Category 6 Hurricanes?

[sounding]

Recent news chatter about creating a new Category 6 Hurricane metric is just nonsense -- because, in the end, no matter what scaling is used, the trend will still show a downward trend. Don't fall for these junk science articles -- just look at the data to see reality -- global warming is reducing hurricane frequency and strength.

[ThirdOfFive]

Rest assured. Any new label selected will be for one thing. Shock value.

In our day and age, actual information is becoming more and more irrelevant.

[Normal]

Rest assured. Any new label selected will be for one thing. Shock value.

In our day and age, actual information is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Arctic blast is being changed to Polar Vortex
Pineapple Express sounds better as Atmospheric River

[Marathon Man]

...

So over the last 43 years it has happened 5 times. All 5 have been in the last decade. The wind speed for Cat 5 is 157 MPH or more. The paper looking at these much more intense hurricanes/typhoons suggests that an additional Cat 6 is needed to differentiate these much more intense storms.

...[/URL].

Makes sense to me. Why would anyone be bothered by this?

[JRcorvette]

My two cents…. There is no such thing as Global Warming and Man can not control the weather! I am not talking about air pollution that is a different story. We need clean air to breath!

[sounding]

Makes sense to me. Why would anyone be bothered by this?

Maybe 99 categories would even be even better. And in the end ... the trend will be downwards.

[Taltarzac725]

Hurricane and typhoon numbers are decreasing, study finds, even as they become more destructive | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/weather/tropical-cyclone-frequency-21st-century-climate/index.html)

Except in the North Atlantic where they are increasing.

[ThirdOfFive]

Arctic blast is being changed to Polar Vortex
Pineapple Express sounds better as Atmospheric River
Arctic blast is being changed to Polar Vortex
Pineapple Express sounds better as Atmospheric River
True that. But in Minnesota they were never referred to as an "arctic blast". Instead, "Canadian high" was the descriptor of choice for as long as I can remember. Canadian Highs were welcome: they usually came after a period of bad weather (blizzard or several-day snowfall) and were characterized by clear, bright blue skies, cold(er) temps and wind. Good skiing weather, and especially welcome after being cooped up in the house for days on end while Mother Nature buried everything in sight with a white blanket.

Then, maybe 20 years ago or so, we heard no more about "Canadian Highs". Instead, "Polar Vortex" came into vogue. Unlike Canadian Highs, Polar Vortex forecasts came with ominous warnings about falling temps, often with descriptions of what frostbite consisted of, sober advice to parents about how to keep Junior bundled up, in sight of parents or caretakers AT ALL TIME when outside, things like that.

Bottom line: Canadian Highs were welcome events. Polar Vortexes were not. But they were just two different names for precisely the same weather event.

Heard an interview with one of the local weather guys in Duluth, MN, about the name change. He admitted that it had been done precisely for the shock value.

[Taltarzac725]

True that. But in Minnesota they were never referred to as an "arctic blast". Instead, "Canadian high" was the descriptor of choice for as long as I can remember. Canadian Highs were welcome: they usually came after a period of bad weather (blizzard or several-day snowfall) and were characterized by clear, bright blue skies, cold(er) temps and wind. Good skiing weather, and especially welcome after being cooped up in the house for days on end while Mother Nature buried everything in sight with a white blanket.

Then, maybe 20 years ago or so, we heard no more about "Canadian Highs". Instead, "Polar Vortex" came into vogue. Unlike Canadian Highs, Polar Vortex forecasts came with ominous warnings about falling temps, often with descriptions of what frostbite consisted of, sober advice to parents about how to keep Junior bundled up, in sight of parents or caretakers AT ALL TIME when outside, things like that.

Bottom line: Canadian Highs were welcome events. Polar Vortexes were not. But they were just two different names for precisely the same weather event.

Heard an interview with one of the local weather guys in Duluth, MN, about the name change. He admitted that it had been done precisely for the shock value.



