Global hurricane activity reaches new lows...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

My family has lived in the tropics for generations and I trust their accounts of more frequent tropical storms, depressions, waves, and yes... hurricanes... over the past century-

and

It is no secret hurricanes flourish in warmer surface waters. Hurricanes are what? A weather phenomenon. A symptom of immediate climate. So all of you with anti-anthopomorphic hardons, perhaps you should read the link a little more carefully:

During the past 2 years +, the Earth's climate has cooled under the effects of a dramatic La Nina episode...

Conversely, due to well-researched upper-atmospheric flow (e.g. vertical shear) configurations favorable to Atlantic hurricane development and intensification, La Nina falls tend to favor very active seasons in the Atlantic (word of warning for 2009). This offsetting relationship, high in the Atlantic and low in the Pacific, is a topic of discussion in my GRL paper, which will be a separate topic in a future posting.

This is again a case of the usual suspects reading very, very selectively and ignoring key differences between climate science and weather observations filtered using approximation equations that do not account for complete data sets.

Actually, there is a range of water and air temperatures in which a cyclone can flourish. Too cold, and you get insufficient convection. Too warm, and you get too much upper atmosphere shear. Whether or not global warming exists, there is enough uncertainy about the effect of much higher mean temperatures on the production of cyclones, such that the former vice president has deleted that portion of his doomsday scenerio, along with his exagerated rising sea levels.

Gore aside, you should check into the actual consensus models that are starting to show even more sea level rise. Lets not talk about 'its colder now' since that is only one side of the winter/summer cycle and you need to think about how hot it is in the Southern Hemishphere duirng these cold winters here in our Northern half.

As for proper cyclonic temperature ranges... yes. There is no linear relationship between temperature rise and storm frequencies. By the large at that extreme of temperature to have atmospheric tearing into breaking storm systems the last thing that should worry us is a hurricane but rather, the rest of the consequences to deal with- sea levels, crops, etc.

I am not denying that global warming will cause changes. Granted, there will be displacement, but population displacements have been a continuing part of human history. Populations are already being displaced by forces other than global warming.

Think positively. There is plenty of evidence to show many benefits to a rise in mean atmosperic and water temperatures.......

......So sorry if that disturbs some folks need for stability.

mmmkay. It's not 'folks need for stability' that is the mitigating factor here( humans are relatively adaptable)-it's the atmosphere's 'need for stability' ( which is all weather IS, really), and that's going to be so much harder to attain with a rising SST which affects the salinity, density, evap/absorp rate, semi-permenant pressure system placement and sea currents, all that and the damage to marine life...namely plankton, which comes with a slew of other problems. The effects of rising SST stretch far beyond danger to those living in coastal areas. No matter wether it's man induced or not-the results are likely the same.

If there a benefit to a rise in SST-I'm having a problem finding it....

....Or were you joking? It's been a long day and I'm not sure.

Serious!

Abstract

A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference, this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined occupations in metropolitan areas on measures of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. Workers today would be willing to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5deg.C increase in temperatures.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

To be honest it seems like a fairy incomplete story. Lots of 'might' vs some pretty clear and simple assumptions involving loss of habitat, arable land, shortened growing seasons, increasing populations and worsening conflicts opening up the floodgates to plenty of other social, health, dietary, etc. factors that tend to collapse as a result of this one all-encompassing phenomenon that has already started.

I think you are making a few inaccurate assumptions there. From what I have seen, there will be an increase in arable land as the temperate zone moves north, and growing seasons will increase. Note the exceptional plant growth possible in Alaska due to the longer summer days. There should be a net increase in food production as the two largest nations in the world, Canada and Russia, gain more and more usable land, land that has been fallow for centuries.

