3 Category 4 Hurricanes Develop In the Pacific At Once For the First Time 292
Kristine Lofgren writes: For the first time in recorded history, three Category 4 hurricanes were seen in the Pacific Ocean at the same time. Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peek at the future to come. Eric Blake, a specialist with the National Hurricane Center summed it up with a tweet: "Historic central/eastern Pacific outbreak- 3 major hurricanes at once for the first time on record!"
Douchebag Editors (Score:5, Informative)
So
Quick... (Score:5, Funny)
Quick, pay Al Gore money to make this stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stealth Mountain (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/StealthMou... [twitter.com] -- Sneak peak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Southern Pacific: Cyclones
Atlantic/ Caribbean: Hurricanes.
Different names, same phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
I figured it out, because the average TV viewer, and apparently Slashdot user, wouldn't know the difference they are just calling them hurricanes to avoid having to explain it every time.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, didn't understand it. I glossed over and ignored it and it wasn't until the parent comment that I realized it was a misspelling instead of just a really stupid/confusing thing to say.
Re:Douchebag Editors (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
not a grammar nazi, just found it funny
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Race to the bottom, people. This is what it looks like in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, next time I'll worry only about on peak spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be pediatric. Sloppy spelling by people who won't tow the line gives free reign to sloppy thinking.
When you garble the sense of the discussion, you loose it's point.
It's like putting a speed bump in the thought process. A distraction from the actual topic.
Re: (Score:2)
It was an excellent example of Muphry's law [wikipedia.org] in action.
You may or may not believe in karma, but that doesn't seem to stop her from taking her cut.
Peak at the future (Score:5, Funny)
>> Peak at the future
Sounds kinky. Mind if I take a peek?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Peak at the future
Sounds kinky. Mind if I take a peek?
You can peek, please don't poke.
peak/peek is the new your/you're (Score:5, Insightful)
peak/peek is the new your/you're
thanks for editing, samzenpus
Stealth Mountain (Score:2)
This particular typo is especially fun to pun. https://twitter.com/StealthMou... [twitter.com] -- Sneak peak.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy Fuck (Score:2, Insightful)
How long without a major hurricane? And what did the Alarmists say? "Coincidence", "Actually because of Globa Warming", "It's just weather", etc.
Now, 4 show up at once and IT'S CLIMATE CHANGE, OHMYGODWEREGONNADIE!
Note that I said "alarmists" and not scientists because the scientists said nothing of the kind.
This is why Climate Scientists can't have nice things. If they had any sense, they bind and gag these morons like Kristine Lofgren [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That makes for a nice strawman, but if I go looking for temperature data here in Canada most of the country doesn't have records predating 1978-79, because there was no one taking measurements. That's considered to be "all time historical temperature, water, and wind" I'm older then the non-existent records we have here.
Re: (Score:2)
> most of the country doesn't have records predating 1978-79, because there was no one taking measurements
Apart from all those trees, lakes, glaciers, tundra and ice sheets [noaa.gov], you mean...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
6,000 years.
How long have we had satellites watching or even just regular and reliable weather records.
Sheeple. We don't have satellites and never made it to the moon.
Now tell me what "we've never seen before" means. And no,this would not be " the evidence you are looking for".
It means that since God created Man and the Earth 6,000 years ago we have not seen this type of weather. It's a lie though, we had it all the time but never took the time to document it.
Re: (Score:2)
How's that ocean acidification going, 30% more acidic, are you going to tell me that's wrong too.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because a whole bunch of other people did dendochronotic analysis of over 150,000 trees across the whole of the northern hemisphere, correlated that with ice cores, tundra boreholes, fossil lake shorelines and loesses [noaa.gov] across the whole world and found no such thing.
Interestingly, they did find evidence of an incredibly intense solar flare [wikipedia.org] around 774 AD that correlated with an astronomical event recorded in the AngloSaxon Chronicle [yale.edu] and a massive volcanic [wired.com] eruption in 1783 AD that caused killing fogs [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There have been predictions, from scientists, for quite a while now, that we'd have fewer, stronger tropical storms and cyclones ...
Seems to watch what we're seeing, so I'm not sure what you're bitching and crying about.
El Niño in action (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what would be expected from a record El Niño.
Obligatory Chris Farley reference (Score:2)
"El Niño" Chris Farley [youtube.com]
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
The names are confusing you. El Niño causes more Pacific cyclones (both Eastern hurricanes and Western Typhoons). What happens in the Altamtic is just as many hurricanes are created near Africa but as they get near North America the strong winds either push them north or break up the storms so you have very few make landfall at hurricane strength.
I'm a Floridian so I'm always happy when El Niño is there.
