McEachin parrots the party line on climate

There is no connection between CO2 and extreme weather.

On the contrary, storm chasers are having to find other work as there were no destructive tornadoes in the US last year.

10 thoughts on “McEachin parrots the party line on climate

  1. McEachin: “the health burden on African Americans is 54 percent higher than the health burden on the American population overall.”

    In case anyone needed evidence of unseriousness, that would be it.


  2. It takes about 30 seconds on Google to find that there has been no increase in severe weather, yet he led with increases in storms. It’s hard to be more unserious than that.


  3. No increase in extreme weather? It takes no more than 30 seconds to pull your head of your ass and take note of the recent severe weather occasioned by the shifting polar vortex.

    As for Google, you can obviously find whatever you want. For example …

    There is nothing more unserious than the kind of cherry picking that you exhibit on this subject all the time.

    And, by the way, there IS a clear connection between increasing CO2 and more extreme weather. Only the strength of that connection is subject to debate and study.


    1. I cannot verify original sourcing on any of the graphs in the Pop-Sci article.

      However, the article clearly misrepresents reality. Certainly we are having more billion dollar storms, how many beach houses are on the shoreline now compared to 1930? We are providing more targets.


      1. Physics 101 tell you that the greater the heat in a system the more agitated it becomes. And yet you are continuing to pretend that nothing is happening? If a source makes claims that flies in the face of basic physics, why do you offer it?


        1. Probably no one but us still reading this but weather is a lot more complicated than physics 101.

          Weather is not driven by absolute heat energy in the system, but by differentials in heat distribution.

          If the atmosphere was the same temperature everywhere, no matter what that temperature was, there would be no weather. We have weather because it is warmer in the tropics than near the poles. and because of the difference in the rates of cooling over water and over land between day and night.

          So, what happens in global warming? The average temperature rises, but it does not rise the same everywhere or at all times. Per the IPCC, warming will be greater near the poles than at the equator, winters will warm more than summers, and in the night more than in the day.

          All of those reduce the gradients that drive weather.

          A significantly warmer world would be a more stable world with fewer and weaker storms and less prolonged droughts or rains.

          But to make a significant difference it would have to change more than it will anyway.

          If you wanted really severe weather, think of the Little Ice Age. There wasn’t as much property around to destroy but the weather was a lot more violent.


          1. The much hotter temperatures at the poles that you claim will moderate extreme weather is itself extreme weather. You cannot ignore the basic physics. A pot of boiling water is not the same as a pot of ice water.


          2. Your misunderstanding of both weather and climate is profound.

            Boiling water is in a change of state.It roils because gaseous water is lighter than liquid water.

            But uniformly 211 degree water doesn’t move. Throw an ice cube in it and the melting ice cube water will sink and displace hot water. That movement would be like weather.

            There has to be a differential, at least below the boiling point, or there is no weather. The less differential, the milder the weather.

            Or do you just not want to understand?


          3. Again you try to use your personal definitions to prove nonsense. In the case the word you mutilate is “weather.” And since you are arguing a nonsense position your assumed superiority is particularly laughable.


          4. Interesting.

            What do you think weather is other than the movement of the atmosphere in response to temperature differentials mitigated by the adaibatic lapse rate and the Coriolis effect?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s