[HAL 9000 96]

My family has lived in the tropics for generations and I trust their accounts of more frequent tropical storms, depressions, waves, and yes... hurricanes... over the past century-

and

It is no secret hurricanes flourish in warmer surface waters. Hurricanes are what? A weather phenomenon. A symptom of immediate climate. So all of you with anti-anthopomorphic hardons, perhaps you should read the link a little more carefully:

During the past 2 years +, the Earth's climate has cooled under the effects of a dramatic La Nina episode...

Conversely, due to well-researched upper-atmospheric flow (e.g. vertical shear) configurations favorable to Atlantic hurricane development and intensification, La Nina falls tend to favor very active seasons in the Atlantic (word of warning for 2009). This offsetting relationship, high in the Atlantic and low in the Pacific, is a topic of discussion in my GRL paper, which will be a separate topic in a future posting.

This is again a case of the usual suspects reading very, very selectively and ignoring key differences between climate science and weather observations filtered using approximation equations that do not account for complete data sets.

Actually, there is a range of water and air temperatures in which a cyclone can flourish. Too cold, and you get insufficient convection. Too warm, and you get too much upper atmosphere shear. Whether or not global warming exists, there is enough uncertainy about the effect of much higher mean temperatures on the production of cyclones, such that the former vice president has deleted that portion of his doomsday scenerio, along with his exagerated rising sea levels.

Gore aside, you should check into the actual consensus models that are starting to show even more sea level rise. Lets not talk about 'its colder now' since that is only one side of the winter/summer cycle and you need to think about how hot it is in the Southern Hemishphere duirng these cold winters here in our Northern half.

As for proper cyclonic temperature ranges... yes. There is no linear relationship between temperature rise and storm frequencies. By the large at that extreme of temperature to have atmospheric tearing into breaking storm systems the last thing that should worry us is a hurricane but rather, the rest of the consequences to deal with- sea levels, crops, etc.

I am not denying that global warming will cause changes. Granted, there will be displacement, but population displacements have been a continuing part of human history. Populations are already being displaced by forces other than global warming.

Think positively. There is plenty of evidence to show many benefits to a rise in mean atmosperic and water temperatures.......

......So sorry if that disturbs some folks need for stability.

mmmkay. It's not 'folks need for stability' that is the mitigating factor here( humans are relatively adaptable)-it's the atmosphere's 'need for stability' ( which is all weather IS, really), and that's going to be so much harder to attain with a rising SST which affects the salinity, density, evap/absorp rate, semi-permenant pressure system placement and sea currents, all that and the damage to marine life...namely plankton, which comes with a slew of other problems. The effects of rising SST stretch far beyond danger to those living in coastal areas. No matter wether it's man induced or not-the results are likely the same.

If there a benefit to a rise in SST-I'm having a problem finding it....

....Or were you joking? It's been a long day and I'm not sure.

Serious!

Abstract

A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference, this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined occupations in metropolitan areas on measures of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. Workers today would be willing to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5deg.C increase in temperatures.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

To be honest it seems like a fairy incomplete story. Lots of 'might' vs some pretty clear and simple assumptions involving loss of habitat, arable land, shortened growing seasons, increasing populations and worsening conflicts opening up the floodgates to plenty of other social, health, dietary, etc. factors that tend to collapse as a result of this one all-encompassing phenomenon that has already started.

I think you are making a few inaccurate assumptions there. From what I have seen, there will be an increase in arable land as the temperate zone moves north, and growing seasons will increase. Note the exceptional plant growth possible in Alaska due to the longer summer days. There should be a net increase in food production as the two largest nations in the world, Canada and Russia, gain more and more usable land, land that has been fallow for centuries.

Note the even larger loss of arable land in places already shown to be capable of sustaining farm growth. Of course, Canada and Russia could hope their land reaches better fertile ranges... but there is little proof of that happening within the short amount of time you think that is possible. It takes generations to make a region capable of sustaining agriculture at the local level. Imagine feeding entire nations on that amount in less time than that.

This as well including the increased loss of land from sea level increases, population shifts to more temperate zones, and desertification, deforestation, etc. The list can continue if you consider how things are connected.