Editors suck at their jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pacific tropical activity can be attributed, in part, to impressively warm ocean water.
El Nino is an anomalous, yet periodic, warming of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. For reasons still not well understood, every 2 to 7 years, this patch of ocean warms for a period of 6 to 18 months.
Global warming caused by humans or effects of the not well understood El Nino? How much data do we have on simultaneous storms in the pacific? Assuming it was when the first weather satellite was launched in 1960, we've had 55 years of data which is what, maybe a dozen El Ninos? Is this an outlier? Is this normal? Or is it definitely evidence of human influence on the climate? Perhaps it's just a clickbait article from Weather.com...
Re: (Score:3)
Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.
Thinking people didn't record storm data prior to satellites is like thinking that there was no data on human body temperature until the invention of the digital thermometer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
http://www.stormsurge.noaa.gov... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists admit there are records of hurricanes that made landfall. This is talking about hurricanes developing in the middle of the ocean. There are no records of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are.
In fact, there are records of ocean hurricanes going back to the 17th century. Remember your freshman statistics class? You don't need to record every single data point for the data to be useful. Maybe not as useful as current satellite data, but certainly enough be useful when determining patterns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Blamestorming (Score:2, Interesting)
Last night I had a conversation with someone about kitchen knives, and then just this afternoon I had ANOTHER conversation with a different person about kitchen knives. Two conversations on kitchen knives within 24 hours! That has never happened before. Sure climate change is to blame for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Last night I had a conversation with someone about kitchen knives, and then just this afternoon I had ANOTHER conversation with a different person about kitchen knives. Two conversations on kitchen knives within 24 hours! That has never happened before. Sure climate change is to blame for it.
There was a report in 1850 about a man who had a conversation about kitchen knives. Clearly we have detailed records of kitchen knife conversations going back hundreds of years!
Rooster teeth totally called this one (Score:2)
himmicanes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typhoons, usually.
Traditional reasons for the differences in names between oceans, otherwise, God only knows why we don't just pick a word and stick with it - not like there's a functional difference....
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional reasons for the differences in names between oceans, otherwise, God only knows why we don't just pick a word and stick with it - not like there's a functional difference....
We did. It's called a tropical cyclone [wikipedia.org]. Good for all oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Confirmation bias (Score:2)
Or Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. It was always fun shooting bullets at the barn, and then afterwards painting the targets with the bullseye around each bullet.
Recorded history isn't that long. If you start with a conclusion, then you are always going to find evidence for it.
There is some probability of such events happening with OR without climate change.
SEEN for the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
The implication is that this is the first time this has happened... when in fact it was merely the first time it was SEEN to happen.
A bunch of hurricanes forming out at sea which is something you could only see from space in the first place.
Golf clap for the editors. Nice try.
This is akin to the talks about how "cancer rates are going up in the third world"... or something of that nature when really what is happening is that "DETECTION rates of cancer going up in the third world" You have no idea what the cancer rate was before that.
Here is a fundemental problem we're having in the 21st century. We have more access to data and infomation and analytics than we've had since ever. But the education of people to understand what the data actually means is shockingly poor.
Journalists are just about the worst. Literally kill yourselves if you fail to grasp the distinction between correlation and causation... I'll wait for about 98 percent of you to off yourselves.
But politicians make this mistake all the time... sometimes intentionally which is also unacceptable.
And then you see some scientists doing it either because they're ignorant which is something people don't think scientists can be... but they're demonstrably ignorant when they don't grasp the distinction between causation and correlation which has been shown to be something they didn't understand on many occasions... Completely unacceptable. And then you'll see them sometimes do it intentionally to make their papers sound more interesting.
How many papers should be saying something along the lines of "variable X appears to move in conjunction with variable Y"... as opposed to the all too common "variable X went up because variable Y went up"... Never mind that they were unable to actually establish that anywhere in their paper.
So many papers boil down to something stupid like "Sniffles cause colds because people with more sniffles tend to have colds."
That's correlation, fucktards.
Logic, motherfucker.
Re: (Score:2)
+5 insightful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
A 55 year record! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the first time we've seen four Category 4 hurricanes - in a huge ocean that was never adequately surveyed before weather satellites.
Which were first launched in 1959.
Real coverage - able to see and accurately categorize those big storms - wasn't until the late 1960s to early 1970s.
How cool is that! (Score:2)
California hurricane in the future? (Score:2)
Between all these new hurricanes and unusually warm water off of California [latimes.com], wonder when Southern California will experience it's first hurricane on land?
"For the first time in recorded history... (Score:3)
Wrong. The Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale was only ivpnented in 1971. Satellite clocking of hurricane wind speeds -- the sole metric of that scale -- has only been available since 1977. Before then the only hurricane speed measurements were on land and ships.
