Posted by Mike Doran on 3/15/2009, 7:30 am, in reply to "Re: Global ACE lowest level in 30 years."

I don't think the energy is necessarily going to bigger storms, but rather to less efficient electrical manners of organizing clouds, which in turn could result in more heat to the poles. Do any of you really think that a lack of tropical storms is a GOOD thing? If you go back far enough in time to super storms, there is a real issue here of the melting Arctic--as if the tropics don't electrically organize yet the Arctic does, that is your start of putting ice on land, making the storm region lose fresh water, become more saline and boom, runnaway storm in a place that gets 10 cms of percip a year. Not a good thing. The 40s there were snow storms in Europe following the heat of the 30s and early 40s, but what is going on is something different altogether in the Arctic now. It's a modulated, dampened system. Tropical storms serve a huge thermodynamic purpose. Kinetic energy stays in the tropics instead of going to the poles. When the oceans in the tropics get cold, they uptake CO2 better, and at the same time have to compete with temperate and polar zones for impedences where the atmosphere is less thick, and electrical couplings have smaller distances to organize. And CO2 is a DEPENDANT variable in all of this. Also, in terms of mechanism, while the oceans are getting colder, we are at a solar min. Plus there are reports of phytoplankton relative low levels and dead zones. There are a number of things going on aside from the CO2 and the dams and the system is dampened, modulated. The question is has human activity created a defect in a living earth feedback loop and if so, what can policy do to rectify that defect? A premature super storm will kill billions. As you all know from my posts here, I am not a green house gas warmer, but at one time I was. And I would certainly in retrospect say that I was not very objective when I entered the climate change debate. I have been in the debate long enough to know 'both' sides of the argument, and I have told the so called skeptics before that I could articulate THEIR position better than they could. But as you know there are two sides to this story, those who think that there are two sides and those who know better. The way a 'so-called' skeptic frames it is whether or not the drop in ACE was factual support of his position of 'so-called skepticism' counter to CO2 as a green house gas, warming the oceans and causing more tropical storms. The fact that they frame the question the way they do leads to the misrepresentation. Again, the idea is that CO2 comes out of solution with tropical lows and then redissolves in the water vapor --and then has conductivity, impedence, and induction meaning as it is moving in the context of up and down static fields. This then means CO2 has a DEPENDANT relationship with tropical storms. The dams also get to this electrical functioning of the storms, again, as discussed before in th e California drought thread below, for instance. The skeptics ignore where their points actually go. For instance, they brought up the fact that the warming occurs in the Northern Hemisphere only per the MSU data on the troposphere, which is what you would expect from a uniform heat trapping a green house gas theory, but they fail to take that were it goes, which is that lightning limited more to land is less in the southern hemisphere. Or they ignore cosmic ray flux (an electrical input) and glacial epochs. They ignore the moon--and mechanism to the moon which again is gravital but then by motions and induction electrical. One of the interesting postulations here with a living earth is if you assume as I do that electrical inputs are met with electrical modulations, and that the earth delt in its deep past with a moon much closer to the earth and a faster spin (shorter day), the earth have had to deal with constant and huge tides, so this is a much bigger input to the biosphere than it appears. The skeptics don't talk about where they go with the LACK of warming as a sign of a modulated system. The so called skeptics won't take these studies where go. They just don't. Skepticism isn't of ONE idea. Skepticism comes from a scientific methodology, not from countering one theory. Figuring this out could be the difference between the end of humanity or its golden age.