Canadian GEM still shows her shooting up the Chesapeake but not as severe as before.
So what does it mean? Maybe Washington, Baltimore, and especially Hampton Roads are off the hook. It would be headed straight for Richmond, but go south of there and because of crossing over all that land, it weakens to tropical storm force with some hurricane winds over water. There would be no major catastrophic storm; as Gary Gray says, the Atlantic Coast won't fall off into the sea.
But keep alert, because more surprises may be coming. She may head to New England. She may hit South Carolina and produce floods there. She may even get into western Virginia, wheel around, and head back to Philadelphia and New York. Hurricanes are notoriously unpredictable and we should keep alert. Gov Warner was right in calling a state of emergency in Virginia. Hope he can deal with this emergency without the National Guard troops that can't help because they are in Iraq.
Predictable/Unpredictable
With situations of the kind that hurricanes posed, it seems that things are either in fine agreement or they are haywire all over the place. There is no middle ground. With Isabel, the first few runs were all over the place: sea, Florida, Baltimore, New England, Nova Scotia. But then after a few days they consistently pointed a finger at North Carolina and Virginia. There was no mildly unpredictable phase. It is either precise enough to predict accurately or you can say absolutely nothing about it.
Similar situations happen in mathematical systems. For example, in estimating a quantity, such as the length of the tropical year in solar days, 365.2422, the first three decimals are just about absolutely accurate. The fourth one is about right, the 2, but it is fuzzy and I have heard estimates that begin with 365.2421. After that the digits are totally unpredictable and depend on the irregular rotation of the earth. Another example would be to observe that if x is the square root of 2, then x = 1 + 1/(1+x) so if one guesses a value for x, substitute it into 1 + 1/(1+x) and make that your revised value of x, one may hope to obtain sqrt(2). If you set x = sqrt(2) you get sqrt(2) back, but if you are off by a little bit, say x = 1.414213562373, then the next few approximations are about this value but they lose a decimal place of accuracy each iteration. Still, it is good enough for practical purposes. When this gets back to the units digits, the whole thing becomes unpredictable. Try it out on a spreadsheet and you see what I mean.
Why does this happen? Both the hurricane and the iteration formula are unstable equilibria. If you are right on the money, you remain so, but if you are not, you eventually get thrown off the track. And that is what happened to the first few predictions for Isabel, 12 days ago.
With situations of the kind that hurricanes posed, it seems that things are either in fine agreement or they are haywire all over the place. There is no middle ground. With Isabel, the first few runs were all over the place: sea, Florida, Baltimore, New England, Nova Scotia. But then after a few days they consistently pointed a finger at North Carolina and Virginia. There was no mildly unpredictable phase. It is either precise enough to predict accurately or you can say absolutely nothing about it.
Similar situations happen in mathematical systems. For example, in estimating a quantity, such as the length of the tropical year in solar days, 365.2422, the first three decimals are just about absolutely accurate. The fourth one is about right, the 2, but it is fuzzy and I have heard estimates that begin with 365.2421. After that the digits are totally unpredictable and depend on the irregular rotation of the earth. Another example would be to observe that if x is the square root of 2, then x = 1 + 1/(1+x) so if one guesses a value for x, substitute it into 1 + 1/(1+x) and make that your revised value of x, one may hope to obtain sqrt(2). If you set x = sqrt(2) you get sqrt(2) back, but if you are off by a little bit, say x = 1.414213562373, then the next few approximations are about this value but they lose a decimal place of accuracy each iteration. Still, it is good enough for practical purposes. When this gets back to the units digits, the whole thing becomes unpredictable. Try it out on a spreadsheet and you see what I mean.
Why does this happen? Both the hurricane and the iteration formula are unstable equilibria. If you are right on the money, you remain so, but if you are not, you eventually get thrown off the track. And that is what happened to the first few predictions for Isabel, 12 days ago.
2003/09/14
Isabel Report 6: National Guard Shortage
I have seen all of the runs of GFS today and they all say pretty much the same thing: Isabel is going to just miss the Outer Banks, come ashore somewhere around Norfolk, ride up the Chesapeake to Baltimore, then head straight for Rochester, NY. The population potentially affected by hurricane force winds is huge: Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, maybe even New York, and then the upstate New York State cities, especially Rochester.
It is apparently not losing its maximum wind speed much, now about 155 mph. The weather forecast seems to say it will be 120 mph at landfall - a Category 3 hurricane. I am not sure what this will mean to places on the periphery of its clouds; I can't find the maps that show predicted wind speeds out to whichever radius. But they are powerful. If they hit the Outer Banks that powerful, it may redraw the geography. It may destroy the Oregon Inlet Bridge, but it may also fill in the inlet, meaning that they would simply pave an at-ground road instead of building a bridge. But another inlet will open up elsewhere, requiring the bridge there, perhaps somewhere on Pea or Hatteras island. That was open before at Pea Island and there is an abandoned bridge there which crossed that inlet.
After the hurricane, rebuilding will need to take place, and usually the National Guard is called out to help. But when we call on the National Guard this time, there may be no Guard we can call on, or inadequate Guard, because these troops are all in Iraq. They may have to borrow from Guards in other states, even though they are short too. It seems to me that we didn't need to pile all those troops in Iraq - they are needed in the states at times.
I have seen all of the runs of GFS today and they all say pretty much the same thing: Isabel is going to just miss the Outer Banks, come ashore somewhere around Norfolk, ride up the Chesapeake to Baltimore, then head straight for Rochester, NY. The population potentially affected by hurricane force winds is huge: Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, maybe even New York, and then the upstate New York State cities, especially Rochester.
It is apparently not losing its maximum wind speed much, now about 155 mph. The weather forecast seems to say it will be 120 mph at landfall - a Category 3 hurricane. I am not sure what this will mean to places on the periphery of its clouds; I can't find the maps that show predicted wind speeds out to whichever radius. But they are powerful. If they hit the Outer Banks that powerful, it may redraw the geography. It may destroy the Oregon Inlet Bridge, but it may also fill in the inlet, meaning that they would simply pave an at-ground road instead of building a bridge. But another inlet will open up elsewhere, requiring the bridge there, perhaps somewhere on Pea or Hatteras island. That was open before at Pea Island and there is an abandoned bridge there which crossed that inlet.
After the hurricane, rebuilding will need to take place, and usually the National Guard is called out to help. But when we call on the National Guard this time, there may be no Guard we can call on, or inadequate Guard, because these troops are all in Iraq. They may have to borrow from Guards in other states, even though they are short too. It seems to me that we didn't need to pile all those troops in Iraq - they are needed in the states at times.
2003/09/13
Isabel looks like Gloria: Report 5
Here are the past few runs' results:
September 12
0Z - Delmarva Peninsula
6Z - Skirting Delmarva, enter at New Jersey
12Z - Delmarva Peninsula, then towards Buffalo, NY
18Z - Delmarva, VA, then towards Buffalo, NY
September 13
0Z - New England
6Z - New Jersey and Long Island
Yesterday the runs were all alike, and they corresponded with other runs too. They imply a landfall somewhere in Eastern Virginia, which had me concerned. Isabel was going to come in at an unusual angle, headed northwest. Then this morning's runs come in saying that it is going to miss Virginia altogether and head to New England, and at 6Z, it came a little closer, heading to Long Island. The other models don't seem to go out far enough, and they are hard to find on the Internet. But I did find GEM, which is a Canadian model, and that one looked really interesting. Isabel would head to Norfolk, skim by Norfolk and Baltimore about 150 miles off shore, then make like it was going out to sea. Then it makes a subtle turn to the Northwest and scores a bulls-eye on New York City, on downtown Manhattan. Considering what happened two years ago, I think New York will be well prepared for this storm if that happens.
But where will it actually go? There is still some variance in the models. I looked at past history and found that Isabel is different from Fran, different from Hugo, different from Floyd. Hugo really concerned me. It hit Charlotte, NC with 85 mph winds, causing power outages to 95% of the city and covering some streets with downed trees, and this is as far inland as Richmond is.
I got a clue this morning from the track. It looks a lot like Gloria in 1985. The path is similar, going north of the Caribbean islands and then heading for the Outer Banks. Like Isabel, Gloria had high winds, up to 150 mph, and a really low pressure besides. As Gloria approached, the winds died down, as Isabel appears to be doing now. Further there was a weak tropical storm named Henri (this was 18 years ago and hurricanes repeat names every 6 years, and 6 divides 18 evenly) just like now that went up the coast before the big storm arrives. Like now, there was a front going across the mid part of the nation, from Wisconsin to eastern Texas.
So to determine where Isabel is going, look at how it differs from Gloria. Gloria's Henri, for instance, developed out of nowhere off South Carolina and then went up the coast in a straight line. 2003's Henri developed in the Gulf of Mexico instead, crossed Florida and petered apart a while in the Atlantic before moving west to hit the coast, then move northward. This does not tell much about where Isabel is going, but we need to look at differences between the storms to give us a clue.
Here are the past few runs' results:
September 12
0Z - Delmarva Peninsula
6Z - Skirting Delmarva, enter at New Jersey
12Z - Delmarva Peninsula, then towards Buffalo, NY
18Z - Delmarva, VA, then towards Buffalo, NY
September 13
0Z - New England
6Z - New Jersey and Long Island
Yesterday the runs were all alike, and they corresponded with other runs too. They imply a landfall somewhere in Eastern Virginia, which had me concerned. Isabel was going to come in at an unusual angle, headed northwest. Then this morning's runs come in saying that it is going to miss Virginia altogether and head to New England, and at 6Z, it came a little closer, heading to Long Island. The other models don't seem to go out far enough, and they are hard to find on the Internet. But I did find GEM, which is a Canadian model, and that one looked really interesting. Isabel would head to Norfolk, skim by Norfolk and Baltimore about 150 miles off shore, then make like it was going out to sea. Then it makes a subtle turn to the Northwest and scores a bulls-eye on New York City, on downtown Manhattan. Considering what happened two years ago, I think New York will be well prepared for this storm if that happens.
But where will it actually go? There is still some variance in the models. I looked at past history and found that Isabel is different from Fran, different from Hugo, different from Floyd. Hugo really concerned me. It hit Charlotte, NC with 85 mph winds, causing power outages to 95% of the city and covering some streets with downed trees, and this is as far inland as Richmond is.
I got a clue this morning from the track. It looks a lot like Gloria in 1985. The path is similar, going north of the Caribbean islands and then heading for the Outer Banks. Like Isabel, Gloria had high winds, up to 150 mph, and a really low pressure besides. As Gloria approached, the winds died down, as Isabel appears to be doing now. Further there was a weak tropical storm named Henri (this was 18 years ago and hurricanes repeat names every 6 years, and 6 divides 18 evenly) just like now that went up the coast before the big storm arrives. Like now, there was a front going across the mid part of the nation, from Wisconsin to eastern Texas.
So to determine where Isabel is going, look at how it differs from Gloria. Gloria's Henri, for instance, developed out of nowhere off South Carolina and then went up the coast in a straight line. 2003's Henri developed in the Gulf of Mexico instead, crossed Florida and petered apart a while in the Atlantic before moving west to hit the coast, then move northward. This does not tell much about where Isabel is going, but we need to look at differences between the storms to give us a clue.
2003/09/11
It's the Economy, Sir
I think I may have a fix for what is going to happen in next year's Presidential election. It looks like Bush is going to be elected, but this is not certain. In fact, in 1991 September, a Lichtman key analysis would have yielded a probable George HW Bush (Daddy Bush?) win. In fact, the two Bushes are in quite similar positions.
Back to 1991. It looked like at this time that George HW Bush would win the election over which Democrat the Democrats could come up with - there were at least six candidates, or "dwarfs". Bush had the Foreign/Military Failure Key 10 (i.e., none happened), the Incumbency Key 3, the Mandate Key 1, the Challenger Charisma Key 13, and the Scandal Key 9. He had lost four keys: the Short Term Economy Key 5, the Policy Key 7, the Long Term Economy Key 6, and the Incumbent Charisma Key 12. There were 4 keys in play: the Short Term Economy Key 5, and a group of three keys I call the "Dissatisfaction" keys, because their falling represents public discontent with the President or his party. These are Social Unrest Key 8, Challenge to Party Nomination Key 2, and Third Party key 4. The economy was not going well at all, with high unemployment and stocks going flat. But it was beginning to pick up. It looked like Bush would win unless the economy stayed sour, losing Key 5, and this caused so much dissatisfaction that one of the Dissatisfaction Keys falls as well. But we all know that is indeed what happened. The economy stayed sour in perception; although the economy was growing again in 1992, the high unemployment rate made people think the economy was ailing. This led to an unknown rich blowhard named Ross Perot, when he entered the race, to get so many votes that he actually led at times. After he lost the lead, the Democratic challenger (Bill Clinton) took the lead and won the election.
In 2003, it looks like the same circumstances prevail. Dubya Bush has won the same keys and lost the same keys as his father in 1991, except that Daddy had Key 10 but not Key 1 and Dubya has Key 1 (result of Republican sweep of 2002 elections) but not Key 10 (because of Planeattack). Exactly the same keys are outstanding. The economy is weak, but starting to grow, as in 1991, and like 1991 has a high unemployment rate. The Democrats have to choose among 9 dwarfs. Like Daddy Bush, Dubya had won a war big in Iraq. So it would seem the same thing can be predicted here: Bush, unless the economy sags, taking another key down with it.
But the situation is not as favorable as 1991's. In 1991 we had Wallfall (1989 Nov 9); in 2003 we have Towerfall (2001 Sept 11). People were talking freedom, with all these countries getting free of dictatorial rule, in 1991, but were talking security out of fear of terrorist attacks in 2003. And the recession and stagnant stock prices have lasted longer now than they had in 1991. Both Bushes won big in Iraq, but after Gulf War I the soldiers went home, but after this year's Gulf War, the soldiers are staying in Iraq for an infinite amount of time. So to me if the economy continues to stay bad, dissatisfaction against Dubya would be greater than against Daddy in 1991-2. It will be amplified by the dissatisfaction caused by the extended tours of duty in Iraq. (When is my honey coming home?) And we know that Daddy lost Key 5 plus another key, namely 4 and lost the election. So it would follow that Dubya would lose the election even more badly; in fact, two dissatisfaction keys may fall. I know that there is nothing now that would turn the dissatisfaction keys, but if the economy continues to sour, I predict that some of these will fall, along with the short term economy key and that would do Dubya in. However, if the economy does perk up, the dissatisfaction keys will stand; with only 4 keys down, Dubya will win.
So it all depends on the economy now. If it gets substantially better, President Bush will win; if it continues to stagnate, he will lose. So watch the markets and the economy data; they are key to the election.
I think I may have a fix for what is going to happen in next year's Presidential election. It looks like Bush is going to be elected, but this is not certain. In fact, in 1991 September, a Lichtman key analysis would have yielded a probable George HW Bush (Daddy Bush?) win. In fact, the two Bushes are in quite similar positions.
Back to 1991. It looked like at this time that George HW Bush would win the election over which Democrat the Democrats could come up with - there were at least six candidates, or "dwarfs". Bush had the Foreign/Military Failure Key 10 (i.e., none happened), the Incumbency Key 3, the Mandate Key 1, the Challenger Charisma Key 13, and the Scandal Key 9. He had lost four keys: the Short Term Economy Key 5, the Policy Key 7, the Long Term Economy Key 6, and the Incumbent Charisma Key 12. There were 4 keys in play: the Short Term Economy Key 5, and a group of three keys I call the "Dissatisfaction" keys, because their falling represents public discontent with the President or his party. These are Social Unrest Key 8, Challenge to Party Nomination Key 2, and Third Party key 4. The economy was not going well at all, with high unemployment and stocks going flat. But it was beginning to pick up. It looked like Bush would win unless the economy stayed sour, losing Key 5, and this caused so much dissatisfaction that one of the Dissatisfaction Keys falls as well. But we all know that is indeed what happened. The economy stayed sour in perception; although the economy was growing again in 1992, the high unemployment rate made people think the economy was ailing. This led to an unknown rich blowhard named Ross Perot, when he entered the race, to get so many votes that he actually led at times. After he lost the lead, the Democratic challenger (Bill Clinton) took the lead and won the election.
In 2003, it looks like the same circumstances prevail. Dubya Bush has won the same keys and lost the same keys as his father in 1991, except that Daddy had Key 10 but not Key 1 and Dubya has Key 1 (result of Republican sweep of 2002 elections) but not Key 10 (because of Planeattack). Exactly the same keys are outstanding. The economy is weak, but starting to grow, as in 1991, and like 1991 has a high unemployment rate. The Democrats have to choose among 9 dwarfs. Like Daddy Bush, Dubya had won a war big in Iraq. So it would seem the same thing can be predicted here: Bush, unless the economy sags, taking another key down with it.
