4 ms·

While I admire your ardor, and agree with you that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem, your explanation lacks a specific mechanism, and the disre

While I admire your ardor, and agree with you that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem, your explanation lacks a specific mechanism, and the disrespect you show towards the experts is reprehensible. I found these facts in the article interesting: - This is not actually unprecedented -- hurricane Patricia in 2015 did the same thing, more intensely. - "Sea surface temperatures were close to 31°C over Otis’s path, which is a few degrees above normal. While not the primary cause of Otis’s rapid intensification, they did not hurt." - Unusual placement of the hurricane relative to the jet stream seems to be the main cause (Geography BA, Earth science PhD)

bombcar 3y ago
And even if completely true, it’s a useless factoid - we need to understand the physics of how these things work and are working and are changing if we want to continue to predict them accurately.
dillydogg 3y ago
I must agree with you about disrespecting the experts. All of the best models created by the best meteorologists/climatologists suggested this wasn't going to come to pass. This was an extreme happening and brushing it off as rudimentary chaos theory is not useful. Some of the weather people I see on Mastodon were talking about how this was a freak happening, but the article helped me understand that better. Forecasting hurricanes has gotten remarkably good, so this was surprising to me.
cagenut 3y ago
technically correct! the best kind of correct!
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  In a bizarre coincidence, I just happened to watch that episode of Futurama for the first time today, and recognized the line.
hedora 3y ago
My reading of the article was that this (and most above average hurricanes these days) was probably due to climate change, since the ocean was warmer than usual, etc. However, repeating that isn’t particularly interesting. In other news, it is 2023. The interesting question then is why all the models screwed up so badly. Is it because climate change means the model is now inaccurate, or was this within the baseline (no climate change) error rate of current weather prediction technology? Quoting the article: > This rich warm water did not hurt matters at all. > So how did every reliable model we use miss this?
- Applejinx 3y ago
  The model IS also a chaotic system. My guess is that if the model accurately represents all the realities being modeled, and if they ran the simulation enough times, they would get Otis in the model. It's very easy to get chaotic behavior out of such a model, or even simple circuitry. At that point the question is not 'can the model do a run that produces Otis', because at that point it can and does, one run in ten thousand. The question is, do the forecasters refuse to mention that one run of the model that produced that result. What seemed to happen this time was, not enough data or attention, and nobody ran their model enough times to produce the Otis result in the model. I don't think anyone saw it and discarded it, I think it didn't show up in anybody's runs of their models. Odds are good that it COULD have, if the models are any good. It's just unlikely.

bombcar 3y ago

And even if completely true, it’s a useless factoid - we need to understand the physics of how these things work and are working and are changing if we want to continue to predict them accurately.

dillydogg 3y ago

I must agree with you about disrespecting the experts. All of the best models created by the best meteorologists/climatologists suggested this wasn't going to come to pass. This was an extreme happening and brushing it off as rudimentary chaos theory is not useful. Some of the weather people I see on Mastodon were talking about how this was a freak happening, but the article helped me understand that better. Forecasting hurricanes has gotten remarkably good, so this was surprising to me.

cagenut 3y ago

technically correct! the best kind of correct!

foobarbecue 3y ago
In a bizarre coincidence, I just happened to watch that episode of Futurama for the first time today, and recognized the line.

hedora 3y ago

My reading of the article was that this (and most above average hurricanes these days) was probably due to climate change, since the ocean was warmer than usual, etc. However, repeating that isn’t particularly interesting. In other news, it is 2023. The interesting question then is why all the models screwed up so badly. Is it because climate change means the model is now inaccurate, or was this within the baseline (no climate change) error rate of current weather prediction technology? Quoting the article: > This rich warm water did not hurt matters at all. > So how did every reliable model we use miss this?

Applejinx 3y ago
The model IS also a chaotic system. My guess is that if the model accurately represents all the realities being modeled, and if they ran the simulation enough times, they would get Otis in the model. It's very easy to get chaotic behavior out of such a model, or even simple circuitry. At that point the question is not 'can the model do a run that produces Otis', because at that point it can and does, one run in ten thousand. The question is, do the forecasters refuse to mention that one run of the model that produced that result. What seemed to happen this time was, not enough data or attention, and nobody ran their model enough times to produce the Otis result in the model. I don't think anyone saw it and discarded it, I think it didn't show up in anybody's runs of their models. Odds are good that it COULD have, if the models are any good. It's just unlikely.