3 ms·

> Anybody who understands what the big words 'climate change' mean, could have predicted this. HAVE predicted this. I personally have predicted this and I'm not

> Anybody who understands what the big words 'climate change' mean, could have predicted this. HAVE predicted this. I personally have predicted this and I'm not even a weather forecaster, I just know what chaos theory is. This is a bit of a strawman. It's not that "no one thought this was possible". We've known that we will be seeing storms that are larger, stronger, and faster forming than what we've seen before. It's not been known that our current forecasting tools will be 100% useless in predicting when those much-worse storms would form. That's what was shocking; not just the rate of intensification, but that it failed to be predicted at all, so soon before the event happened.

Applejinx 3y ago
I think it's wrong to imply that the current tools are 100% useless. I've seen a guy on youtube drawing on apparently elaborate weather models from multiple sources and they're just the sort of thing that would highlight the risks. This guy (Ryan Hall (y'all)) has repeatedly highlighted the high sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, stressing that they could produce rapid intensification of hurricanes, several times this season. The times that he drew this to his viewers' attention, the giant storms didn't happen. This time, in the Pacific Ocean, in a different location not covered by his audience demographic, under the same conditions he's been highlighting right down to the warm ocean waters, the giant storm did. Our tools are NOT useless, much less 100% useless. We're looking at windows into chaos. The rules are just different. A guy like I mentioned has to be concerned with crying wolf if he repeatedly warns against a super-storm that fizzles, but he's gonna keep doing it if he's honest, because he knows there will come a time when he calls it and is giving a warning for something that will come as a surprise. You can SEE the conditions and go 'uh-oh'. Our current forecasting tools show these conditions, pretty well. You simply can't be certain which will turn into an explosion, and which will fizzle.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the tools were 100% useless broadly speaking. In this specific event, they were. The chart says it all: https://theeyewall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/102623-intensity-of-Otis.jpg https://theeyewall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/102623-int... That's nine different prediction models, of which zero predicted anything resembling reality. Sure, there was less data available than in other areas. Sure, there was less ground radar. Sure, fewer eye flights were made. But there have been other storms with a similar dearth of data; never before have all predictive models been so very wrong.

Applejinx 3y ago

I think it's wrong to imply that the current tools are 100% useless. I've seen a guy on youtube drawing on apparently elaborate weather models from multiple sources and they're just the sort of thing that would highlight the risks. This guy (Ryan Hall (y'all)) has repeatedly highlighted the high sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, stressing that they could produce rapid intensification of hurricanes, several times this season. The times that he drew this to his viewers' attention, the giant storms didn't happen. This time, in the Pacific Ocean, in a different location not covered by his audience demographic, under the same conditions he's been highlighting right down to the warm ocean waters, the giant storm did. Our tools are NOT useless, much less 100% useless. We're looking at windows into chaos. The rules are just different. A guy like I mentioned has to be concerned with crying wolf if he repeatedly warns against a super-storm that fizzles, but he's gonna keep doing it if he's honest, because he knows there will come a time when he calls it and is giving a warning for something that will come as a surprise. You can SEE the conditions and go 'uh-oh'. Our current forecasting tools show these conditions, pretty well. You simply can't be certain which will turn into an explosion, and which will fizzle.

margalabargala 3y ago
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the tools were 100% useless broadly speaking. In this specific event, they were. The chart says it all: https://theeyewall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/102623-intensity-of-Otis.jpg https://theeyewall.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/102623-int... That's nine different prediction models, of which zero predicted anything resembling reality. Sure, there was less data available than in other areas. Sure, there was less ground radar. Sure, fewer eye flights were made. But there have been other storms with a similar dearth of data; never before have all predictive models been so very wrong.