PDA

View Full Version : Environment US military goes to war with climate sceptics


KILLER_CLOWN
05-20-2011, 10:05 PM
Political action on climate change may be mired in Congress, but one arm of government at least is acting: the Pentagon

The Pentagon, with its responsibility for national security, is proving a strong advocate of the need to plan for climate change. Photograph: Charles Dharapak/AP

Federal legislation to combat climate change is quashed for the foreseeable future, scuttled by congressional climate cranks who allege the climate-science jury is still out. What's become clear is that, for some, the jury will always be out. We can't stack scientific facts high enough to hop over the fortified ideological walls they've erected around themselves. Fortunately, though, a four-star trump card waits in the wings: the US national security apparatus.

In 2006, I participated on a panel at the United Nations climate change conference in Nairobi called "Communicating Climate Change". With Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chair Rajendra Pachauri and respected Arctic scientist Pål Prestud on board, we aimed to figure out ways to convey climate change and its effects with greater precision and weight.

An hour before the panel commenced, we learned the communications director for climate curmudgeons, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) had elbowed his way onto the rostrum. Bleating bias – the panel skewed toward the widely held scientific consensus that climate change is real and humans are causing it – the infiltrator proceeded to hijack the panel. Rather than engaging the topic at hand, he questioned the scientific existence of climate change, levelled ad hominem attacks against various panellists, while brandishing "A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism" (a document produced by his office).

During the discussion period, the largely international audience responded in good faith, attempting to convince Inhofe's righthand man that the most up-to-date science undercut his worldview, that scientists weren't a grant-hungry cabal fiending for the next funding fix. Unfazed, he didn't budge – not a single part per million.

Five years later feels like a timewarp, with the political promise of 2006 suspended in a molasses haze. 2011 brought a fresh congressional crop content to ignore what the rest of the world accepts: the IPCC's scientific consensus on climate change. When Henry Waxman (Democrat, California) tried to amend to the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, to put the House of Representatives on record recognising that climate change is occurring, is caused in large part by humans and presents serious public health risks, it was summarily shot down. Only one Republican broke ranks and voted in favour (David Reichert of Washington state).

Enter what some might view as a counterintuitive counterweight: US military brass. A recent report, "A National Strategic Narrative" (pdf), written by two special assistants to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Mike Mullen, argued, "We must recognise that security means more than defence." Part of this entails pressing past "a strategy of containment to a strategy of sustainment (sustainability)". They went on to assert climate change is "already shaping a 'new normal' in our strategic environment".

For years, in fact, high-level national security officials both inside the Pentagon and in thinktank land have been acknowledging climate change is for real and that we need to take action to preserve and enhance US national security interests. The Pentagon itself stated unequivocally in its February 2010 in its Quadrennial Defence Review Report (pdf), "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." It noted the department of defence is actively "developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions and facilities".

CNA Corporation, a nonprofit that conducts research for the Navy and Marines, echoed the Pentagon's urgency, writing, "Climate change, from the Military Advisory Board's perspective, presents significant risks to America's national security." The Army Environmental Policy Institute, the National Intelligence Council and the Centre for a New American Security have issued similar reports on the dangers of runaway climate change and what it could mean for geopolitics.

This isn't a tree-hugging festival. It's the US military and its partners making clear-eyed calculations based on the best available climate science.

So, why this quiet camaraderie between scientists and military higher-ups? The answer, most certainly, is uncertainty.

Uncertainty is an inherent element of honest science. But in the political sphere, uncertainty has been harnessed as an alibi for denial and inaction. The military, however, operates under conditions of uncertainty all the time. Like scientists, they wade through the unknown to assess varying degrees of risk. As CNA Corporation put it, military leaders "don't see the range of possibilities as justification for inaction. Risk is at the heart of their job."

Climate cranks – many of them the same people perpetually hectoring us about the perils of national security – are choosing to ignore the seriousness of climate change even when the national-security experts they champion are telling us to do just that. Talk about cherry-picking data.

While Congress members like Fred Upton (Republican, Michigan) yowl about the EPA's efforts to regulate carbon emissions as "an unconstitutional power grab" and attach the term "job-killing" to every piece of environmental legislation with a political pulse, national security officials have been offering dire warnings about the perils of climate disruption and its offshoots like food shortage, water depletion and massive migration.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has been holding shambolic hearings on climate change, should invite climate-minded national security gurus to testify. Perhaps they can lob some reality into the ideological fortress of denial before whipsaw climate volatility becomes our everyday reality.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

You WILL believe in Climate Change!