But the situation is not as favorable as 1991's. In 1991 we had Wallfall (1989 Nov 9); in 2003 we have Towerfall (2001 Sept 11). People were talking freedom, with all these countries getting free of dictatorial rule, in 1991, but were talking security out of fear of terrorist attacks in 2003. And the recession and stagnant stock prices have lasted longer now than they had in 1991. Both Bushes won big in Iraq, but after Gulf War I the soldiers went home, but after this year's Gulf War, the soldiers are staying in Iraq for an infinite amount of time. So to me if the economy continues to stay bad, dissatisfaction against Dubya would be greater than against Daddy in 1991-2. It will be amplified by the dissatisfaction caused by the extended tours of duty in Iraq. (When is my honey coming home?) And we know that Daddy lost Key 5 plus another key, namely 4 and lost the election. So it would follow that Dubya would lose the election even more badly; in fact, two dissatisfaction keys may fall. I know that there is nothing now that would turn the dissatisfaction keys, but if the economy continues to sour, I predict that some of these will fall, along with the short term economy key and that would do Dubya in. However, if the economy does perk up, the dissatisfaction keys will stand; with only 4 keys down, Dubya will win.
So it all depends on the economy now. If it gets substantially better, President Bush will win; if it continues to stagnate, he will lose. So watch the markets and the economy data; they are key to the election.
Where is it headed? Isabel report 4
This morning I got a jolt. For the past day or so, the GFS runs have been indicating that it would go by peninsular Florida, then head out to the northeast and hit the Carolinas, and Gary Gray came to that conclusion also. I looked at the GFS run this morning and found to my surprise that it was going to go to New Jersey instead! That would have meant hurricane force winds in New York City. The 12Z run took it to eastern Nova Scotia, and 18Z has it pounding the Canadian Maritimes and causing a major disaster there. So now what? Where is this thing going? It is starting to go east and pop all over the place again.
Tonight I took a look at Gary Gray's take on the storm. He says that the GFS tends to let go of ridges and troughs too soon, and in Isabel's case that would take it farther to the east. The maps indicate a huge high in the north Atlantic that blocks Isabel and makes it go west. He concentrated on other models, including one called ECMWF. So I took a look at that myself. It only goes 6 days and at that time, next Wednesday, it has it out in the middle of the Atlantic, but in a trajectory that would take it to New England. So it sort of agrees with GFS. Gary Gray winds up concluding that it is likely to hit either the Carolinas or New England. So both areas need to watch for this storm.
The other thing I notice about it is Wow!! It is up to 160 mph, making it a Category 5 hurricane. This has me concerned. Sustained 160 mph winds would really cause damage to an area. Even 140 mph winds would, if it should weaken a bit before hitting shore. So that has me concerned about hurricane force (75 mph) winds in my area, which would knock trees down everywhere and cause some roof damage. But it is not the most forceful tropical storm out there now. Typhoon Maemi had 175 mph winds gusting to 205 mph and is forecast to turn northeast and go between Korea and Japan; it is now down to 140 mph.
This morning I got a jolt. For the past day or so, the GFS runs have been indicating that it would go by peninsular Florida, then head out to the northeast and hit the Carolinas, and Gary Gray came to that conclusion also. I looked at the GFS run this morning and found to my surprise that it was going to go to New Jersey instead! That would have meant hurricane force winds in New York City. The 12Z run took it to eastern Nova Scotia, and 18Z has it pounding the Canadian Maritimes and causing a major disaster there. So now what? Where is this thing going? It is starting to go east and pop all over the place again.
Tonight I took a look at Gary Gray's take on the storm. He says that the GFS tends to let go of ridges and troughs too soon, and in Isabel's case that would take it farther to the east. The maps indicate a huge high in the north Atlantic that blocks Isabel and makes it go west. He concentrated on other models, including one called ECMWF. So I took a look at that myself. It only goes 6 days and at that time, next Wednesday, it has it out in the middle of the Atlantic, but in a trajectory that would take it to New England. So it sort of agrees with GFS. Gary Gray winds up concluding that it is likely to hit either the Carolinas or New England. So both areas need to watch for this storm.
