Fun fact: Our country was founding during the worst time of the Little Ice Age. Imagine if today's left could travel back in time and try to tell our founding fathers that global warming is bad. LOL
Posted on 07/05/2024 11:36:39 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Hurricane Beryl has wreaked havoc in parts of the Caribbean – and put the role of climate change under the spotlight. With maximum sustained wind speeds of more than 160mph (257km/h), it became the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years. In fact, there has only been one previous recorded case of a category five Atlantic hurricane in July – Hurricane Emily, on 16 July 2005. The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful. Usually, such strong storms only develop later in the season, after the seas have heated up through the summer. Hurricanes generally need the sea surface to be at least 27C in order to have a chance of developing. As the map below shows, waters along Hurricane Beryl’s path have been much warmer than this.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
In a way it is.
When we removed Sulphur from fuels it cut down on particulates in the atmosphere.
These particulates reflected heat away from the Earth.
Some of the ocean warming can be attributed to this change.
“the earliest category five Atlantic hurricane in records going back around 100 years.”
100 to 6,000,000,000 years... 1/60,000,000 of unrecorded history... statistically there have been possibly 60 million Category 5 hurricanes this early...
no biggie.
Of course the climate is changing. That’s what the climate does. Once where a friend of mine in Virginia lives, there were glaciers a kilometer high.
What’s going on right now is some warming because the Sun is at a solar maximum. Happens every 23 years.
In about eleven years the Sun will be at a “Mauder minimum.” That leads to things like a year without a summer.
This is all well known. They key is the alignment of the Sun with the Earth and Jupiter. And a few other things.
Us little tiny things (humans) have absolutely no impact on these cycles.
But hey, the solution is more taxes, more government regulation, more money to these con artists, less freedom for us, etc. That will affect the behavior of the Sun!
And oh yeah, it’s all Trump’s fault! /need I?
It’s on his bank statement.
I swear BBC pays bonuses per word for any article pushing climate hysteria
About time for me to post this again:
For those curious:
CO2 only absorbs infrared light aka heat in two very narrow bands of wavelengths (think “colors” of heat). In those narrow bands, CO2 is almost completely opaque.
Even at only 0.04% of our atmosphere, CO2 absorbs almost all infrared light in those bands within a few tens of meters. Hence, if you increased CO2 by even 10 times, the total amount of infrared light (again, heat) absorbed by the atmosphere would NOT CHANGE.
Think about it like this: You have 10,000 sheets of very thin semi-opaque paper. Each sheet abosbs 0.04% of light passing through it. That means those 10,000 sheets will aborb almost all of the light passing through them.
Note: the math is a little complicated. First sheet aborbs 0.04% of the light leaving 99.96% left. Next sheet abosorbs 0.04% of the remaining 99.96% leaving about 99.92%. Next sheet aborbs about 99.96% of that, leaving 99.88% left. After about 10,000 sheets, only about 1.83% of the light is left. Basically all of it has been absorbed (and likely converted into heat).
Consider those sheets to be about 1 meter thick (that is a gross overestimation — it’s probably more like 10 cm thick, but erring on the side of a conservative estimate). That means your 10,000 sheets are a combined 10km thick. The atmosphere is about 10,000km thick. Hence all infared light is abosbed in the first 1/1,000th of the atmosphere.
How much more light is absobed if you increase the opaqueness of those sheets? Answer: NONE.
Outside of those narrow bands, CO2 is almost completely transparent. So again, if you increased CO2 by even 10 times, the amount of infrared light (again, heat) would NOT CHANGE.
Now the climate “scientists” try to handwave and “computer model” their way around these basic physics facts. After all, computer models are always right (/sarc). But that’s how the REAL physics works.
Short version: manmade aka CO2 caused climate change is not just a hoax, it is not even a very good hoax for those who know the physics. Unfortunately, the level of basic physics education in this nation is basically nil with the exception of real engineers, physicists, and scientists.
Furthermore, why does CO2 only make up 0.04% of our atmosphere? The answer is simple: CO2 is PLANT FOOD. More CO2 simply means more plants and thus more O2 (oxygen). The plants including trees, grass, and mostly plankton simply gobble it all up. “Carbon based life forms” anyone in the class?
Note: The above is copyrighted by operation of law (not up to me — it just happens). I HEREBY GRANT FULL ROYALY FREE WORLDWIDE RIGHTS TO ANYONE AND/OR EVERYONE TO COPY, SHARE, AND/OR OTHERWISE USE ANY, ALL, AND/OR PART OF MY COMMENT as long as my words are not turned against their clear intent to educate.
Fun fact: Our country was founding during the worst time of the Little Ice Age. Imagine if today's left could travel back in time and try to tell our founding fathers that global warming is bad. LOL
They said the same thing after Katrina - then we didn’t have a Cat 3 or higher make mainland in the US for almost 10 years!
Good luck quantifying this effect.
If you want to be a climate “expert” study witchcraft and learn how to make up stuff.
I am not so open-minded to consider that as a possibility.
We do not have the technology or the knowledge of how to do such things.
The experimental programs to acquire such technology and knowledge would likely result in catastrophic errors. We would be best off to try them on some other planet first.
We don’t know this at all “going back 100 years” - the first weather satellite was launched in 1960. Prior to that, the storm would had to have been encountered by a ship or land mass that had the right instruments present to measure the storm’s strength...and even that would not tell us what the strength of the storm was through its entire life cycle - only at the time it was encountered.
So what happened before the last 100 years? Were there any hurricanes?
A warming world absolutely means that the temp gap between the North and equator is smaller. This provides less energy for storms.
It is acooling world that has more severe weather.
Oh, BS.
Can you imagine if that storm happened in today's world, with this climate change hoax being perpetrated?
No. There were no hurricanes, tornadoes or blizzards before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
If the catastrophic 1927 Mississippi river flood were to happen today, the climate goons would go into full psycho mode, with governments declaring martial law and the UN assuming dictatorial powers.
the winds reported were not experienced on the ground in jamaica or the yucatan.
rains and flooding aside, the 145mph+ winds they were reporting was at ALTITUDE. thousands of feet up... never to be experienced by anyone on the ground.
but they’re able to get people panic’d and claim global warming is at fault.
it’s bs.
This has been a sixty year old long con.
Almost too long. Nobody believes them anymore, so why do they keep lying to us?
It is only for the past sixty or so years accurate readings of storm activity have been available. Cat 5s could have happened multiple times over the past 500 years but are unrecorded. So the climate crazies can just make up stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.