Big Bass

If it was global “warming” as you erroneously insist on calling it, hurricanes would often be found out of season in these parts.

American Vet

Are you saying that 60% of the illegal aliens coming to this country fly into airports in blue states like California and New York?

straightUp Loc: California

Yes, I believe global warming is the primary reason for the severity of Hurricane Ian and the fact that it dwindled to a tropical storm until it hit the Atlantic then turned back into a hurricane again. When was the last time THAT happened?

To me it's basic science. Fact#1 ocean temperatures are warmer now than they have been since humans starting recording. Fact#2 hurricanes are powered by warmer water. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Yes, we've had hurricanes before, but the number of destructive hurricane per year IS increasing.


Yes, I was.

1. No, Democrats are not wishing for devastation.
2. Yes, Florida did get a taste of climate change that they refuse to do anything about.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, that's probably an outdated statistic... It was a fact when I did some research a few years back... Here's a chart that might help you understand the picture better.



As you can see, most of the illegal immigrants are overstayers... If I use the most recent figures in this study, the percentage is actually 68%.

And yes, most of these overstayers arrived in blue states like California and Washington (where most of the Asians come in from across the Pacific) and blue states like New York and Massachusetts, where most of the Europeans and Africans come from across the Atlantic.

I didn't even mention the fact that historically, New York has been dealing with immigrants long before Florida and Texas even existed.

BIRDMAN

American Vet

Yes, I believe global warming is the primary reason for the severity of Hurricane Ian and the fact that it dwindled to a tropical storm until it hit the Atlantic then turned back into a hurricane again. When was the last time THAT happened?

Not sure of the significance of that - might be a rare event. But it has happened in the past
Hurricane Keith 2000
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/keith_2000_map.gif



To me it's basic science. Fact#1 ocean temperatures are warmer now than they have been since humans starting recording. Fact#2 hurricanes are powered by warmer water. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Yes, we've had hurricanes before, but the number of destructive hurricane per year IS increasing.

Using 'destructive' as a measure of a hurricane seems to be misleading. How 'destructive' a hurricane is depends on when and where it hits. Obviously modern hurricanes would be categorized as 'more destructive' simply because there are more people and certainly the value of the destruction has risen. For example: The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is estimated to have killed 8,000 (widely brought on by storm surges exceeding 12 feet along the coastline). If that same hurricane were to hit Galveston today - what might the death toll be? And the damage to property?

But a new statistical analysis of historical records and satellite data suggests that there aren’t actually more Atlantic hurricanes now than there were roughly 150 years ago, researchers report July 13 in Nature Communications.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/hurricanes-frequency-danger-climate-change-atlantic

Hurricanes that reach U.S. land are happening about as often as they did 100 years ago. Jeff Masters, meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections, said it is true that the number of U.S. mainland landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has not changed appreciably in the past 100 years. There was one year about a century ago, in 1916, when nine tropical storms or hurricanes hit the mainland U.S. With Hurricane Delta, 10 have hit the U.S. this year.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/14/fact-check-are-there-as-many-hurricanes-today-compared-to-100-years-ago/42752943/

straightUp Loc: California

That depends on how far along we are in the process. 'Ever watch a pot of water boil? It doesn't just switch from cold water to a rolling boil in an instant. It takes a while and you can see small bubbles forming a long the edges, before they start to rise quietly to the surface and that's before the water starts to roll.

Right wing rhetoric often depends on logical fallacy and your statement is a perfect example of a fallacy called the "false dilemma" where the assertion of A is presented as proof that E is true by ignoring B,C and D, thereby creating a false dilemma.

If you don't want the water to boil, it would make sense to take the pot off the fire before it does, but you and your false dilemma are looking at the tiny bubbles and saying well, it's not a rolling boil, so we don't have to worry.

