As Florida deals with the aftermath of Hurricane Milton, Governor Ron DeSantis is facing growing pressure from environmental activists and scientists who claim climate change is fueling stronger hurricanes. However, DeSantis has pushed back against these claims, stating during a media briefing in Port St. Lucie that hurricanes are a historical part of Florida's weather pattern, especially during hurricane season. "There is precedent for all this in history," he said. "It is hurricane season. You are going to have tropical weather."

 

Scientists have repeatedly stated that the warming planet, caused by fossil fuel emissions, is directly linked to rising ocean temperatures, which in turn strengthens hurricanes. Jeff Chanton, a professor of environmental science and oceanography at Florida State University, pointed out that the connection between warmer waters and more intense hurricanes is well-documented in scientific literature. "He is assuming that this is all cyclical, whereas many scientists believe there is a trend towards stronger hurricanes and increased intensification,"

 

Chanton remarked, referencing five scientific papers that support his view. Despite DeSantis's statements, Chanton is unsure where the governor is sourcing his historical hurricane data. When asked for further information, the governor’s office did not provide the requested details.

 

Hurricane Milton, which hit Siesta Key as a Category 3 storm, has reignited debates over climate change, particularly as it comes just two weeks after Hurricane Helene struck northern Florida. Environmentalists are seizing the moment to bring climate change to the forefront of political discussions, especially with the upcoming elections. Some are calling for candidates to take more decisive action on the issue.

 

DeSantis, however, has long been skeptical of climate change. Earlier this year, he signed legislation removing climate goals from Florida’s state statutes. He remains firm in his belief that the current storms are part of a natural weather cycle, emphasizing, "There is nothing new under the sun."

 

The debate has even extended to the Florida Senate race between Republican Senator Rick Scott and Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. Scott acknowledged in a recent CNN interview that "the climate is clearly changing," though his past comments suggest skepticism about the left’s approach to climate policy. His spokesperson, Chris Hartline, pointed out that Scott's stance has remained consistent, referencing a 2019 op-ed in which Scott described climate change as “real and requiring real solutions,” but criticized the left for making it "a religion."

 

In the broader political landscape, Vice President Kamala Harris has also criticized former President Donald Trump for spreading misinformation about the recent storms. Trump has blamed the federal response to Hurricane Milton as a failure, despite some members of his own party disputing his claims.

 

Hurricane Milton developed quickly off the coast of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, becoming a Category 5 storm before weakening upon its Florida landfall. DeSantis cited the 1930s Labor Day hurricane, stating it was "head and shoulders above any powerful hurricane we’ve had in the state of Florida." He urged people to consider the historical context of hurricanes rather than view each storm as evidence of climate change.

 

As the governor dismissed claims that the government could control the weather, joking that he would opt for “78 and sunny year round” if he had such power, Chanton offered a different perspective. "As the oceans become warmer, we can expect that hurricanes will respond to distribute that heat," he explained. “And one of their responses is to be stronger.”

The clash between those focused on long-term climate trends and leaders like DeSantis who prioritize historical weather patterns is likely to continue as hurricanes increase in intensity and political divisions over climate change grow sharper.

 

Based on a report from Politico 2024-10-12

 

 

 

That’s part of the problem with trumpers they can never ever admit a mistake or wrong doing they allways double down so be sure to flush twice on Nov 6!!!

These morons will be surrounded by constant fires and floods and rising sea levels and areas of the world becoming unlivable in a not-to-distant apocalyptic hellscape and still be denying climate change.

Edited October 11, 20241 yr by shdmn

I like data, called me old fashioned. 

 

1933 was a bad year - oh wait, nearly a century ago.😇

 

 

Edited October 12, 20241 yr by Gsxrnz

I always get my science from politicians.

God has already sent three hurricanes to Florida this year to punish the people of Florida for their anti-Christian stupidity, how long before the people of Florida wake up, or are they just morons addicted to Satanic Trumpish Republicanism?

DeSantis agenda.

 

Don't say gay.

Don't read books that aten"t pablum.

Don't say history of slavery

Don't say issues about racism.

Don't say climate change.

 

Is anyone else wondering what caused all those peaks and valleys in the millions of years before we had cars?

