Hurricane Sandy a 1-in-700-Year Event Says NASA Study 148
Rebecka writes "Hurricane Sandy, which pelted multiple states in Oct. and created billions of dollars in damage, was a freak occurrence and not an indication of future weather patterns, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies via LiveScience. The study (abstract), which calculated a statistical analysis of the storm's trajectory and monitored climate changes' influences on hurricane tracks, claims that the tropical storm was merely a 1-in-700-year event. 'The particular shape of Sandy's trajectory is very peculiar, and that's very rare, on the order of once every 700 years,' said senior scientist at NASA and study co-author, Timothy Hall. According to Hall, the extreme flooding associated with the storm was also due to the storm's trajectory which was described as being 'near perpendicular.' The storm's unusual track was found to have been caused by a high tides associated with a full moon and high pressure that forced the storm to move off the coast of the Western North Atlantic."
The problem with Probability... (Score:3, Insightful)
... is that it is possible to flip a coin and have it land heads up 1,000 times consecutively - it can happen and is increasingly likely to happen in a larger number of trials. Same can be said for a "Sandy" occurring in consecutive (or near neighbor) years. One thing is evident - the east coast, sand bars, outer banks, etc, were formed and shaped by this type of storm. I expect the 700 year estimate is fanciful.
Re:Once in a Hundred-Year storm... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are conflating what NASA said with something your local weatherman may have said.
Re:Once in a Hundred-Year storm... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's 100 different low probability events, then there's a decent chance of any two of those happening in consecutive years. Unless there's some correlation between the two that makes them unlikely to happen together, it's no more special than any other coincidence.
Re:So what happens ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if we get another one like these in our lifetime, what then? NASA just says oops and people keep pretending like there isn't climate change happening?
One supposes that with new data the NASA scientists would revise their theories. If NASA's models are broken, then attack the models. Short of that, data-less speculation is just that.
Understanding probability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem with Probability... (Score:2, Insightful)
sandy was barely a category 1 hurricane, very weak
Re:global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, people have already forgotten about Katrina it seems. And there are other models that imply that weather SHOULD be different as the earth moves from ice age to ice age. Sounds like a "keep calm" statement from the government so we don't lose sleep over what's to come.
Re:The problem with Probability... (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a Category 1 Hurricane with Category 2 damage. It hit at high tide with a full moon and it met up with another storm system that was already over the northeast. Take a ride around NJ or the south shore of Long Island or Staten Island and tell me again that it was weak. Also remember that most of the people affected JUST got their homes/lives straigthened out from Irene 13 months prior.
Re:The problem with Probability... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not the politically correct answer. You are supposed to blame Sandy on global warming.
Mind you, that may be the scientifically correct answer too. I certainly don't have the background to make that judgment. And I am definitely not a global warming naysayer by any means.
But if you publish a study saying Sandy was due only to various things other than global warming, I think you're in politically dangerous territory, even if the study is an honest one.
Of course, this defines the problem. When science is politicized, no good comes of it.