Those categories, the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, were introduced by the National Hurricane Center in the 1970s. Originally the scale was meant to convey both wind and water destruction but was simplified in 2010 to focus solely on wind hazards, while storm surge and precipitation risks are now communicated separately.

The scale is open-ended with Category 5 storms being the top with sustained winds greater than 157 miles per hour (70 m/s).  This open-endedness originated from the belief that the cumulative impact of wind, surge, and rainfall in a Category 5 event could utterly destroy any structure. But Category 5 may no longer be enough.

A new study suggest that we need a Category 6 that categorizes storms greater than 192 miles per hour (86 m/s).  Numerous storms have already reached wind speeds comparable to those in in the Category 6 range. In the past nine years, five storms have surpassed the hypothetical Category 6 threshold. Notably, the most intense of these, Hurricane Patricia, struck Jalisco, Mexico while the others occurred in the Western Pacific, including Haiyan and Goni which hit heavily populated areas of the Philippines. Haiyan, considered by some as deserving of a Category 6 designation, caused extensive damage and casualties in the Philippines. Another storm, Meranti, caused damage in the Philippines and Taiwan before making landfall in eastern China, resulting in severe flooding.

In addition, increases in Emanuel’s Potential Intensity (PI) index indicate that human influence on the climate system has elevated the risk of such storms reaching Category 6 levels. You can think of hurricane as engine that transport that energy, i.e. heat, from the ocean surface to an outflow at the boundary between the troposphere from the stratosphere.  The PI measures the strength of this hurricane engine. Looking at data from 1979 to 2018, the authors found that the likelihood of storms reaching Category 6 strength has increased significantly due to global warming. Comparing the periods from 1999 to 2018 and 1979 to 1998, almost three times more instances of storms exceeding the Category 6 threshold occurred. The authors note, “Overall, the chances of PI exceeding the category 6 threshold have more than doubled since 1979.”

Additionally, climate model simulations conducted by the authors predict further increases of these Category 6 hurricanes. The authors demonstrate that when they run long-term simulations using three advanced global climate models, they all predict the greater occurrence of Category 6 storms in conditions hotter than what we have today. Even if we manage to meet the relatively modest global warming goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, these simulations still show a significant rise in the likelihood of Category 6 storms happening.

The post The Rise of Category 6 Storms in a Warming World first appeared on Deep Sea News.

OMG Irma. It is going through the Caribbean and slamming everything in its path. I’ve been getting updates from friends in the Virgin Islands and it sounds like it was harrowing. Thankfully they made it through which is the most important part (even though their stuff may not have). Other islands have not been so lucky.

This is a monster hurricane, fueled by warm waters in the Atlantic. Just to get a sense of how insane it got in Barbuda, here is the atmospheric data from a water level station there. The eye of the hurricane passed right overhead, which is why you see the insane drop in air pressure.

The wind speeds got up to 100 knots before the anemometer conked out. These winds are no joke, reports indicate that nearly every building on the island suffered damage, if not completely destroyed.

Update: The anemometer was completely destroyed.

Just saw highest wind speed I've ever seen on a WX ob. Anemometer at #Barbuda blew away after recording gust to 155 mph. #Irma pic.twitter.com/aNwT5i04gf

— Dan Satterfield (@wildweatherdan) September 6, 2017

Another problem for this tiny island with wide areas of low elevation, storm surge. Preliminary data shows it got up to 8 feet.

There’s also some oceanographic data from a buoy located south of St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands that’s part of the Caribbean Integrated Coastal Ocean Observing System (CarICOOS) . Strong winds with gusts over 60 km/h accompany the pressure drop. 

The water temperature data is intermittent, but you can definitely see seawater getting colder. Wave and wind mixing churns up cold water from the deep ocean, causing surface water temperatures to drop. 

This buoy also has salinity data, and you can also see the effect of the mixing in the increase in salinity, as deeper saltier water is mixed to the surface. There is also a drop in salinity right before the hurricane hits which could be caused by rain freshening the sea surface or just fresher water being pushed past the buoy. From this data, you can’t distinguish the two causes.

Lastly, let’s take a look at the wave data. Wave heights got up to nearly 19 feet at the peak of the storm. Some waves might have been larger as this plot shows averaged values.

Another fascinating plot is the wave direction which shows how waves emanating from the center of the hurricane. The wave are coming steadily from the East (90 degrees on the compass rose) until the eye passes overhead, at which point the wave direction turns 180 degrees completely to the West (270 degrees on the compass rose).