 

 

Climate change is real.  It's been going on for billions of years.  Decimating the economy, or taking money from me and giving it to someone else isn't going to stop it.  Neither are windmills, solar panels or EVs crammed down our throats.

 

Good on Cap'n Ron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 20241 yr by impulse

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

DeSantis agenda.

 

Don't say gay.

Don't read books that aten"t pablum.

Don't say history of slavery

Don't say issues about racism.

Don't say climate change.

 

A seriously stupid human playing a cynical political game.  Yet climate change is killing around the world.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Is anyone else wondering what caused all those peaks and valleys in the millions of years before we had cars?

 

 

Climate change is real.  It's been going on for billions of years.  Decimating the economy, or taking money from me and giving it to someone else isn't going to stop it.  Neither are windmills, solar panels or EVs crammed down our throats.

 

Good on Cap'n Ron.

 

Some else who doesn't understand the crucial difference between change and rate of change.

I'm truly curious how far climate change folks are willing to go. Stop all nonessential air travel, ban all combustible engines. How far are you willing to take this? Understand these bans need to be worldwide, no more ships transporting goods around the world.

5 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I'm truly curious how far climate change folks are willing to go. Stop all nonessential air travel, ban all combustible engines. How far are you willing to take this? Understand these bans need to be worldwide, no more ships transporting goods around the world.

Someone else who doesn't understand rate of change.

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Some else who doesn't understand the crucial difference between change and rate of change.

 

I understand it just fine.  I just don't agree.  More accurately, I'm not convinced.   Not enough that I'm willing to pay more than I need to eat, stay warm, get around and download stuff.

 

On an aside, I'm with the folks that think the past 100 years may be a recovery from the volcanic winter from Krakatoa.  There are historic precedents.  Not to mention, all that plant food in the atmosphere isn't all bad.

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Someone else who doesn't understand rate of change.

Someone else who has no answers. 

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I understand it just fine.  I just don't agree.  More accurately, I'm not convinced.   Not enough that I'm willing to pay more than I need to eat, stay warm, get around and download stuff.

 

On an aside, I'm with the folks that think the past 100 years may be a recovery from the volcanic winter from Krakatoa.  There are historic precedents.  Not to mention, all that plant food in the atmosphere isn't all bad.

 

What's that got to do with your ridiculous assumption that change is going to be drastically over a few years?

As for the Krakatoa thesis, what lunatic source did that come from?

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Some else who doesn't understand the crucial difference between change and rate of change.

And the fact we have 8.2 billion humans living on the planet now, 40% of which live in coastal regions.

1 minute ago, Stocky said:

And the fact we have 8.2 billion humans living on the planet now, 40% of which live in coastal regions.

And, as Helene showed, it's not just coastal regions threatened by hurricanes. As the atmosphere grows warmer, it can absorb more water leading to widespread and destructive flooding.

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What's that got to do with your ridiculous assumption that change is going to be drastically over a few years?

 

Here's a thought.  Why don't you post a link to where I said that? 

 

And just respond to what I say, and not what you wish I said.

 

 

43 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Understand these bans need to be worldwide, no more ships transporting goods around the world.

Sailing ships did the trick before.

they can do it again.

This is a spectacularly ignorant man howling into the wind like a absolute fool. We are not responsible, I have not contributed to these problems, if they exist at all, and nothing that I do could possibly have an effect on some place as large as the earth or it's vast oceans. And since we have multiple alternative planets it doesn't matter if we foul Earth to the point of no return we can just shift to another planet. 

 

So stop picking on me and stop asking me to take responsibility, because I won't. Plastic is not harmful and I won't make any attempt to cut down on my use of it. Gas vehicles are not harmful and therefore I will make no attempt to drive one that consumes less gas, or to use a bicycle, or even a motorbike. I like gas guzzlers, and my luxuries and private jets, so again I ask leave me alone. Let me wallow in my own ignorance, please. 

Edited October 12, 20241 yr by spidermike007

38 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Sailing ships did the trick before.

they can do it again.

Are you willing to give up air travel for passage on a sailing ship.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Here's a thought.  Why don't you post a link to where I said that? 

 

And just respond to what I say, and not what you wish I said.

 

 

It's obvously implicit in what you wrote.  For instance "ban combustible engines". What authorities have proposed banning combustion engines in the short run? Or "no more ships transporting goods around the world."  Over time, these modes of transportation can be replaced. But to state it baldly without qualifications as you do is just ridiculous.

