Ban says Philippines typhoon a 'warning' on climate change

While experts are hesitant to link extreme weather phenomena to climate change

The climate change industry (centered at the UN and at Al Gore's sprawling estate) have no interest in allowing real science get in the way of their desire to tell people how to live their lives and redistribute their income.

I link the typhoon to the US military. They've been able to create typhoons since the Vietnam War. The Philippines is a test for some future "event."

The UN can go to hell. They are not a body elected by the People and they do more harm than good -- destroying the sovereignty of nations to start.

" While experts are hesitant to link extreme weather phenomena to climate change, the U.N. has said rising sea levels make coastal populations more vulnerable to storm surges."

First of all, the actual experts (not Moon nor Gore) are right to be hesitant to link weather phenomena to climate variation. From an August Time science article, " But the most immediate threat is the sheer increase in people—and their property—put in harm’s way in coastal cities. In the U.S. 87 million people now live along the coast, up from 47 million people in 1960, and globally six of the world’s 10 largest cities are on the coast. Of the $60 to $63 billion in flood risk the Nature Climate Change study estimates the world’s cities will face by 2050, $52 billion is due to economic and population growth…

That doesn’t mean that climate change-amplified floods and storms don’t present a danger to coastal cities—or that we don’t need to worry about reducing carbon emissions. But the numbers don’t lie—the single biggest increase in the risk from flooding comes from putting people and property in places where floods have always been likely to happen."

A large factor is populations building in high flood-risk locations. Yes, like New Orleans and New York's Manhatten.

Deadliest Hurricane to Hit the United States

The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was the deadliest hurricane to ever hit the United States and caused between 8000 and 12000 deaths. The storm reached the Texas coast south of Galveston on September 8 as a Category 4 hurricane with a storm surge of 8 to 15 feet. The lack of warning and the high storm surge caused this storm to have the highest death toll of any United States hurricane.

It remains the most powerful and deadliest hurricane in recent New England history, eclipsed in landfall intensity perhaps only by the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. In 2012 Hurricane Sandy did far more property damage in terms of dollars (despite its lower intensity at landfall); however, the 1938 storm still stands as the second costliest storm to strike New England.

Was climate change also to blame for the 1635, 1900 Galveston, and 1938 NE Express hurricanes as well?

Reports in the Internet have it that it was manmade. See this link and search other similar ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5x8gY_Zo3U

here they come again, global warming yeah sure. we never will have the winters our grandparents had they said 4 years ago and what followed....winters not seen for so many years. here in europe the wind this year constantly came from the north, summer from the north!? typhoons over area's where they never came it means the pole's are changed, and nature's moves with it. that's a natural proces instead of this ridiculous global warming talk, don't let the these fanatics steal more of our money, let them find a decent job, what a bull!!!!

Here is another interesting link. There is always denial in every conspiracy just like cheating spouses will also deny their affairs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdIkI1ory8

What a bunch of nonsense. All last winter there were dire predictions about how many tornadoes and hurricanes would hit North America, and how many people would be killed. Quite unexpectadly, no hurricane made landfall, and America had 1/5 the number of tornado deaths than usual.

And, we can't forget that Mr Al Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Instead, 2013 saw record accumulation of ice in the arctic, as the summer saw less than half the number of above-freezing weather that it usually sees. Arctic ice has reclaimed most of the area it lost in recent years, and winter hasn't yet begun!

The lastest IPCC report says scientists are more certain than man is causing climate change, but the report has revised it's previous predictions of warming downward. What's more, though the latest report says scientists are more certain that climate change is man-made, they are now less certain as to why. They more than hint that CO2 may not be the primary cause of global warming, after countless billions of dollars have been spent trying to reduce CO2.

As usual, the latest report disdains satellite measurements of either temperature or sea-level, and once again focuses on ground readings. Funny that over the past forty years the number of stations has decreased further and further, concentrating mainly on thermometers located in urban and suburban areas. One of these thermometers is in my neighborhood, startegically located on the side of the street which gets the most sunshine, and only 1.5 meters above the asphalt roadway.

Mr Ki-Moon directs UN spending, which in the past was limited to peace-keeping and disaster relief. The global warming/climate change farce has given his organization oversight of countless billions of dollars, most of whch is absorbed by the bureacratic administration, and the rest being spent on skewed pseudo-science to frighten the stupid into giving them even more money.