[tmma 467]

My family has lived in the tropics for generations and I trust their accounts of more frequent tropical storms, depressions, waves, and yes... hurricanes... over the past century-

and

It is no secret hurricanes flourish in warmer surface waters. Hurricanes are what? A weather phenomenon. A symptom of immediate climate. So all of you with anti-anthopomorphic hardons, perhaps you should read the link a little more carefully:

During the past 2 years +, the Earth's climate has cooled under the effects of a dramatic La Nina episode...

Conversely, due to well-researched upper-atmospheric flow (e.g. vertical shear) configurations favorable to Atlantic hurricane development and intensification, La Nina falls tend to favor very active seasons in the Atlantic (word of warning for 2009). This offsetting relationship, high in the Atlantic and low in the Pacific, is a topic of discussion in my GRL paper, which will be a separate topic in a future posting.

This is again a case of the usual suspects reading very, very selectively and ignoring key differences between climate science and weather observations filtered using approximation equations that do not account for complete data sets.

Actually, there is a range of water and air temperatures in which a cyclone can flourish. Too cold, and you get insufficient convection. Too warm, and you get too much upper atmosphere shear. Whether or not global warming exists, there is enough uncertainy about the effect of much higher mean temperatures on the production of cyclones, such that the former vice president has deleted that portion of his doomsday scenerio, along with his exagerated rising sea levels.

Gore aside, you should check into the actual consensus models that are starting to show even more sea level rise. Lets not talk about 'its colder now' since that is only one side of the winter/summer cycle and you need to think about how hot it is in the Southern Hemishphere duirng these cold winters here in our Northern half.

As for proper cyclonic temperature ranges... yes. There is no linear relationship between temperature rise and storm frequencies. By the large at that extreme of temperature to have atmospheric tearing into breaking storm systems the last thing that should worry us is a hurricane but rather, the rest of the consequences to deal with- sea levels, crops, etc.

I am not denying that global warming will cause changes. Granted, there will be displacement, but population displacements have been a continuing part of human history. Populations are already being displaced by forces other than global warming.

Think positively. There is plenty of evidence to show many benefits to a rise in mean atmosperic and water temperatures.......

......So sorry if that disturbs some folks need for stability.

mmmkay. It's not 'folks need for stability' that is the mitigating factor here( humans are relatively adaptable)-it's the atmosphere's 'need for stability' ( which is all weather IS, really), and that's going to be so much harder to attain with a rising SST which affects the salinity, density, evap/absorp rate, semi-permenant pressure system placement and sea currents, all that and the damage to marine life...namely plankton, which comes with a slew of other problems. The effects of rising SST stretch far beyond danger to those living in coastal areas. No matter wether it's man induced or not-the results are likely the same.

If there a benefit to a rise in SST-I'm having a problem finding it....

....Or were you joking? It's been a long day and I'm not sure.

Serious!

Abstract

A somewhat warmer climate would probably reduce mortality in the United States and provide Americans with valuable benefits. Regressions of death rates in Washington, DC, and in some 89 urban counties scattered across the nation on climate and demographic variables demonstrate that warmer temperatures reduce deaths. The results imply that a 2.5deg. Celsius warming would lower deaths in the United States by about 40,000 per year. Although the data on illness are poor, the numbers indicate that warming might reduce medical costs by about $20 billion annually. Utilizing willingness to pay as a measure of preference, this paper regresses wage rates for a few narrowly defined occupations in metropolitan areas on measures of temperature and size of city and finds that people prefer warm climates. Workers today would be willing to give up between $30 billion and $100 billion annually in wages for a 2.5deg.C increase in temperatures.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

To be honest it seems like a fairy incomplete story. Lots of 'might' vs some pretty clear and simple assumptions involving loss of habitat, arable land, shortened growing seasons, increasing populations and worsening conflicts opening up the floodgates to plenty of other social, health, dietary, etc. factors that tend to collapse as a result of this one all-encompassing phenomenon that has already started.

