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!"
peak/peek is the new your/you're
thanks for editing, samzenpus
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
This is exactly what would be expected from a record El Niño.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
Sigh. Yes, few individual events can be attributed directly to climate change but that doesn't mean that climate change is not playing a role in those events. We can easily compare frequencies and energy levels of events like storms to past measurements in order to see trends over time (more storms of larger size in this context) and that's one way you see the impact of climate change. Kind of like how nobody drops dead immediately after lighting up a cigarette but we have gathered enough statistical evidence to know that smoking makes just about everything about your health worse including chopping years off your life.
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.