[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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

[Golfer222]

Mine goes to eleven

[ThirdOfFive]

///

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by Golfer222

Mine goes to eleven

Nothing like being well prepared!

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Climate Engineering is a career choice so not surprised.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by GizmoWhiskers

Climate Engineering is a career choice so not surprised.

So is climate propaganda----which is infinitely more profitable

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. [URL="http://[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/07/climate/2024-hottest-january-data.html"l[/URL]"]http://

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