Slashdot Mirror


Landfall Nears For Strongest Hurricane In Recorded History (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Patricia — the strongest hurricane ever recorded — barreled closer and closer Friday to Mexico's Pacific coast, where residents have been told to brace for its 200-mph sustained winds and torrential rains. The early Friday central pressure recording of 880 millibars (the barometric pressure equivalent is 25.98 inches) "is the lowest for any tropical cyclone globally for over 30 years," according to the Met Office, Britain's weather service. One other thing alarming about Patricia is its rapid rise in intensity. It rated as a tropical storm early Thursday, but 24 hours later it had become a Category 5 hurricane. Among other effects, El Niño has contributed to ocean waters off Mexico being 2 to 3 degrees warmer than usual. "That warm water from El Niño probably just pushed this slightly over the edge to be the strongest storm on record," CNN's Myers said.

273 comments

  1. Weather of Climate? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0, Troll

    Depends which side of the pissing contest you are on.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Weather of Climate? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Depends which side of the pissing contest you are on.

      Well, if this is just a one time thing, it's weather.

      It'll be climate if the number of hurricanes keeps increasing, or if every year the hurricanes keeps exceeding the previous year's wind record.

      One time thing - weather. If it becomes a trend, it's climate.

    2. Re:Weather of Climate? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is no pissing contest, this is called 'hard experimental evidence'.

      This is what large scale chaotic systems do when you steadily add energy to them.

      Don't believe me? There will be the same headline next year, same 'unprecedented and strongest on record', but next year we're talking cat 6 or 7. Just as Patricia exploded into cat 5 faster than ever seen before, our global climate is exploding into new categories of storm with exactly the same trajectory for the exact same reason.

      Understand climate. Study chaos. Learn. There's very little more important than that at this point.

    3. Re:Weather of Climate? by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Strongest in history, it must be climate change! /s

      The strengthening though is interesting, and the tie in to El Nin~o does make for interesting weather geeking.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well we know we can ignore your opinion since there is no such things as cat 6 or 7 hurricane. Also this is the first cat 5 to make landfall in 11 years, so 1 event every decade is now proof that it will constantly happen every year now.

    5. Re:Weather of Climate? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The belt of warm water feeding this late-season hurricane is from El Niño, which is a cycle independent of all other cycles, and not a part of any carbon warming that may be occurring.

    6. Re:Weather of Climate? by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > This is no pissing contest, this is called 'hard experimental evidence'.

      This is called "a single data point". Hurricanes have been down in recent years.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:Weather of Climate? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Scientific community vs nihilist right-wing shills is a pissing contest now?
      No, there is no equivalence between sane people and the destructive right-wing extremists who are driving us off a cliff.

    8. Re:Weather of Climate? by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      It'll be climate if the number of hurricanes keeps increasing,

      Well... sort of. It's climate if any statistical property of hurricanes undergoes any statistical shift. Climate is the signal. Weather is the noise. It's like, say, driving home from work. Let's say it normally takes you an average of 20 minutes to drive home from work. Your numbers may go 17, 21, 14, 29, 19, 16, 26, 18, etc depending on local conditions... but the average is 20. But when a statistically significant sampling of drives starts averaging out higher - say, 27, 20, 21, 34, 20, 26, 31, etc... the underlying baseline has changed. The noise still exists, but it's on top of a different signal.

      In terms of hurricanes, a warming average climate does not inherently mean "more hurricanes". Hurricanes from due to a complicated series of circumstances - some of which we understand well (like sea surface temperatures), some which we don't (like African dust). There's not only sea surface temperatures but the depths to which it exends, wind shear, dry air, and literally dozens of other factors. Not all of the changes that are associated with a warming planet encourage hurricanes - some discourage them. And the impacts can vary from one hurricane basin to another.

      The North Atlantic basin, which most Americans care most about, has two strongly opposing effects in a warming world: increasing ocean heat versus increasing wind shear. Wind shear is death to hurricanes. The airflow patterns that fuel a hurricane require that the core be vertically aligned, so when you shear it horizontally, it fails to be able to power itself. Larger hurricanes can somewhat protect themselves against it, at the cost of declining intensity, but smaller storms get torn to shreds. It combines with dry air to worsen its effect, funneling the dry air into the core (dry air = subsidence = shutting off upflow-driven storms like hurricanes).

      How these two factors ultimately play out is very difficult to predict, and particularly in the North Atlantic. The number of hurricanes per year in the North Atlantic Basin ranges from zero to dozens. And where they impact varies widely as well - the US can get nailed many times by powerful storms, or they can get hit by nothing at all. The general expectation is "mixed": that the increasing wind shear may reduce the total number of storms and will almost certainly rip apart more "vulnerable" storms - but that when conditions are right (as wind shear is constantly varying, and there are always times and places that there is little to none), storms will appear faster, grow faster, and reach higher top speeds.

      That said, again, hurricanes are very complicated systems to model and predict, so it's hard to make predictions on this front with too much confidence.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    9. Re:Weather of Climate? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is the strongest in history is not really all that important. It isn't so far off the charts that it was inconceivable.

      However, the fact that it's particular intensity is believed to be related to El Nino means that there is something of a climate effect. Of course, I'm not stating El Nino is a result of AGW, in fact I don't have any idea if it is supposed to be or not.

      So, being the most powerful in history helps in one respect. Since it has broken an upper observed value, it becomes easier to see a more incremental effect from something like El Nino. If the storm was weaker, then it might simply be explained as a freak, but otherwise normal hurricane. This storm is actually setting a new record, and so it's higher value seems a bit more meaningful.

      Nevertheless, while "OMG HUEG HURRICANE = AGW!!!!" is probably not a valid statement, if you look at the specifics of the storm, it may show a climate effect which might then be traced back to AGW.

      So, if this is related to El Nino, then we would need to determine if El Nino is an AGW effect. If it is solidly attributed to AGW, then this storm was intensified by AGW.

      I'm still on the fence somewhat about the scope and effects of AGW, but this is the sort of thing you expect with more heat, and therefore energy, in the atmosphere. You get storms and erratic weather with wildly varying effects locally. Droughts and super-hurricanes in some places, beautiful tropical weather in others. Unfortunately, the nice weather isn't as good a thing around the icepacks at the Poles.

    10. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention that the records keep getting revised: there were hurricanes measured at higher strengths in the 1960's, but they've been "revised" downwards. Now new hurricanes are "the strongest ever recorded."

    11. Re:Weather of Climate? by macs4all · · Score: 2

      The belt of warm water feeding this late-season hurricane is from El Niño, which is a cycle independent of all other cycles, and not a part of any carbon warming that may be occurring.

      WTF is "CARBON Warming"???

      Yet ANOTHER pseudo-science term!

    12. Re:Weather of Climate? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Scientific community vs nihilist right-wing shills is a pissing contest now? No, there is no equivalence between sane people and the destructive right-wing extremists who are driving us off a cliff.

      And no equivalence between actual science and the grant-money-grubbing, lying "scientists" that will publish literally ANYTHING to get the next Grant.

      And no, I am CERTAINLY no "Right-Wing" ANYTHING, let alone an "Extremist". If anything, it is the "Climate Change" mob (that is actually just the money-chasing mob) that is the "Extremists".

    13. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, they are communists trying to brainwash people against energy companies and destroy our economy?

      No no, wait, they are zombie drones OF the communists who don't even realize they are being used to brainwash people against our economy?

      Ah wait no, I get it ... YOU'RE a zombie drone who may or may not realize your paranoid delusions were carefully crafted by the energy companies!

    14. Re:Weather of Climate? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists" had to drop the moniker "Global Warming" in favor of the "Well, we can always claim it" name "Climate Change".

      To which the proper response is still: "What part of 'chaotic' do you not understand?"

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    15. Re:Weather of Climate? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      In a pissing contest, you always want to be on the downwind side.

      (And WTF /. - you're messing things up again. Can't moderate, the posting dialog box reminds me of one of beta's really bad days. )

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      El Nino is a cyclical thing not caused by AGW. What AGW does, though, is increase the baseline ocean temperature so when an El Nino event occurs on top of that, the temperatures get higher than in the past. The baseline increase we have experienced so far is roughly the same magnitude as the effect of El Nino. Since we haven't had a strong El Nino since 1998, some people have been pointing at graphs and saying there hasn't been AGW since then even though the baseline has crept upward. Now that we seem to be heading into one, compounded by AGW, we're breaking temperature records left and right.

    17. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your position is that a warmer atmosphere is not connected to warmer oceans? I see.

    18. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "cycle independent of all other cycles"
      There's no such thing.

    19. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You completely skipped the cat 5e hurricane. You'll never get your Network+ like that.

    20. Re:Weather of Climate? by macs4all · · Score: 2

      Let me guess, they are communists trying to brainwash people against energy companies and destroy our economy?

      No no, wait, they are zombie drones OF the communists who don't even realize they are being used to brainwash people against our economy?

      Ah wait no, I get it ... YOU'RE a zombie drone who may or may not realize your paranoid delusions were carefully crafted by the energy companies!

      Nope. None of that.

      Just the usual boring prosaic goals of human beings seeking self-fortune and self-aggrandizement. Nothing special.

      No Communist plots. Just run-of-the-mill Greed and Avarice.

    21. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And said El Nino is being fed by carbon warming.

      You and the people that modded your bullshit up are idiots

    22. Re:Weather of Climate? by macs4all · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists" had to drop the moniker "Global Warming" in favor of the "Well, we can always claim it" name "Climate Change".

      To which the proper response is still: "What part of 'chaotic' do you not understand?"

      I would say the same thing, to those who see "Patterns" of "Climate Change" where in reality, none exist.

      Hence, Chaos.

    23. Re:Weather of Climate? by thoromyr · · Score: 2

      So you are asserting that belt of warm water is not warmer than it would have been without the general increase in global temperature?

      Just to be clear: you are saying that because the specific mechanism by which warm water was moved into the region is independent of warming that there is no way that any warming mechanism (such as CO2 emissions, methane release, etc.) is related.

      Hmmm... so if a stolen firearm is used in a bank robbery the original theft is irrelevant as long as the original thieves did not transfer it to the bank robbers for that purpose?

      While intent might be a useful component of their defense (lack of mens rea) that sort of conscious participation is not meaningful when talking about natural mechanisms.

    24. Re:Weather of Climate? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Methinks someone is confusing downwind with upwind... downwind is the direction the wind is blowing towards, upwind is the direction the wind is blowing from. The downwind guy is gonna get piss all over him!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    25. Re:Weather of Climate? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And said El Nino is being fed by carbon warming.

      If it were, that would be good for California, because they can use some extra water (which tends to come in El Nino years).
      Unfortunately there is no good computer modeling able to predict El Nino, and the models are divided on whether El Nino will increase or decrease as a result of AGW.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I know, look at all those greedy climate scientists driving Lambos, Porsches, Veyrons, and other top end luxury/sports cars. Look at their 3 story, 10 bedroom mansions. It's nothing but lies to push a liberal agenda and make you gay!

    27. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Well, I can think of one example of carbon warming. Using a space heater. You see, when you get warmer, you're warmer. And you're made of carbon. Thus, carbon warming.

      But, for the life of me, I really had no idea that choosing not to freeze to death meant I created a hurricane. Damn I'm hardcore!

