Into the Night
Verified User
There is no theory of science about a hurricane.
NOAA says there is no statistically increased trend in hurricanes since 1851
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
There is no theory of science about a hurricane.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no science of Global Warming. The Church of Global Warming routinely dismisses and discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Into the Night
Verified User
There is no science of hurricanes.
The data is from the National Hurricane Center, which is collected by NOAA.
Into the Night
Verified User
You discard the laws of thermodynamics.
Into the Night
Verified User
Unfortunately it appears to be you who isn't paying attention. Listen to ANY meteorologist or hurricane expert and they'll note the importance of warm water to increase hurricane strength.
Nope. Warm water does not cause hurricanes.
Unstable air does. That means it's colder aloft.
Into the Night
Verified User
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Discard of convective heat.
https://nhmu.utah.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/All About Hurricanes.pdf
It must be comforting in a way to be sure of your opinions while not having to bother about knowing things.
Into the Night
Verified User
Okay. Please state the theory of science concerning a hurricane in particular, and nothing else.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And yet:
Hurricanes draw their strength from warm ocean waters. So as the ocean continues to absorb heat, should we expect to see more intense hurricanes, tropical storms and typhoons?
Probably, according to recent research led by NOAA scientists. The research, which analyzed findings from over 90 peer-reviewed studies, found that warming of the surface ocean from human-caused climate change is likely fueling more powerful tropical cyclones. And as sea levels rise, the destructive power of tropical cyclones is amplified, as higher sea levels can result in more intense flooding. NOAA scientists have also concluded that climate change has been influencing the pattern of where tropical cyclones have been increasing or decreasing in occurrence. Researchers are still working to understand the link between climate and hurricanes - check out this page for the most up-to-date science.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/A...-answering-big-questions-about-climate-change
Once again, you're corporate/right wing myopia only sees what you want to see. Carry on.
Hurricanes draw their strength from warm ocean waters. So as the ocean continues to absorb heat, should we expect to see more intense hurricanes, tropical storms and typhoons?
Probably, according to recent research led by NOAA scientists. The research, which analyzed findings from over 90 peer-reviewed studies, found that warming of the surface ocean from human-caused climate change is likely fueling more powerful tropical cyclones. And as sea levels rise, the destructive power of tropical cyclones is amplified, as higher sea levels can result in more intense flooding. NOAA scientists have also concluded that climate change has been influencing the pattern of where tropical cyclones have been increasing or decreasing in occurrence. Researchers are still working to understand the link between climate and hurricanes - check out this page for the most up-to-date science.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/A...-answering-big-questions-about-climate-change
Once again, you're corporate/right wing myopia only sees what you want to see. Carry on.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He's wrong about so many things but his constant bullshit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics needs debunking.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual molecules, it applies to the net flow of energy in the entire system. How could it be otherwise?
When an excited molecule of CO2 releases a photon, it does not somehow “know” which way to send it. It can not aim it towards a cooler body. It is simply released in a random direction. In the case of CO2 in the atmosphere, having absorbed some of the energy radiating towards space from the surface of the earth, this random choice of direction means that, roughly speaking, half of that energy is sent back. An individual molecule is not influenced at all by the temperature of the earth’s surface.
Where the second law does apply is in the net flow of heat, and this happens because a warmer body will send out more energy overall than it is receiving from the cooler one. Lots of energy going back and forth, but on balance more is leaving the warmer body.
Well we do live in a age where smashing others with ones superior narrative is the end all and be all of everything, were truth and reality are pretty much considered to be irrelevant.
This is going to hurt.
Into the Night
Verified User
So state the theory of science about hurricanes that effect nothing else.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, they don't.
Heat is not contained in anything. It can be absorbed.
Probably not. There certainly is no indication of it in National Hurricane Center data.
Unnamed 'scientists' again. Give some names, fella.
Science isn't a 'research' or 'study'. It isn't a government agency either.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Only religions and governments do that.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the ocean.
Climate cannot change. There is no temperature in climate. There is no such thing as a global climate either.
You obviously have no clue how and why a hurricane or cyclone forms.
So you believe the story of Noah? Gotit.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level. However, airbases built on Pacific islands during WW2 just above sea level are still there.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Fear mongering.
Climate cannot change.
So NOAA scientists disagree with NOAA maintained data. Gotit.
There isn't any.
No science here...move along...move along....
Redefinition fallacy (corporation<->conservative).
Sorry dude, the myopia is YOURS. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming makes you believe that random numbers are data, that actual data is void, and discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy...ever.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* Warm water does not cause hurricanes. Cold air aloft does. A hurricane, cyclone, or tornado is convective heating in action. The surface is cooled by this heating.
* You are ignoring National Hurricane Center data.
Into the Night
Verified User
So you are going to deny and discard this law again, eh?
Yes it does.
There is no such thing as 'net flow of energy' or 'net heat'.
RQAA.
Nope. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. Heat only flows in one direction.
There is no such thing as 'net flow of heat'.
Nope. You cannot heat a warmer body with a cooler one.
Nope. You cannot heat a warmer body with a cooler one. Heat never flows backwards. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics yet again, which defines the concept of heat.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
There are many phenomena in the quantum world that you wouldn't be able to wrap your head around, entanglement being one. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance and it's truly hard to understand how two protons separated by a vast distance can interact simultaneously yet they do all the same. If you measure one photon it instantly affects the other—no matter how far you separate them.
This is not supposed to happen. Einstein's theory of relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
And they are inextricably bound together. When you observe the first photon, there are even odds that it will show itself as "either up or down". But if it is up, then its twin is instantly forced down, or vice versa.
I don't deny anything, it's you that is incapable of understanding 20th century science, you're still stuck in the 19th century, sad really.
Last edited:
Sounds Right.