Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    15,431
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Guys do me a favor and put a towel over your computer keyboard before reading this...because I think you're going to puke all over your computer:

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...-warmest-year/
    I don't understand how Fox News can freak out over the fact that Russia has one nuclear sub or that China has one (terrible) aircraft carrier, but global warming is no big deal. All of our military spending is just advancing the technology of other countries who don't have to spend billions doing R&D and just steal our stuff.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    22,499
    vCash
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    If Obama spends any money on this with support from his sheep I will bang my head against a wall.

    Warmest year in U.S. history covers ~230 years or so. That's not a long time in the grand scheme of things. Not even sure if data goes back that far.
    I hope you realize Pentagon is taking the global warming issue very seriously.


    WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

    The conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is partly a result of drought in Darfur.

    Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

    Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

    An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

    Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

    But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.

    If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.

    This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.

    Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

    Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

    Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter.

    He did not identify those senators, but the list of undecided includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program.

    “I’ve been making this argument for a number of years,” Mr. Kerry said, “but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” He said he had urged President Obama to make the case, too.

    Mr. Kerry said the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” he said.

    The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February; the State Department will address the issue in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

    “The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator.

    Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.

    A changing climate presents a range of challenges for the military. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms.

    Another vulnerable installation is Diego Garcia, an atoll in the Indian Ocean that serves as a logistics hub for American and British forces in the Middle East and sits a few feet above sea level.

    Arctic melting also presents new problems for the military. The shrinking of the ice cap, which is proceeding faster than anticipated only a few years ago, opens a shipping channel that must be defended and undersea resources that are already the focus of international competition.

    Ms. Dory, who has held senior Pentagon posts since the Clinton administration, said she had seen a “sea change” in the military’s thinking about climate change in the past year. “These issues now have to be included and wrestled with” in drafting national security strategy, she said.

    The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year.

    It concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.

    The assessment warned that the storms, droughts and food shortages that might result from a warming planet in coming decades would create numerous relief emergencies.

    “The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” the report said.

    The intelligence community is preparing a series of reports on the impacts of climate change on individual countries like China and India, a study of alternative fuels and a look at how major power relations could be strained by a changing climate.

    “We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

    “Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/sc...anted=all&_r=0

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    It would be a complete waste of taxpayer money. You want to go green? Spend money on recycling, not something we can't control.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,628
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    It would be a complete waste of taxpayer money. You want to go green? Spend money on recycling, not something we can't control.
    Believe it or not but most of the responses to climate change don't need to be initiated by the federal or state government. If people would take some initiative and responsibility, for what is being caused by us, we could end a great deal of the damage we are causing. Things like recycling, driving more efficient cars, and using a bit less energy are not difficult to do and make a huge difference.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,378
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Guys do me a favor and put a towel over your computer keyboard before reading this...because I think you're going to puke all over your computer:

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...-warmest-year/
    ugh...couldn't make it past the first paragraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by GHGHCP View Post
    http://controversy.wearscience.com/

    Damn right you do!

    I have a few of these.
    that is amazing. I want the celestial teapot one.

    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I love this one. Because this overpopulation BS is analogous to a conspiracy theory for college science students.
    Not sure I understand this, so please explain. Overpopulation isn't a problem? At some point, given we're the only species in control of our food supply and advancement of healthcare, we have to outgrow our resources right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    It would be a complete waste of taxpayer money. You want to go green? Spend money on recycling, not something we can't control.
    If the reports prove that we have an impact on global warming how can it not be in our control to better the situation. You can't stop the inevitable but you can cease actions which are accelerating it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men
    If the reports prove that we have an impact on global warming how can it not be in our control to better the situation. You can't stop the inevitable but you can cease actions which are accelerating it.
    I have yet to see anything that completely proves that our impact on Global Warming is anything but minimal, and not just natural cycles of Earth over long periods of time. We have increased CO2 emissions, which is a greenhouse gas, but that is not proof of Global Warming. I mentioned earlier that water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, should we cut water vapor emissions?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,378
    vCash
    1490
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    I have yet to see anything that completely proves that our impact on Global Warming is anything but minimal,
    What about the number 1 point in the original article that started this thread which is based on the latest report from the US Global Change Research Program?

