Slashdot Mirror


100K Lose Power As America Faces Its Third Hurricane In Three Weeks (go.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The good news: Hurricane Nate was eventually downgraded to "a tropical storm" at 4:30 Sunday morning (EST), moving north-northeast with maximum winds of 70 mph. The bad news: 100,000 people don't have power in Mississippi and Alabama, and a tornado watch is in effect until 11 a.m. "Even though Nate has made landfall and will weaken today, we are still forecasting heavy rain from Nate to spread well inland towards the Tennessee Valley and Appalachian mountains," ABC News meteorologist Daniel Manzo said Sunday morning. Saturday the Gulf Coast near Biloxi, Mississippi was hit with 85 mph winds and a storm surge of between four to five feet. "Gulf Coast residents are waking up to a wet, windy -- and in some cases, powerless -- Sunday morning," reports ABC News, "but it's still not as devastating as they expected."

119 comments

  1. NOT a tropical storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    a TROPICAL DEPRESSION

    1. Re:NOT a tropical storm by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep, storms rapidly lose power over land. That said, there are places that still could be looking at 5" of rain.

      Anyone in NE Alabama, NW Georgia or Eastern Tennessee should keep alert for flood warnings. If you do go out, do not try to drive through standing water more than a couple inches deep, particularly if that water is moving.

      Remember it's flooding that kills the most people in most storms in the US. Very few people live in a structure that would be blown down by even a category 3 storm (excepting trailers).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:NOT a tropical storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (excepting trailers).

      This is Mississippi we're talking about.

    3. Re:NOT a tropical storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISIS claimed responsibility for you losing power. Don't blame the authorities! ae911truth dot org

    4. Re:NOT a tropical storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a TROPICAL DEPRESSION

      Well, now. At 4:30 AM it was still a Tropical Storm, it wasn't downgraded for another couple of hours, and given Slashdot's submission queues, it's possible it lingered that long.

    5. Re:NOT a tropical storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One inch of rain per hour causes flooding in my area near San Diego, California. I drove home from work when cars were sliding off the highway.

    6. Re:NOT a tropical storm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (excepting trailers).

      This is Mississippi we're talking about.

      Given the parts of Mississippi that I've driven through even the houses looked like they'd fall down in a stiff breeze.

  2. Taking about the weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know it's a slow news day when Slashdot is posting articles about the weather. Not about weather, but the actual weather.

    BTW, will it rain tomorrow in San Jose?

    1. Re:Taking about the weather by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Some people lose power during a storm.. film at 11.

    2. Re:Taking about the weather by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      From the headline:

      ... 100K Lose Power ...

      Power, if you're not familiar with it, is for nerds and stuff that matters.

      Discuss.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re: Taking about the weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are still forecasting heavy rain from Nate to spread well inland towards the Tennessee Valley and Appalachian mountains," ABC News meteorologist Daniel Manzo said Sunday morning.

      Did you even read the summary that you are trying to 'defend'?

    4. Re:Taking about the weather by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      but that's nothing. here in chicago area a storm in 2015 knocked out power to 113,000 customers. whoop de fucking do

    5. Re:Taking about the weather by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I'll see your 113,000 and raise you 1.3 billion, for. like you, no reason at all.

      Around the world, 1.3 billion people lack access to electricity.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:Taking about the weather by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      irrelevant to discussion. being ruled by stupid people causes such a situation, maybe no hope for many of those places

    7. Re:Taking about the weather by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      If your population selection, which has nothing to do with this story, is relevant, then so is mine.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:Taking about the weather by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      my point is very relevant, this hurricane and its effects on power not newsworthy at all; commonplace, boring even for normal news site and not worthy of tech site

    9. Re:Taking about the weather by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      That's your opinion.

      My opinion is that power grid failure is news for nerds, stuff that matters.

      It leads to questions about how we can mitigate the impact in the future.

      Your population comparison is a waste of time by both of us.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. It's so great the hit on weekends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes for good TV, and I'm usually bored and looking for something to watch. Bravo.

  4. Re:Boloxi not exactly a cause for concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of hillibilly rednecks there.

    Do you really take pride in sounding like Hayley Geftman-Gold? Or any of the other haters our species' history throws up?

  5. Re:Making up for lost time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CHINESE HOAX

  6. Third? by ChoGGi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean fourth...

    1. Re:Third? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hurricanes that hit areas exclusively populated by brown people don't count. Everyone knows that.

