Can flat-earthers explain away no hurricanes crossing the equator?

[Nullxata]

A ran across this Snopes article:

No Hurricane has been known to cross the equator

and found it super interesting, but began to wonder if flat-earthers have ever had to deal with this and try to explain it away since it involves the Coriolis effect caused by a spherical Earth's rotation. Global weather is not at all one of my strong points, but I was just wondering. I know flat-earthers go to some extremely laughable lengths to explain away some obvious, repeatable, and demonstrative proofs of a spherical Earth but I can't really find some solid rebuttal to this by the flat-earthers. Note: I didn't do too deep a dive because reading their nonsense is, while sometimes akin to watching a train-wreck, just too much for me to tolerate in large doses. NASA places the odds of one developing close to the equator at something like once every 100-400 years so it's possible, just not likely. Tropical storm Vamei in 2001 came close, forming at 93 miles from the equator when others form from about 186 miles from the equator and outward.

Generally tropical cyclones occur between 5 and 30 degrees latitude, and do not form in the equatorial regions because the Coriolis effect is negligible near the equator. However the rare occurrence of two colliding systems can lead to cyclone development. In December 2001, typhoon Vamei formed when strong winds from a monsoon surge interacted with an intense circulation system in the South China Sea. Typhoon Vamei came within 50 km northeast of Singapore and brought windy and wet conditions to Singapore.

From here.

 

[Mendel]

A ran across this Snopes article:
No Hurricane has been known to cross the equator
and found it super interesting

Metabunk's link policy requires you to quote the relevant bits from that source. But since Snopes quotes those from NASA, I'm taking them directly from there:

Article:

Like streamers of splattered paint, the tracks of nearly 150 years of tropical cyclones weave across the globe in this map. The map is based on all storm tracks available from the National Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center through September 2006.

The absence of hurricanes at and very near the equator reveals another important factor in hurricane development: the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force results from the Earth's spherical shape and its rotation. The force keeps air from moving in a straight line across the surface of the Earth. Instead, the Coriolis force spins moving air to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. The Coriolis force is strongest near the poles, and zero at the equator. Although frequent thunderstorms do occur at the equator, the air rushing into the low-pressure centers of these storms doesn't get the needed "spin" from the Coriolis force, and so the storms don't develop the large-scale rotation that sets them on the path to becoming hurricanes.

Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7079/historic-tropical-cyclone-tracks

. I know flat-earthers go to some extremely laughable lengths to explain away some obvious, repeatable, and demonstrative proofs of a spherical Earth

most prominently the moon landing and space pictures of Earth (blue marble).

However, the main strategy of FEers is to focus on some "gotcha" aka "black swan", i.e. a phenonenon that we "globers" allegedly can't explain, and that's supposed to prove "globe science" wrong; they avoid adressing globe proofs directly. So that's why this globe evidence is unlikely to see much FE airtime; the average FEer looks at the source and remembers they don't trust NASA anyway.

 

[deirdre]

but began to wonder if flat-earthers have ever had to deal with this and try to explain it away since it involves the Coriolis effect caused by a spherical Earth's rotation.

why dont you find a flat earth group and ask them.

 

[JMartJr]

In my experience talking/arguing/debating/getting trolled by then... Generally all evidence of coriolis effect and other rotational effects are ascribed to a vortex of (often electronagnetic) energy either caused by the sun and moon circling overhead, or possibly causing them to circle overhead.

CAVEAT: Explanations are strictly ad hoc and subject to change when a new hoc shows up...

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I'd expect the first barrier would be an agreement on what/where the equator is on a flat earth.

An easy out would possibly be that no hurricanes have crossed the equator cos no one has seen it happen yet.

And that's if you can prove that no hurricanes have crossed the equator to the satisfaction of a flat earther. Pretty sure that's impossible.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

I'd expect the first barrier would be an agreement on what/where the equator is on a flat earth.

I'm not sure there's any debate on that with the flat earth people. I'd assume they'd just define it as the midway point between the north pole/center of the world and the south pole/edge of the world, so effectively the same definition as the normal one.

 

[JMartJr]

I'd assume they'd just define it as the midway point between the north pole/center of the world and the south pole/edge of the world, so effectively the same definition as the normal one.

Sort of, though the "infinite plane" crowd, and the "it is much bigger than they let on with continents they don't want you to know about" factions can't use that exact formulation, since the equator is no longer to halfway to the edge, or there ISN'T an edge. So they tend to use the circle the Sun traces at the equinox, halfway between its northern-and-southernmost extreme at the solstices. Which is fine, it gets the right answer at least.

And while I have never asked about equator crossing hurricanes (because I had misremembered that there had been a few, MANDELA EFFECT!!!) I'm sure the response will be the usual "electromagnetic vortex" or some variation,linked to the orbiting of the Sun/moon, and coupled with a quick moving of goalposts to whatever the latest Black Swan is.

Edit to add -- for those who have not seen it, here is one map of the flat earth with extra continents "beyond the ice wall." There are others that supposedly make the Earth look something like the moon, and the moon is claimed to be a reflection of the Earth (with the Earth sometimes simultaneously being in a crater on the actual larger moon, but I cant follow that one at all and it may be entirely a troll) or with with a third ring, in which the actual continents are duplicated for either humor or metaphysical reasons. But keeping it simple... here is the pic...

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I'd assume they'd just define it as the midway point between the north pole/center of the world and the south pole/edge of the world, so effectively the same definition as the normal one.

I'd expect the first barrier to that would be a positive claim from a flat earther of where the edge of the "world" is.

Also worth noting they may define it as you say when it suits them. Not when it doesn't.

 

[AmberRobot]

I'm not sure there's any debate on that with the flat earth people. I'd assume they'd just define it as the midway point between the north pole/center of the world and the south pole/edge of the world, so effectively the same definition as the normal one.

I would assume it's the sub-solar circle on the equinox. The tropics are then the sub-solar circles on the solstices.

Of course, the model breaks down so quickly under any kind of rigor that there's not much point in even trying to define any terms on the flat earth.