YES- the most most powerful hurricane ever recorded !

The comment concerned ' supply and demand '- not taxes. The forum idiot has reading issues- and GBA plunges in.
 
moon2012 said:
Yes- Irma is the most powerful hurricane ever recorded- and headed your way.

This follows the greatest deluge ever recorded in North America and the fiercest wildfires ever recorded elsewhere.

But don't worry, folks- maggot and the forum's other ' climate realists ' have got it all in hand.
( What have they got in hand you might well ask )
So- move on, nothing to see here, go to your homes. The polluters can't make a profit with you lot blocking the streets waving ' Save our planet ' banners.
Click to expand...


The funny thing about this absurd hand waving rant is that it is actually anti-science.

Anthropogenic Global Warming, as theorized, would lead to fewer and weaker hurricanes precisely because of the types of warming that are caused by anthropogenic CO2.

Anthropogenic warming happens in the middle troposphere where CO2 tends to linger above the terrestrial weather patterns. Hurricane strength is correlated with the differential between sea level and middle troposphere air mass, as the greater the difference the power powerful the updrafts and corresponding downdrafts. This differential determines the power of all storm systems. It's that updraft that allows large hail to form, for example. Softball size hail needs air to rise at speeds in excess of 100mph... in simple terms, the size of the hail possible by an updraft if directly correlated to the terminal velocity of the size of the hail in question. A grapefruit sized piece of hail falls at 100mph, and will stay aloft if the updraft if over 100mph.

Anyway, if the middle and upper troposphere were warming as predicted then that would lead to weaker and less frequent hurricanes, not stronger and more frequent, because the upper troposphere would be warmer than usual with a lower temperature gradient.

The problem for the Al Gore CAGW crowd though is that they couldn't sell "Less frequent and weaker storms" as a catastrophic event so they chose to simply lie to the weak, supplicant masses ... like you, for instance, and convince you that not only is long standing weather science wrong, but that on these rare occasions weather is actually climate....

So A+ on your stoogery, I guess?
 
moon2012 said:
The comment concerned ' supply and demand '- not taxes. The forum idiot has reading issues- and GBA plunges in.
Click to expand...

The comment advocated artificially raising the price of commodities by imposing "carbon taxes", which are supposed to reduce demand by making things consumers want too expensive to buy, and reduce demand by forcing producers to scale back production.

And Moon the Goon stepped in it. :rofl2:
 
jmotivator said:
The funny thing about this absurd hand waving rant is that it is actually anti-science.

Anthropogenic Global Warming, as theorized, would lead to fewer and weaker hurricanes precisely because of the types of warming that are caused by anthropogenic CO2.

Anthropogenic warming happens in the middle troposphere where CO2 tends to linger above the terrestrial weather patterns. Hurricane strength is correlated with the differential between sea level and middle troposphere air mass, as the greater the difference the power powerful the updrafts and corresponding downdrafts. This differential determines the power of all storm systems. It's that updraft that allows large hail to form, for example. Softball size hail needs air to rise at speeds in excess of 100mph... in simple terms, the size of the hail possible by an updraft if directly correlated to the terminal velocity of the size of the hail in question. A grapefruit sized piece of hail falls at 100mph, and will stay aloft if the updraft if over 100mph.

Anyway, if the middle and upper troposphere were warming as predicted then that would lead to weaker and less frequent hurricanes, not stronger and more frequent, because the upper troposphere would be warmer than usual with a lower temperature gradient.

The problem for the Al Gore CAGW crowd though is that they couldn't sell "Less frequent and weaker storms" as a catastrophic event so they chose to simply lie to the weak, supplicant masses ... like you, for instance, and convince you that not only is long standing weather science wrong, but that on these rare occasions weather is actually climate....

So A+ on your stoogery, I guess?
Click to expand...


Alarmists claiming we have larger and more frequent storms due to man's evil presence on the planet when we only have accurate data for a few decades is hilarious.

They are also conflating weather with climate.
 
God bless America said:
yRPTxGD.jpg


Now that's scary!


:rofl2:
Click to expand...

Childish
 
God bless America said:
The comment advocated artificially raising the price of commodities by imposing "carbon taxes", which are supposed to reduce demand by making things consumers want too expensive to buy, and reduce demand by forcing producers to scale back production.

And Moon the Goon stepped in it. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

That's right- and no direct taxation on the poor is involved. Maybe ' God help America ' might be a better handle for you, lemming.
 
moon2012 said:
The comment concerned ' supply and demand '- not taxes. The forum idiot has reading issues- and GBA plunges in.
Click to expand...

Micawber said:
Sure, if supply and demand works, a tax on products that create emissions with increase price and therefore decrease demand, thus reducing output of greenhouse gasses, thereby ameliorating the increase in global ocean temperatures thereby reducing the frequency and severity of storms. Schools out, moron.
Click to expand...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Moondoggie fails again. :palm:
 
God bless America said:
Alarmists claiming we have larger and more frequent storms due to man's evil presence on the planet when we only have accurate data for a few decades is hilarious.

They are also conflating weather with climate.
Click to expand...

No, it's not hilarious. Man's uninformed and ignorant past behavior and behavior going forward thanks to science deniers is causing that. You wouldn't know what conflate meant if some conservative crank with a little more intelligence than you hadn't overheard an educated liberal use the term, duncecap. Talk about trickle down.
 
Micawber said:
No, it's not hilarious. Man's uninformed and ignorant past behavior and behavior going forward thanks to science deniers is causing that. You wouldn't know what conflate meant if some conservative crank with a little more intelligence than you hadn't overheard an educated liberal use the term, duncecap. Talk about trickle down.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you've personally adopted a carbon-neutral lifestyle and voluntarily surrendered more of your income to government, will you?

:rofl2:
 
God bless America said:
The comment advocated artificially raising the price of commodities by imposing "carbon taxes", which are supposed to reduce demand by making things consumers want too expensive to buy, and reduce demand by forcing producers to scale back production.

:
Click to expand...

Glad you understand. Same principle as sin taxes on cigarettes. They work. All the better that the money be used for education, R&D and other benevolent uses.

You are off the reservation anyway, strolling the wilderness. It's already baked in, idiot. It's a get on board or get out of the way proposition at this point. Even big oil (forgiven for using litigation averse Orwellian newspeak) admits to this issue.

Every oil company has a web presence devoted to proving what they do to confront the climate change caused by their own products.

When your generals have surrendered, it may be time to stop your fighting, grunt.
 
God bless America said:
Wait, are you trying to say that carbon taxes are income-neutral? :rofl2:
Click to expand...

What I've succeeded in saying is that carbon-related taxes on the pollution industry are not direct taxes on the poor- as the forum idiot implied before you followed him down the U-bend.

Incidentally- are you ' blessing ' South America with your primitive moniker ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top