Climate Change

[Marius]

New report from CNA, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - very interesting read would have liked more info on southern hemnisphere.

[120mm]

Provided that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena, and even if it's human-caused, reversal of climate change is a fantasy. Preparing for climate change, on the other hand, and the secondary and tertiary effects of it is something we can prepare to deal with.

[slapout9]

I saw a bumper sticker the other day and it said. "Global Warming it's the Sun stupid"

[selil]

Political rhetoric from either side is embarrassing. The fact there is a political debate is disgusting. The scientific, peer reviewed, literature is substantial. I'm not talking your favorite politician who calls themselves a scientist. The fact is that global warming is real, human kind has caused it, and if it go's on unchecked it will be devastating to the world. I get my science from the National Academies of Science and rigorous peer reviewed literature. Not politicians or bumper stickers.

Think about the rhetoric surrounding Iraq. Would you think any other political football would be any different? In my experience the military mind (with the exception of "kill em all's") is crafted for critical analysis and swayed less by emotion than fact.

Much of the literature is available for free to be read online. Here is a link that should bring up a selection of climate change literature.
http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover....&GO.x=0&GO.y=0

[Tom Odom]

Selil,

Thanks for saying that. It is simply amazing how far we will go to avoid an issue on substance and turn it into a political free for all.

It is refreshing that the former Chief of Staff of the Army and President of AUSA sat on the advisory panel. The advisors were:

General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.)
General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.)

Chief findings were:

The report includes several formal findings:

Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.

Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.

Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.

The report also made several specific recommendations:

The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.

The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.

The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.

The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.

DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.

Tom

[pcmfr]

I don't care how many stars have signed on, I still think human-induced climate change is junk science. I formulated my opinion back in '98, when I got stuck with writing the Navy's position on the impacts of the Kyoto protocol on operations and I had to spend hours in brainingwashing sessions with IPCC reps. Their data was suspect then, and it's been spun even more since.

When you look at the recent "findings" coming out of talks in Europe, you'll see it was the diplomats driving the train, not the scientists. And there are plenty of well-respected climatologists who think the whole idea is bunk.

Rant aside, I do think the military has a responsibility for planning for the impacts of weather/climate events, regardless of the cause.

[goesh]

I like the idea of biodiesel with its lack of harmful emissions, renewable availability, its efficiency and it lubricates while it burns, prolonging engine life considerably. How much could be produced and how much it could offset fossil fuel remains to be seen but it has to be coming down the pike. The byproduct can still be eaten by cattle and humans, retaining much of its nutrient load, thus easing fossil fuel use for grain production for beef and human consumption. Canada has millions of idle prairie acres and no doubt a hyrid Canola plant could be easily developed to acclimate to that environment and mature faster. Ethonol is growing fast but I think biodiesel is better. I wonder if China and India are heeding the call for environmental stewardship?

[selil]

Bio-Diesel from corn is fairly expensive, but you can also make it from grass. Just plain grass clippings. The largest crop in North America is thrown away every weekend. Those grass clippings, the garbage in land fills, and the grass lands all are renewable, natural, energy sources.

I will now invoke the name of an author who should have marct rushing through the door. Jared Diamond has written a book called "Collapse" that discusses in detail the mechanisms and issues with environment that cause civilizations to collapse upon themselves. We're not talking about end of the world, just end of civilization as we know it. Denying the issues does not make them go away. There is a long history of people destroying their environment and then failing to be able to survive.

I don't happen to like the Kyoto Protocol either. And, yes I've read it front to back with much of a headache. The exclusion of China and India from tarriffs was a nail in the coffin for me. You either want to fix the emissions problem or you want to help (economic credits) developing countries with growth. You shouldn't mix the two in a treaty that would likely cause more conflict in the future.

[marct]

Originally Posted by selil

I will now invoke the name of an author who should have marct rushing through the door. Jared Diamond has written a book called "Collapse" that discusses in detail the mechanisms and issues with environment that cause civilizations to collapse upon themselves. We're not talking about end of the world, just end of civilization as we know it. Denying the issues does not make them go away. There is a long history of people destroying their environment and then failing to be able to survive.

Jared Diamond <sigh>. To paraphrase something once said about Margaret Murray, as an Anthropologist, Diamond is an excellent geographer. The best work I have seen on societal collapse was by Joseph Tainter, and archaeologist. Despite all of he praise heaped on Diamond, I find that he reminds me a lot of the geographical determinists of the 1860's.

Do civilizations collapse, sometimes because of self-induced ecological catastrophes? Of course they do - the Mayan city states and Easter Island are excellent examples. But the radical climate change crowd neglects to point out that global warming started before the industrial revolution, which is the prime agent of evil in their little morality play.

