I think that should be a statistic generated by the National Weather Services. Perhaps it is already.
But it is something we should be tracking. In an undeniable era of global warming it is something we should be tracking.
The diameter of the storm in relation to the potential energy of it?
The frequency of such diameter storms per year as compared to historical records?
A weather term I have heard recently a few times on the news is "A new weather pattern?"
And how is the diameter of a storm calculated? When it really isn't a perfect circle but more of a vortex with a tail? There out to be a computer model that can accurately calculate that. So how does that mathematical description model work? The relation of the center core of a circle to the tail of the storm?
And perhaps this is indeed an area that new algorithms need to be created in?
And indeed one wonders how Canadian wildfire smoke impacts a storm? Does it cause more precipitation, because the atmosphere is heavier with smoke therefore droplets form that are heavier, quicker? If that would be a way to describe it.
And let's look at this another way? Follow me on this. Can we attribute hotter weather, from global warming, as being a participant cause of the Canadian wildfires? Hotter weather causing drying vegetation that goes up in smoke easier? And good God look at Hawaii. And I am not trying to be paranoid here. But I just got a notion of fear right there. The trend of global warming to cause wildfires? Something those who deny absolutely everything would never allow you to start to think about? And look at the reality of that flushed out statement. Something those who deny absolutely everything would never allow you to start to think about? It is empirical evidence of the presence of absolutely terrible leadership! That factor, something those who deny absolutely everything, shouldn't seem to be prevalent in modern human civilization?
It is like, throw your hat on the floor and yell, "Look at what you got us into you dam fools!"
So why would we want to know? Why wouldn't we want to know how strong a storm is?
And perhaps I have not been paying attention. I really don't watch a lot of television.
And is this how it is going to progress? Dry land, rain storms and floods like you have never seen before because of the dry land? The water just rolls on top of the heat dry land. So I don't know if it is true or not, that wildfire smoke causes more rain. But if it were what a terrible cycle that would be! And then what does the flooding do to the electricity? Etc, etc, and round and round the storms go?
And God said in the Bible he would never flood us again? But God didn't do this did he! God didn't create the global warming. Nor was God one of the ones who lied about it? See what I mean? If man created global warming through pollution that isn't God that is man?
So let's say there is an error present in that. It is man not truly obeying the principles of God so that these conditions precedent are created? And to sum it up, denying a moral responsibility for actions? Grandstanding and parading in deceit in order to get the highest number of Republican votes?
If it is something you know your general constituents are not capable of understanding then deny it is a problem; whether or not you are truly capable of understanding it or not?
So here is another concept. To know when you don't know something. We have all heard that one. But how about this one, To not know that you should not have been a leader? So to attempt to rephrase it quicker in consistency with the first form, To know when you don't know ... You led because you knew you could lead and not because... so I am flushing out a difference between manipulation and leadership? A leader doesn't need to dismiss rationality or rational inquiry?
That's all, kind of sketchy, but so what.
© 2023 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment