ForumsWEPRCalifornia Superstorm?

10 4463
WorstSniper
offline
WorstSniper
1,467 posts
Nomad

I went on Yahoo! on saw an article that said there is going to be a super storm hitting California soon... It also mentioned it would last for more than 40 days and dump 10 feet of water on the state. With winds of up to 125 miles per hour. ONE TWO FIVE.

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm]

I'm not sure if the link will work, but whatever.

Anyways, tell me what you think guys. Do you think it's possible or just a fake? I'm really wondering about this since I live in California. ~WorstSniper

  • 10 Replies
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

This "Superstorm" does appear to be a possibility. But an earthquake massive enough to separate California from the continental US is also a possibility. That certainly doesn't mean that either event will actually obtain.
There are two aspects to this report:
1) Storms like this have happened in the past (as noted by the article).
2) There is a computer model under which the conditions are right for this particular storm to form.

As for (1), the conclusion is based on induction. Let's pretend we knew nothing about the solar system - all we knew is that the sun rises on a regular basis. So based on the fact that the sun has risen regularly for as long as you've been alive, you can use induction to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's not guaranteed, but the induction in this case is a strong one.
As for the storm, it seems to hit every so often - recurring every 150 to 400 years. And the article cites 7 instances of such a storm over the past 2000 years or so. Clearly, the inference here is not as strong as in the sun rise example.

There's another point here, as well. In the sun rise example, we actually have knowledge of the solar system and of Earth's movement therein. So we can accurately predict sunrises (just look in your local newspaper for the forecast). This is no longer an inductive inference, but a causal one. The earth's rotation causes the sun to rise, which gives us tremendous accuracy in making predictions. For the storm, there is no causal link. We have no way of predicting when (or even if) these particular factors would come together to make this torrential storm.

As for (2), these researchers have generated 1 computer model that shows this level of destruction. That's 1 computer model out of the literally thousands of different possibilities. It's saying that if conditions w,x,y, and z obtain, then this event will happen. But we have no reason to think that those conditions would obtain at the same time or the statistical probability that the would.
The article says, "Such a superstorm is hypothetical but not improbable, climate researchers warn." But I think the use of the word "improbable" here is misleading. One interpretation of something's being improbable is that the chances of it happening are less than 50 percent. But clearly, this isn't what they mean. There's no way this storm has a probability higher than 50 percent.
What they likely mean is that the probability of this happening is "statistically significant." That's just a fancy way of saying that it's really, really, really low, but not altogether impossible. There are some events that could possible occur, but their probability is so low that we say they're improbable and don't really regard them in our possible state of affairs. But this kind of probability could be as low as .00001.

I read the report the article linked to, and it was extremely unhelpful. It certainly wasn't a scientific report. That makes me even more skeptical about these results. I would bet that there's really no way to get an actual probability on an event like this. Which makes the claim that it's "not improbable" even more suspect.

In short: I wouldn't go out and invest in a paddle boat just yet.

jroyster22
offline
jroyster22
755 posts
Peasant

That is a very interesting article you came across. Not exactly sure how accurate it is...

SubZero131
offline
SubZero131
598 posts
Nomad

It would be cool it California broke off and floated away just sayin

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

It would be cool it California broke off and floated away just sayin


Fairly sure a good portion of it would fall into the ocean first. Killing millions.
Ghgt99
offline
Ghgt99
1,890 posts
Nomad

Yeah, actually, that is what the first superman movie is about. =P

Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,061 posts
Jester

That is a ridiculous amount of power, but I agree with Moe, the rate at which it happens appears to be highly sporadic, so while it may happen, there's also a good chance that it won't.

jroyster22
offline
jroyster22
755 posts
Peasant

One instant you are apart of california, the next instant your on vacation on an island! (totally kidding)

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

Slow news week, eh? Even the BBC has one of their main stories as: "Police say Jo Yeates did not eat pizza." Yes, a murdered, hot white girl did not eat pizza before she died like originally thought, so it's news.

When the news is bad, that's when the fear-mongering about super-storms, asteroids, and freak tidal waves pop up.

sweettanner
offline
sweettanner
46 posts
Nomad

the possibilites that there could, but the cance is a astroid striking earth has the same liklihood, or the polar icecaps melting.

Joe96
offline
Joe96
2,226 posts
Peasant

That sounds like something from Noah's ark...
*siren in the distance* "Warning! Apocalypse theorists incoming! Run Awa..."

Showing 1-10 of 10