    28. Re:Weather of Climate? by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      At this rate North America is going to be hit by 2 Cat5 hurricanes next week alone.

    29. Re:Weather of Climate? by tbannist · · Score: 2

      You obviously have absolutely no idea the scale of the energies at play here. Many times the Hiroshima Bomb per second.

      How many times? Apparently the anthropogenic effects of climate change are currently causing the earth to accumulate and addition 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second. The grand total is now at around 2.2 billion bombs. So, I'm curious. Do you think this hurricane is 4 billion times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    30. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to double check the meaning of downwind. I wouldn't want to be downwind in a pissing contest.

    31. Re: Weather of Climate? by wildsurf · · Score: 0

      You are wildly off. A Cat-5 hurricane sustains about 1 petawatt of power output, or ~50x the rate of humanity's fossil fuel consumption. A year's worth of human output could power this hurricane at full strength for about a week. These storms typically last at peak intensity for a couple days. In other words, humans are adding about two or three Cat-5 hurricanes' worth of energy per year to the global environment.

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    32. Re:Weather of Climate? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's interesting to note that while the 2015 hurricane season has been relatively quiet in the North Atlantic, when we expand to the entire world in our scope, it's been one of, if not the most, active years on record, with something like 22 storms that were Category 4 or higher, which is itself a record.

      We were also pretty lucky that Joaquin steered out to sea rather than slamming into the east coast (and even then managed to dump catastrophic rainfall on South Carolina. It was within a day or two of really hammering some heavily populated areas that aren't really built to withstand regular hurricanes.

    33. Re:Weather of Climate? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      WTF is "CARBON Warming"???

      The GP didn't define it clearly, but from the context it's obvious s/he means warming induced by the greenhouse effect from adding carbon compounds (such as carbon dioxide and methane) to the earth's atmosphere.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    34. Re: Weather of Climate? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      You are wildly off. A Cat-5 hurricane sustains about 1 petawatt of power output, or ~50x the rate of humanity's fossil fuel consumption. A year's worth of human output could power this hurricane at full strength for about a week. These storms typically last at peak intensity for a couple days. In other words, humans are adding about two or three Cat-5 hurricanes' worth of energy per year to the global environment.

      And how much gets bled off into space?

    35. Re:Weather of Climate? by macs4all · · Score: 0

      WTF is "CARBON Warming"???

      The GP didn't define it clearly, but from the context it's obvious s/he means warming induced by the greenhouse effect from adding carbon compounds (such as carbon dioxide and methane) to the earth's atmosphere.

      And how many million years have dinosaurs fart? How many million years have plants and animals decomposed? How many million years have forest fires raged for months, and maybe even years, on end?

      And all of this before man sprayed the first can of hairspray.

      You DO realize that the level of CO2 used to be TEN TIMES what it is now (and Methane was higher, too, IIRC), and yet, somehow, plenty of plants and animals not only survived, but actually thrived. In fact, plants would LOVE it if the planet would return the damned CO2 to those levels, so they could get on with GROWING. As it is, they are basically STARVING for Carbon from the Atmosphere.

      Anyone who has grown Pot indoors knows about CO2 enhancement.

      So, Think of the Plants!

      Stupid Git.

    36. Re:Weather of Climate? by theskipper · · Score: 1

      The name change was initiated by Republican strategist Frank Luntz over a decade ago in a memo to the Bush administration:

      "It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

      'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming'. As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

      Background link:
      https://www.skepticalscience.c...

      Direct link to memo pdf:
      http://www.motherjones.com/fil...

      (Btw, apologies in advance. Although your comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek I figured it was worth posting in case others didn't know the background.)

    37. Re: Weather of Climate? by nxtr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Next year is Cat5e.

    38. Re:Weather of Climate? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      It'll be climate if the number of hurricanes keeps increasing,

      Well... sort of. It's climate if any statistical property of hurricanes undergoes any statistical shift. Climate is the signal. Weather is the noise. It's like, say, driving home from work. Let's say it normally takes you an average of 20 minutes to drive home from work. Your numbers may go 17, 21, 14, 29, 19, 16, 26, 18, etc depending on local conditions... but the average is 20. But when a statistically significant sampling of drives starts averaging out higher - say, 27, 20, 21, 34, 20, 26, 31, etc... the underlying baseline has changed. The noise still exists, but it's on top of a different signal.

      That said, again, hurricanes are very complicated systems to model and predict, so it's hard to make predictions on this front with too much confidence.

      I think the point is if we start having several outliers in a row then we can be pretty certain it's climate. To use your driving record example, if next week your times go 33,37,32,47 then we know something has changed. Likewise, if over the next 5 years we see 3 huricanes with greater than 200 mile winds make landfall then we know that something significant has changed. We obviously can make conclusions with less dramatic data but multiple record breaking hurricanes is probably what it will take to get anyone to do anything about climate change.

    39. Re:Weather of Climate? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Depends which side of the pissing contest you are on.

      Depends on if you're the pisser or the pissee.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    40. Re:Weather of Climate? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      "So, Think of the Plants!"

      You finally got a lol out of me.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    41. Re:Weather of Climate? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Methinks someone is confusing downwind with upwind...

      I imagine that's why his handle is ColdWetDog.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    42. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we all realize the climate has changed wildly over the course of geologic history. And yes, the earth itself continues to exist through these changes, and life adapts.

      What you're ignoring is the massive dieoffs and extinctions that go along with those changes. Some life might thrive with higher temperatures and CO2 levels, but most of the life on this planet is adapted to its current conditions, and will not. Temperature increases and acidification of the oceans is going to lead to massive dieoffs and destabilization of oceanic ecosystems. Similar sorts of shit is going to happen on land. Yes, the earth and life as a whole will continue and in the long term (millions of years) ecosystems will reach a new equilibrium, but for individual species and especially for individual creatures, change is deadly.

      And guess what? WE evolved to fit in this current climate, in this current ecosystem. Being intelligent animals we're more adaptable than most, but if the climate changes drastically, we're going to HURT. Habitable areas will become uninhabitable. Food sources will disappear as ecosystems collapse. Stronger weather events (*cough cough*) will become the norm. In the long run, millions of people will die.

      But yes. Some of the plants will be happy.

    43. Re:Weather of Climate? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Second, all the extra energy caused by man-made so-called Climate Change (renamed, because it was patently obvious that the "Global Warming" lie wasn't working anymore)

      Why don't you first educate yourself, for example, you might want to read the Global Warming article on Wikipedia, before calling it a "lie". Makes you look like a moron.

    44. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists"

      Sorry, slapnuts, but you don't get to substitute asshole for facts.

      Do you have any facts? You have plenty of asshole, but we can't accept that as evidence.

      Do you still fuck your sister?

    45. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess, they are communists trying to brainwash people

      They want to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

    46. Re:Weather of Climate? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      The funny thing here is, after being modded as high as 5 and then down to 1 again by angry mobs of trolls for claiming 'we'll be seeing cat 6 or 7 hurricanes' when this is a cat 5, I read the whole thread.

      Cat 5 is 150 mph or so. Patricia is hitting 200 mph at times and we hope it slows down. The ratings STOP at 5 because that's considered 'total obliteration and there's no point measuring anything further' (which I beg to differ). The scaling between numbers is roughly 27 mph.

      So the one most outrageous statement getting me modded to hell, about how by next year we'll have cat 6 or 7?

      That's Patricia. We hope she SLOWS to Cat 5 (150mph obliteration) by the time she hits the coast. So I got a severe mod-spanking from trolls for suggesting we'd see by next year, what's happening right now. The anti-science guys were MAD that I said in 2016 we'd be getting cat 7. If I'd read the whole thread I've have mentioned how we're already there!

    47. Re:Weather of Climate? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually, we won't. The sample size is too small. There could be a period of severe hurricanes every 150 years and this would be the first time we are recording it.

      Other data sets supporting global warming are much larger and we can draw conclusions from them but hurricanes would take a long time to get enough samples.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    48. Re:Weather of Climate? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      There have been four massive typhoons at once in the southern hemisphere, at times. Reminds me of some kinds of chaotic flows, where it twitches around in one area for a while before zipping back to the other pole and hanging out: can't predict exactly when, but can very accurately define the 'expectation space'.

      We'll be seeing big stacks of cat 5 and up hurricanes. Like four at once, no time to rebuild or recover. Proof of concept is in the North Pacific. It's all one atmosphere, the areas of interest just change—chaotically.

    49. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure are taking all this very personal. Maybe you should take a time out? Meditate a bit. Think of your master, the Kochtopus, and smile!

    50. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGsdoBDiXw

      Ill Nino!

    51. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hush, man, don't give away the secret!

    52. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is we need to develop a high-pressure dry air weapon to destroy or lessen developing hurricanes and typhoons? It would need enough force to shear the storm. How many centuries are we talking for the energy level needed would you wildly guess?

    53. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god, man! Al Gore and the producers of Captain Planet are not scientists or climatologists, and I don't think they understand the science, either. I hope you're not being paid, because I certainly would demand better than "lalalala I can't hear you!"

    54. Re: Weather of Climate? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      173,000 terawatts of incoming solar radiation.
      47 terawatts geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior

      Earth's energy imbalance measurements provided by Argo floats detected accumulation of ocean heat content (OHC). The estimated imbalance was measured during a deep solar minimum of 2005-2010 at 0.58 ± 0.15 W/mÂ.[10] Later research estimated the surface energy imbalance to be 0.60 ± 0.17 W/mÂ.[11]

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    55. Re:Weather of Climate? by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      Climate is the signal. Weather is the noise.

      Splendid metaphor...wish I'd thought of it.

    56. Re:Weather of Climate? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how many million years have dinosaurs fart? How many million years have plants and animals decomposed? How many million years have forest fires raged for months, and maybe even years, on end?

      What kind of dumbass argument is that?

      Throughout the world, in a year all volcanoes combined (above and below water) emit around 145 to 255 million tons of CO2. In the US, forest fires release around 290 million tons every year. That's great. Maybe people have contributed to worse fires in recent decades, maybe overall not so much. Either way, it's in the range of several hundred million tons of CO2 every year.

      The largest coal power plant, in Taiwan, releases 40 million tons per year. That means that, at the low range of estimates for volcanoes, only 4 of those power plants would emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on the planet. China alone emits over 10 billion tons per year. That is far more than all forest fires. The US is about half that, about 5.3 billion tons. Overall, people emit over 30 billion tons in CO2 through burning of fossil fuels (power plants, cars, etc), and that level has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.

      Since the 1880s we've been burning coal, fuel oil, and natural gas for power, non-stop. Since the early 1900s we've been driving gas-powered cars, non-stop, and also been flying gas-powered planes, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've been driving CO2-emitting ships around, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've also been operating CO2-emitting trains, non-stop. That's several hundred years of steam ships, steam trains, power plants, cars, and planes, and if you crack open one of your history books you'll notice that since the introduction of those until today the usage has actually increased. They have gotten larger, hungrier, and more numerous.

      And you're talking about dinosaurs walking around farting several hundred million years ago. Get a grip. If you want to compare something, then compare a forest fire that started 200 years ago and has grown larger and larger each and every year, culminating in the doubling of size every few years for the past couple decades. And keep in mind that the stuff that was burnt doesn't extinguish, it keeps burning, all 200 years. Then you'll have a comparison with the human effect on CO2 production. Save your farting dinosaurs for your kids.

