Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Atlantic Hurricane Season 30 Percent Stronger Than Normal

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the act-now-while-supplies-last dept.

Earth 448

MatthewVD writes "The National Hurricane Center reported today that the combined energy and duration of all the storms in the Atlantic basin hurricane season was 30 percent above the average from 1981 to 2010. At Weather Underground, Dr. Jeff Masters blogs that record low levels of arctic ice could have caused a 'blocking ridge' over Greenland that pushed Hurricane Sandy west. Meanwhile, Bloomberg BusinessWeek says, 'it's global warming, stupid.'"

cancel ×

448 comments

30% stronger... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854059)

...and 20% cooler!

Re:30% stronger... (1)

emho24 (2531820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854243)

30% stronger, so we should all have to pay an extra 30% towards are taxes this year, right? I mean that is how it works, no?

Re:30% stronger... (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854247)

...and a whole host of other norm breaking data: "Did climate change cause hurricane sandy" [scientificamerican.com]

Re:30% stronger... (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854285)

Climate change is just a communist plot. Don't buy into it! Tell them that that earth was just as warm two million years ago....

Re:30% stronger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854451)

Climate change is just a communist plot. Don't buy into it! Tell them that that earth was just as warm six thousand years ago....

FTFY

Re:30% stronger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854659)

citation needed.

Really.

Unless you're a YEC where 120 million years ago was actually 6000 years ago with some tricks to make it look older put there by Satan, your fix there is bollocks.

Re:30% stronger... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854871)

citation needed.

Really.

Unless you're a YEC where 120 million years ago was actually 6000 years ago with some tricks to make it look older put there by Satan, your fix there is bollocks.

Climate Change: dramatically increasing the amount of "Whooooosh!" over the past 15 years.

Re:30% stronger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854921)

/Thatsthejoke

Re:30% stronger... (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854719)

No, Climate Change is the result of a Communist plot. We warned you not to let them fluoridate the water! Now look what happened!

Re:30% stronger... (-1, Troll)

rs79 (71822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854913)

From TFA:
"FIVE TROPICAL STORMS FORMED IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN DURING THE MONTH
OF OCTOBER. TWO OF THESE REACHED HURRICANE STATUS"

From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season [wikipedia.org]
"The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season produced 20 tropical cyclones, 19 tropical storms, 7 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes."

Man, if things keep getting worse, then at this rate there'll be no hurricanes left.

Doesn't say anything (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854077)

So it's 30% above the average, that says nothing about how it compares to the other years individually.

Re:Doesn't say anything (2, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854175)

Maybe 30% above the mild seasons we've had since Katrina. You know, the "OMGWEREALLGONNADIE" hurricane seasons were supposed to start having due to global warming. Now we have a storm that briefly peaked at CAT2, and did most of its damage as a CAT1, and the chicken littles are out in force again.

"chicken littles" (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854509)

would those be the people who died or are currently without power or heat around NYC you are referring to?

Re:Doesn't say anything (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854551)

What's the average deviation? Last time I heard expert meteorologists talking like this, it was right after Katrina, predicting the next year would be severe, too, which it wasn't, demonstrating complete ignorance of statistics, regression to the mean, and chaos theory.

Given it was attempts to simulate and predict weather that lead to the discovery of chaos theory and the butterfly effect, this is particularly shameful.

Re:Doesn't say anything (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854743)

If you ignore the date range given in TFS, then sure go with that if it makes you feel better.

Re:Doesn't say anything (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854793)

Even a Cat 1 hurricane that turns inland around NY happens maybe once a century. (Three times, now, two in the last two years.) They generally go up the coast. If that weren't concerning enough, we have the storm surge, together with the threat of rising oceans. It's not we're-all-gonna-die territory. But it's not good, and NY should be spending billions building seawalls capable of holding back the ocean.

Re:Doesn't say anything (2)

Jessified (1150003) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854861)

Lol. No you're right. Also evolution is a conspiracy.

