Slashdot Mirror
3 Category 4 Hurricanes Develop In the Pacific At Once For the First Time
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!"
Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peak at the future to come. ... this may be the top of a mountain at the future to come? What a bunch of wankers. If any one of us were this incompetent at our jobs, we'd be fired. Some "editors" we have here.
So
>> Peak at the future
Sounds kinky. Mind if I take a peek?
peak/peek is the new your/you're
thanks for editing, samzenpus
quad damage.
Will this peak in the future or once the future happens will have peaked?
Doc Brown, tell is what this means!
Quick, pay Al Gore money to make this stop.
"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?
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
And just a few days ago news came out that there weren't any hurricanes and perhaps that was due to climate change.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I'd be worried if things were going to get worse.
Probably if two of these three collide, they would destructively interfere and tear each other apart. But, every once in a while if the conditions are just right, they could form a global warming MegaSharknado!
Seriously, this is all just hokum anyway. Weather is wildly unpredictable and constantly variable. There will always be something happened that hasn't happened in $ARBITRARYTIMEFRAME. This is not proof of global warming or anything else, other than weather is unpredictable and we don't records that go back very far. The last two winters where I live have been brutal, and arctic sea ice hit an all time record last year as I recall. Why do people keep spouting this nonsense? I guess if you aren't religious and so lose the ability to chalk everything up to Acts of God, it's human nature to invent another fantasy to follow because there always has to be a reason, nothing can ever just be happening at random, that would be a skeery universe!
Well, it may indicate the severity of the ongoing climate disaster,, but the Pacific hurricanes won't hit the USA so they really don't happen.
Couple tropical storms. Quietist I can remember.
Are you sure we can't recover hurricane data from fossil patterns?
This is exactly what would be expected from a record El Niño.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
We haven't had sh!t for storms.
-A sympathetic to disasters, but desperate for any sort of East Coast swell surfer
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...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Hopefully, these hurricanes are heading to California. We need the water — and the shark fins for soup.
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?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
Proverbs 21:19
This reminds me of Pacific Rim, where they keep getting bigger and more frequent. The rift (probably human psychology) can't be nuked. Gotta change our mindset from the inside.
Because the Hurricanes got tired of us and decided to go after other places. We don't get them all the time (i.e. Sandy). Historically, West Palm Beach gets 1 every 11 years, and we had 3 big ones in 2004. Laws of averages and all that.
As evidenced by this link.
I thought they were called hurricanes if they developed in the Atlantic, and something else if they developed in the Pacific.....
History has been recorded now for thousands of years, but it is only thanks to satellite technology, starting in the 70's, that we were able to observe and detect hurricanes over the vast Pacific region. So the use of the phrase "first time in recorded history" is a bit presumptuous, IMHO.
My guess is that this has certainly happened before but nobody able to observe and report it. Except ships at sea. And the Cat 4 storms probably sank them before they could get the word out.
It's Bush's fault!
You don't even need to bring in geological time scales. Until we got the imaging satellites in orbit, the only records we had of storms were when they neared ships or shore.
So, if we're being unduly generous, we can start modern weather watching on February 17, 1959, with the Vanguard 2.
That's what people who've internalized far-right-wing fake-news actually believe. Since the Conservative and conspiracy movements merged, the right-wingers have been absolutely bonkers.
My worry with global warming/climate change is that any vaguely unusual weather will simply be blamed on climate change instead of actually looking for reasons as to why it's happening.
Warm winter? Global warming! Cold winter? Global warming! Windy? Global warming! Calm? Global warming. Wet? Global warming!. Cold? Global warming!
With a system as chaotic as weather we can't simply explain away all future weather by simply saying "global warming did it!" just like we don't explain it by saying "god did it!"
Yes the weather on earth is going to get worse and more chaotic due to what we've done to it but using it as a blanket statement without any fact behind it is blatantly misleading and nothing but an attempt to get headlines and eyeballs.
Who are "we"? Do you have a point to make other than trying to position yourself as a spokesperson for unnamed third parties? If you were trying to ignore me, you are doing a lousy job of it.
Yes
Somewhere, right now, Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012) is masturbating furiously to the weather channel.
That's some nice apophenia, you've got going on there. Time to get medicated for schizophrenia, I think.
Can we just have science instead of hysteria?
OK. Here's a summary of number of hurricanes and tropical storms, as of 2011 (about the latest good data I can find):
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201113
I'm not sure I can distinguish a trend from the noise.
But on the other hand, I haven't ever seen a prediction telling me that I should be able to see the trend. Here's what NOAA says:
www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity."