Recorded history goes back much farther than that. Like 6,000 years, give or take.
Slashdot, please correct the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you've piqued my interest.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite the piquant wit you've got there.
Re:Thank the Lord... (Score:4, Interesting)
Weather =/= Climate
Or are you going to try and claim that the climatologists were lying the last time they said that over an abnormally cold winter?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If weather supports global warming, then it's evidence of climate change.
If it doesn't, then it's just weather.
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent you're correct. People tend to pay much more attention to the short term immediate things to the detriment of longer term thinking. But I don't think climate scientists themselves fall into that trap. To them it's all just another small chunk of data to be added to the recorded history of weather that they analyze statistically to determine past climate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course they're not the same, otherwise we wouldn't need two words. But claiming that they aren't linked is just silly. The changes to the climate we've experienced so far are already exacerbating extreme weather events, e.g., causing more frequent, stronger, and longer heat waves, increasing the strength of hurricanes, etc.
Smoking isn't the same thing as lung cancer either, but I certainly wouldn't recommend picking up the habit.
Re:Thank the Lord... (Score:4, Insightful)
If there were no Cat4 hurricanes forming, that would be remarkable.
Them not making landfall in the US is largely a matter of luck. And there has been plenty of "extreme weather" in America since 2005, just not a lot of big hurricanes striking land.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's not clear if the Atlantic's below-normal season is related to climate change though.
"Hurricanes respond in complicated ways to their environment," said Timothy Hall, a research scientist who studies hurricanes at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a NASA publication in May. "It's one of the areas of climate change research where reasonable people can still disagree.""
I'm glad the armchair philosopher-troll-climatologists on slashdot know best.
Re: (Score:3)
The Atlantic hurricane seasons tend to be below normal when there is an El Nino as we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
is all just a figment of those libbbbbrul billionaires' imaginations..
Well, TFS really doesn't clear anything up.
Let's review: "weather" is what we call "convective (and evaporative) cooling of the Earth's surface".
* The steeper the temperature gradient in the lower atmosphere (poor insulation), the more convection happens, and the more "interesting" weather we get.
* The shallower the temperature gradient in the lower atmosphere (good insulation, or radiative heating of the upper atmosphere), the less convection happens, and the less "interesting" weather we get.
So, global wa
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Le me be the first to point out that our recorded meteorological data for Pacific hurricanes is pretty much meaningless in terms of geologic time.
Since you are also "meaningless in terms of geologic time", does that mean we should ignore you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who are "we"?
Everyone who's not you.
Do you have a point to make other than trying to position yourself as a spokesperson for unnamed third parties?
Did you not understand the point or are you incapable of answering a question?
If you were trying to ignore me, you are doing a lousy job of it.
A wiser man would have figured out that was not what I was doing.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care about geological time. If antrhogenic climate change screws up my life I care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we just have science instead of hysteria? (Yeah, I know.)
I'm willing to accept the conclusions of science and whether I like them or not is irrelevant.
But I'm tired of on the one hand hearing the equivalents of "mitigating climate change will lower my profits, so climate change can't be real" and on the other hand, "I stubbed my toe, it must be due to climate change."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>
In short - fuck off with your false equivalencies. The stub toes and the lower profits are BOTH a bunch of whinging, fascist cunts who want nothing more than to turn you into means for their own ends.
I'm not understanding your vituperative finale here. I think I stated in my original post that I'm tired of listening to both groups and would rather just hear about the actual science, and a few thoughtful posters put forth some good information---- from which you might learn something.
Re:Hurricane count (Score:5, Insightful)
This is silly. Climate is a huge chaotic system. The FIRST thing you learn about a chaotic system is that if you reduce the energy fed into it, you simplify it and can even calm it down to periodic states. Past a threshold (long passed for climate) you get chaotic flow, which is well understood.
If you increase the energy in the system, it is not mysterious at all what happens. You increase the range and unpredictability of the chaos.
In that light, it is not automatically 'increase the number' of hurricanes, that's merely the most likely outcome. What's really happening is you're increasing the whole range of possible behavior. You're increasing the insanity of the system. Four hurricanes? Try six all on top of each other, then nothing for months, then bam, the largest hurricane in recorded history, completely impossible to cope with. It becomes impossible to make ANY prediction, even to the extent of 'what a hurricane can be'.
This is inherent in the math of chaos and totally inescapable. By its very nature, you will never get 'a nice linear increase in number of hurricanes', instead you get a widening of the possibility space to include stuff that was not possible at all in the 1800s. The amount of energy in the system wouldn't support it, but that's changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great explanation, thanks.