Favourite quote:

“We can’t say that steroids caused any one home run by Barry Bonds, but steroids sure helped him hit more and hit them farther. Now we have weather on steroids.”

Re:Doesn't say anything (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854269)

you don't care about individual plot points when looking for trends... were you taught creationism?

Nonsense....look at the 1950 hurricanes in the NE (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854079)

But then they limited the dates didnt they....to fit their narrative.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/021813.html

Re:Nonsense....look at the 1950 hurricanes in the (5, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854177)

They limited their dates to 1981 onwards. You'd have had a point if they'd gone back to 1961, but they didn't even get close to this alleged period they supposedly removed from the stats.

Re:Nonsense....look at the 1950 hurricanes in the (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854549)

Unfortunately, sea level has risen 15 cm since 1950 [wikipedia.org] . The flooding from the storm surge is what causes most of the damage, not the wind. Attributing a single storm to global warming may be uncertain, but there is no uncertainty about the increased damage from the higher storm surge due to global warming.

Re:Nonsense....look at the 1950 hurricanes in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854777)

As they keep telling us: Weather is not climate.
So we can then reply: These 30 to 100 year comparisons are nonsense. We won't know if your assertions are correct for at least another 800 years. Very little accurate or human measured info is available for more than the past 50 years, only tree rings, core samples, etc. How about all the ice ages, etc.?
They reply: All mankind will die if you don't do what we say, now.
We reply: Over 99.9% of all species that have lived on the Earth are now extinct. Why do the proudly atheistic scientists think mankind deserves some special privileges? They may or may not be right, but the shrill voices about AGW are not reasonable or thoughtful befitting a scientist. How about if they come up with some practical answers, and not the carbon sequestration crazy talk?

Re:Nonsense....look at the 1950 hurricanes in the (2)

presidenteloco (659168) | about a year and a half ago | (#41855049)

The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.

Direct all the revenue from this to basic research into fossil-fuel-free energy and transportation technologies.
Preferably focus on research into technologies other than conventional nuclear, since it's already had 70 years of government research funding.

The reason the voices backing the science side of the debate become shrill is in response to your side's refusal to allow these sort
of effective measures to take place. You have to yell pretty loud to get through to people with their head in the sand and people with their hands clamped over
their ears repeating "la la la" over and over to themselves.

Re:Nonsense....look at the 1950 hurricanes in the (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854823)

North Carolina is not the NE. Hurricanes don't turn inland at NY. Except when they do. Which is almost never.

But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (4, Informative)

bricko (1052210) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854121)

Seems they limited their dates so they could leave out all those in the 50's. Here are their paths. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/021813.html [smalldeadanimals.com]

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (2, Insightful)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854261)

Exactly! The whole global warming sales pitch is based on the same premise - the fact is they either don't include, or don't have the measurements taken back long enough to see if this is indeed a human-induced problem, or a normal pattern. What have we been collecting meteorological data for a couple centuries now? What if this kind of thing happens every thousand years on its own?

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854377)

What if?

It doesn't matter if there is a natural cycle. With global warming, it will potentially be stronger. And without the effect of arctic sea ice, those hurricanes might just continue to hit coastline instead of going out to sea to die.

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854525)

"Natural" doesn't mean "spontaneous". There's always a cause.

We've looked around and the only smoking gun anybody's come up with so far is atmospheric CO2 levels.

The question is: Where's all the extra CO2 coming from? Oh, that's right...

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854605)

The point with the natural cycle is there are only miniscule increases in number and severity of storms. Huge ones come all the time. In fact, they pointed out on NPR that there was a worse storm to hit New England in the " '80s...the 1880s"., with lols.

Every time a storm comes, zomg the sky is falling in new and horrible ways. Umm...no.

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854477)

... if this is indeed a human-induced problem

I don't see anybody else dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere year after year. ... and that "greenhouse" thing? It works.

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854917)

The atmosphere weighs ~5 million billion tons.