    2. Re:Third? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurricanes that hit areas exclusively populated by brown people don't count. Everyone knows that.

      Just like how it doesn't count when more brown people die in a month in Chicago than all the white people being shot in Las Vegas over the past decade.

    3. Re:Third? by lucm · · Score: 1

      Hurricanes that hit areas exclusively populated by brown people don't count. Everyone knows that.

      Just like how it doesn't count when more brown people die in a month in Chicago than all the white people being shot in Las Vegas over the past decade.

      I wonder who kills all those Chicago people, and if more gun laws would put a stop to that.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re: Third? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      If those laws applied nationally so there wasnâ(TM)t an easy supply of guns nearby, maybe. We will never know.

    5. Re: Third? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Actually we do know already. Since there are nation-wide laws against drug running, and that hasn't stopped drugs, why would anyone think that a nation-wide ban against guns would fare any better? (especially since some guns are easy to manufacture with a low-level technology, similar to that available to cartels.)

    6. Re:Third? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but the category 5 chimp-out that comes after the hurricane is newsworthy.

    7. Re: Third? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also a Constitutional ban on alcohol that didn't go so well, either.

    8. Re: Third? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Because plenty of other nations have bans on guns and don't have these shootings.

  7. Re:Boloxi not exactly a cause for concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Key West is just as gay as SF and they get hit all the time.

    Fort Lauderdale is also very gay.

  8. In case of emergencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:In case of emergencies... by hey! · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh, come now. This is news for nerds after all.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re: In case of emergencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Affiliate Creimer spam. Please mod down.

    3. Re: In case of emergencies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a hand-cranked rubber dong. Works great when Iâ(TM)m not near an outlet.

      And I have a hand-cranked dong. Works great when, well pretty much anytime I'm in a room by myself.

  9. Re:Boloxi not exactly a cause for concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of more concern is the demise of TOM PETTY.
     
    TOM PETTY was a wonderful guy.
     
    At least we still have the vocalist of the greatest band of all time!

  10. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Wikipedia has a long list that is definitely not zero length for hurricanes between 2007 and 2016 inclusive.

    1. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Certain people like to confuse hurricanes not hitting the US and hurricanes not happening at all.

      Hurricanes hitting the US are the product of a long string of chaotic interactions between low pressure areas and surrounding weather systems. Climate models aren't very good at predicting those, so we don't really know if hurricanes will be more frequent under the various global warming scenarios.

      The thing that the models consistently point to is greater rainfall, wherever the hurricane happens to go. That, along with increased development in flood-prone areas, will make future hurricanes more costly and dangerous.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're basically saying is that certain people prefer to look at the world through those rose glasses provided to them by the oil industry.

    3. Re:Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Informative

      Close, but not really.

      Climate models do not predict more hurricanes.

      They do predict stronger hurricanes.

      We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.

      Reference

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:Really? by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      We also have the situation that climate in the media has now reached the point where people make movies like Geostorm. I saw a preview for that this weekend and hadn't actually realized just how ridiculous things are until that moment. I mean, I kind of knew society is crazy, but that made me feel it viscerally.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    5. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where did I say hurricanes will be more frequent?

      I'm quite familiar with the IPCC projections, by the way. That's why I didn't suggest that hurricanes would be more frequent. And as the model results suggesting hurricanes would be stronger are relatively weak, I left those out. The one thing the models consistently predict is more rainfall. And that's serious enough.

      Now denilaists like to set up staw men to paint concern over AGW as "alarmist", and there are people peddling scenarios (like human extinction) that are extremely improbable. I steer clear of that by sticking with what there's overwhelming evidence for, and that this: climate change is going to cost us a boatload of money to deal with.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Anyways, it's going to be, nominally, the same number of hurricanes but their strength will increase because they are heat engines and, by definition, there will be more heat.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Hacking a global weather control network is a pretty old sci-fi trope. It's just a variant on technology run amok.

      Had a movie along these lines been done fifty years ago it almost certainly would have been better. That's because without elaborate computer generated effects to rub into your eyeballs the director would have had to use suspense to entertain the audience.

