An Interesting Take On Climate Change

[BrotherBart]

"The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.

This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...y-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming

 

[semipro]

Its interesting that insurance companies, the military, departments of transportation and others, all not well known for "progressiveness" on such issues are taking GCC very seriously while many of our so called "leaders" prefer instead to stall while the science is "worked out".
.

 

[begreen]

Climate change is going to be costly as insurance companies found out with hurricane Sandy. It is also going to be disruptive which will stress some populations and possibly make them aggressors seeking food and water relief. This brings in the military. Eventually we are going to see complete nations on the move, perhaps starting with the Maldives, and coastal areas abandoned, moving populations inland.

 

[jebatty]

Some of the largest corporations also are revising their business models based on a risk/benefit analysis, something which any good business pays attention to, and some of these are simply stating the fact that climate change is in progress and human action is a substantial cause.

Locally, the army training base at Camp Ripley in central MN is moving forward on biomass heating and PV, not primarily for cost savings reasons but to ensure energy security for the base.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

thanks for the post. interesting read , enjoyed reading thru the comment section especially when the author stuck around for the whole thing. they usually give up but this guy is obviously different.

 

[woodgeek]

My favorite quote was: “I tell people, this is cutting-edge 19th-Century science that we’re now refining.”

EXACTLY. The basic science of the greenhouse effect (that it warms the earth ~50° more than it would be otherwise) was worked out during the age of steam.

If our man Inhofe doesn't believe AGW is a problem, I say he calls in this brass crew, and they duke it out until either they convince him, or he convinces them.

Done.

 

[dougstove]

...Eventually we are going to see complete nations on the move, perhaps starting with the Maldives, and coastal areas abandoned, moving populations inland.

But when will governments stop subsidizing untenable coastal and floodplain development?
My little town (~7500 people) is planning to borrow millions to re-develop a rundown street that is already below high tide mark, when there is vacant high ground nearby.
In Canada over-land flooding is not covered by insurance. But municipal governments (...Calgary) sell inappropriate land to developers, who sell houses and buildings. The occupants then get government bailouts when the floods come.
These bail outs are presented as emergency responses to unpredictable humanitarian disasters.
But cumulatively, they allow people to make unsustainable choices.
If someone wants to live in a stilt house in a marsh, or on a houseboat, great. But take responsibility for the consequences.

 

[Where2]

Climate change is going to be costly as insurance companies found out with hurricane Sandy.

Sandy wasn't the beginning, any property insurer who was in Florida in 1992 got a wake up call thanks to Hurricane Andrew. Within a few years of 1992, no insurer would cover the peril of windstorm damage for any property east of I-95 in Dade, Broward or Palm Beach Counties. (look at a map, that's a huge number of properties) The state of Florida had to set up a government based insurance system to insure all these properties because the government derives significant funding from having these properties continue to be able to be bought and sold using conventional financing which involves hazard insurance protecting the lender. Without hazard insurance, lenders would stop lending, and entire cities lying east of the arbitrarily cast division line of an interstate would go bust.

But when will governments stop subsidizing untenable coastal and floodplain development?

As far as I can tell: not in my lifetime. The latest thing that is getting scarce in these coastal developments is fresh water. It seems like even the lack of a basic human necessity like fresh water is not enough to slow down the marching force of coastal development. The latest concept is ration the resource amongst the existing inhabitants to increase the availability to new inhabitants whose homes have not been built yet. Then build more...

 

[Mt Bob]

Not going to get into the "man made global warming" debate,but the gov/military also has contingency plans if mars invades.

 

[jebatty]

... Matians invading? where? They have had lots of experience with climate change.
Do they look different than the scary humans who deny climate change?

 

[Mt Bob]

... Matians invading? where? They have had lots of experience with climate change.
Do they look different than the scary humans who deny climate change?

Was not going to reply,as what I said in my other post,but you just irked me.At the cost of being thrown off this site,why do you not explaine "climate change"?To this day I have not met a person that does not deny that the climate changes.The big change came when most of the planet found out that "man made climate change(thank the worlds biggest liar-al gore) went away,and now it is climate change.I do not have a problem with "climate change" as it is a daily,hourly,minute thing,but have a problem with people like you that have taken the liberty to make "climate change" the same scare mongering as "man made climate change".Look at all the false info put out by the us(noah,nasa) australia,uk.about climate,and they have now dissallowed this info.,and throws a lot of "Known facts" into known lies.(as an example,seen any polar bear severe death/dying off warnings?)Climate change is trying to mean man made climate change,please stop.

 

[begreen]

Climate change is not hourly, daily or even monthly. Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Yes, weather varies a lot and it will continue to. Long term changes are occurring that correspond directly with the industrial age and increased usage of fossil fuels. There is a superfluous amount of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere as a result. About 98% of the world's brightest scientists agree on this. That is world wide. 'Nuf said.