And here what the Center for Climate and Energy Impacts says:
www.c2es.org/science-impacts/extreme-weather/hurricanes
"It’s unclear whether climate change will increase or decrease the number of hurricanes, but warmer ocean surface temperatures and higher sea levels are expected to intensify their impacts."
"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.
"...climate change will produce more extreme weather situations..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... So, explain to me why Florida's last hurricane was ten years ago???
Because Florida isn't the world.
burn.tiff
Apparently you nominated yourself for that position.
If weather supports global warming, then it's evidence of climate change.
If it doesn't, then it's just weather.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
1. Make dire prediction
2. Wait long enough
3. Say, "See? I told you so!"
Um, I said "let ME be the first ...". Not " let US ..." Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suite.
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 warming caused by the Sun getting "hotter" will cause bad weather, as that's more heat at the surface and (nearly) the same temperature at the top of the atmosphere, so a steeper gradient. Global warming caused by any sort of atmospheric change, making the atmosphere effectively a better insulator, means boring weather.
What we've seen the last 10 years has been 10 straight years of record-uninteresting hurricane seasons, and satellite temperature data showing warming only in the lower atmosphere and actually cooling in the upper atmosphere. That all holds together, and is IMO the first real, non-doctored evidence of an atmospheric effect on global warming. The theory that the atmosphere has been getting worse at about the same rate the Sun has been "cooling" (in its usual cycle) isn't crazy, as convenient as it may be as a "rescue our theory" ass-pull.
Worse weather would be expected as the Sun cycles out of it's recent lull in activity, but worse weather is not a sign of man-made global warming: rather, the opposite.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations"
Wait-- does this mean "Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more (extreme weather situations)" or does it mean "Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce (more extreme) (weather situations)"
?
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.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
I didn't even know APK posted about something other than hosts files.
Not sure why this is "flamebait". It's a very precise summary of the situation. Indeed, you probably don't need to go back in geologic time to find the record is extremely tenuous. A few hundred years would do.
Don't you hate asses who moderate the truth as flamebait? Non-scientific fanatics.
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.
I don't care about geological time. If antrhogenic climate change screws up my life I care.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I'm neither a far-right wing nutjob nor a conspiracy theorist. Weather patterns have, for millenia, changed every so often. It's cyclic. We are actually aiming for a cold spell if the scientists are correct. We are actually overdue for a similar mini iceage as seen a few hundred years ago. If this happens, the ice will reform on the poles and the "oh noes!" people predicting seawater flooding the world over will be disappointed. It's cyclic. Full stop.
https://twitter.com/StealthMou... -- Sneak peak.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
This particular typo is especially fun to pun. https://twitter.com/StealthMou... -- Sneak peak.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Citations, please.
Geez, how many cat 4 and even cat 5 hurricanes out over the middle of the ocean weaken before they hit land? It sure seems every few years we're told of these "monster storm of century", and they weaken before they hit land.
Maybe such strong storms have always been there out in the middle of the ocean, but we just didn't have the means to measure them, if we even knew they existed....
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Unless you are Obama, for whom history began on January 20, 2009, the day on which the rise of the seas was stopped and the healing of the earth begun
Have a Day!
The East Coast is in the "longest hurricane drought in recorded history," something the "climatologists" got 100% wrong when they attributed Katrina to "global warming" and predicted "more extreme weather." The media, their fear-mongering "science correspondents" with their AGW group-think and their preferred celebrity climatologists were wrong then and they're wrong now. We can no more explain why no hurricane has made landfall in the Gulf in 10 years than we can explain why their is an outlier sequence in the Pacific today.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"3 major hurricanes at once for the first time on record!" See the key words "on record". Before we started keeping records the climate was always the same never changing. We should have never started keeping records.That way the climate would never be changing. Cause everyone knows the climate never changed the world was perfect.
If your life gets screwed up, it will almost certainly not be because the weather is slightly warmer. Cancer, car accidents, heart disease, diabetes, drowning, a cheating spouse, drug addiction, etc. are all far, far more likely than the doom and gloom the alarmists are spouting. Anthropogenic is the word you are looking for.
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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
No, it's true. If the goal was to reduce emissions the solution is to cap, not cap and trade.
That was my favorite Who album.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Its true, I did some tree ring analysis of 3 trees from Siberia and thats what they showed.
You're aware that there *were* extreme weather events in that time period right? They just didn't hit land.
Would you claim that it hasn't rained in years because every time it did you were indoors?
Are you sick of this constant 'climate change' bullshit? Every. Single. Day.