      Let me know if you got my point, or if you need me to rewrite that while capitalizing random words.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    57. Re: Weather of Climate? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That will be an order of magnitude stronger and faster! WOOHOO!!! Imma upgrade that bitch.

      Anyhow, if folks have yet to try modeling chaotic data sets, well, try humans and vehicular traffic. It's fun (for some definition of fun) but I think humans may be more chaotic than climate. I'm no expert but I'm assuming the climate doesn't get drunk and drive backwards down a one way street with a bunch of cops following it. I could be wrong.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    58. Re:Weather of Climate? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists" had to drop the moniker "Global Warming" in favor of the "Well, we can always claim it" name "Climate Change".

      You are so not getting invited to Apple Camp this summer.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    59. Re:Weather of Climate? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Check your script blocking shit. I had to enable some after the most recent down-time. They changed some settings.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    60. Re: Weather of Climate? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I'll just stick around in case anybody needs ten base five. I think I still have a box of BNC coax in a box here somewhere.

    61. Re:Weather of Climate? by Rei · · Score: 1

      The amount of dry air you'd need is unthinkably large, unfortunately. There have been some proposals for controlling hurricanes, mind you. One involves dyeing the surface of the ocean in the path of a hurricane, creating locally hotter patches in a way that creates shear or other negative effects. Another is large-scale vortex generators to create competing centers to eat away at the eye. There's quite a few proposals being worked on out there in theory.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    62. Re:Weather of Climate? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      There is a secular warming trend upon which the ENSO cycle is superimposed. The secular trend is global warming. Global warming trains the boxer. El Nino throws the punches: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/...

    63. Re:Weather of Climate? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      Not taking any sides here, just pointing out some ignorance. It was actually the R's who changed the national dialog to "Climate Change." http://www.motherjones.com/fil... Take of it what you will. Dems the facts.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    64. Re:Weather of Climate? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Nor is Bill Nye the Science Guy.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    65. Re:Weather of Climate? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's probably older than you are.

    66. Re:Weather of Climate? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      > This is no pissing contest, this is called 'hard experimental evidence'.

      This is called "a single data point". Hurricanes have been down in recent years.

      It's also something like a single data point if you only count hurricanes that hit the US mainland. It would make more sense to look at hurricanes basin-wide or even tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons) world-wide to understand what is really happening.

    67. Re:Weather of Climate? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      That's one of the many reason the LYING, money-sucking "Climatologists" had to drop the moniker "Global Warming" in favor of the "Well, we can always claim it" name "Climate Change".

      For the origins of the term "Climate Change" you can look to Gilbert Plass's 1956 paper "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".

    68. Re:Weather of Climate? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The average insolation for the Earth is 21.6 MJ/m^2. The Earth's surface is 5.1e+14 square meters. The energy in the Hiroshima bomb was 6.3x10^13 Joules. I'll let you do the math as to how the energy of a Hiroshima bomb compares to the energy coming from the Sun.

    69. Re:Weather of Climate? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Well, they calculated that additional heat the Earth is absorbing due to (primarily) CO2 emissions is around 2.5 x 10^14 Joules per second, then they divided that by the estimate amount of energy released by the Hiroshima bombs (~ 6.25 x 10^13) to get 4 bombs per second. Then, I assume, they multiplied by the number of seconds since 1998.

      According to the same site, the conversion rate of Hiroshima bombs to Hurricane Sandys is just 2 to 1. You were only off by 9 orders of magnitude.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    70. Re: Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What factors are in the 150 year cyclical range that would explain that? In the absence of any indicative evidence, we can't just make up the possibility of unknown factors in order to hand wave away any data as "possible noise".

    71. Re: Weather of Climate? by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Watch out when the storms upgrade to fibre!

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    72. Re:Weather of Climate? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Hurricanes have been down in recent years.

      Only 22 cat4 or higher this year. Remember that the world does not just consist of the USA

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    73. Re:Weather of Climate? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      If I could give my mod-point to you, I would. Great post.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    74. Re:Weather of Climate? by snakeplissken · · Score: 1

      So the one most outrageous statement getting me modded to hell, about how by next year we'll have cat 6 or 7?

      It seems unfortunate that you should be 'modded to hell' when all that is necessary is to mention that there is currently no higher number on the agreed scale used in the northern hemisphere than 5. the history of the current scale can be read here (warning: it's wikpedia fwiw) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Simpson_hurricane_wind_scale
      whether a revision of the scale is necessary is of course a good question. the history of the scale also mentions the attempt to encompass in one number not just a particular physical characteristic of the storm but its effect on property and population. i'm rather surprised that we don't then describe storms with perhaps 2 or 3 numbers/letters to compromise better between brevity and usefulness.

      snake

    75. Re: Weather of Climate? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Science is a prediction based on observed data. We literally have almost no observations during a period of higher temperatures. The first predictions (large numbers of storms) were wrong. That's okay. But the data set is still very small. You can't make reliable predictions til you have more data.

      Also, consider "black swan" events.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    76. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The North Atlantic basin, which most Americans care most about,

      I live east of the Mississippi, you right coast non flyover state asshole!

    77. Re:Weather of Climate? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You've never met an actual scientist and you've never tried to publish anything in a journal. Why do you have such strong opinions about something you know nothing about?

      I now invite you to cherry pick the worst scientists you can find and imply that they're representative of the whole.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    78. Re:Weather of Climate? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has grown Pot indoors knows about CO2 enhancement

      And now we know where the farting dinosaurs comparison came from.

    79. Re:Weather of Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure we'll see the same headline next year, but that's more about 24-hour journalism than about the weather.

      By the way, the 'unprecedented and strongest on record' has been downgraded to a tropical storm. oops.

    80. Re:Weather of Climate? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Hurricanes have been down in recent years.

      Only 22 cat4 or higher this year. Remember that the world does not just consist of the USA

      A single data point with no context. Tropical storms are generally down, worldwide, measured from 1977 to 2012. There have been a few that were exceptionally strong, but again, weather is chaotic.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    81. Re:Weather of Climate? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, 4 Hiroshimas a second comes out to about 7.9x10^21 Joules a year. About 1.2x10^22 Joules hit the Earth in a day. So about an extra 2/3 of a day of sunlight per year.

      Now, for the Earth to maintain a steady temperature, the amount of heat radiated off in space must be equal to the energy coming in. If the amount of heat radiated off doesn't increase yet the heat going in increases, then the planet will heat up. An extra 2/3 of day doesn't seem like too much, if it that much every year, it's going to add up eventually.

    82. Re:Weather of Climate? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting that information?
      From what I can research, the number of tropical storms worldwide has been pretty stable at 87 +-10 for quite a while with a lot of caveats. Lack of data for the southern hemisphere, lack of data before satellites and such.
      Atlantic hurricanes are up in number since 1995 after a low in the '70's and '80's with the decade of '96-'05 being the second most destructive since 1900 ('26-'35 was the worst).
      These seem to be normal cycles. What does seem to be changing is the intensity of tropical storms, both wind speed and duration with a 70% increase in the last 3 decades.
      This is what is scary about Patricia, from tropical depression to one of the strongest ever cat5s in 38 hours

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    83. Re: Weather of Climate? by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      And how much gets bled off into space?

      Much less than would be if there weren't so much CO2 in the atmosphere trapping the heat. As we inject more CO2 into the atmosphere, less heat escapes to space, and the equilibrium surface temperature rises quickly. This is why the human-caused rise to its current value of >400ppm is so alarming, and where the ultimate 350ppm "safe" limit calculation (to avoid catastrophic temperature increases) comes from.

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    84. Re:Weather of Climate? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      no, just depends on your command of basic science.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    85. Re:Weather of Climate? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      hurricanes in teh north atlantic.

      the rest of the world meanwhile is getting rather more than normal, and rather stronger than normal, this year.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    86. Re:Weather of Climate? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      el nino is related to a warm current of water.
      what do you think happens when you warm all of the water?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    87. Re:Weather of Climate? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You know, when the facts don't line up, change them. Just like they keep telling us we aren't in a run away inflation right now. Look at a bill lately? I had a $30 I-Hop bill with my wife a couple of weeks ago. I was floored. Used to be less than $10 just 10 years ago. Go to any other place to eat? Go shopping? Heck, send a frickin Fedex out lately? Yet they keep saying no inflation, everything is hunky dory, or you're a racist... or some other name calling thing to get away from discussing the facts.

      Seems people are getting very stupid.

    88. Re:Weather of Climate? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Motherjones? Seriously?

      What do you say when a right winger cites freerepublic? Say that to yourself.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    89. Re:Weather of Climate? by drkstr1 · · Score: 1

      It was a direct link to the PDF memo (aka the citation). Are you saying their http server is infected by some kind of liberal juju? You Xians all sound equally retarted. Have an original thought for once. Sincerely, a proud Libertarian

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
  2. There will be many deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mexico is basically a third world country. The homes on the coast will blow over almost immediately.

    1. Re:There will be many deaths by thedonger · · Score: 1

      Mexico is basically a third world country. The homes on the coast will blow over almost immediately.

      Won't someone think of the expats!?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:There will be many deaths by gwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mind you, this third world country has infrastructure that year after year withstands hurricanes on both coasts, and they are seldom "catastrophic" (i.e. one strong event per decade). The area where it is hitting is moderately populated, and has available shelter places with great resistance that have been used before (such as the touristic compounds in Puerto Vallarta region).
      Our country has hurricanes volcanos, sismicity, poverty and whatnot. But is much better prepared for a Katrina-style event than the USA.

    3. Re:There will be many deaths by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Socialism hasn't worked so well for them, I guess.

    4. Re:There will be many deaths by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Why add plain nastiness to all your other foaming wrongness in other posts on this story?

      Professional troll?

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    5. Re:There will be many deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... They are happy and alive living illegally in the U.S. The only people it will affect are the tourists on the coast.

    6. Re:There will be many deaths by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Why add plain nastiness to all your other foaming wrongness in other posts on this story?

      Professional troll?

      I wish.

      No, just goofing off at work, like everyone else here.

    7. Re:There will be many deaths by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      [...] sismicity [...]

      SimCity? So you get Giant Lizards and Meteor Showers, too?

      It's "Seismicity."

      (Sorry to be pedantic, I just thought it was funny when I first read it as "SimCity.")

    8. Re:There will be many deaths by khallow · · Score: 1

      I believe this is something to brag about from a distance. Here's hoping it doesn't stall, break some dams, or do any of the other nasty stuff that powerful hurricanes can do.

    9. Re:There will be many deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in 2005 we sat under the previous 'biggest' hurricane ever for an honest to god, swear it's the truth, 48 hours, from Thursday evening to Saturday evening. We build our houses out of concrete, so they don't fall down. During that 48 hours, I believe all of 4 people died. We're all waiting for that great big tsunami from the Canary Islands to wipe us out.

      Ever been in a hurricane? We had two that year. Thee noise is very impressive. But they certainly are no disaster for us. You just stay inside and get drunk. (Be sure to stock up well beforehand, on local media (CDs, DVDs from Blockbuster if you haven't previously downloaded) also, you won't have internet. They cut off alcohol sales 36 hours before the storm hit.) I did have to go outside for a minute to refasten a door shut. It's pretty cool, but the rain stings like hell. It's hitting you at over 100. Anything heavier is going to hurt you pretty bad. And it's always best if there is something to hold onto.

