Hurricane Sandy

[Badger]

Meanwhile Mitt has given his political response

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ix-hurricane-damage-says-romney-2012103047034

Investment banking will fix hurricane damage, says Romney
30-10-12
THE devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy can only be fixed with a new wave of unregulated investment banking, Mitt Romney has claimed.

Make half of this fireman redundant and then sell him to China
​

The Republican candidate said there was no need for the New York Fire Department to deal with the large crane arm dangling over Manhattan as it could be placed gently onto a huge pile of money made by Goldman Sachs.
He added: “You then lower it gradually to the ground by removing money at the bottom of the pile and paying it out as bonuses. Voila!”
Romney also claimed the most effective way to deal with a 13-foot wall of sea water is a complex system of credit default swaps.
“You line them up along the shore and as soon as the waves hit their yield increases by 14%. Surge!”
He revealed that if he was still running Bain Capital he would be eagerly buying up thousands of flooded homes at rock bottom prices before renting them out to their previous owners on a rolling, one-month lease.
“It’s good for shareholders and it’s good for the former homeowners who now have a great incentive to work a lot harder. Especially if they don’t want me coming round everyday to tell them about Joseph Smith and his Magic Hat.”
And Romney insisted that in his America hedge funds would already be trading ‘futures’ in the thousands of fallen trees that litter New York and New Jersey.
He said: “President Obama wants to interfere with those trees. He simply doesn’t understand that the best thing you can do with a fallen tree is to give it the freedom to stay exactly where it is.”

 

[pb21]

To cut a long story short, so what if the CO2 level has risen from 280ppm to 380ppm in the last 150 years or so.

It is totally incorrect in my opinion to assume that this is the (sole) reason that the global temperature has risen 0.74C in the last 100 years.

I personally think that this CO2 rise has a negligable effect on the environment (if it really was important it should have risen a figure to be concerned about say 3C) and that natural factors are far more important with respect to climate change. I also think that there are natural cycles of climate change throughout earth's history (ice age, roman warm period, medieval warm period, little ice age), which this present period of increased warming can be explained by.

OK so you think that as the increase hasn't been that great, it is wrong in your opinion to assume this is leading to changes in climate and has had a negligible effect. But you also say its not the sole reason implying it might have an effect. It goes back to one of my original questions:

'At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?'

Why doesn't an increase from 280 to 380 matter? What if it went to 600pp, would that be an issue? Why isnt it an issue if it 'just' goes to 300? You seem to know, presumably you have the answers?

Yes the global atmosphere works on a feed back system, but the argument is that human behavior is changing it quicker than it can cope with. Have you ever read anything about the Gaia hypothesis?

Anyway what you say is laced with 'in my opinion', 'I personally think', 'I also think' etc etc. Its very egocentric to presume what you think is fact, when the vast, vast majority of evidence, theory and scientifically reached objective conclusions suggest otherwise. Thankfully the scientific consensus hasn't been arrived at by what people think or what there personal opinion is, rather what scientific knowledge and evidence is showing.

 

[matthew]

Well some people would tell you we are in the middle of man made climate change that is going to have catastrophic consequencies for us all and it patently isn't the case if you use the population of our species as a yardstick.

The human race, as a whole, thrives and yet the doomsayers are saying we are all on the brink of armagedon due to (man made) global warming.

1bn -7bn where the earth can only sustain about 3bn people, that is not thriving that is over population which means half the world and more later on will always live in poverty.

People have only started using and discovering fossil fuels for the last 120 years - no time at all and yet the planet has been completely re shaped and half the environment destroyed. No time when you think the planet is 6 million years old. If you think pumping CO2 and methane and whatever other manufactured chemicals into the atmosphere to the extent that we're running out of oil and coal (which had been stored from ancient sunlight on the planet for billions of years) won't have a harmful affect in the decades and century's to come then there is something wrong with you.

It's not the environment and planet that's not going to survive it's been through much worse things like said such as ice ages, it's humans that won't survive if fossil fuel emissions continue and trees keep on getting cut down. There are areas in China because of smog where hundreds die a day and people wear gas masks, imagine that everywhere. 330 months above average global temperatures, the worst droughts is America ever recorded, changing and more severe weather patterns

 

[Bold Seagull]

To cut a long story short, so what if the CO2 level has risen from 280ppm to 380ppm in the last 150 years or so.

It is totally incorrect in my opinion to assume that this is the (sole) reason that the global temperature has risen 0.74C in the last 100 years.

I personally think that this CO2 rise has a negligable effect on the environment (if it really was important it should have risen a figure to be concerned about say 3C) and that natural factors are far more important with respect to climate change. I also think that there are natural cycles of climate change throughout earth's history (ice age, roman warm period, medieval warm period, little ice age), which this present period of increased warming can be explained by.