2013 saw record accumulation of ice in the arctic, as the summer saw less than half the number of above-freezing weather that it usually sees. Arctic ice has reclaimed most of the area it lost in recent years

Dunno where you're looking, but it isn't here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/18/arctic-sea-ice-has-not-recovered-in-7-visuals/

There was certainly more ice in the Arctic in September of this year, but that's compared to the record low of 2012, which was 49% below the 1979-2000 average. The 'huge' gain still leaves it 23% below normal, and the overall trend is still downwards.

1979-2000 average.

These are the key words, before this time there is no firm data, so no real "average" can be determined. The world is more than 21 years old.

Ship's captains two centuries ago wrote in their logs about a compete disappearance in arctic ice for nearly a year, and we can't forget that there was a time that Greenland was "green". In the previous IPCC reports, they begin their temeprature charts after Greeland became white. Though the medieval warming period and the "Little Ice Age" are well known to climate scientists, the prefer to start their charts in the Little Ice Age, as it gives the coldest possible time to begin with, and makes the chart show a dramatic increase in temperatures. This is a little disengenuous, but then again, billions in grants depend on this so-called science, and scientists have bills to pay like anyone else.

Believe it or not, temperatures have been higher in the past, and Co2 levels have been much higher. The world didn't end, did it? And in the worst-case scenario, assuming man is the primary cause, and all of the disasters predicted come to pass, these nautural reactions would evetually turn the cycle back toward cooling. Man might suffer during the process, should it occur, but in the big picture human beings are a tiny part.

Already the plant life around the world is reacting to increased CO2. Plants are growing more quickly, and to larger sizes. The plants don't see increased CO2 as a problem, nor do warmer temperatures bother them. Nature is already compensating for increased CO2, just as it has done in the past. Man is not capable of tilting the balance beyond nature's ability to correct it.

we can't forget that there was a time that Greenland was "green"

It was only 'green' because that was how Eric the Red described it in his PR to get more people to come. The early Greenlanders relied on trade with Europe for their survival.

In the previous IPCC reports, they begin their temeprature charts after Greeland became white. Though the medieval warming period and the "Little Ice Age" are well known to climate scientists, the prefer to start their charts in the Little Ice Age, as it gives the coldest possible time to begin with, and makes the chart show a dramatic increase in temperatures

This claim has been debunked. The Mediaeval Warm Period was not as warm as once supposed, and temperatures now are warmer than then. Also there's a huge difference between a change in temperature that occurs gradually over hundreds of years, and one that occurs over mere decades.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm

Nature is already compensating for increased CO2

It 'compensates' (=reacts) by producing extremes of weather. The extra CO2 helps the plants to grow.....then they either wither in the following drought or get torn out of the ground by a super-typhoon.

It 'compensates' (=reacts) by producing extremes of weather. The extra CO2 helps the plants to grow.....then they either wither in the following drought or get torn out of the ground by a super-typhoon.

What extreme weather? North America has seen less large-scale hurricanes, or tornadoes. The super-typhoon in the Philippines was not unprecedented.

BTW, ski slopes are already open across Europe and North America, some weeks earlier than usual. If the world keeps warming up at this rate, I should invest in Rossignol stock.

Climate change deniers crack me up.

Once, the wise men predict the coming events before they happen. If U.N. stops playing politic on this issue, it would help the cause much more effective. A scholarly objective scientific report with suggested solutions is rather important than hopping on the train for Monday quarterbacking. Regarding the conspiracy, why Philippine, isn't the wrong target? Let's help the victims to rebuilt their lively-hood with charity without strings attached -that is humanity.

sangetsu: "What extreme weather?"

Seriously?

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases.

In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks around it?

So far, none of the studies conducted by the IPCC have passed the basic test of being reproduceable. Not one of the hugely-expensive climate change predictions generated by computer models have been remotely accurate. Not surprisingly, all temperature predictions were overestimated.

Section 8 of The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes."

Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate." This change was made without consulting the peer-review group which oversaw the writing of the draft report. Indeed, the peer-review group didn't learn about the changes until the final report was released at the Madrid meeting. So much for "peer-reviewed" science.

Much of this was borrowed from Michael Crichton's speech at Cal Tech in 2003. It is a good read for anyone who enjoys an eloquent argument of facts, whether you agree with them or not.

Here's my opinion. No evidence either way. Absolutely none with accurate record keeping only recently

But! I prefer to exercise caution. Certainly humans have impacted the earth. What if we do impact a climate change. By the time we could verify that it may be too late. If we have no evidence of clime change, we saved fossil fuels for future generations.

Remember that the 'scientists' said we were headed for an ice age starting from the end of WW2 through the 1970's and we even had a snow fall in the Sahara desert on February 18, 1979.

