Hurricane intensity is measured in one of two ways, not necessarily related.

Which way was used to form the conclusion in red above?

Hurricanes and Climate Change - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions

This is a good link even if I feel like I am ****ing in the wind-- so to speak-- arguing it on Talk of the Villages.

That link is a perfect example of misinformation. 1. Notice the hurricane graph in that C2ES article -- the data starts at 1950 when in reality we have hurricane data going back to the mid-1800s. They are hiding data showing high storm levels prior to 1950. 2. That graph only reflects the North Atlantic storms which is not a prime indicator of "global" storms. 3. All hurricane data before 1970 is incomplete, because many storms in the Eastern North Atlantic were not detectable until the global 24/7 use of geostationary (GOES) satellites in the 70s. In other words the C2ES graph shows apples & oranges. 4. Those 2 orange lines drawn across the C2ES graph are opinions -- and they have no scientific meaning. 5. Christiana Figueres is frequently honored and referenced in numerous C2ES events and publications. She was the United Nations' architect of the Paris Climate Agreement. She said this in 2016 about her work ... "Part of my commitment to the public good is through common goals that can only be best reached by working together – if that’s called communism so be it."

Man-caused pollution, like out of the exhaust pipe of a golf cart -- drifts upward to the upper atmosphere and acts as a blanket to keep in heat....... leading to Global Warming. So, when someone acknowledges man-made pollution, they are ALSO acknowledging Global Warming.

If CO2 is NOT a pollutant, just some INERT, innocuous gas : then we can all put hoses on our cars and golf carts' exhaust pipes and run it into the cab of the vehicle. Enjoy.

Thanks, great post !

Wars and famine reduce population, which would naturally reduce CO2 production.

Darned golf carts precipitating the apocalypse 😂😂😂

That would be carbon MONOXIDE (CO), not carbon dioxide (CO2). Your premise does not hold water (H2O)😂😂😂

True, I am assuming that CO2 is a pollutant since no one would want to breathe in 100 % CO2. And I am trying to have a SIMPLE analogy of a blanket to explain the facts that I see such as measurable increased earth HEAT. Measurable ocean level increase. Predictions of heat increase for the next 30 years Coral reefs dying. And hurricanes increasing in magnitude (not frequency). I pretend to be NOTHING MORE than a layman. So, I talk in layman's terms. But, I do read enough and watch TV enough to refer others to Scientist that DO know more than layman do.

I do know that CO2 is increasing to a point of producing acid in the oceans and bleaching and KILLING the coral reefs ( a source of great natural beauty). Dying coral means that the oceans produce less food for mankind. The CO2 cycle has been disrupted due to man's use of IC engines and coal.

But what do nuclear weapons do? How a small nuclear war would transform the entire planet

There is the thing called CO, carbon monoxide ...

Sorry -- false association, which is commonly used by the global warming establishment to garner support for a political movement. Highway littering is pollution -- CO2 is primarily plant food and secondarily produces Itsy-Bitsy-Teenie-Weenie warming which is logarithmically diminishing with increasing CO2. Plus CO2's heating ability is essentially saturated. Here is the best scientific explanation of CO2 warming today ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw

That is intuitively obvious about social control and FEAR. Just have to look to China to see that. As to the Scientists doing FEAR MONGERING........WELL.......I guess that I have been MONGERED. Sorry !

You mean it's NOT cow farts???

Not really. Breathing 100% anything (which, by definition, contains 0% oxygen) is going to kill you. Our air is 70% nitrogen. It is an inert gas but at least one state has an execution protocol for 100% nitrogen to be used in capital punishment cases. It's not the nitrogen that kills, but the lack of oxygen.

That doesn't mean nitrogen is a "pollutant".

The NOAA. I have made at least 2 prior posts about that.

Breathing 100% oxygen is also not without issues. CO2 absorption by the oceans is not turning the oceans to an acid. The pH is dropping so the alkalinity is being reduced, which can be referred to as moving the oceans towards acidity. However, the oceans will not become an acid (a pH less than 7). Trying to draw an analogy of CO2 being a "blanket" is just as bad as calling CO2 a "greenhouse" gas. The physics of a "blanket" and the physics of a "greenhouse" are different than the physics of how CO2 impacts the atmosphere (approximately 1C from anthropogenic sources). We are, however, probably forever stuck with the term "greenhouse" gas.

Much of what you say is good and interesting. Each of us individually must integrate all the facts and opinions that we have heard and create an individual consensus for ourselves. I choose to believe that in the western world that the majority of scientists are true to themselves and are writing factual material. And the PEER REVIEW system should help keep them honest. Now, in Russia and China scientists may feel hamstrung about telling the truth.

Maybe a little. What's a little exaggeration between friends?

Actually it IS there and I gave everyone its location in one of my earliest posts. Please just refer back to that post. I guarantee that it is in there. And I believe that that other scientist that we were talking about stated it also.

Actually, it is fairly common knowledge that man caused Global Warming. The U.N. recently stated that same thing.
All the rapid warming occurred after the Industrial Revolution and has increased recently about proportional to the rate of increase of the world's population.

OK the quote that you supplied WAS from the correct article that I referred people to by the expert NOAA scientist. In that same article, he DID say that MAN caused the WARMING. I SWEAR that it IS in that article. I believe it is near the end and after a LARGE print heading. And you can just refer to one of my earliest posts.

