# The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)



## abu afak (May 4, 2018)

This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.

*The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)*
Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)
....
We must prepare for the growing exposure of our military bases to sea level rise.
*Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century. *

*Military bases at risk*
18 military installations are included in this analysis. Each location's changing exposure to flooding is projected through the end of the century:

Maine: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
New Jersey: US Coast Guard Station Sandy Hook
Maryland: US Naval Academy
Washington, DC: Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and Washington Navy Yard
Virginia: Joint Base Langley-Eustis | Naval Air Station Oceana Dam Neck Annex | Naval Station Norfolk
North Carolina: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
South Carolina: Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island and Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort
Georgia: Hunter Army Airfield | Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay
Florida: Naval Air Station Key West | Naval Station Mayport | Eglin Air Force Base
*Key findings*
The military is at risk of losing land where vital infrastructure, training and testing grounds, and housing for thousands of its personnel currently exist.
[.....]

*By 2050, Most of the installations in this analysis will see more than 10 Times the number of floods they experience today.*
*By 2070, Half of the sites could experience 520 or more flood events annually- the equivalent of more than one flood daily.*
* [*]By 2100, eight bases are at risk of losing 25% to 50% or more of their land to rising seas.*
Four installations—Naval Air Station Key West, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Dam Neck Annex, and Parris Island—are at risk of losing between 75% and 95% of their land by the end of this century.
Flooding won’t be confined to the bases. Many surrounding communities will also face growing exposure to rising seas......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 4, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.
> 
> ...



*Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century. *

Sounds serious!!!!
If we buy $2 trillion worth of windmills, how much will the sea level rise?


----------



## abu afak (May 4, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century. *
> Sounds serious!!!!
> If we buy $2 trillion worth of windmills, how much will the sea level rise?


*How many trolling posts with NO INFORMATION, but only nonsense/irrelevent questions have you made?
Be precise to the nearest thousand.
LOL.*
`


----------



## abu afak (May 4, 2018)

*norfolk sea level rise - Google Search*

*Rising Seas Are Flooding Virginia's Naval Base, and There's No Plan ...*
https://insideclimatenews.org/.../military-norfolk-naval-base-flooding-climate-change-...
Oct 25, 2017 - "It is an impediment to the base accomplishing its mission," Bouchard said. Joe Bouchard, a retired captain and former base commander, has become a proponent for helping Norfolk adapt to sea level rise. Credit: Weather Channel. Once or twice a month, seawater subsumes steam lines that run along the ...
You visited this page on 5/4/18.

*Norfolk Prepares For Battle With Rising Sea Level | WUNC*
wunc.org/post/norfolk-prepares-battle-rising-sea-level
Mar 20, 2017 - When President Donald Trump visited a shipyard at Newport News, Va. this month, he told an audience of sailors and shipbuilders that the United States would defeat any danger and handle any threat. But one of the biggest threats to the military is one that Trump didn't mention: sea level rise.

*Hampton Roads sea level rise is Accelerating, report says ...*
pilotonline.com › News › Local News › Environment
Mar 12, 2018 - In its breakdown for contributors to the Norfolk region's sea level rise, the report's team cited that sinking of land as a key factor, but also pointed to effects from the planet's overall warming. It predicted that changes in what it called “ocean dynamics,” including disruptions in currents like the Gulf Stream, ...

*U.S. Military Prepares for Sea-Level Rise and Other Climate Change ...*
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-...
Feb 7, 2017 - Norfolk station is headquarters of the Atlantic fleet, and flooding already disrupts military readiness there and at other bases clustered around the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, officials say. Flooding will only worsen as the seas rise and the planet warms. Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the ...

*Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases : NPR*
Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases
Mar 31, 2017 - Reporter Jay Price of member station WUNC visited a spot in Norfolk, Va., where sea level rise is measured. JAY PRICE, BYLINE: We're on a pier at the world's largest Navy base. Navy destroyers behind us, and in front, a white cabinet not much bigger than a refrigerator. DEAN VANDERLEY: It's called the ...
...
*Will Norfolk (and the Rest of Hampton Roads) Drown? - Virginia Places*
www.virginiaplaces.org/climate/norfolkdrown.html
In 2012, an international insurance executive spoke at a forum on how climate change affects flooding risk, as part of the Old Dominion University Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Initiative. After a tour ofNorfolk, she questioned why local governments are increasing risk by ignoring predictions of higher floodzones, ...

*When Rising Seas Transform Risk Into Certainty - The New York Times*
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/.../when-rising-seas-transform-risk-into-certainty.html
Apr 18, 2017 - Melting ice and warming water are raising sea levels everywhere. But because the land in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia (which includes Norfolk) is also sinking, relative sea levels there arerising faster than anywhere on the Atlantic coast. Water levels are already as much as 18 inches higher than ...​`


----------



## Pete7469 (May 4, 2018)

30 years of parroting the same bullshit.

Venice is still there.


.


----------



## fncceo (May 4, 2018)

How many US military bases are currently underwater due to climate change?  How many more are expected to be flooded out this year?


----------



## bgrouse (May 4, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century. *
> ...


He's asking what you expect us to do about it.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben (May 4, 2018)

They will adjust with time as they have done for centuries. It's not like they are all going to be washed out to sea next week. So silly. Global change alarmists cannot see that their ridiculous "the sky is falling!" antics are as ridiculous, in their own way, as they claim the "denier" camp to be. Calm the fuck down. People can only get so hopped up for so long.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2018)

Well gee whiz.....guess we all better get to work on our emergency ark's!! Maybe Abu will build a prototype, take it on the test run and report back on how it went.

But who knows? Maybe the level will rise by 10 meters!!

Hey maybe in 50 years everyone will own their own personal submarine. Sure would be good for the economy.... a rebirth in manufacturing in America. Winning!!


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2018)

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> They will adjust with time as they have done for centuries. It's not like they are all going to be washed out to sea next week. So silly. Global change alarmists cannot see that their ridiculous "the sky is falling!" antics are as ridiculous, in their own way, as they claim the "denier" camp to be. Calm the fuck down. People can only get so hopped up for so long.



Yep.... what you find in this forum and others is that some people just tend to the hysterical. You see it all the time out there if you really pay attention. Like the people who hear there's a 6 inch snow storm coming and they can be found in the grocery store loading up three baskets full of food.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 5, 2018)

The money that we will have to spend to move those bases is money that we will not have for new infrastructure. And those same rising seas will create problems of serious military security as people in other places are forced to migrate. I fully realize that 'Conservatives' are incapable of thinking more than 48 hours ahead, but for the rest of us, and the men and women of our military, we see a problem that will seriously impact our national security.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> The money that we will have to spend to move those bases is money that we will not have for new infrastructure. And those same rising seas will create problems of serious military security as people in other places are forced to migrate. I fully realize that 'Conservatives' are incapable of thinking more than 48 hours ahead, but for the rest of us, and the men and women of our military, we see a problem that will seriously impact our national security.



Seems like you are implying something here. Not sure what it is. You are not presenting any solutions. The implication I am seeing is that if there was no conservatives, the situation could be solved.

Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.
> 
> ...


and?? what should we do??? go running/screaming/crying ''IT"S THE END OF THE WORLD''..??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 5, 2018)

*The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas*

last time i checked boats float


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 5, 2018)

jon_berzerk said:


> *The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas*
> 
> last time i checked boats float



DENIER!!!!


----------



## Crick (May 5, 2018)

harmonica said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> ...



You should vote for candidates who believe mainstream science when it says that anthropogenic global warming is a real threat to our future and that of our descendants and that we need to act decisively to reduce global CO2 emissions.


----------



## harmonica (May 5, 2018)

Crick said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


what threat?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 5, 2018)

Crick said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



A wasted vote. But don't take my word for it. Check the returns from the 2016 midterms. Despite 85 million contributed by Tom Steyer, green candidates almost invariably got their clocks cleaned. Almost a clean sweep. Once again proving that nobody is caring about the science.

In the bigger picture let's face it, people have way too much to worry about besides the climate. Which is why in every poll of voter concerns climate changes waaaaaay down the bottom of the list. Gallup, Pew Rasmussen..... climate change is right there on the bottom with gun control and race relations in terms of concerns.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (May 5, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.
> 
> ...


*Walking the Plank*

The Navy wants to get Democratic votes for more funding, which they will spend on defense, not fantasy.


----------



## fncceo (May 5, 2018)

Crick said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



 Nahhhhh...

It’s more fun to run around screaming.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.
> 
> ...



Take a DEEP breath and let me relieve your immediate urge to panic. The US military was given $BILLS during Obama Admin to make CERTAIN that it hyped all the strategic implications of Climate Change. The Prez even addressed the Coast Guard Academy and told them that CC was one of their BIGGEST MISSIONS !!!  Not drug interdiction, not human trafficking, not storm rescues, not ISIS infiltration, not ship safety or cargo --- but Global Warming. And of course -- they obliged the CIC .. .

What did they HAVE to base this on? *Well it's the PROJECTION of 4.5 to 7 FEET by 2100 that you UCS article quotes. *Do I need to do the math for you?  OK --- *At 4.5 feet by 2100, that's 0.675"/yr or a WHOPPING 16.54mm/yr !!!!! *What has it BEEN since the satellite era came in they started to hide the Tide Gauge measurements??   About 3.2mm/yr...  Which means that even for the most OPTIMISTIC estimate --- There soon needs to be rates of rise GREATER THEN 20mm/yr for a PROLONGED time. 

Can you do the math for 7 feet by 2100 now? Is your heart rate down just a tad? 

If you want to REALLY RELAX -- All this is projected off of CATASTROPHIC melting in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenland maybe a bit. Antarctica is only gonna melt by VOLCANIC action at that rate by 2100.. 

The GW Crazy Train is off the rails. The fear and doom scenarios are pretty much off the table now that the UN has shut down it's "rent a scientist" IPCC reports. The store is going out of business really.  You need to go get panicked over something else.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

When given an ORDER to hype Global Warming, all the US military can do is salute and respond "Yes Sir".  And then go fishing for some computer modeling bound to fail by the end of 2020...


----------



## Crick (May 6, 2018)

That is not what I've seen.  Do you have some evidence to support that charge? Like, a reference to that "order"?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2018)

Again nobody is worried about the rising sea levels..... it's only on the radar of the climate ocds. When the average person hears about 3 mm, the yawn could not possibly be any bigger! C'mon now


----------



## Crick (May 6, 2018)

FLACALTENN said:
			
		

> When given an ORDER to hype Global Warming, all the US military can do is salute and respond "Yes Sir". And then go fishing for some computer modeling bound to fail by the end of 2020...



That is not what I've seen.  Do you have some evidence to support that charge? Like, a reference to that "order"?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2018)

Crick said:


> FLACALTENN said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're kidding us right? Dude how naive are you? You're a smart guy but did your education never proceeded outside the bounds of science? Did you never study how bureaucracies work? Please don't tell me you think the military is part of the cutting edge of science technology.  They don't give a shit s0n.... they will take appropriations wherever  there is money. The military  would take funding to be the leader of female nipple contemplation studies. Duh Because any bureaucracy has one goal and one goal only: to grow.

I could give you some very good references if you care to look into it.


----------



## Crick (May 6, 2018)

I was looking for a reference to the order flacaltenn claims was given to the military to "hype Global warming".  

I've been in or working for the military since 1974.  I have some familiarity with the way they work.