    Or this: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...an_impact.html

    Or this: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...ing-human.html

    Or dozens of others. And what if it IS minimal? We shouldn't be concerned with negating it? Or at least for the reason of pollution or record high asthma rates, if not for "global warming" persay?

    It's absolutely irresponsible to look at our living habits and the impact they have on our environment and say there's no cause for change.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,548
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    I have yet to see anything that completely proves that our impact on Global Warming is anything but minimal, and not just natural cycles of Earth over long periods of time. We have increased CO2 emissions, which is a greenhouse gas, but that is not proof of Global Warming. I mentioned earlier that water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, should we cut water vapor emissions?
    Looking back over the last 2 million years it has taken the Earth on average 5000 years to warm 5 degrees. Currently we are going at a rate that is 20 times faster than that.

    You can act like this is the norm but it isn't and CO2 is the easiest controled greenhouse gas. By increasing CO2 you increase wator vapor which increases temperature. If you stop the major player in the positive feedback loop (CO2) then you decrease wator vapor and decrease temperature.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive
    Looking back over the last 2 million years it has taken the Earth on average 5000 years to warm 5 degrees. Currently we are going at a rate that is 20 times faster than that.
    What graph are you looking at? I have not seen any such statistic or graph showing that. I have seen that global temperatures are increasing but nothing that confirms that ridiculous pace.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,548
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    What graph are you looking at? I have not seen any such statistic or graph showing that. I have seen that global temperatures are increasing but nothing that confirms that ridiculous pace.
    Its from the this Nasa page last paragraph.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ming/page3.php

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    774
    vCash
    1500
    Well first of all that graph is only 1500 years. But I have not seen another graph like that one. Most of the ones I found look something like this, with a larger spike during the Medieval Warm. http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp...oberg-2005.png

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,548
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Curtain View Post
    Well first of all that graph is only 1500 years. But I have not seen another graph like that one. Most of the ones I found look something like this, with a larger spike during the Medieval Warm. http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp...oberg-2005.png
    You can find graphs of studies that spand 2 million to 65 million years ago and many of the explanations for the consistent cycle changes that you point out. The problem is that those known explanations which spand many many years don't explain the trend rate we are currently experiencing (outside of raising CO2 by burning fossil fuels).

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    This does scare the **** out of me. The aggregate trends need to continue to be studied, and human contributions better defined. But at the end of the day, we are going to need effective solutions for mitigating these issues, whatever their cause. I have two kids, and it scares me for them more than anything.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    32,378
    vCash
    1490
    If we go with environmentalists:
    Best case: we preserve the planet for future generations
    worst case: we have no impact on global warming, but spend a little more in taxes and corporate restrictions and we get a clean place to live and a healthy environment

    If anti-environmentalist/pro-business folk are right:
    Best case: more money, less industrial restrictions and a filthy place to live where our proudest icons like the grand canyon can't be seen in full due to pollution and the already alarming asthma rates for kids goes higher as the skies get darker

    worst case: ocean coast real estate property value increases......in Phoenix


    I don't understand why it even matters about global warming. Don't we want to clean and preserve this beautiful country?

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    19,669
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    If we go with environmentalists:
    Best case: we preserve the planet for future generations
    worst case: we have no impact on global warming, but spend a little more in taxes and corporate restrictions and we get a clean place to live and a healthy environment

    If anti-environmentalist/pro-business folk are right:
    Best case: more money, less industrial restrictions and a filthy place to live where our proudest icons like the grand canyon can't be seen in full due to pollution and the already alarming asthma rates for kids goes higher as the skies get darker

    worst case: ocean coast real estate property value increases......in Phoenix


    I don't understand why it even matters about global warming. Don't we want to clean and preserve this beautiful country?
    The goal to maximize profit trumps all.

    ...but aside from the endless corporate greed, what is worse is that a large portion of the populace is so ignorant that they believe thousands of scientists and hundreds of scientific organizations internationally are all conspiring with Al Gore to make people believe that climate change is not real. THAT kills me more than anything.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •