Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Before (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the first-of-its-kind dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The system formerly known as Hurricane Ophelia is moving into Ireland on Monday, bringing "status red" weather throughout the day to the island. The Irish National Meteorological Service, Met Eireann, has warned that, "Violent and destructive gusts of 120 to 150km/h are forecast countrywide, and in excess of these values in some very exposed and hilly areas. There is a danger to life and property." Ophelia transitioned from a hurricane to an extra-tropical system on Sunday, but that only marginally diminished its threat to Ireland and the United Kingdom on Monday, before it likely dissipates near Norway on Tuesday. The primary threat from the system was high winds, with heavy rains. Forecasters marveled at the intensification of Ophelia on Saturday, as it reached Category 3 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale and became a major hurricane. For a storm in the Atlantic basin, this is the farthest east that a major hurricane has been recorded during the satellite era of observations. Additionally, it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.

34 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Those were the days. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse!

    No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Those were the days. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      it has only happened because Trump became president in January.

      Man, he takes credit for everything, doesn't he?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Those were the days. by deviated_prevert · · Score: 5, Informative
      The level of panic is not what we have to worry about as the Atlantic boils for the next however many years it takes for the Pacific to switch around to El Niño again. What we do have to worry about is a longer succession of seasons of high ocean temps in the Atlantic and the shift in the cycle caused by global warming. Like all short sighted comments about what is going on the failure here is to see obvious trends and it is these trends to climate extremes that are the thing we have to worry about the most.

      The existence of ocean weather patterns created by the movement of warm water has been known for centuries. The existence of a cycle between El Niño and La Niña has been known for a very long time and the cycle is usually about 4 to 6 years. This has changed and if the cycle continues to expand in years it is a direct result of rapid climate change. The extended duration of the last cycle cause the Pacific blob, a patch of warmer water much further north in the Pacific, something never seen before.

      As we see the global mean temperatures are increasing more rapidly directly because of the corresponding increase in atmospheric C02.

      As a direct result of these rapid changes we can expect a much more violent climate. Plain and simple storms that cause damage will increase in frequency and severity and there is nothing we can do about it accept try to reduce the use of fossil fuels to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2. These are just the inconvenient truths about how messing up our atmospheric gas balance with the unrelenting and ever increasing burning of fossil fuels is causing more trouble than it is worth. Facts do not cause the panic however failure to act does. We still have people who believe in the idiotic NIMBY dictum that "the solution to pollution is dilution" shilling for the energy giants. Scott Pruitt is one of the worst.

      Yes C02 is not a pollutant by definition but a sudden atmospheric imbalance of gases is something which is obviously going to effect our civilization in ways that we might regret. A slightly warmer earth is not necessarily a dangerous thing provided the change is not too fast for us to adapt as a species. Humans are causing an unnatural cycle to occur in atmosphere whether or not we survive our stupidity as a species remains to be seen. Then again just perhaps these short sighted greedy assholes that think they are capable of running the world will teach us to work together as a species for a change. Either that or they will blow us all up and thus solve the very real problem of mankind changing the earth's atmosphere too rapidly. The next phase of Trumpification of truth will most likely be the removal of the data to show what is happening simply do that by dissolving NASA now that muzzling the scientists working there is not working. Make America Great Again is the biggest lie ever foisted upon a peoples!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    3. Re:Those were the days. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the record, even the oil companies are saying that climate change is a major concern. Being to the right of those guys on an environmental issue really takes a particular kind of dumb-ass.

    4. Re:Those were the days. by quantaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea?

      <br><br>

      It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.

      Global warming very much is a science, and the researchers involved do examine their data and conclusions with a lot of skepticism and they do a lot of work figuring out how to test their assumptions (I suspect there's a bunch of actual papers dedicated to figuring out if there was a "pacific blob" in the 1600s). Of course there is some uncertainty over how serious the problem will be (though as evidence mounts the problem seems to be getting worse).

      But you also need to be prudent. We're talking about taking mitigating action against the cautious projections. You are correct we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize, this isn't some computer game where someone gave us a nice path to galactic colonization, it's quite possible that the byproducts of industrialization prove disastrous for human civilization.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Those were the days. by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.