----------



## abu afak (May 6, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Take a DEEP breath and let me relieve your immediate urge to panic. The US military was given $BILLS during Obama Admin to make CERTAIN that it hyped all the strategic implications of Climate Change. The Prez even addressed the Coast Guard Academy and told them that CC was one of their BIGGEST MISSIONS !!!  Not drug interdiction, not human trafficking, not storm rescues, not ISIS infiltration, not ship safety or cargo --- but Global Warming. And of course -- they obliged the CIC .. .
> What did they HAVE to base this on? *Well it's the PROJECTION of 4.5 to 7 FEET by 2100 that you UCS article quotes. *Do I need to do the math for you?  OK --- *At 4.5 feet by 2100, that's 0.675"/yr or a WHOPPING 16.54mm/yr !!!!! *What has it BEEN since the satellite era came in they started to hide the Tide Gauge measurements??   About 3.2mm/yr...  Which means that even for the most OPTIMISTIC estimate --- There soon needs to be rates of rise GREATER THEN 20mm/yr for a PROLONGED time.
> 
> Can you do the math for 7 feet by 2100 now? Is your heart rate down just a tad?
> ...


Actually, as documented in my 'Miami string- post #16, the Southeast (and Midlantic) is rising at a Much faster Rate 20mm per year.
Rising Sea Levels Reshape Miami’s Housing Market
This is due to Both uneven gravitional effects (we are on a spinning imperfect ball), and subsidence.
The bases named are all in that region.
So as usual, your post was Deflective and Obtuse.
again
https://gizmodo.com/why-are-sea-levels-in-miami-rising-so-much-faster-than-1797733450

Sea levels in South Florida have gone up *about a Foot since the 1930s, but around 2011, the slow upward creep of the ocean seemed to kick into high gear, with tidal gauges recording much faster rates of sea level rise* and residents noting a stark uptick in so-called “nuisance” floods.

A* new study confirms that this was not Floridians’ imaginations: From 2011 to at least 2015, the rate of sea level rise across the Southeastern US shot up by a factor of Six, from 3-4 millimeters a year to 20,* and a combination of oceanic and atmospheric processes seem to be responsible
[.....]
*“The Miami area started getting almost an Inch of sea level [rise] a year,” *Hal Wanless, a coastal geologist at the University of Miami, told Gizmodo. “People noticed that.”​
Ouch!
and of course, at ANY time, including this afternoon, Sea Level could just rise 2++' Overnight  (PER Glacier) when any of the unstable West Antarctic Glaciers (Thwaites, Pine Island, etc) reach a tipping point. Which I certainly expect will happen before century's end. This did happen the last time we got this warm/Holocene when sea level actually rose Tens of Feet in decades/a few centuries.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 6, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Take a DEEP breath and let me relieve your immediate urge to panic. The US military was given $BILLS during Obama Admin to make CERTAIN that it hyped all the strategic implications of Climate Change. The Prez even addressed the Coast Guard Academy and told them that CC was one of their BIGGEST MISSIONS !!!  Not drug interdiction, not human trafficking, not storm rescues, not ISIS infiltration, not ship safety or cargo --- but Global Warming. And of course -- they obliged the CIC .. .
> ...


*
This is due to Both uneven gravitional effects (we are on a spinning imperfect ball), and subsidence.
*
And we all know we can slow subsidence if we build enough windmills.

As far as gravity, just lure Michael Moore to the proper spot on the planet..............


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Take a DEEP breath and let me relieve your immediate urge to panic. The US military was given $BILLS during Obama Admin to make CERTAIN that it hyped all the strategic implications of Climate Change. The Prez even addressed the Coast Guard Academy and told them that CC was one of their BIGGEST MISSIONS !!!  Not drug interdiction, not human trafficking, not storm rescues, not ISIS infiltration, not ship safety or cargo --- but Global Warming. And of course -- they obliged the CIC .. .
> ...




Did you READ even the ABSTRACT for that paper?  You can't just search for CONFIRMING tidbits and call it a feast...  The title is 
*Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern United States*

What does "Hot Spot" mean to you? Do you immediately LEAP to the conclusion that this can ONLY be Ice Melt Water from Antarctica?  Or did you understand that off-shore current changes and land subsidence can be the primary drivers here? 

There is NO PLAUSIBLE scenario for 4.5 to 7 ft of sea level rise by 2100.. Those "models" are predicated on a virtual collapse of the WAISheet accompanied by INTERIOR ice mass loss. Give me the DATE of that forecast and I'll show you how badly it's already failed. My guess is it came from the last IPCC fantasy fiction...


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

Crick said:


> I was looking for a reference to the order flacaltenn claims was given to the military to "hype Global warming".
> 
> I've been in or working for the military since 1974.  I have some familiarity with the way they work.



*You didn't try very hard.* But of course, AFTER the Orders were barked, they cleverly hid a lot of that funding in "public-private" ventures like the
*The Center for Climate & Security *which totally works off funding "laundered" thru various govt agencies. 

*Obama orders climate change be considered in military planning*

*White House special assistant to the president, Alice Hill, told reporters that the presidential memo will "prioritize climate threats" to identify the most significant risks to the nation's security and drive full consideration of climate change effects into national security plans and policies.*

*The policy change comes one week after the president said that climate change discussions have moved from the Oval Office to the "Situation Room," where he convenes with national security experts and the military to address active threats to the United States.*

*Presidential Memorandum -- Climate Change and National Security*


All HANDS ON DECK.. DEFCON3 --- Situation Room has control... 

"AYE AYE SIR"...


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2018)

Crick said:


> I was looking for a reference to the order flacaltenn claims was given to the military to "hype Global warming".
> 
> I've been in or working for the military since 1974.  I have some familiarity with the way they work.



Sorry but you can work in the military for 100 years and still not understand how bureaucracies work. The military is a bureaucracy just like the EPA, FDA etc......

If the military has a way to get funding, they will grab it. Has zero to do with taking any kind of ideological stance on science. If it's green they like it..... as in cash. They couldn't give two craps about the rainforest or greenhouse gas levels.


----------



## abu afak (May 6, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Did you READ even the ABSTRACT for that paper?  You can't just search for CONFIRMING tidbits and call it a feast.....
> There is NO PLAUSIBLE scenario for 4.5 to 7 ft of sea level rise by 2100.. Those "models" are predicated on a virtual collapse of the WAISheet accompanied by INTERIOR ice mass loss. Give me the DATE of that forecast and I'll show you how badly it's already failed. My guess is it came from the last IPCC fantasy fiction...


Actually You got GUTTED.
I gave you not only a "Plausible scenario" but one that is Actually HAPPENING.
WTF does your "paper" mean?
You LOST.. again.

Again:
Actually, as documented in my 'Miami string- post #16, the Southeast (and Midlantic) is rising at a Much faster Rate 20mm per year.
Rising Sea Levels Reshape Miami’s Housing Market
This is due to Both uneven gravitional effects (we are on a spinning imperfect ball), and subsidence.
The bases named are all in that region.
So as usual, your post was Deflective and Obtuse.
again
https://gizmodo.com/why-are-sea-levels-in-miami-rising-so-much-faster-than-1797733450

Sea levels in South Florida have gone up *about a Foot since the 1930s, but around 2011, the slow upward creep of the ocean seemed to kick into high gear, with tidal gauges recording much faster rates of sea level rise* and residents noting a stark uptick in so-called “nuisance” floods.

A* new study confirms that this was not Floridians’ imaginations: From 2011 to at least 2015, the rate of sea level rise across the Southeastern US shot up by a factor of Six, from 3-4 millimeters a year to 20,* and a combination of oceanic and atmospheric processes seem to be responsible
[.....]
*“The Miami area started getting almost an Inch of sea level [rise] a year,” *Hal Wanless, a coastal geologist at the University of Miami, told Gizmodo. “People noticed that.”​Ouch!
and of course, at ANY time, including this afternoon, Sea Level could just rise 2++' Overnight  (PER Glacier) when any of the unstable West Antarctic Glaciers (Thwaites, Pine Island, etc) reach a tipping point. Which I certainly expect will happen before century's end. *This did happen the last time we got this warm/Holocene when sea level actually rose Tens of Feet in decades/a few centuries.*
`​


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Did you READ even the ABSTRACT for that paper?  You can't just search for CONFIRMING tidbits and call it a feast.....
> ...



Science small talk from the nether-regions of the internet. Hobby stuff. Just sayin'.... where exactly is anybody concerned about 3 mm? Imagine being at a party and you start chit-chatting about your deep concern over the sea level going up 3 mm!! Let's face it .....only a social invilid would raise the subject because their ass would get laughed right out of the room.

Anyway even if people took seriously that indeed the sea level was going to rise 500 feet in the next couple of years, 95% of them are going to be eating steak and drinking fine wine for the rest of their days! Duh


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Did you READ even the ABSTRACT for that paper?  You can't just search for CONFIRMING tidbits and call it a feast.....
> ...



What got gutted is your juvenile view of Sea Level rise. There's a REASON it's measured as a GLOBAL number. Because that's the number that represents actual WATER VOLUME.  You're probably not aware of the fact that the MSLevel is not the same in each ocean basin and varies WILDLY even within any basin because of dominant currents and thermal conveyors, even prevailing winds at the scale of millimeters. Might not be aware that something like a 1/3 of the SLR being measured today isn't even from MORE water, it's from just the thermal expansion of about 1degC. 

But more importantly, as it applies to COASTLINES --- the effects are dominated by places that are near LARGE dominant currents like the Gulf Stream. Why does the sign of the SLRise CHANGE at Cape Hatteras?  Do you HAVE a clue?   

Here's a clue..  

*Gulf Stream Meanders




			The path of the Gulf Stream is constantly changing downstream of Cape Hatteras. The Stream often develops wave-like patterns called meanders. One meander would be a section of the Stream from one "wave" crest to the next "wave" crest.

Upstream of Cape Hatteras the meanders are constrained by the continental shelf and rarely exceed 55 km in amplitude. Once the Stream separates from the Coast at Cape Hatteras however, the fluctuations can grow to 400 km in amplitude. The average amplitude for Gulf Stream meanders is about 200 km and the average wavelength of a meander is 330 km. Like a wave progressing down a string, meanders propagate down the Stream at an average rate of 8 km/day. 

Monthly variability in the Gulf Stream's path can be large, as evident from these three images which are each separated by four months. With the advent of satellite oceanography the Gulf Stream's path can be monitored daily and the development and propagation of all Gulf Stream meanders can be observed.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Likkmee (May 6, 2018)

I know how to fix it. Repeatedly nuke Jellystone until it blows creating an ice age.Problem solved !


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

Gulf Stream emerging as sea level rise "wild card" for Hampton Roads

*Gulf Stream emerging as sea level rise "wild card" for Hampton Roads*



*By Dave Mayfield 
The Virginian-Pilot*
*Mar 14, 2018*
*

Early in the fall of 2015, over a period of a few weeks, the tides in Hampton Roads rose well beyond what was predicted – as much as 3 feet higher, enough in some cases to flood low-lying roads throughout the region.

Tal Ezer had an idea about what might be contributing to the problem, and the Old Dominion University oceanography professor knew where to look – an obscure website that compiles a daily average of waterpouring through a strait between Florida and the Bahamas.

What it showed was a dramatic slowing in something known as the Florida Current, a section of the Gulf Stream, the mighty offshore river that rages up the coast before veering northeast toward the open Atlantic off Cape Hatteras.

The Gulf Stream matters a lot. But only in recent decades have scientists really dug into quantifying its impact.

It “has a lot bigger variability than oceanographers realized, say, 20 years ago. And I think that variability, not only is it large in magnitude, but it can impact us, in the Chesapeake Bay, in the southern Chesapeake Bay especially,” said Hali Kilbourne, who studies climate change through the ages for the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science.