Climate trends | Minnesota DNR (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html)

My last days in Minnesota were right around late November of 1991. We had just gone through a blizzard. 1991 Halloween blizzard - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Halloween_blizzard)

[sounding]

Hurricane and typhoon numbers are decreasing, study finds, even as they become more destructive | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/weather/tropical-cyclone-frequency-21st-century-climate/index.html)

Except in the North Atlantic where they are increasing.

Those who come to the Weather Club know that's just more propaganda.

1. Although global storms are down, N. Atlantic storms are up because the AMO is in its warming cycle - which will soon end.

2. "Destruction" has nothing to do with hurricane frequency or energy -- but it has everything to do with people choosing to live dangerously -- like in tornado alley and along hurricane prone shores -- without proper building construction and without necessary support services. It's an education problem -- not a climate problem.

[ThirdOfFive]

Climate trends | Minnesota DNR (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html)

My last days in Minnesota were right around late November of 1991. We had just gone through a blizzard. 1991 Halloween blizzard - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Halloween_blizzard)
Oh yeah! I remember it well. I lived up in Duluth at the time. I recall that Halloween day and early evening: unseasonably warm, but you could tell something was coming. We ended up with just a hair shy of 40" of snow on that one.

I remember about Day Three, and cabin fever was setting in. I grabbed my XC skiis and headed out, thinking I'd be the only one out there. Was I wrong! The streets were filled with people on skiis! For about five days 6th Avenue East was the best ski run in the state.

[Taltarzac725]

Those who come to the Weather Club know that's just more propaganda.

1. Although global storms are down, N. Atlantic storms are up because the AMO is in its warming cycle - which will soon end.

2. "Destruction" has nothing to do with hurricane frequency or energy -- but it has everything to do with people choosing to live dangerously -- like in tornado alley and along hurricane prone shores -- without proper building construction and without necessary support services. It's an education problem -- not a climate problem.

The Weather Club basically seems to spout propaganda with almost no real science.

[fdpaq0580]

True that. But in Minnesota they were never referred to as an "arctic blast". Instead, "Canadian high" was the descriptor of choice for as long as I can remember. Canadian Highs were welcome: they usually came after a period of bad weather (blizzard or several-day snowfall) and were characterized by clear, bright blue skies, cold(er) temps and wind. Good skiing weather, and especially welcome after being cooped up in the house for days on end while Mother Nature buried everything in sight with a white blanket.

Then, maybe 20 years ago or so, we heard no more about "Canadian Highs". Instead, "Polar Vortex" came into vogue. Unlike Canadian Highs, Polar Vortex forecasts came with ominous warnings about falling temps, often with descriptions of what frostbite consisted of, sober advice to parents about how to keep Junior bundled up, in sight of parents or caretakers AT ALL TIME when outside, things like that.

Bottom line: Canadian Highs were welcome events. Polar Vortexes were not. But they were just two different names for precisely the same weather event.

Heard an interview with one of the local weather guys in Duluth, MN, about the name change. He admitted that it had been done precisely for the shock value.

A rose by any other name still has thorns. Maybe, just maybe the "shock value" saved a life by making people aware that the otherwise welcome event came with otherwise overlooked dangers.

[fdpaq0580]

Arctic blast is being changed to Polar Vortex
Pineapple Express sounds better as Atmospheric River

I like pineapple!

[sounding]

The Weather Club basically seems to spout propaganda with almost no real science.

That's just another claim - unsupported by data - just like there is no data proving man-made CO2 harms our climate - but there is data proving it helps our climate.

[fdpaq0580]

Makes sense to me. Why would anyone be bothered by this?

I agree. Each category should have a lower and upper limit. No category (imho) should be without limits to identify the potential level of destruction.

[fdpaq0580]

My two cents…. There is no such thing as Global Warming and Man can not control the weather! I am not talking about air pollution that is a different story. We need clean air to breath!

Two cents? Value may be over inflated.
But I agree with the part about clean air.

[Golfer222]

Mine goes to eleven

[ThirdOfFive]

///

[ThirdOfFive]

A rose by any other name still has thorns. Maybe, just maybe the "shock value" saved a life by making people aware that the otherwise welcome event came with otherwise overlooked dangers.
Yeah. I'm sure that was the ersatz piety in which the change to "polar vortex" was wrapped.