      In any case being scientifically literate ruins most movie and TV sci-fi. I spent most of the Star Trek Discovery premier pissed off by fact that the writers are apparently unaware that most visible stars in the galaxy are multiple star systems, and that being near a binary wouldn't change the amount of radiation experienced by astronauts much if at all. But then I get irritated when Star Trek movies assume that you have to go by Saturn and the Moon on the way to the Earth. Didn't the writers realize that the path of the Milky Way in the sky is tilted with respect to the ecliptic?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The strength of the hurricane in any particular place is not a straightforward function of atmospheric energy. For example many Cape Verde hurricanes weaken to tropical storms by the time they hit the US; it's not because they interact with other weather systems which are also driven by atmospheric and ocean energy.

      I understand that the notion AGW == stronger hurricanes hitting the US "stands to reason", but the model support is weak on that point. What models are almost unequivocal on is significantly higher rainfall. We saw what that looks like with Harvey. Harvey weakened dramatically after landfall, but still delivered devastating rainfall to places that saw relatively little wind damage. This is consistent with what happened in Katrina; almost nobody was killed by wind, but flooding and its aftermath killed something like 1800 people.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I'm saying is that most people are parochial in their outlook, both in space and time. If something doesn't happen to them personally and preferably very recently, it might as well never happen as far as their opinions are concerned.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had a movie along these lines been done fifty years ago it almost certainly would have been better. That's because without elaborate computer generated effects to rub into your eyeballs the director would have had to use suspense to entertain the audience.

      In 1967? Krakatoa, East of Java couldn't even get the title right.

      You should also look at its reviews. Frankly, GeoStorm is just the latest in a long list of bad movies.

    11. Re: Really? by hey! · · Score: 1

      My point is the best way to handle a story idea like this is a suspenseful thriller. I was a few years off on that though; the 70s were the heyday of "diaster" films which are primarily visual spectacle. 1970 was a pivotal year. The same year that saw Colossus, the Forbin Project also saw Airport, that kicked off the disaster-film fad.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Conveniently for you, you start talking about "atmospheric energy."

      Fortunately for me, I know the difference between bullshit and wild honey.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    13. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well that's what global warming is. It's not a uniform warming ot the globe, it's an increase in energy content of the troposphere and upper ocean.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on, now.

      You can't bullshit a bullshitter.

      You're avoiding deep warm water -- the biggest contributor.

      Why?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    15. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I'm not. Warm water is what the models say are going to drive the greater precipitation.

      I also think there will be *specific* incidents where warm water creates a US landfall where one wouldn't otherwise have happened (e.g. the Harvey scenario). We just don't have any reliable evidence that the rate of landfalls in the US will be greater, and the evidence that the rate of hurricane formation will increase isn't there either. That's because a hurricane forming and staying together is result of chaotic interaction with other weather systems which will also become more powerful.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Precipitation is one element of the equation.

      Of more concern is the source of the heat engine that produces that cause/effect.

      It's the deep water temperature.

      Hurricanes cannot ramp up if the surface temperature is less than 80-81 degrees (fair and height).

      The determent for strength, though, is the supply of deep warm water.

      That's why most hurricanes downsize in strength by as much as one category in the Gulf of Mexico, from New Orleans, westward.

      Topology maps show a (relatively) shallow coastline from there on down to Corpus Christi, and the lack of deep water chokes off the heat source.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certain people like to confuse hurricanes not hitting the US and hurricanes not happening at all.

      By which you mean the overwhelming majority of 'Muricans who can't find any country on a map besides 'Murica?

      You know, I'm looking forward to 'Murica getting slammed by storm after storm as your idiot president makes idiotic decisions that global warming isn't happening .. because fuck you for deciding to fuck up the planet for the rest of us as your billionaire idiot who is too stupid to understand reality does his thing.

      Don't expect donations, or the rest of the world to give a shit. Americans can wallow in their mess, because you've pretty much decided the rest of us can pay the price for your choice to further the interests of your coal and oil companies -- even if it is hurting everyone else.

      Every dead American in the face of such storms means maybe at some point you clueless fucking idiots will realize that, yes it's happening, and yes, there's only one climate.

      Sorry to all you folks in the Southern US, but when paying for the storm of the century becomes a montly thing, maybe you'lll get a fucking clue and start to look at the real reason this is happening.

      In the mean time, all of those people who die or lose their homes are a direct result of electing an idiotic shithead who woulnd't know reality or the truth if it bit him in his entitled white ass.