Here's an animation of what remains in the atmosphere as a result of our addiction to fossil fuels. Ponder on this and be thankful for the forests on this planet.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Climate change is not hourly, daily or even weekly. Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Yes, weather varies a lot and it will continue to. Long term changes are occurring that correspond directly with the industrial age and increased usage of fossil fuels. There is a superfluous amount of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere as a result. About 98% of the worlds brightest scientists agree on this. That is world wide. 'Nuf said.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/on-pace-to-be-the-warmest-year/37357238

 

[Wildo]

Climate change is not hourly, daily or even monthly. Climate is long term. Weather is short term. Yes, weather varies a lot and it will continue to. Long term changes are occurring that correspond directly with the industrial age and increased usage of fossil fuels. There is a superfluous amount of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere as a result. About 98% of the worlds brightest scientists agree on this. That is world wide. 'Nuf said.

Here's an animation of what remains in the atmosphere as a result of our addiction to fossil fuels. Ponder on this and be thankful for the forests on this planet.

Very interesting to watch! Especially seeing the hurricanes, cyclone, & typhoon interaction if you look closely. It is amazing to see the trees eating it up.

 

[woodgeek]

I feel like I want to hug a tree now. Thanks.

 

[Where2]

I feel like I want to hug a tree now.

Plant a forest, or buy an existing one.

 

[Mt Bob]

Posted 2 replys here,they did not come up?

 

[Mt Bob]

And replies like them won't again either. Rest.

If you want to rag on a member, do it in a PM.

Yes sir.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

superfluous benefit of the industrial and fossil fueled age.

guess we could add charts for length of life and wealth as well.

 

[woodgeek]

Doug, crop yields were growing exponentially for decades before global warming started to kick in, find a chart going back to 1850. Ag science actually works.

Ask the farmers in the CA central valley how well they would be doing this year (or last) without irrigation.

We completely agree that the energy services enabled by 150 years of cheap fossil fuel have revolutionized the human condition. This fact is totally irrelevant to the question of whether emissions from the same FF are about to bite us in the azz in the next 50.

 

[woodgeek]

My 14 yo daughter was asking me (re an energy transformation) about whether there was any precedent for civilization fundamentally changing how it functions, and successfully navigating the transition.

The closest thing I could come up with was slavery. Before we had FF, we had biomass for heat, draft animals for heavy work AND slaves for everything else.

(Note, I am not trying to single out the US experience....I think many if not most pre-FF societies worked to varying degrees on slavery...all the great ancient empires and even primitive tribes typically had slaves).

The Brits were early anti-slavers, but had their colonies to supply them with proxy slaves. The US had slave states and non-slave states, but I am sure that there was a lot of interstate trade between the two....the Northerners' society was still powered (at least to an extent) by 'outsourced' slavery.

The idea of abolition obviously cut to the core of slave states' entire political economy that had been in place for centuries. The elite of those states had a deeply vested interest in maintaining the status quo and could not imagine their sophisticated, modern societies continuing to function without slaves, but probably imagined its collapse into an impoverished, less developed state.

Fortunately, FF came to the rescue with a panoply of potent mechanical slaves.

Do I really need to complete this analogy explicitly for us today? We like to say we ended slavery for ethical reasons. But the end just happened to occur when an alternative (FF-fueled machines like the cotton gin) came along. If we know that CO2 pollution damages the future climate in ways that will harm dozens of future generations, is it ethical? If adequate replacements for fossil fuels (which are superior from a public health POV) are available, why wouldn't we want to switch.

Inertia, vested interests, and lack of imagination.

 

[semipro]

BrotherBart said: ↑
And replies like them won't again either. Rest.
If you want to rag on a member, do it in a PM.

Its easy to get your hand slapped by a mod in here. I think it has happened to most of us.
Its the closest thing we have to a forum on a controversial subject like religion or politics since the Ash Can closed.

 

[semipro]

My 14 yo daughter was asking me (re an energy transformation) about whether there was any precedent for civilization fundamentally changing how it functions, and successfully navigating the transition.

Subject matter aside; I think you must have a truly extraordinary teenage daughter and some really interesting dinner table conversations!

 

[woodgeek]

I suppose. That was a mutually interesting convo we had. This morning I was telling her about some stuff that I thought about when I was 14, and she finally looked up at me and simply said, deadpan, "Were you just really weird back then?"

 

[jebatty]

Many industries have failed in a changed paradigm environment, some have successfully negotiated the change. The pain of those that failed is real but also is localized. And the new paradigm nearly always bring forth greater wealth and more jobs for more people than the wealth and jobs lost in the failed industries. I would think the same holds true for a major change in the energy paradigm.

The current economy is based on cheap energy, first coal and now primarily by oil and NG. That energy has fueled incredible wealth, jobs, and well being (ignore the social costs at this time). The new economy similarly will be based on cheap energy, this time solar, wind and other renewables. It too will fuel even greater wealth, jobs and well being, and quite likely will be largely free of the huge social costs of the FF economy. The world runs on energy, and the sun with renewables is the ultimate energy source.