[fdpaq0580]

Mine goes to eleven

Nothing like being well prepared!

[fdpaq0580]

Yeah. I'm sure that was the ersatz piety in which the change to "polar vortex" was wrapped.

We may never know. But, shock sells.

[GizmoWhiskers]

Recent news chatter about creating a new Category 6 Hurricane metric is just nonsense -- because, in the end, no matter what scaling is used, the trend will still show a downward trend. Don't fall for these junk science articles -- just look at the data to see reality -- global warming is reducing hurricane frequency and strength.
Climate Engineering is a career choice so not surprised.

[golfing eagles]

Climate Engineering is a career choice so not surprised.

So is climate propaganda----which is infinitely more profitable:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Normal]

Enhance the title, scare more onto your side. It’s what the media does.

How about mercurial hydraulic saturation for plain old rain.

[DonnaNi4os]

I certainly am no meteorology expert but it seems to me that global warming makes the water of the ocean warmer. Warmer water strengthens hurricanes so I don’t understand the logic. Enlighten me please.

[golfing eagles]

I certainly am no meteorology expert but it seems to me that global warming makes the water of the ocean warmer. Warmer water strengthens hurricanes so I don’t understand the logic. Enlighten me please.

Global warming also melts ice caps and glaciers, dumping cold water into the oceans. Over the long term, the oceans, just like the atmosphere are getting warmer. It started 20,000 years ago and will continue for about another 40,000 years. Then, we will start the cooling cycle headed towards the next period of glaciation. But here's the catch-----NONE OF IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.. It has happened over a dozen times during the last 4.5 million years of our CURRENT ICE AGE.

Has human activity accelerated this cycle? A definite maybe, but according to the climatologists that are not beholden to the government or universities for their livelihood, at most it will delay us from being crushed under 2 miles of ice for about 5,000 years.

[Normal]

I certainly am no meteorology expert but it seems to me that global warming makes the water of the ocean warmer. Warmer water strengthens hurricanes so I don’t understand the logic. Enlighten me please.

True, but stronger hurricanes have lower pressure in the center. Saturation level of ambient temperatures and water? If so, then weaker storms, but longer endurance of conditions.

[sounding]

I certainly am no meteorology expert but it seems to me that global warming makes the water of the ocean warmer. Warmer water strengthens hurricanes so I don’t understand the logic. Enlighten me please.

There is an answer why global warming results in less frequent and weaker hurricanes (and tornadoes). This science is known, but the media and Weather Channel refuse to tell you -- because it exposes the climate alarmist movement. This will be explained in detail at the Weather Club's next meeting, Feb 15 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor for a talk called "The Meteorology of Climate Change."

[TomSpasm]

Per the OP today - 2. Yes, we are warming in the long term with the Eddy 1,000-yr solar cycle ... but cooling in the shorter term due to the Feynman 100-yr sunspot cycle ... and CO2 has nothing to do with either. Oh ... and don't forget in the much longer term, we are cooling with the Milankovitch cycles - and again CO2 is a non-player - but it's a great plant food.

Per the New York Times today - Citing the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service - January makes eight months in a row that average air temperatures, across both the continents and the seas, have topped all prior records for the time of year. All in all, 2023 was Earth’s hottest year in over a century and a half. http://[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/climate/2024-hottest-january-data.html"l[/URL]

So do I believe the OP or the NYT citing European scientists? :shrug:

[Ponygirl]

Its fine to have these silly debates every time there is a weather meeting abt whether there is climate change but we should really look at the human toll and all the people who have lost their homes and their lives in the climate related disasters

This is a quote below from the director of NOAA

“The U.S. was hit with more billion-dollar disasters in 2023 than any other year on record, highlighting the increasing risks from our changing climate,” said NOAA NCEI Director Deke Arndt.

There were 28 billion dollar disasters in 2023 the warmest year on record in many states

“The 28 events from 2023 include:

17 severe weather/hail events.
4 flooding events.
2 tropical cyclones (Idalia in Florida and Typhoon Mawar in Guam).
2 tornado outbreaks.
1 winter storm/cold wave event.
1 wildfire event (Maui Island of Hawaii).
1 drought and heat wave event.
The total cost for these 28 disasters was $92.9 billion, but that may rise by several billion dollars when the costs of the December 16-18, 2023, East Coast storm and flooding event are fully accounted for“

[Marine1974]

1. Go ahead, re-categorize past storms - and show us how they are increasing. It's fun to make claims, but actual data is golden.

2. Yes, we are warming in the long term with the Eddy 1,000-yr solar cycle ... but cooling in the shorter term due to the Feynman 100-yr sunspot cycle ... and CO2 has nothing to do with either. Oh ... and don't forget in the much longer term, we are cooling with the Milankovitch cycles - and again CO2 is a non-player - but it's a great plant food.


Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. This means that it causes an effect like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat and warming up the inside.

[sounding]

Per the OP today - 2. Yes, we are warming in the long term with the Eddy 1,000-yr solar cycle ... but cooling in the shorter term due to the Feynman 100-yr sunspot cycle ... and CO2 has nothing to do with either. Oh ... and don't forget in the much longer term, we are cooling with the Milankovitch cycles - and again CO2 is a non-player - but it's a great plant food.

Per the New York Times today - Citing the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service - January makes eight months in a row that average air temperatures, across both the continents and the seas, have topped all prior records for the time of year. All in all, 2023 was Earth’s hottest year in over a century and a half. http://[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/climate/2024-hottest-january-data.html"l[/URL]

So do I believe the OP or the NYT citing European scientists? :shrug:

Go to your window and look outside. How many body bags do you see as millions die from global warming and boiling oceans? Why are more people moving south instead of north? Why doesn't the NYT tell you there are at least 138 volcanoes under western Antarctica - and many are causing the ice melt much faster than eastern Antarctica? Why doesn't the NYT print exactly how much man-made CO2 warmed the earth last year (or any year) ... they don't because that number is embarrassingly tiny.

[sounding]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. This means that it causes an effect like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat and warming up the inside.

Absolutely wrong. The glass in the greenhouse does trap heat -- but CO2 does NOT trap heat -- otherwise Earth would have been a burnt cinder billions of years ago. Come to the Weather Club to learn just how tiny CO2's warming is -- plus CO2 is also a cooling gas -- which the media will never admit.

[huge-pigeons]

why stop at 6, make it 10, 15. Whatever works to push a certain narrative. Just like our unusual winter weather in Florida this year. Some climatologists might say global warming while the true climatologists will say El Niño which has occurred for thousands/millions of years.
What's next tornados? EF6? EF10? EF15? Same thing. The worst storm I have ever seen in California (I lived there at the time) was in 1969. I don't think they have had anything worse since. Everywhere on earth you are going to get these type of storms, you just have to ignore the outliers.

[sounding]

why stop at 6, make it 10, 15. Whatever works to push a certain narrative. Just like our unusual winter weather in Florida this year. Some climatologists might say global warming while the true climatologists will say El Niño which has occurred for thousands/millions of years.
What's next tornados? EF6? EF10? EF15? Same thing. The worst storm I have ever seen in California (I lived there at the time) was in 1969. I don't think they have had anything worse since. Everywhere on earth you are going to get these type of storms, you just have to ignore the outliers.

I personally like category 99 -- because it's more scary sounding. NOAA already inflated tornado categories by just changing the scaling factor -- but in the end the tornado trend is still down -- just like hurricanes.

[biker1]

You telling me what is correct is the same as me telling Nicklaus how to hit a 2-iron. Are you so uninformed that you really don't know where to look? Start with AR6. There are plenty of references contained in there. When you are caught cherry picking other people's data (and didn't bother to cite them) you really shouldn't talk about evidence.

That is all correct -- except the anthropogenic stuff. Please provide the peer-reviewed science stating man-made CO2 caused the 1 C warming. Making claims are fun - but evidence is better.

[sounding]

You telling me what is correct is the same as me telling Nicklaus how to hit a 2-iron. Are you so uninformed that you really don't know where to look? Start with AR6. There are plenty of references contained in there. When you are caught cherry picking other people's data (and didn't bother to cite them) you really shouldn't talk about evidence.