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And, as Helene showed, it's not just coastal regions threatened by hurricanes. As the atmosphere grows warmer, it can absorb more water leading to widespread and destructive flooding.

You must be very very smart if you have the mental capacity of all the world's supercomputing technology to calculate with no uncertainty that a warmer atmosphere means it can absorb more water leading to widespread and destructive flooding - how about if increased water in the atmosphere means that more of the sun's ray get reflected leading to global cooling or more rainfall leads to more growth in vegetation therefore a massive increase in CO2 absorption leading to global cooling or an infinite number of other possibilities?

 

 

4 minutes ago, HK MacPhooey said:

You must be very very smart if you have the mental capacity of all the world's supercomputing technology to calculate with no uncertainty that a warmer atmosphere means it can absorb more water leading to widespread and destructive flooding - how about if increased water in the atmosphere means that more of the sun's ray get reflected leading to global cooling or more rainfall leads to more growth in vegetation therefore a massive increase in CO2 absorption leading to global cooling or an infinite number of other possibilities?

But other factors count

Elevated levels of CO2 from climate change may enable plants to benefit from the carbon fertilization effect and use less water to grow, but it’s not all good news for plants...

Nitrogen limitations

Researchers that studied hundreds of plant species between 1980 and 2017 found that most unfertilized terrestrial ecosystems are becoming deficient in nutrients, particularly nitrogen. They attributed this decrease in nutrients to global changes, including rising temperatures and CO2 levels.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/01/27/how-climate-change-will-affect-plants/

4 hours ago, impulse said:

Is anyone else wondering what caused all those peaks and valleys in the millions of years before we had cars?

 

 

Climate change is real.  It's been going on for billions of years.  Decimating the economy, or taking money from me and giving it to someone else isn't going to stop it.  Neither are windmills, solar panels or EVs crammed down our throats.

 

Good on Cap'n Ron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one disputes that natural forces have caused climate change in the past. However, the current warming is caused by manmade pollution.

 

If you disagree, please list the changes in natural forces that are causing the current warming. For example, if you stupidly write "the sun", provide evidence of increased solar radiation.

 

Bye!

10 minutes ago, HK MacPhooey said:

You must be very very smart if you have the mental capacity of all the world's supercomputing technology to calculate with no uncertainty that a warmer atmosphere means it can absorb more water leading to widespread and destructive flooding - how about if increased water in the atmosphere means that more of the sun's ray get reflected leading to global cooling or more rainfall leads to more growth in vegetation therefore a massive increase in CO2 absorption leading to global cooling or an infinite number of other possibilities?

Water vapor is a significant forcing factor for warming, much more than CO2.

 

I would suggest that you read a book on atmospheric physics before you try to disprove the Nobel Prize winning scientists who are researching global warming.

50 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Are you willing to give up air travel for passage on a sailing ship.

Not a serious comment.

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

No one disputes that natural forces have caused climate change in the past. However, the current warming is caused by manmade pollution.

 

If you disagree, please list the changes in natural forces that are causing the current warming. For example, if you stupidly write "the sun", provide evidence of increased solar radiation.

 

Bye!

It's funny. Scientists have detected a weak positive correlation between a logwarming and solar activity. But the thing is, for the past several solar cycles, solar activity has actually been very subdued. Just during this last cycle has it picked up. And as I pointed out, the effect would still be weak.

 

 

 

I really can't see any of this being a problem.......the weather is being controlled.....we know (MTG)....we just need to find out by whom and sort them out......my money is on Bill Gates.

 

Marjorie Taylor Greene, recently suggested on her social media accounts that the US government "can control the weather".

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Here's a thought.  Why don't you post a link to where I said that? 

 

And just respond to what I say, and not what you wish I said.

It's obvously implicit in what you wrote.  For instance "ban combustible engines". What authorities have proposed banning combustion engines in the short run? Or "no more ships transporting goods around the world."  Over time, these modes of transportation can be replaced. But to state it baldly without qualifications as you do is just ridiculous.

 

You're either responding to someone else's posts, or you're yelling at a cloud going by.  Either way, I did not mention combustion engines or ships in this thread.