      Fucking clueless Americans, that you should be sufferung monumental losses might actually mean you get your head out of your asses and pay attention to the world for a change. If you can't realize this shit is real and happening, you deserve to be flooded,

      America used to be a great nation, now it's a country full of clueless idiots who still believe in Manifest Destiny.

      Fuck you and your Manifest Destiny,

    18. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. They LOUDLY predicted BOTH - more and more powerful.

      Both of which have been proven to be completely false statements.

    19. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that heat cuts both ways; it both creates hurricanes and destroys them. That's why you can't necessarily conclude that they'll be more frequent.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    20. Re:Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your post contains irony.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    21. Re:Really? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I give up. You obviously know more than the IPCC and your awesome physical intuition beats the hell out of their computer models.

      There. That was irony.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re: Really? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      I donâ(TM)t understand one point. If hurricanes are getting stronger, wouldnâ(TM)t tropical storms get stronger also, thus pushing more of them into hurricane status? That would result in more hurricanes. Or is hurricane strength implemented with a byte so it rolls over at 256 mph?

  11. FEMA has it all under control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hotels atop barges, and separating productive people from unhealthy...
    https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=2u-NDNVkCOg

  12. Strange how the red states get visited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'red' states are the ones voting men, mostly men into office on the ridiculous belief that seven billion, eight hundred million humans all wanting a car and a warm place to sleep at night have not had an effect on the global weather. We are releasing more carbon, buried for millions of years in just decades then the atmosphere can accommodate. Yes, volcanoes and forest fires happen. But those are routine events over months not a century.
      What a surprise. It shouldn't be that big of a leap and assume 'God' is going to help us with a miracle. It is just foolish not understand he already has helped us. It's called the gift of a rational brain. That so many don't want to use it is amazing. Think through the puzzle and start working out the solution. So often I think humans are retard by their strange religions.

    1. Re: Strange how the red states get visited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most states are Red, nothing strange.

  13. Yes, but they weren't having enough gay sex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And those states have a lot of gay haters, and it is those that god is angry at. Not even god can surgical strike with a hurricane.

  14. Lost Power by TwoUtes · · Score: 1

    Why is it that the utility we rely on most, electric power, is the least reliable? Here in east central Florida, anything more than a brisk zephyr knocks the power out, let alone a hurricane. Any time there is a storm pretty much anywhere, thousands of people lose power. How can we be in 2017 with such a shitty power grid that fails at the slightest adverse weather?

    1. Re:Lost Power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How can we be in 2017 with such a shitty power grid that fails at the slightest adverse weather?

      corporate greed, of course. the utilities are charging us for infrastructure...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Lost Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reliable electric power requires underground cables. Those are expensive with a very long return on investment. Typically not something corporations want to invest in, you need governments for that. but, yuck, socialism.

    3. Re: Lost Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could just bury the power lines underground. It's very reliable, but expensive enough that most utilities prefer to just rebuild after every storm...

    4. Re:Lost Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in south East Florida and we have the same problem. I loose power 2-3 times a week (and I'm in a major city). I frequently have done commits where my commit log amusingly includes "On generator power..."

      Granted the power lines in my area are overhead and very, very old (40's and 50's). Every hurricane they use the existing poles and wire off the ground to re-wire things. We still have no streetlights from Irma and traffic lights keep going out (red blinking failsafe) as I drive around.

      Eventually they will be unable to repair things and have to do major upgrades. But I probably won't be around by then...

    5. Re: Lost Power by lucm · · Score: 1

      It's about to change, though. Insurance companies are catching up.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Lost Power by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Neighborhoods can have their power lines underground if they're willing to pay for it. It doesn't have to be the government.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:Lost Power by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It costs less to put them back up many times than to make it so they can't fall down once.

  15. EST is not until next month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended daylight saving time in the United States beginning in 2007. So local times change at 2:00 a.m. EST to 3:00 a.m. EDT on the second Sunday in March and return at 2:00 a.m. EDT to 1:00 a.m. EST on the first Sunday in November.

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

  16. It's time to consider god's plan by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My heart aches for the people of Texas and Mississippi and Florida and Georgia, whose people have been punished by four hurricanes this year alone.

    These states, with churches on every corner and the love of God in their hearts, are being targeted. We must ask ourselves why. Consider Toronto and San Francisco, the two gayest cities on the continent. Neither has been affected by a single serious storm.