      Downtown had power back up in 12 hours. Another good idea we practice down here is that all power is cut off, so, no fires and transformer damage, and replacing downed cables is quick and easy for these guys.

    10. Re:There will be many deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir/ma'am, are full of shit. Wilma did very little damage, considering it was the previous 'biggest ever' at 882millibars. You can count the number of deaths on one hand, with a missing thumb. Hell, we build our palapas better than your ready to burn matchstick townhouses, very few of them blew down. Most just lost a small piece of their roofs, fixed the following day. With a regular concrete house, hurricanes simply are not an issue. Just gotta cover the windows. The biggest risk is running out of beer during the storm. That's a real disaster!

    11. Re:There will be many deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialist Mexico? damm conservatives are really doubling down on the dumb.

    12. Re:There will be many deaths by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Huh. Good going, Mexi-AC. Clearly we can learn stuff from you guys, because OUR houses would certainly fall down and we certainly get fires, transformer damage and all that sort of thing.

    13. Re: There will be many deaths by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Didn't, not doesn't. When a country has state owned oil, cmmunications, transportation, and banking system, that country is socialist. Get a clue.

    14. Re:There will be many deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest that poverty is more the problem.
      Compare the relative GDPs of the USA (assuming that's where you are, I could be wrong of course) and Mexico.
      Socialism would help with that, actually, in regards to supporting the poor.

  3. Time to add a category? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps Cat 5 isn't enough anymore. Cat 6 has more twisters than Cat 5.

    1. Re:Time to add a category? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cat 5e.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Time to add a category? by ooshna · · Score: 2

      :Insert joke comparing cat 5 and 6 cables here:

    3. Re:Time to add a category? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      So Sharknado?

    4. Re:Time to add a category? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the current scale for hurricanes needs updating.

      Here's the current scale for hurricanes...

      Cat Five: >= 157 mph
      Cat Four: 130–156 mph (a range of 27 mph)
      Cat Three: 111–129 mph (a range of 19 mph)
      Cat Two: 96–110 mph (a range of 25 mph)
      Cat One: 74–95 mph (a range of 27 mph)

      Both a 160 mph hurricane and a 200 mph hurricane would both considered "Cat 5", but the devastation inflicted by a 200mph hurricane is likely much greater. If one bands each category beyond "Cat 5" into additional 27 mph groups, a 200 mph hurricane like Patricia would be squarely in "Cat 7". If people called Patricia a "Cat 7" hurricane, they might give it more respect.

    5. Re:Time to add a category? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $10k ones are great for digital audio reproduction.

    6. Re:Time to add a category? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You replied to a joke about the difference between cat 5 and 6 cables. Read closer.

    7. Re:Time to add a category? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      The point isn't to translate the windspeed though - it's how much damage that windspeed does. Once you're at 155mph+, it's going to mess up any man-made structure to the point that the difference isn't really relevant. To cite one of the designers of the scale that these categories come from (the Saffir-Simpson scale), there is no point in having anything higher than Category 5, because the idea is to measure how much damage the storm can do to man-made structures. He stated: "...when you get up into winds in excess of 155 mph (249 km/h) you have enough damage if that extreme wind sustains itself for as much as six seconds on a building it's going to cause rupturing damages that are serious no matter how well it's engineered."

      Source: http://novalynx.com/store/pc/S...

    8. Re:Time to add a category? by nytes · · Score: 1

      To cite the other designer of the Saffir-Simpson scale: "Look out, the building's going to... DOH!"

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    9. Re:Time to add a category? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always Sharknado. Sharkapocalypse comes at the cool category 8.2.

    10. Re:Time to add a category? by ooshna · · Score: 1

      I know it was with that joke flying over your head.

  4. Hurry someone blame it on climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahahahaha

  5. As expected by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Science knows this would happen. Ever since we started unlocking the secrets of chaotic systems this has been well understood. Climate’s the biggest chaotic system there is.

    There is nothing weird about this at all. This is the new direction. Not the new normal because that implies they’re all going to be like this from now on. The reality’s worse.

    The new normal is for each new weather disaster to be ‘unprecedented and weird’ and it’s been happening for years already and not slowing down but speeding up.

    Alarmist? Fuck yes. Alarms are necessary and this is what they’re for. We are soon going to need to concentrate on clinging to life on this fucking planet, never mind ‘fighting climate change’. Climate’s WAAAAAY bigger than us. We’re pretty smart humans and we’ll succeed in adapting, but it’s gonna look like colonizing Venus and Mars put together, and one hell of a lot of innocent people will die in vast numbers trying to survive this.

    Maybe we can string up some Koches at some point to make ourselves feel better, because this was DONE by the decisions of stupid people, much like an avalanche can be kicked off by a person pushing over a snowbank.

    Failing that, somebody film this. Media might not want to undermine vested interests, but media can’t help but drool over footage of outrageous unthinkable destruction. Use that. Which is to say: please, dronebros, go and get your wealthy asses famous. It will be awesome footage, guaranteed ;P

    1. Re:As expected by thedonger · · Score: 0

      How long is the recorded history of similarly accurate storm measurement? How old is the planet? Maybe we're just in a cycle that is a bit longer than the amount of time people have been able to measure hurricanes, or have been able to measure them as accurately.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:As expected by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      colonizing Venus and Mars put together,

      I'm climate stabilization action now supporter #1 and have put tens of $thousands where my mouth is but to be fair we can at least breath the air...unless you literally mean it will be like living on a planet where Venus and Mars have been merged somewhere in the middle resulting in a planet pretty much exactly like the Earth and thus will face the exact same challenges we face now.

    3. Re:As expected by slashdice · · Score: 1

      The boy who cried wolf was also an alarmist. It worked out better for the wolf than it did for the boy.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    4. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Looking at the papers, we have been recording hurricanes since 1850 (165 years) we have been accurately measuring and categorizing them them for about the last 40 years. (See Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale published 1973)

    5. Re:As expected by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Which is to say: please, dronebros, go and get your wealthy asses famous. It will be awesome footage, guaranteed ;P

      The problem is, it's hard to fly a drone in 200 MPH winds...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:As expected by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      Oh, come on, don't tell them that. It'll be hilarious!

    7. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All in favor of merging venus & mars together to create a new nega-Earth?

    8. Re:As expected by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Humans have been saying this since the advent of communication, although the original translation involved a bunch of clicks and grunts, usually aided by violently waiving one's arrow up to the sky and cursing the gods whose climate he doesn't understand.

    9. Re:As expected by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Science knows this would happen. Ever since we started unlocking the secrets of chaotic systems this has been well understood. Climate’s the biggest chaotic system there is.

      There is nothing weird about this at all. This is the new direction. Not the new normal because that implies they’re all going to be like this from now on. The reality’s worse.

      You're an idiot, entirely UNsupported by actual facts.

      You got one thing right, though. Climates are big. REALLY big. So big that we would have to drop a few HUNDRED nuclear bombs (not spray a few thousand cans of hairspray, or suffer the farts of a few million cows), or have a couple of REALLY big Volcanic Eruptions nearly simultaneously, to effect more than a temporary and wholly-unmeasurable BLIP in Climactic Norms, even over a fairly small portion of the planet.

    10. Re:As expected by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How long is the recorded history of similarly accurate storm measurement? How old is the planet? Maybe we're just in a cycle that is a bit longer than the amount of time people have been able to measure hurricanes, or have been able to measure them as accurately.

      The other reply is misleading.

      We've been using "modern" measurements for hurricanes since about 1959, which just happened to have a record storm. BUT... that year also had an El Nino. And the strong El Nino of this year again made one more likely. Nothing terribly special about that, statistically. And nothing particular connecting it to "global warming".

      Prior to that time, hurricanes were only actually measured at all when they made landfall. Others were only estimated from ships or from shore. Which means most of them were never measured, and in fact we actually have no idea where Patricia falls in the severity range since records began.

    11. Re:As expected by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, it just takes the right equipment and practice. You will want a fixed-wing drone that can fly at least 250 MPH. That will enable you to hover, fly backwards and forwards.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    12. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... please, dronebros, go and get your wealthy asses famous. It will be awesome footage, guaranteed ;P

      During winds of up to 200 mph? That is going to be one short footage even if you strap the drone to a car.

    13. Re:As expected by tbannist · · Score: 1

      So big that we would have to drop a few HUNDRED nuclear bombs

      So... Is the equivalent of 2.2 billion nuclear bombs enough?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    14. Re:As expected by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Oh hell yeah! We can call it the Venus and Mars Rock Show :)

    15. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science knows this would happen. Ever since we started unlocking the secrets of chaotic systems this has been well understood. Climate’s the biggest chaotic system there is.

      There is nothing weird about this at all. This is the new direction. Not the new normal because that implies they’re all going to be like this from now on. The reality’s worse.

      The new normal is for each new weather disaster to be ‘unprecedented and weird’ and it’s been happening for years already and not slowing down but speeding up.

      Alarmist? Fuck yes. Alarms are necessary and this is what they’re for. We are soon going to need to concentrate on clinging to life on this fucking planet, never mind ‘fighting climate change’. Climate’s WAAAAAY bigger than us. We’re pretty smart humans and we’ll succeed in adapting, but it’s gonna look like colonizing Venus and Mars put together, and one hell of a lot of innocent people will die in vast numbers trying to survive this.

      Maybe we can string up some Koches at some point to make ourselves feel better, because this was DONE by the decisions of stupid people, much like an avalanche can be kicked off by a person pushing over a snowbank.

      Failing that, somebody film this. Media might not want to undermine vested interests, but media can’t help but drool over footage of outrageous unthinkable destruction. Use that. Which is to say: please, dronebros, go and get your wealthy asses famous. It will be awesome footage, guaranteed ;P

      Or it could be Thor visiting.

    16. Re:As expected by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Science knows this would happen. Ever since we started unlocking the secrets of chaotic systems this has been well understood.

      I KNEW IT! It's the damn scientists fault!

      See--the AGW people are right! It's not that the scientists are making money off their climate studies, it's that they screwed up and created this mess by studying it! See? It's like that whole Schrodinger's Cat thing! Everything was fine until they started studying this stuff and now look at the mess we're in. They're just trying to cover their asses!

      Get the pitchforks out! Let's get 'em!

    17. Re:As expected by khayman80 · · Score: 2

      We've been using "modern" measurements for hurricanes since about 1959, which just happened to have a record storm. BUT... that year also had an El Nino. And the strong El Nino of this year again made one more likely. Nothing terribly special about that, statistically. And nothing particular connecting it to "global warming".

      The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?

      If there's really "nothing particular connecting" a process that's intensified by global warming, then this year's high temperatures should be due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming. If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. Have you seen a graph of global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo)? Do you think that best-fit line through just El Ninos would have a positive or negative slope? Can you think of another metric than GMST which would reveal more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades? Do you see why these questions are relevant to your claim?

      P.S. Don't worry- if you can't or won't answer these questions then I will. But first you deserve a chance to show off your scientific skills. If you won't provide a graph, will you accept a graph made by a scientist who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper with Anthony Watts?