      In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.

      So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Those were the days. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Too bad this isn't one of those times, eh.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:Those were the days. by Namarrgon · · Score: 5, Informative

      We do in fact have direct observations of ocean temperatures dating as far back as 1662. Thermometers did exist before the days of satellites, even if accuracy and coverage wasn't up to modern standards. Temperatures recorded then weren't even close to what we're seeing today.

      In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence going back much further than that (cited thoroughly in e.g. the IPCC WG1 reports such as Chapter 5, Paleoclimate Archives) that show that the speed of current climate changes are unprecedented in anything like recent history (including ice ages). This is not surprising, considering that we can clearly see from the observational record that levels of greenhouse gases have risen from "more or less normal" to "unprecedented in the last 800,000+ years" in just the last century or so. Our knowledge of past conditions is a lot less limited than you seem to think - maybe try browsing some of the papers cited in WG1.

      Since the observational evidence is entirely consistent with our physical models of past conditions, based on the known atmospheric conditions, solar output, GHG concentrations, recorded volcanism etc, speculation that "it could've been different, we just don't know" won't gain you much traction in actual scientific circles. You'd have to provide pretty solid observational evidence of anomalous ocean temperatures in the past, if you want scientists to accept that such conditions were in any way likely.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    8. Re:Those were the days. by deviated_prevert · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea? It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.

      Yes there have been anomalies and let us all hope beyond hope that this is indeed what we are seeing. The Maunder Minimum mini ice age that killed millions of poor people due to starvation and crop failure in Northern Europe and Russia during the Baroque era comes to mind.

      Yes I have a healthy sense of scientific skepticism. But scientific skepticism does not help much when the bear decides that you are supper.

      Who knows? For all we know about the solar system the sun might suddenly go into another cycle that puts the damper on global warming and makes the rapid burning of all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on a necessity for our survival. Some things however we can predict with a fair amount of certainty and with the very recent warming of the earths atmosphere and surface water temps, changes in dangerous weather patterns that will effect us drastically will happen within our life times and that of our children and this is a almost a certainty.

      A rapid move now away from fossil fuel consumption might just save us if there is another mini ice age coming or if we blow ourselves up and in so doing actually test the nuclear winter hypothesis. Then again the MAD policy of the cold war served us well in one regard. At least it kept us from testing the nuclear winter hypothesis. Why some of us insist upon continuing to test the hypothesis of global warming by listening to the fossil fuel industry shills however is MAD in my books given the correlation between recent increases in C02 levels and the recent increases in global mean temperatures!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    9. Re:Those were the days. by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.

      Sure is! Because people froze to death where Washington, DC is now, from temperatures they'd never experienced even in the heart of European winters. They've also died from "bad air" or as it's known today as malaria as far south as central Quebec -- it wasn't the draining of swamps that changed things, it was several decades of cold weather that pushed malaria carrying mosquito's further south. That was all in the span of 150 years too, and it wasn't cold to warm.

      Just keep in mind that there's plenty of "adjustments" to that data, while claiming that the olde gold standard silver-mercury thermometers weren't reliable or anything too. So all those temperature readings have to be adjusted.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Those were the days. by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you're mis-parsing the report a bit. What's exceptional here is the *combination* of factors; the strength of the storm, that it's so far east, *and* so late in the year. There have absolutely been recorded storms that are more powerful, further east, *or* later in the year, but not all three at the same time - hence it's of at least some note to those with an interest in meteology or climate change - even the deniers and skeptics, since they need to know about it to try debunk it. Yeah, there's an element of those dumb precedent stats (Oblig. XKCD) like "Party X has never lost the election when they've won seats Y & Z", but there's nothing wrong with the reporting - all it does is state a series of facts about the storm.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    11. Re:Those were the days. by ilguido · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.

      Climate data goes further back obviously, but the problem is that data varies a lot in consistency, accuracy, frequency, space span.
      It is like sea serpents, old data, and giant oarfishes, modern data, or krakens, old data, and giant squids, modern data: yes, you have data going back for centuries, but that data is really sketchy and totally useless if you want to infer species distribution, behavioural differences etc. through time.