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', so the fraudsters responsible for this crap renamed it 'climate change', and then started using that term instead of 'catastrophic man-made global warming', hoping you would think it means the same thing - when obviously it DOESN'T. Why would they use the meaningless term 'climate change' instead of 'catastrophic man-made global warming', if 'global warming' was actually real, and caused by man?
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Cue the usual conga line of denialist morons, same old debunked paranoid claims.
I used to respond with facts, but denialists are so delusional they don't care about facts.
They trot out the ludicrous "the scientists are corrupt" line as it's the only way they can make their utter denial of the obvious in any way tenable.
The real shock is one expects that posters here would be of reasonable intelligence, all that proves is you can be intelligent and utterly stupid at the same time.
Forget geological time. Until the mid-60's very little hurricane data was collected. But the point is well taken, it's rare to see three Cat 4 hurricanes in the Pacific at the same time, but it could have happened several times in the 20th century and we had no way of knowing.
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.
The Atlantic hurricane seasons tend to be below normal when there is an El Nino as we have now.
How cool is that! Last week I farted, and now there are hurricanes. I think that's called the Lorenz Butterfly Effect.
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.
"His name was James Damore."
These hurricanes now come in family editions. How about Fred, Wilma, and Barney?
"El Niño" Chris Farley
You're welcome.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
You are aware that we have always had "extreme" weather events and will continue to have extreme weather events in the future.The prediction of more extreme weather included a far larger number of storms and with that far larger number more reaching the States. Neither materialized. That is, the number of extreme weather events in the Atlantic did not increase.
Yes, we predict more of the bigger storms and when they don't materialize it is a "simple" matter of weather being complex. Yeah, we get it, it is so complex you can't accurately predict it so shut up about it already.
Between all these new hurricanes and unusually warm water off of California, wonder when Southern California will experience it's first hurricane on land?
...three Category 4 hurricanes..."
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.
"Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations"
Instead, it was less extreme. No hurricane has made landfall in the US in over a decade. That's actually fairly uncommon.
Note it's not "worse".
Note they've never made a prediction that came true, ever. Check for yourself
Need Mercedes parts ?
More heat = more energy = more extreme weather.
All it contained was hate and loathing for people smarter than the poster. And, I guess, also for those who modded it up.
Or is it just something that you really don't understand?
Climate is made of weather.
Get it now?
Now, what weather does a tropical climate have? Now, what weather does a temperate climate have? How do you tell with one weather event which climate you are in? Now, how do you tell which CLIMATE you are experiencing?
You, however, are deliberately clueless on this issue and wish to remain so and will continue to whine and bitch and moan all so you don't have to feel guilty for anything. Because you're a precious special little flower and we're not allowed to hurt your feelings or offend you by something so gauche as "blaming" you for something.
Not what some insane fantasist IMAGINES he is saying.
There isn't one single tree in the proxy reconstruction.
"How long have we had the capability of even "seeing" this?" Ever since the development of the eye.
I thought the ones in the Pacific were typhoons?
Sandy was 2 years ago. I worked an emergency management center during the storm.
Not every hurricane hits the gulf, they are kind of random where they hit.
The hurricane drought is caused by the sun being in its calm period from what I have read.
BUT, weather should not be used as proof of or against global warming, and it really irritates me to see people defending global warming by saying that this cold winter the East Coast just had was weather, but the heavy hurricane season is caused by climate.
Hurricanes are being better tracked since the satellite era, that doesn't mean they are more numerous, or that it is somehow strange. We just don't have records of hurricanes back far enough, they used to only be known when they hit landfall or when we lost boats to them, not way out in the middle of the ocean.
This is actually the same problem with the gun control fanatics. Gun crime has been falling steadily since the 70s, mostly attributed to the removal of lead in gasoline. Trying to talk about how many mass shootings are happening now, and not understanding that these things always happened, is silly, gun crime is way down, just look at the statistics, it just didn't make nationwide news previously.
It is all lying with statistics, and it is intellectually lazy.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Long term weather trends = climate.
Part of the job of climate scientists is to track those trends and point to their causes, whether it be climate change or something else.
Just like your job is to post ignorant denier BS.
Hurricanes, while being a weather event, are typically of sufficient size and duration, and affect the regional (and even global) climate sufficiently, to also classify themselves as climatological events, both being caused by climate conditions, and themselves affecting those conditions.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Climate change will mean fewer hurricanes NOT more; unless it's global cooling you're worrying about, not global warming. Don't take some fascist journalists word; ask a climatologist!
To be followed by, I dunno, the end of weather?
So this even with the 3 hurricanes is a long term weather trend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy
*event