      Prior to that time, hurricanes were only actually measured at all when they made landfall. Others were only estimated from ships or from shore. Which means most of them were never measured, and in fact we actually have no idea where Patricia falls in the severity range since records began.

      Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:

      "Detection and attribution of past changes in cyclone activity are hampered by biased cyclone records due to changes in observational capabilities. Here we construct an independent record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity on the basis of storm surge statistics from tide gauges. We demonstrate that the major events in our surge index record can be attributed to landfalling tropical cyclones; these events also correspond with the most economically damaging Atlantic cyclones. We find that warm years in general were more active in all cyclone size ranges than cold years. The largest cyclones are most affected by warmer conditions and we detect a statistically significant trend in the frequency of large surge events (roughly corresponding to tropical storm size) since 1923. In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years (P < 0.02)."

    18. Re:As expected by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea?

      How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same?

      Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed.

      There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always.

      Grinsted et al. 2012 measured Atlantic hurricane surges back to 1923:

      No, he didn't. He estimated them using proxies. He didn't "measure" them at all.

      I have no more to say about it to you. It isn't worth my time.

    19. Re:As expected by jittles · · Score: 1

      Hey bro, you're the one with a low UID. It was your generation of slashdot user that burned and pillaged the earth.

    20. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't the fault of the NRA?

    21. Re:As expected by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Reality is we should only really give a fuck about the time when huge major cities dotted the coastlines of the world. What happens now counts more than what happened a million or a billion years ago. We have problems now and we need to deal with them now. Carbon dioxide and global warming a problem now, we need to deal with it now and not crazily rabbit on about a million years ago. Planet getting to hot, we need to do what we can do to cool it and we certainly don't want have to work against our efforts to heat it, so we stop doing the stuff that heats it up and starting looking at doing safe stuff to cool it down, like irrigating the worlds deserts to suck up carbon dioxide and turn current farmlands into bio-diverse forests.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:As expected by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You know... At first I was like... WTF? Then I thought about it. You know? It just might work - the wind speed, well the pressure, is what matters. I wonder if anyone has ever managed this?

      Ah well... That's what I get for thinking about your post. "Don't fuck with Billy the Mountain."

      Oh, and Ethel was a tree on his shoulder! God that song cracks me up. I'm gonna find it and listen to it. Now to find a telephone booth.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our descendants (if they are even in a position to do so), are going to ask each other why we didn't start shooting ignorant fucks like you years ago.

    24. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Burn down the observatory, so this will never happen again!" (/Simpsons)

    25. Re:As expected by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      The connection between "global warming" and hurricane intensity has been well established (PDF) by Dr. Chris Landsea and many other authors. Can Jane link to a peer-reviewed paper refuting Dr. Landsea? [Dumb Scientist]

      How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same? Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. And we know very well now that the models are severely flawed. There are papers on both sides of the issue, but of course you only want to present those on your side, as always. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]

      As expected, you can't (or won't, which is indistinguishable) link to a paper debunking Dr. Landsea when he points out that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. But you can't/won't admit that, so you just vaguely insinuate that other papers (which you don't have time to link, of course) deny that higher temperatures cause more intense hurricanes. Please consider reading Dr. Landsea's abstract again to look for "speculative" and try to read the bolded part:

      "Whether the characteristics of tropical cyclones have changed or will change in a warming climate - and if so, how - has been the subject of considerable investigation, often with conflicting results. Large amplitude fluctuations in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones greatly complicate both the detection of long-term trends and their attribution to rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Trend detection is further impeded by substantial limitations in the availability and quality of global historical records of tropical cyclones. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether past changes in tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the variability expected from natural causes. However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. For all cyclone parameters, projected changes for individual basins show large variations between different modelling studies."

      How about your vaunted IPCC, and its "low confidence" rating for same? Further, that isn't a demonstrated connection. It says right in the abstract that it's a speculative projection based on models. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-23]

      Jane, please consider searching the whole paper for "speculative". And are you absolutely sure the IPCC gave a "low confidence" rating to the "same" statistic Dr. Landsea's paper mentioned, that the "globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100"? Maybe the IPCC split up their TFE.9 table 1 into early and late 21st century? Would the "same" statistic as Dr. Landsea's "2100" quote be early or late 21st century? Are you absolutely sure the relevant box is rated "low confidence"?

      What's really ironic is

    26. Re:As expected by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Interesting way of looking at it, I wonder how many Hiroshimas I'm personally responsible for.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    27. Re:As expected by thedonger · · Score: 1

      The Sahara has been drying out/heating up much longer than man has been spewing CO2 into the air like gangbusters. I'm not saying we go back to late 19th/early 20th century style industrial shenanigans, just that we use some perspective when people bring up ideas like manually "cooling the planet."

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
  6. Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article
    "Patricia the third strongest tropical cyclone in history (by wind)

    Super Typhoon Nancy (1961), 215 mph winds, 882 mb. Made landfall as a Cat 2 in Japan, killing 191 people.
    Super Typhoon Violet (1961), 205 mph winds, 886 mb pressure. Made landfall in Japan as a tropical storm, killing 2 people.
    Super Typhoon Ida (1958), 200 mph winds, 877 mb pressure. Made landfall as a Cat 1 in Japan, killing 1269 people.
    Super Typhoon Haiyan (2013), 195 mph winds, 895 mb pressure. Made landfall in the Philippines at peak strength.
    Super Typhoon Kit (1966), 195 mph winds, 880 mb. Did not make landfall.
    Super Typhoon Sally (1964), 195 mph winds, 895 mb. Made landfall as a Cat 4 in the Philippines.
    "
    Its a big one but not the strongest on record. From the look of it, they tend to happen every few years so not even a weather anomaly.

    1. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely happened yet so this is a fine time to say 'it's not much of a hurricane'. Please wait until all the people have been killed before coming around all 'climate change is a myth and this was no big deal'.

    2. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you RTFA?

      Highest reliably-measured:
      "The aircraft measured surface winds of 200 mph, which are the highest reliably-measured surface winds on record for a tropical cyclone, anywhere on the Earth."

      The other ones aren't reliable:
      "However, it is now recognized (Black 1992) that the maximum sustained winds estimated for typhoons during the 1940s to 1960s were too strong. The strongest reliably measured tropical cyclones were both 10 mph weaker than Patricia, with 190 mph winds—the Western Pacific's Super Typhoon Tip of 1979, and the Atlantic's Hurricane Allen of 1980."

    3. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      To be fair, they just left out the phrase "in North America...", and for some reason title real-estate is at a premium.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by belthize · · Score: 1

      You missed the bit where it's in the east pacific. Historically the west pacific typhoons are stronger. It's like comparing a tornado in California to ones in Kansas. An F4 tornado in LA would be a statistical anomaly where as Kansas gets one pretty regularly.

    5. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the facts dont meet the hype you adjust the facts?

      So the rest of the data is wrong just the stuff we have collected in the last 28 years?

    6. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it is happening more often now due to the Republican's global warming.

      Did you even read his post? The years in his list were 1958, 1961, 1961, 1964, 1966, and 2013. How is that more often?

      Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    7. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a misquote of: "the strongest hurricane on record in the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility (AOR) which includes the Atlantic and the eastern North Pacific basins,"

      Still though... it's in the top 5 globally and is poised to cause terrible damage. I worry less about the sensationalism, and wish there was more info on what organizations will be dealing with this and how to contribute to the relief efforts.

    8. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those were all typhoons. This is a hurricane.

    9. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Adjusting previous figures to show the current as maximum is a tried and true technique.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The story I read was "strongest hurricane out of all the storms in places where giant storms are called hurricanes" so the typhoons didn't count.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 0

      >Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      Delusional victims of far-right media make this claim, but it's never been true. It's just a wingnut meme, to keep you in the cult, and you should be ashamed of yourself for regurgitating it. These tricksy Liberals you hate so much are just normal people, seen through a lens distorted by right-wing indoctrination.

    12. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, someone is actually defending the "more often now due to the Republican's global warming" claim.

    13. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The GP is just trying to defend what the Republicans are doing to humanity.

    14. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whole people wouldn't do this to us.

    15. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Then maybe you can wait until it actually occurs and we have real information before you run around claiming we will all die.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    16. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Rei · · Score: 2

      Dr. Hugh Willoughby, former head of NOAA's Hurricane Research Division, had this to say about the winds measured in Super Typhoon Nancy and the other high-end typhoons from this list from the 1960s:

      "I would not take the winds seriously because reconnaissance meteorologists estimated them visually. A decade later when I flew with the VW-1 hurricane hunters, we had the same Doppler system used to measure the winds of Typhoon Nancy. It tracked the aircraft motion relative to the (possibly moving) sea surface. It couldn't get a coherent signal in high winds because the beam reflected from both the actual surface (whatever that is) and blowing spray. Visual estimates are dubious because the surface (under the eyewall!) is hard to see unless you are flying below cloud base (200-300 m) and also because appreciably above 115 mph, it's completely white with blowing spray. We used to think that we could estimate stronger winds from the decreasing coverage of slightly greenish patches where the spray was thinner. I now think that we were kidding ourselves. In those days the distinctions among wind gust, sustained one-minute winds, etc., were less well defined than they are now. So we may never know the 1960s reconnaissance data really means!"

      At the same time, we should keep in mind that not all hurricanes are sampled while at peak strength. Satellite methods of estimating intensity, such as the Dvorak technique, cannot capture the most extreme peak winds and central pressures found in storms such as Patricia and Wilma. It is possible that previous hurricanes, such as the 1935 Labor Day hurricane that devastated the Florida Keys, had intensification rates and peak winds on par with Patricia. The bottom line is that Patricia is at the very highest end of what we can expect in terms of a small, extremely intense hurricane.

      This is the nature of reality. Your data gets better and better with time. You don't whine when you learn that some old records may have been in error, just like you don't whine when you learn that there might have been past records that weren't measured as such due to insufficient data.

      (For the record and in a similar vein, the "world's hottest temperature in Al-Azzyah Libya" thing is also considered to be erroneous. But that doesn't mean that before we had such good temperature-measuring coverage that there weren't super-hot temperatures in the past - just that that one is almost assuredly wrong)

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    17. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the entire article:

      Dr. Hugh Willoughby, former head of NOAA's Hurricane Research Division, had this to say about the winds measured in Super Typhoon Nancy and the other high-end typhoons from this list from the 1960s:

      "I would not take the winds seriously because reconnaissance meteorologists estimated them visually.

    18. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Bartles · · Score: 0

      So really climate scientists altered the old data to make it seem less extreme, and could now claim the current storm is the strongest. Where have we seen that tactic before?

    19. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Except the old data is ALWAYS altered in the direction that makes the current data look more extreme. Always.

    20. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by macs4all · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's not entirely happened yet so this is a fine time to say 'it's not much of a hurricane'. Please wait until all the people have been killed before coming around all 'climate change is a myth and this was no big deal'.

      Cyclic Climate Change has been happening ever since there was an atmosphere on this planet.

      Man-Made Climate Change is a myth.

    21. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by macs4all · · Score: 1

      When the facts dont meet the hype you adjust the facts?

      So the rest of the data is wrong just the stuff we have collected in the last 28 years?

      That's EXACTLY what is being done, and it SHOULD be CRIMINAL.