Now please explain why you told us about the mass of CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere each year, why you used a seemingly large number to I guess influence opinion, and why you neglected to be honest about how small the number you gave actually is in reality.

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854595)

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "climate vs weather" before and that the difference is one long term and one is short.

What probably *hasn't* been pointed out to you is that climate science uses 30-year averages as their basis for "long term" and to differentiate weather vs climate.

Thus "climate" is the average over a 30-year period to get a data point whereas "weather" is 1-year measurements to get data points.

1981-2010 is the latest complete 30-year set. 1951-1980 would be the prior 30-year set, thus is not relevant to what they are reporting on.

Hurricane Sandy will be incorporated into the current 30-year set, which will complete in 2040.

That being said, they also use 30-year rolling averages but that isn't what is being reported here.

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41855041)

Pretty sure a new set starts every year and goes back 30 years. They overlap by 29 years with the previous one. ie

1980 - 2010
1979 - 2009
1978 - 2008
etc

Re:But, But....what about all those in the 1950's (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854649)

I was questioning the 30% above average, since the average may be from 90mph winds to 120mph winds--which is 30%! What's the standard deviation here? Variance whatever.

Average vs. variance (4, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854157)

It's interesting to know that this season was 30% above the mean, but what's the variance over that same time period?

Because for all I know from the summary, half of those years had storm season that were 30% more active than the average.

Re:Average vs. variance (5, Insightful)

colin_faber (1083673) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854195)

Right,

So what's 'normal'? It seems the political GW fanatics are all over this as a big "see I told you so" kind of event.

I'm not suggesting GW does or doesn't exist, just that looking at a tiny slice of time and then sensationalizing an event which happens (time scale wise) some what regularly just pollutes the 'issue' even more and leads to bad assumptions being made (on both sides of the issue).

Re:Average vs. variance (0, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854669)

Of course they are. This is a natural reaction to be expected out of Statists. GW is the bullwhip by which to get legislation passed to push the agenda of social engineering. Oh, and followed by a "It's for the children" closure.

This is, and has always been, about power and control of a few elites over the main population. Don't forget that. Don't you ever fucking forget that!!!

Re:Average vs. variance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854813)

+1 Can't tell if crazy or sarcastic

Now with more molecules! (1)

Thing I am (761900) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854181)

nt

frist pso]T (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854201)

Completely before 3ho sell another Distro is done Here Elected, we took platform for the

Silly question, but... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854207)

If the hurricanes are more powerful, that means they are using more energy, right? And my less than great understanding is that less energy equates to cooler temperatures (for a system), so does this mean the hurricanes are helping to cool the earth by converting excess heat into... well... something that's not heat( e.g. motion or water, wind, etc.)?

Note: I hope this doesn't descend into a flame-war about global warming; the main question is: whatever the temperature, does the energy dissipated by hurricanes ultimately cool the system they are in?

Re:Silly question, but... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854305)

The sun can replenish the energy of a hurricane in a matter of hours.

Re:Silly question, but... (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854489)

At a guess, hurricanes and other weather systems don't so much remove heat from the Earth as make the distribution a little more uniform. All that wind and rain and storm surge creates a lot of friction with the ground, the water, and the surrounding air. Some of the heat released will radiate off into space, sure, but most of it won't--lots of cloud cover under the circumstances, obviously. So post-Sandy, it will maybe be a little warmer in the northeast US and a little cooler in the tropical Atlantic than it would have been otherwise. I have no idea if this effect is significant enough to measure for any one storm.

Re:Silly question, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854511)

First I have to nitpick: heat is a transfer of energy, not some quantity that is stored. Remember that or you will be corrected by every physicist you meet.

Hurricanes transfer energy from the equator towards the poles. The source of power for a hurricane is the evaporation and condensation of water. So yes, the temperature of the ocean where a hurricane passes over will be lower afterwards.

