Hurricane Seasons, Erosion, Rising Seas, Sinking Land Mass

[SlickRick]

https://x.com/jasonjamesbnn/status/1...306529634?s=19

[CajunRebel]

https://x.com/jasonjamesbnn/status/1...306529634?s=19

Why would anyone think this is a good argument?

[moorecajun]

https://x.com/jasonjamesbnn/status/1...306529634?s=19

Numbers. When you look at it that way, what's the issue?

Nice post, Slick!

[billbeck451]

how many of the storms that they name now would not have been named before, they were discussed and the experts would say their is a disTurbinece and it wouldn't really form or they said this is going out to sea and it wouldn't get named, so while we all enjoyed the break we mostly had in the 70's and 80's where we were in a very quiet cycle we really aren't seeing a more storms than before just more are getting named. How many of the "storms" last year wouldn't have been named in past years. Part of the problem now is disaster or weather porn where every thunderstorm gets hyped. Just look at this week if you looked at social media you would have thought that a strong storm was heading to the gulf just because a wave was being shown on one projection model.
I follow https://Hurricanetrack.com as the guide that I use because Mark Sudduth is level headed and still analyzes data and doesn't hype just for clicks.

[ZoomZoom]

Numbers. When you look at it that way, what's the issue?

Nice post, Slick!

ALWAYS follow the money. Does not matter the cause, NGO, government, church, business, whatever. ALWAYS follow the money.

Such as the obvious push to name any swirl of clouds, especially close to the US. Named weather system, hurricane deductible kicks in. Monetary move, framed with “climate change”.


Points of reference, the deadliest. Interesting point, Katrina not on list. Won’t touch that political hot potato.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadlyapp1.shtml?

With today’s generation’s attention span of a gnat, all history seems to be forgotten. But Solomon was right, nothing new.

[Big Tyme]

how many of the storms that they name now would not have been named before, they were discussed and the experts would say their is a disTurbinece and it wouldn't really form or they said this is going out to sea and it wouldn't get named, so while we all enjoyed the break we mostly had in the 70's and 80's where we were in a very quiet cycle we really aren't seeing a more storms than before just more are getting named. How many of the "storms" last year wouldn't have been named in past years. Part of the problem now is disaster or weather porn where every thunderstorm gets hyped. Just look at this week if you looked at social media you would have thought that a strong storm was heading to the gulf just because a wave was being shown on one projection model.
I follow https://Hurricanetrack.com as the guide that I use because Mark Sudduth is level headed and still analyzes data and doesn't hype just for clicks.

Maybe the issue is where some of you are getting your info. Not one forecaster said anything about a storm from that one model run. The drama y'all complain about is coming from inside your house.

[Big Tyme]

https://x.com/jasonjamesbnn/status/1...306529634?s=19

LOL. That is NOT a good take. Concentration is not an indicator of effect. 1/48000 of a teaspoon of botulism toxin is lethal.

[ZoomZoom]

LOL. That is NOT a good take. Concentration is not an indicator of effect. 1/48000 of a teaspoon of botulism toxin is lethal.

Or even lesser, fentanyl. ��

[SlickRick]

LOL. That is NOT a good take. Concentration is not an indicator of effect. 1/48000 of a teaspoon of botulism toxin is lethal.

...and reducing carbon in the atmosphere will not benefit plant life, will it? Have they, ie. climate alarmist, told the plants that they need to get off CO2 yet?

[Big Tyme]

...and reducing carbon in the atmosphere will not benefit plant life, will it? Have they, ie. climate alarmist, told the plants that they need to get off CO2 yet?

"Won't someone think of the plants?" was not on my Bingo card today.