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
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?
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."
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
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....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say 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.
I don't care about geological time. If antrhogenic climate change screws up my life I care.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
The Atlantic hurricane seasons tend to be below normal when there is an El Nino as we have now.
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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."
...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.
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/...
Laid down 1937. 65,000 tons displacement. The biggest aircraft carriers today top out at 100,000 tons, which is not enough to make the Yamato look tiny. By any standards ships of that size are very large ships. In fact most cargo ships build today are smaller than that since the Yamato wouldn't fit through the Panama canal. The US battleships of that era were designed to transit the canal of course.
There have been a few modern post panamax ships built. The largest ship ever hit about 650,000 tons displacement at full load (10x the size), but that doesn't exist any more, sadly, and there was only ever one of it. The largest container haulers top out at 250,000 tons displacement. Ships of that size are rare, however and even so a 65,000 ton ship would be considered very large.
The largest ships 80 years ago were comparable to most of the big ships sailing today. In your comparison about military ships, the size increase from 80 years ago is fairly modest.
When it comes to sail, the last ships of the age of sail were the windjammers. They were giants as far as sailing ships went, with steel hulls, 5 masts and a small crew. Production tailed off in 1900 more or less, though some managed to operate profitably on limited routes with non-critical bulk cargo into the 1930s. Mostly though by the 30s they were displaced by steamships.
And planes were still made of wood and driven by propellers
Well sure some of them were (say what you like about the Mozzie, it was a great plane!), but by no means all. The Spitfire first flew 79 years ago and is made of dural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The equally iconic DC3 also debuted in 1935. Looks kinda metallic to me.
The all-metal Ford Trimotor debuted in 1926 and that wasn't the first all-metal plane.
The all metal Junkers F.13 debuted in 1920---95 years ago and was probably the first all-metal transport plane.
So, you're decades out on the planes and ships. The first successful weather satellite, however flew in 1960---75 years ago this year. By 1970 (65 years ago), there was a whole fleet of satellites, including some in polar orbit giving pretty much complete coverage of the entire planet.
SJW n. One who posts facts.