I think you are making a few inaccurate assumptions there. From what I have seen, there will be an increase in arable land as the temperate zone moves north, and growing seasons will increase. Note the exceptional plant growth possible in Alaska due to the longer summer days. There should be a net increase in food production as the two largest nations in the world, Canada and Russia, gain more and more usable land, land that has been fallow for centuries.

You are assuming that all other current temperate regions will remain the same and stable as the global climate shifts. Computer models do not support this ( need to find the link). One example-- Effects on the Asian monsoon ( vital to a large portion of the world's inhabitants) would likely be disasterous causing not only catastrophic crop failures but an enormous human toll. Or on the Equatorial regions and their vital rain forests.....

A rise in SST would fuel stronger cyclones and hurricanes. A greater temperature and moisture differential in the mid lattitudes will spawn more fierce mid latitude cyclones and their associate weather effects ( all which affect crops right here in the US).

**I re read that link...And it does state near the end of the paper that the conclusions theorized do not include the added effect of increased SST. It also stated that it was refering to a minimal increase of ambient air temp over a widespread area of land.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Note the even larger loss of arable land in places already shown to be capable of sustaining farm growth. Of course, Canada and Russia could hope their land reaches better fertile ranges... but there is little proof of that happening within the short amount of time you think that is possible. It takes generations to make a region capable of sustaining agriculture at the local level. Imagine feeding entire nations on that amount in less time than that.

This as well including the increased loss of land from sea level increases, population shifts to more temperate zones, and desertification, deforestation, etc. The list can continue if you consider how things are connected.

Two Climate Change Winners

Russia has the potential to gain the most from

increasingly temperate weather. Russia has

vast untapped reserves of natural gas and oil

in Siberia and also offshore in the Arctic, and

warmer temperatures should make the

reserves considerably more accessible. This

would be a huge boon to the Russian

economy, as presently 80 percent of the

country’s exports and 32 percent of

government revenues derive from the

production of energy and raw materials. In

addition, the opening of an Arctic waterway

could provide economic and commercial

advantages. However, Russia could be hurt

by damaged infrastructure as the Arctic

tundra melts and will need new technology to

develop the region’s fossil energy.

Canada will be spared several serious North

American climate-related developments—

intense hurricanes and withering heat

waves—and climate change could open up

millions of square miles to development.

Access to the resource-rich Hudson Bay

would be improved, and being a circumpolar

power ringing a major portion of a warming

Arctic could be a geopolitical and economic

bonus. Additionally, agricultural growing

seasons will lengthen, net energy demand for

heating/cooling will likely drop, and forests

will expand somewhat into the tundra.

However, not all soil in Canada can take

advantage of the change in growing season,

and some forest products are already

experiencing damage due to changes in pest

infestation enabled by warmer climates.

http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Globa...inal_Report.pdf (page 52)

Edited March 15, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[tmma 467]

I believe they are talking about a surface land temp differential of afew degrees-there is no mention of the effects of a sea surface temp increase and it's likely effects. A 2.5 degree change in air temp over land does not quite have the same impact as a 2.5 sustained increase in sea surface ( sst) temps.

To be fair to the conversation .....I once read of a study done in the Indonesia ( I think) region on the 'possible benefits of an increase in SST'. Mainly to do with carbon absorption-don't have a link here...but I'm sure it's on Google.

Thanks for the link, though. Interesting.

Was that the study where they postulated an increase net phytoplankton population off of Indonesia's tropical shores? I assume they didn't take into effect the corals dying off though. Its already something I've seen first hand: photo and thermobleaching. Pretty sad too.

I think that's it. That sounds familiar . Not sure of the details, only it proved the sea could only absorb so much before the carbon absorbers died and became a contributor ( if that makes any sense). It is sad.