That was my oceanographic quick look. I’m hunting around for some ocean robot data, as NOAA AOML deploys their gliders into hurricanes, but haven’t found any yet. I’ll post when I do. For another take on the storm, take a look at my friend Jyotika’s Tropical Storm Blog.  It’s got good science and a good rundown of where Irma has been and where it’s going.

For those of you in Irma’s path, make sure you are prepared and take the necessary precautions to stay safe. Here are tips from NOAA’s Hurricane Preparedness site.

The post A quick look at the data from inside Hurricane Irma first appeared on Deep Sea News.

As a result of anthropogenic climate change, sea level has risen approximate 7 inches in the past 100 years. With the combination of melting land ice and expansion of warmer seas, scientists conservatively predict a 1-4 foot rise by the year 2100. Effectively, sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the economy and environment of coastal regions.

To reinforce the urgency of this situation, New York based artist Eve Mosher, started to walk the line. Literally. Using a baseball field chalk marker, Mosher laid a 70 mile white line of chalk in 2007 across Manhattan and Brooklyn. The HighWaterLine as it was called, demarcated the areas that would be severely impacted by increased mega floods if climate change continued. The power of this public installment truly hit home ironically in 2012 when the flooding brought on by Hurricane Sandy surpassed the proverbial “chalk line.”

“Walking the line with the participants and hearing of their stories after the event provides concrete evidence of the power of transformation of HighWaterLine…I hope that in every instance, HighWaterLine is just the beginning of these communities working together to build resilience and transform their cities.” says Mosher.

Since the first exhibition of the HighWaterLine, the project has debuted in five different cities from Bristol to Miami, the most climate vulnerable U.S. city. Along with the art piece, the project is also accompanied by interactive workshops to get the community more involved in the climate conversation and provide tools to create a culture of change. Currently, the group is working on a Action Guide to mentor others in bringing the HighWaterLine project to groups around the world.

The post The Writing on the Sea-Wall: High Water Line first appeared on Deep Sea News.

On the second day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me:
Two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the third day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me:
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the fourth day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me:
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the fifth day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the sixth day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the seventh day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
seven seas to sail in,
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the eight day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
eight less viruses to die from,
seven seas to sail in,
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the ninth day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
nine giant zucchinis,
eight less viruses to die from,
seven seas to safely sail in,
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the tenth day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
ten cups of water,
nine giant zucchinis,
eight less viruses to die from,
seven seas to safely sail in,
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the eleventh day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
eleventh hour rescues,
ten cups of water,
nine giant zucchinis,
eight less viruses to die from,
seven seas to safely sail in,
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

On the twelfth day of Christmas NASA Earth Science gave to me
twelve hundred degree cooling,
eleventh hour rescues,
ten cups of water,
nine giant zucchinis,
eight less viruses to die from,
seven seas to safely sail in,
six non-toxic oysters,
five meter waves,
four weather satellites,
three prong power,
two working jet engines,
and advance warning of Hurricane Activity.

THE END.

We’ve reached the end of this song, but we have also may have reached the end of NASA Earth Science too. In case you haven’t heard, NASA Earth Science may be on the chopping block. Yeah NASA Earth Science studies change, but it also figures out how we can safely live and move about this complicated environmental system that exists on our planet. Our way of life has been ridiculously improved by pointing the science lens inward from space as well as outward. If we lose NASA earth science, we lose all the verses in this song. If these are products that make your life better and safer, then support NASA Earth Science by sharing all the good things it does for you.

Thanks! *steps off tiny soapbox*

The post The Twelve Days of Christmas – NASA Earth Science Edition first appeared on Deep Sea News.

“Artivism: An explosion of creativity, a marrying of art and activism”

Over the past three years, street artists across the globe have taken up their brushes, prepped their spray cans, and united for one common mission. To Save Our Seas.

From endangered species and coral decline to ocean plastics and loss of global biodiversity, these artists have depicted a myriad of environmental issues for all the world to see. Last year, I covered their decent upon the tiny Mexican island of Isla Mujeres under the conservation flagship PangeaSeed.

“PangeaSeed is an international organization who collaborates with members of the art, science, and environmental activist communities. They are dedicated to raising public awareness and education surrounding the conservation and preservation of sharks and other marine species in peril.”

In 2014, they created over 15 murals on Isla Mujeres alone that have inspired the community and thousands of tourists that flock to this summertime haven.

Recently, the extraordinary team at PangeaSeed, rallied the troops yet again, this time in Cozumel, Mexico. With over thirty supported artists, PangeaSeed nearly tripled this years mural count. An entire island brimming with beautiful ocean artwork. A bold statement to the current status and peril of our global oceans.