    22. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Rei · · Score: 1

      Errors can be demonstrated and old records thus corrected. But missing data can't be conjured out of thin air. So what exactly do you want? People not to correct errors when they find them? Or people to find a way to conjure nonexistent data out of thin air? What exactly do you want?

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    23. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      A F4 tornado in California would probably cause more damage because their cities probably aren't built with tornadoes in mind. They like to use natural obstacles that keep tornadoes from forming like rivers and bluffs.

    24. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by sycodon · · Score: 1

      But that's exactly what they do. Unless you claim that Siberia, American Southwest, the Empty Quarter, middle of the Pacific, etc have full coverage. They make estimates for the majority of locations on the earth.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    25. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by tbannist · · Score: 0

      Man-Made Climate Change is a myth.

      Why? How do you know that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a myth? How do you know more about the climate than 97% of the people who study it and 90% of scientists in general, and every national science body in the world? When the evidence is all around us, what makes you prefer to believe that the scientists are lying to us for grant money (which they don't even get to keep)? How can you be so sure that releasing 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per year can have no measurable effect on the atmosphere or the climate?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    26. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      From the look of it, they tend to happen every few years so not even a weather anomaly.

      Yeah, it's a complete non-story, no one should pay any attention to it at all, there's no one even there. Let's get back to watching Donald Trump on TV! Oh, and fuck Mexico!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    27. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it not hilarious how we paint people with different beliefs then our own as delusional and abnormal?

    28. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much are you getting paid to be a moron?

      Captcha: Framed

    29. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Homer: Oh Lisa! There's no record of a hurricane ever hitting Springfield.

      Lisa: Yes, but the records only go back to 1978 when the Hall of Records was mysteriously blown away.

    30. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by ehiris · · Score: 1

      Strongest Hurricane on record is correct.

      The Pacific has Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones but Cyclones are in the southern hemisphere there.

      Sure, they are kind of the same thing but different storm regions.

    31. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, depending on the measure, almost everything has satellite coverage. Surface stations aren't as extensive, but they're pretty extensive, and there's been huge amounts of work to correlate surface and satellite measurements. But it seems here like we're drifting off topic: the topic was, when someone finds errors in old data, should we just ignore it? Because it sounds like you were arguing that we should.

      --
      "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
    32. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by tbannist · · Score: 1

      So, how much are you being paid to post this bullshit?

      What bullshit? I asked you some questions. Important questions, given your extraordinary claims.

      You've been ranting and raving about all over the comment section of this article about how Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the climate change scientists. I'm asking you why you are making these claims. I hope you'll understand that I'm a little confused about your claims since Shell, BP, and Chevron all acknowledge that climate change is real, and they have billions of dollars at stake. So, I'm curious why you don't believe in climate change, while virtually all of the experts do.

      Even the U.S. Army considers climate change to be real and a potential threat.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    33. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Lo and behold, the satellite data has shown no warming for decades, while the "corrected" data shows accelerating warming.

    34. Re: Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, your true agenda becomes apparent. I was starting to wonder whether you were consistently stupid or if you were shilling for something. The answer, of course, is both. Fuck off, shill.

    35. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      He wants the new data to reflect his private version of reality.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    36. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Mild side of some in the past. There was one that removed Hogg island off of New York City back in the last Century... er rather the 1800s. You know, before industrialization took over...well after water started rising in Venice due to GW - back in the 1300s.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    37. Re:Wow, slashdot editors can not RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is a process not a technique.

  7. Sounds More Like by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    It sounds more like a 250 mile wide tornado than a hurricane. I hope the people there are going to take that thing seriously. We should already be lining up an international response to the devastation it's going to cause.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Sounds More Like by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      A tornado hits peak winds for a relatively short period of time. A slow moving hurricane could maintain peak winds for an hour, or for hours.

      I'm sure they're taking it more seriously than Slashdot is (predictable really) but it gets to a point where what CAN they do? Again, it's like telling people to prepare for a direct nuclear blast. Hours of 200 mph winds makes the entire world basically a sort of sandblaster, using flying shrapnel to scour away all traces of civilization. There ain't a lot you can do to prepare when Mother Nature's been chugging too many hydrocarbon espressos and goes into a seizure.

    2. Re:Sounds More Like by belthize · · Score: 1

      Yep, basically a 100 mile (or more) wide F4 tornado. Most buildings aren't really build to take that kind of hit.

    3. Re:Sounds More Like by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they're taking it more seriously than Slashdot is (predictable really) but it gets to a point where what CAN they do? Again, it's like telling people to prepare for a direct nuclear blast.

      So they were all told to get under a school desk and cover the back of their necks with their hands?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Sounds More Like by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I hope the people there are going to take that thing seriously.

      Sure, they are. But for all the progress they've seen since for example the last time I was there almost twenty years ago, a lot of them are still living in plywood shacks. A lot of little villages are going to literally blow away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Sounds More Like by Coren22 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There ain't a lot you can do to prepare when Mother Nature's been chugging too many hydrocarbon espressos and goes into a seizure.

      You really are a Climate Change zealot aren't you?

      This is El Nino. It is entirely expected. This is not an unusual weather pattern, nor is it the strongest storm ever. You really need to calm the rhetoric.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Sounds More Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand how damaging a tornado really is. A 100 mile wide F4 would probably kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Those types of winds are only going to be found at or near the eye wall. As you move away, they drop quickly. I'm sure they will cause a lot of destruction and probably loss of life, but the real danger here is the storm surge and flooding from massive rainfall. You may want to run out after work tonight and stock up on good tequila, because the price probably will be going up for a couple of years.

    7. Re:Sounds More Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that guy is a little zealous, but this storm is not a joke. If you want to call it an ordinary western pacific hurricane or an AGW fueled one makes no difference to the people it is bearing down on. Sustained winds of 200mph (sustained, not gust) will cause immense damage to anything in its path. Let's all hope that there is tremendous weakening as it approaches shallower coastal water.

    8. Re:Sounds More Like by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Yep, basically a 100 mile (or more) wide F4 tornado. All buildings aren't really build to take that kind of hit.

      FTFY.

    9. Re:Sounds More Like by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I agree, it is a beast of a storm, but attributing a single storm to AGW is absurd.

      I personally feel for the people being hit by this storm. I have been lucky, despite some dooseys hitting my area, I have never lost anything to a hurricane, but they can cause you to lose everything, so they are no laughing matter.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    10. Re:Sounds More Like by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      it's like telling people to prepare for a direct nuclear blast

      So... hide in a refrigerator?

      I mean, Lucas and Spielberg would never have steered me wrong on that, right?

  8. Biggest seen since we've been looking by tomhath · · Score: 0

    We've only been watching storms that are offshore for a few decades. There's no reason to believe this one is unlike other storms that have been forming out in the Pacific since the last Ice Age.

    1. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Well we do know about the ones that ended up on land for quite a ways back. Not sure what you're getting at with your untestable supposition. Is this not a big deal because it might have happened before?

    2. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by chipschap · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that every big storm is taken by the "alarmists" to be solid evidence of catastrophic climate change. This only fuels the "deniers" who say that "alarmists" take every excuse to push their agenda ... something both sides actually do.

      When we phrase everything as a contest between "sides" we lose track of the reality. If dangerous climate change is indeed taking place while we're so caught up in fighting for our "side" we will really be in trouble. If dangerous climate change isn't taking place, we will have had a big fight for nothing, but that would be a safer outcome. I've said this many times: could we please concentrate on serious, non-politicized science?

      Fat chance, but it's the only way out.

    3. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Study chaos theory. It's relatively new in that it didn't exist in the time of Galileo or Isaac Newton, but it's the exact model you need to predict what's happening.

      Since it's chaotic it's impossible to pin down exact outcomes but the overall behavior is extremely stable and predictable. We know exactly what happens in a chaotic system, we know the exact threshold where periodic events break down and go into chaotic flow, we know specific signposts (such as Period Three Implies Chaos) telling us we're working with a chaotic system, and we know how to map out the extremes of statistically predictable behavior.

      We're going to be seeing Cat 6 and probably Cat 7 within our lifetimes, guaranteed (and I know it's an exponential type of function, so I'll put cat 7 as a 'probably' and cat 6 as the 'guaranteed'). These are destructive events that rival anything warring nation-states can do to each other, especially since it's the earth's atmosphere doing it so it's not like you run out of nuclear warheads. The earth will not run out of wind and rain, so it will just keep happening.

      These apparent outlier events telegraph the state of the underlying system, including phenomena like how quickly this one grew. Part of the increased energy in the chaotic system gives you things like the potential suddenness of weather events. We're seeing those in phenomena like cloudbursts, not just in cat 5 hurricanes.

    4. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      You seem to mean well, but you're trying to create a false balance between the reality-based people that you call "alarmists" and the foolish propaganda-gulping "deniers." That's not helpful.

      We know for a fact that warming is real, it's just that the propagandized right-wing lunatics can't accept that they're driving us all off a cliff. Hate-radio, and right-wing fake-news has done us a lot of harm.

    5. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to believe this one is unlike other storms that have been forming out in the Pacific since the last Ice Age.
      A la contrair.
      As the size and strength of storms grows with water temperature, and we have now the highest temperatures since the last glacier period, it is save to assume that our days storms are stronger.
      Obviously there might have been single cases in history where a storm was equally strong or even stronger.
      The clear trend (even if denied by weather frogs) is ofc a scientific fact.
       

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably standard right-wing denial, but it's possible that he's a normal person who just can't handle how much trouble we've let the extremists get us into. It's hard to wrap your head around having let profiteers and their right-wing propaganda consuming dupes trash the planet we depend on for our survival.

    7. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by bigwheel · · Score: 0

      Alarmists have an advantage over deniers. Fire and brimstone rhetoric is good for getting people all worked up. But there is a lot of power and money to be had by keeping people scared and obedient.

      It's too bad that the government is spending billions on climate change, with no hope of changing anything in the real world. Meanwhile, we are completely unprepared for something like this: "NASA just discovered a massive asteroid that will zoom past Earth on Halloween night" http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... If one of those suckers happens to hit near LA or NYC, millions of people get to meet their maker. It sure would be nice if we could predict/evacuate the impact area. Better yet if we could steer them out of harms way.

      As the parent said: "could we please concentrate on serious, non-politicized science?"

    8. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

      If one of those suckers happens to hit near LA or NYC, millions of people get to meet their maker.

      If one of these suckers hits ANYWHERE on the planet, Millions, if not Billions of people get to meet their maker.... You'd have to evacuate the whole damn planet...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    9. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      The numbers I've seen for smaller (and more likely) meteors are on the order of a few nukes. If we knew when and where they would hit, it's perfectly feasible to evacuate the area. Coastal towns do this all the time when a hurricane is about to hit.

      Chelyabinsk received no warning when it was struck by a meteor. That rock exploded with the energy of around 500 kilotonnes of TNT. http://www.theguardian.com/sci... It sure would be nice to know if that was going to happen in your neighborhood.

      For the really big one, we don't hear much about Project Orion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... much any more. But given the right circumstances, it might still have some merit.

    10. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      Yeah. We would like to think that if something comes along and literally flattens an entire city leaving only rubble, it's a bomb. That's because in our recorded history, we haven't experienced hurricanes that go through major cities and literally flatten them and grind them to powder, but we have experienced warfare and bombs.

