Carbon dioxide contributes practically nothing to the greenhouse effect during hurricane season in the tropics and subtropics. An increase from 270 ppm to 430 ppm represents an insignificant increase in total greenhouse gas molecules in that atmosphere in this region of our planet.
To illustrate this assertion, consider a sample of 10,000 molecules of air near the surface of the ocean in the tropics at a temperature of 30 C (89.6 F) and 95 percent relative humidity. In that sample there would be a total of about 274 IR absorbing molecules of which 270 would be water vapor and 4 would be carbon dioxide. Ignoring the absorption spectra which favors water molecules as the primary IR absorbing molecule, in this environment, what difference would it make if there were 3 or 4 molecules of carbon dioxide? In fact, increasing the relative humidity from 95 percent to 96 percent would have the same effect as increasing the carbon dioxide from 270 ppm to 430 ppm.
It's just silly to think that an increase in carbon dioxide from some hypothetical preindustrial levels to what we find now could possibly contribute to changes in hurricane frequency or intensity.
'Proportionality', 'perspective', 'context' are always absent when these nonsensical claims are made about climate (or something named 'Covid-19'). They hope to blind the 'plebs' ( actually the intelligent population) with lurid scenarios, focusing on the 'outliers' ( hurricanes etc). According to a new study out there is a lack of statistical evidence for a surge in warming, ergo, climate volatility will not be in evidence....hence the concentration on outliers to prove the faux agenda....although the same report sits on the fence by saying a 'surge' might be happening but not yet detected! Their bread is always buttered both sides...win, win.
There is a further problem with the data prior to about 1960 and that is that the strength of landfalling hurricanes is likely underestimated due to the lower number of weather stations to measure wind speed. Before the satellite era, we have no idea how many hurricanes there were because ships would want to avoid storms. It's only landfalling hurricanes where the data is somewhat reliable.
When everything is a crisis nothing is a crisis.
Another great article Matt !!
Thanks again for another excellent post.
Carbon dioxide contributes practically nothing to the greenhouse effect during hurricane season in the tropics and subtropics. An increase from 270 ppm to 430 ppm represents an insignificant increase in total greenhouse gas molecules in that atmosphere in this region of our planet.
To illustrate this assertion, consider a sample of 10,000 molecules of air near the surface of the ocean in the tropics at a temperature of 30 C (89.6 F) and 95 percent relative humidity. In that sample there would be a total of about 274 IR absorbing molecules of which 270 would be water vapor and 4 would be carbon dioxide. Ignoring the absorption spectra which favors water molecules as the primary IR absorbing molecule, in this environment, what difference would it make if there were 3 or 4 molecules of carbon dioxide? In fact, increasing the relative humidity from 95 percent to 96 percent would have the same effect as increasing the carbon dioxide from 270 ppm to 430 ppm.
It's just silly to think that an increase in carbon dioxide from some hypothetical preindustrial levels to what we find now could possibly contribute to changes in hurricane frequency or intensity.
'Proportionality', 'perspective', 'context' are always absent when these nonsensical claims are made about climate (or something named 'Covid-19'). They hope to blind the 'plebs' ( actually the intelligent population) with lurid scenarios, focusing on the 'outliers' ( hurricanes etc). According to a new study out there is a lack of statistical evidence for a surge in warming, ergo, climate volatility will not be in evidence....hence the concentration on outliers to prove the faux agenda....although the same report sits on the fence by saying a 'surge' might be happening but not yet detected! Their bread is always buttered both sides...win, win.
Another terrific analysis, Matthew. You really are doing wonderful work. Please keep doing it!
There is a further problem with the data prior to about 1960 and that is that the strength of landfalling hurricanes is likely underestimated due to the lower number of weather stations to measure wind speed. Before the satellite era, we have no idea how many hurricanes there were because ships would want to avoid storms. It's only landfalling hurricanes where the data is somewhat reliable.
A very good distillation of science fact Thank you.