First, even if it could not be connected to climate change itself, flooding of vulnerable low-lying areas will be an increasing concern as sea level rises and more intense storms (tropical and extratropical) occur. In this way, Superstorm Sandy is a foretaste of what's to come. What once was rare will be no longer.
Secondly, we know that climate change must affect whatever storms are occurring now but precise attribution is difficult. In the case of Sandy, the warmer than average waters add more energy and moisture for latent heat release (the heat engine that feeds tropical systems) and enables such storms to occur farther north and later (as well as earlier) in the season. A point of clarification is that the Gulf Stream is not actually weaker right now, but it may become diluted in the North Atlantic if that part of the ocean becomes less salty due to ice melt (all frozen water is fresh water). This would cool the climate of Europe as well as alter ocean and atmospheric circulations globally in ways that are harder to pin down. As yet, there is no appreciable freshening of water or weakening of the Gulf Stream detected (it did substantially temporarily slow a few years ago but there hasn't been enough melt yet to cause shutdown of lore).
There is a long history of tropical cyclones in and just missing NYC, but they're relatively uncommon. A climate pattern that played a role in the trough and tropical cyclone that became Superstorm Sandy is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). The Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation is necessarily affected by the massive sea ice of 2012 and preceding years and may lead to a more amplified polar jet stream pattern and ensuing blocking that played a role in Sandy, as well as other recent extremes such as heatwaves/droughts, cold outbreaks, floods, and the frequent severe tornadoes last spring (the tornadoes it's extremely important to note, however, cannot yet be consistently predicted at climate scales). Amplified patterns will lead to these things and have in the past, but some research suggests that the melting sea ice factors significantly into the recent amplified and blocking patterns.
The next relevant IPCC report from Working Group I on The Physical Science Basis (of IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [AR5]) is expected next September and will cover these things, including more discussion of regional effects and refining expected effects/uncertainties than the last report. There has been much advancement in the science since AR4 in 2007 and an able cadre of scientists is working on this report. https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/ (by the way, all Spring journals are effective free access through the end of November https://www.springer.com/?SGWID=0-102-12-922006-0&cm_mmc=AD-_-Journal-_-SEM17834_V1-_-CENTER_922006 and all AGU members seem to have access to all journals but I think this is a glitch so I don't know how long it'll last http://www.agu.org/pubs/journals/ ) It's probably a good idea to have a climate scientist and maybe someone from the social science side of climate and society on Behind the News.
Regardless of all that physical science stuff, yes, climate is interested in you whether or not you are interested in it. For the doubters left on this list, anthropogenic global warming is real and it is significant. This is serious. We need to be working on energy production and efficiency. We need to be doing large public works projects for mitigation, such as flood protection for NYC. The Dutch are leading the way on this and are building hugely not only for past floods such as the well-known works after the devastating North Sea flood of 1953, but also climate change http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/04/25/050425fa_fact3 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/02/050502fa_fact3 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/05/09/050509a_fact3 . The Brits did a large project to keep the River Thames from flooding London, as well. Cracking the nut of getting this society to work on this (or anything public and grandiose) is much tougher than meteorology/climatology which led to chaos theory.
It really is true that climate change may be the single greatest example of market failure. It caused this and one response is to ravenously, rapaciously immediately and without any consideration exploit the new energy resources that the warming it caused made available, thereafter pushing the climate and ecosystems past the brink. From their perspective and in their insular social circles it makes sense to do so. Capitalism uses all resources to exhaustion until acted upon by a sufficient "outside" force, be it labor or social action, or resource constraints. "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical" but "whoever said the human race is logical?" (other than orthodox economic models). Sometimes internal market developments can escape or at least postpone this process, such as new oil exploitation techniques and exploration, but this cannot be counted on and obviously only applies in certain narrow realms.
Moreover, coupled with food, water, possibly energy, and other resource constraints to come, we can expect increased strife, social disorder, and outright conflict. That is especially so given neoliberal globalization and cannibalistic capitalism that gradually eroded the standard of living which bought the consent of populations for so long. All this also presents opportunity, but only if we have solid ideas of our own to proffer (and do so effectively). In this way, Occupy was a good start to begin thinking and working outside the current system, and indeed was prudent to not adopt specific political demands (it would have been disablingly fractious before having a chance to grow into what it did and/or become co-opted), but it was fatally deficient in not having more of an underlying theory. Some participants did but most didn't and as Doug and others have pointed out, we're really without a comprehensive and cohesive new theory as yet --not that capitalism or anything else develops from a specific theory-- it'll have to be organic but with some shared and workable underpinnings. Considering the vacuum Occupy emerged from in this society, that's to be expected and I remain thankful that it happened. I've seen discussion and work emerge that could eventually lead to meaningful ends. Revolutions, slow or fast, never occurred overnight, it's a process of what seem like false starts.
"Alternative" economies including the local movement have a place, but on this, Doug is especially good in keeping expectations grounded. In the technological and advancement realms, the rise of hacker and maker spaces may (hopefully) signal the resurgence of a tinkerer culture which previously existed in the US through its manufacturing years and played a role in the information revolution. Mass manufacturing of the old ways isn't returning, but there is no good reason that we can't make things and solve problems again. The same goes for finance and other areas, not just manufacturing and agriculture. We should beat them (current capitalists) at their own game.
I can recommend scientists for Doug to interview if he is interested. I'm just a young learning amateur on the social stuff. I can't say that I'm especially optimistic given the daunting propaganda and systems of interlocking power faced or the potential for the coming strife to lead to very negative reactionary outcomes.
On 30-Oct-12 23:23, Nicholas Roberts wrote:
> you might not be interested in climate change (war/politics), but climate
> change (war/politics) is interested in you
>
> Trotsky ? Lenin ? who said that?
>
> as the arctic sea ice melts its weakening the gulf stream which is allowing
> tropical cyclones into NYC
>
> so, we have climate war on Wall Street