[dalegg 143]

Note the even larger loss of arable land in places already shown to be capable of sustaining farm growth. Of course, Canada and Russia could hope their land reaches better fertile ranges... but there is little proof of that happening within the short amount of time you think that is possible. It takes generations to make a region capable of sustaining agriculture at the local level. Imagine feeding entire nations on that amount in less time than that.

This as well including the increased loss of land from sea level increases, population shifts to more temperate zones, and desertification, deforestation, etc. The list can continue if you consider how things are connected.

Two Climate Change Winners

Russia has the potential to gain the most from

increasingly temperate weather. Russia has

vast untapped reserves of natural gas and oil

in Siberia and also offshore in the Arctic, and

warmer temperatures should make the

reserves considerably more accessible. This

would be a huge boon to the Russian

economy, as presently 80 percent of the

country’s exports and 32 percent of

government revenues derive from the

production of energy and raw materials. In

addition, the opening of an Arctic waterway

could provide economic and commercial

advantages. However, Russia could be hurt

by damaged infrastructure as the Arctic

tundra melts and will need new technology to

develop the region’s fossil energy.

Canada will be spared several serious North

American climate-related developments—

intense hurricanes and withering heat

waves—and climate change could open up

millions of square miles to development.

Access to the resource-rich Hudson Bay

would be improved, and being a circumpolar

power ringing a major portion of a warming

Arctic could be a geopolitical and economic

bonus. Additionally, agricultural growing

seasons will lengthen, net energy demand for

heating/cooling will likely drop, and forests

will expand somewhat into the tundra.

However, not all soil in Canada can take

advantage of the change in growing season,

and some forest products are already

experiencing damage due to changes in pest

infestation enabled by warmer climates.

http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Globa...inal_Report.pdf (page 52)

Probably mostly Russia. If Russia tries to take some of what might arguably be Canada's property, who's gonna stop them-Canada? I think Russia is fealing pretty good right now. We have a U.S. President who wants to get away from dependence of foreign oil, and a party in control that stands against war-for-oil battles. All they need to do is test the current administration with oh, say a European crisis, like Georgia, and maybe close down a U.S base in Kyrgyzstan to see how they will react and then maybe set in plans for future artic oil domination. Its a wet dream.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I knew all that stuff I got 20 yesrs ago was sitting around in some government document. More:

Strategic Implications of an Opening Arctic

Estimates vary as to when the Arctic is likely to be ice free during the summer. The National

Snow and Ice Data Center suggests a seasonally ice-free Arctic by 2060; more current research

suggests the date could be as soon as 2013. The two most important implications of an opening

Arctic are improved access to likely vast energy and mineral resources and potentially shorter

maritime shipping routes.

Transiting the Northern Sea Route above Russia between the North Atlantic and the North

Pacific would trim about 5,000 nautical miles and a week’s sailing time off a trip compared with

use of the Suez Canal. Voyaging between Europe and Asia through Canada’s Northwest

Passage would trim some 4,000 nautical miles off of a trip using the Panama Canal.

Resource and shipping benefits are unlikely to materialize by 2025. The US National Petroleum

Council has said that some of the technology to exploit oil from the heart of the Arctic region

may not be ready until as late as 2050. Nonetheless, these potential riches and advantages are

already perceptible to the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, and Norway—as evidenced

by the emergence of competing territorial claims, such as between Russia and Norway, and

Canada and Denmark.

Although serious near-term tension could result in small-scale confrontations over contested

claims, the Arctic is unlikely to spawn major armed conflict. Circumpolar states have other

major ports on other bodies of water, so the Arctic does not pose any lifeblood blockade dangers.

Additionally, these states share a common interest in regulating access to the Arctic by hostile

powers, states of concern, or dangerous nonstate actors; and by their shared need for assistance

from high-tech companies to exploit the Arctic’s resources.