Re:Silly question, but... (3, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854993)

If the hurricanes are more powerful, that means they are using more energy, right? And my less than great understanding is that less energy equates to cooler temperatures (for a system), so does this mean the hurricanes are helping to cool the earth by converting excess heat into... well... something that's not heat( e.g. motion or water, wind, etc.)?

A hurricane (or tropical cyclone) is a heat engine. It takes the heat from the body of water (ocean) and dumps it into a cooler body (atmosphere) while doing work (moving lots of air).

I believe the oceans cool about 3 degrees C/K from this process, so it seems like it's a way for the oceans to cool themselves down - the warmer they get, they just spin off more hurricanes.

Of course, all that useful work energy ends up as heat per the laws of thermodynamics.

Re:Silly question, but... (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about a year and a half ago | (#41855079)

Hurricanes convert a more ordered form of energy (kenetic energy in winds) into heat. That's enthropy for you.
The reason there are predictions that hurricanes will be affected by accellerated global warming is that there's a well known corrolated observation: As a tropical depression's center moves over warm water (specifically anything over 94 degreees F), the depression grows. Over slightly cooler water it doesn't, and when it passes over much cooler water, it shrinks. That's been a very reliable observation, most times. (There's occasional observed effects where another tropical depression has formed close by, and it's in a fast growing region, and it seems to grab all the growth from another depression that is technically also in a region hot enough to grow, but not as warm as where the first one is, etc. - so the rule is not quite 100%, but pretty close and pretty damned reliable.). Every time sombody from NOAA's stormwatch section says a tropical depression is expected to weaken, it's because they have looked at the temperature of the area it is drifting into for that 94 degree contour. When it's towards the end of the hurricane season and the meteorologists are saying that the last remaining depressions on their charts won't become storms and the season is technically over, it's that 94 degree rule they are applying, and again, it's been pretty reliable. So, if we observe more and larger cells where the temperature is over 94 F, we ought to observe more and/or larger storms. The 94 degree rule by itself doesn't show anything about AGW's existence, but if the 94 degree rule isn't telling us that there's some kind of connection between AGW (if it exists), and hurricane properties, it's hard to see how it could be useful for predicting anything else either.

The problem with the Anti-AGW arguement on this is that they seem to insist on it becoming a prediction of weather and not climate, or they say it isn't happening. If there are more warm water cells lasting later into the year, that might stretch out the tail of the hurricane season, giving us storms later than the usual cut off (this happened in 2005 - Katrina wasn't the only significant anomaly that year). Larger but isolated cells might form some stronger hurricanes and terminate some other tropical depressions forming close after the big ones, so we could have some more powerful storms, but not have higher numbers of depressions become full fledged storms. Warm cells that grow until they merge (so storm growth as a depression passes through them might be more continual) could work as a sort of pump to move growing depressions out of each other's way more rapidly, so strength and numbers could both increase in that scenario. The extra heat in the ocean doesn't predict by itself that cells will necessarily get larger and merge at their edges with other cells - that's greatly affected by existing currents, so a cell might stay the same size as typical sometimes and store more heat by climbing to water temperatures of 96, 97, 98 F. The anti-AGW argument on hurricanes seems to demand that the pro-AGW side predict just how the extra heat in the system will distribute itself in any given year so that they can be sure whether each possible effect is the one and only allowable consequence of global warming, and any possible effect that happens some years and not others becomes a non-consequence.

Sure it is (3, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854239)

2005 (Hurricane Katrina): "It's global warming, stupid"
2006 Not a single hurricane makes landfall on the US mainland: "Well duh, that's just weather, global warming wouldn't have an impact on weather.
2012: (Hurricane Sandy): "It's global warming, stupid"

Really, can you guys just stop? Seriously, have NONE of you ever read Peter and the Wolf?

Re:Sure it is (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854323)

Seriously, have NONE of you ever read Peter and the Wolf?

I believe The Three Little Pigs might be more apropos.

Re:Sure it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854449)

Indeed. Americans keep building their houses out of twigs and then look surprised when they blow down. Doh!

