As ocean warming continues, hurricanes will become more frequent and stronger. So I wonder *

[Oopsie Daisy]

* if there will be a an additional Category 6 Hurricane added to the ones we're already familiar with.

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale categorizes hurricanes and tropical storms based on their sustained wind speeds. These categories are important for understanding the potential impact and destructiveness of a storm. There are 5 categories in this scale:

Tropical Depression: Winds up to 38 mph (61 km/h)
Tropical Storm: Winds between 39-73 mph (62-117 km/h)
Category 1 Hurricane: Winds between 74-95 mph (119-153 km/h)
Category 2 Hurricane: Winds between 96-110 mph (154-177 km/h)
Category 3 Hurricane (Major): Winds between 111-129 mph (178-208 km/h)
Category 4 Hurricane (Major): Winds between 130-156 mph (209-251 km/h)
Category 5 Hurricane (Major): Winds 157 mph (252 km/h) or higher

[Lovie777]

1. Both poles are melting.........................

claimant warming..............

mankind is destroying the environment and stratosphere.

[Think. Again.]

2. Hurricane "categories" will be the least of our problems.

[Oopsie Daisy]

3. So, why categorize them at all, eh? Run for the hills!

[Think. Again.]

4. The categorization of hurricanes began long ago...

...way before we started to admit that climate change will be making such things futile, back when the various intensities of hurricanes were reliably stable and survivable.

The destruction that will be directly caused by hurricane events is no longer a primary threat compared to the multitude of other destructive events that will be triggered by CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

I wish I could find something humorous in that.

[Oopsie Daisy]

5. Hurricane categories and accurate measurements... what a quaint and outdated concept. 🙄

It appears that the folks behind Project 2025's plan to eliminate the National Hurricane Center would agree that we no longer need that type of specificity or granular information or record-keeping that ordinary non-scientific folks can easily comprehend and understand.

>> The destruction that will be directly caused by hurricane events is no longer a primary threat compared to the multitude of other destructive events that will be triggered by CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Yes, hurricanes are hardly worth worrying about at all, eh?

[Think. Again.]

6. I believe you might be underestimating...

...the warnings that scientists have been giving us.

Hurricanes really are only one of the major challenges our ecology is now facing, and they will be becoming so eratic that simply adding a new category would be an insufficient approach to adapt to these changes.

[Oopsie Daisy]

7. Oh, I understand much more than I'm given credit for.

People who underestimate me, do so at their own risk.

>>Hurricanes really are only one of the major challenges our ecology is now facing,
Nobody has argued differently. But that's what's in the news today, and that's what this thread is about.

>> ... and they will be becoming so eratic that simply adding a new category would be an insufficient approach to adapt to these changes.
Oh brother. Ridiculous. It's obvious on the face of it that adding a new category serves to properly label and understand and document and prepare. Nobody who lives in the real world would think of this small and reasonable change as being an "insufficient approach" but rather, to thoughtfully acknowledge reality and make these things clearer to others (both now, and in the future) with proper labels, and record-keeping.

It's unclear to me why anyone would think that it's necessary to inject a dismissive tone of "there are more important things to worry about" and it makes me wonder how anyone would believe that adding a "Category-6" designation for the historical records would in any way interfere with other more proactive approaches that directly address the causes for climate change issues that face us.

Focusing solely on the causes and solutions while ignoring the reality of people's lives is foolish. In a multi-pronged approach to complex issues, I suppose it's natural for people to have their pet-issues, or preferred solutions, and therefore think it's okay to be dismissive or to ridicule other aspects. It's an arrogant mistake when people do so, but I understand why they do it.

The fact of the matter is this: there are many people and organizations involved in all aspects of addressing AND ADAPTING to the challenges of climate change. It's a team effort. It really is foolish to ridicule any effort to ADAPT. For many regions and people it's too late. No effort to stop or stall the long term effects of climate change will be enough. That's reality. It doesn't mean that those efforts should stop, but it does mean that in present time, those efforts will not be enough. For many lifetimes to come, it's too late.