      If we get the equivalent of about cat 6 or 7 hurricanes (apparently cat 5 only goes up to 150 mph because that was considered to be 'ultimate destructive force', and it's roughly 27 mph to each new level, which requires a far greater hurricane force to create, but we're seeing it in this current record-breaking hurricane and hoping it cools off to just MODERATELY record-breaking rather than 'OMG WTF' grade record breaking)...

      That's the grind-everything-to-powder potential of a really big tornado, but lasting for hours not minutes and hundreds or thousands of times the size.

      It's not surprising if a normal person doesn't want to believe such a thing could ever be real. But we've made 'em.

      Think of it like charging a capacitor and then discharging it suddenly. The added energy going into our climate due to carbon, methane etc. making it trap solar heat (and there's SO MUCH solar heat to be trapped) means we're storing up huge amounts of energy, and then it discharges through these hurricanes, which are getting larger. That's why we've always had cities and not had to worry about weather literally blowing them flat, but now in some locations we are beginning to see weather literally obliterating anything we can build.

      And this is why we need higher cat numbers for hurricanes. We'll learn to build structures that can take 150 mph sustained winds, because we're humans and we don't give up. Neither does the energy in the global atmosphere, so eventually it'll matter whether a hurricane is 200 mph for hours or 250 mph for hours, or 300 mph for a few very ugly minutes.

      That's our future. The planet will survive, nature will adapt, but we're gonna have to work at surviving what we've made. For all we know there have been previous extinction events when Earth creatures got civilized, started burning carbon or got hit by an asteroid, and then got wiped off the face of the planet.

    11. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      We're watching polar ice melt away like crazy, and the reflective nature of that stuff has been a huge deal in not producing a runaway condition.

      OUR activities are relatively tiny compared to the effect of all the polar ice melting and those oceans soaking up solar energy directly, and yet for all that our own activities have been sufficient to provide that little nudge that tipped the icecaps to melt that's going to heat the oceans that will get the chain reaction happening in earnest.

      It's already too late so it'd be nice if the people who got us into this position had the decency to admit it. But then, how can they possibly contemplate that level of guilt, for at first inadvertently tipping the balance and flinging us into this? Probably didn't mean it, though we've known about this stuff for many decades and there have always been people trying to head off the problem before it was big enough to notice.

      Too late. Man up and face the reality, or be flattened beneath 'probably normal weather that's probably always happened'.

    12. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Is this not a big deal because it might have happened before?

      Where did you get that? Of course a Cat 5 hurricane coming ashore is a big deal.

      But the headline "Strongest Hurricane In Recorded History " is deceptive (obviously you fell for it). All it says is that we haven't seen one this strong in the past few decades, because that's as far back as our "Recorded History" of hurricanes at sea goes.

    13. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that a city the size of LA or New York couldn't be evacuated in three weeks? Because that's how long NASA has been tracking that asteroid and they know exactly where it will go; it it was going to hit the Earth we would have plenty of time to clear a spot for it.

    14. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the level headed science based right wingers have gone through the twisted manipulative IPCC reports point by point and explained how and why their interpretation of the research is wrong, and published their findings in the NIPCC reports. The radical left wing alarmists have no defence other than name calling, personal attacks and screaming Koch brothers. The radical left won't even look at it and instead want to destroy every economy in the world with carbon taxes that will make the lying politicians even richer.

    15. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the laugh. The NIPCC report is a joke.

    16. Re:Biggest seen since we've been looking by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that they are not yet accurate enough to predict that it would hit LA or NYC in time to evacuate. They might be able to predict that it would hit earth somewhere, but that's about it. And they are still letting some sneak by, like the one in Chelyabinsk . And if a really big one is heading our way, there is still nothing we can do about it but pray. We have the technology, but lack the desire.

  9. /. commenters can'y read summaries, either by sstamps · · Score: 4, Informative

    It clearly said "strongest hurricane", which is true. Typhoons are on the other side of the Pacific ocean. Hurricanes are only in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific.

    "They happen every few years". 50 years is not what I would call "few". If so, I would only be a "few" years old.

    --
    -SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
    1. Re:/. commenters can'y read summaries, either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alias hurricane = typhoon

      problem solved

  10. Wow, slashdot commenters can not RTFA by nuckfuts · · Score: 2

    From the article
    "However, it is now recognized (Black 1992) that the maximum sustained winds estimated for typhoons during the 1940s to 1960s were too strong. The strongest reliably measured tropical cyclones were both 10 mph weaker than Patricia...".

    1. Re:Wow, slashdot commenters can not RTFA by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Because MPH was defined differently back then. In black and white, or something.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Wow, slashdot commenters can not RTFA by tbannist · · Score: 1

      According to what someone else posted above, it's because the wind speed was estimated by looking at the storm and guessing how fast the winds were. It's not what I'd call the most accurate or reliable methodology.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:Wow, slashdot commenters can not RTFA by sycodon · · Score: 1

      And it's not what I would call anywhere near an accurate statement. The Anemometer was invented in 1846. No one was looking at the storm.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  11. Re:Thanks, Bush... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    It was caused by all the hot air exiting the Benghazi investigation yesterday, Hillary was on the stand for 11 hours after all.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  12. Re:Thanks, Bush... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Pascals - Kilo Fucking Pascals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking barbarians.

  14. Re:Thanks, Bush... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was nice of the Republicans to help her campaign by beclowning themselves. Sanders is probably pretty annoyed that they wouldn't put on a clown-show to boost his numbers too.

    The whole Republican party is the Dunning-Kruger effect on a massive scale, idiots patting each other on the back for being what right-wing lunatics think is "smart".
    It wasn't always this way, but decades of pandering to racists and religious fanatics for short-tern gain was always going to destroy the party from the inside. Anyone who's both smart and well-meaning has no place in the today's Republican party.

  15. Why cnn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you smoking sherm again?

  16. Re:Thanks, Bush... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Keep telling yourself that, I am sure Hillary will win...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  17. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In another century this guy would have been burning witches. Now he prays to the false God of Pseudoscience, bowing down at the altar of the Cult of Global Warming.

  18. Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by avgjoe62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's cut all the crap about global warming/climate change and remember that there are people living where this storm is making landfall. It doesn't matter if this is the strongest storm ever or if climate change caused this, there are real people in harm's way. This is not going to be pretty, between storm surge and rainfall over mountainous terrain and the flooding that will bring. So please keep these people in mind.

    Do whatever you think best to help. whether that be prayer or cutting out a Starbuck's run to donate to the Red Cross. What are we put on this Earth for if not to help one another?

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    1. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by chadenright · · Score: 2

      I agree with this statement. Let's worry about the people in harm's way.

    2. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for this, a lot of talk all over the internet about this, but little focus on the fact that ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS may end up harmed or killed by this.

      A little empathy goes a long way.

    3. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by firehawk2k · · Score: 1

      This one is going to happen and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Steps are already in place to minimize the damage.

      The discussion is about global warming/climate change because it shows that this is the first of many recordbreakers and puts the focus on how to prevent or lessen future hurricanes.

      Plus it's a little short sighted to only focus on this one, and forget about the topic afterwards until the next one happens.

    4. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The thing that really strikes me about this storm is that on Tuesday night I hadn't heard of it as a tropical storm, and 24 hours later it's a very powerful storm, far more powerful than the models predicted it was going to be, and it's headed directly toward a populated area and major tourist destination. The people there had virtually no time to prepare for it, by the time a lot of tourists heard that they needed to evacuate the airports were already closed and the buses were full. The story is both the power of the storm and the speed with which it intensified. It's pretty scary. I'm far less interested in the "why" than I am about the well-being of the people who literally woke up and heard that they're directly in the path of an enormous storm that they aren't going to be able to get away from.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      The "crap about global warming" is about the next one.

      I just went through my first typhoon, visiting inlaws in Taiwan. They're getting hit a lot more frequently now - my wife has some pics of typhoon damage from a trip she went just a month before. At one point there were 3 cat 4 typhoons in the Pacific at the same time, also a historical first.

      There's the path "it's caused randomly so we can't do anything about it" there's also the path "it's caused by ____ so lets yell at ____ so we feel better, but it's about how we showed ____ is the bad guy and we don't actually do anything".

      I hope there is a path "it's caused by ____ so lets try to fix ____"

    6. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      It matters very much if it's linked to global warming.
      Sure, you need a short term response for the impacted people, but you also need to have a plan for the bigger picture.
      If you don't, you're only treating symptoms while ignoring the cause.

    7. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actually curious whether that's the best organization to donate to in times like these. They only built six houses in Haiti after the earthquake. They received half a BILLION dollars and only SIX houses!?! Is there some better option out there?

    8. Re:Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      please keep these people in mind.

      Then what? I'll be thinking of you as you drown? That's kinda morbid

    9. Re: Let's Remember the Important Thing Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gun lobby (NRA in USA case) pushes a similar line whenever there is a mass shooting....

  19. Lying with stats. Hottest ever, coldest ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Earth is BILLIONS of years old.

    Humans have been making and recording global weather data for about 50 years (the first actual weather satellite, TIROS-1 was very crude and launched in 1960. Human records for global weather in the hundred years before that were from local weather guys in various spots around the globe and ship captains and floating buoys at sea plus the odd adventurer. Global weather before about two centuries ago was mostly in Europe or by a few captains of sailing ships at sea using mercury thermometers and barometers read often by candlelight on a pitching and rolling deck.

    200 years (at best) of data out of only 1,000,000,000 years (a fraction of the Earth's existence) is a 1/5000000 sample (and even THAT is a gross over estimate of the significance of all of the weather "all-time records" we occasionally break. We are not hitting all-time temp highs (or lows) or seeing the biggest earthquake ever, or the biggest storm ever, or the strongest winds ever, or the biggest waves ever, etc - we are just occasionally seeing the most extreme things WE HUMANS have seen and recorded in the past 200 (approx) years out of billions of years of history. It takes a remarkable degree of dishonesty and/or willful ignorance to do what all the 24-hour news networks and the climate activists and big government advocates do with every such event and claim it is the most extreme EVER. These people willfully mislead the public by saying "worst on record" or "record breaking" while knowing the public will infer "worst ever" when it really just is an illustration of how poor our weather and climate records truly are.

    1. Re:Lying with stats. Hottest ever, coldest ever... by chadenright · · Score: 1

      Calling the accurate news report a lie doesn't stop the fact that it is a bad storm that is going to cause a lot of damage very soon. There are plenty of inaccurate news reports for you to troll over, why not troll over those?

  20. Clearly More Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Against Global Warming /s

  21. Patricia is Fair Warning to the US West Coast by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    When you search "Pineapple Express" in Wikipedia, you realize we are only a few years away from a repeat due on the 160 year cycle of mega storms hitting the West Coast.

    Geologists studying the California valley sediments know these groups of storms over a month's time will dump around 10 feet of water on California in a month.

    NOAA has been studying the size of the warm water buildup in the Eastern Pacific that feeds these storms for decades, so we know it is coming.

    Patricia is likely only the first one.

    1. Re:Patricia is Fair Warning to the US West Coast by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      we are only a few years away from a repeat due on the 160 year cycle of mega storms hitting the West Coast.

