Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Before (arstechnica.com) 180

Posted by BeauHD 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Before More

Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Before

Comments Filter:
  • 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 thin

    • ...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...

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

    • Re:Those were the days. (Score:5, Informative)

      by deviated_prevert ( 1146403 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @12:00AM (#55381329) Journal
      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 [nasa.gov] directly because of the corresponding increase in atmospheric C02. [nasa.gov]

      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 is what should really bother you (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The level of panic is not what we have to worry about as the Atlantic boils for the next however many years

        No. The level of panic is when two thousand Bangladeshi show up on your doorstep wondering if there's room at the inn. You may have a lot of ammunition - But they have more people.

        AC

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      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.

    • 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.

    • 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."

      I think those who want to emphasize what has been happening to our climate are ruining the whole point of current climate status. And from what you said, the word "never before seen!" should have not been said because it is not true. Nowadays, the "fake news" is a thing, so people are very scrutinize and will eventually reject the climate issue as a whole because of that. This is a kind of stupidity from some groups that don't want to educate others about what is happening but rather try to advertise/promot

    • 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."

      Agreed, as much as I "bible thump" for global climate change. I really, really detest the political-left's eagerness to jump on every unusual weather phenomenon as proof of climate change. Climate != weather as Macro economics != micro economics. It's as foolish looking at the price of Twinkies at your local gas station to declare a rise in inflation. One rare weather occurrence over the past even 100 years struggles to break past simple anecdotal status. If we could have somehow tracked weather events

    • 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."

      You had to read the 1939 part, but did you miss the sentence before it?

      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.

      Hope this helps.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      You're right that we don't have conclusive evidence whether this has any bearing on this particular event. To humans hurricanes are powerful, but they are also fragile and often dissipate, not from losing energy as they pass over land or cool water, but from chaotic interactions with other weather systems. The one thing we're fairly certain of under AGW is that there will be a lot more rainfall in tropical storms; that alone will make them more destructive since flooding and its aftermath is the main caus

    • I will agree with the point that one storm, even an extraordinary storm, is neither confirmation nor refutation of global warming. Global warming is real (the science really is pretty solid, despite the doubters), but it is a global, long-term thing. One storm-- even one extraordinary storm season-- is not global warming.

      Go ahead and panic if it makes you happy, but it should be a long-term panic about effects evincing over the next fifty to a hundred years, not a "this is it, right here, right now" panic.

    • you know that, right? Google the phrase "Farmers Almanac". The data isn't as good but it's out there. And it all points to something well worth panicking about if we weren't all too busy just trying to get by.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Altrag ( 195300 )

      The problem isn't that we're seeing one 80-year-old record being broken.

      The problem is that we're seeing record after record after record being broken, and then being broken again the following year and the year after that.

      One hurricane record being broken is interesting. A dozen various hurricane records being broken in the span of two months is worrying, even if many of them are only decade-old records.

      Especially when its happening almost exactly as predicted by the climate scientists that continually ge

  • 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

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      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.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sort of - the UK has it's own naming scheme which runs in alphabetical order and there's only been one so far so this should have been called Brian as the second. There is another rule, however, that if a storm is named by the American National Hurricane Center it keeps that name as it loses its hurricane status.

      • 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 [twitter.com].

        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.

        • 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.

          Hey hey, less of the broad brush there! While a bowler-hatted corporate thief in the City of London might not know what gale force or storm force means in real life, Britain, Ireland, Norway have enough of a seafaring tradition to know exactly what it mean

          • To be fair, I did say "unused", not "never encountered". Also "100km offshore" and "up a mountain" are not locations that the average person finds themselves during storms, let alone hurricanes.

    • No.. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That would be stupid and dangerous. It was called Hurricane Ophelia. It transitioned into extra tropical cyclone Ophelia. It's safer just to keep the name and lineage with some addendums regardless of what semantic label it technically belongs to accordinglong/lat only. There was nothing arctic about this storm system.. It's profile and characterists are largely dervied (especially in this case) from where it came from not were it ended up.

      Also the term tropical (which implies warm and coming from the South

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bazorg ( 911295 )

      I would have called it a chazzwozza.

  • It's time. (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by freeze128 ( 544774 )
    It's totally time for a Scorpions comeback tour!

  • Digging for first (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.

    Had to dig deep and add three qualifiers to sensationalize this one.

    The farthest north...
    in the Atlantic...
    this time of year...
    in the last 77 years.

  • ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by knorthern knight ( 513660 ) on Monday October 16, 2017 @11:55PM (#55381307)

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

    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".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      The summary qualified it, to quote

      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.

      A bit later in the year then Sept.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by deviated_prevert ( 1146403 )
      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 [noaa.gov] the water temps are still way up for this time of year. The mid

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Right. I was going to post this. Ophelia was simply maintained hurricane force winds further east than any tropical storm on record.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @07:53AM (#55382245)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Lets be real here. You didn't get it because it was electric but because it has autopilot and you want to masturbate on the way to work

  • Storms in 1588 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Tuesday October 17, 2017 @09:41AM (#55382739)
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Close