For these people, and for those of us who live in the real world, adapting is the only solution.

[Think. Again.]

9. I'm glad to see you DO fully recognize...

...the scale of the challenges we're about face.

How about we compromise and simply agree that anything over Cat 5 will cause total devastation of the target area and leave it at that, since Category 5 already accounts for anything higher than 157 mph.

"Adapting" to what we have brought upon ourselves needs a much broader point of view than just incremental changes, as far as I'm concerned.

[Oopsie Daisy]

12. Absolutely not. No "compromise" is needed *

>> How about we compromise and simply agree that anything over Cat 5 will cause total devastation of the target area and leave it at that, since Category 5 already accounts for anything higher than 157 mph.
Absolutely not. No "compromise" is needed since I've never made any arguments to the contrary.

Instead, how about you compromise and "simply agree" that adding an additional category will be a helpful and more accurate way documenting these events for future generations to examine and analyze. Additionally, it will provide more information to those who need it, and it will help the low-information climate deniers a better and more specific sense of how things are getting worse, and what the real-world consequences are.

I think it's fair to say that having accurate information in empowering. I really do not know why anyone would be opposed to it or dismissive of it.

[Think. Again.]

14. Well, I tried.

No compromise then.

But I do hope we begin focusing more on mitigating the cause of severe storms (and all other severe ecological disturbances) and less on simply organizing the data as though that will stop them somehow.

But you do have a point when you say:

"....and it will help the low-information climate deniers a better and more specific sense of how things are getting worse, and what the real-world consequences are."

...although I fear they will unfortunately just have to see the consequences for themselves before they will admit how wrong they are. Science doesn't seem to convince them of much.

[Oopsie Daisy]

15. And there's where you took a wrong turn...

>> ... simply organizing the data as though that will stop them somehow.
And there's where you took a wrong turn. Nobody, has suggested that such a thing would "stop them somehow". (Nobody!)

In fairness to anyone who may be legitimately confused, I took a moment to re-read what I've written previously. Based on my review, it's difficult for me to believe than any reasonable person without an agenda could interpret my original question (and implied suggestion) as being something that would help to stop hurricanes or climate change.

At this point, I can't take these arguments and misinterpretations seriously any longer. It looks more like someone is just pulling my leg and tying to get a reaction just for the sport of it. LOL

That's so funny! What a great game! 🙄

[Think. Again.]

16. interesting...

...in any case, I stand by my original post that simply states:

"Hurricane "categories" will be the least of our problems."

[Oopsie Daisy]

17. Interesting, indeed. --- I wish I could find something humorous in that.

>> ...in any case, I stand by my original post that simply states:
Of course you do. Naturally. I should have wagered. Although I cannot predict the future, when it comes to human behavior, some things are even more predictable than figuring out where a hurricane will make landfall. The odds of my winning such a bet would have been better than even money, and approaching a near certainty.

[Think. Again.]

18. um, yeah! great, thanks for your input.

[Oopsie Daisy]

19. You're welcome.

[jimfields33]

8. The worst hurricane was 1900 in Galveston and killed

10,000 people. Trivia from watching the weather channel yesterday.

[Think. Again.]

10. Yes, and we've done nothing...

....to stop the cause of the worsening ecological conditions that we predicted CO2 emissions would cause since we first saw them coming in the late 1800's.

[jimfields33]

11. I wonder what they did back then to cause such destruction and deaths.

Must have been bad. Probably some invention they used that we don’t use anymore that caused great damage to the environment. At least they stopped doing whatever it was, cuz we never had 10,000 die since.

[Think. Again.]

13. Weather prediction tech has advanced...

...with satellites and such, but not enough to help the millions that die each year from the cumulative affects of atmospheric CO2.

In any case, pretending that a hurricane over 157 mph is survivable in some way is silly, we do need to focus our efforts on decreasing and eliminating the cause of storms like that though.