Global hurricane activity reaches new lows...

[HAL 9000 96]

We can simplify heat sink issues to what we do know beyond scientific fallacy (those that understand little of the science and less of the scientific discovery process): that CO2 is a greenhouse gas AND that this planet is a homeostatic closed system that will continue to go crazy above and below normals as we continue to allow nothing to change. This is usually the case when scientific fact is ignored as per a politician's convenience.

[NickD 203]

Certainly valid arguments on how carbon dioxide, there, I will spell it out, is produced. Basically by reversing the process of how these carbon based fuels were produced over millions of years and how rapidly they are being consumed today. This may bring us back to the state where the earth was millions of years ago and certainly not habitable by human beings. Would consider that as a very valid argument.

[tmma 467]

......

Global is an extremely complex issue, difficult enough to design a simple heat sink, or to predict the temperature rise of a transformer. But those can be inclusively tested to meet required specifications. Is there means to test these theories with the earth? And would there be drastic consequence if it could be done?

To me, just opens the door for BS, and certainly getting enough of that.

"those can be inclusively tested to meet required specifications....." Therein lies the problem. Global scale weather cannot [at this time] be 'inclusively tested'....too many micro and macro variables that affect global outcomes to make the results relevant. This is why weather models can and often are grossely inaccurate both as diagnostic prognostic tools. Therefore theories abound [which is good, IMO]; but unfortunatly politics gets in the way of research and discovery and FACT too often. IMO of course.

[HAL 9000 96]

Certainly valid arguments on how carbon dioxide, there, I will spell it out, is produced. Basically by reversing the process of how these carbon based fuels were produced over millions of years and how rapidly they are being consumed today. This may bring us back to the state where the earth was millions of years ago and certainly not habitable by human beings. Would consider that as a very valid argument.

What the atmosphere? Nonsense... the consequences- even those mentioned by your hero Gore , are sequential as with most other things in reality. We are already noticing the first stages. Among those scientists that pay attention to these things, some degree of argument and disagreement stems from what kind of time scale we are looking at.

At first we'd be talking about a comfort of living scenario... then a quality of living issue... then a hazard to living due to physical issues. I guess at some point if we don't do anything proactive as a politically-willed planet then we'll have to come up with reactionary means of ensuring our survival at whichever time point in the scale which may or may not produce positive effects in the long run.

[tmma 467]

Certainly valid arguments on how carbon dioxide, there, I will spell it out, is produced. Basically by reversing the process of how these carbon based fuels were produced over millions of years and how rapidly they are being consumed today. This may bring us back to the state where the earth was millions of years ago and certainly not habitable by human beings.Would consider that as a very valid argument.

' basically reversing the process of HOW THESE CARBON BASED FUELS WERE PRODUCED'

...?????huh???? Plus-I don't think there is anything 'BASIC' about that theory, apart from the oneliner you put it in to.....[ sorry, but I am chuckling-I'll stop].

--Maybe I need more coffee.....

Edited March 15, 2009 by tmma

[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.

[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 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. There is an increasing amount of anthropological evidence that civilizations thrived in warmer conditions. Think of as it as an adventure. We are by nature nomadic creatures. Sooner, or later, it will be time to pack your stuff and look for greeener pastures.

So sorry if that disturbs some folks need for stability.

[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.

Edited March 15, 2009 by tmma

[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

Edited March 15, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[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

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.

[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

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.

I attended an open briefing years ago, when there still was a USSR, about the possible stategic significance of global warming. According to the speaker, the Soviets were calling global warming, "The Eden Effect." The Russians had high hopes of increased access to all the resources in Siberia, as well as possible all weather sea routes to both the east and the west along their northern coast. I am suprised I can't find a link to that information.

It's an ill wind, indeed, that blows no good.

[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. There is an increasing amount of anthropological evidence that civilizations thrived in warmer conditions. Think of as it as an adventure. We are by nature nomadic creatures. Sooner, or later, it will be time to pack your stuff and look for greeener pastures.

So sorry if that disturbs some folks need for stability.

Yeah I don't think so. One thing is to have short term adaptability on a smaller scale, by geography, to natural events in the planetary climate. And another is to cause it and then have to suck lemons because of it.

[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.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.