Re:Sure it is (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854325)

They don't really read. They just cut and paste talking points from their political masters.

Re:Sure it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854327)

> record low levels of arctic ice could have caused a 'blocking ridge'
Does that mean that record high levels of Artic ice will allow wind to pass right through?
 

Re:Sure it is (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41855029)

Wow, that is a retarded question. Arctic ice doesn't block the damn jetstream. A millisecond of thinking, which I realise is a stretch for you, should tell you that the ice is at just a tad lower altitude.

Temperatute changes on the other hand change the relative temperature difference between the pole and the equator, and that probably does have an impact on the jetstream. It's only an hypothesis but what they are thinking is that the higher temperature pole sees the causes the jetstream to be in a different position than previously when the pole had a lower temperature. Record high levels of ice would probably indicate a colder than normal pole, that would also impact the jetstream if there hypothesis is right.

Re:Sure it is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854335)

Barry Bonds can't be on steroids, he went ten games without hitting a home run!

Re:Sure it is (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854339)

Really, can you guys just stop? Seriously, have NONE of you ever read Peter and the Wolf?

I have. There was a wolf in it, it ate the little boy.

Crying wolf a bit too early doesn't mean there's no wolf out there.

Re:Sure it is (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854439)

You obviously ENTIRELY MISSED the *point* of the story.
Wow, even little kids get it. /facepalm.

Re:Sure it is (2, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854841)

I've stated this before on /. but I'm too lazy to search for it:
There are two morals to that fable. One for children: don't lie or a wolf will eat you because no one will believe you. One for adults: always treat an alarm as real because sometimes it is and a kid might get eaten; also repeat the fable so that fewer false alarms occur.

Re:Sure it is (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854501)

I have. There was a wolf in it, it ate the little boy.

Crying wolf a bit too early doesn't mean there's no wolf out there.

Right. So if you want to convince people of that fact, stop making claims you either a) can't back up, or b) simply aren't true (i.e. don't try to claim that weather=climate if and only if it supports your position, which both sides do all the time). Is the Earth getting warmer? Yes. Is human activity aiding that process? Yes. Is Sandy the result of human activity? We have no idea. Statistics doesn't work like that, you can't predict individual events. And global warming (all weather and climate, for that matter) is purely statistics. So stop attributing individual events to global warming (or "climate change", which I believe is the current trendy term for it).

Re:Sure it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854863)

By the time there is conclusive proof, the changes will have progressed too far for humanity to do much about it. Expect to see famine, war, and deaths in the 100s of millions within the next two centuries.

Re:Sure it is (1)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year and a half ago | (#41855083)

I think the article makes a great metaphor of global warming causing more energy to be in the ocean, similar to steroids in baseball boosting strength

stop attributing individual events to global warming

Or as they could say in baseball, "stop attributing a particular home run to steroids", despite a clear, direct correlation between taking steroids and hitting the baseball harder, and a jump in the number of homeruns for the season. You can't simply say, this home run was natural, and that one was entirely roid-driven.

Would there have been a hurricane anyways? Likely. Is this the largest hurricane ever recorded? Yes. Was it made larger by global warming? Yes.

Re:Sure it is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854545)

The wolf is a pedophile!

Won't somebody think of the children! Ban Peter and the Wolf!

Re:Sure it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854675)

So global warming is just going to kill those who keep screaming about it?

Awesome.

Re:Sure it is (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854485)

Peter and the Wolf being a musical composition aside...

I've always felt the message of the boy who cried wolf should be; always respond to an alarm especially in instances where ignoring it can lead to death.

Re:Sure it is (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854561)

I don't think unpredictable weather patterns mean global warming is false. In terms of scientific method, saying Sandy was a result of global warming is probably a dramatic overstatement.

In terms of PR, it's a good move that I agree with because I'm convinced global warming is a threat. It's not the "cleanest" way to get the public and voters on board with curbing carbon emissions, but this is public policy. The fossil fuel industry isn't playing straight either, they're engaging in all the FUD they can, so playing fair is a good way to lose.