The greatest strategic consequence over the next couple of decades may be that relatively large,

wealthy, resource-deficient trading states such as China, Japan, and Korea will benefit from

increased energy resources provided by any Arctic opening and shorter shipping distances.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change

and misjudge the likely time when effects will

be felt. Scientists currently have limited

capability to predict the likelihood or

magnitude of extreme climate shifts but

believe—based on historic precedents—that it

will not occur gradually or smoothly. Drastic

cutbacks in allowable CO2 emissions

probably would disadvantage the rapidly

emerging economies that are still low on the

efficiency curve, but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

[tmma 467]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

I am curious why you are stuck on one thermocline. The mean surface temperature of the ocean has less to do with climate change as a whole than the dispersion of termperatures across the entire surface. It is just something that is a little easier to measure than the rest of the variables.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

None of it does indeed. This is in essence a common problem with many critics of antrhopomorphic global warming... the common confusion of unreliable socioeconomic predictions versus the much more reliable scientific data that already exists. To that they unfortunately fall back on a small community of scientist-skeptics as undeniable proof of their assertions... boldly ignoring the very tenets of scientific reasoning in the process.

[HAL 9000 96]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

I am curious why you are stuck on one thermocline. The mean surface temperature of the ocean has less to do with climate change as a whole than the dispersion of termperatures across the entire surface. It is just something that is a little easier to measure than the rest of the variables.

That is because that entire surface acts as the largest planetary heat sink, Bill.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

None of it does indeed. This is in essence a common problem with many critics of antrhopomorphic global warming... the common confusion of unreliable socioeconomic predictions versus the much more reliable scientific data that already exists. To that they unfortunately fall back on a small community of scientist-skeptics as undeniable proof of their assertions... boldly ignoring the very tenets of scientific reasoning in the process.

Global warming is a human characteristic? When confused, you fall back into your cubicle mutturing Gaiaisms?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

I am curious why you are stuck on one thermocline. The mean surface temperature of the ocean has less to do with climate change as a whole than the dispersion of termperatures across the entire surface. It is just something that is a little easier to measure than the rest of the variables.

That is because that entire surface acts as the largest planetary heat sink, Bill.

Ah, but not uniformly. It's the topography of how the heat is radiatied that creates the flux.

Time to give the wife the computer. I am just seeing a blur.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[tmma 467]

(last one from the paper)

Over the next 20 years, worries about climate

change effects may be more significant than

any physical changes linked to climate

change. Perceptions of a rapidly changing

environment may cause nations to take

unilateral actions to secure resources,

territory, and other interests. Willingness to

engage in greater multilateral cooperation will

depend on a number of factors, such as the

behavior of other countries, the economic

context, or the importance of the interests to

be defended or won.

Many scientists worry that recent assessments

underestimate the impact of climate change...........

................ but large-scale users in the

developed world—such as the US—also

would be shaken and the global economy

could be plunged into a recession or worse.

If we are talking about the socio economic impact on 'humans' in this hypothetical scenario of climate change taking into account poverty, migration, civil unrest and fighting over 'arable ' land-just to name afew; paints a dismal picture.

And again----none of that link (what I read of it, anyway) takes into account the loss of land, marine life or even shifting ocean currents brought on by changing SST.

IMHO In this hypothetical climate shift of widening temperate regions you are refering to.... The sea temperature, ocean currents and oceanic weather patterns are where the true extent of climate change can and likely will be 'seen'-and where the effects will likely be first felt...on a global scale. Yet none of the paper you cited discusses that and it's far reaching impacts.

I am curious why you are stuck on one thermocline. The mean surface temperature of the ocean has less to do with climate change as a whole than the dispersion of termperatures across the entire surface. It is just something that is a little easier to measure than the rest of the variables.

I am 'stuck' on the SST because it's change affects life and all the other variables on a planetary scale- and not just the oceans themselves...a change in SST affects all inland weather and climate.

But I am not out to argue, I've really enjoyed the exchange but I totally disagree with your statement that 'the mean surface temperature has less to do with climate change as a whole...'

But we can agree to disagree for now I have to dash.