Below is just a small glimpse of the larger festival. If you would like to learn more about PangeaSeed or how to support this amazing conservation organization please visit: www.PangeaSeed.org

For more information about the SeaWalls project and other installations: www.pangeaseed.org/swmfo/

You can also view the other murals on Instagram @SeaWalls_ and @SeaWalls_Stories

#SeaWalls #SeaWallsMX #PangeaSeed #StayWild

The post The Art of Saving Our Seas first appeared on Deep Sea News.

To rigorously compare the search for the MH370 black box to searching for a needle in a haystack we need to do a little bit of mathematics of proportions.  Not much, so don’t be put off.  There’re some assumptions too, so feel free to tear those apart in the comments section.

To start with, how big is this black box?  Well, I don’t have exact measurements, but based on what they’ve shown on the news, a maximum linear dimension of about 2 feet seems about right.  OK, how big is a needle?  Let’s assume it’s not a giant knitting needle, but a mattress or darning needle, let’s say 3 inches long.   The needle and the black box have quite different shapes, but maximum linear dimension is a good proxy for overall size of differently shaped objects, so we’ll use that.  So, a needle is about 1/8th the maximum linear dimension of the black box.   To be a useful analogy then, the haystack needs to be equal or more than about an eighth the size of the search area because the needle is about an eighth the size of the black box.

So, how big is a haystack?  I haven’t the foggiest, I’m not a farmer.  But for a starting point, let’s assume that the haystack fits inside a barn.  There are several standard size barns, but let’s go with 20’x30’.  Nah, let’s go bigger, 36’x60’, and let’s assume the entire footprint of the barn is filled with hay.

Now, since the black box is likely on the bottom at this point, let’s make this about the area, not the volume of the haystack.  In other words, the needle is UNDER rather than embedded IN the haystack some non-zero distance off the floor.  This is really important , because if we assume volume instead and we’re searching the entire water column, then it’s all over bar the shouting; as WaPo elegantly shows in this infographic, the ocean is deep, Deep, DEEP.  That would be one hell of a tall haystack (EDIT: about 1,850 feet tall, proportionally speaking, or 500ft taller than the empire state building).  Let’s also assume that the batteries have run out (they will soon if they haven’t already) so the black box is not going to help us find it, the same way a needle won’t help you find it either.

Our haystack is 36’x60′, so that would be 2,160ft² to search under for a 3 inch (0.25ft) object.  This is a size ratio of 1.16 x 10^-4 (or 0.000157).  The cumulative search area for the black box has been 2.96 million square miles (source: BBC), or 8.25 x 10¹³ square feet to search for a 2ft object.  That’s a search ratio of 2.42 x 10^-13, or 9 orders of magnitude difference.  Even if you take the most recent focus area of about 30,000 square miles, that’s still 8.36 x 10¹¹ square feet, or ten million times the ratio of the haystack to the needle.  It is not an exaggeration, then, to say that the search for MH370 – the black box at least – is not just like finding a needle in a haystack, it’s a billion times harder than that.  

Add in the depth factor (go to that WaPo infographic to remind yourself) and you get a feel for the magnitude of the task at hand.  If they find anything, it will be a triumph of science, engineering and human determination.  I truly hope they do for the sake of the families involved, but we should have some realistic expectations.

The post MH370 and the proverbial haystack. first appeared on Deep Sea News.

This isn’t a map of radiation, it’s a map of wave estimated hight after the Tohuku Tsunami. So why is there so much outrage and fear around Fukushima radiation, even when there is evidence to suggest it’s not as bad as we fear? To answer this, I invited psychologists Anselma Hartley and Joachim Krueger to contribute this guest post.  Anselma received her Ph.D. from Brown University in 2013 and is currently on the job market. She researches social cognition and the assessment of personality change. You can find her on Twitter: @anselmahartley. Joachim is a professor of psychology at Brown University, a social psychologist, and author of the Psychology Today blog One Among Many.

Let’s talk Confirmation Bias
Why do some people hold fast to apocalyptic ideas, like Fukushima radiation, even when the best available evidence suggests that the world is not about to end? Confirmation bias is the term psychologists use to describe the behavior of testing an idea by searching for evidence that supports it. This tendency to confirm pre-existing beliefs creates and maintains false perceptions of reality because people fail to acknowledge information to the contrary, even when readily available. The strongest type of confirmation bias arises from a motivation or a need to see the world as we want to see it. Here, confirmatory information is purposely sought out and any information challenging our preconceived notions is ignored, discounted, or dismissed.