(Futile disclaimer: I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not global warming is real or not, that's not my point, and there's numerous other people and websites for that. I'm also not going to get into a debate about whether or not abortion is all good, whether or not one should vote republican or democrat, or whether the giants or the dolphins are going to win the world cup. If you want to argue about that, go somewhere else.)

Re:Sure it is (2)

Jiro (131519) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854689)

. It's not the "cleanest" way to get the public and voters on board with curbing carbon emissions, but this is public policy.

Translation: it's okay to lie, since this is for the greater good.

Re:Sure it is (1)

Darby (84953) | about a year and a half ago | (#41855021)

or whether the giants or the dolphins are going to win the world cup.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, "neither" ;-)

Re:Sure it is (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854729)

Could you clarify who "you guys" is? Recently, I feel like I'm being lumped into a whole lot of different, frequently orthogonal, categories.

Just a hint: in this case, you guys is Bloomberg Businessweek. In other words, is starting to seep into the bastions of business and corporate bottomline that maybe, just maybe, this entire Climate Change should be something of concern to businesses.

Yes, they got it wrong, but give them a few years. They are just starting paying attention, so you can't really blame them for not understanding what's been rehashed in scientific circles for the last.... 30 years or so. I expect that in another 30 years or so, they might understand the problem and stop offering simple causations and simple solutions.

Re:Sure it is (5, Informative)

ideonexus (1257332) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854741)

No. I haven't read that one and neither of you since Peter and the Wolf [wikipedia.org] is a 1936 classical composition by Sergei Prokofiev, where the boy beats the wolf at the end and rescues his animal friends.

I believe what you meant to refer to is the Aesop fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf [wikipedia.org] .

Thanks for playing though.

Global Warming Hurricanes! (In 1978....) (4, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854283)

Yeah, back in the 1970's the Citigroup Center in New York needed an emergency retrofit due to a design flaw in bolts used to hold the building together. Basically, wind-shear from.. wait for it... a hurricane could topple the building. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center)

So in the 1970's it was common knowledge that New York could and would be hit by hurricanes and it was considered a real enough threat that the engineers went on an emergency retrofitting job to fix the problem once it was discovered. In 2012 a CAT 1 Hurricane actually hits New York, which was 100% expected, and frankly weaker than predicted hurricanes that could hit New York. Of course these inconvenient facts won't deter the alarmist conclusion: GLOBAL WARMING!!!

Re:Global Warming Hurricanes! (In 1978....) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854389)

i dont know who or what you are argueing about.
hurricanes have hit long island throughout history.
thats not the point.
see the Westhampton Beach High School Hurricanes.

Re:Global Warming Hurricanes! (In 1978....) (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854505)

Slashdot: Where tyrrany, repression and genocide are cool as long as the perpertrators suck up to Assange in public.

Slashdot: where apologist strawmen and know-more-than-the-experts armchair quarterbacks abound.

Re:Global Warming Hurricanes! (In 1978....) (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854795)

Fractional increases in power or frequency are unnoticable. "This will happen more and more" is 99% lie.

Just wait until Nashville gets clobbered by an earthquake -- the strongest in the continental US are that region, not California.

Oh, and look for the anti-fracking crowd to glom onto it as making it worse, or more likely.

Re:Global Warming Hurricanes! (In 1978....) (4, Insightful)

joebok (457904) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854825)

So in the 70's, engineers and scientists looked at available data and said that the infrastructure may not be adequate to provide safety margins for possible weather conditions -- and you say that was good! (And I agree!)

And so now, scientists and engineers look at data and suggest that infrastructure may not be adequate to provide safety margins for possible weather conditions -- and you imply that is alarmist!

Those folks in the 70s did not know for a fact what was going to happen, they made their best estimates and guesses, hedged them for safety and did a cost/benefit analysis and decided to do the retrofit. I don't see why following the same process today makes people "alarmists".