    12. Re:Those were the days. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.

      The margin of error on those measurements are huge, and even in those there are rather large swings. Check out the historical rate of change in this reconstruction, or look at around 1100 in these reconstructions. The green in that second graph definitely shows a rate that changes more than our current rate. But again, the error bars are so huge in the reconstructions that a lot of questions remain: the science is definitely not settled there.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Those were the days. by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is my personal favorite indication of climate change. The Sphinx snow patch in Scotland has melted only seven times in the last 300 years. They *ALL* occurred in the last 75 years, *FOUR* of those meltings occurred in the last 21 years.

    14. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks for making my point.

      You are turning up on a forum where quite a few of the people present have scientific education and expecting to get statements like "expect a panic to sound as good" past us as if we were a bunch of daily mail readers incapable of counting our own socks. Even if we aren't climate scientists able to analyse the details of specific models, we are all perfectly capable of reading through the evidence and history of claims and seeing that you belong to a group of people who are systematically lying; Talking about "pauses" and "reversal" where there was none; misrepresenting what other people were saying and selecting evidence.

      When you turn up as first post and think that we can't see that you are a dupe of big oil you are look like a "fucking idiot". If you really believe what you say (and there are some here who do) then the term using the term "retarded faggot" is an insult to both the educationally "retarded" and to bundles of wood who would appear to have more credibility in the scientific space than you ever will.

      Possibly we should be arguing with you point by point, showing how you are wrong because things called "ships" existed before there were aircraft. However, next you would just select a different sock puppet and start to talk about how "hurricanes are good really because they generate more wind energy" or something equally stupid. Occasionally, just occasionally it's best to just call you out for what you are. An (probably incapable of fucking) idiot.

    15. Re:Those were the days. by dywolf · · Score: 2

      lucky for us, what you think is irrelevant.
      especially since what you think is directly disproven by the actual data.

      also, hurricanes aren't exactly small events liable to be missed without satellites.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize,

      And we already know they are, because they are repeatedly being surprised; everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Ok, how many hurricanes have to devastate the land before we can talk about there might be something wrong? It's not like like we're in any hurry, it's probably too late already anyway.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure, but I doubt it's due to Trump. IIRC, for a hurricane to form, you need cold, not hot air.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Those were the days. by ilguido · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, 300 years ago Europe was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It'd be interesting to know if the Sphinx snow patch melted sometimes during the warmer period before the Little Ice Age, but we do not know, since data is missing.

    20. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. During the campaign, the Koch brothers hated Trump, because he wasn't a swamp creature that could be manipulated. Kochs did everything they could to make sure Trump didn't win the primary. I think they even sat out for the general election.

      http://www.politico.com/story/...
      http://www.newsweek.com/donald...
      https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

    21. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???

      No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. And depending on what network you're watching, it has only happened because Trump became president in January. Try to keep up. That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan. You can tell, because a politician said so.

      By golly, I must say that it's pretty impressive to selectively quote even from the summary, then ignore even that to say that your enemies have a one year attention span, then use your completely made up bizzare strawman to exonerate your man Trump from no claim anyone other that a communist alternate ego of Pat Robertson would make.

      It's really quite simple And by the way, are you really saying that because they reported that "since 1939" thing, that it means "never happened before"?

      Are you really implying that when teh press reports that X number of people killed in such and such, in the worst fighting since last month, that they are saying that a war that might have been going on for years didn't start until last week.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:Those were the days. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. We have fairly accurate data points going back hundreds of thousands of years, nay millions of year.

      2. We know that mammalian life has been around for 80+ million years (120+ if you could proto-mammalian life).

      3. We know that temperature has risen and fallen; CO2 levels risen and fallen, and coastlines have changed many times over the past 80 million years (hell last 80,000 years)

      Does this mean we should pollute? F**K no.
      Does this mean that burning fossil fuels is fine; and not caring about adding CO2 is also fine. Again. F**K NO.

      But the chicken little approach combined with send-all-power-to-a-central-world-government seems just a little bit suspect to me. As a matter of fact, it's more than a little suspect. It too is in the real of F**K NO.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    23. Re: Those were the days. by Jahoda · · Score: 2

      So let me see if I understand you here... You believe malaria causing mosquitos come from Canada and were pushed south to the Americas by the little ice age? Hmm, why am I somehow not surprised you don't understand climate change.

