Category 3 Bingiza hits Madagascar

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 13:25 GMT le 14 février 2011

Share this Blog
6
+

Tropical Cyclone Bingiza roared ashore over Northern Madagascar early today as a dangerous Category 3 hurricane with 115 mph winds. Recent microwave imagery from NASA's TRMM satellite shows that Bingza had a large region of heavy rains of 0.4 - 0.7 inches per hour in the eyewall and inner spiral bands at landfall. Rainfall amounts of up to 8 inches are being predicted along Bingza's path over northern Madagascar for the coming 24 hours by NOAA's automated tropical cyclone rainfall prediction system. Rains of this magnitude are capable of causing dangerous flooding in Madagascar, and the storm's winds and storm surge likely caused serious damage in the moderately populated area where the storm came ashore. Bingiza will weaken today as it traverses the island, but is expected to re-intensify once it emerges over the Mozambique Channel between Africa and Madagascar on Tuesday, where sea surface temperatures are about 0.4°C above average. As the storm skirts the western coast of Madagascar Tuesday and Wednesday, the island will receive additional very heavy rains on its mountainous slopes. Madagascar suffers from extensive deforestation, and a storm like Bingiza is capable of causing very dangerous floods.


Figure 1. True color satellite image of Tropical Cyclone Bingiza as it approached landfall in Madagascar at 07 UTC on February 13, 2011. Image credit: NASA.

Bingiza is just the second tropical cyclone in the Southwest Indian Ocean (west of 90E) during the 2010 - 2011 season; this is an unusually low amount of activity for the basin. The only other storm so far this season has been Tropical Cyclone Abele (29 Nov - 4 Dec 2010), a Category 1 storm that stayed out to sea. Bingiza is the 4th major (Category 3 or stronger) tropical cyclone world-wide this year.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 394 - 344

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

394. iceagecoming
15:43 GMT le 16 février 2011
It is OK, they will gain it back when she freezes over
again. As it has 6 times in the past.
Member Since: 27 janvier 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1134
393. hcubed
16:41 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
Miami and New Orleans Could Lose 10 Percent of Their Land by 2100: Study

"Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists. The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100."

"The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more. The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter -- or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century."

The map below shows just some of the trillions of dollars in real estate that would be submerged with a 1-meter rise (red) and a six-meter rise (yellow). As anyone can see, we'll have four choices: massive levees, massive relocation, hip waders and pirogues, or simple abandonment. :-\ (Article)

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


And in a related bit of news, it appears that even more people are starting to understand the drastic implications of inaction on climate change, and they're beginning to realize it's not alarmism to to say your house is on fire when it's actually on fire:

Climate change will cost investors trillions of dollars

"Continued delay in acting on climate change could cost institutional investors, such as insurers, trillions of dollars over the coming decades, according to research published today.

"The research, conducted by Mercer and a group of leading global investors representing around $2trn in assets under management, examined the potential financial impacts of climate change on investors' portfolios. It identifies a series of pragmatic steps for institutional investors to consider in their strategic asset allocation.

"Among the key findings: by 2030

  • Climate change increases uncertainty for long-term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
  • Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5trn.
  • The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4trn.
  • Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8trn.
  • Increasing allocation to "climate sensitive" assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
  • Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
  • Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
  • The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low-carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.

Article


You do realize, (and the article doesn't mention), that for some areas (and New Orleans in particular) there has been more of a threat from SINKING land in the recent past.

Even if the seas don't rise, parts of New Orleans will be under water because of subsidence (the natural sinking of land).

"...The upshot is that New Orleans has been sinking as much as 3 ft. a century. That's bad news for a city that is already an average of 8 ft. below sea level. Making things worse: sea levels worldwide are rising as much as 3 ft. a century on account of global warming. The lower New Orleans plunges, the worse it will be when the big one hits..."

Link
Member Since: 18 mai 2007 Posts: 289 Comments: 1639
389. jrussiap
15:58 GMT le 15 février 2011
Brilliant post

Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Member Since: 13 juin 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4
388. NRAamy
15:58 GMT le 15 février 2011
SQUAWK!!!!!
Member Since: 24 janvier 2007 Posts: 318 Comments: 31947
387. wunderkidcayman
15:54 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting RitaEvac:




sh*##
Member Since: 13 juin 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 12818
386. RitaEvac
15:48 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting wunderkidcayman:
RitaEvac can you pull up that model 3 days later I want to see what happens thanks


Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9689
384. HouGalv08
15:47 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting hurricanejunky:


+10,000!

What a great post! Very well said and not charged in either direction. The bolded part of the quote is the sentiment I was trying to convey in previous posts.

Now for the charged portion of this post:
It doesn't make sense that with all the talent and time put into climate change research that some dipsticks on Faux News (and other media outlets) says "It's a hoax" and a bunch of people think it is then fact.

It is eerily reminiscent of the Jedi mind trick.
Jedi Mind Trick....sort of like Nazi/Gestapo/Himmler and Germany. Repeat the lie often enough and you get the masses to belive the lie eventually. Faux News(et al) are well versed in doing so (i.e. 2000 thru 2009 especially).
Member Since: 21 juillet 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 384
383. mnsky
15:44 GMT le 15 février 2011
wow!!labels=1 labels=1 labels=1:)
Member Since: 28 juin 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 26
382. RitaEvac
15:41 GMT le 15 février 2011
Should have one more radiational freeze along the gulf coast before winter is up
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9689
380. Orcasystems
15:37 GMT le 15 février 2011
Complete Update





Member Since: 1 octobre 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26516
379. hurricanejunky
15:36 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.


+10,000!

What a great post! Very well said and not charged in either direction. The bolded part of the quote is the sentiment I was trying to convey in previous posts.

Now for the charged portion of this post:
It doesn't make sense that with all the talent and time put into climate change research that some dipsticks on Faux News (and other media outlets) says "It's a hoax" and a bunch of people think it is then fact.

It is eerily reminiscent of the Jedi mind trick.
Member Since: 28 août 2006 Posts: 6 Comments: 2899
378. hydrus
15:36 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting RitaEvac:
Trillions huh, got news for everybody, it' called World War III, and whoever wins will own and rule the world
The GFS has a stormy pattern coming back. One moderate outbreak of colder air around March 1...Link
Member Since: 27 septembre 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 23825
377. RitaEvac
15:35 GMT le 15 février 2011
Future research of GW will not happen, were on our own folks
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9689
375. Ossqss
15:33 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed research that refutes such a projection? Thanks in advance; I really look forward to reading it...


Take your pick,,,,, out>>>

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index.html



Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
374. RitaEvac
15:32 GMT le 15 février 2011
Governments across the globe are gonna bankrupt including yes, the good ol USA, if you're heavily invested in stock I'd pull out and sell ASAP
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9689
371. HouGalv08
15:27 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.
Shhhhhhh.....quiet Neapolitan. You must be quiet and not say such things as you and EstherD did in your observations. I agree with both of you, but I work with a large group of AGW's here in the office, and I can not withstand another discussion to convince my coworkers to pull their heads out of the sand!
Member Since: 21 juillet 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 384
370. atmoaggie
15:27 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:
Not to be overly critical, but satellite rainfall rates are B.S. Convection in tropical cyclones frequently average rainfall rates between 2 and 4 inches per hour. The eye wall of a major hurricane will almost always produce rainfall rates greater than 5 inches per hour. Down here in Florida and points south into the tropics, 1 inch per hour rainfall rates aren't even a big deal at all. That being said, 0.4 to 0.7 isn't even heavy rain really. That's like stratiform heavy rain.


I don't know, I mean its a cool product to understand convective structure that normal satellite can't see. But come on, lets face it, satellites just aren't good at rainfall intensity at all yet.
They aren't bad with the typical mid-latitude cyclone, but the algorithms are based on cloud top temperature. In TCs, they tend to under represent rainfall rates mostly due to the warm core and less cold cloud tops.
Member Since: 16 août 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
369. RitaEvac
15:26 GMT le 15 février 2011
Trillions huh, got news for everybody, it' called World War III, and whoever wins will own and rule the world
Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9689
365. Neapolitan
15:18 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
354

The study is basing its findings on an assumed 8 degree F rise in temp. LOL

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

He needs to work for the IPCC


Can you please provide links to peer-reviewed research that refutes such a projection? Thanks in advance; I really look forward to reading it...
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14166
364. Neapolitan
15:17 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting RecordSeason:
354:

Lol.

I love how they painted the levees orange, as if they wouldn't be undercut and washed away by a few years worth of wave action somewhere around 1 or 1.5 meters...

Don't worry. I'm sure in the 25th and 26th century "they" will have fusion rockets and stuff. They'll be living on mars and crap, and be getting back the first return signals from interstellar probes to stars within a 50ly or so. Global Warming won't even matter.


The nice thing about this is there is a lot of "worthless" land which will suddenly become "priceless" beach front property. It sounds like the plot from a super hero movie.

Venice, Italy has been flooded for centuries and people still live there, and still treat it like it's a resort.

People may laugh if they wish. But that's two articles just this morning talking about the trillions of dollars it's going to take to pay for the effects of climate change. Trillions. And yet many of us console ourselves by saying, "Well, it won't affect me, as I'll be dead by then." That's true, I suppose. But it seems terribly unfair and illogical to kick the can down the road to future generations. We're foolishly allowing the fossil fuel industries to eat our seed corn, so to speak, and there's going to be hell to pay for that. And that's not alarmism; it's just fact.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14166
363. DaytonaBeachWatcher
15:14 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Quoting EstherD:
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.


Very Very well said, and of course, by the way, I agree.
But still, very well said.
Member Since: 29 juin 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1136
362. Ossqss
15:13 GMT le 15 février 2011
354

The study is basing its findings on an assumed 8 degree F rise in temp. LOL

"With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100," said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

He needs to work for the IPCC

Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
361. wunderkidcayman
15:04 GMT le 15 février 2011
RitaEvac can you pull up that model 3 days later I want to see what happens thanks
Member Since: 13 juin 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 12818
358. RitaEvac
14:52 GMT le 15 février 2011
Another arctic outbreak end of the month?

Member Since: 14 juillet 2008 Posts: 2 Comments: 9689
354. Neapolitan
14:13 GMT le 15 février 2011
Miami and New Orleans Could Lose 10 Percent of Their Land by 2100: Study

"Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists. The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100."

"The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more. The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter -- or even more. One meter is about 3 feet. At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century."

The map below shows just some of the trillions of dollars in real estate that would be submerged with a 1-meter rise (red) and a six-meter rise (yellow). As anyone can see, we'll have four choices: massive levees, massive relocation, hip waders and pirogues, or simple abandonment. :-\ (Article)

Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


Click for larger image:

Appropriate tropical weather-related image.


And in a related bit of news, it appears that even more people are starting to understand the drastic implications of inaction on climate change, and they're beginning to realize it's not alarmism to to say your house is on fire when it's actually on fire:

Climate change will cost investors trillions of dollars

"Continued delay in acting on climate change could cost institutional investors, such as insurers, trillions of dollars over the coming decades, according to research published today.

"The research, conducted by Mercer and a group of leading global investors representing around $2trn in assets under management, examined the potential financial impacts of climate change on investors' portfolios. It identifies a series of pragmatic steps for institutional investors to consider in their strategic asset allocation.

"Among the key findings: by 2030
  • Climate change increases uncertainty for long-term institutional investors and as such, needs to be pro-actively managed.
  • Investment opportunities in low carbon technologies could reach $5trn.
  • The cost of impacts on the physical environment, health and food security could exceed $4trn.
  • Climate change related policy changes could increase the cost of carbon emissions by as much as $8trn.
  • Increasing allocation to "climate sensitive" assets will help to mitigate risks and capture new opportunities.
  • Engagement with policy makers is crucial for institutional investors to pro-actively manage the potential costs of delayed and poorly co-ordinated climate policy action.
  • Policy developments at the country level will produce new investment opportunities as well as risks that need to be constantly monitored.
  • The EU and China/East Asia are set to lead investment in low-carbon technology and efficiency improvements over the coming decades.

Article
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14166
352. EstherD
14:07 GMT le 15 février 2011
On reconsideration, I'll venture two thoughts on AGW, then don my asbestos underwear and run and duck for cover.

Many of the bloggers -- on both sides -- don't seem to understand how science works. Science isn't a loose collection of independent facts and theories. It's a network of ideas, and interlocking chains of inference. Theories don't stand or fall because of the truth or falsity of one, or even a few, facts. It's the sum total of all the evidence, for and against, taken together. So by analogy, if we think of the web of evidence as a net, then it's often not hard to poke a few holes in it. Holes that are big enough to let a few of the little fishes escape. But if the interlocking chains of inference are strong enough, then the monster whale usually remains safely trapped within.

I've lived through a number of science controversies in my 60+ years. I'll choose just two: the ozone hole and cold fusion. Both started off with a limited amount of evidence, and just a few supporters. In the case of the theory that the ozone hole was caused by CFC's, as more people looked into the matter, the quantity and quality of evidence kept getting better, while the alternative explanations seemed weaker and less likely. Just the opposite for cold fusion -- the initial work seemed spectacular, but fell apart completely upon closer examination. IMHO, the trajectory for the AGW theory seems more like that for the ozone hole -- the evidence keeps getting better, and the links in the chains of inference can no longer be so easily argued away by resorting to special pleading. If there were a fatal flaw, or an egregious mistake, as with cold fusion, then it probably should have shown itself by now, considering the amount of time and talent directed at finding one.
Member Since: 10 novembre 2009 Posts: 2 Comments: 244
350. TaylorSelseth
13:53 GMT le 15 février 2011
Quoting Jedkins01:


"sigh"

people these days and being so sure of everything.

Scientists based on what we know, believe it to be 4.5 billion years old. But if you think there's anyway of being absolutely sure, You've forgotten the core of science itself.

You have a lot to learn about life.

I do believe the earth is very, very old, based on the evidence I have seen.

Catch my drift?

If you don't, oh well, I tried :)



Sorry, I thought you were spouting creationist nonsense, my bad!
Member Since: 29 août 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324
349. roatangardener
13:53 GMT le 15 février 2011
wow. roatan island has been under a stationery front since sunday morning. rain totals probably near 5-6" sunday, 7-8" yesterday and today it has been pouring since around 4am when i was awakened by thunder and lightning. never in my 24 years in honduras have i seen this in february. never. its like a tropical storm. anyone with any insight as to what is going on and when we should expect this to lift. also, power keeps going on and off due to trees down everywhere and mud slides. info please... roatan gardener
Member Since: 29 octobre 2005 Posts: 55 Comments: 198

Viewing: 394 - 344

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Light Rain
41 ° F
Pluie fine

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Carrot Nose in Danger
Deep Snow in Brookline, MA
Sunset at Fort DeSoto
New Years Day Sunset in Death Valley