:huh:

orange
05-20-2011, 10:15 PM
I heard somewhere today that "... the world still doesn't care...." about climate change. I guess whoever wrote that doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2011, 12:03 AM
I heard somewhere today that "... the world still doesn't care...." about climate change. I guess whoever wrote that doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

Those who stand to profit from it sure care, those of us who know the climate is always changing are not ready to accept being taxed even more for it.

Ugly Duck
05-21-2011, 01:16 AM
Highest CO2 level in 400,000 years. Started rising with the industrial revolution.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

http://aim.hamptonu.edu/library/p7hg_img_2/fullsize/co2graph_fs.jpg


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

Dave Lane
05-21-2011, 01:26 AM
I think anyone that believes that human industrialization has had no impact on the environment probably thinks tomorrow is their last day on earth.

redsurfer11
05-21-2011, 08:03 AM
Highest CO2 level in 400,000 years. Started rising with the industrial revolution.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

http://aim.hamptonu.edu/library/p7hg_img_2/fullsize/co2graph_fs.jpg


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif



Nice graph. It shows the level rises every 100,000 years. Keep trying.:p

tiptap
05-21-2011, 09:05 AM
The interesting observation about the rise every 100,000 years is that that is attributable to Celestial Orbital changes in the shape in the orbit and the orientation of the tilt and timing of seasons related to land exposure. The CO 2 rise is a result of the increase in temperature in Paleo times. But those same Celestial Changes would indicate a MUCH quicker drop in temperatures than what we see. That delay in the decay rate of temperature IS the result of the CO 2 Green House Effect.

The difference today is seen at the EXTREME right of that graph where CO 2 in red goes up higher than at any other time. That is from human burning of CO 2 indicated by the isotope ratio of the Carbon in the CO 2 found in the atmosphere. This time temperatures are being driven by CO 2 increase from Fossil Fuel burning.

tiptap
05-21-2011, 09:11 AM
Those who stand to profit from it sure care, those of us who know the climate is always changing are not ready to accept being taxed even more for it.

But knowing that Winter follows Fall is not the same as knowing the scientific explanation for seasons. That being the amount of solar energy hitting the Northern Hemisphere due to the tilt of the Earth. So we have energy balance understanding of the temperature of earth to a fine degree as far as climate. And it is that understanding that is important and not just that we have a prehistoric record of changes in climate. We have an understanding of the processes that govern those changes.

Brock
05-21-2011, 09:13 AM
Think I'll put a little extra oil in my two stroke lawn mower today.

tiptap
05-21-2011, 09:25 AM
At least the particulate matter will help with temperature rise in the short run. Be sure to take your fluids.

Jaric
05-21-2011, 09:50 AM
I think anyone that believes that human industrialization has had no impact on the environment probably thinks tomorrow is their last day on earth.

"impact on the environment" is a far cry from "driving factor to rising temperatures."

TheGuardian
05-21-2011, 10:03 AM
I hate Prius driving greenies. Fuck em.

Ugly Duck
05-21-2011, 10:03 AM
Nice graph. It shows the level rises every 100,000 years. Keep trying.:p

I think you missed it. Lookit the red line at the right of the graph. That's the atmospheric CO2 level. Highest level in at least 400,000 years. Why is that?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif



The difference today is seen at the EXTREME right of that graph where CO 2 in red goes up higher than at any other time. That is from human burning of CO 2 indicated by the isotope ratio of the Carbon in the CO 2 found in the atmosphere. This time temperatures are being driven by CO 2 increase from Fossil Fuel burning.

It took billions of years to sequester that much carbon from the atmosphere. We're putting it back in the atmosphere in just a coupla hundred.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2011, 11:11 AM
I think you missed it. Lookit the red line at the right of the graph. That's the atmospheric CO2 level. Highest level in at least 400,000 years. Why is that?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif



It took billions of years to sequester that much carbon from the atmosphere. We're putting it back in the atmosphere in just a coupla hundred.

Were all going to die! Quick pay carbon taxes and we can still live! Help us Big Daddy Gubment, save us from the Evil Co2 Monster that will cause plants to grow giving off more Oxygen.

notorious
05-21-2011, 04:51 PM
30-40 years ago the same type of people that are screaming "Global Warming" now were screaming "Global Cooling" then.


We need to do what we can (within reason) to reduce pollution. For the people that want the US to pay monetary fines to other countries due to our pollution, get a grip.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2011, 08:00 PM
Highest CO2 level in 400,000 years. Started rising with the industrial revolution.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

http://aim.hamptonu.edu/library/p7hg_img_2/fullsize/co2graph_fs.jpg


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

Must be from all the military action going on. Including by Obama. The military is a huge energy hog.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-21-2011, 09:12 PM
Must be from all the military action going on. Including by Obama. The military is a huge energy hog.