The other thing I notice about it is Wow!! It is up to 160 mph, making it a Category 5 hurricane. This has me concerned. Sustained 160 mph winds would really cause damage to an area. Even 140 mph winds would, if it should weaken a bit before hitting shore. So that has me concerned about hurricane force (75 mph) winds in my area, which would knock trees down everywhere and cause some roof damage. But it is not the most forceful tropical storm out there now. Typhoon Maemi had 175 mph winds gusting to 205 mph and is forecast to turn northeast and go between Korea and Japan; it is now down to 140 mph.
2003/09/10
Isabel Report 3: Consistency Developing
Here are the runs since yesterday of GFS, showing where Isabel strikes:
0Z - Charleston, SC
6Z - hanging off the coast of central/southern Florida for 4 days, then head to Charleston, SC
12Z - grazes east coast of Florida, then hits NC and gets into Central Virginia, in one day
18Z - hits Miami, then turns north, scrapes the entire Florida coast, goes off the coast along the Carolinas and Virginia, giving them a deluge.
There is some agreement in these runs now. They aren't popping all over the place, Florida one hour, Nova Scotia the next, sea after that, and so forth. They are settling down on a path towards Florida, then coming up the Southeastern seaboard. So it seems that this is where Isabel is headed. The manner is still undecided; one run hangs it around Miami for 4 days, the others move it quickly. But they agree on Florida, Carolinas, and Virginia, and this is the area that needs to watch the most for Isabel. These areas need to keep abreast of the storm.
Further, I notice another storm coming. Unless some mess somewhere develops a wind and circulation, this will be called Juan. It is forming off the coast of Africa right now and will follow the path of Fabian and Isabel. However, it looks like this one will turn out to sea.
2003 September 10 2124. I just got Gary Gray's analysis. He is making a prediction. Yes, this is 10-12 days out, yet he is making a prediction. He agrees with me that the model runs are showing consistency from run to run and among the rather sparse set of models as well. He says the hurricane will move just north of the Bahamas, turn north, then northeast, then hit the Carolinas. He does not say that Florida will be hit, whereas I say it above. He mentions that the GFS has a solution that almost takes it into the Gulf of Mexico before a ridge catches it, pulls it up the Florida coast, then skirts it by the Carolinas. But other models call for it to be farther east, missing Florida. Apparently Isabel is headed our way; it's going to be like Floyd in 1999. I still say interests in Florida and the Carolinas should watch this storm carefully.
Here are the runs since yesterday of GFS, showing where Isabel strikes:
0Z - Charleston, SC
6Z - hanging off the coast of central/southern Florida for 4 days, then head to Charleston, SC
12Z - grazes east coast of Florida, then hits NC and gets into Central Virginia, in one day
18Z - hits Miami, then turns north, scrapes the entire Florida coast, goes off the coast along the Carolinas and Virginia, giving them a deluge.
There is some agreement in these runs now. They aren't popping all over the place, Florida one hour, Nova Scotia the next, sea after that, and so forth. They are settling down on a path towards Florida, then coming up the Southeastern seaboard. So it seems that this is where Isabel is headed. The manner is still undecided; one run hangs it around Miami for 4 days, the others move it quickly. But they agree on Florida, Carolinas, and Virginia, and this is the area that needs to watch the most for Isabel. These areas need to keep abreast of the storm.
Further, I notice another storm coming. Unless some mess somewhere develops a wind and circulation, this will be called Juan. It is forming off the coast of Africa right now and will follow the path of Fabian and Isabel. However, it looks like this one will turn out to sea.
2003 September 10 2124. I just got Gary Gray's analysis. He is making a prediction. Yes, this is 10-12 days out, yet he is making a prediction. He agrees with me that the model runs are showing consistency from run to run and among the rather sparse set of models as well. He says the hurricane will move just north of the Bahamas, turn north, then northeast, then hit the Carolinas. He does not say that Florida will be hit, whereas I say it above. He mentions that the GFS has a solution that almost takes it into the Gulf of Mexico before a ridge catches it, pulls it up the Florida coast, then skirts it by the Carolinas. But other models call for it to be farther east, missing Florida. Apparently Isabel is headed our way; it's going to be like Floyd in 1999. I still say interests in Florida and the Carolinas should watch this storm carefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)