Global warming stories (4, Funny)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854315)

Sure do cause heated debate on Slashdot.

Hey Slashdot! In Case You Hadn't Noticed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41855011)

In Long Island/New York, people are dumpster diving for food, shitting the hallways, thugs are going around robbing homes dressed as ConEd repairmen, gas lines are a mile long and it costs $6 a gallon, people are pissed, still trapped and crying for help.

This time during Katrina, Slashdot was in flames condemning Bush and FEMA for being slow and "letting people die".

But now, the only concern is whether Sandy is proof of Global Warming.

Pathetic

Obviously, what we need (1, Funny)

n6kuy (172098) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854321)

... or even more onerous laws and regulations.

Re:Obviously, what we need (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854627)

If the theories are correct, then the right of industries to emit carbon is at odds with my rights to an unadulterated climate. Alternatively, their externalized costs are becoming our internalized costs. If the government is not the best option to balance our interests, what is? Firearms?

Re:Obviously, what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854931)

That's not a right, and if it were, it would have already been violated by countless other things that you're not complaining about, such as agriculture and fishing.

Meanwhile, back in April (5, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854331)

From Dr. Jeff Masters blog at wunderground.com: [wunderground.com]
April 5, 2012 - "Expect one of the quietest Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995 this year, say the hurricane forecasting team of Dr. Phil Klotzbach and Dr. Bill Gray of Colorado State University (CSU) in their latest seasonal forecast issued April 4. They call for an Atlantic hurricane season with below-average activity"

Re:Meanwhile, back in April (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854897)

That's what you call "predicting" he weather. As good as weather prediction is nowadays, it's still about only 50% correct. The Farmer's Almanac has a better track record.

Re:Meanwhile, back in April (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854905)

Holy shit, that means that instead of these government scientists going too far with their warmist agenda, they're not going far enough!

Large Sodas = Root of All Evil (3, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854359)

>> Bloomberg BusinessWeek says

This is the guy who just banned large sodas, right? Go on...

It's HAARP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854393)

Obama doesn't want to see his face in the news so he unleashed the HAARP.

Cycles on Limited Time Base (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854415)

So cyclonic storms are in the October just past are stronger than the average over a short 30 year time period. Notable, but not surprising, as all weather is cyclical.

It could suggest a more active season or it could be an outlier month. Since we have solar cycles that indeed control the total energy into the surface of the planet, I would suspect that plays the dominant role, but a single data set on only one item, the hurricanes and their strength, is not very significant.

In other words, is this worth a "story", or just more hype of recent data points.

Blooming hot air (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854417)

Compare hurricanes for Oct 2012 with the October 1780 atlantic hurricanes and then tell us that. Bloomberg is hot air, stupid.

There was a cat 3 hurricane in 1938 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854469)

Sandy was a category 1 hurricane. In 1938, landfall was made by a category 3 hurricane. So is global warming making the hurricanes weaker?

Re:There was a cat 3 hurricane in 1938 (1)

Convector (897502) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854831)

Wind speed isn't everything, and that's all the Category tells you. Sandy was gigantic, and likely had more total energy than the 1938 'cane.

Re:There was a cat 3 hurricane in 1938 (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854939)

Sandy was a category 1 hurricane. In 1938, landfall was made by a category 3 hurricane. So is global warming making the hurricanes weaker?

Ah, but Sandy was a very low pressure storm. In that respect it was regarded at the Cat 3 level.

I ate a lot of beans yesterday (0)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854555)

I had global warming in my pants this morning.

Re:I ate a lot of beans yesterday (1)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854703)

Off-topic? Have you even read the other comments?

Stupid is perpetuating the Big Lie (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854565)

It's NOT global warming stupid. This has happened before. For example:

In **1938** the New England Hurricane - aka "Long Island Express" hit New York as a Cat 3. Wind was around 120mph, and the storm surge was 18 feet (4+ feet higher than Sandy). Thousands of boats and nearly 10,000 houses were destroyed. There were ~60 deaths recorded, and hundreds of injuries. As the storm progressed, it killed over 600 people in New England and destroyed 50,000+ homes. Total property loss/damage is estimated at ~$5 billion (today's dollars).