LMAO

Mr. Kotter
05-22-2011, 01:06 AM
Dang it, it's May 22nd, the doom-sayers were "off".....just sayin'...heh. LMAO

KILLER_CLOWN
05-22-2011, 01:57 AM
Dang it, it's May 22nd, the doom-sayers were "off".....just sayin'...heh. LMAO

Ya i was offering my paypal account out to all who would donate since they wouldn't need it anymore, sadly no takers though.

Baby Lee
05-22-2011, 08:12 AM
Yeehaw!! 5 people on the face of the earth thought something stupid. I feel so smart right now.

ROFL

Coyote
05-22-2011, 04:47 PM
A couple of points:
The article's author is linking the QDR and DoD to his agenda in order to provide credibility to his position. Good for him. He read it. He makes his purpose and agenda clear in both articles: http://www.cicero.uio.no/webnews/index_e.aspx?id=10726

The QDR is a biennual requirement in law.The 2010 National Security Strategy provides these Military Objectives: Counter Violent Extremism. Deter and Defeat Aggression. Strengthen International and Regional Security. Shape the Future Force.
DoD's and particularly DoN's and the USMC's use of "green" technologies and fuels is consistent with the Objectives, but are designed to improve war fighting capabilities much more than to endorse a position on climate change. Afterall, it is in the Hymn, "...Any clime and place." It's about finding a better way to fight, as discussed in this recent article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504576307563280615054.html

tiptap
05-23-2011, 09:37 AM
legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2011/02/pontifical-academy-of-sciences.html

Now the Vatican is getting in on this. Both the Military, in the actual document mentioned and the Vatican and the 17 Nobel Laurel winners in Stockholm are all referring to the present age as "The Anthropocene" age because of the human input to changing climate.

Ugly Duck
05-23-2011, 07:46 PM
save us from the Evil Co2 Monster that will cause plants to grow giving off more Oxygen.

Scientists aren't worried about too much oxygen in the atmosphere. They're worried about bigger floods & more destructive tornado seasons. If we start seeing those kindsa things happening, only the truly dense will fail to be concerned.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-23-2011, 07:51 PM
Scientists aren't worried about too much oxygen in the atmosphere. They're worried about bigger floods & more destructive tornado seasons. If we start seeing those kindsa things happening, only the truly dense will fail to be concerned.

Hint: This is political and used to control the flow of money away from the citizens of the US. Terrorism, Climate Change, War on Drugs, etc.

Brock
05-23-2011, 08:01 PM
Scientists aren't worried about too much oxygen in the atmosphere. They're worried about bigger floods & more destructive tornado seasons. If we start seeing those kindsa things happening, only the truly dense will fail to be concerned.

Mention some scary earthquakes and tsunamis too, that will convince them!

Ugly Duck
05-23-2011, 09:36 PM
Mention some scary earthquakes and tsunamis too, that will convince them!

Dude... Climate change has no effect on earthquakes.

Brock
05-23-2011, 09:39 PM
Dude... Climate change has no effect on earthquakes.

I guess you guys need to manufacture another boogey man to explain that. (Something that requires a new revenue stream is preferable)

Saul Good
05-23-2011, 09:46 PM
I think you missed it. Lookit the red line at the right of the graph. That's the atmospheric CO2 level. Highest level in at least 400,000 years. Why is that?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif



It took billions of years to sequester that much carbon from the atmosphere. We're putting it back in the atmosphere in just a coupla hundred.

Can you please explain how the CO2 is causing the temperature rise when this graph shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise every time?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-23-2011, 11:12 PM
Can you please explain how the CO2 is causing the temperature rise when this graph shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise every time?

No, not that would fit the argument.

Ugly Duck
05-24-2011, 12:16 AM
Can you please explain how the CO2 is causing the temperature rise when this graph shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise every time?

I can't... don't know enough about how temp is interpolated from 400,000 year-old ice core samples relative to how CO2 is measured. But surely you can see a relationship between the two. Actual direct measurement is much more reliable, but we didn't have the technology 400,000 years ago. Here's the direct measurement - see if you can decipher a relationship:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif

cdcox
05-24-2011, 12:27 AM
Can you please explain how the CO2 is causing the temperature rise when this graph shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise every time?

Scaling of the graph? I'm pretty sure I can plot the same exact data with different y-axis and show that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise every time. In other words, I can use an illusion to tell which ever version of the truth I like best. Which is correct? I think a more sophisticated plot is needed to get to the truth.

Is the raw data used to make this graph available anywhere?

