Please Read... Hurricane misunderstandings....

[FritzPaul]

Kudos Eric

[hesperhys]

Not sure what you're trying to say here... a hurricane *is* a very distinct entity... it *is* an *it*. The simple fact that we give this phenomenon a special name (hurricane) should be proof enough of this... Moreover, a hurricane is not just a "bubble" floating in a stream. For one thing, "bubbles, don't have self-sustaining angular momentum, because they don't have convective cores... the motion of a hurricane may be largely -- even entirely -- determined by extrinsic forces, but that does not mean that it is not a a distinct entity. No it is not a brick (which, by the way, suspended in a fluid of sufficient density would float along as passively as a bubble in a stream), but because it has/moves MASS, it is capable of destroying other things that have mass. How could it be otherwise?

Water doesn't "contain" mass.. water *has* mass... water *is* a form of mass... so are the gases that make up air. The thing that is special about a hurricane is that it is a whirling dervish of water and air -- ENERGY propelling MASS-- that has the power to destroy other things that have mass.

[Wthrman13]

Indeed, this is an oft misunderstood but crucial thing to understand about certain atmospheric processes, especially hurricanes, tornadoes, and other strong atmospheric vortices. We have the illusion that they are "solid" entities because they are so coherent. A hurricane is a self-sustaining, coherent, convective vortex. The matter that is inside a hurricane one moment is not the same matter that is there just a few hours later. It is continually getting pumped through the storm, and either goes out the top through the outflow, or falls out as rain.

If anything, the average density of a hurricane at any given instant is probably less than the surrounding atmosphere, because hurricanes are low-pressure warm-core systems, and thus contain air that is less dense than the surrounding atmosphere on average. Now, of course, the liquid water mass inside a hurricane will offset that somewhat. This would be an interesting exercise. Take any given moment in time, assume that the surrounding environment of the hurricane has a prescribed representative vertical structure in the temperature, pressure, and humidity fields (use a nearby sounding or something). Estimate what the average vertical structure of these same variables are inside the hurricane (you would have to also make estimates of the liquid water content in both the clouds and in the rain fields, this would be the trickiest part). Then, estimate the horizontal size of the hurricane, and do a calculation of the average density (including both water vapor, liquid water, and air), averaging both horizontally and vertically. Compare this to the average density of the surrounding atmosphere. It will be interesting to see which is greater. Of course, this would be a curiousity only, because the original point still stands: hurricanes are fluidic, dynamic entities in continual flux, not "objects" in the traditional sense.

[hesperhys]

I have to confess that I've never heard anyone describe a hurricane or a tornado as a "solid" entity -- can you produce any examples from the popular press (e.g.) of this?

[hesperhys]

One more question (honestly, just trying to understand your position, not trying to be difficult)...

Define *object*... for example, your description of a hurricane -- "fluidic, dynamic entities in continual flux" -- would seem to (broadly) fit an amoeba [not a vortex, but fluidic]... Is an amoeba an object? Is a cat an object (it is dynamic, in continual flux, and, some would argue, fluidic...)?

The same is true for other organisms -- on variously faster or slower timescales for replacement of constituent molecules...

I'd just like to know what a hurricane is *not*, when you tell me it's not an "object."

[Novelty's Worn Off]

Very intresting....steering components are general until such time (I guess) they affect a turn (or not), then they become specific. Present conditions, such as they are, do they depend on how much weight or emphasis is placed where? The path of least resistance can or cannot be determined exactly? At what point could you say that the influence has shifted?

[Greg]

An object is defined as something that has properties.
A hurricane has many properties such as diameter, wind speed, pressure.

Other areas of the atmosphere do not have all of these properties, as a group of properties.

It's not wrong to call a hurricane an object, once you define what an object is.

[hesperhys]

An object is defined as something that has properties.
A hurricane has many properties such as diameter, wind speed, pressure.

Other areas of the atmosphere do not have all of these properties, as a group of properties.

It's not wrong to call a hurricane an object, once you define what an object is.

Sounds reasonable to me, but let's see what the weatherboys have to say... perhaps they are parroting (misparroting?) something from an intro textboook...

Have YOU ever heard anyone describe a hurricane as a SOLID OBJECT... me neither...

[Greg]

Nobody is calling a hurricane a "solid" object.

I am only saying that it is an object. I am not arguing the fluid dynamics explaination at all.