Confirmation bias can play a role in the angry reactions to scientific evidence regarding the scope and effects of the Fukushima accident. Although evidence suggests that radiation emanating from Fukushima will not reach a catastrophic level on an ocean or global scale, many people remain convinced that the risks to human and ocean health are enormous. A person with deep concerns about environmental impacts of radiation will likely seek out evidence to confirm the belief that the radiation from Fukushima has spread in high levels to the American West Coast and beyond, contaminating fisheries, and killing off species in the Pacific Ocean. This person may unknowingly exhibit confirmation bias by focusing on information in the media consistent with these ideas and discounting information that would challenge them.

What are the psychological sources of confirmation bias?
One source of confirmation bias is defensive; to protect the psychological self. As humans, we are motivated to protect the integrity and perceived value of who we think we are (Steele, 1988). When we encounter information that threatens a self-relevant belief, we experience a state of a discomfort (termed cognitive dissonance) arising from the discrepancy between what we think defines us and, what the world is appearing to tell us. To resolve this discrepancy, we either actively seek out confirmatory information in the first place, or dismiss or re-interpret challenging information (Hart et al., 2009).

A second source is the tendency to base beliefs about the risks and benefits of an event on our cultural worldview. Kahan and colleagues (2008), for example, found that when they presented research participants with balanced information about the benefits/risks of nanotechnology, participants were polarized: People with a conservative, individualistic outlook noted the benefits of the technology and came away with a more favorable attitude, whereas people with a more liberal, egalitarian outlook focused on risks and hazards; their attitudes become more unfavorable. Given these findings, it is reasonable to speculate that perceptions of risk in the area of nuclear energy are highest among those of us whose core values are liberal and egalitarian.

Who is susceptible?
Most of us fall prey to the confirmation bias at some point. It is human nature to analyze new information in light of our core beliefs and favor inferences that are in accordance with these beliefs. Those of us with liberal or conservative political leanings likely do this when choosing the candidate we will vote for in an upcoming presidential campaign, regardless of the candidates’ campaign ads or campaign spending (Garramore et al., 1990; Kaid, 2004; Levitt, 1994).

Consuming information on the internet and traditional media may not be enough to form accurate beliefs. The media tends to favor negative, violent, and sensational information (Lowry et al., 2003; Marsh, 1991). News is often equated with bad news. Focusing on the negative fosters a mindset characterized by overestimating risk, and a readiness to perceive the self as a victim (Doob & Macdonald, 1979). If a person’s ideological leanings stress the negative, the apocalyptic, or the conspiratorial, this media bias and the psychological confirmation bias converge (or “conspire”) to produce and maintain a grim outlook.

How do I prevent confirmation bias?
Not surprisingly, researchers recommend carefully selecting sources. Is your information coming from a social media site of questionable credibility, or is it coming from a reputable media source or perhaps directly from the scientific literature? A focus on credible and competent sources of information can help keep the effect of prior beliefs at bay, and open our minds to alternative points of view.

To combat confirmation bias further, you may decide to strategically consider news from diverse sources with known biases or ideological leanings. Deliberately increasing exposure to views that conflict with prior beliefs can promote a more careful consideration of, and appreciation for, other perspectives. Even if this consider-the-alternative strategy does not change your attitude, it provides a more balanced understanding of the issues at stake and it will make it less likely that a debate is cast in personal terms.

Finally, it is possible to diminish confirmation bias by asking a person (or oneself) to justify a preferred point of view with relevant evidence and logical coherence. In other words, ask yourself why you hold a given perspective, and review the evidence you gathered to come to that point of view. Indeed, when we know we will be held accountable for the views we express, we tend to be more circumspect when gathering and interpreting information (Jonas et al., 2001).

So what’s the point?
Following these recommendations could not only help us avoid confirmation bias, but would have the added benefits of aiding us in becoming more tolerant of multiple and varied points of view, better articulating our own beliefs, and making us better informed consumers and critics of media and news outlets.

While critical debate and discussion can advance the public’s understanding of a topic, emotional appeals and defensive antagonism can hinder it. Further deliberation and examination of the facts before we speak or write can help us avoid responding with emotion and malice.

Work cited and additional readings

Doob, A. N., & Macdonald, G. E. (1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170-179.

Garramone, G. M., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Cole, R. T. (1990). Effects of negative political advertising on the political process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 299-311.

Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological bulletin, 135, 555-588.

Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80, 557-571.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2008). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology,4, 87-90.

Kaid, L. L. (2004). Political advertising. Handbook of political communication research, 155-202.

Levitt, S. D. (1994). Using repeat challengers to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election outcomes in the US House. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 777-798.