Ugly Duck
05-24-2011, 12:30 AM
Scaling of the graph? I'm pretty sure I can plot the same exact data with different y-axis and show that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise every time.

He's talking about the X-axis shift.

And a global conspiracy of every National Science Foundation of every industrialized nation on earth to trick us.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 12:35 AM
He's talking about the X-axis shift.

But the appearance of which rises first depends on the y-axis you choose. There is no dobut I can make the red curve rise above the blue curve by selecting different y-axis, and that will make the x-axis shift appear to be different. Even in the current graph, the red curve appears to reach its maximum value sooner on the x-axis than the blue cure does.

tiptap
05-24-2011, 07:54 AM
Can you please explain how the CO2 is causing the temperature rise when this graph shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise every time?


You are correct that CO 2 followed the increase in Temperatures in Paleo Climate times. The cause for the initial rise in temperature is NOT CO 2 but Celestial Orbital changes. (Earth/Sun distances and changes for timings for seasons related to Northern or Southern Hemispheres, etc). What goes along with this is that Temperatures should fall much, much quicker in response to those same Celestial Orbital changes proceeding through their procession. The temperatures do not fall in step with the precession BECAUSE CO 2 has been introduced into the atmosphere in response to the initial increase in temperature by higher amount of areas that can grow plants and support animal life.

The difference this time is related to man's activity. We are pumping into the atmosphere CO 2 from fossil fuels. We are pumping at a 10 times higher rate than all the volcanoes pump. It is unique in that we are raising CO 2 which we know is a Greenhouse Gas to levels not seen in millions of years. And this type of input of CO 2 is something new. Not a response to temperature rise but a result of burning fossil fuels. We have made CO 2 a "forcing" factor in temperature rise.

tiptap
05-24-2011, 08:04 AM
Correlation does not prove causation.

But Quantum Mechanics does prove that CO 2 is a infrared Greenhouse Gas. Look at any spectrum absorption graph of CO 2. And the amount of infrared waves directed back toward the ground is increased with increased concentration of Greenhouse Gases according to Beer's Law.

So we have a known rise in temperature that is not accounted for by any other mechanism. And we have a known rise is Greenhouse Gases measured directly. And additionally we can see response in where the heat is at any time. For example if the sun was the cause we should see the atmosphere heating up from the top down and during the daylight exposures. Instead we see the heating at the surface and at night which correlates with Greenhouse expectations.

Pedro
05-24-2011, 08:46 AM
Can you please explain how the CO2 is causing the temperature rise when this graph shows that the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise every time?

That is the million dollar question that the global warming zealots either consistently ignore or simply don't understand.

It should be easy to understand: since global warming has always occurred BEFORE the CO2 levels rose (by about 800 years), the changes in CO2 levels could not possibly have been the cause of the global warming and global cooling periods that have occurred over and over throughout the history of the planet. It's impossible. If A happened before B, B did not cause A.

Now if someone wants to argue that this is a unique time in the history of the planet, that's a different topic altogether. But that position is based purely upon speculation. There is no historical data to support the position that increases in CO2 levels cause global warming. None.

I can't... don't know enough

Well, at least Ugly Duck was honest.

Scaling of the graph? I'm pretty sure I can plot the same exact data with different y-axis and show that CO2 rise precedes temperature rise every time. In other words, I can use an illusion to tell which ever version of the truth I like best. Which is correct? I think a more sophisticated plot is needed to get to the truth.

Is the raw data used to make this graph available anywhere?
Unlike cdcox, who immediately begins looking for a way to manipulate the data to support his position. That sounds awfully familiar. Oh wait, that's what the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were doing. So cdcox wouldn't be the first person to do that.

It should be obvious to everyone by now that Al Gore is a financial genius. He didn't get paid for "inventing the Internet", so he decided to get paid for inventing the man-made global warming hysteria. He is now worth over $100 Million because of the profits he has made from "green" investments, and he's not the least bit ashamed of it.

FishingRod
05-24-2011, 08:51 AM
Dude... Climate change has no effect on earthquakes.

Yes but that is part of the problem. Every time we have a flood, or drought or heavy snows or it is a mild winter or we have a tornado or a hurricane, or it is a hot dry summer and yes even earthquakes, someone in the media or “scientific” community tries to connect it to global warming. The Earth is always either warming or cooling. The questions are what affect does mankind have on it? Can we do anything meaningful about it? What are the plusses and minuses of a warmer planet and, are the negatives greater than the positives? Will the cure be worse than the diease? Obviously dumping less pollutants into are air and water would be better but, to many the Global warming cause has become almost like a religion and anyone who questions the man behind the curtain is a blithering idiot as was expressed by the tone of this very article.

BigChiefFan
05-24-2011, 09:03 AM
Corporations are the ones that do the most polluting, but rather than holding them responsible, the mooches want the average Joe to pick up the tab. Enough of their scams.

Their house of cards will soon tumble.

cdcox
05-24-2011, 09:15 AM
Unlike cdcox, who immediately begins looking for a way to manipulate the data to support his position. That sounds awfully familiar. Oh wait, that's what the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were doing. So cdcox wouldn't be the first person to do that.


Dude, I'm not trying to manipulate the data. I'm merely asking if that plot might obscure the truth. It is very difficult to see which came first by that graph. That is why I asked to see the raw data.

Pedro
05-24-2011, 10:38 AM
Dude, I'm not trying to manipulate the data. I'm merely asking if that plot might obscure the truth. It is very difficult to see which came first by that graph. That is why I asked to see the raw data.
I guess I was a bit harsh when I said you were looking for ways to manipulate the data. Sorry about that.

Ugly Duck
05-24-2011, 01:39 PM
The difference this time is related to man's activity. We are pumping into the atmosphere CO 2 from fossil fuels. We are pumping at a 10 times higher rate than all the volcanoes pump. It is unique in that we are raising CO 2 which we know is a Greenhouse Gas to levels not seen in millions of years. And this type of input of CO 2 is something new. Not a response to temperature rise but a result of burning fossil fuels. We have made CO 2 a "forcing" factor in temperature rise.

There does appear to be some temp/CO2-level anomalies at the far right of this graph (today's time). We know that the 400,000-year unprecedented high level of CO2 is from us putting sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. And it looks like the temperature peak is different from the others. The other peaks peaked & then fell off. The last one looks like its having a real tough time falling, which coincides with the ultra-high CO2 level.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

tiptap
05-24-2011, 01:42 PM
That is the million dollar question that the global warming zealots either consistently ignore or simply don't understand.

It should be easy to understand: since global warming has always occurred BEFORE the CO2 levels rose (by about 800 years), the changes in CO2 levels could not possibly have been the cause of the global warming and global cooling periods that have occurred over and over throughout the history of the planet. It's impossible. If A happened before B, B did not cause A.

Now if someone wants to argue that this is a unique time in the history of the planet, that's a different topic altogether. But that position is based purely upon speculation. There is no historical data to support the position that increases in CO2 levels cause global warming. None.



Well, at least Ugly Duck was honest.


Unlike cdcox, who immediately begins looking for a way to manipulate the data to support his position. That sounds awfully familiar. Oh wait, that's what the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were doing. So cdcox wouldn't be the first person to do that.

It should be obvious to everyone by now that Al Gore is a financial genius. He didn't get paid for "inventing the Internet", so he decided to get paid for inventing the man-made global warming hysteria. He is now worth over $100 Million because of the profits he has made from "green" investments, and he's not the least bit ashamed of it.

The grand puzzle of the ice ages stood only half solved — except insofar as scientists now understood that nobody would ever jump up with a neat single solution. There would instead be a long collective trudge through the intricacies of field data and models, gradually increasing our knowledge of all the interacting forces that drive climate cycles. The invaluable fruit of a century of ice ages research was the recognition of how complex and powerful all the feedbacks could be.

An important clue came from some especially good ice core records that timed precisely the changes in the levels of CO2 and methane. The levels apparently rose or fell a few centuries after a rise or fall in temperature. At first this lag puzzled scientists, but they quickly realized that this was just what they should have expected. For it strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop. The close of a glacial era came when a shift in sunlight caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels over the next few centuries. The greenhouse effect then slowly drove the planet's temperature a bit higher, which drove a further rise in the gas levels... and so forth. On the other hand, when the sunlight in key latitudes weakened, that would not only bring more ice and snow, but also a shift from emission to absorption of gases, eventually causing a further fall in temperature... and so forth.(58)


=>CO2 greenhouse
Our current situation was altogether different. The warming was not started by a small shift of sunlight, as in previous epochs. Our addition of gases to the atmosphere was initiating the process, with the temperature rise lagging behind the rise of gas levels. Emissions were climbing at a far swifter rate than anything in the Pleistocene record, so the lag was measured not in centuries, but mere decades. And already by the 1980s the levels of greenhouse gases had climbed far higher than anything seen for many millions of years. Even if we stopped our emissions, would feedbacks drive things higher on their own? There were disturbing signs that feedbacks were indeed kicking in. Drying forests and warmer seawater were getting less efficient at taking CO2 out of the air, and methane was seen bubbling up from Arctic wetlands.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

Ugly Duck
05-24-2011, 01:50 PM
Well, at least Ugly Duck was honest.




I get that a lot.....