[hesperhys]

I'm not arguing with you, Greg... I'm waiting to hear an explanation from the weatherboys as to what is -- and what isn't -- an "object"...

According to them, a hurricane isn't an "object"... I'd just like to know what they regard as an "object", so as to know whether or not I agree with them...

[Lockhart]

I think they're saying "solid object" instead of "object". An object is merely something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or touch; a material thing. By that (straight from the dictionary) amazingly vague definition, temperature and wind are objects. You can feel heat and wind--so I guess they're "objects" by the dictionary definition. That doesn't mean they're "objects" by the definition anyone commonly means.

[hesperhys]

Thanks, but let's hear it from the horse's mouth...

[hesperhys]

Apparently these guys are not prepared to defend their statements... well, OK, a pop quiz on a Friday probably isn't fair... let's give them time to look at their notes before they respond...

[ericinmia]

Not sure what you're trying to say here... a hurricane *is* a very distinct entity... it *is* an *it*. The simple fact that we give this phenomenon a special name (hurricane) should be proof enough of this... Moreover, a hurricane is not just a "bubble" floating in a stream. For one thing, "bubbles, don't have self-sustaining angular momentum, because they don't have convective cores... the motion of a hurricane may be largely -- even entirely -- determined by extrinsic forces, but that does not mean that it is not a a distinct entity. No it is not a brick (which, by the way, suspended in a fluid of sufficient density would float along as passively as a bubble in a stream), but because it has/moves MASS, it is capable of destroying other things that have mass. How could it be otherwise?

Water doesn't "contain" mass.. water *has* mass... water *is* a form of mass... so are the gases that make up air. The thing that is special about a hurricane is that it is a whirling dervish of water and air -- ENERGY propelling MASS-- that has the power to destroy other things that have mass.

LOL, i was trying to keep it simple. The reason the analogy of the bubbles is used: "Small Bubbles can group, join as one, and even seperate... an object of dense mass such as a brick can not do any of this under normal conditions or circumstances."

-Wthrman13 nice addition... What you write is very true about the continual flux of a hurricanes density based on the flux of water and pressure contents.

-hesperhys... You appear to be a college student by the way you talk. You definately have the know it all persistant attitude... relax this post was not made to debate fluid dynamics, physics, etc. I am trying to clear a simple misconception.
People on this board refer to "This hurricane being so strong it needs a REALLY strong trough or ridge to control it." that is false. Read the original post concerning the answer. They talk about hurricanes not being able to make sharp turns, because they have so much inertia... completely false. This is the tip of the iceburg of comments contained withing this misconception.
A endlessly changing light fluidic entity such as a hurricane does not have a continual density. Its temporary density at any given point is still not fully representitave of the whole, thus it does not have the typical mass structure allowing it to have great inertia. Sure each seperate molocule of moisture has mass and inertia, but together you can not group them as one solid dense inertial "object" An enitity such as a hurricane or any such system down to the simplest cloud respond to physics differently than does your "Brick in a dense liquid" By your comparison of the brick, I understand you still don't grasp this concept very well. A Brick has a solid VERY dense structure. To effect the brick through different forms of physics it takes much effort. A hurricane is a loosely dense combination of low pressure air and water molocules... sometimes birds, and other animals get stuck in them too, but lets make this simple and leave them out. They do not retain density, even if you could pick one up in the palm of your hand for example, you could not throw it... It would fall apart before it left your palm.
For the definition of an object... well i sort of summed it up above, however, greg grabbed onto it also.
As i am reading your posts one by one, and writing you this late night response (i just woke up 2:50am) i am discovering a "know it all" personallity from you hesperhys. If you happen to know so much more about climitalogical fluid dynamics I challenge you to off the top of your head in a matter of a couple minutes write something better, it would benefit us all, and i would be interested to hear your side. It is easy to critique someone on symantics like the definition of an "object." Had this been a thesis paper, sure, I agree that would have been an error. This is not, and 90+% of this board would not take the time to understand the complexity of a thesis on this subject.
Lastly you keep refering to me as "they" lol, last i checked i am not suffering schizophrenia, but hey you never know.