AND ALSO......What is gained by calling Al Gore a "drunkard" at this point in history? Even IF that WERE true, we would all likely be messed up if we just missed being P.resident. Drunkard or NOT, Al Gore was the 1st FAMOUS non-scientist to WARN the world about Global Warming. He was early to the game (which is now universally recognized like recently by the UN).....so he was maligned by the non-believers. The flat earth people laughed at Christopher Columbus who sailed WEST to get to the EAST.

Damage to the world in terms of deaths and infrastructure destruction. That is INCREASING.

And the TRUTH shall set us ALL free !

Oh yes, again we can agree. And the older golf carts really SMELL bad!

I believe that BOTH gases exist in IC engine exhaust. But, I will have to look that one up. Also, H2O does come out of the exhaust especially until the engine warms up.

Please provide a link to the data. Thanks.

I read all of that. It is very informative. I liked the part where the coral reefs would be affected. I have talked about that in many posts......how CO2 increasing in the seawater produces an acid that kills the corals. Apparently, the coral reef ecosystem is VERY FRAGILE.

Fair point. I think of CO2 as a pollutant in that it is OUT OF BALANCE with the earth in relatively recent years. Its EXCESS gets into the seawater and causes a weak acid which KILLS (as in POLLUTES) the water and kills the coral reef. Maybe CO2 in its pre-1880 concentration was NOT a POLLUTANT, but today in its EXCESS state, it IS a POLLUTANT.

Actually hurricane intensity is measured by either by the drop in barometric pressure or wind speed. Damage (either in terms of lives lost or infrastructure destroyed) isn't an accurate measurement of a hurricane's intensity for several reasons; 60% of major Atlantic hurricanes never even make landfall in the United States (NASA dot gov); many of them just blow themselves out over water. And a major hurricane blowing itself out over water or making landfall over a relatively deserted area will not result in much destruction.

Nor are the number of lives lost a true indication of a hurricane's intensity. When most people think of lives lost in a hurricane the word that pops into (I'm assuming) most peoples' minds would be "Katrina", and it was indeed deadly, but the majority of the 1,800 lives lost were lost because of flooding resulting from fatal engineering flaws in the flood protection system. Katrina made landfall on the gulf coast not as a category 5 megastorm, as most people think, but as a category 3.

If we're measuring hurricane deaths, then the most deadly Atlantic hurricane on record was over 240 years ago; Huracán San Calixto, AKA the Great Hurricane of 1780, which killed over 22,000 in the lesser Antilles chain. Actually the toll was probably much larger; the Antilles' main crop was sugar cane which meant that a lot of slaves were killed as well. This is just a guess on my part but I don't think those slaves were counted as "people" at the time.

Much of what we know about hurricanes, and how they are spotted and tracked, is the result of satellite technology and that is only about 60 years old. Records before that cannot be said to be anywhere near as complete as today, and of course counting back the years before the advent of aviation to 1859 (when as I recall the first attempts were made at record-keeping) it is self-evident that the older the record, the less accurate it was likely to be.

Much of what we think we know about hurricanes seems to be based on speculation. Maybe, by 2122, the next hundred years of complete data will yield some reliable science regarding them, but at this point I don't think anyone can claim that hurricane science much more than educated guesses.

I wish that were true. But when all "the peers" are on the same page for the same reasons...........

Just like our bodies need certain vitamins and minerals to function properly, too much or too little can make you ill or even kill you. The chemical balance of our atmosphere and oceans need to be in balance for our world to be healthy. Sounds simple, but it isn't.

Too simple, because it ignores reality. Life and nature are never in balance. Mother Nature is constantly adjusting its heat transfer processes in response to heating inputs from the sun, volcanism, cosmic radiation, etc. All these inputs are constantly changing and thus so does our climate in response. Even our lives are in constant change -- called aging.

Climate change conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

A lot of this looks like climate change conspiracy theories thrown out by certain media outlets to sell crap in more ways than one.

There is good science out there but Meteorology - Wikipedia is still not that sophisticated a discipline. They did not have that good an idea, for instance, where Hurricane Ian was going. It did a lot of damage though. Hurricane Ian - Wikipedia

Sorry you failed to see that it was intended to be a simple, brief analogy. Thinking of the Earth as a " super organism" and using a single organism for comparative functions is common. As we age and go through normal activity, our body's needs constantly change. Same with our planet's oceans and atmosphere, as you pointed out. Also, at the end of my post, I said it sounds simple, but it isn't.
When our system is out of balance or broken, it is time to take our medicine.

So tell me, what is out of balance?

Agree. And when it comes to damage, that is not a good indicator of storm strength, but an excellent indicator of population growth in a specific area. Regarding where Ian was going -- this will be briefly discussed 1 PM on Nov 7 at Everglades Rec Ctr.

Ditto -- that's called PAL Review -- created by those in authority to control group think. This is not new and been going on since humans were invented.

Nope, not quite true. Yes, there was warming, AND there was an Industrial Revolution, but if you look at the millenniums of cyclic climate changes, you will see that Earth was warmer and it cooled off and there was little or no humans to cause it. You are making assumptions. A man on the train died, so since there were people on the train, he MUST have been murdered. He couldn't have just died. Sure, he could have died, but someone has to prove it was not a natural occurrence in order to call it "man caused" death.
Sorry if some us do not put much stock in the U.N. As far as I am concerned they could disband and I doubt anyone would miss them.

TVA man was murdered and there was no place for anyone to get off the train. This is a better analogy and we all have to live with the murderer free. In this case, the train is earth and the murderer is Global Warming.