Centerfield

What? Are you saying that weather is naturally variable? That all those models can be, well, wrong?

Heretic.

Pat;
Obviously the number of hurricanes was reduced because it was an election year and more hurricanes would have been bad for the Republicans!!! ;-)

Oh, the power of Karl Rove! It appears to have been for naught, though... ;-(

Ah, yes, it was all due to those dastardly Saharan dust clouds and a rapidly building El Nino. Of course, the fact that the "generally accepted" climate models don't seem to have taken either of those phenomena into account in their predictions doesn't bode well for their accuracy over the long haul. How can we have confidence in the climate models when we're so lousy at predicting huge planetary thermal events like El Ninos which can basically switch off huge planetary heat transfer mechanisms like hurricanes? It boggles the mind that people like James Hansen, who should know better, can warn that we're at a climatological tipping point when our understanding of the world's major heat transfer mechanisms is so rudimentary.

Exactly, BrianOfAtlanta.

As I said in the historical discussion we had last April, we don't know have a good understanding of what feedback mechanisms are in place which will dampen any warming effects from the increased CO2 emissions. For example, hurricanes exert a cooling effect on the SST, the Atlantic's surface temperature. Global warming advocates hypothesize that increased Atlantic SSTs will cause or strengthen more tropical storms and hurricanes. But perhaps more storms will then cause more cooling of the SSTs, with everything balancing out over the long haul. And why is there more sand from the Sahara? Perhaps the extra hurricanes last year played a role in pulling more sand out over the sea? Could the Bermuda high pressure moved in part as a result of all the hurricanes last year?

As with so much with the climate, we just don't know.

climatalogically (is that even a word) speaking, I wouldn't put much stock in predictions that are made on a year by year basis. There are a large number of short term effects that can come and go with little to no warning which play a role. I think climate scientists do themselves a great disservice when they try to predict something so fleeting as the number of named storms in a given year. I imagine they *might* have more success predicting the the number of named storms over a 50 or even 100 year span, but of course this would require making assumptions that may or may not be very good (like assuming C02 output stays the same or follows some curve over time). But when they try to predict changes over a small time frame, they put themselves, their models, and their own credibility in the hands of short term effects like el nino or la nina, or saharan dust, or hell, even increased or decreased volcanic activity that can have tremendous effects in the short term but that also tend to even themselves out in the long term. I wish they would just stop doing this.

Rudimentary indeed. A true appreciation of how very little we know is IMO a very good place to start. The Hippocratic oath ought to apply..."first do no harm."

Of course that doesn't mean we can't err on the side of caution when it comes to environmental stewardship. As solid data suggests that Earth is indeed warming, we need to investigate the likelihood that its due to human agency. And while we do so, we ought to start doing all the things that make sense anyway. After all, conservation is a virtue all by itself.

And as we go forward, I think it DOES make sense to pay close attention to any very unusual occurences, especially with things like coral bleaching, fish population, desertification, deforestation, and changes in Earth's polar and mountainous ice caps.

If they are problems that threaten our various ways of life, we need to come up with ways to handle them regardless of what's causing them. We need to bring our ingenuity to bear on them.

On thing to be on the look out for this winter, higher than normal precipitation along the Gulf and East Coast. While the factors surpressed storms this season, they did not prevent the heat buildup that has to be released. Also looks like a winter of Artic blasts may be possible too. Hope folks in the middle of the country like snow.

BTW, how many folks thought last nights game was in Green Bay and not Seattle at first glance?

Guilty as charged. Then I noticed it was artificial turf.

Last time we had an El Nino to speak of our winter in New England was mild, and it seemed like the west coast got lots of serious rain storms. I played golf in february, in Massachusetts, with temps in the low to mid 50s.

Scientific American October 2006 had a very interesting article about the effects of the green house effect on the world's ocean.

There have been numerous reports of oxygen depletion. In the past, it appears several mass extinctions may have been caused by a series of climate altering events precipitated by sulfur bacteria blooms. It is quite scary and there is evidence that points in this direction. From the oceans to the destruction of the ozone layer.

At the present rate of carbon introduction into our atmosphere, life by 2056 will be struggling with the effects of higher temperatures and rising sea levels as well as air stream changes with more ferocious weather events.

One must look at longer periods than a year or two. And of course, once the ball is in real motion it will very hard to stop it. Indeed, our military considers climate change to be a serious threat to our national security.

Transform the power grid

Harness Hydrogen

Clean up coal

Biofuels and renewables

Ocean power and Nano photocells

High altitude wind power and space based solar power

These are the alternatives to a serious disaster.

While it is interesting that the military considers climate change a serious threat to our national security, there is one item that I haven't seen discussed that would be very interesting also: What is the predicted impact of global climate change on various other parts of the world?

Not just the temperature effects (although lower temperatures over Europe due to the demise of the Gulf Stream might have implications....). But the rainfall pattern changes that would come with them could matter even more. Does central Australia replace the Midwest as the world's granary, for example? Or currently densely populated countries lose their ability to grow rice to support their populations? And that doesn't even touch details like Florida and Bangladesh dropping between the rising waves.

Pumping those local climate changes into the geopolitical equation, and some fascinating things might pop out. Anybody know of a source for stuff like that?