    It is time to get with God, my friends. He has made His feelings abundantly clear. It is time to make room in your hearts, your homes and your bakeries for The Gays.

    You cannot argue with God...unless you want to face His punishment.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:It's time to consider god's plan by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

      It is time to get with God, my friends. He has made His feelings abundantly clear.

      If we're going with divine attribution, I would say it's morely likely their rejection of the truth that is climate change. Now if they get hit by a hurricane "Nigel" or "Fernando", then we'll know it's because of the gays. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:It's time to consider god's plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It is time to get with God, my friends. He has made His feelings abundantly clear.

      If we're going with divine attribution, I would say it's morely likely their rejection of the truth that is climate change. Now if they get hit by a hurricane "Nigel" or "Fernando", then we'll know it's because of the gays. ;)

      I think we are being punished for our multiple failures when it comes to picking good leaders, and I think that harsher weather could easily be a part of that punishment. Ann Rand once wrote, "We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." I find it amusing that it is a quote attributed to her, but it nevertheless fits.

      1. When we ignore every other issue and vote on a wedge issue, we get the possible consequences of every other issue getting worse.

      2. When we elect people who don't care about the environment, we get the actual consequence of the environment going to hell faster.

      3. When we elect people who divide and hate we get division and hate.

      4. When we accept that every time something bad happens that it is forbidden to talk about the bad thing, unless it pushes a party's agenda, then nothing gets done.

      5. When we elect someone who is shown to be a serial liar and con man, who will say anything for power, well, we get that, and all the damage that comes from it.

      The question about the third hurricane in three weeks are:
      1. Are people building where they should not, or where, at the very least they should be paying exorbitant insurance costs?
      2. Can our future actions influence future storms?
      3. Assuming two is a yes, does it make sense to do so from a long term perspective? (I'm leaning towards yes, since being more energy efficient is better all around.)

    3. Re:It's time to consider god's plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My heart aches for the people of Texas and Mississippi and Florida and Georgia, whose people have been punished by four hurricanes this year alone.

      These states, with churches on every corner and the love of God in their hearts, are being targeted. We must ask ourselves why. Consider Toronto and San Francisco, the two gayest cities on the continent. Neither has been affected by a single serious storm.

      It is time to get with God, my friends. He has made His feelings abundantly clear. It is time to make room in your hearts, your homes and your bakeries for The Gays.

      You cannot argue with God...unless you want to face His punishment.

      Kirk Cameron..is that you?

    4. Re:It's time to consider god's plan by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      by your logic, God must really really hate those people with african ancestry in the islands. if it ain't white, God will smite?

    5. Re:It's time to consider god's plan by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Where I live, numerous private organizations act to protect the environment: buying property to prevent development, buying conservation easements, and taking other actions. It doesn't have to be government doing everythig.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  17. Re:Still no global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crab farts > warmer sea surface temps > more Hurricanes

  18. Re:Still no global warming by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Climate change is real, disputing that is stupid (especially without data). However, be weary of what you point to as an effect of climate change. Hurricanes have existed long before humans and will continue long after humans.

    scientific report

    It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

    However, if we're going by the basis of what Fox News considers the truth then every hurricane is a direct result of global warming and somehow taxes. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  19. Re:Still no global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If number of hurricanes is your measure, then recent history suggests global cooling.

    There may very well be AGW, but hurricanes aren't proof of it. You would expect, maybe, 2 or 3 extra hurricanes a century, with a 2% increase in average strength.

    AGW does itself a disservice by hyperventillating over things like this. Look into things like regression to the mean and what a few degrees actually means.

  20. Re:Still no global warming by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This hurricane season is notable mainly because a hurricane hadn't made landfall on the U.S. since 2005 (which ironically after Katrina and Wilma, is when people were saying that due to climate change, multiple major hurricanes hitting the U.S. each year was going to be the new norm). That's pretty incredible when you consider that the historical average for the U.S. over 164 years has been 1.73 hurricanes per year making landfall. We basically missed out on being hit by 21 hurricanes in a row.

    The average North Atlantic hurricane season sees 10.1 named storms, 5.9 becoming hurricanes, and 2.5 becoming major hurricanes (category 3+). These things tend to be cyclical though, with a few decades with below average storms, followed by a few decades of above average storms, repeat. The prediction for the season was 11-17 named storms, 5-9 hurricanes, and 2-4 major hurricanes. We're almost to the end of the season and currently at 14 named storms, 9 hurricanes, and 5 major hurricanes. Just slightly above predicted.