Lowry, D. T., Nio, T. C. J., & Leitner, D. W. (2003). Setting the public fear agenda: A longitudinal analysis of network TV crime reporting, public perceptions of crime, and FBI crime statistics. Journal of Communication,53, 61-73.

Marsh, H. L. (1991). A comparative analysis of crime coverage in newspapers in the United States and other countries from 1960–1989: A review of the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 67-79.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in experimental social psychology, 21, 261-302.

The post Worst-case scenario thinking and Fukushima radiation first appeared on Deep Sea News.

• Fukushima radiation leak
• Starfish wasting disease
• the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
• California oarfish “mortality event”
• Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy
• the “great Pacific garbage patch”
• the current Atlantic dolphin UME
• the collapse of various fisheries, exemplified by the Long Island Sound lobster fishery

So what’s wrong with debating these fascinating topics?  Well nothing, as long as the discussions are based on reason, information and, frankly, reality.  Also nothing, as long as there actually IS a debate, which isn’t always the case.   Here are some examples of the sort of reasoning that we have seen in comments, emails and tweets about the above examples:

• Starfish wasting disease. Starfish are melting. Radiation leaked into the ocean at Fukushima. Therefore Fukushima caused the starfish melting.
• Hurricane/Superstorm Sandy.  Hurricane Sandy happened. Then dolphins began dying on the Atlantic coast. Therefore Sandy caused the Atlantic dolphin UME.
• The “great Pacific garbage patch”.  There’s a giant patch of garbage out there.  If we could just sort of scoop it up, that would be good.  Someone should invent something to do that.
• The Long Island Sound lobster fishery. “They” sprayed insecticides in the tri-state area to control mosquito populations.  Around the same time, lobsters died.  Therefore insecticide spraying killed lobsters.

Among these sorts of comments and communications dwell many types of formal and informal logical fallacies, that is, flawed reasoning.  A common one is Arguing from Ignorance which is not meant as an insult, but is defined as “assuming that a claim is true because it has not been proven false”; this can be seen as a facet of Arguing from Silence, where a cause is assumed based on absence of evidence.  For example, the LIS lobster fishers made an erroneous connection between insecticide spraying and lobster mortality back in 1999 because there wasn’t another explanation at the time and it seemed reasonable (to them). A big problem is that you can make this sort of logical fallacy in the blink of an eye – it’s basically intellectual laziness – whereas the sorts of controlled and rigorous studies required to build a good theory for any environmental disaster can take a really long time.  In other words, fallacy is instantaneous but truth works at the speed of science, which is, unfortunately, often pretty gastropodal.  Not enough time has yet elapsed to reveal the true cause(s) of the starfish melting syndrome, for example, but in the case of the LIS lobsters, science showed pretty unequivocally that the mortality resulted from a multifactorial suite of environmental problems, particularly chronically elevated temperatures and persistent hypoxia, probably exacerbated by some fishery-related factors.  Pesticides didn’t enter into it.  And yet, if you ask the average Joe on the street in Hicksville, they are more than likely to say that the pesticides killed the lobsters in ’99, because that message – wrong as it was – was widely disseminated in the heat of the crisis, whereas the truth came out quietly in scientific papers and agency reports years later when the crash had long since faded from The News.

A related problem is that in the time between when people first propose a fallacious cause, and when the true cause is revealed through reason and research, the fallacious one can become ingrained like an Alabama tick.  Once people get an idea in their head, even if it’s wrong, getting them to let go of it can be bloody hard.  Indeed, there’s a term for this; it’s called “the Backfire Effect”: when confronting someone with data contrary to their position in an argument, counter-intuitively results in their digging their heels in even more.  In this phenomenon, the media has to accept a sizable chunk of responsibility because, as the lobster example shows, the deadline-driven world of media agencies is more aligned with the rapid pace of the logical fallacy than with the slow and deliberate pace of scientific research.  Many media outlets are often quite happy to give airtime to ideas that haven’t yet been critically evaluated, especially if there isn’t much other information to report (yet) about a given crisis.  I’m pretty sure some folks I know are going to totally jump down my throat for saying that.  They will doubtless point out that journalists are the defenders of the One Truth, but this is my editorial soapbox, so go ahead fellas.  Besides, John Stewart calls CNN out for this sort of stuff practically every night, and if it’s good enough for him…