      How do you know it's a 160-year cycle? Are there records of west coast storms from the early 1700s? That would be 2 data points, a third would require records from the 1540s.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Patricia is Fair Warning to the US West Coast by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I imagine archeometeorologists can get it from tree rings or whatever. Still, a quick Google search didn't give me any hits regarding a '160-year cycle'.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Patricia is Fair Warning to the US West Coast by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Nowadays we're seeing weather patterns that used to be 500 year events every 3-5 years, and 100 year events every 2-3 years.

      It's basically all the excess energy (which has been referred to as Global Warming) dumping out.

      It doesn't care about your political beliefs.

      It doesn't care about your excuses for doing nothing.

      It just is.

      Admittedly, it can be confusing for people in the NE of North America, who are dealing with the melting of Greenland dumping a lot of cold water that used to be ice sheets into the Atlantic Conveyor Belt, not understanding that this makes their "personal" weather colder, as a result of the world getting hotter.

      An easier way to view it is this: You can fix it now, by converting all existing coal plants to cogeneration (doubles the energy output, same coal input) and not building new ones and investing around $2 Trillion (yes, $2,000,000,000,000.00) in making all new energy systems with more efficient electric vehicles (cheaper to operate and maintain) and all new energy solar and wind.

      Or you can wait until 2020 and then spend around $25 Trillion to do the same thing.

      The choice is yours. But it is a Choice. And you are Making it, even if you do nothing. Nothing is a choice too.

      The world will exist perfectly well without you.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  22. Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    About an hour ago another NOAA plane did readings while flying through the storm:

    "the plane reported an extrapolated surface pressure of 902.6 millibars based on measurements from the aircraft. Peak flight-level winds were 166 mph during this pass."

    So, um, the storm weakened by > 20% in an hour? So now it is just a regular Cat 5 which have hit this area regularly.

    1. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically this all just a bunch of hype?

    2. Re:Update by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yep, now we know: the weather blows.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  23. Katrina much worse by trout007 · · Score: 1

    This thing has higher winds but is more like a tornado. It's hurricane winds are about 25 miles wide vs Katrina which was 125 miles. The flooding required a large wall of wind to really pile up the water. This is more like Charlie in 2004 which had really fast but narrow winds.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  24. Bad name for a storm.... by LVSlushdat · · Score: 1

    I recall the crap gals named Katrina underwent during/after Hurricane Katrina, since my wife's name is Patricia, I sincerely hope she doesn't get any of the same, being that this is supposedly the most powerful recorded hurricane in history...

    --
    THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
  25. Re:Pray for MEXICO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... It might disrupt the drug, weapon, and human trafficking. That will mean lots of Mexican officials won't be getting a bonus check that week.

  26. Strongest Recorded Hurricane in History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a difference, but don't facts and grammer get in the way, Clickbait-dot.

  27. this is how it will be spun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil storm attacks poor innocent undocumented brown peoples. Evil white people do nothing to prevents storm from attacking brown peoples because white peoples are all racist. In fact evil white people created and designed said storm to just attack brown people by creatively creating smog at just the right locations to change the climate of Mexico and destroy these poor innocent brown peoples. The only solution is for the evil white peoples to let the poor undocumented guest workers to move north to live in their houses, and eat their food and perform the jobs that are too good for white people. Meanwhile the evil white people can move to under the sea or under ground where they belong.

    The future belongs to the strong. Today the USA is very very weak, and we are doing everything we can to strengthen our enemies.

  28. How about you answer the question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As to your IPCC comment, what was the low confidence for? IIRC, it was about the NUMBER of hurricane landfalls increasing was a low confidence claim, but the incresing storm intensity (the subject of the person you "replied" to) was higher.

    Please also note that because it was low confidence doesn't mean they say it can't happen, retard.

    Please note your cowards retord "It isn't worth my time" has been noted as the empty retreat bleat of a cowardly shithead. Because you had plenty of time to write a post, but not to include any answers to the questions made, only yet more slurs and lies and fatuous claims against someone who doesn't buy your BS and won't let it sit uncountered.

    1. Re:How about you answer the question? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Please also note that because it was low confidence doesn't mean they say it can't happen, retard.

      I did not claim it did mean that, "retard". Talk about misinterpretation.

      And as for Chris Landsea, he wrote this a year AFTER the citation given above:

      Hurricanes are natural heat engines. They extract energy from the moist, warm air over the tropical and subtropical oceans, liberate this energy in the process of forming clouds and rainfall, but lose most of this energy in the cold exhaust of the cyclone in the upper part (~8 mi, or ~12 km) of the atmosphere. A very small percentage (less than 1%)5 of this released energy is used to warm the air within the hurricane, drop the air's density and pressure, and cause the swirling winds to spin faster and faster.

      It's also important to point out that ocean temperatures are not the only factor that is crucial in knowing which disturbances will develop into a tropical storm and which systems will intensify to become extremely strong hurricanes. Other physical "ingredients" in the hurricane "recipe" include moist air and numerous thunderstorms, weak vertical wind shear (the difference in winds near the ocean versus the upper part of the atmosphere), and a triggering disturbance (in the Atlantic this is often from an African easterly wave in the atmosphere). Any manmade alterations to the air's moisture, thunderstorm activity, vertical shear, and originating disturbances may be as or even more important that changes to the ocean temperatures themselves. All climate models predict that for every degree of warming at the ocean that the air temperature aloft will warm around twice as much. This is important because if global warming only affected the earth's surface, then there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into. But, instead, warming the upper atmosphere more than the surface along with some additional moisture near the ocean means that the energy available for hurricanes to access increases by just a slight amount. Moreover, the vertical wind shear is also supposed to increase, making it more difficult (not easier) for hurricanes to form and intensify.

      Give me a break, and stop talking out your ass. It gets really tiresome. Not just to me, but to others too.

    2. Re:How about you answer the question? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?

      Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper, but Jane's use of "AFTER" suggests he doesn't agree. If Jane thinks Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece contradicts his 2010 paper, couldn't Jane just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?

      Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

    3. Re:How about you answer the question? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?

      You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers?

      For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science?

      You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get.

      Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper

      Good! If that's true, then we must both agree that vertical windshear will tend to hamper the formation and intensity of hurricanes, should CO2-based warming show to be strong. Because after all, that's what that opinion said.

      Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

      Holy crap, you can be blind to your own hypocrisy sometimes. He ALSO says in the same few paragraphs that AGW models require faster warming of the troposphere than of the surface... which you admit is not happening, and which have tried to claim is not important.

      You aren't going to get it both ways, man. On either point. Any of the 4 ways you go, you have contradicted yourself. As usual.

      "What a maroon", as Bugs Bunny so famously said.

    4. Re:How about you answer the question? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

      In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

      You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

      No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

      I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

      IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
      "it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
      That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

      Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

      Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

      The "global

    5. Re:How about you answer the question? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      Of course he cites GISTEMP. Never the satellite data or less-heavily-adjusted temperature series.

      Jane, years ago I said that it's not clear how global warming will impact hurricane frequency because of factors like wind shear. I also said that hurricanes (overall, Cat 1+) might not be more frequent in the future for the same reason. That's also what Dr. Landsea's 2010 abstract said:

      I know. You just proved my point: you were contradicting yourself.

      And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications.

      You cited one person's opinion about that. But for the vast majority of papers on AGW which make use of Global Circulation Models, faster warming of the mid-to-upper troposphere is an implicit assumption because most GCMs make that assumption. You cite papers that made use of these GCMs all the time, yet now you claim they are based on false assumptions? Well, gee, there's a surprise: you contradicted yourself again.

      As I have told you many times before, I will not discuss Twitter comments with you here on Slashdot. If you had something to say about it, you should have said it on Twitter.

      The rest is more of the same. You are very tiresome and by now utterly boring.

    6. Re:How about you answer the question? by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Jane keeps repeating his very tiresome and utterly boring nonsense, so I'll respond there.

  29. Except that is a load of bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the raw unadjusted trend is higher than the result after adjusting, your claim of "Always" is arrogant bullshit totally unconnected with anything outside your echo chamber of denialist talking points.

  30. intersting but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    interesting but, /. how does this relate to News for Nerdz??? CNN really??? Not even the weather channel?
    Is FOX news in there as well?

    way to blunder fuck Overlords,, No wonder your up for sale again..

  31. small historical samples vs measurement by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    I don't think this will be the strongest hurricane in history. It might be the most intense hurricane measured in the post 1850 era..

    The Great Hurricane of 1780 will likely be bigger, longer and perhaps more intense, but the surviving observations are crude measures. Recorded human experience is very, very limited on monstrosities observed, survived and recorded at all. In other periods, who knows, perhaps some lucky geologist for some "Cat 6" beach stuff will find the evidence.

  32. "reliable" since '70s? 1 in 46 for new record. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    the highest reliably-measured surface winds on record for a tropical cyclone, anywhere on the Earth. [but] the maximum sustained winds estimated for typhoons during the 1940s to 1960s were too strong.

    So measurements aren't "reliable" before about 1970 - 45 years ago. Assuming you start in 1970 and take at least one "reliable" measurement of the strongest storm of the year, and there is no change trend to the storm strengths at all:
      - In 1970 you have a 100% chance of a new record.
      - In 1971 you have a 50% chance of a new record.
      - In 1972 you have a 33.33...% chance of a new record. ...
      - In 2015 you have a 2.17...% chance for a new record.

    Pick enough weather events with similar "reliable" histories and you can find several that are setting new records every year. Attribute them to "global warming" (or demons, or space alien intervention, ...) and you can get several media events per year, too.

    Similarly with daily high and low temperatures. Even accepting "unreliable" data, most locations have fewer years of measurements than days in the year, producing several new "all time record" high or low temperatures every year.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  33. Not trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will, indeed, be a terrible storm and very bad for all those humans and animals in its path...

    that does not, however, change the fact that lazy and/or dishonest people in the press (across the ENTIRE spectrum, from HuffPo and MSNBC to Fox News) will hype the story as "the worst EVER" or the "largest ever" or the "fastest winds ever recorded" or the "most rain ever recorded" etc for lots of reasons ranging from the unending quest for better ratings (cha-ching!!), to support for preferred political actions (most of them have preferred candidates, agendas, and public policy prescriptions). The dumb ones should be shunned no matter their perceived political leanings just fro being too dumb to be trusted, and the dishonest ones need to be shunned even more.

    These talking heads know full-well the limits of the attention spans and educations of their audiences; they spend lots of time and money studying them to be more effective getting them to watch and therefore collecting higher ad revenue. It's not really asking that much to expect them to provide CONTEXT to their hyperbolic rhetoric and circus side-show-like headline shrieking. When they blast out the message "worst on record!!!!" they know full-well that most of the public has no realistic understanding of the record and therefore the context and therefore whether the info is even significant.

  34. There will be another "strongest ever" along soon. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    ... There has been a new "strongest ever" hurricane every few years since the 1970s. Which implies one of two things - there were negligible records of hurricane intensity before the 1970s (which is factually incorrect) ; or the mean strength of hurricanes is increasing. So those of us living outside the hurricane belt (by a safe-for-our-lifetimes margin) can look forward to watching a continuing series of "strongest-ever" hurricanes hitting people who do live in hurricane belts.

    well, it's a price you pay for living there. If you can't afford to move, you're in deep shit. But that would also mean that you're poor, and therefore beneath the consideration of the politicians of most countries and the corporate interests that choose the political candidates to fund to power. So that's no problem, except for you yourself.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"