We puny self centred humans are looking at time passing on this planet in terms that the earth sees as mere seconds. These are 'cycles' that have been happening for millions of years (unless you believe that work of fiction stating 6000 years) and will continue for millions more.

The only reason why you think it happening more often is due in part to the easy access of all this information via the internet. For those of you old enough to remember how the news came in BEFORE the internet, you'll understand and if you really old to remember a time when most only had 5 to 20 channels of TV then you'll remember there was very little news from else where because NO ONE had a cell phone with a camera connected to the internet. Imagine the internet and the billions of TV channels not there plus no cell phones. Yup, you'd hear little to nothing as we did back in the 60's and 70's and 80's except about the fact the world was going to end at any moment because of the Cold War the 'button' and the MEDIA MADE DAMN SURE WE DIDN'T FORGET!!! Remember that? Climate change is today's media wetdream. Deal with it. Life and weather happens.

Well put Wolfpack. "Climate Change" is just another PR machine that lines the pockets of certain individuals at the expense of the great majority of people. How they get people to follow along with them is beyond me.

sangetsu: "Much of this was borrowed from Michael Crichton's speech at Cal Tech in 2003. It is a good read for anyone who enjoys an eloquent argument of facts, whether you agree with them or not."

Ah, yes... nothing like facts from a sci-fi author, whereas what actual scientists say is rubbish, right?

Also there's a huge difference between a change in temperature that occurs gradually over hundreds of years, and one that occurs over mere decades.

@ cleo: There really isn't when you look at it logically. There was a time when there were trade routes in the Arabian deserts in places like Oman, Yemen, etc that geologist have been able to discover looking at satellite images. River valleys that have been buried under the sand in various locations. You are right, it didn't happen over night, but it took time. But for that time to pass, for some who were around at the time it did occur over a few mere decades for the changes that took place to give us the end result that we have now. Natural phenomena is what caused those once ariable areas to become deserts. If you really look into it, the writings found from those times indicate that people were noticing the changes nature was making, and some adapted and others didn't.

One more important thing, during the time that the now deserts were becoming less "green" and arid, there were polar bears around back then. Guess what, with all of the climate change that occured, they are still here. But I can't say the same for the wolly mammoths.

Alphaape - According to the WWF, the polar bear is in danger of extinction within the next 100 years. Then we will be able to put its bones in the natural history museums, next to the bones of the woolly mammoth.

WWF has an agenda. Can you be certain their theory is scientifically fact based? Truth is nobody has a crystal ball and can predict the future.

As a past member of WWF I believe we all need to live a life of minimum impact. I don't support Human Climate Change as fact when we have no solid evidence suggesting that. I also do not support overlooking the possibility.

Clearly humans in the past have been reckless and devastating to regions of the earth. We all should recognize that and learn from it.

Will polar bears become extinct? No, Zoos manage to breed them in captivity easily. Will they go extinct in the wild? We have no way of knowing.

That said, cautiously live our lives and support the fact that we need to preserve the earth for our future generations.

Alphaape - According to the WWF, the polar bear is in danger of extinction within the next 100 years. Then we will be able to put its bones in the natural history museums, next to the bones of the woolly mammoth.

@ cleo: If the polar bear goes extinct, it will be because of man, men over hunting not only them, but the food that they eat (seals, etc). The environment and people driving non-Prius cars will have nothing to do with it.

Will polar bears become extinct? No, Zoos manage to breed them in captivity easily.

If the only specimens of a species exist in zoos, that species is to all intents and purposes extinct. If there is no natural habitat to return them to, no ice floes for them to hunt off, then they're gone.

If there is no natural habitat to return them to, no ice floes for them to hunt off, then they're gone.

@ cleo: Recnetly there was a story about a massive heard of marine mammals (seals, walrus, etc) that had come ashore in an area where they normally didn't gather in such large numbers in Alaska (upper parr where not many humans are). Researchers were studying and trying to find out why so many came there. If the ice floes, decrease, the polar bears will go where the food is (they can swim up to 40 miles), in places such as I described. The problem that occurs when these types of things happen in nature is what others have posted here, that man has invaded many habitats where animals used to roam. Not only in coastal regions but in various others. Farmlands are in place and protected where once there were open plains for animals to graze.

Even the Global warming alarmist and green energy people are to blame. Recent articles have stated that migratory birds are being burned by the glare from solar panel farms, and the very liberal state of Oregon (as well as the Obama Admin) has recently made it legal fo kill eagels (that is if they are chopped up in windmill farms and not hunted) to make sure that companies are covered and not get sued. I guess in those cases, the medicine for the cure is worse than the disease.