*
Not EVERY ill effect you see today is due to a 0.6DegC Global change in temperature in your lifetime. There's a LOT of good science that doesn't stay focused on the GW crazy train. Instead it seeks to increase the GENERAL knowledge about the planet's thermodynamic system. THOSE scientists are the ones that will eventually any modeling that's meaningful enough to act.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 6, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Sunset bro....some nut will come along and say the sea levels will rise by 1000 ft and we know who will come back in here with his head exploding!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (May 6, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...




Solution MIGHT be to put the Florida Current/Gulf Stream on notice with a bunch of "No Meandering Zone" signs. Would be about as effective as "No Gun Zone" signs.


----------



## abu afak (May 7, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Actually, I'm the one who explained to YOU That SL rise wise was uneven (and higher in the SE/Midlantic) due to the fact we are on a spinning ball with unequal gravity, as well as subsidence.
Now you try and mke it a point for you?
LOL
Another Disingenuous Last-word WHIFF.
`


----------



## abu afak (May 7, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> *You didn't try very hard.* But of course, AFTER the Orders were barked, they cleverly hid a lot of that funding in "public-private" ventures like the. *The Center for Climate & Security *which totally works off funding "laundered" thru various govt agencies.
> *Obama orders climate change be considered in military planning*
> 
> *White House special assistant to the president, Alice Hill, told reporters that the presidential memo will "prioritize climate threats" to identify the most significant risks to the nation's security and drive full consideration of climate change effects into national security plans and policies.*
> ...


That's right CLOWN
It's only Obama who directed the Military to be afraid of Warming.

Another outrageous Ball of **** from Flacaltenn.

military acknowledgement warming - Google Search

*U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change ...*
https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-...
Apr 2, 2012 - Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.
...
*Trump's Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as… — ProPublica*
https://www.propublica.org/.../trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national...
Mar 14, 2017 - *Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy* where it ... Mattis' statements could hearten world leaders who have urged the Trump administration to remain engaged on addressing global warming.

*US military plans for climate change - Motherboard*
US military plans for climate change
Oct 14, 2014 - The military is preparing to adapt to a warming planet.

*What the U.S. Military is Doing About Climate Change*
blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/09/.../what-the-u-s-military-is-doing-about-climate-chang...
Sep 20, 2017 -
*While the White House denies that climate change is happening, the Military has been Aware of the risks of climate change since 1990, and has been actively working for a number of years* already to avoid and adapt to the worst effects of climate change, including flooding, extreme heat, extreme weather, ...
*
Trump's new defense bill includes a Dire Warning on climate change ...*
The defense bill Trump just signed includes a dire military warning on climate change...
*Dec 13, 2017 - In the bill, current and former top US military brass attest to the national security threat of a rapidly changing climate.*
By signing the bill, Trump also ordered a report on “vulnerabilities to military installations” that climate change could cause in the next 20 years. The bill's acknowledgement and anticipation of ...
You visited this page on 5/6/18.
...
*Climate change is a 'direct threat to national security,' the defense bill ...*
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-is-a-direct-threat-to-national-se...Nov 22, 2017 - The 2400-page National Defense Authorization Act that Congress sent to President Trump last week is packed with new military policies and weapons ... There was widespread acknowledgement of climate change under the Barack Obama administration following skepticism from the George W. Bush ...​
*****!, there's even a Military Consensus on Warming.... to join the Scientific one!*
Ah, Reality.

PS: Finished off all comers again.
Bye for now.
Thanks for all your help in unwittingly assisting me in showing the truth.
`


----------



## flacaltenn (May 7, 2018)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *You didn't try very hard.* But of course, AFTER the Orders were barked, they cleverly hid a lot of that funding in "public-private" ventures like the. *The Center for Climate & Security *which totally works off funding "laundered" thru various govt agencies.
> ...



I'm SO GLAD Obama sikked the military on GodZilla.  Should have that monster neutered in a couple decades.

They LOVE THE MONEY too much. Can't FIRE people... It's permanent. Even into the next Ice Age.


----------



## abu afak (May 7, 2018)

`ENVIRONMENT

JUNE 2, 2017
*Trump's climate doubts ignore U.S. Military Consensus on risks*
Yeganeh Torbati - Reuters
Trump's climate doubts ignore U.S. military consensus on risks

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *U.S. President Donald Trump relies far more than his recent predecessors on advisers with a military background, but his apparent Disregard for Climate Ccience is at Odds with the U.S. Military’s CONENSUS on the risks of climate change to security.
[.....]*​*

`*


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 7, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> ...



4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 7, 2018)

jon_berzerk said:


> *The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas*
> 
> last time i checked boats float



Submarines don't!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 7, 2018)

Crick said:


> FLACALTENN said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have a copy of the order that Roosevelt gave to Eisenhower to invade the European continent?

How about the order from Trump to strike Syria?


----------



## skookerasbil (May 7, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas*
> ...




Hey man, think of how cool it will be when in a couple of decades everyone will own their own personal submarine. Who'da thunk it even 25 years ago. Going to be a whole new manufacturing market and you got to figure the Trump family will be right in the middle of it!! Winning as always!!

How about you s0n, have you built your emergency ark yet? For those of you who are all angst about climate change and supposed sea level rise, I'd suggest getting to work on a prototype ark..... once that water is up to your knees it's probably too late.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 7, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas*
> ...



Hopefully they do......periodically.


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 7, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas*
> ...


indeed they do --LOL -but they dont need too 

A submarine has the ability to *float* and sink. The ability to control buoyancy comes from the submarine's trim or ballast tanks which *can* be filled with either water or air, depending on whether the submarine needs to *float* or sink.

http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-11_u-90.../sailing-sinking-soaring/moving-through-water


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2018)

The load of shit on this board from the deniers would fertilize the Sahara. Yes, currents do affect the sea level. So an area that is already seeing a much warmer ocean, which leads to a rise in itself, on top of the rise from Alpine and Continental Glaciers, will see even more if the currents push more water that way. And, of course, the currents are affected by the distribution of heat. Worldwide, there is a rise in the sea level, and one that is accelerating. As measured both by tidal gauges and satellites. And all the denials by you room temperature IQ's cannot change those measurements. You can only lie about them, which is your modus operandi in any case.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 7, 2018)

Treating speculation as if it were fact is an exercise for k00ks.

Appears a little exercise lesson in common sense is necessary in this thread.....

Very few people are worried about sea level rise and it will always be that way. Sorry but that's just the way it is. Those who tend to the hysterical are pulling their hair out but most people realize there is no certainty to the future climate whatsoever. Accordingly they have their minds wrapped up in things that are far more pressing to them.... the scratching and clawing to just make it in life. That's most people.... but then you have the minority of people who either have no real responsibilities in life or are just coasting in life. Those are the people who have too much time to think. Those are people who worry about st00pid shit like a 3mm rise in the sea level.

What changes this dynamic? Well if one morning we wake up and turn on the news and see seawater at the second story of the Empire State Building in New York City, then people will care but not a moment sooner. Duh


----------



## flacaltenn (May 7, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> The load of shit on this board from the deniers would fertilize the Sahara. Yes, currents do affect the sea level. So an area that is already seeing a much warmer ocean, which leads to a rise in itself, on top of the rise from Alpine and Continental Glaciers, will see even more if the currents push more water that way. And, of course, the currents are affected by the distribution of heat. Worldwide, there is a rise in the sea level, and one that is accelerating. As measured both by tidal gauges and satellites. And all the denials by you room temperature IQ's cannot change those measurements. You can only lie about them, which is your modus operandi in any case.



The VARIATION in coastal "sea level" in some of these places (like the SE coast) due to dominant shore currents moving in location or speeding or slowing, is almost EQUAL to the 4.5ft by 2100 that AIN'T gonna happen..  And that variation has been happening for probably millenia..


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (May 7, 2018)

jon_berzerk said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Hey Captain Obvious!

I was a qualified submariner.


----------



## abu afak (May 10, 2018)

All these posts by NON-science Right Wingers who are 'interested' in only ONE sci subject for Political reasons.
They know Nothing, just what someblog told them.
And the ones who use the blogs are the better ones. Most are just harassing One-Line Trolls like jc456, skookerasbil, etc.
Do they also want to accuse the Military CONSENSUS on the subject of being "Libtards"?

*The military paid for a study on sea level rise. The results were scary.*
By Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis 
April 25, 2018 - Washington Post
The military paid for a study on sea level rise. The results were scary.

The threats to the islands are twofold. In the long term, the rising seas threaten to inundate the islands entirely. More immediately, as seas rise, the islands will more frequently deal with large waves that crash farther onto the shore, contaminating their drinkable water supplies with ocean saltwater, according to the research.

The islands face climate-change-driven threats to their water supplies “in the very near future,” according to the study, published in the journal Science Advances.

The study focused on a part of the Marshall Islands in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Hilda Heine, president of the Marshall Islands, said in an interview that Wednesday’s journal article “brings home the seriousness” of the predicament facing her island nation.

“It’s a scary scenario for us,” she said.

The research also has ramifications for the U.S. military, whose massive Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site sits, in part, on the atoll island of Roi-Namur — a part of the Marshall Islands and the focus of the research.

The U.S. military supported the research in part to learn about the vulnerability of its tropical-island installations. The Pentagon base on Roi-Namur and surrounding islands supports about 1,250 American civilians, contractors and military personnel.

“This study provided a better understanding of how atoll islands may be affected by a changing climate,” Defense Department spokeswoman Heather Babb said in a statement. “While no decisions have been made about Department of Defense activities on the islands based on the study, DOD continues to focus on ensuring its installations and infrastructure are resilient to a wide range of threats. The department’s understanding of rising sea levels will enable the military services and agencies in affected areas to make informed decisions on how to continue to execute their missions.”[.....]​`


----------



## jwoodie (May 10, 2018)

abu afak said:


> All these posts by NON-science Right Wingers who are 'interested' in only ONE sci subject for Political reasons.
> They know Nothing, just what someblog told them.
> And the ones who use the blogs are the better ones. Most are just harassing One-Line Trolls like jc456, skookerasbil, etc.
> Do they also want to accuse the Military CONSENSUS on the subject of being "Libtards"?
> ...



The Military is not the Washington Post and large waves do not mean the sea level is rising, Libtard.


----------



## abu afak (May 10, 2018)

Jwooodie said:
			
		

> The Military is not the Washington Post and large waves do not mean the sea level is rising, Libtard.



Another outrageous Ball of **** from Con-tard Wood head.

military acknowledgement warming - Google Search

*U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change ...*
https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-...
Apr 2, 2012 - Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.
...
*Trump's Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as… — ProPublica*
https://www.propublica.org/.../trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national...
Mar 14, 2017 - *Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to Cut dependence on Fossil fuels and explore Renewable energy* where it ... Mattis' statements could hearten world leaders who have urged the Trump administration to remain engaged on addressing global warming.

*US military plans for climate change - Motherboard*
US military plans for climate change
Oct 14, 2014 - The military is preparing to adapt to a warming planet.