Perhaps the most common flawed thinking we see in the comments and back channels of #DeepSN is the false correlation, or causality inferred from coincidence; formally, this is called post hoc ergo propter hoc.  This was the fallacy that Jenny McCarthy committed when she decided that the MMR vaccine had caused her sons autism, simply because the latter followed the former closely in time.  Well yeah, 100% of car accident victims ate breakfast that day too, but you don’t see people ditching their cheerios do you?  McCarthy’s willingness to shout her ignorance from the rooftops (and Oprah’s couch) has done untold damage to the public health, especially as it now turns out that her son didn’t have autism anyway.  The point is, logically flawed thinking of this kind is not trivial or a private deficiency; it can cause real harm to the thinker and to others. The recent kerfuffle on Chris Mah’s excellent post debunking a link between the Fukushima disaster and the starfish melting syndrome on the US Pacific coast is a perfect example of post hoc thinking.  Fukushima happened -> Starfish wasting happened -> therefore Fukushima caused starfish wasting.  As Chris pointed out, though, starfish wasting started before the Fukushima event, so even before any research has been done on the true cause of the syndrome, we can comfortably discount Fukushima radiation as the primary contributor.  If, as an academic exercise you apply post hoc thinking in light of Chris’s point, flipping the first two premises in the above syllogism, you could just as easily argue that Starfish wasting caused the Fukushima event!  That’s obviously absurd on its face and just serves to reveal the fallacy for what it is.  It may be more plausible that the radiation caused the starfish melting rather than the other way around, but that doesn’t make it any less fallacious.  Another aspect of the post hoc phenomenon is that it doesn’t seem to happen in the good direction, only the bad.  Fukushima must have caused the starfish melting syndrome, but no one is jumping up and down saying that the record numbers of whales in California waters this year are a pleasant and unexpected side effect of Fukushima, even though it’s happening at the exact same time as the starfish problem.

One last example of flawed thinking that inhibits reasoned debate about ocean science issues is false pattern recognition, or simply “leaping to conclusions”.  The 2013 case of “oarfish mortality” is a great example.  Last year precisely two oarfish washed up in California, within a couple of weeks of each other.  Oarfish are rare, so when two of them washed up in quick succession, many folks were quick to assume that the two events were related and that we were at the start of an oarfish mortality event.  Of course, it was just a statistical anomaly; a rare event that nonetheless happens inevitably if you wait long enough.  TV and radio media are some of the worst offenders when it comes to leaping to conclusions this way (print media outlets tend to be a bit more rigorous).  One of the ways they justify this is through posing a question.  Rather than framing the piece as “Oarfish mass mortality underway”, which would require fact checking, they go with “Are we at the start of an oarfish mortality event?” and support it with a few quotes from bystanders asked to wax hypothetical about their experiences.  By framing the story as a question or hypothetical in this way, journalists abdicate somewhat the responsibility to substantiate the claims made.  It may appear to editors to be a harmless practice that stimulates conversation around an interesting topic, but it often causes a significant amount of work for those who make it their business to try to inject a bit of science into the public conversation.  This is especially the case when the truth (statistical anomaly) is a lot less interesting than the alternative, that 30ft oarfish are going to start washing up all over the place!

There are a whole slew of other related phenomena collectively called “cognitive biases” (of which the Backfire Effect is one example), that come into play during heated debates about events like Sandy, Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima.  I am not even going to scratch the surface on those here, because this post is long enough already and we hope to have some experts on these phenomena comment here soon. In the meantime, perhaps one way we can help move the conversations in more helpful directions would be a checklist that people can consult to check their logic.  After all, awareness of a problem is half the solution, amIright?  Scientists often have some form of this kind of thinking ingrained as a part of their training, but not always, so it can’t hurt for all of us to think consciously about our thinking, me included.   To that end, I offer the following, non-comprehensive list of things to consider before you hit “Reply” on that cleverly crafted response.  If you have additional suggestions I invite you to add them in the comments.

• Am I seeing a pattern that could just be a statistical rarity, and leaping to a conclusion?
• Am I connecting two events causally, because they occurred close together in space or time?
• Am I inferring a cause in the absence of evidence for any other explanation?
• Am I thinking inductively “It must have been such and such…”
• Am I framing the issue as a false dichotomy (debating only two possible causes, when there may be many others).  In other words, am I framing the issue as an argument with two sides, rather than a lively discussion about complex issues?
• Am I attacking my “opponent” and/or his/her credentials, rather than his/her argument?
• Am I arguing something simply because other/many people believe it to be true?
• Am I ignoring data because I don’t want to lose face by conceding that I may be wrong?
• Am I cherry picking data that support my position (a cognitive bias)

Deep Sea News seeks to raise awareness through scrutiny, not negativity.  By that we mean that we try our best to stick to the facts and then deliver them in our usual style of “reverent irreverence“.  For those who favour the ad hominem attack: we’re not paid to blog and we don’t all work at the same place (in fact, we all work at different places, all educational or non-profit).   We’re just 7 scientists who love what we do and want to share that passion with everyone else.  We relish vigorous discussion about the subject we all love, marine science, so with a bit of luck and a bit of effort, I hope we can improve the conversation by keeping it reasoned and scientific, so that DSN stays fun and informative, and doesn’t become a hive for trolls and a battlefield for flame wars.