    In terms of number of global cyclones (it is after all called global warming), the North Atlantic is the only basin which has seen an uptick in hurricanes the last couple decades. The East Pacific is flat. Typhoons in West Pacific are mostly flat with a slight downward trend. The South Pacific is down. As are cyclones inthe Indian Ocean.

    If we can go an unprecedented 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S., can you just for a tiny moment consider the possibility that what happened this year was random before jumping to the conclusion that it was due to climate change? (FWIW, I'm of the opinion that climate change adds more energy to the system, increasing not just maximum intensity but also variability. The recent 12 years without a hurricane can mostly be attributed to a very strong El Nino which had the side-effect of reducing the probability of Atlantic hurricanes reaching the higher latitudes like the U.S. However, this being a hypothesis, the burden of proof is upon me. The null hypothesis - the theory that one assumes is true absent statistically significant evidence for an alternative - has to be that there has bee no change in number or intensity of hurricanes. You can get yourself into a lot of trouble if you go hog wild on every theory which has a tiny bit of correlative (but not statistically significant) empirical support. Of such things, conspiracy theories are made.)

  21. Different? by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Citizens in the Gulf Coast are waking up powerless.... is this somehow different than on any other day?

    --
    "If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
  22. I asked for the news, not the weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is supposed to be a site that is News for Nerds. A weak hurricane or strong tropical storm hitting the gulf coast is not news, it is weather and in no way is it nerdy. And not particularly significant unless you happen to live there.

    Power outages and hurricanes are normal events. They happen every year. Finally - Harvey hit the Texas coast in late August. Not 3 weeks ago.

    Get better editors.

    1. Re:I asked for the news, not the weather by lucm · · Score: 2

      The real question is: given a fragile electric grid that shits itself when there's a storm, creating chaos in data centers, shouldn't Linux favor a fast-booting init system, as opposed to systemd?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  23. The downside to a weaker hurricane by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    We just absorbed our biggest hurricane hit in nearly a decade and were without power for a week. When they're weaker than expected, it can setup unreasonable expectations for the next one. People are less likely to evacuate, less likely to take warnings seriously. "We evacuated last time and it fizzled."

    What you "know" about hurricanes can work against you in the future.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  24. Re:Still no global warming by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

    There may very well be AGW, but hurricanes aren't proof of it.

    Well, there is, but you're correct.

    The other day I was reading an article [WARNING: Annoying advertisementt] on National Geographic's website which was talking about the storm. I found this phrase somewhat annoying:

    And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, two centuries of human fossil-fuel burning has altered temperatures just enough to almost certainly make this season's storms more powerful.

    So, it wasn't enough last year. The tipping point was this year?

    It sort of reminds me of the meme, "I'm not saying it's aliens...but it's aliens." "I'm not saying it's climate change, but it's climate change."

    Even though scientists--y'know, smart people that we should consider listening to--say that a single event cannot be attributed to climate change, we're going to say it anyway. Because, hey, what do scientists know? Amirite?

  25. YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crabs are cold blooded, as in same temperature as its surrounding, so NO possible way a crab fart could raise the temperature of the water. Fucking nothing but idiots here.

    1. Re:YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Animals eat food, which is used to generate energy inefficiently. That raises their temperature above their surroundings. What makes an animal warm blooded is that it has a temperature regulating mechanism which causes even more energy to be used to maintain a relatively constant temperature.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  26. this hurricane & 100K losing power not newswor by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    storms around cities in the north have left over 100,000 without power too. this is not even interesting as normal news on a news site, why is it on slashdot. boring. trivial. of no import

  27. Re:Still no global warming by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    If we can go an unprecedented 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S., can you just for a tiny moment consider the possibility that what happened this year was random before jumping to the conclusion that it was due to climate change? (FWIW, I'm of the opinion that climate change adds more energy to the system, increasing not just maximum intensity but also variability.

    Hurricane season has just begun and we're already setting records. Fastest, biggest, strongest, most rainfall.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Re: Boloxi not exactly a cause for concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems pretty obvious that God is punishing these red states for putting Trump in office.

  29. Fourth Major Hurricane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Puerto Ricans are Americans.

  30. Blame it on Russian Hackers by barinov2000 · · Score: 1

    Cause they can trigger hurricanes, too, you know.

  31. Re:Still no global warming by lucm · · Score: 0

    This hurricane season is notable mainly because a hurricane hadn't made landfall on the U.S. since 2005

    Which interestingly is the year of the Kyoto protocol. As expected, misguided greeners made things worse.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  32. Re:Still no global warming by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Atlantic hurricane season (wikipedia): It was originally the time frame when the tropics were monitored routinely for tropical cyclone activity, and was originally defined as from June 15 through October 31.[7] Over the years, the beginning date was shifted back to June 1, while the end date was shifted to November 15,[5] before settling at November 30 by 1965.

    We're >2/3 of the way through hurricane season and 4 weeks beyond the historical peak (Sept. 10).

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  33. Re:Still no global warming by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Well not quite that correct. This succession of hurricanes would be indicative of global warming but not definitive of proof. That would require repeated seasons of large hurricane numbers, not necessarily every year but a definite cycle of large numbers of destructive hurricanes over say a decade. Don't worry all indications are, you will get them, so hold on to your roofs. The off switch is a lot harder to use than people think and consider even if we reached for it now, it is going to get worse before it get's better. What happens in Russia now, as well as of course Canada and Greenland, turning from methane sinks to extreme methane producers, well, things could get a whole lot worse a whole lot faster but at least after a decade or so of extreme chaos it would settle down to a more regular carbon climate change rate and likely cool for a bit, not to current of course, more a humid mess. For hurricanes to be the measure of global warming would be indicative it is too late to prevent severe disruption and how severe seems to depend upon now panicky we get to drive corrective measures.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  34. A real account of how this works by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I live in Wisconsin but we lost power for 3-4 days because of a tornado on more than 1 occassion and here's how it really goes. Not to be rude or arrogant, just being 100% real, the people with weeks of electricity-free foods to eat, a water filter, and a generator, solar array, or a car + high wattage inverter were just fine and the not so responsible people who pretend catastrophes will never happen to them were in big trouble. This is why I consider myself sort of a prepper, although not for the end of the world, just for real stuff that really happens. I just watched a few youtube vids, bought like $100 worth of stuff, and tada all set for massively bad weather occurrences. FEMA agrees with me that everyone should at least take basic steps like this. So everyone complaining about how bad the situation is, it's bad BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PREPARE! That or their entire house was destroyed. But most are just simply without power.

    1. Re:A real account of how this works by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Yeah but if your entire house is destroyed that is because despite living in a hurricane zone you decided to make your house out of frankly what I would describe as match sticks. God forbid you might use an ICF construction, and fucking bolt your roof to the walls because that is completely un American.

  35. Re:Still no global warming by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    An entire "hurricane season" isn't a "single event". A single hurricane during a season is, but it seems your equating the entire season to a "single event". Oh, and that's not really a "meme", but is actually a phrase off of "Ancient Aliens" that is said repeatedly by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos. More often said on the show is "Ancient Alien theorists say yes"; because apparently they NEVER say no.

  36. Re:Love the comments about red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you cousin fuckers are just going to have to keep pushing water out of your living rooms because you are too stupid to understand that the global warming you deny is the reason 4' of water is in your house.

  37. But I thought climate change wasn't real? by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

    no text

  38. Re: Boloxi not exactly a cause for concern by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    I like to imagine God sitting in the Atlantic flicking hurricanes at the US and muttering 'still don't believe in global warming, huh?'

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  39. More than 100,000 by brunnegd · · Score: 1

    As usual, the utilities count meters as customers. The actual number of people without power is likely around 300,000.

  40. Re:Love the comments about red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemme know when you toothless fucking yokels figure out how to drive in a 1/4 inch of snow.

  41. Re:Love the comments about red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it would serve us right. After all, we're getting one hell of a laugh out of your presidential choice.

  42. Re:Still no global warming by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Weather is chaotic. This means that we have the storms we have partly because we have global warming. If we didn't, we'd have different storms. Any weather event can be attributed partly to global warming.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  43. Re:Still no global warming by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    Atlantic hurricane season (wikipedia): It was originally

    It was originally what? Different?

    Over the years, the beginning date was shifted back to June 1, while the end date was shifted to November 15,[5] before settling at November 30 by 1965

    You read wikipedia like most of the dolts around here read the dictionary, but it's even more pathetic in the case of an encyclopedia.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"