That's not an answer -- it's a diversion -- and to an organization which willingly published the fraudulent hockey stick graph. So, please provide the "science" explaining how man-made CO2 achieve 1 C warming. Your answer will need to account for the current solar warming from the Bray and Solar cycles -- and from the oceanic exhaling of natural CO2 as we continue to thaw out from the Little Ice Age.

[ThirdOfFive]

I certainly am no meteorology expert but it seems to me that global warming makes the water of the ocean warmer. Warmer water strengthens hurricanes so I don’t understand the logic. Enlighten me please.
A pox upon ___ !!

Logic and reason are not especially welcomed in these here parts.

[blueash]

Your lack of understanding of basic radiative transfer physics is not all that surprising since you are not a scientist, which is why you continue to spout nonsense. Increasing CO2 changes the long wave radiative balance of the atmosphere. The net effect is stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming. This was theorized a long time ago and verified with observational data. The anthropogenic average global surface temperature anomaly is about 1C. When you don't know what you are talking about it is best to say nothing.

BOOM

For those who want an explanation of how CO2 and methane DO act as greenhouse gases, and why there is a nice website from Columbia university with simple clear science. And you tube videos of how you can prove it to yourself. So Simple Even a sounding can do it.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? - You Asked (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/)

For those who don't click on links. The sun heats the earth in the visible light spectrum. The warm earth releases some of this heat back upwards into the atmosphere. Think how a dark rock is hot as it has trapped then released heat. That released heat is infrared heat. You have all likely used infrared heat lamps.

Infrared energy is invisible, just off the rainbow of colors we see, ultraviolet being just off the other side. Infrared energy waves come in contact with the molecules of the atmosphere as they travel from the warmed earth into the sky. Some molecules do not interact with infrared. The energy passes thru and continues into space. Oxygen ignores infrared. Nitrogen ignores infrared.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases do interact with infrared energy. They absorb some of it. Once the CO2 molecule absorbs the infrared heat, it then radiates it back out into the atmosphere, just like the dark rock absorbed it on the earth then radiated it out.

Some of the radiated energy goes up, back toward space, some goes down back toward the earth. That which is radiated back down to us warms us, and the planet.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It is an oversimplification but everyone here is 100% correct in noticing that cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Why? The amount of heat the warm earth is sending up toward space is the same whether cloudy or clear. But on cloudy nights that heat, infrared heat, cannot escape and is partially reflected back down keeping us warm.

[biker1]

Sabine Hossenfelder has a pretty good video on the details. Except for an error regarding the hydrostatic equation (which is not important to the topic of the video), she gets it correct. She goes into why stratospheric cooling and lower tropospheric warming occurs with increasing CO2.

Regarding why cloudy nights are warmer, more precisely the long wave is not reflected. It is actually absorbed and reemitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8

BOOM

For those who want an explanation of how CO2 and methane DO act as greenhouse gases, and why there is a nice website from Columbia university with simple clear science. And you tube videos of how you can prove it to yourself. So Simple Even a sounding can do it.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? - You Asked (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/)

For those who don't click on links. The sun heats the earth in the visible light spectrum. The warm earth releases some of this heat back upwards into the atmosphere. Think how a dark rock is hot as it has trapped then released heat. That released heat is infrared heat. You have all likely used infrared heat lamps.

Infrared energy is invisible, just off the rainbow of colors we see, ultraviolet being just off the other side. Infrared energy waves come in contact with the molecules of the atmosphere as they travel from the warmed earth into the sky. Some molecules do not interact with infrared. The energy passes thru and continues into space. Oxygen ignores infrared. Nitrogen ignores infrared.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases do interact with infrared energy. They absorb some of it. Once the CO2 molecule absorbs the infrared heat, it then radiates it back out into the atmosphere, just like the dark rock absorbed it on the earth then radiated it out.

Some of the radiated energy goes up, back toward space, some goes down back toward the earth. That which is radiated back down to us warms us, and the planet.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It is an oversimplification but everyone here is 100% correct in noticing that cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Why? The amount of heat the warm earth is sending up toward space is the same whether cloudy or clear. But on cloudy nights that heat, infrared heat, cannot escape and is partially reflected back down keeping us warm.

[sounding]

BOOM

For those who want an explanation of how CO2 and methane DO act as greenhouse gases, and why there is a nice website from Columbia university with simple clear science. And you tube videos of how you can prove it to yourself. So Simple Even a sounding can do it.

How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? - You Asked (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/)

For those who don't click on links. The sun heats the earth in the visible light spectrum. The warm earth releases some of this heat back upwards into the atmosphere. Think how a dark rock is hot as it has trapped then released heat. That released heat is infrared heat. You have all likely used infrared heat lamps.

Infrared energy is invisible, just off the rainbow of colors we see, ultraviolet being just off the other side. Infrared energy waves come in contact with the molecules of the atmosphere as they travel from the warmed earth into the sky. Some molecules do not interact with infrared. The energy passes thru and continues into space. Oxygen ignores infrared. Nitrogen ignores infrared.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases do interact with infrared energy. They absorb some of it. Once the CO2 molecule absorbs the infrared heat, it then radiates it back out into the atmosphere, just like the dark rock absorbed it on the earth then radiated it out.

Some of the radiated energy goes up, back toward space, some goes down back toward the earth. That which is radiated back down to us warms us, and the planet.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It is an oversimplification but everyone here is 100% correct in noticing that cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights. Why? The amount of heat the warm earth is sending up toward space is the same whether cloudy or clear. But on cloudy nights that heat, infrared heat, cannot escape and is partially reflected back down keeping us warm.

Excellent pseudo-science response -- especially the psuedo part. 1. Columbia is the home of Dr. James Hansen, the Father of Global Warming, who has made even more outlandish forecasts than Al Gore (see image). 2. Back-radiation to earth is a myth. A cooler object can not heat a warmer object - according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 3. Again, where is the documented proof that man-made CO2 warmed the earth and by how much.

[blueash]

Why doesn't the NYT tell you there are at least 138 volcanoes under western Antarctica - and many are causing the ice melt much faster than eastern Antarctica? .

More facts that are lies. Yes there are 138 volcanoes in Antarctica. Only one has erupted in the last 50 years. Most have estimated last volcanic activity over a million years ago. But go ahead and throw out 137 volcanoes because people will think, well all those volcanoes are melting the ice. Deceptive, like many other of your posts.

And if you care to check your prejudice for accuracy. Try to google New York Times and Antarctic volcano and see if in FACT the NYT has reported on volcanoes there. Hint, they have.

[sounding]

More facts that are lies. Yes there are 138 volcanoes in Antarctica. Only one has erupted in the last 50 years. Most have estimated last volcanic activity over a million years ago. But go ahead and throw out 137 volcanoes because people will think, well all those volcanoes are melting the ice. Deceptive, like many other of your posts.

And if you care to check your prejudice for accuracy. Try to google New York Times and Antarctic volcano and see if in FACT the NYT has reported on volcanoes there. Hint, they have.

Perfect example how media misinformation is working, by not doing stories of the many research papers of thermal warming, greenhouse gassing, and including Mt Erebus which has been continually erupting for over 100 years and is increasing in activity. You can even take a cruise to Antarctica and swim in volcanic heated waters -- where the ice has already melted.

[golfing eagles]

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. This means that it causes an effect like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping heat and warming up the inside.

Unfortunately, it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

[simplesimonsaid]

All this talk of raising hurricane numbers to scare people, reminds me of the garment industry removing some XX's from the size chart to make the chubbies feel better, and the petites feel almost bulimic.

[Marathon Man]

Please give an example of how cold object can heat a warm object.

A microwave oven is at room temperature when it boils water.

[biker1]

Probably best not to waste your time responding to that guy since he doesn't understand basic physics.

A microwave oven is at room temperature when it boils water.

[fdpaq0580]

A microwave oven is at room temperature when it boils water.

The gas refrigerator/freezer on the rv burns gas (heat)and makes ice (cold). Ain't science, real science, wonderful?