    24. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I think that methane has been released more quickly than expected. And methane is much more powerful of an energy retention agent than CO2.

      There turn out to be all kinds of secondary effects, like the increased CO2 emissions from warming soil that we discussed here recently. And since we've exceeded the ocean's (&c;) ability to absorb the CO2, we're getting to find out all about them now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. what Hurricane by AchiestDragon · · Score: 2

    name failure ,, Hurricane , its a tropical storm or typhoon , but once above between 30 and 40 latitude it becomes an Arctic Cyclone hence ex / former /recently separated hurricane , as it got a devorce from having a name in the process, as arctic cyclones are not normaly named

    1. Re:what Hurricane by Xest · · Score: 2

      The UK started naming heavy storms that hit it's shores a few years ago, it doesn't have to be a hurricane or a cyclone under the UK's naming criteria, and I believe that's where the name has come from.

    2. Re:what Hurricane by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Yup, Met Eireann (in partnership with the UK Met Office) did so in order to raise public awareness of inbound storms. People apparently react better to "Storm Aileen" than they do to "Category 1 Storm", though you still get idiots standing on piers.

      It's probably helps to mention that while these conditions are nothing like those encountered in Caribbean, the British Isles and Europe are unused to extreme wind conditions, so [many] people aren't aware of how quickly these conditions can overpower you.

  3. ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by knorthern+knight · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    Highest winds 1-minute sustained: 120 mph (195 km/h)
    Lowest pressure 961 mbar (hPa); 28.38 inHg

    Fatalities 78 total
    Damage $50 million (1961 USD) (Estimated)

    Check back later whether Ophelia will *REALLY* be "worst evah".

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    1. Re:ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by deviated_prevert · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And this is exactly the point Debbie was Sept 16 now we are now dealing with high water temps in the Atlantic causing major storms in Ireland a full month later. A huge difference and like comparing apples to oranges. The warm surface water is staying around much longer and is spreading much further to the north and this is a real problem.

      It might not even be over quite yet for the Caribbean and even perhaps the Gulf of Mexico. Check out NOAA the water temps are still way up for this time of year. The mid 80s f is still well up in the range that intensifies storms to hurricanes. The mid Atlantic is still over 80 so we could still see some dangerous storms, here is hoping that this is the end for this year at least for the sake of the poor people of those countries. Aside from which, some of Trumps friends in the oil industry might have to delay their bone fishing and that would be an absolute catastrophe.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  4. Re:Whatever happened to that? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd be willing to make an exception for "Donald Trump is an utter failure as President".

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  5. No - this is Elon's fault by zerofoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm patiently waiting for my Model 3, and every day that goes by without one means that I drive my gas-guzzler to work.

  6. Storms in 1588 by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We don't know if the big storm off the coasts of Ireland and Scotland that destroyed much of the Spanish Armada in September/1588 was a hurricane. Probably every bit as powerful as Ophelia though.

  7. Kochs against Trump, for Pence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wrong. During the campaign, the Koch brothers hated Trump, because he wasn't a swamp creature that could be manipulated. Kochs did everything they could to make sure Trump didn't win the primary. I think they even sat out for the general election.

    http://www.politico.com/story/...
    http://www.newsweek.com/donald...
    https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

    Wow, I didn't know whether to mod you +1 informative or -1 off-topic, since you are right, and you cited evidence and gave links (thanks!) ... but the whole discussion is off the topic.

    So instead I'll just comment as AC.

    Yes, the Koch brothers very specifically did not invest in the Trump campaign. I will point out, however, that they have funded Pence, and in turn he has been very supportive of them:

    https://www.thenation.com/article/vice-president-mike-pence-would-be-a-dream-for-the-koch-brothers/

    http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339283-pence-stops-by-koch-brothers-conference-in-colorado

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345449-pence-to-keynote-koch-brothers-event-in-august

    http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486253693/despite-ties-to-vp-pick-mike-pence-koch-network-still-refuses-to-support-trump

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/07/14/indiana-gov-mike-pence-has-close-ties-charles-kochs-money-network/87083956/