New York has felt the impact of hurricanes, to a greater or lesser extent, over 90 times since 1804. Nothing new here... move along (and send help to the people up there who are suffering right now - they need food, fuel and water - regardless of what nonsense the media is telling you).

These nut jobs who proclaim global warming and cite all kinds of fabricated or exaggerated "evidence" are the same nut jobs who were proclaiming a global ice age when I was growing up. Wake up people, what we are experiencing is the cyclical nature of nature. Some day we will experience intense heating, and some day we will experience another ice age, and us puny little peons (humans) are completely powerless to cause it or stop it.

Re:Stupid is perpetuating the Big Lie (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854971)

thank you for that spot on post.

Known NY Hurricanes: 1938,1893,1869,1821,1816,1645 (5, Insightful)

tp1024 (2409684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854601)

Sediments indicate that more and stronger hurricanes made landfall in the area in the 13th and 15th century than at any time since European settlement of New England.

Nothing about Sandy has anything to do with climate change. It was to be expected and people have been warned, though all warnings fell on deaf ears just as in New Orleans. Now, the established procedure is repeated, people moan, complain and blame climate change instead of their incompetent politicians failing to do anything about lack of storm protection for half a century and more - despite the threat being absolutely obvious to anyone daring to have a look at history.

Unfortunately, the USA is a country that collectively doesn't dare to look back into its own history and is thus constantly surprised by every single repetition of things that happened several times before.

You missed out the months. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41855057)

Hurricane season has a season. As in it ends. As in it has a peak season and an off season.

What months were those and how do they compare to the end of October and the peak of the hurricane season?

Not even a half truth here.

Could there be any effect from the solar flares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854625)

Has anyone researched what the seasonal effects of massive solar flares have on long term weather patterns.

Re:Could there be any effect from the solar flares (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854803)

No, we all know its Carbon Dioxide that is responsible for global warming, it has nothing to do with the big glowing ball of gas in the sky. The interweb ignores the fact that global warming seems to coincide with the point in the millennial solar cycle it at highest energy output because we have only recorded weather in 'modern" times for the last 100 years or so. 100 years of a global warming trend which happens to coincide with an increase CO2 output means we have done it to ourselves, nature cannot possibly affect the planet in this way.

Armchair scientists reading tea leaves (3, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854673)

The experts at the NHC can't reliably forecast a given hurricane's strength 3 days in advance, even for the killer systems that undergo rapid intensification, a process which requires massive amounts of energy in a small and narrow zone of the atmosphere (read: should be easy to forecast from their spot atmospheric measurements but is not), yet armchair scientists can somehow surmise that a specific storm did what it did based on the sparse influences of a 100 year global warming weather pattern. It's beyond laughable.

"global warming" isn't man-made (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854721)

stupid

1981???? Seriously WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41854953)

Does it strike anyone else as odd that they chose 1981 as the arbirtrary date in history where they choose to stop looking back? Wonder what happened before that? It's not like we have historical data before that...
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml

That's what happens as Earth's atmosphere cools (1)

blindseer (891256) | about a year and a half ago | (#41854969)

We've been building up a lot of energy in the latent heat in the oceans over the last few decades of global warming. Now that the temperatures are no longer rising that energy is going to get spit back out into space somehow, somewhere. This time it happened in Manhattan.

As long as global cooling continues we are going to see some big storms. The atmosphere is a heat engine. When there is a temperature difference work can get done. This "work" in the atmosphere presents itself as wind and rain. The greater the temperature difference the more work can get done.

I have my theory. Global warming means calmer weather and smaller storms. Global cooling means bigger storms. I'm no meteorologist but trends tell me we are going to see a very cold and dry winter followed by a wet summer with relatively mild temperatures. I also suspect another big hurricane sometime around Christmas this year.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...