Selil, you are quite correct that "denying the issues don't make them go away". Still and all, while we are undoubtedly in the midst of a fairly radical climate change, although nowhere near as dramatic as the one 12,000 years ago, it is the extrapolations made by the Earth Firsters and other blithering idiots that this is all the fault of the greedy capitalists and the only solution is a "return to nature" (without mentioning the 99% population kill off that would entail) that seem to be dominating the discourse.

Marc

[goesh]

Yet we can't deny the loss of forests in Asia, Africa and S. America, clearly accelerating, human factors that can be plugged into any model. Diamond's projection from the primitive to the complexity of the modern has some merit IMO when the displacement of millions can be quickly enacted via modern war technology. Any ecologically sustainable environment could be seriously disrupted by a massive influx of refugees though to date we have seen nothing truly massive that did irreparable damage to an eco system.

[marct]

Hi Goesh,

Originally Posted by goesh

Yet we can't deny the loss of forests in Asia, Africa and S. America, clearly accelerating, human factors that can be plugged into any model. Diamond's projection from the primitive to the complexity of the modern has some merit IMO when the displacement of millions can be quickly enacted via modern war technology. Any ecologically sustainable environment could be seriously disrupted by a massive influx of refugees though to date we have seen nothing truly massive that did irreparable damage to an eco system.

All quite true - I'd never deny that there is a massive climate change going on or that human efforts are not a factor in that change. I just deny that they are the first cause of that change .

Marc

[marct]

As a side note, actually getting back to the original version of the topic, the Danish have been doing a lot of work in the military-climate change area.

Marc

[selil]

Originally Posted by marct

Do civilizations collapse, sometimes because of self-induced ecological catastrophes? Of course they do - the Mayan city states and Easter Island are excellent examples. But the radical climate change crowd neglects to point out that global warming started before the industrial revolution, which is the prime agent of evil in their little morality play.

I figured invoking Diamond would get a real academics hackles up. That's because his books aren't peer reviewed and much of them are a thought exercises. Unlike a Thomas Kuhn paradigm shift what we see from Diamond is not a change in definition or shift in the generalizations of science, but what Thomas Kuhn warned us about in a shift of perception. Science disciplines exist within a closed culture that determines the validity of the principles being discussed. Governments and individuals may examine science and determine the usability or applicability but to inject that into the process will destroy the foundations of western science.

In climatology we know that areas of the world were lush and populous and now are deserted barren and devoid of human habitation. The evidence trumps the argument that humans are incapable of impacting the environment. Once that point is established we're only arguing about how bad the effect will be, and whether somebody has the right to destroy the same eco-sphere that others inhabit.

I look at the issue as more than a greenie versus industrialist. I look at the entirety of the problem and the impacts of particular consumer patterns and industrial trends as national security issues. If the United States became an exporter of oil what would the impact be on the environment and international relations. A new patent recently filed could make the tar oil sands of the Colorado mining region, Oklahoma and Canadian oil sands viable sources of a thousand years more of oil. At pennies of todays costs. That would change the face of the world. What would changes the world view would be a new technology that made oil worthless. What if one of the new technologies like hydrogen made emissions a thing of the past?

[marct]

Originally Posted by selil

I figured invoking Diamond would get a real academics hackles up. That's because his books aren't peer reviewed and much of them are a thought exercises.

Nah, it's not 'cause it's not peer reviewed,it's because it is way to deterministic .

Originally Posted by selil

Unlike a Thomas Kuhn paradigm shift what we see from Diamond is not a change in definition or shift in the generalizations of science, but what Thomas Kuhn warned us about in a shift of perception. Science disciplines exist within a closed culture that determines the validity of the principles being discussed. Governments and individuals may examine science and determine the usability or applicability but to inject that into the process will destroy the foundations of western science.

Are you talking about the operation of what Kuhn called "normal science"? If so, Diamond's work is within its parameters; at least those of the past 25 years or so. I'm not sure that I would agree with calling it a "closed culture", although it is definitely insular . Still and all, most of the schools of philosophy of science would tend to agree that any "science" must have some sensory focal point - something hat an observation or hypothesis can be tested against.

Originally Posted by selil

In climatology we know that areas of the world were lush and populous and now are deserted barren and devoid of human habitation. The evidence trumps the argument that humans are incapable of impacting the environment. Once that point is established we're only arguing about how bad the effect will be, and whether somebody has the right to destroy the same eco-sphere that others inhabit.