Big Bass

Did you just discover that water does not go from cold to boiling in an instant? Those small bubbles you mention are the dissolved gases coming out of solution.
Did you know that smaller hurricanes and tropical storms cool down the seas to prevent large, more powerful storms? We went through a couple of months without, so the temperatures of the sea surface were higher, therefore much more powerful storms. This accounts for Hurricane Camilla, (Jamaica, 1955?) Nevertheless, a long time ago. Global warming? Hardly.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

My goodness……every time I think you can’t get any more ridiculous and ignorant you surprise me with a comment like this one……..”think of anything good in our nation, then thank the Dems for creating it”

Let’s see…..there is that GOOD Ku Klux Klan organization! Check!! 👍

We mustn’t forget Margaret Sanger for creating Planned Parenthood and her belief that “black” people were less than acceptable humans and should be kept thinned out by aborting their babies……MORE good things from Democrats! Check! Check! 👍👍

And then there is President Johnson’s hateful racist quote…………“These Niggers they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” Everything he did was for votes and appearance, never for the good of black Americans!

And Nancy Pelosi’s latest elitist remark that she claimed Florida farmers told her not to bus the migrants to other states……they want them to stay and pick their crops! Apparently she doesn’t understand that that is seasonal work! And of course, that’s all they are capable of doing….pick vegetables and fruits! What an insulting ignorant snob! I do believe that I see a “likeness” of superiority between Sanger, Johnson, Pelosi, and the KKK! 👿

The attitude and actions of the liberals and the Democrate Party are losing the support of many of the minorities. They are realizing that Biden’s policies are harmful to them, just like they are for all Americans!

I could go on, but this is enough to make my point! You have lost your integrity, your ability to have an actual truthful intelligent conversation! Your hate and your attempt to prove that Republicans/Trump/MAGA should be destroyed has consumed you! I’m not sure if you even know the difference between what is true and what are lies.


https://www.history.com/topics/reconstruction/ku-klux-klan

Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for Black Americans. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.

After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, African Americans and organized labor. The civil rights movement of the 1960s also saw a surge of Ku Klux Klan activity, including bombings of Black schools and churches and violence against Black and white activists in the South.

Founding of the Ku Klux Klan

A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. The first two words of the organization’s name supposedly derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle. In the summer of 1867, local branches of the Klan met in a general organizing convention and established what they called an “Invisible Empire of the South.” Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or “grand wizard,” of the Klan; he presided over a hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans and grand cyclopses.

Ku Klux Klan Violence in the South

From 1867 onward, Black participation in public life in the South became one of the most radical aspects of Reconstruction, as Black people won election to southern state governments and even to the U.S. Congress. For its part, the Ku Klux Klan dedicated itself to an underground campaign of violence against Republican leaders and voters (both Black and white) in an effort to reverse the policies of Radical Reconstruction and restore white supremacy in the South. They were joined in this struggle by similar organizations such as the Knights of the White Camelia (launched in Louisiana in 1867) and the White Brotherhood.

The Ku Klux Klan and the End of Reconstruction

Though Democratic leaders would later attribute Ku Klux Klan violence to poorer southern white people, the organization’s membership crossed class lines, from small farmers and laborers to planters, lawyers, merchants, physicians and ministers. In the regions where most Klan activity took place, local law enforcement officials either belonged to the Klan or declined to take action against it, and even those who arrested accused Klansmen found it difficult to find witnesses willing to testify against them.


Other leading white citizens in the South declined to speak out against the group’s actions, giving them tacit approval. After 1870, Republican state governments in the South turned to Congress for help, resulting in the passage of three Enforcement Acts, the strongest of which was the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

For the first time, the Ku Klux Klan Act designated certain crimes committed by individuals as federal offenses, including conspiracies to deprive citizens of the right to hold office, serve on juries and enjoy the equal protection of the law. The act authorized the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and arrest accused individuals without charge, and to send federal forces to suppress Klan violence.

This expansion of federal authority–which Ulysses S. Grant promptly used in 1871 to crush Klan activity in South Carolina and other areas of the South–outraged Democrats and even alarmed many Republicans. From the early 1870s onward, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South as support for Reconstruction waned; by the end of 1876, the entire South was under Democratic control once again.

straightUp Loc: California

Glad to see you doing some research and thank you for answering my question. But have another look at the path as illustrated in the article... Notice how Hurricane Keith gained momentum while over the Gulf, then it rolled over the Yucatan peninsula, lost steam, then hit the Gulf again where it picked up momentum.

We already know the Gulf is warmer than the Atlantic, it's been that way for as long as we know. What makes Ian different is that it picked up steam over the Atlantic.


That's a good point, so let me rephrase... the number of storms that being classified in the top categories are increasing.


You DO realize that I actually read what you link to, right? The headline on the article you just referenced is...
"Hurricanes may not be becoming more frequent, but they’re still more dangerous"

The headline says, hurricane MAY not be getting more frequent because they don't REALLY know for sure - and they actually explain in the article... here's the excerpt...

Satellites, for example, can see every storm, but earlier observations will count only the storms that people directly experienced. So the researchers took a probabilistic approach to fill in likely gaps in the older record, assuming, for example, that modern storm tracks are representative of pre-satellite storm tracks to account for storms that would have stayed out at sea and unseen.

What's going on here (and you know this if you read the article) is that modern observation systems like satellite images have only been used in the last 30 years and that prior to that the ONLY hurricanes reported were the one that people actually experienced which excludes those that rise and fall at sea. So, to go back 150 years, the researchers guessed at the number of hurricanes that there MIGHT have been in addition to those that people experienced.

What's more is the fact that they based these guesses on tracking data coming from the last 30 years, as if the conditions were the same 150 years ago as they are now.

At least the authors were honest enough to indicate that hurricane MAY not be getting more frequent, but you seem to be hanging your hat on it, like it's a proven fact.

The second part of this study that seem to fly in the face of your argument is the admission that the data made available from the last 30-years is indicating that that hurricanes ARE in fact getting more intense and they go so far as to suggest global warming is a factor. Again, here's an excerpt...

Satellite records over the last 30 years allow us to say “with little ambiguity how many hurricanes, and how many major hurricanes [Category 3 and above] there were each year,” Vecchi says. Those data clearly show that the number, intensity and speed of intensification of hurricanes has increased over that time span.

So the article you reference to support your argument is really doing more to debunk your argument.


Interesting that you would wrap up with this article, which is basically a fact-check on what Pence said about the number of hurricanes being the same now as 100 years ago and the article is calling it "half-true".

Yes, a climatologist at Yale said the number of U.S. mainland landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has not changed appreciably in the past 100 years, but notice he had to specify "U.S. mainland landfalling Atlantic" hurricane. That would exclude all the hurricanes in the Pacific, the hurricanes that never hit the U.S. (such as Hurricane Keith, which you mentioned earlier) and all the Atlantic hurricanes that stay at sea that people didn't count until 30 years ago.

The bigger point made by this article is that it's not the number of storms that concerns the climatologists... but the severity of the storms which they say are increasing.

So, once again, the right leans on smoke and mirrors to project the false image of reality where global warming not a problem. If the scientists are focusing on the increased intensity of the storms, the Republicans are trying to disqualify that by saying the number of storms hasn't changed. (As if that actually makes sense).

Big Kahuna

Come on StraightenUp you know it wss not a valid point as most of your posts are invalid to begin with.

Big Kahuna

The hot air that you are spewing created the hurricane and global warming. If Slo joe would tax all the hot air being expelled from demorats mouths, the hot air would be reduced by at least 10° and would eliminate climate change.

straightUp Loc: California

Because there is no disagreement about what a "home" is. When we see people on the news that just lost their home it's a clear human crisis over which and I think all Americans are in agreement. None of us want to see people going through it.

But when you say "the country" you are referring to a specific idea about what YOU want the country to be and if YOUR idea of "the country" is one in which people of all colors and creeds are not treated equally, and corporations are allowed to exploit the people and our natural resources for private capital, then as far as I am concerned, it's a country well-worth destroying. ;)

bggamers Loc: georgia

Prayers and wishes are all some can afford

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I could see that in how those mayors "welcomed" those migrants at the press conferences. LOLOL!!!!!!!! And the places who claimed to be welcoming of them, sent them away to other places. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who are you trying to kid???? As for what you are not seeing on Twitter, I think you must not be looking.