Summary:
A hurricane is an assembly of water molecules in an exhaust based central vortex, which creates a low pressure inside the system. The hurricane itself has no "total" inertia, in the general sense. The individual water molecules spinning by effect of coriolis of the northern hempisphere, do have their own individual inertia... thus they change direction continuously creating a counter-clockwise rotation. I am not trying to say it is imposible to calculate a hurricanes inertia. It is possible; but, it will never be precise. It will also be very hard to calculate the correct density to base your calculations off of, it will be very difficult to determine the inertia of the molecules considering they are ever changing, and have different direction, thus complicating the whole "objects" inertia. And possibly most difficult and most flawed would be your final calculation of the storms final tangential and angular velocity considering the ever changing latitude.
Newton refered to "objects" like hurricanes as bodies, mabye you like that word better. If you care to learn more, lookup some of these words, and google... Ordinary Newtonian laws of bodies on rotational frame of reference. That should get you going in the right path, for that is the physics of how a hurricane would move.

I am too tired to debate this with you to nauseum.
If I made some errors above, scientific or grammatical, cut me some slack. I just awoke attempted to answer you, and am going back to bed. I hope I was able to help you and any others. Damn... i just realized the summary was not really that... oops

Oh yeah and to answer the other question...
Hurricanes will go were the path of least resistance, or flow is going. They do not fight it. It sometimes may appear so, however, it is simply two different "flows" for the lack of a better term acting in perpendicular motions. The stronger flow eventually prevails.

Alright i'm off to bed before I write something too stupid, in due to not being fully awake.
Sorry for the extremely absent minded post...
Stay safe!
-Eric

[FloridaHawk82]

Hesperhys = just-got-schooled

Eric, your information is very interesting and easy-to-understand for us non-Mets...

I've read >1000 posts here (many very good posts from some presumably met-educated types), and I understand 10 times more about hurricane dynamics than I did before reading this thread.

Thanks.

[HeartofNC]

Don't make me take a test!

[Wthrman13]

Apparently these guys are not prepared to defend their statements... well, OK, a pop quiz on a Friday probably isn't fair... let's give them time to look at their notes before they respond...

I'll respond later because I have to go in to the office now, but I'd just like to let you know that your childish taunts and namecalling (i.e. "weatherboys") is not appreciated and is not likely to get you into "our" good graces. We were simply trying to discuss a common issue that pops up when the subject of hurricanes comes up. You took this, apparently, as a challenge to your intelligence, which it wasn't intended to be. When I said "solid object", I meant that people often act as if hurricanes *behaved* like them, not that they were actually described as solid objects by the people involved. By this I mean statements such as "That hurricane is so huge, there's no way it can make that sharp north turn!" Or, "there's no way it will slow down that fast like the NHC thinks, it's got too much inertia". Such statements are wrongheaded, based on a misperception, which is what has been addressed in this thread.

[hesperhys]

I keep reading posts in 80% of the threads referring to hurricanes as objects and masses. It is neither.

The statement above is I responded to. I found it condescending and inaccurate.

ericinmia -- Despite all of the ad hominem nonsense and misconstrual of my statements in your rambling reply above, you still haven't answered the straightforward question I asked: what is an object and what does it have that a hurricane lacks?

Wthrman13 -- I'm sorry if my flip comment offended you. I'm sure that there are persons who misunderstand hurricanes in the way that you described... but I do not think that anywhere near 80% of the posts here reflect such misunderstanding.

[Wthrman13]

Ok, let's try to keep this under control. The debate here is not over what the definition of an "object" is. That's a purely philosophical question of absolutely no relevance to this discussion. The question is, whether hurricanes behave as if they were "solid" objects of a comparable size. That is, do their movements obey Newtonian mechanics in the same way that a solid or semi-solid object does? The answer is no, not really. Now, to be sure, the matter within hurricanes, including the air and water elements, do indeed obey Newtonian mechanics. In fact, the equations that describe atmospheric motions are nothing more than good old F=ma at heart, it's just that they get incredibly complicated when cast into a form that describes the motion of a continuous fluid. However, hurricanes *as a whole distinct entity* in their horizontal movements do not obey these laws, *as if* they were a large, lumbering freight train, or some such comparable object. Thus hurricanes can slow down to a crawl in a matter of hours, stop on a dime, or take sharp right or left turns. Not only can they do these things, they have been shown to repeatedly do them all the time. And, to be fair, it's not only amateurs with no meteorological training that think that a hurricane's "momentum" somehow precludes this, but I've seen many degreed meteorologists who should know better repeating this error. So, I hope this serves to clear some of this argument up.

BTW, sure, go ahead and call a hurricane an object, I won't disagree with you.