The post No, but in all seriousness… first appeared on Deep Sea News.

This invited post is authored by Chris Mah, a Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History researcher.    Chris is one of the world’s leading experts on starfish and echinoderms in general.  He created and writes for Echinoblog, a one stop reading place for everything echinoderm. You can find him at Twitter at @echinoblog.

In September 2013, I broke the story about a mass sunflower starfish (Pycnopodia helianthoides) die-off in British Columbia. This developed into further accounts of Starfish Wasting ‘disease’ which is now recognized as “Starfish Wasting Syndrome” (because the nature of the causative agent is unknown) and since been reported from California and now Washington state.

The “disease” causes white lesions and tissue necrosis (death and decomposition), eventually resulting in arm loss and overall body collapse (the “wasting” part of the disease’s name). The disease has been observed in multiple starfish species but seems to have been noticed most heavily in sunflower starfish (Pycnopodia helianthoides) and ochre stars (Pisaster ochraceus).

Some have become concerned that there is a direct influence from Fukushima. Much of this seems unlikely.  Deep-Sea News (among many other sources) have presented excellent reviews of data that can help the rational person make sense from some of the confusing deluge of misinformation.

Here, I continue this theme. Addressing a concern that has been brought up by many. But really, three simple observations discount any direct relationship….

1. Starfish Wasting Disease/Syndrome (SWD/SWS) pre-Dates Fukushima by 3 to 15 years. This is probably the most self-evident of reasons. One of the earliest accounts of starfish wasting disease was recorded from Southern California (Channel Islands) in 1997 (pdf).  The account of SWS in British Columbia was first documented by Bates et al. in 2009, and their data was collected in 2008.  Fukushima? March 2011.
2. Starfish Wasting Syndrome Occurs on the East Coast as well as the Pacific. Many of the accounts alleging a Fukushima connection to Starfish Wasting Syndrome forget that there are also accounts of SWS on the east coast of the United States affecting the asteriid Asterias rubens. There is no evidence (or apparent mechanism) for Fukushima radiation to have reached the east coast and therefore the Fukushima idea is again not supported.
3. No other life in these regions seems to have been affected. If we watch the original British Columbia Pycnopodia die-off videos, and the later Washington state die-off vidoes, one cannot help but notice that other than the starfish, EVERYTHING else remains alive. Fish. Seaweed, encrusting animals. etc.

the WA video

Viewing ANY of the pictures or videos from other accounts shows that only the sea stars are affected.  If there were waves of Fukushima radiation pouring onto the coast-and “melting” all the starfish as some folks would suggest, EVERYTHING would be dead. Not just the sea stars. Note also that all the divers involved in these surveys have reported NO ill effects.

Unfortunately, we have no data on the actual agent that causes SWS. Within the grand realm of possibility there is always a (slim?) possibility there is a connection with Fukushima, but nothing we’ve seen gives us any reason to think that.

More Likely Reasons?

Speculation has suggested bacterial or viral sources. But invertebrate diseases can be complicated. The disease only seems to affect sea stars. Nothing else.  This implies a biological cause with a very specific relationship. Possibly a bacteria or virus. But just as possibly some other type of infection resulting from a protist or fungi?

It also seems possible that it could be a disease similar to coral bleaching, where subcuticular bacteria of sea stars (as documented here)  might be affected adversely. Or perhaps a combination? In conjunction with some environmental change, such as water temperature?  The original series of papers by Amanda Bates indicated there was an association of the diseae with water temperature.

Our study of this event has just begun. Ongoing data collection and research have started. We shall see where it takes us…

The post Three Reasons Why Fukushima Radiation Has Nothing to Do with Starfish Wasting Syndrome first appeared on Deep Sea News.

I’ve been grumping this week as a two weather systems in the eastern Pacific have been dumping rain and wind on Seattle. But when compared to weather system that landed on the Philippines yesterday, I might as well have been grumping about a sunny day. Because Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda that just hit the Phillipines is definitely the strongest storm that has existed on this earth in my lifetime. While it may not be the strongest Typhoon ever (there are about 4 ahead of it), it may however be one of the strongest storm to make landfall in recorded history.

Let’s first take a look at Super Typhoon Haiyan from space. It doesn’t seem that big. It actually looks kind of pretty.

