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
Quick, pay Al Gore money to make this stop.
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
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!
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?
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
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."
TIL: "Quietism is the name given (especially in Roman Catholic Church theology) to a set of Christian beliefs that rose in popularity in through France, Italy, and Spain during the late 1670s and 1680s, were particularly associated with the writings of Miguel de Molinos (and subsequently François Malaval and Madame Guyon), and which were condemned as heresy by Pope Innocent XI in the papal bull Coelestis Pastor of 1687. The “Quietist” heresy was seen to consist of wrongly elevating ‘contemplation’ over ‘meditation’, intellectual stillness over vocal prayer, and interior passivity over pious action in an account of mystical prayer, spiritual growth and union with God (one in which, the accusation ran, there existed the possibility of achieving a sinless state and union with the Christian Godhead)."
How this relates to the climate and/or weather, I do not know, but "quietist" is actually a thing.
There have been very few Atlantic hurricanes this season - but that's not entirely unusual.
Meanwhile, the Pacific has been going crazy, both in terms of Typhoons and Hurricanes.
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
Next month on SyFy: Sharknado 4 - Sharkicane!
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.
As evidenced by this link.
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.
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.
Maybe you should stop destroying your dams/reservoirs when your entire farming system is based on irrigation. You know, because you built farmland in the desert.
"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.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
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.
Apparently you nominated yourself for that position.
Nice false equivalency...problem is the stub the toe crowd isn't complaining it's too hard to address climate change and tries to come up with innovative solutions. The lower my profits crowd, just doesn't want do anything about it.
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!"
And these are Typhoons...you know storms in the Pacific. You see climate affects the entire globe, not just your region....
Or we can stop farming in the desert and have plenty of water for people. Problem solved!
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.
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!
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.
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+
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.
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!
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.
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
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?
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."
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.
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 like to talk about. After 2005, the doomsayers were predicting tons of (east coast) major hurricanes being the new normal.
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."
>
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.
"El Niño" Chris Farley
You're welcome.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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 across the whole world and found no such thing.
Interestingly, they did find evidence of an incredibly intense solar flare around 774 AD that correlated with an astronomical event recorded in the AngloSaxon Chronicle and a massive volcanic eruption in 1783 AD that caused killing fogs of sulphurous acid across Europe and North America, but, well, that's science for you.
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.
However, such an event is not unusual, something deniers do not want to understand.
Because trying leads to failing and failing leads to proof they're an idiot. That leads to sadness, and they aren't supposed to feel sad about themselves, they have the right to the pursuit of happiness, so by making them try to understand reality is against their human rights, goddammit you PC LIBERAL HIPPY!!!!
Funny how rightwingnutjobs hate PC but LOVE to use it to silence critics...
I thought the ones in the Pacific were typhoons?
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.
This is also a record, though not one the warmists like to talk about.
"Warmists". Huh. I don't know if National Public Radio frequently engages "warmists", but that's where I heard the story. You might even say they liked talking about it, how unusual these weather patterns were.
I do know that the summer weather here in Phoenix has been pretty strange. We had a mild June and July, I don't think it ever hit 110. In June it even rained (average monthly rainfall for June in Phoenix: 0.02 inches), hardly any rain in July (average 1.05 inches), and a few storms in August. Last night my roof got damaged by the wind while it poured rain for an hour or so, a lot of power outages around town. That storm dropped between a little less than an inch to 1.29 inches (average rainfall for all of August: 1 inch). I heard multiple transformers explode near my house and I've gotten some pictures from friends of downed trees from wind gusts well over 60mph (74mph is a category 1 hurricane). While June and July were mild, August has been very hot and we've been setting records, I believe we hit an all-time record high for August as well as record highs for several individual dates. I heard that it was the hottest August globally, and we definitely saw that here.
I'm not trying to sound like a "warmist" or anything, I'm just trying to figure out what I need to repair on my house thanks to the hot weather producing high-powered storms.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes. I understand. I'm reacting to the chicken-little-esque aspect of global warming hysterics (oops I mean climate change).
No, you are reacting to some cherry picking shit you read on the usual Denialosphere blogs. There have been 2 Hurricanes this season, 1 of them major. Just because none of them hit land in the US doesn't make them go away.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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 like to talk about. After 2005, the doomsayers were predicting tons of (east coast) major hurricanes being the new normal.
Yeah, and the fact since 2005 (which was the most active year), we had three (of five joint years) of the third most active years doesn't show in the icy brain's talks. IOW 4 years since (and including) 2005 were among the 7 most active Hurricane seasons.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Hopefully, these hurricanes are heading to California. We need the water — and the shark fins for soup.
I doubt torrential rain from even a mild tropic storm would solve the problem. Well, unless you call washing away the dried soil for good a solution. Those mud slides should give nice picture though.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
CNN is part of the denialsphere blogs? Ok.
But, it's true, I am one of those who consider global warming to be close to irrelevant. Yup. the temperature changes. What else is new? And nope - even the worse case scenarios doesn't come close to being a catastrophe for biodiversity.
Yes people living in flood plains will be displaced (see Bangladesh) and on islands and peninsulas. OK.
I'm much more concerned about the pollution we're creating and dumping than I am about CO2 levels.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond