If you read the “official” human caused global warming academic theories (I have), increased CO2 is supposed to raise temperatures (the greenhouse effect). However, the warming is not symmetrical, that is, the equator won’t get much warmer, but the poles will (dooming the polar bears, supposedly). It is the temperature difference between cold and warm air (and water) regions that lead to storms, and the greater the difference in temperatures, the more intense the storm will be. My point is that if the poles became relatively warmer, compared to the equator, then storms in general should get less severe, not more.
So, people who point to severe storms as “proof” of the global warming theory do not understand the theory they are supposedly defending.
You win the “Best Post in This Thread” Award for sure. Nice post and worth repeating for those who failed to read it the first time around.
****
If you read the “official” human caused global warming academic theories (I have), increased CO2 is supposed to raise temperatures (the greenhouse effect). However, the warming is not symmetrical, that is, the equator won’t get much warmer, but the poles will (dooming the polar bears, supposedly). It is the temperature difference between cold and warm air (and water) regions that lead to storms, and the greater the difference in temperatures, the more intense the storm will be. My point is that if the poles became relatively warmer, compared to the equator, then storms in general should get less severe, not more.
So, people who point to severe storms as “proof” of the global warming theory do not understand the theory they are supposedly defending.