Slashdot Mirror
El Nino's Absence Is Causing An Active Hurricane Season (mercurynews.com)
Dan Drollette writes: Contrary to some items making the rounds of the Twitterverse, El Nino's are "Kryptonite for hurricanes." The Mercury News reports: "Irma has ripped a path of misery through the Caribbean and is aiming at Florida, but the first seed for its monster size and force was planted on the other side of the world more than six months ago. It happened innocently enough, when a widely anticipated El Nino failed to materialize over the Pacific Ocean. In time, that cleared a path for a hurricane to form in the Atlantic that grew to the size of the state of New York with winds topping 185 miles per hour. El Nino occurs when the Pacific heats up and flusters the atmosphere, setting off a chain reaction that causes wind shear across the Atlantic. Shear is wind blowing in different directions or speeds at various altitudes, and it can be Kryptonite for hurricanes. As powerful as they are, tropical cyclones have delicate structures. Shear can tear them apart. A budding storm can't get started and an established storm can't get strong."
So what is the relation between El Nino and climate changes already?
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://e360.yale.edu/features...
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
is El Nino.
It happened innocently enough, when a widely anticipated El Nino failed to materialize over the Pacific Ocean.
El Nino and La Nina cycles are typically an average of 5 years(2-7ish years). The last El Nino was in 2015-2016. We are currently in a La Nina. I'm not sure what El Nino they were expecting but it isn't due for at least a little while longer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Most most certainly
I do not understand
...
...
...
I seek clarity
Way before the existence of Homo Sapiens
Way before the Homo Sapiens allegedly started to fuck up the global climate
Way before the first bEl Niño ( and/or La Niña ) was born
Supersized Hurricanes / Typhoons were common?
Is that what they are telling us?
That's right, warming is causing cooling or cooling is causing warming. Stupid prole.
This used to be a place for eccentric and intelligent people to talk about technology and science. But this sounds more like a pub discussion of ignorant backwater folks now.
The entire lack of hurricanes over the past decade?
Perfect opportunity for that "but weather is not climate!" rejoinder has been missed. -1
Why I see those guys tool'in around in their Porches and Ferraris with hookers and blow on their balls.
In the Phtsics department my advisor calls me into his office and closes the door and says, "Yo dog. I got a money make'in opportunity for ya. It's in Climate Science, dog. Can you dig it? Easy money."
I says, "Mo money! Mo money!"
He say, "Better than gvernment cheese!"
And then, I's went out and got a pink research Hummer!
Climate Science is the best thang that EVAR happen to me!
please tell me which part of "CO2 captures heat in the atmosphere and humans are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere" is incorrect.
CO2 impedes IR. It doesn't capture IR
without the heat trapping effect of CO2, it would be 30C colder on earth. Test the effect of CO2 yourself! Video's of how to do it are online.
This entire Slashdot post looks absolutely retarded without the popper spelling of El Nino.
Yeah, you're an american based site. Is that an excuse to be stuck in 1990?
There are other languages, and apparently americans sometimes use them. Fix your fucking shit.
Would you like to play a game? How about a nice game of Tic-Tac-Toe?
"el niño" and "la niña".
This used to be a place for eccentric and intelligent people to talk about technology and science. But this sounds more like a pub discussion of ignorant backwater folks now.
No, it never was. It has always been an echo chamber of uniformed people - just like the bulk of the population.
Slashdot has been a website for very arrogant people who think they're (maybe) above average in their fields that they are experts in everything else. Skim a Wikipedia article and then spout off like they know it all. Just like the rest of the population.
Sure, posting about a data breach at Equifax will have some insightful comments, but about Climate Change?
Sorry no. The same old same old ignorant uninformed comments - with bigger and more "sciency" words - but still ignorant and uninformed.
Aside from IT related articles, this site is pointless and a waste of time. But folks come here to post their two bit opinions to boost our little egos.
My asthma has gotten much worse since Trump did that.
But since it wasn't on denier blogs and the rightwing echo chamber except as a criminal act, you really don't know or care what was found. What was found was the payments for the denial industry from just one institution funneling the cash that doesn't have to be spent on actual equipment, only on wages for the talking bobbleheads.
no,. its the fault of the gays http://www.towleroad.com/2017/...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It impedes IR by capturing it, retard.
People assume that we'll have more hurricanes because they assume every consequence of AGW will be predictably catastrophic. That may not be a bad rule of thumb, but IIRC IPCC models are actually mixed as to the frequency of hurricanes. That's because hurricanes are the product of chaos; minor changes in initial conditions can tip the result one way or the other. It could be that we have some years with more hurricanes and some with less.
The one things the model runs are consistent about is that hurricanes under AGW will pack more precipitation, which is kind of an obvious result, but it's nice to have your intuition confirmed every so often. On the other hand, as we saw with Harvey, rain can be a significant component of a hurricane's destructive power.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Seems to be a consensus that a delayed El Nino does this: https://www.accuweather.com/en...