Tsk, tsk, tsk - extrapolating from the specific to the general ! Consider, by way of example, the Antarctic continent. We know that it was "lush and populous" and is now barren and deserted. That, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything except that it was once nice and now isn't. Q: Where is the human agency? A: Not there. We also know of specific cases where human agency was the prime cause of ecological disruptions (e.g. Easter Island). The argument should never be that humans are incapable of impacting the environment - only a politician, theologian or 2 year old would ever hold that position. The argument should be that humans, while capable of impacting the environment, are certainly not the sole agency in ecological change (Lucifer anyone? That's a ref to the asteroid not the semi-deity ). Therefore, once that point is established, we must strive to assign probabilistic degrees of causal efficacy to all identifiable factors.

Let's leave the question of "rights" for another time <evil grin>.

Originally Posted by selil

I look at the issue as more than a greenie versus industrialist. I look at the entirety of the problem and the impacts of particular consumer patterns and industrial trends as national security issues.

Actually, we are pretty similar in our outlook. Personally, I am more interested in the relationship between technologies, socio-cultural organization and meaning systems - all of which means that my time horizon, once I'm in full academic mode, tends to be in the 1000's of years.

Marc

[Culpeper]

What's with the polar bears suddenly becoming the poster child for global warming? There is something like fourteen different colonies of polars. 13 are increasing in their population and the other one open for hunting and over hunted as well. I would pick a different species before people start finding this one out.

[120mm]

The earth is, in general, cooling. The earth's surface and atmosphere warm and cool, alternatively, independent of man's influence. Regardless if man has impacted this particular warming cycle, it is useful to see what we can do to react to warming and cooling cycles and how they impact man.

I am just chagrined that we are spending so much political energy on whether or not man can manipulate the earth's environment, and very little on dealing with the warming and cooling cycle's impact on man. I truly believe a "treatment model" is the correct one. The "prevention model" appears to be much more costly, and carries a very high risk of being completely and utterly wrong.

[goesh]

From FoxNews.com: 4/23/07:

" Report: Sheryl Crow's Solutions to Global Warming
Monday, April 23, 2007

E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Americans may be using less toilet paper, if Sheryl Crow has her way.

The singer, who is crossing the country on a biodiesel bus with producer Laurie David, proposes limiting toilet paper use as one solution to global warming, according to a Washington Post report.

"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," she wrote April 19 on the Biodiesel Bus blog, according to a report by the Washington Post. "Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating."

Her toilet paper manifesto would limit how many squares of toilet paper Americans use in a sitting.

Click here to read the Washington Post report.

"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required," she wrote. "

So beware the TPP (toilet paper police). You may be at a mall, get nabbed over an anonymous tip from an angry family member for using too much toilet paper and be dragged into the restroom and there made to drop your pants, bend over, spread the cheeks for a FMRAS (fecal matter residual assessment scan) and fined accordingly. Ms. Crow needs to stick to singing, which she ain't too bad at IMO and leave environmental policing to those agencies that bust people for dumping toxic chemicals in the backcountry. Next we all may be forced to take monthly trips to the zoo to pet whales and dolphins and apologize to them for earth abuse.

[Culpeper]

She needs to stay awhile in Southeast New Mexico. We eat green chili on everything. She'll back off the one square a visit real quick. She can't be serious. Next thing you know they are going to go after the toilet paper manufacturers. Big mistake in my book. If they are wrong about toilet paper than surely they have to be wrong on such important issues such as war and peace. Talk about being out of touch. No pun intended.

[SSG Rock]

I'd must admit that I think it is probable that the global climate might be heating up, the theory makes sense. But it is difficult to take the claim seriously with Al Gore leading the charge, I mean, was the earth heating up during the Clinton Administration? According to what I've read, it was, and nary a word from Al Gore during that time frame.

If we were in a crisis, I tend to think that more prominent voices within the realm of science would speak out. If a meteor was hurtling through outer space and was going to impact the earth, do you think scientists would remain as silent as they are on global warming?

The question really is; what is causing the warming?

[selil]

Interesting point SSG Rock,

So who would be acceptable as a spokesman? And, Al Gore has been an environmental Nazi since the 70's.

So MANY scientists have spoken out from the most prestigious portions of science and they are naysayed because they're not necessarily the right spokesman.

Perhaps the National Academies of Science is good enough?


Understanding Multiple Environmental Stresses: Report of a Workshop
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11748

How about a discussion about the discussion?
Review of the U.S. Climate Science Program's Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, "Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making"
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11873

The actual book that is often cited (incorrectly) by both sides of the discussion is an interesting read.
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676


The common thread is that no one is listening to the scientists. HUNDREDS of peer reviewed literature articles say global warming is real, humans are a big part of it, CO2 sucks, and people say "I really don't like that scenario so I'm going to ignore you and find somebody who gives me a different answer".