Originally posted by @humy strawman; I said "...the more powerful the hurricane ...", NOT "...the more hurricanes..." although more hurricanes might form over warmer oceans.
+ hurricanes rarely form over cold oceans. Why do you think that is?
Aren't you EVER even slightly curious about what is true rather than sticking to your own ignorant arrogant opinionated crap? Try learning something new just for once; just have a quick peek at what the science says...
The great hurricane of 1780 is a good example of your false assertions being nonsense.
Originally posted by @sonhouse I think you did not want to hear what it said, it SAID higher temps in ocean equals more intense hurricanes. You better watch it again.
The great hurricane of 1780 was likely more intense than any hurricanes since then. Until that changes you have no evidence to support your assertion. Besides, it takes more than warmer waters. It takes a combination of warm water and a relatively cold upper atmosphere. Watch the Nova episode and learn your mistake.
Originally posted by @metal-brain The great hurricane of 1780 was likely more intense than any hurricanes since then.
Totally irrelevant;
No matter how much global warming increases the average severity of hurricanes, it will logically necessarily be true that no hurricane that came after whichever one was the most severe one (whenever it happened) will be more severe than that most severe one else that would be a self-contradiction.
Thus the most severe one being in 1780 (if hypothetically that is true) is evidence for nothing relevant here.
If no hurricane since that one was more severe than that one is 'evidence' against global warming causing more severe hurricanes then, by your own stupid 'logic', no hurricane since whichever one was the LEAST severe one (whenever it happened) being LESS severe than that one must be 'evidence' FOR global warming causing more severe hurricanes.
And, by your own stupid 'logic', no UK winter since the 1978-79 one being colder than that 1978-79 one (which is true) must be 'evidence' for global warming.
etc..
Originally posted by @humy Totally irrelevant;
No matter how much global warming increases the average severity of hurricanes, it will logically necessarily be true that no hurricane that came after whichever one was the most severe one (whenever it happened) will be more severe than that most severe one else that would be a self-contradiction.
Thus the most severe one being in 1780 ( ...[text shortened]... being colder than that 1978-79 one (which is true) must be 'evidence' for global warming.
etc..
You are just being arrogant again. There are many factors that go into making a hurricane. The southern Atlantic ocean has very few hurricanes despite being very warm. It is probably because of the distance between continents in that case.
Watch the Nova episode. You will learn from it and know how little you know right now.
Originally posted by @metal-brain You are just being arrogant again. There are many factors that go into making a hurricane. The southern Atlantic ocean has very few hurricanes despite being very warm. It is probably because of the distance between continents in that case.
Watch the Nova episode. You will learn from it and know how little you know right now.
No he isn't. You are trying to establish a trend based on one outlier. Like trying to deduce a trend with one data point. Won't happen. Why don't you tell us why that 1780 hurricane was so intense? And why do you think it refutes the obvious trend we have seen in multiple years and multiple versions of warm V cool waters via the El Nino and El Nina known weather patterns?
It looks to me like you just want to be a contrarian and nothing will change that no matter what changes happen to the climate in coming years.
Like if you somehow lived to be 150 and at that time the oceans have risen by say 10 feet and now Florida is history, the whole US is a lot smaller, my old stomping grounds of Venice Beach and Santa Monica is totally underwater, you would just say, relax, it will get better soon, those atmospheric scientists are just boobs, they know NOTHING.
Originally posted by @sonhouse No he isn't. You are trying to establish a trend based on one outlier. Like trying to deduce a trend with one data point. Won't happen. Why don't you tell us why that 1780 hurricane was so intense? And why do you think it refutes the obvious trend we have seen in multiple years and multiple versions of warm V cool waters via the El Nino and El Nina known w ...[text shortened]... relax, it will get better soon, those atmospheric scientists are just boobs, they know NOTHING.
You have no evidence at all for the predictions you are blindly repeating. Just a lot of rhetoric based on nothing just like climate model predictions.
Alarmists will believe anything they are told if it fits their belief system. There is no trend at all as you claim.
Originally posted by @metal-brain You have no evidence at all for the predictions you are blindly repeating. Just a lot of rhetoric based on nothing just like climate model predictions.
Alarmists will believe anything they are told if it fits their belief system. There is no trend at all as you claim.
Originally posted by @metal-brain You are just being arrogant again. There are many factors that go into making a hurricane. The southern Atlantic ocean has very few hurricanes despite being very warm. It is probably because of the distance between continents in that case.
Watch the Nova episode. You will learn from it and know how little you know right now.
Many factors = hurricanes and many factors = climate change. One of those factors is CO2 and it's a factor we can actually do something about. That's why no one talks about how the sun causes global warming - because it's obvious and unless you want to put a solar shield in outerspace there's nothing we can do about it.
Actually a solar shield might work. It could be tunable to block out more/less sun based on other natural changes in climate. And then we could go on burning dinosaurs until they're all dug up.
Originally posted by @wildgrass Many factors = hurricanes and many factors = climate change. One of those factors is CO2 and it's a factor we can actually do something about. That's why no one talks about how the sun causes global warming - because it's obvious and unless you want to put a solar shield in outerspace there's nothing we can do about it.
Actually a solar shield might w ...[text shortened]... natural changes in climate. And then we could go on burning dinosaurs until they're all dug up.
But such a sun shield could be run in reverse, say throwing concentrated sunlight on a few square kilometers of desert land conveniently populated with solar cells or concentrator mirrors and so get a huge jump in energy received right where it is needed.
Originally posted by @wildgrass Many factors = hurricanes and many factors = climate change. One of those factors is CO2 and it's a factor we can actually do something about. That's why no one talks about how the sun causes global warming - because it's obvious and unless you want to put a solar shield in outerspace there's nothing we can do about it.
Actually a solar shield might w ...[text shortened]... natural changes in climate. And then we could go on burning dinosaurs until they're all dug up.
First you need to know how much CO2 warms the climate and you don't know that. If CO2 causes very little warming of the climate (and I think that is the case) it will do no good to try to do something about it. You want to fight something you don't even know is the cause. Are you really that comfortable throwing money at a problem when you don't even know it is a problem?
Burning dinosaurs is a term based on ignorance. Phytoplankton, algae and other marine organisms are the main source of fossil fuels like oil. Dinosaurs are not the main source.
Originally posted by @metal-brain First you need to know how much CO2 warms the climate and you don't know that. If CO2 causes very little warming of the climate (and I think that is the case) it will do no good to try to do something about it. You want to fight something you don't even know is the cause. Are you really that comfortable throwing money at a problem when you don't even kn ...[text shortened]... urs are not the main source.
Originally posted by @wildgrass Obviously, the impact of CO2 on climate depends on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The more there is, the greater the effect.
How much is the effect? Until you know that you are getting ahead of yourself. Since you don't know....what the heck are you thinking??????
Originally posted by @metal-brain How much is the effect? Until you know that you are getting ahead of yourself. Since you don't know....what the heck are you thinking??????
It is known. Do your homework. CO2 absorbs incoming solar energy and re-emits longwave radiation that heats the atmosphere. The effect depends on your readout, what the underlying conditions are, and what exactly you are comparing.
15 Feb '18 19:23
Maunder minimum
Back to Top