*What the U.S. Military is Doing About Climate Change*
blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/09/.../what-the-u-s-military-is-doing-about-climate-chang...
Sep 20, 2017 -
*While the White House denies that climate change is happening, the Military has been Aware of the risks of climate change since 1990, and has been actively working for a number of years* already to avoid and adapt to the worst effects of climate change, including flooding, extreme heat, extreme weather, ...
*
Trump's new defense bill includes a Dire Warning on climate change ...*
The defense bill Trump just signed includes a dire military warning on climate change...
*Dec 13, 2017 - In the bill, current and former top US military brass attest to the national security threat of a rapidly changing climate.*
By signing the bill, Trump also ordered a report on “vulnerabilities to military installations” that climate change could cause in the next 20 years. The bill's acknowledgement and anticipation of ...
...
*Climate change is a 'direct threat to national security,' the defense bill ...*
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-change-is-a-direct-threat-to-national-se...Nov 22, 2017 - The 2400-page National Defense Authorization Act that Congress sent to President Trump last week is packed with new military policies and weapons ... There was widespread acknowledgement of climate change under the Barack Obama administration following skepticism from the George W. Bush ...​
*****!, there's even a Military Consensus on Warming.... to join the Scientific one!
`*
You Lose Trumpov boy.
`


----------



## abu afak (May 10, 2018)

*"Libtard" Military, DOD/Pentagon, and GOP Congress.. I guess.*

*TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
SEAN MOWBRAY
JAN 18, 2018
Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change

While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, *the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security. *The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.
On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a Hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, t*he Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat *and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, *with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level *(which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world),* to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.*
[.....]
`​


----------



## abu afak (May 14, 2018)

Deniers have a tough time calling the Military "Left/Libtard" so they can't Swallow this string/Can't deal with it.

Our military knows climate change puts its facilities at risk
APR 30, 2018
Our military knows climate change puts its facilities at risk

Don’t try and tell the U.S. military that global warming and climate change are nothing to worry about.

*A study supported in part by the military expects that U.S. military facilities in the Pacific Ocean may be Flooded and Uninhabitable by the Middle of this century. Reliable science-based estimates place the rise in ocean levels at a possible 2 Meters or more.*

Greenhouse gases generated by burning Coal and other Fossil Fuels trap heat in our atmosphere. They normally would be radiated away into space. The oceans act as a heat sink for the increased heat. The rise in ocean levels is a result of melting Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice packs as well as the expansion of sea water because warm water expands

More than half the oxygen we breathe comes from phytoplankton in the ocean.
The warming of the oceans is also having a dire effect on the phytoplankton that live in the water. The amount of phytoplankton has decreased by more than 40% since the 1950s and has been decreasing around 10% every year.

If efforts aren’t taken now to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases generated by fossil fuels through increased use of renewable energy sources, we may find ourselves living in a world that doesn’t have enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support us and other living organisms. A carbon fee and dividend program such as the one from Citizens Climate Lobby could help to encourage more use and interest in renewable, non-polluting energy sources.​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Deniers have a tough time calling the Military "Left/Libtard" so they can't Swallow this string/Can't deal with it.
> 
> Our military knows climate change puts its facilities at risk
> APR 30, 2018
> ...



*Deniers have a tough time calling the Military "Left/Libtard"
*
I don't. Not one bit.

Under Left-tard President Obama, liberal idiocy was forced on the military.
Including, but not limited to, AGW idiocy.

*The warming of the oceans is also having a dire effect on the phytoplankton that live in the water. The amount of phytoplankton has decreased by more than 40% since the 1950s and has been decreasing around 10% every year.*​
Sounds serious!!! I heard the last time the Earth had a decent warm spell, the phytoplankton disappeared and all life on Earth suffocated.......Geez, the crap you morons swallow is ridiculous.

Quick, we need to save the phytoplankton, how many new nuclear reactors should we build?​


----------



## abu afak (May 31, 2018)

*Norfolk Wants to Remake Itself as Sea Level Rises, but Who Will Be Left Behind?*
The proud Navy town sees itself as a living lab for coastal resilience, one in desperate need of solutions as flooding worsens. Not every neighborhood will be saved.
By Nicholas Kusnetz
MAY 21, 2018
[.....]
*A Living Lab for Adapting to Rising Seas*
On a bright day last winter, several dozen executives, architects, military officers and government officials from around the country gathered in a glass room atop Norfolk's main public library. It was the start of an initiative on coastal innovation, organized by a project of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a local nonprofit that the city of Norfolk created to fund technological solutions to coastal resilience.

The conference was exactly the type of event city leaders had hoped to host: one that draws a national mix of private and public sector leaders to use Norfolk as a laboratory for adapting to rising seas.

The seed was planted in 2015, when Norfolk brought in a group from the Netherlands for what it called the "Dutch Dialogues." Andria McClellan, a city councilwoman who at the time was on the planning commission, said city officials realized then that climate adaptation could provide a vehicle for economic development.

"Their technology around this is a huge portion of their GDP," she said of the Dutch. Much of the Netherlands lies below sea level, and the country's expertise on how to tame and adapt to water has become a national export.

City leaders also began to realize that rather than focusing only on fortifying the areas at risk, they also needed to rethink the places that are relatively safer.

"Let's focus on the areas that aren't at risk, and how we can develop and improve and densify those areas," said George Homewood, Norfolk's planning director, "so that our great little city by the sea gets to continue to be that great little city by the sea because we've been able to move it and shape it over time to places that are less at risk."



In 2016, Homewood led the publication of "Vision 2100," a broad-strokes scoping document for how Norfolk could literally reshape itself into "the coastal community of the future."
[.....]
*The 'Yellow Zone': Some Neighborhoods Won't Be Saved*
Along the coasts of the United States, cities were built under the seemingly safe assumption that land is land, and water is water. But the assumption of fixed coastlines proved wrong, and many neighborhoods may soon find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

Around Norfolk, seas are expected to rise another 6 inches to 1.5 feet over the next three decades. The rate of sea level rise in the second half of the century is more uncertain. A rapid cut in global emissions would make a tremendous difference. Without that, more pessimistic projections say seas could rise 6.5 feet or more by 2100, a level that would inundate nearly 40% of Norfolk at least twice a month, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. About 350 other U.S. communities would be in similar shape or worse.

While many of those communities may end up protected by walls or other infrastructure, there's growing recognition that some places will just get wetter and wetter and be lost to the sea.
[.....]​`


----------



## abu afak (Jul 3, 2018)

Yes SkookerASSbil, "No one cares"

USA Today
Trump’s skepticism aside, the Navy is taking climate change seriously

*Trump’s skepticism aside, the Navy is taking climate change seriously*
Gerald Harris, Medill News Service - June 28, 2018

TAMUNING, Guam — The Trump administration has vigorously downplayed the threat of global warming, insisting that the science is still unproven.

But an increase in the number of severe storms combined with rising sea levels and surface temperatures are forcing the U.S. Navy to adjust to the mounting threat of climate change.

The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act has ordered the Pentagon to identify the top 10 military bases threatened by climate change for the Navy and the other service branches by November.

The congressional mandate requires the Defense Department to examine each threatened military installation for the effects of rising sea tides, increased flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires and thawing permafrost over the coming 20 years.

While the Navy has a long history of responding to weather-related catastrophes, a world-wide increase in extreme weather and climate-related civilian unrest has led to more requests for assistance from the Navy.

The demand could hamper naval readiness, said Ann C. Phillips, a retired rear admiral who spent 30 years in the Navy and is now a member of the advisory board of the Center for Climate & Security, a non-partisan think tank.

“If you’re doing a humanitarian response, you are not doing in all likelihood the mission that you’re supposed to be — whether that is training, preparing to deploy or actually being on deployment,” Phillips said.

Some of the United States’ most important overseas bases are seeing the effects of climate change first-hand.

The U.S. territory of Guam is home to Naval Base Guam, Andersen Air Force Base and 12,000 service members and their families.

_“By reputation Guam has the largest fuel capacity than any place in Asia, largest weapon capacity, so Guam is the base which the United States can project its power to this part of the world without asking anyone’s permission,”_ said Robert Underwood, the outgoing president of the University of Guam and a former Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

While Guam’s problems aren’t as severe as some naval facilities, including flood-prone Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, Guam has been threatened by warming waters, damage to coral reefs, rising sea levels and diminished drinking water.

According to Austin Shelton, an assistant professor at the University of Guam and director of the Sea Grant research program, Guam is facing multiple challenges.

_“Not only do we have to think about these local stressors, we also need to think about the global environmental impacts that we are experiencing in the Pacific islands – such as increase in frequency and intensity in storms, rising sea level, and rising seas surface temperatures,”_ Shelton said.

According to a report by the Center for Climate & Security released earlier this year, 200 military installations participating in a vulnerability assessment have already been affected by storm surge flooding.

A 2008 assessment found that only 30 military sites faced elevated risks because of sea level rise.​


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.



Union of concerned scientists?  Are you kidding?  I am laughing great big horse laughs in your stupid face.  Here...let me provide you with a couple of photographs and some correspondence received by a voting member in good standing of the union of concerned scientists...
















It is little wonder you are a top shelf dupe thunder...you can't differentiate between a real science organization and a fly by night group of scammers who will let anyone in who can pony up the initiation fee.  What a buffoon.

Although, maybe they let the dog in to the organization to bump up the average IQ of the membership...she looks more intelligent than most of the warmers I have had the displeasure of speaking with.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 3, 2018)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.
> 
> ...


No.  Nothing to see here.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> ...


The UCS was ONE of about TWENTY Links I posted including Righty WashingtonExaminer. (NY Times, NatGeo, etc)  and oft citing Militray policy and documents. 

Any rebuttal 12 IQ asshole?

NO CONTENT Just a Juvenile JPG show.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 3, 2018)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



You never discuss. You mostly rant. I GAVE YOU the problem with the UCS article in my 1st post in this thread. *How the MILITARY was given $BILL of GW money and OUTRAGEOUS estimates of sea level requiring INCHES/year to even get to the MINIMAL projections by 2100 -- when the CURRENT and past rates are closer to a 0.1".* Couple that with the fact that since those estimates were made -- it's been found MORE LIKELY that any rise in sea level like that would come from VOLCANIC heating of the Antarctic shelf ice --- NOT GWarming. 

Take a breath.  READ the posts. And try doing more of the Discussion thing..


----------



## abu afak (Jul 3, 2018)

The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
ie, Norfolk.
Sea Level is rising 3mm avg, but about 20mm from Virginia all around to the Gulf Coast.
People Notice.
I notice in the Florida Town of my winter home, as do Millions in that state, and others, which now regularly Flood at King Tides and from even small weather events.
We are seeing it on the West coast as well. A place I thought less vulnerable.

Why don't you go post some irrelevant Graph/Scandal/Conspiracy or some other Denialist BS that tell me it ISN'T happening!
I'm sure you can find Another hundred or two.
There's "tons" of anecdotal/misleading stuff/"pauses"/etc in the Denier Blogs and the "1000 Papers" no doubt.
`






`


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

abu afak said:


> The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
> ie, Norfolk.
> Sea Level is rising 3mm avg, but about 20mm from Virginia all around to the Gulf Coast.
> People Notice.
> ...



Do you ever bother to look up anything, or do you just gobble up whatever unskeptical science and the legion of concerned scientists tell you?  Let me guess...you are a gobbler.


Here....Fort Norfolk circa 1935





Here...Fort Norfolk 2014






And we could go right down the coast, to key west and back up and follow the coast right around to Texas looking at historic photos and modern photos of the water front that show practically no difference.  If your area is flooding at king tides, it is due to sinking land, not rising seas.  Try a bit of critical thinking...it is a bit more work, but it beats the hell out of being a dupe.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 4, 2018)

SSDD said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
> ...


So to be clear..

*1. You WHIFFED on my last post pointing out Your Bashing UCS was meaniningless in light of my 20 Other Links (NyTimes, NatGeo, WashingtonExaminer, etc)
GAME OVER*

2. You didn't respond to anything else in the Entire Meaty thread, including my article at the top of this page.

3. Your new post suggesting I can't/don't "look up anything" is also belied by my previous posts. Some with Google Lists.

4. What do your pictures show or not show?
Had I or anyone suggested a Biblical Flood?
Can one see how much sea level rose in your pictures?
Or see if Piers/other shoreline construction been Rebuilt (higher) since 1935?
So your Stupid pix mean Nothing.
Your last Two posts: JUVENILE JPGs - Debate for kids - or simpletons trying bury reason.

*One can only imagine how much Contradictory Info you had to Ignore to find some innocuous/useless pix. Hundreds/Thousands of articles talking about the problem.*

Since you imply you are good at looking up, then you must be willfully blind or dishonest.
ie
_Norfolk Base Sea level_
norfolk base sea level - Google Search

About 7,070,000 results (0.53 seconds)
*Search Results (pg 1 in Total/Unfiltered)*

*Rising Seas Are Flooding Virginia's Naval Base, and There's No Plan ...*
https://insideclimatenews.org/.../military-norfolk-naval-base-flooding-climate-change-...
Oct 25, 2017 - Joe Bouchard, a retired captain and former Base Commander, has become a proponent for helping Norfolk adapt to sea level rise. Credit: ...

*U.S. Military Prepares for Sea-Level Rise and Other Climate Change ...*
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/.../pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-...
Feb 7, 2017 - Norfolk, Virginia
Ten times a year, the Naval Station Norfolk floods. The entry road swamps. Connecting roads become impassable. Crossing ...

*Norfolk Prepares For Battle With Rising Sea Level | WUNC*
wunc.org/post/norfolk-prepares-battle-rising-sea-level
Mar 20, 2017 - When President Donald Trump visited a shipyard at Newport News, Va. this month, he told an audience of sailors and shipbuilders that the ...

*Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases : NPR*
Rising Seas Threaten Coastal Military Bases
Mar 31, 2017 - For the Navy, one of those threats is the sea itself. Reporter Jay Price of member station WUNC visited a spot in Norfolk, Va., where sea level ...

*Is Rising Sea Level Threatening Norfolk Naval Base and the ...*
https://townhall.com/.../is-rising-sea-level-threatening-norfolk-naval-base-and-the-che...
Aug 26, 2017 - Sea level at Norfolk has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when thenaval station was built. By 2100, Norfolk station will flood ...

*Norfolk: A case study in sea-level rise: Physics Today: Vol 69, No 5*
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3163
Sea level in Norfolk has risen 46 cm in the past 100 years. ... With the naval base, nearby Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia ...

*Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report*
https://www.navytimes.com/.../rising-oceans-threaten-to-submerge-128-military-bases...
Jul 29, 2016 - Based on these calculations, the report says a three-foot sea level rise ... for the Navy: In addition to Norfolk, flooding threatens Naval Station ...

*5 things that could affect the future of Naval Station Norfolk | Virginia ...*
pilotonline.com › News › U.S. Military News › Virginia Military News
Jun 30, 2017 - Naval Station Norfolk is threatened by the very water that makes it an ideal location. Norfolk has one of the fastest rates of relative sea level rise ...

*Hampton Roads sea level rise is accelerating, report says ...*
pilotonline.com › News › Local News › Environment
Mar 12, 2018 - In its breakdown for contributors to the Norfolk region's sea level rise, the report's team cited that sinking of land as a key factor, but also pointed ...

*On the Front Lines of Rising Seas: Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia ...*
https://www.ucsusa.org/global...and.../sea-level-rise-flooding-naval-station-norfolk
Jul 27, 2016 - Naval Station Norfolk within the Hampton Roads metropolitan area—a sea level rise hot spot, where natural subsidence, low-lying topography, ...
​
More: Covering the approximate period encompassed by your Worthless pictures

*Hampton Roads sea level rise is accelerating, report says*
By Dave Mayfield - The Virginian-Pilot - Mar 12, 2018

....The report card from the institute, which is part of the College of William & Mary, evaluated 32 localities along the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico and Pacific coast. All of the projections are based on records compiled at federally operated tide stations. The station at Sewells Point in Norfolk stood as the proxy for Hampton Roads. Its records go back to 1927.

*At the Norfolk gauge, sea level rise has averaged about 4.6 millimeters per year, about a Foot and a Half over the 91 years. The annual increases have accelerated over the past decade, with last year’s coming in at more than 5.1 millimeters, the institute reported.*
...
The report concentrates on how much higher tide levels in *2050* are likely to be than in 1992, a frequently used benchmark year for such forecasts. *For Norfolk, the increase predicted over that time span would end up as 0.49 meters, or more than 19 inches,* with about a half-foot of the increase already having occurred. The increase by midcentury would put Hampton Roads in a second-place tie with Pensacola, Fla., for the highest rate.​
You Sleezy Wack Job.
Again.
Who knows how to "look up anything"?
Who almost certainly did, and had to Dishonestly Ignore it, instead posting many meaningless pictures in consecutive childish attempts to bury reason with your coloring book.

You CLOWN.
`


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2018)

abu afak said:


> .
> 
> *1. You WHIFFED on my last post pointing out Your Bashing UCS was meaniningless in light of my 20 Other Links (NyTimes, NatGeo, WashingtonExaminer, etc)
> GAME OVER*


*

Do you always engage in such blatant mental masturbation?  Bet you do..don't you.   Self aggrandizement...but we have already talked about that in depth and why you do it....haven't we thunder?*


----------



## abu afak (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *
> Do you always engage in such blatant mental masturbation?  Bet you do..don't you.   Self aggrandizement...but we have already talked about that in depth and why you do it....haven't we thunder?*


You were GUTTED and WHIFFED on my post completely.
You are an asshole/troll and should NOT be here.


*TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.

Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change - JAN 18, 2018

The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, *the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense* (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, *the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a rapidly warming world is bringing with it alarming security risks* ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.

Indeed, Trump's own secretary of defense, Jim Mattis, was hailed before taking office as the "lone green hope," due to his recognition of global warming's clear and present danger.
[......]​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2018)

abu afak said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



The military says sea levels are rising......give us more money.

I'm convinced. How much more money do you feel we should give them?


----------



## abu afak (Jul 22, 2018)

abu afak said:


> *TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
> While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security.
> Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change - JAN 18, 2018
> 
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> The military says sea levels are rising......give us more money.
> I'm convinced. How much more money do you feel we should give them?


Hey One line TROLL, Quipster, NON-contributor..
*Is that your 1st or 30th Wise crack of the day?
1000th of the Month?
Round numbers will be fine.*

I propose we give the military what is needed to prevent Bases from Flooding (which they already are) and going under.. and take them seriously, as they/the Navy especially, is most affected.
The Pentagon also realizes the potential for displacement/unrest due to rising sea level.
Completely reasonable to the People are are most affected Interested, who can't afford to Deny Reality as [inland] Trolls like you.

*

EDIT to the persistent TROLL Toddster below.
I won't answer your Idiot Posts/Trolls Until and Unless I want to bump this thread to the top. I'll wait til it drifts down the board first.
Thanks your your help and UNWITtingly being my straightman.*
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2018)

abu afak said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
> ...



Great ideas!

Now how much do we have to spend to prevent the water from rising?

Round numbers?


----------



## abu afak (Jul 29, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Great ideas!
> 
> Now how much do we have to spend to prevent the water from rising?
> 
> Round numbers?


Ahh yes, the thread has drifted down
Time NOW for a reply to my straight man.. and troll... Toddster.

I don't think any amount of money can stop the sea level rising in the next few decades.
We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.

BTW, How many (round numbers) similar ridiculous trolling posts have you made?
(Instead of harassment they're intended to be, I use them to promote my threads when they slow.
Keep em coming)
`


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jul 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > The thread also elaborates Problems the Military is ALREADY experiencing.
> ...




I agree with your position, but I think you could have found better examples.  I lived in the Tidewater area for many years and never even heard of this place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Great ideas!
> ...



*We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.*

Or.....we could invest in something that works at providing reliable energy.....nuclear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2018)

Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop seas from rising? (Oh and thanks Obama for fucking that up too)

A. $17 trillion


----------



## abu afak (Jul 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
> Any 'cost' would just be new job creation in renewables.*
> 
> Or.....we could invest in something that works at providing reliable energy.....nuclear.


2/3 of New Industry money is going into Wind and Solar.
Eventually what you say "really works" WILL be the back up.
Right now plenty of room to expand the good stuff. whose reliability and storage capabilities are also improving yearly.
`


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 31, 2018)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Fuck nuclear. Too expensive, too dangerous, too dirty. No waste from solar and wind energy. And it is getting cheaper every day.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *We can probably slow it though with responsible action at no real cost.
> ...



*2/3 of New Industry money is going into Wind and Solar.*

I know. With enough stupid mandates and enough stupid subsidies, people waste money on lots of stupidity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 31, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



*Fuck nuclear. Too expensive, too dangerous, too dirty.*

And think of all the CO2 it produces.

* No waste from solar and wind energy. *

No waste? All the turbines sitting idle isn't waste?


----------



## abu afak (Aug 15, 2018)

Saying people don't care about Climate change is like saying they don't care about Dying.
The certainly do, but they don't see it as immediate as a Job, etc
But most states and large organizations are planning for it.
Virtually every Coastal state has plans in place, as well as our Military.

*Climate change threatens half of US bases worldwide, Pentagon report finds*

Defense department says wild weather could endanger 1,700 sites
Findings run counter to White House views on climate
Nearly half of US military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a new Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.

Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the US Department of Defense (DoD).

“Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.

“If extreme weather makes our critical facilities unusable or necessitates costly or manpower-intensive workarounds, that is an unacceptable impact.”

The findings put the military at odds with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on British television.

Trump has also pulled the United States out of the global 2015 Paris accord to fight climate change.

The Pentagon survey investigated the effects of “a changing climate” on all US military installations worldwide, which it said numbered more than 3,500.

Assets most often damaged include airfields, energy infrastructure and water systems, according to military personnel at each site, who responded to the DoD questionnaire.

John Conger, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, said the report’s commissioning by Congress showed a growing interest by lawmakers into the risks that climate change poses to national security.

The study was published late last week and brought to public attention this week by the Center for Climate and Security. 
- end-


----------



## polarbear (Aug 15, 2018)

abu afak said:


> Saying people don't care about Climate change is like saying they don't care about Dying.
> The certainly do, but they don't see it as immediate as a Job, etc
> But most states and large organizations are planning for it.
> Virtually every Coastal state has plans in place, as well as our Military.
> ...


_“Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.
The findings put the military at odds with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on British television."_
Ridiculous! Obama was at odds with the military and ordered it (Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013) to comply,  declaring climate change a "national security threat".....while Iran and North Korea were going nuclear, China and Russia were upgrading their armaments and he decimated the US military readiness.
So let`s see who was at odds with the military shall we?
The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy
_More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military
Their complaints include the president’s decision to decrease military personnel (71 percent think it should be higher), his moves to withdraw combat troops from Iraq (59 percent say it made America less safe) and his *lack of focus on the biggest dangers facing America (64 percent say China represents a significant threat to the U.S.)
*_


----------



## abu afak (Aug 15, 2018)

polarbear said:


> Ridiculous! Obama was at odds with the military and ordered it (Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013) to comply,  declaring climate change a "national security threat".....while Iran and North Korea were going nuclear, China and Russia were upgrading their armaments and he decimated the US military readiness. -
> *So let`s see who was at odds with the military shall we?*
> The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy
> _More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military
> ...


*TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
SEAN MOWBRAY
JAN 18, 2018
Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change

While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, *the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security. *The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a Hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, t*he Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat *and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, *with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level *(which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world),* to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.*
[.....]
​`


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2018)

abu afak said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Ridiculous! Obama was at odds with the military and ordered it (Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013) to comply,  declaring climate change a "national security threat".....while Iran and North Korea were going nuclear, China and Russia were upgrading their armaments and he decimated the US military readiness. -
> ...


_"When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators."
106 of them wrote a letter.Wow 106 out of 535 that`s not even 20% who think climate change is a threat. That`s is even less than the other polls you brandished ._
And then :
"_the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level"_
That`s a copy&paste from the same old crap you used to start this thread because the Pentagon has made no such a declaration,* in fact they came to this conclusion:*
The Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama administration
*The Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama administration*
*The final version of the reported eliminated any mention of storms become 'more destructive' due to climate change *


*A final version was presented to Congress in January 2018 without the draft’s 23 references to “climate change,” leaving just one mention of the phrase. 
*
And the Washington Post:
Pentagon survey details effects of climate change on military sites
"The idea was to try and figure out . . . how climate effects were impacting the installations and in what way," said *John Conger*, who served as a senior *Pentagon official under the Obama administration* and was among the officials who initiated the survey.
Officials suspected that flooding was taking a toll on coastal installations such as Naval Station Norfolk, and that drought and wildfire were affecting inland facilities. But they needed reporting from those locations to have a clear nationwide picture.
According to the survey, which was rolled out to military sites in 2014, *the most frequent problems named were drought, wind and non-storm-surge-related flooding. Nearly half of the sites reported no impact.
*
Besides yourself who are you trying to convince here? It`s not even a challenge to debunk the crap you post 24/7.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 9, 2018)

October 02, 2018
*The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change*
Underfunding, lack of strategic planning and denialism are hindering the DoD’s climate response
by Daniel Ross
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change





Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. (Photo: Sgt. Jerry Rushing / Dept of Defense)

A rock seawall protecting the Air Force’s Cape Lisburne Long Range Radar Station on the North East Alaska coast is under increasing duress from extreme weather patterns affecting Arctic sea ice. early $50 million has been spent replacing vulnerable parts of the wall already.

In 2013, a late summer monsoon rainstorm struck Fort Irwin, in California, flooding more than 160 buildings and causing extensive damage that took weeks to clean up. Some buildings were out of commission for months.

The 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado’s history, only narrowly missed Peterson Air Force Base. The fire cost some $16 millionto battle.

These are just some of the findings that make up a US Department of Defense vulnerability report, published earlier this year, looking at the impact of climate change on more than 3,500 military installations. Its conclusion? That more than half of these installations are affected by flooding, drought, winds, wildfires, storm surges and extreme temperatures. Drought proved the single biggest challenge to the military, affecting nearly 800 bases. Next up was wind, which affected more than 750 bases, while non-storm surge-related flooding impacted a little more than 700 bases.

“As an institution, the military sees climate change as a threat to what they do on multiple levels,” said Michael Klare, professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. “It’s a threat to their bases. It’s a threat to their operations. It creates insurgencies. It creates problems for them. They’re aware of that, and they want to minimize those impediments.”

Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. It was the George W. Bush administration, for example, that required the Defense Department to procure 25 percent of its energy for its buildings from renewables by 2025. Even President Ronald Reagan received military memos warning of global warming. While in 2014, the department published a roadmap establishing an outline to deal with the threats from climate change within the military, as ordered by then-President Barack Obama.

Although President Trump’s administration is known for its climate change denialism, major figures within the military are still noticeably vocal about the issue. In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned in a Worldwide Threat Assessmentthat the impacts from global warming—more air pollution, biodiversity loss and water scarcity—are “likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been called the “lone green hope” for his long-established views on the threat of global warming.

Given the immediate threat of rising sea levels, the US Navy is leading the charge to better understand these impacts at the ground level. Last year, a Navy handbookprovided a planning framework for incorporating the threat of climate change into development projects at Navy installations. To put this into context, a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of 18 military installations along the US East coast and the Gulf of Mexico found that by 2050, most of these bases will experience 10 times the number of floods than they do currently
[......]​`


----------



## polarbear (Oct 9, 2018)

abu afak said:


> October 02, 2018
> *The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change*
> Underfunding, lack of strategic planning and denialism are hindering the DoD’s climate response
> by Daniel Ross
> ...


News are fake news if you write an article "*The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change" *and use a picture from another article published on March 14 2016 
2016 Year in Photos
*and change the caption from*
*Traffic Sign* Army Sgt. David Breaud directs a high-water vehicle down a flooded road at Latt Lake in Grant Parish, La., March 13, 2016. Breaud is assigned to the Louisiana National Guard’s Headquarters Company, 225th Engineer Brigade. _Louisiana Army *National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Jerry Rushing*_"


To :
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. (*Photo: Sgt. Jerry Rushing / Dept of Defense*)

In order to elevate that scene where a national guard traffic sign Sgt is directing a high water vehicle to a "Department of Defense losing the battle against climate change".
That`s what fake news op-eds do, scour the internet for material and events several years ago and rewrite it as "news" while plagiarizing whatever they need  and then insert it into the crap they publish for their internet forum socks to post in a forum, on Twitter or facebook.
If Jerry Rushing sees this he can now rewrite his resumes from being a Louisiana National Guard to reflect his new status, an official of the Department of defense.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 9, 2019)

*A Warming Arctic Heats Up US-Russian Military Rivalry*
A Warming Arctic Heats Up US-Russian Military Rivalry






The 40-year-old Polar Star, the Coast Guard’s only operational heavy icebreaker capable of conducting Antarctic ice operations, carves a channel in ice near Ross Island on Jan. 16, 2017. (Chief Petty Officer David Mosley/Coast Guard)

31 Dec 2018
Military.com | By Joseph V. Micallef
_-- Joseph V. Micallef is a best-selling military history and world affairs author, and keynote speaker. Follow him on Twitter @JosephVMicallef._

"The Arctic is the only theater of operations where the U.S. Navy is outclassed by a peer competitor. Russian surface warships have demonstrated the ability to carry out complex combined operations in the High North, while the American Navy maintains a policy that only submarines operate above the Bering Strait." -- Andrew Holland, chief operating officer at the American Security Project.

Historically, the Arctic Ocean has not been a significant military theater of operations for the United States. At the height of the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet ballistic missile submarines hid below the polar ice cap while hunter-killer submarines searched relentlessly for them. Both sides maintained early warning networks defended by Arctic brigades steeled for the cold, inhospitable polar climate, and both sides maintained regular anti-submarine warfare and bomber patrols over the region. Militarily, however, the Arctic's significance was that it represented the shortest flight path for each side's intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear armed intercontinental bombers in the event of a nuclear conflict.

In recent years, marked temperature increases across the Arctic have steadily diminished the extent and thickness of the polar ice cap. Most years, thenortheast passage across Russia's Arctic seas can be utilized for two to three months of the year; even longer with the appropriate heavy ice breaker accompaniment. Canada's northwest passage has less infrastructure, is shallower and prone to being clogged by ice compared with the northeast passage, but it too has seen a limited increase of commercial traffic.

With the prospect of Arctic warming continuing, the Arctic Ocean and its periphery is emerging as a theater of Russian/American military rivalry. Moreover, China, which is not an Arctic state, has adopted a self-styled description as a "near-Arctic state" and has announced that it sees itself as, "an important stakeholder in Arctic affairs." In January 2018, a white paper that laid out Beijing's ambition to add a "Polar Silk Route" to its Belt and Roadinfrastructure development initiative noted that: "The utilization of sea routes and exploration and development of the resources in the Arctic may have a huge impact on the energy strategy and economic development of China."

Beijing already has deployed a Ukrainian built icebreaker, the _Xuelong_, in the region, ostensibly for scientific research purposes. It has recently launched its first domestically built icebreaker, _Xuelong 2_, and has announced plans to build its first nuclear powered icebreaker. The latter will be the first nuclear powered surface ship in the Chinese Navy.

*Russia and the High North*
*[......]*​

*`*


----------



## abu afak (Feb 18, 2019)

*`*
*Climate Change threatens a Majority of Mission-critical Military bases, Pentagon report says*
By: Tara Copp    January 18  Military Times
new DoD report.
Climate change threatens a majority of mission-critical military bases, Pentagon report says

The January 2019 report, “Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,” was submitted to Congress Thursday without an official announcement of the report or a public release. Several environmental organizations made the report publicly available early Friday.

After several reporters questioned why the report was Not made Public by DoD, the Pentagon published it on Defense.gov mid-Friday.
[.....]​
`


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Feb 18, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *`*
> *Climate Change threatens a Majority of Mission-critical Military bases, Pentagon report says*
> By: Tara Copp    January 18  Military Times
> new DoD report.
> ...


The reason the report was not made public is that it is a freaking joke!

God forbid we build naval bases next to the ocean, desert training facilities in the desert, mountain training facilities in the mountains, and air bases on flat land.

Whatever in the world were we thinking!

Those desert training facilities need to be moved to the mountains in upstate New York, those mountain training facilities to moved to the deserts of Death Valley, and all our naval bases relocated to Kansas.  The air bases should be constructed in the air to make it easier for the planes to fly.


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

It seems obvious to me that the report was not publicized because it is, like all other evidence-based reports on this topic, completely in disagreement with the expressed opinions of the commander-in-chief.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 31, 2019)

elektra said:


> Where is your military quote?



HERE in a dozen articles.


*All Three answered you DUMB POS.*
*`*


----------



## abu afak (Aug 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Whatever it takes while still being sensible.
And in the long run Green is not only sensible, but cheaper.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



I agree, we need at least 100 additional nuke plants.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I agree, we need at least 100 additional nuke plants.


There's a bit of difference between Green... and "Glow in the Dark Green."
But there is a place for Nukes, nowhere near population centers or upwind of them.
`


----------



## abu afak (Sep 21, 2019)

*The US Navy Has a Water Problem*
*The Second Fleet was reactivated to patrol the Arctic. Only problem is, the fleet’s home is on the front lines of sea-level rise: Naval Station Norfolk.*
*By Dave Lindorff **SEPT 19, 2019*
*The US Navy Has a Water Problem*

"....The United States Navy has a big problem, one quite peculiar for such a huge seagoing organization: too much water. The problem isn’t the water itself; the Navy knows how to handle water. *The problem is that global warming is putting too much water in the wrong places.*

*One of those places is Naval Station Norfolk, a vast complex in southeastern Virginia whose 80,000 active-duty personnel make it the largest naval base on earth by population.* The ships and aircraft stationed at Naval Station Norfolk have historically patrolled the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. But in May of 2018, as part of the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy “to deter Russia and China,” the Navy announced that it would be expanding operations in the Arctic Ocean. *Rising global temperatures were melting polar ice and opening sea lanes in the Arctic, enabling access to sizable deposits of natural resources, including oil. To counter anticipated Russian and Chinese claims on those resources, the Navy has reactivated its Second Fleet,* which had been deactivated eight years ago by the Obama administration; it’s based at Naval Station Norfolk.

Norfolk’s ever-increasing vulnerability to flooding and what sea-level rise means long-term for the Navy concerns some high-ranking former naval officers, including the Navy’s former top oceanographer and a former expeditionary strike group commander based in Norfolk. Already, key access roads to the low-lying Naval Station Norfolk are occasionally submerged during high tides. By 2037, access roads will be underwater during high tides for 50 days of the year, according to scientific studies by First Street Foundation, a nonprofit research group. In short, the very melting Arctic that the Second Fleet will patrol will increasingly engulf the fleet’s home base.