But looks can be deceiving. According to meterologist Jeff Masters at Wunderground:

“Three hours before landfall, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) assessed Haiyan’s sustained winds at 195 mph, gusting to 235 mph, making it the 4th strongest tropical cyclone in world history.”

Those are sharknado-strength winds my friend. The extreme winds are caused by the fact that this typhoon is a low pressure BOMB. Winds are caused by air moving from regions of high pressure to regions of low pressure. And air can’t resist the low-pressure at the center of the typhoon, which was estimated to have dropped down to as low as 895 mb  (for comparison Hurricane Katrina only made it down to 902 mb).  Winds scream towards the low-pressure center and the coriolis force, which is caused by the rotation of the earth, organizes the winds into the familiar counter-clockwise spiral we see below.*

UPDATE: The final strength of the winds  is still unclear but they might not have been as high as 196 mph. From Jeff Masters at Wunderground

Typhoon and hurricane maximum wind speed estimates are only valid for over water exposure, and winds over land are typically reduced by about 15%, due to friction. This would put Haiyan’s winds at 165 mph over land areas on the south shore of Guiuan Island. This is equivalent to a high end EF-3 or low end EF-4 tornado, so the wind damage there must have been catastrophic–perhaps the greatest wind damage any place on Earth has endured from a tropical cyclone in the past century

Nonetheless the winds were hairy. Here is some crazy footage of the typhoon from the Phillippines.

While 195 mph winds definitely suck, the residents of the Philippines also had to worry about the coastal flooding by storm surges. Storm surges are caused by the strong typhoon winds, which push and pile water in front of the typhoon as it marches westward. This isn’t a problem in the open ocean, but upon reaching the coast, the excess water height can cause coastal flooding. I’ve posted an animation of the predicted storm surge for the Philippines, which shows the pile up of water in front of the storm. The storm surge was estimated to be almost 5 m or 15 feet in some areas, and unfortunately caused some of the coastal villages in the Phillipines to be nearly completely submerged. This is the same phenomena that caused the flooding of downtown New York City during Hurricane Sandy.

UPDATE: The storm surge ended up being massive, much higher than predicted. It was over 20 feet in the city of Tacloban, many homes have been destroyed, many are dead and others are still missing.

There is some suggestion that warm ocean temperatures in the Pacific may have fueled the creation of this super Typhoon. I haven’t looked at the hard numbers, but eyeballing the maps of Tropical Cyclone heat potential from the NOAA view site it doesn’t look like there is an unusually large amount of extra energy available to intensify a typhoon. In other words, I would expect that the water is only warm enough to create a typhoon rather than a super typhoon. While the warm water certainly helped intensify the typhoon, it seems to me that maybe other atmospheric conditions (like low wind shear as suggested by NOAA) is what ultimately created such a massive storm.** But then again, the upper ocean het content has increased over the past couple of decades so that could be fueling the unusual intensification. Regardless, it will still be interesting to find out what caused this storm to cross the line into the super category. Get on it atmospheric scientists!

It’s still unclear what the total loss to life and property is because of super typhoon Haiyan. Many towns in the Philippines are still without power and communications. The initial reports aren’t great. From earlier reports it does sound like some complications like landslides and flooding were mitigated because the typhoon was fast-moving, causing the total rainfall amounts to be relatively small, but coastal flooding and destruction by winds is still a problem. Pre-emptive evacuations may have also helped to keep the death toll down. If you would like to help out those affected by the storm, you can donate via the Red Cross.

UPDATE: Dave Petley over at AGU’s Landslide blog talks about the potential for landslides in the Philippines. From the news coming in, it sounds like there were landslides, but they are mostly impeding emergency response crews from getting to more remote areas.  

While not the biggest typhoon ever to exist on this planet, Haiyan is likely to be the strongest to ever make landfall. And although it weakened after hitting the Philippines, it is still a powerful cyclone with winds >120 mph and is currently heading towards Vietnam, where it is expected to make landfall within the next 24 hours. Hopefully its bark will be worse than it’s bite.

*I just want to note that the maximum wind speeds and minimum pressures are just estimates from satellite data and not actual measurements from stations. These values are typically obtained by “hurricane hunters”, aircraft that are designed to fly into hurricanes are take these specific measurements. Unfortunately, or perhaps more fortunately, for whatever reason no hurricane hunters sampled Super Typhoon Haiyan. But these estimates, while not absolute are still pretty robust.

** I would probably be more convinced about the intensification to a super typhoon due to increased upper ocean heat content if they had shown a better map, maybe one with anomalies with the storm track overlain.

The post Is Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda one for the record books? first appeared on Deep Sea News.