Global hurricane activity reaches new lows...

[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.

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

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

[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.

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.

Correct- which is why the scientific literature mentions global means. If you want, look at the statistical standard error that goes into the sampling to ensure a confidence level that is publishable.

On top of that, imagine your hypothetical exercise above about these supposed benefits to Northern geographies... not permanent by any means... and how this uneven heat sink would seek to homeostatically regulate-

Equatorial regions would retain heat to the sink capacity. And guess where the remaining heat that wouldn't radiate out to space would go? (Do remember increasing CO2 load in the atmosphere at this point!) HINT: Distribution to more Northern geographies... limiting that bountiful crop you envision in the north by some time, akin to what would be seen in those regions previously lost to the reality of sequence.

[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.

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.

Awwwww... leaving HAL 9000 alone since Mr. Bill left as well.

I have a feeling that you as a metereologist and me as a research scientist are being able to relate actual geothermal data a little bit better than Mr. Bill as an engineer. I do not assert that any career field is more or less qualified to make mistakes than others... nor that certain career fields are trained more mechanistically and rigidly in their application of scientific concepts... but sometimes some engineers tend to paint closed systems with multiple independent variables as having less independent variables than they'd like to consider significant based on relative contribution to the outcome set of dependent variables.

[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?

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

anthropomorphism n. the attributing of human characteristics to gods, objects, etc.

(Webster's New World Dictionary)

[Pooky 3,781]

(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?

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

anthropomorphism n. the attributing of human characteristics to gods, objects, etc.

(Webster's New World Dictionary)

All this fuss from educated people, when all anyone needed to do was apply a little intelligence, factor in the ancient Greek origins of the word and come up with anthropogenic: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic).

[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.

Correct- which is why the scientific literature mentions global means. If you want, look at the statistical standard error that goes into the sampling to ensure a confidence level that is publishable.

On top of that, imagine your hypothetical exercise above about these supposed benefits to Northern geographies... not permanent by any means... and how this uneven heat sink would seek to homeostatically regulate-

Equatorial regions would retain heat to the sink capacity. And guess where the remaining heat that wouldn't radiate out to space would go? (Do remember increasing CO2 load in the atmosphere at this point!) HINT: Distribution to more Northern geographies... limiting that bountiful crop you envision in the north by some time, akin to what would be seen in those regions previously lost to the reality of sequence.

"My hypothetical exercise" goes back more than twenty years, and by the looks of what I have been reading lately, not much has changed, except the rhetoric.

[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.

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.

Awwwww... leaving HAL 9000 alone since Mr. Bill left as well.

I have a feeling that you as a metereologist and me as a research scientist are being able to relate actual geothermal data a little bit better than Mr. Bill as an engineer. I do not assert that any career field is more or less qualified to make mistakes than others... nor that certain career fields are trained more mechanistically and rigidly in their application of scientific concepts... but sometimes some engineers tend to paint closed systems with multiple independent variables as having less independent variables than they'd like to consider significant based on relative contribution to the outcome set of dependent variables.

Engineers are used to dealing with both static and dynamic systems simultaneously in a real enviroment, in real time, where the exponents are usually 3 or 4. Being able to isolate which variables are causing the greatest change makes the whole thing manageable, not perfect. Keeping all the parameters in a high level of confidence is an artform, not an exact science. Herding cats would be a good analogy.

[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.

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

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

anthropomorphism n. the attributing of human characteristics to gods, objects, etc.

(Webster's New World Dictionary)

Holy Moly!

The scientists must have it wrong as usual!

And I wonder why they'd call something dealing with human causes vs just calling it based on any combination of natural and artificial ones... hmmm

[HAL 9000 96]

"My hypothetical exercise" goes back more than twenty years, and by the looks of what I have been reading lately, not much has changed, except the rhetoric.

20 years. Is that sufficient to cause climate-level shifts?

Hint: No.

Engineers are used to dealing with both static and dynamic systems simultaneously in a real enviroment, in real time, where the exponents are usually 3 or 4. Being able to isolate which variables are causing the greatest change makes the whole thing manageable, not perfect. Keeping all the parameters in a high level of confidence is an artform, not an exact science. Herding cats would be a good analogy.

Yes- they are supposed to deal and THINK in multivariables. Unfortunately, some rule out what are significant ones even before thinking the first thing about what it is they're considering.

[NickD 202]

Saw an interesting ad from Peabody coal yesterday about clean burning coal. USA has more coal reserves than any other country in the world. Have new clean burning plants where scrubbers are used to collect any emissions from the smokestacks, and the CO2 is collected and injected into oil fields that is suppose to enrich the petroleum. Claim over 51% of our electrical generation is from coal, and keeps the buck within the confines of the USA.

Siemens has developed technology to permit high voltage transmission underground, reduced maintenance costs and no unsightly high voltage towers. Live in a section of our town with all undeground wiring, has been very reliable. Other sections of town have problems when some drunk hits a power pole or when we have ice rains.

Wind power claims to be competitive with coal, but a lot of objections to that, unsightly is one, the others are danger to the birds. With the latter, should outlaw all windows, always seem to find a dead bird lying below my picture window, but maybe they were either stupid or blind. Whatever the technology, some group always complaining about it, but feel they were hired by the importing oil industries. Just feel, we should go to their homes and businesses and pull the plug.

[HAL 9000 96]

Clean burning coal. Now there is an oxymoron.

[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?

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

anthropomorphism n. the attributing of human characteristics to gods, objects, etc.

(Webster's New World Dictionary)

Holy Moly!

The scientists must have it wrong as usual!

And I wonder why they'd call something dealing with human causes vs just calling it based on any combination of natural and artificial ones... hmmm

My stepdad was an aerospace engineer, and he was always saying that!

[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?

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

anthropomorphism n. the attributing of human characteristics to gods, objects, etc.

(Webster's New World Dictionary)

All this fuss from educated people, when all anyone needed to do was apply a little intelligence, factor in the ancient Greek origins of the word and come up with anthropogenic: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropogenic).

Pretty smart for a stuffed bear!

[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.

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

Anthropomorphic as in human-caused. You can Google a little better than that.

anthropomorphism n. the attributing of human characteristics to gods, objects, etc.

(Webster's New World Dictionary)

Holy Moly!

The scientists must have it wrong as usual!

And I wonder why they'd call something dealing with human causes vs just calling it based on any combination of natural and artificial ones... hmmm

My stepdad was an aerospace engineer, and he was always saying that!

Yeah there was something I said about how some engineers think...