U.N. leader: Sandy a lesson in climate change

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon attends the United Nations Day Concert at United Nations on October 24, 2012 in New York City. / Michael Loccisano/Getty Images

UNITED NATIONS Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says one of the lessons from Superstorm Sandy is the need for global action to deal with future climate shocks.

A new round of global climate talks starts in Doha, Qatar on Nov. 27, and Ban urged nations to reach a binding agreement by 2015 to curtail emissions of heat-trapping gases in order to stop the planet from overheating.

He told the U.N. General Assembly on Friday that it is difficult to attribute any single storm to climate change, but the world already knows that "extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal."

• Will Sandy change the climate change conversation?
• Bloomberg endorses Obama, citing climate change
• Rich-poor divide at U.N. climate talks

The U.N. saw direct effects of the superstorm, which damaged its headquarters with flooding that shut it down for three days. Electrical components and the U.N. computer system were damaged.

Ki-moon is not the first one to bring up climate change in discussions about superstorm Sandy. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was asked about it in a press briefing hours after the storm on Oct. 30, but was careful about ruffling political feathers.

"There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement. That is a factual statement," Cuomo said. "Anyone who says there's not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think, is denying reality."

Play Video

Superstorm Sandy brings climate change back into focus

75 Photos

Hurricane Sandy slams Northeast

Two days later he added, "I think part of learning from this is realize that climate change is a reality."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg also brought up superstorm Sandy and climate change in an op-ed endorsing President Barack Obama for re-election.

"Our climate is changing," Bloomberg wrote. "And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be - given this week's devastation [from Sandy] - should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."

Meteorologists say that superstorm Sandy -- which started off as a hurricane before making landfall in New Jersey almost two weeks ago -- was particularly rare and dangerous because it collided with a cold weather system from the west, combining into an extreme hybrid storm.

[Paul054]

Yes, everyone in the world does seem to know this and repeats it like a parrot. BUT, this is not what the Science says!
In its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012)
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
the Inter Govermental Panel on Climate Change says :
"There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change"
"The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados"
"The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses"

So why do people keep saying that any event of extreme weather is due to climate change - and then claiming that the 'settled science' supports this view - when quite clearly it says the opposite?

[IPonUall2]

I read the report, I conclude you are an airhead.
The report completely supports climate change is a cause of extreme weather.

[Edohiguma]

Sandy was a cat 1 hurricane. It was an extratropical cyclone when it made landfall. It didn't set any new records. A hurricane going up north is neither unprecedented nor new or anything else. It has happened in the past numerous times. Hurricanes have traveled north into the New England states and Canada and wreaked massive havoc. One look into history proves this. But we know that people like Michael Mann have issues with acknowledging history and simply ignore it.

There isn't even a correlation between the number and intensity of hurricanes and the CO2 level. In fact the number of hurricanes has been going down.

Sandy proves effectively only one thing: the weather is a non-linear, chaotic system. But everyone should know that already.

[greener333]

Norway is the third largest oil exporter. The generate a a great deal of electricity from hydro. Which part of the Hudson would you "allow" to be dammed for hydro? Brazil is drilling for oil (deep well) like mad. I'd be happy for you to generate all your electricity from your roof top solar panels. In fact, all of NYC could do that.
One hurricane in decades does not make for doomsday climate change except for dupes and greedy politicians. Sandy did a lot of damage because of population density, lack of preparation and poor response. However, it wasn't all that strong a storm compared to others that have hit the east coast. Try Floyd, 1999, Cat 4 and flooded cities 100 miles inland.
The climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. You can't control it, no matter which pol and sloppy scientist says he can.

[Edohiguma]

Agreed. And honestly, I really didn't need yet another reason to call him Ban Ki Moonbat.

[Noval53]

A lesson in BS. Now the UN will work to use every weather disaster to push for the US to "address" climate change. This will mean countless $$$$$ will be poured into the bottomless UN pot. Not one half of one degree of temperature anywhere on the globe can be changed by the UN. What a gigantic scam; but a fool and his money are soon parted and a record number of fools will join in.

[Edohiguma]

BishopRobme, where do you get those numbers from? Your numbers aren't even remotely true.

Brazil gets more than 70% of its power from hydroelectricity, simply because they have plenty of rivers. More than 10% come from gas. Then oil, then biomass, then nuclear. The country still has to import some power.

Let's take Norway. more than 40% of Norway's power are produced by fossil systems. Hydroelectricity barely scratches 36%, again because Norway, thanks to its geography, has access to it. And some 21.5% come from nuclear power. Wind and solar are irrelevant.

As for the Mediterranean countries, your claim is a total lie. Not unexpected from proponents of unreliable and inefficient systems using wind and solar. Let's start with Greece.

Greece. Coal more than 50%. Gas more than 20%. Hyrdo 5%. Nuclear none. Oil 15%. Alternative scratches around at 2%.

Italy. A similar image. Natural gas, hydro, nuclear power. Wind scratches around at a planned 5%. Solar is pretty irrelevant. Sure, it's growing, but only because of government funding. The actual capacity factor of the plants is almost painful to watch. Completely unreliable.

Spain. 20% come from renewables, of which hydro is the dominating part. Then wind. Solar makes... roughly 3% of the power consumed in Spain. Leading system to produce power there, btw, is nuclear.

It's funny, the Mediterranean countries have a lot more solar days than the rest, and even they can't run on solar power. Why? Too unreliable, too inefficient. Same with wind, btw. Spain only has to much wind power because the government funded a lot of it. That is over now, because the Spanish are effectively bankrupt.