No it can't. We are warming faster than at any other time that we can look back at (and we can look back a long way). Why is that?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

I

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

This debate/argument about climate change by you guys on this thread is becoming very very boring.

Those that believe it is man-made are not going to be convinced otherwise, particularly I would have thought by a poster on NSC. Same for those that believe it's a natural recurring cycle.

So can we please get back to some comments about what is happening on the East Coast. Much more interesting to read updates from NSCers in the storm area.

Hi Goldstone – I think you got out of Manhattan at the right time!

Yep, NSC at its best. Another post which gets hijacked for 3 pages by 2 or 3 people with their own agenda!

I’ve never seen the streets in Manhattan so quiet. Lots of flooding, trees and power lines down but no real structural damage. Hoboken, Queens and New Jersey seem to have taken the brunt of the storm. New Yorkers realize it could have been a lot worse if it had been a Cat 2 or 3. It’s definitely spooked a lot of folk because you never used to get Hurricanes coming so far north or so late in the year.

 

[simmo]

No it can't. We are warming faster than at any other time that we can look back at (and we can look back a long way). Why is that?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

I

No we aren't not by a long shot.

Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age

"The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago."

All within the times of humans being on the planet.....and all natural.

 

[CHAPPERS]

All within the times of humans being on the planet....

And did they have cars then? Or aeroplanes? Or huge power stations? What were man made co2 emissions like at this time?

 

[Badger]

And did they have cars then? Or aeroplanes? Or huge power stations? What were man made co2 emissions like at this time?

Don't be stupid, they had giant snowmobiles.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No we aren't not by a long shot.

Greenland Ice Core Analysis Shows Drastic Climate Change Near End Of Last Ice Age

"The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago."

All within the times of humans being on the planet.....and all natural.

You didn't actually read it all did you. I really can't take you seriously at all.

 

[simmo]

You didn't actually read it all did you. I really can't take you seriously at all.

Oh I see, just a bit of patronising as the answer eh, you must be soooo much cleverer than me. For me your link in 124 goes nowhere by the way.

Well my article was based on scientific findings found in ice cores in Greenland. If you only feel the need to patronise to me, why don't you read the article and explain to the rest of us why there was a natural 22 degree fahrenheit rise in 50 years that these scientists found during the era where humans inhabited the earth (I know this era coincides and may be better termed the holocene before you patronise again).

It puts the 0.74C that the UN found in the last 100 years a bit into perspective doesn't it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Oh I see, just a bit of patronising as the answer eh, you must be soooo much cleverer than me. For me your link in 124 goes nowhere by the way.

Well my article was based on scientific findings found in ice cores in Greenland. If you only feel the need to patronise to me, why don't you read the article and explain to the rest of us why there was a natural 22 degree fahrenheit rise in 50 years that these scientists found during the era where humans inhabited the earth (I know this era coincides and may be better termed the holocene before you patronise again).

It puts the 0.74C that the UN found in the last 100 years a bit into perspective doesn't it.

I'm not the only one patronising you - go figure!

 

[goldstone]

Hi Goldstone – I think you got out of Manhattan at the right time!

Yep, NSC at its best. Another post which gets hijacked for 3 pages by 2 or 3 people with their own agenda!

I’ve never seen the streets in Manhattan so quiet. Lots of flooding, trees and power lines down but no real structural damage. Hoboken, Queens and New Jersey seem to have taken the brunt of the storm. New Yorkers realize it could have been a lot worse if it had been a Cat 2 or 3. It’s definitely spooked a lot of folk because you never used to get Hurricanes coming so far north or so late in the year.

Hi Lyndhurst - I was thinking the same thing myself - both about getting out of Manhattan at the right time and about the typical hijacking of an NSC thread!

It appears that the worst thing in Manhattan is the flooding of the road tunnels (I see that the Battery tunnel is flooded, how about the Lincoln, Holland and Midtown?) and the subway tunnels. How long are they expecting it will take to reopen those?

Have you got electricity?

I was in NYC when we had a hurricane pass through in the mid 80s, but nothing like this one.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Please make sure the mess is tidied up by Thursday when I arrive

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

Hi Lyndhurst - I was thinking the same thing myself - both about getting out of Manhattan at the right time and about the typical hijacking of an NSC thread!

It appears that the worst thing in Manhattan is the flooding of the road tunnels (I see that the Battery tunnel is flooded, how about the Lincoln, Holland and Midtown?) and the subway tunnels. How long are they expecting it will take to reopen those?

Have you got electricity?

I was in NYC when we had a hurricane pass through in the mid 80s, but nothing like this one.

Power is still OK on the UES. Everything south of 40[SUP]th[/SUP] St. is down. A lot of my friends have had to move out of their apartments as no power also means no water pumps.

Flooding is still bad – Mid town and Holland are still shut and most of the bridges due to high winds. I walked over to the East River and NYPD were turning everybody back due to high water and wind hazards. Subway could be out for days – Bloomberg is saying it’s the worst damage the MTA has had to deal with.

The FDR which normally has 6 lanes chokka with traffic is deserted apart from emergency vehicles

 

[Timbo]

This will have been lifted from an American source. It's an article about Sandy in the US, with a reminder that deaths occurred in Haiti in previous days due to Sandy. I don't see what you're complaining about.

The absolute hand wringing self pity coming out of America, wall to wall coverage of a storm, inventing the word 'superstorm' just in case we didn't think it was all that bad. To be honest I watch the news most days but had no idea it had already claimed over 60 lives elsewhere, yet I could probably give you a pretty comprehensive list of restaurants that have been closed today in manhattan.

 

[beorhthelm]

No it can't. We are warming faster than at any other time that we can look back at (and we can look back a long way). Why is that?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

I

i do like that graph. it shows, depending on which peaks you count, there has been a similar sharp increase in temperatures 6-9 tims before, each when there werent any fossil fuel burning humans around. C02 levels probably does have an impact but the doom laden projections of the 90's have already been found flawed (supposed to be 2-3 deg rise by now on some models). the famous hockey stick is great for a presentation until you realise noone can explain the drop at the begining of the century or post war decades, when C02 was consistantly rising (according to a single source at a volcano). the models are flawed. some didnt count for albido effect, some didnt even include the effects of the Sun.

 

[BadFish]

Why would the vast majority of scientists and governments be saying this if it wasn’t thought to be true?
If they said nothing was happening i.e this was natural, their funding would be cut 95%.

Why do you believe that you are being lied to?
We are not being lied to, it is just they have not got a real clue what is going on, they change their story to change with their data. I can assure you when I was younger they were talking about global cooling. In my time I have heard, global cooling, global warming, global dimming and now it is a catch all phrase of climate change (which is a brilliant phrase for them to use because now whatever the freak weather i.e Sandy they can blame on this catch all phrase).

Do you agree that humans are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Yes

At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?
Who knows what real effect CO2 increasing has to the climate, it may be negligable compared to what nature can do, ie solar output, ocean currents, changes of wind speed and direction.

You mean they adapt their theories as they find out more about the subject?
This is some how a negative to you?
You would prefer that they form a hypothesis and stick to it despite the research and experiments they carry out showing it is incorrect?

I love the ideas that the you suggest that a the majority of scientist don't know what is going on and we shouldn't believe them. But we should believe you, a bloke on a football message board who we know nothing about especially his scientific or geological credentials (although it is plain to see that you have not the slightest idea about he scientific process).

 

[BadFish]

We are told by some people that we are going through a man made climate change catastrophe....or words to that effect.

Why in this era of man made climate change catastrophe is the human race climbing exponentially. Surely millions if not billions of people should be dieing?

The answer is because we are NOT going through a man made global warming catastrophe.

Why does global warming mean that humans die? I just cannot fathom your link here.

Away from the global warming debate, the very fact that the human race is growing at such a rate is bringing us to the brink of catastrophe because all these people must be fed it will not be long before we are going to struggle to create enough food for people. Then huge swathes of the human population will be starving, undernourished or unable to feed themselves. When will this happen? ..........

 

[BadFish]

OK so you think that as the increase hasn't been that great, it is wrong in your opinion to assume this is leading to changes in climate and has had a negligible effect. But you also say its not the sole reason implying it might have an effect. It goes back to one of my original questions:

'At what point would an increase in atmospheric CO2 lead to the climate changing?'

Why doesn't an increase from 280 to 380 matter? What if it went to 600pp, would that be an issue? Why isnt it an issue if it 'just' goes to 300? You seem to know, presumably you have the answers?

Yes the global atmosphere works on a feed back system, but the argument is that human behavior is changing it quicker than it can cope with. Have you ever read anything about the Gaia hypothesis?

Anyway what you say is laced with 'in my opinion', 'I personally think', 'I also think' etc etc. Its very egocentric to presume what you think is fact, when the vast, vast majority of evidence, theory and scientifically reached objective conclusions suggest otherwise. Thankfully the scientific consensus hasn't been arrived at by what people think or what there personal opinion is, rather what scientific knowledge and evidence is showing.

precisely, thank f*** for science.

 

[trancing]

go to about 30 secs and watch the 3 nutters behind the reporter YouTube