Or you think it is "evidence", hence your groups incapacity to accept consensus is an essential part of science and not "proof" that it's a scam.
"It could be that we have some years with more hurricanes and some with less."
Huh, so it will be an average number, just like it is now?
It's fairly obvious that el niño has been deported to Mexico due to the takedown of the DACA.
"It could be that we have some years with more hurricanes and some with less."
Huh, so it will be an average number, just like it is now?
Did you fail at reading, or at logic? If half the years had twice as many storms, and half the years had half as many, would we have more or less storms?
Even if we did have the same number of storms, the total amount of precipitation will be higher, so your answer doesn't actually matter — things would get worse even if we didn't get any more storms, because they would be heavier.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
exactly.
keep going and you'll see the light.
here, ill help:
-energy from the sun, in various wavelengths, including IR, impacts the earth's surface
-in turn, some portion of that is converted into heat (IR) in the process.
-the surface then re-radiates that heat into the atmosphere and ultimately space
-additional CO impedes that IR retransmission into space, preventing that energy loss
-net energy increases, temps go up.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
what lack of hurricanes?
also, the only ones who argue over the terms are conservatives in these little rants like yours.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Probably because half the US is on fire. Which happened because the Greenies cried about forest management and now we have 20-100 years of fuel built up. Because they were too stupid to learn frim the Yellowstone fires and believe that any manmade effect on the environment is evil.
This is correct. Hurricanes are small scale, short term, chaotic events. Climate models don't really deal with things on that level because that's not what they do. They're models are for climate, not weather.
That being said, the climate models show that there will be no shortage of energy for such storms to tap into. More heat, warmer ocean temperatures, more water vapor. The quantity of storms is kind of irrelevant.
~X~
Yeah, the greenies have all the power and money...
FFS.
keep your DACA...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
I have a much more sweaty grundle.
"El Nino occurs when the Pacific heats up and flusters the atmosphere,"
So if that is not happening, where is the energy? I thought the oceans were warming? Or is it just the Atlantic?
Is that because the Atlantic is in the daytime and the Pacific is in the nighttime or because the earth is flat?
Romulans.
You know, this same mathematical ignorance comes up repeatedly in denialist thinking. It is possible for an average to increase without that increase being evenly distributed over the sample. In fact it is possible for an average to increase while some sample points decrease.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Don't anthropomorphize the atmosphere. It hates when you do that.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"El Nino occurs when the Pacific heats up and flusters the atmosphere,"
Thats wrong.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There was no "lack of hurricanes" in the last decade. ... and btw: Irma is 4 times a big as Andrew was.
It was more or less like always, except for the 5 hard hits the US got. Andrew, Katrina, Sandy etc.
Now they get hit 2 times in a row
However the most astonishing thin in international news is, no one is talking about stuff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I thought we did get El Niño last year, but it didn't come south enough like in Southern California.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Only if you build foolishly and ignore the typography and water ways. But Humans would NEVER be that foolish, right.
Follow the money to see who is behind it.
It was Arrhenius! With the lead pipe, in the library!
The AGW deniers beg us to believe in a hundred-year-old financial conspiracy. One assumes they think this started in 2006 rather than 1896.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
To write El Niño?
Arrhenius provided the mechanism in 1896, and subsequent studies in the middle of the 20th Century excluded scenarios that did not lead to warming. The warming signal began to be detected at the end of the 20th Century, conforming with earlier predictions. The fundamental evidence for AGW can be proven in your basement with technology from the 1850s -- because that's what happened.
Your intentional misunderstanding is that you're focusing on the question of how the warming will happen, rather than whether there will be warming. The latter is certain; the former depends on human responses to that fact. If you think there is some misunderstanding of the carbon cycle you'd best be prepared to say what that might be. Purely political objections require an international conspiracy of scientists spanning at least 120 years and cannot be considered plausible. Especially since the theory was entirely discredited in the early 20th Century.
I'm also not convinced that predicting climate is worth billions, especially since that would imply a multidecadal investment strategy. The Pentagon does have that kind of planning horizon, and they are correspondingly deeply concerned about climate change. Your worldview doesn't seem terribly inconvenienced by empirical evidence.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
additional CO impedes that IR retransmission into space, preventing that energy loss
Well, yes and no. "impede" is not a great verb for that. One of the reasons Arrhenius was originally discredited is that there's already many times more CO2 floating around than it takes to make the Earth opaque to IR. The "impedence" is that a higher partial pressure of CO2 increases the extent of the CO2-rich layer of the atmosphere, raising the effective "top of atmosphere", or the level at which the IR photons are statistically more likely to escape to space than to hit another CO2 molecule. The energy loss is not prevented — energy in must equal energy out — but the additional CO2 acts like an insulator to slow heat escape. Sorry to nitpick, I just don't like leaving openings for the "motivated reasoning" crowd.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
What the hell is AGW, IIRC, and IPCC? English motherfucker do you speak it?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard