Conquer Club

Sandy was no coincidence: UN

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby nietzsche on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:14 pm

http://www.pressconnects.com/usatoday/article/1730251?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs


DOHA, Qatar (AP) -- Though it's tricky to link a single weather event to climate change, Hurricane Sandy was "probably not a coincidence" but an example of the extreme weather events that are likely to strike the U.S. more often as the world gets warmer, the U.N. climate panel's No. 2 scientist said Tuesday.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, predicted that as stronger and more frequent heat waves and storms become part of life, people will stop asking whether global warming played a role.

"The new question should probably progressively become: Is it possible that climate warming has not influenced this particular event?" he told the Associated Press in an interview on the sidelines of U.N. climate negotiations in Qatar.

Ypersele's remarks come as global warming has re-emerged as an issue in Washington following the devastating superstorm - a rarity for the U.S. Northeast - and an election that led to Democratic gains.

After years of disagreement, climate scientists and hurricane experts have concluded that as the climate warms, there will be fewer total hurricanes. But those storms that do develop will be stronger and wetter.

It is not correct to say Sandy was caused by global warming, but "the damage caused by Sandy was worse because of sea level rise," said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer. He said the sea level in New York City is a foot higher than a century ago because of man-made climate change.

On the second day of a two-week conference in the Qatari capital of Doha, the talks fell back to the bickering between rich and poor countries that has marked the negotiations since they started two decades ago. At the heart of the discord is how to divide the burden of cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases, including carbon dioxide.

Such emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, have increased by 20 percent since 2000, according to a U.N. report released last week.

Van Ypersele said the slow pace of the talks was "frustrating" and that negotiators seem more concerned with protecting national interests than studying the science that prompted the negotiations.

"I would say please read our reports a little more. And maybe that would help to give a sense of urgency that is lacking," he said.

Marlene Moses, the head of a coalition of island nations that view the rising sea levels as an existential threat, said that was good advice.

"These are the kind of people that it is probably a good idea to listen to," she said. "It is very much in the interest of small islands to focus on the science, which is why we have always based our positions on the latest research and why here we are calling for dramatically higher ambition."

Since 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has released four reports with projections on how global warming will melt glaciers and ice caps, raise sea levels and shift rainfall patterns with impacts on floods and droughts. The panel shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate campaigner Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president.

The IPCC is set to start releasing portions of its fifth report next year. Van Ypersele would not discuss the contents except to say the report will include new research on the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, boosting previous estimates on sea level rise.

He said the scientific backing for man-made climate change is now so strong that it can be compared to the consensus behind the principles of gravity.

"It's a very, very broad consensus. There are a few individuals who don't believe it, but we are talking about science and not beliefs," Van Ypersele told AP.

Climate change skeptics say IPCC scientists have in the past overestimated the effect of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and underplayed natural cycles of warming and cooling. Others have claimed the authors, who aren't paid for their work, exaggerated the effects that climate change will have on the environment and on human life.

Negotiators in Doha are supposed to start talks on an elusive global treaty to rein in emissions. They have set a deadline of 2015 to adopt that pact, which would take effect in 2020.

Among other topics, they are discussing how to help poor countries convert to cleaner energy sources and adapt to a shifting climate, as well as extending the expiring Kyoto Protocol, an agreement that limits the greenhouse emissions of industrialized countries.

The U.S. rejected the Kyoto deal because it didn't cover world-leading carbon polluter China and other fast-growing developing countries. Other rich countries including Canada and Japan don't want to be part of the extension, which means it will cover less than 15 percent of global emissions.

"Japan will not be participating in a second commitment period, because what is important is for the world is to formulate a new framework which is fair and effective and which all parties will join," Japanese delegate Masahiko Horie said.

Meanwhile, a series of recent climate reports have underscored the depth of the challenge before the U.N. climate negotiators. A report released Tuesday by the U.N. Environment Program warned current climate projections are likely too conservative because they don't factor in the thawing of permafrost - a layer of soil that stays frozen year-round in cold climates.

Lead author Kevin Schaefer, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, said 1,700 gigatons of carbon are locked up in permafrost primarily in the U.S., China, Russia and Canada. He called for further studies on the potential climate impact if it's released, saying up to 39 percent of total emissions could come from permafrost by 2100.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Serbia on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:16 pm

hi nietzsche! I miss you beau <3
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Captain Serbia
 
Posts: 12280
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby notyou2 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:18 pm

Switzerland wins all because it is landlocked and mountainous.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Serbia on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:20 pm

Was there a point to this thread? Sorry, i missed that.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Captain Serbia
 
Posts: 12280
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby nietzsche on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:24 pm

Serbia wrote:Was there a point to this thread? Sorry, i missed that.


dunno, I am hoping you guys discuss and get into a heated debate about global warming, then we would get the funny trolling going.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby rdsrds2120 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:27 pm

Looks like the idea of climate change is warming up to some of us.

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Serbia on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:31 pm

nietzsche wrote:
Serbia wrote:Was there a point to this thread? Sorry, i missed that.


dunno, I am hoping you guys discuss and get into a heated debate about global warming, then we would get the funny trolling going.


vodka is a party starter.

I think glgobal warming is natural. Don't really care if it's happening ofr not. IN fact, f*ck it, bringk on the glaobal owarming, ist' kinda cold in Detroit.

CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Captain Serbia
 
Posts: 12280
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby notyou2 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:32 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:Looks like the idea of climate change is warming up to some of us.

BMO


You phrased it wrong.

It looks like the naysayers have pulled their heads out of their asses, or at least some of them.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby rdsrds2120 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:37 pm

I was just in it for the pun, anyway. :)
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Serbia on Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:49 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:I did it all for the nookie. :)


We know, bro. We know.
CONFUSED? YOU'LL KNOW WHEN YOU'RE RIPE
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
User avatar
Captain Serbia
 
Posts: 12280
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:10 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby tzor on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:37 pm

Lots of interesting but pointless shit. The fact was that this hurricane hit the shore around the same time as the full moon. Now I can't pull the exact information on the New Jersey coastline, but the effect of tides >> a singe foot rise that is alleged to global warming. Given the fact that hurricanes of this nature do not come along often, the odds of it hiting at the point of high tide is not something we have lots of empirical data on.

Second, the United Nations is not an impartial actor in the field of Global Warming; it is big business to the UN in terms of papers and publications and the UN's desires for global legislature and subsequent breaurcratic control makes the promotion of Global Warming a very high priority on its lists.

Yes, there was a lot of damage, but the Hurricane of 1938 did a lot of damage also. When the big ones come around every hundred years or less, how are you going to make a comparison based on an alleged one foot of increased ocean height? The fact was that if Sandy hit at low tide, most of the problems would not have happened. So does that mean we have to dynamically alter the orbit of the moon every time a hurricane passes by?
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby HapSmo19 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:42 pm

DOHA, Qatar (AP) -- .....more often as the world gets warmer, the U.N. climate panel's No. 2 scientist said Tuesday.

Why don't they just say "shit-scientist"? We're all adults here...

notyou2 wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:Looks like the idea of climate change is warming up to some of us.


You phrased it wrong.

It looks like the naysayers have pulled their heads out of their asses, or at least some of them.

Who? What are some of them saying now?
User avatar
Lieutenant HapSmo19
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Willamette Valley

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Army of GOD on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:45 pm

nietzsche's ugly face was no coincidence: UN
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7191
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:46 pm

tzor wrote:Second, the United Nations is not an impartial actor in the field of Global Warming; it is big business to the UN in terms of papers and publications and the UN's desires for global legislature and subsequent breaurcratic control makes the promotion of Global Warming a very high priority on its lists.


Well obviously scientists can't be impartial if there are publications on the line.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby nietzsche on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:53 pm

What are you guys saying, that

A) Global warming doesn't exist at all?

B) Global warming is a fact but don't cause bigger storms?

C) Global warming exists, but their effect on storms cannot be proven?

D) Global warming exists, but is not caused by humans but it's the normal cycle of the earth climate?

E) Global warming is a hoax used to create fear in public (including fake satellite pictures of the ice blocks)

F) Global warming is true and causes all that but you like to go against what other people say?


Where does your information in global warming comes from anyway? You have to listen to the scientists, some say no, some say yes, what does it make you believe one scientist and not the other? Most likely we are spoon feed news and articles about it like with everything else. We choose who to believe.

I can tell you the sea level is rising, there's a relatively new touristic development close to me where the sea level has risen and taken away a few houses in the last few years, dramatically it took away 1 big house this year. I have no clue if this is because of global warming as it's explained as our fault or if it the normal earth climate cycle.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby tzor on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:06 pm

Global warming existed ... temperatures have been flat for the past decade. Note that Global cooling also existed during one point in the 20th century. This is why no one calls it global warming anymore; they call it climage change.

It is really impossible to measure the impact of such general increases on a specific incident. It is stupid to speculate on the effect.

There are still other factors that occur naturally that are far stronger than the effects of global warming.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:09 pm

tzor wrote:Global warming existed ... temperatures have been flat for the past decade.


That is the biggest falsehood told in the last few years, and it gets repeated so many times that it has become truth among the right wing science deniers even though there's no legitimacy to it. Seriously. There was one year (1998 I think) that was higher than average, and people drew a line arbitrarily from there to prove that temperatures were flat, getting exactly the result that they wanted. That's not how science works.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... ng-denial/
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby tzor on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:27 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
tzor wrote:Global warming existed ... temperatures have been flat for the past decade.


That is the biggest falsehood told in the last few years,


Oh I guess Forbes is a tool of the quacks then.

Although global temperatures have been pretty flat despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the big 1998 El Nino, no one that I know disputes that climate changes. Nor do they doubt that there has been very mild warming since the mid-19th century when our planet began thawing out of the last “Little Ice Age” (predating the Industrial Revolution). And while most acknowledge that greenhouse warming may well be a contributing factor, it is also true that a great many very informed scientists believe that any human contributions to that influence are negligible, undetectable and thereby grossly exaggerated by alarmists, while far more important natural climate drivers (both for warming and cooling), are virtually ignored. Particularly consequential among these are long-and short-term effects of ocean cycles along with changes in solar activity.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:29 pm

tzor wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
tzor wrote:Global warming existed ... temperatures have been flat for the past decade.


That is the biggest falsehood told in the last few years,


Oh I guess Forbes is a tool of the quacks then.

Although global temperatures have been pretty flat despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the big 1998 El Nino, no one that I know disputes that climate changes. Nor do they doubt that there has been very mild warming since the mid-19th century when our planet began thawing out of the last “Little Ice Age” (predating the Industrial Revolution). And while most acknowledge that greenhouse warming may well be a contributing factor, it is also true that a great many very informed scientists believe that any human contributions to that influence are negligible, undetectable and thereby grossly exaggerated by alarmists, while far more important natural climate drivers (both for warming and cooling), are virtually ignored. Particularly consequential among these are long-and short-term effects of ocean cycles along with changes in solar activity.


I won't comment on Forbes' reputation, but the author of that article is a professor of architecture. Why would you take him more seriously than actual climate scientists?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby nietzsche on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:31 pm

Check mate?
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Army of GOD on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:23 am

Are you doubting architects, Mets?
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7191
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:56 am

Global warming and climate change do exist.

Global warming and climate change did not cause "Superstorm" Sandy. The only way I would believe that Sandy was caused by global warming and climate change is if storms like this had not happened in the past. Since storms like this happened in the past, I don't believe global warming and climate change caused these storms.

Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:18 am

thegreekdog wrote:Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.


I find it beneficial when people use disasters to further the agenda of saving humanity. Humans apparently can't reason their way to preventing this problem before it happens, but maybe they can be convinced when they see the destruction it causes during their own lifetimes.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:27 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.


I find it beneficial when people use disasters to further the agenda of saving humanity. Humans apparently can't reason their way to preventing this problem before it happens, but maybe they can be convinced when they see the destruction it causes during their own lifetimes.


Right, because this particular disaster and the implications of what allegedly caused the disaster fuels your particular agenda (and the UN's agenda). If it did not fuel your agenda, you would not find it beneficial.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Sandy was no coincidence: UN

Postby nietzsche on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:29 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Further, the UN is using Sandy as a way to get people to support climate change legislation, not climate change itself. They are basically saying "Look at what climate change did to New Jersey, New York, and New England, you need to pass those laws, cap and trade, emissions testing, whatever." I find it sort of disgusting, since I don't like when people use disasters to further their own agendas, but whatevs.


I find it beneficial when people use disasters to further the agenda of saving humanity. Humans apparently can't reason their way to preventing this problem before it happens, but maybe they can be convinced when they see the destruction it causes during their own lifetimes.


But tgd is referring to the idea of an international tax, that the UN want to collect. This would only be a start of a global taxing, banking, etc. More power for the powerful, more chains for the people, and specially detrimental to poor countries.

Well, I think that's what he was referring to.
el cartoncito mas triste del mundo
User avatar
General nietzsche
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:29 am
Location: Fantasy Cooperstown

Next

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users