“Norfolk is a sea-level hot spot,” says Radm. (ret.) David W. Titley, who was the Navy’s chief oceanographer and initiated its Task Force on Climate Change in 2009. “So if I were to go into a secret room with the Navy brass I’d say, *‘Okay, no BS. We’re probably going to have a 3 to 4 degree Celsius temperature rise this century, and unless we find a way to take the CO2 out of the air in scale, that means we’re [eventually] looking at 15-20 feet of sea-level rise.’…* What does the Navy do if Norfolk goes underwater?” Titley is now a professor of meteorology at Penn State, where he is the director of the school’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk.

“It’s certainly ironic,” says Radm. (ret.) Ann Phillips, former commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two in Norfolk, who is now the special assistant to the governor of Virginia for coastal adaptation and protection. She adds, “Coastal Virginia is very vulnerable to sea-level rise.”....

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *The US Navy Has a Water Problem*
> *The Second Fleet was reactivated to patrol the Arctic. Only problem is, the fleet’s home is on the front lines of sea-level rise: Naval Station Norfolk.*
> *By Dave Lindorff*
> *SEPTEMBER 19, 2019*
> ...



*We’re probably going to have a 3 to 4 degree Celsius temperature rise this century, and unless we find a way to take the CO2 out of the air in scale, that means we’re [eventually] looking at 15-20 feet of sea-level rise.’…*

Can we use windmills to blow the CO2 away from Norfolk?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *The US Navy Has a Water Problem*
> *The Second Fleet was reactivated to patrol the Arctic. Only problem is, the fleet’s home is on the front lines of sea-level rise: Naval Station Norfolk.*
> *By Dave Lindorff **SEPT 19, 2019*
> *The US Navy Has a Water Problem*
> ...



*The problem is that global warming is putting too much water in the wrong places.*

Doesn't help that the land is sinking.

What kind of green energy will make the land rise?


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Sep 21, 2019)

Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-Existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists and Politicians


----------



## abu afak (Jul 20, 2020)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *The US Navy Has a Water Problem*
> ...


Afraid not.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​July 6, 2020

"...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that _“installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”_

One of those conditions is Sea Level Rise that will affect multiple coastal installations (see here and here).
Sea level rise will not only affect the physical infrastructure on these installations, it will also potentially lead to the inland migration of portions of the populations who live in the surrounding communities – some of whom form part of an installation’s work force. Depending on how far away and how many  migrants move, their loss will degrade an installation’s ability to continue to function at an acceptable level over time."..>'









						Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise
					

By Dr. Marc Kodack In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that …




					climateandsecurity.org
				



`


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2022)

A military installation also includes housing for shore-based military or their families.  If sea level rise forces the population to move, they will also be forced to move and the facility will become untenable.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​July 6, 2020
> 
> "...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that _“installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”_
> 
> ...


Great job!  You listed the same link twice!

To give you an idea how screwed up this report is, it mentions flash flooding at Fort Hood being a result of climate change.  There is absolutely no evidence of that as the terrain has not changed and the dry creek beds become inundated with even heavy rain.  I loved the fact it mentions the loss of several troops in trying to cross a river.  First, there are no rivers on Fort Hood, Second, the attempt to cross the flooded stream was stupid, as the drivers had been warned not to do so.  It is standard procedure.

How do I know this?  At the time of the incident, my daughter was a transportation platoon commander in another unit at Fort Hood.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Great job!  You listed the same link twice!
> 
> To give you an idea how screwed up this report is, it mentions flash flooding at Fort Hood being a result of climate change.  There is absolutely no evidence of that as the terrain has not changed and the dry creek beds become inundated with even heavy rain.  I loved the fact it mentions the loss of several troops in trying to cross a river.  First, there are no rivers on Fort Hood, Second, the attempt to cross the flooded stream was stupid, as the drivers had been warned not to do so.  It is standard procedure.
> 
> How do I know this?  At the time of the incident, my daughter was a transportation platoon commander in another unit at Fort Hood.


*September, 2017*

"...The Naval station Norfolk in Portsmouth, VA, the largest naval base in the world, already floods ten times a year when full moons cause especially high tides—sea levels there are one and a half feet higher than they were when the base was built in 1917, and rising twice as fast as average global sea levels. By 2050, Norfolk is expected to flood 280 times a year.".."
[.......]
*Moving to Renewable Energy

The Department of Defense has a department-wide goal to obtain at least 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020,* reduce its petroleum use and draw on more alternative fuels. (Each branch of the military also has its own renewable energy goal.) This has nothing to do with the political controversy over climate change. It is because the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy and oil in the world, and moving fuel along supply lines in conflict areas invites attack and endangers lives. Moreover, it’s costly—according to a Defense Department spokesperson, “a $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately $130 million over the course of a year.”

*The number of renewable energy projects in the U.S. military almost tripled between 2011 and 2015, with many of them enabling bases to be energy independent in case of a natural disaster or attack.* The use of distributed renewables at bases reduces the possibility of disruptions in procuring energy, and increases resilience in case of cyberattacks on the grid.

*The Army’s goal is to get 25% of the energy it consumes from renewable sources by 2025, and to be net zero by 2030 (meaning it will generate as much energy as it uses). *[/B]In 2015, it derived 12% of its energy from renewables and by 2016 had 17 large renewable energy projects in development.

*The biggest U.S. military base, Fort Hood in Texas, is already drawing almost 50% of its power from renewable energy, with 63,000 solar panels on site and 21 off-site wind turbines producing 65 MW of power. This is expected to SAVE more than $100 million over 30 years.*

Solar panel arrays at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, one of the Army’s net zero pilot installations. Photo: US Army
The Army Net Zero initiative created 17 pilot installations around the country which, at the end of 2015, had reduced energy use by 5 percent and generated 28,700 MWh of renewable energy, most of which was consumed at the bases. It also reduced potable water consumption by 11% and recycled and harvested rainwater, saving 89 million gallons of water.

*The Navy aims to get 50% of its energy from alternative sources by 2020, and for half of its installations to be net zero by 2020.* According to _Stars and Stripes_, the Navy was already getting almost 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2016....









						What the U.S. Military is Doing About Climate Change
					

The White House may deny that climate change is happening, but the Department of Defense has been taking action for years to avoid and adapt to climate-related disasters.




					news.climate.columbia.edu
				




`


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *September, 2017*
> 
> "...The Naval station Norfolk in Portsmouth, VA, the largest naval base in the world, already floods ten times a year when full moons cause especially high tides—sea levels there are one and a half feet higher than they were when the base was built in 1917, and rising twice as fast as average global sea levels. By 2050, Norfolk is expected to flood 280 times a year.".."
> [.......]
> ...


You do realize that ships float. right? Also, the sea level is not rising.  The land is sinking!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *September, 2017*
> 
> "...The Naval station Norfolk in Portsmouth, VA, the largest naval base in the world, already floods ten times a year when full moons cause especially high tides—sea levels there are one and a half feet higher than they were when the base was built in 1917, and rising twice as fast as average global sea levels. By 2050, Norfolk is expected to flood 280 times a year.".."
> [.......]
> ...



Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region








			https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You do realize that ships float. right? Also, the sea level is not rising.  The land is sinking!


You do realize a naval base, this one our largest, doesn't float... nor the people who work there.
Ships (Duh) do. (Duh)

IOW you Got Refuted.
Not to mention all the other stuff I posted about our military having already done lots of work due to Sea Level Rise with alot more coming.

AND their big moves to Renewable energy.. SAVING MONEY

I mean, you got Triple Porked.

Dismissed and Dishonorably Discharged again.
`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> You do realize a naval base, this one our largest, doesn't float... nor the people who work there.
> Ships (Duh) do. (Duh)
> 
> IOW you Got Refuted.
> ...



*AND their big moves to Renewable energy.. SAVING MONEY*

How much money are they saving using biofuel for jets and ships?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 11, 2022)

Why are Obama and other AGWCult leaders spending millions to buy mansions currently on the ocean front?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

CrusaderFrank

III - and more relevantly:

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (Elektra, Crusader Frank, Rainy, Busted Ensign Torry) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank
> 
> III - and more relevantly:
> 
> ...



For your gas issue..........


----------



## abu afak (Jan 13, 2022)

It's particularly tough on RW denier guys (generally pro-military) when Our Military not only acknowledges warming but HAS BEEN Dealing with it for years..... and is planning/budgeting much more.
Norfolk that.

`


----------



## ding (Jan 13, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century.


That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  Do some fucking math, dummy.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
> The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
> This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.
> 
> ...


The Military (and congress) acknowledge the problem and are budgeting, if low, for the problem.
Mar-a-Lago flooding regularly by 2040/50 and maybe partially under water by 2100.
`


----------



## ding (Jan 17, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The Military (and congress) acknowledge the problem and are budgeting, if low, for the problem.
> Mar-a-Lago flooding regularly by 2040/50 and maybe partially under water by 2100.
> `


How much do you think the sea level is rising by per year?


----------



## elektra (Jan 19, 2022)

I dont think floating ships need worry how much deeper the sea level gets.

Is this a real thread or a complete joke, what kind of moron links to scientists concerned about ships?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> *You do realize that ships float. right?* Also, the sea level is not rising.  The land is sinking!



Rising seas threaten Norfolk Naval Shipyard, raising fears of 'catastrophic damage'​*“Every year you wait to make decisions and take actions, the risk goes up," said retired Rear Adm. Jonathan White.*

"...But the shipyard now faces its greatest existential threat: Rising Seas and extreme weather driven by Climate Change.
*In the past 10 years, Norfolk Naval Shipyard has suffered nine major floods that have damaged equipment used to repair ships, and the flooding is worsening, according to the Navy. *In 2016, rain from Hurricane Matthew left 2 feet of water in one building, requiring nearly $1.2 million in repairs...
And that wasn’t even a direct hit — the most immediate worry, former military leaders say, is a strong storm that blows right through the area.

“It would have the potential for serious, if not catastrophic damage, and it would certainly put the shipyard out of business for some amount of time,” said Ray Mabus, who was the Navy secretary under President Barack Obama. “That has implications not just for the shipyard, but for us, for the Navy.”
*Among the shipyard’s greatest vulnerabilities are its five dry docks, which are waterside basins that can be sealed and pumped dry to expose a ship’s hull for repairs. Once inside, vessels are often cut open, leaving expensive mechanical systems vulnerable to damage from storms and flooding.

The dry docks “were not designed to accommodate the threats” of rising seas and stronger storms, according to a 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office. Navy officials warned the government watchdog agency that flooding in a dry dock could cause “catastrophic damage to the ships.”*
[............]


----------



## abu afak (Jan 30, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​July 6, 2020
> 
> "...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that _“installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”_
> 
> ...


IOf course the same goes for muvh of our coastlines and many big cities on them


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jan 30, 2022)

Why is it you never seem to mention the Netherlands.  How much of that country is below sea level?


----------



## ding (Jan 31, 2022)

abu afak How much do you think the sea level is rising by per year?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 1, 2022)

MILITARY NEWS
Is the military doing enough to protect bases from sea level rise and other natural disasters?​Members of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee expressed concerns that the U.S. military may not be doing enough when it comes to addressing the issue.
Is the military doing enough to protect bases from sea level rise and other natural disasters?
March 29, 2021

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) concluded that 53 military bases face current threats from recurrent flooding.