The best description I found for the weather here during the last few years was : weird.
Re: (Score:2)
"Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations"
So what observations would make the climatologists question the basis for this prediction?
Reply to This
Uhhmmm, this should be self-evident but: weather patterns globally decreasing in extremity or at the least not increasing.
You know, the opposite of what we have been observing to date.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, the Pacific has been going crazy, both in terms of Typhoons and Hurricanes.
Re: (Score:2)
And just a few days ago news came out that there weren't any hurricanes and perhaps that was due to climate change.
Climate change is believed to cause more severe El Ninos, which causes more hurricanes in the Eastern Pacific, but fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic, and fewer typhoons in the Western Pacific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is really impressive the way a bunch of Java programmers and tech support guys become smarter than all the climate scientists as soon as there is a story on Slashdot that mentions climate change.
"All those damn scientists are just wrong, and I know this because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and Al Gore is fat."
Re: (Score:2)
I think that story was about either the Atlantic in general, or Florida in particular. A hurricane hasn't made landfall in Florida in something like a decade now, which was pretty similar to the entire east coast. When Sandy hit it was not classified as a hurricane. I heard a climatologist on NPR mentioning how hurricanes don't care about what happened the previous year.
Re: (Score:2)
No major (Cat 3+) hurricane has made landfall on the US mainland since 2005 (Wilma). This is also a record, though not one the warmists li
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's some nice apophenia, you've got going on there. Time to get medicated for schizophrenia, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my favorite Who album.
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe just form an hurriceight
Re:Possible scenario. (Score:4, Insightful)
The universe is not 'skeery', it's following the laws of physics. The scientific debate about whether climate change was real ended in the 1980's because by that point the evidence for it was clear and compelling. Since then there have been billions spent by those with a vested interest in delaying action on climate change to disprove it but thus far they have been unsuccessful. They will likely continue to be unsuccessful because the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming that it's difficult to even make up a semi-plausible theory that can explain everything that we're now observing. Instead they wage their proxy war through the editorial pages and on internet forums.
Re:Possible scenario. (Score:4, Funny)
We can easily compare frequencies and energy levels of events like storms to past measurements in order to see trends over time
80 years ago the only records for hurricanes was when they made landfall, and then only in the heavily populated areas of 1st world countries. If you were in a god damned ship you either sailed the opposite direction as the storm on the horizon or you fucking sank. "Captain, was it a hurricane?" .. "I don't know. I sailed away from it. I'm not fucking retarded."
We only started getting a respectable count of these storms after we started sending satellites up, about 50 years in total, and we still only get detailed reports (wind speeds, etc) on the ones that might hit populated areas.
Using your ignorant strategy, the spike in the number of hurricanes on record that began about 50 years ago is evidence of global warming instead of evidence of satellites.
Use your brain. Imagine it. 80 years ago most ships are still made of wood and are driven by sails. Even the largest ship ever built by that time was tiny by todays standards and would capsize in a hurricane with near certainty. And planes were still made of wood and driven by propellers. Even today our largest military warships, entire carrier battle groups, get the fuck out of the way of hurricanes because they dont want to fucking die. But seemingly in your fucking world detailed records of hurricanes go way back.
Ignorant fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
Use your brain. Imagine it. 80 years ago most ships are still made of wood and are driven by sails.
Um 80 years ago? 1935? Are youuuuuuuu sure?
You might want to look at the kind of ships sunk by U boats in the Battle of the Atlantic a scant 4 years later. Not a lot of wood and sail.
Even the largest ship ever built by that time was tiny by todays standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Laid down 1937. 65,000 tons displacement. The biggest aircraft carriers today top out at 100,000 tons, which is not enough
Re: (Score:2)
Double reply because I can't resist.
I do love how your wildly incorrect facts and figures are bracketed by "use your brain" an "ignorant fuck". I think that adds a certain special something that was otherwise missing from the post.
Can we have a "+5 Slashdot classic" mod for the post?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because the bible/koran/torah/whatever is completely equivalent to a global network of sensors and satellites. Oh not to mention simulations based on the sort of physics completely proven to be correct and that's widely used to successfully design cars, planes, rockets, turbines and so on and so forth.
Believing that the science magically switches off because you don't like the conclusions and/or the pundits involved does not make you a smart, free-thinking individual. It makes you completely superstitio
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Except ships at sea. And the Cat 4 storms probably sank them before they could get the word out.
Ships at see tried really hard not to be close enough to any storm to get any sort of grasp of the wind speed within. The captain didnt say "That storm on the horizon doesn't look that bad from here. Lets sail towards it." That sort of captain gets thrown overboard.
Even today our largest military ships sail directly away from major storms.