The list includes Langley Air Force Base, Naval Air Station Oceana, Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads, and, Naval Station Norfolk.
"Hampton Roads is particularly at risk because of sea-level rise," said Rep. Elaine Luria  (D-Virginia, 2nd District).

For the past decade, the DoD has acknowledged climate change as a threat to the readiness of its installations. It spent $67 million in 2020 to help bases that are vulnerable to flooding, hurricanes, and wildfires work with their surrounding communities on projects that would prevent damage.
[.....]









						Is the military doing enough to protect bases from sea level rise and other natural disasters?
					

Members of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee expressed concerns that the U.S. military may not be doing enough when it comes to addressing the issue.




					www.13newsnow.com
				




`


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2022)

abu afak How much do you think the sea level is rising per year?


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2022)

abu afak said:


> TROLLER Ding.
> SWAT!
> (but thanks for bump)


The answer is the same as it was 6,000 years ago, dummy.

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## ding (Feb 2, 2022)

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

Climate change threatens half of U.S. military sites: Pentagon​By Sebastien Malo, - Thomson Reuters Foundation

Nearly half of U.S. military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.

Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
“Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.
“If extreme weather makes our critical facilities unusable or necessitate costly or manpower-intensive workarounds, that is an unacceptable impact.”

The findings put the military at odds with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on British television.
Trump has also pulled the United States out of the global 2015 Paris accord to fight climate change.
The Pentagon survey investigated the effects of “a changing climate” on all U.S. military installations worldwide, which it said numbered more than 3,500.

Assets most often damaged include airfields, energy infrastructure and water systems, according to military personnel at each site, who responded to the DoD questionnaire.
John Conger, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, said the report’s commissioning by Congress showed a growing interest by lawmakers into the risks that climate change poses to national security.
The study was published late last week and brought to public attention this week by the Center for Climate and Security.









						Climate change threatens half of U.S. military sites: Pentagon
					

Nearly half of U.S. military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Climate change threatens half of U.S. military sites: Pentagon​By Sebastien Malo, - Thomson Reuters Foundation
> 
> Nearly half of U.S. military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.
> 
> ...


Did anyone tell them we are in an interglacial cycle?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

ding said:


> Did anyone tell them we are in an interglacial cycle?


Does an interglacial cycle Preclude AGW/additional AGW?
NO.
100x repeated FALLACY Busted.

`


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Does an interglacial cycle Preclude AGW/additional AGW?
> NO.
> 100x repeated FALLACY Busted.
> 
> `


Incorrect.  How can you tell the difference when the temperature is still 2C below previous interglacials and the sea level is 26 ft below previous interglacials?


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  How can you tell the difference when the temperature is still 2C below previous interglacials and the sea level is 26 ft below previous interglacials?


Wrong.
Answer the question.

*Does an interglacial cycle Preclude AGW/additional AGW?
NO.
100x repeated FALLACY Busted.*

`


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Wrong.
> Answer the question.
> 
> *Does an interglacial cycle Preclude AGW/additional AGW?
> ...


Yes.  Because the temperature is still 2C below previous interglacials and the sea level is 26 ft below previous interglacials. 

And because....

Solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Means nothing
> We are still on our way up and will easily pass 2C without further action.
> 
> *(and LOL, Other Real non Oil lobby) Scientists have measured Solar Forcing (Worldwide, not just LOL Northern Hemisphere) and they have conclude that it is GHGs, Not solar forcing that is causing the Intra-cycle AGW.
> ...


_Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha_


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

ding said:


> _Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly
I just refuted that
*That's a Paid Oil Lobby OUTLIER study.

The VAST Majority of Climate scientists and EVERY SINGLE INT'L Science org believes in AGW.*

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
*Search Results
Web results
(Columbia, Yale, NASA, NOAA, etc)*

*How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
[/b]https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

*How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...*
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

*How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...*
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

*Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles*
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
*How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...*
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

*Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections*
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

*How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...*
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to *Natural* and human factors that influence the *climate* (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Exactly
> I just refuted that
> *That's a Paid Oil Lobby OUTLIER study.
> 
> ...


No.  You didn't.  You never addressed the different data sets used.  

And....

...there have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

Without a doubt solar variability and orbital forcings coupled with albedo of the northern hemisphere have driven all climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the last 3 million years because the planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation and the planet's temperature is at the threshhold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

One would think the planet being on the precipice of extensive northern hemisphere glaciation would be the starting point of every climate discussion. It's mind boggling that it isn't.


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)




----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

Repeating from thread to thread? Harassing EVERY thread at the top of the section with the SAME links/Youtubes?

I just refuted that
*Soon, et al are Paid Oil co OUTLIER studies.

The VAST Majority of Climate scientists and EVERY SINGLE INT'L Science org believes in AGW.*

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
*Search Results
Web results
(Columbia, Yale, NASA, NOAA, etc)*

*How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural*
[/b]https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

*How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...*
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

*How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...*
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

*Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles*
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
*How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...*
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

*Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections*
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

*How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...*
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to *Natural* and human factors that influence the *climate* (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> Repeating from thread to thread? Harassing EVERY thread at the top of the section with the SAME links/Youtubes?
> 
> I just refuted that
> *Soon, et al are Paid Oil co OUTLIER studies.
> ...


Other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else argued for significant but subtle effects of solar variability on climate change.

For example:
Labitzke & van Loon (1988); van Loon & Labitzke (2000); Labitzke (2005); Beer et al. (2000); Reid (2000); Carslaw et al. (2002); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2002); Ruzmaikin et al. (2004, 2006); Feynman & Ruzmaikin (2011); Ruzmaikin & Feynman (2015); Salby & Callaghan (2000, 2004, 2006); Kirkby (2007); de Jager et al. (2010); Tinsley & Heelis(1993); Tinsley (2012); Lam & Tinsley (2016); Zhou et al. (2016); Zhang et al. (2020b); Dobrica et al. (2009); Dobrica et al. (2010); Demetrescu & Dobrica (2014); Dobrica et al. (2018); Blanter et al. (2012); van Loon & Shea (1999); van Loon & Meehl (2011); van Loon et al. (2012); Roy & Haigh (2012); Roy (2014, 2018); Roy & Kripalani (2019); Lopes et al. (2017); Pan et al. (2020).


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)

The data against man made global warming is overwhelming.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"







`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 3, 2022)

`

*Opposing *(The AGW Consensus)

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO National or International scientific body any longer rejects the findings of Human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..

`


----------



## ding (Feb 3, 2022)




----------



## abu afak (Feb 20, 2022)

This is the Army’s plan to battle climate change—and still fight wars​How the branch that operates the fuel-guzzling M1 Abrams tank wants to reduce emissions, while not decreasing the scope of its operations.
FEB 11, 2022

On Tuesday, the US Army released its climate strategy, a big policy plan that details steps and goals for how this branch of the military will be adapting to climate change, while still preserving its ability to fight wars. The strategy, which outlines everything from greenhouse gas reduction targets to electrification of vehicles, is transformative within constraints. As outlined, the Army is working towards doing what it already does while producing fewer emissions, rather than reducing the scope of its operations.




















The report, a tight 20 pages front-to-back, outlines three primary areas for how the Army plans to adapt to climate change. These areas cover better buildings, better vehicle purchases and supply chains, and better training.


*“The effects of climate change have taken a toll on supply chains, damaged our infrastructure, and increased risks to Army Soldiers and families due to natural disasters and extreme weather,” wrote Christine E. Wormuth, Secretary of the Army,* in the foreword to the strategy. “The Army must adapt across our entire enterprise and purposefully pursue greenhouse gas mitigation strategies to reduce climate risks.”

For its more than 130 installations across the globe, the Army intends to incorporate on-site carbon-pollution-free power generation by 2040, which suggests wind and/or solar power, but possibly other options as well. Heating and powering buildings is a major source of energy use, though one the military has passively gotten better at, as it has reduced the number of bases it maintains and builds new facilities in accordance with energy efficiency standards...."









						This is the Army's plan to battle climate change—and still fight wars
					

A short new report outlines the branch's strategy, which focuses on steps to reduce emissions while not shrinking its operational scope.




					www.popsci.com
				




`


----------



## abu afak (Feb 21, 2022)

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​July 6, 2020

"...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that _“installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”_

One of those conditions is Sea Level Rise that will affect multiple coastal installations (see here and here).
Sea level rise will not only affect the physical infrastructure on these installations, it will also potentially lead to the inland migration of portions of the populations who live in the surrounding communities – some of whom form part of an installation’s work force. Depending on how far away and how many migrants move, their loss will degrade an installation’s ability to continue to function at an acceptable level over time."..>'


Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​By Dr. Marc Kodack In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that …





 climateandsecurity.org
`
`


----------



## ding (Feb 21, 2022)




----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

*Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate
Insurers are at the vanguard of a movement to put a value today on the unpredictable future of a Warming planet*
By Bradley Hope and Nicole Friedman
Produced by Jess Kuronen and Tyler Paige
Wall St Journal Oct. 2, 2018
Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate

When a wildfire engulfed the Canadian oil-sands boomtown of Fort McMurraytwo years ago, it hit insurance company Aviva PLC out of nowhere.

The British firm had been active in Canada since 1835. Its actuaries long believed wildfire risk to homes in the area was almost nonexistent, it says. Yet flames on the town’s outskirts roared across an area larger than Delaware, forcing 100,000 people to evacuate and leaving insurers with $3 billion in damages to cover.

“That is not a type of loss we have experienced in that part of the world, ever,” says Maurice Tulloch, the Toronto-based chief executive of Aviva’s international insurance division. “The previous models wouldn’t have envisioned it.”

Aviva studied the incident and concluded the wildfire was an example of how the earth’s gradually warming temperature is changing the behavior of natural catastrophes. Aviva increased premiums in Canada as a result.
[......]
*The price of homes on the U.S.’s eastern seaboard battered by fiercer storms and higher seas is lagging behind those inland.
The price of farmland is rising in North America’s once-frigid reaches, partly because of bets it will become more temperate. *Investors are turning fresh water into an asset, a wager in part that climate change will make it scarcer.

Insurers are at the forefront of calculating the impact. “We don’t discuss the question anymore of, ‘Is there climate change,’” says Torsten Jeworrek, chief executive for reinsurance at Munich Re, the world’s largest seller of reinsurance—insurance for insurers. “For us, it’s a question now for our own underwriting.”
[......]
`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> *Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate
> Insurers are at the vanguard of a movement to put a value today on the unpredictable future of a Warming planet*
> By Bradley Hope and Nicole Friedman
> Produced by Jess Kuronen and Tyler Paige
> ...


That's called weather, dummy.


----------



## abu afak (Feb 22, 2022)

That's seven posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.

You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
`


----------



## ding (Feb 22, 2022)

abu afak said:


> That's seven posts/Trolls in six threads (in 10 mins) you Obsessively STALKED.
> I generally just ignore and use them now when I want to bump up my threads.
> 
> You're a ONE LINE TROLL, but again good for looking like my posts are replies instead of blogging.
> `


Keeping you honest is a full time job. I usually don't need more than a sentence or two to do it. 

Why do you keep arguing weather events are climate?


----------



## abu afak (Mar 3, 2022)

ding said:


> Keeping you honest is a full time job. I usually don't need more than a sentence or two to do it.
> 
> Why do you keep arguing weather events are climate?


I do not.
However sea level rise will MAKE weather events into persistent Climate ones.

If you want to complain about misuse of Weather Events I suggest you speak to Skookerasball and ALL his threads, including his 9 YEAR (backwards) BLOG, "skeptics are winning" which is almost exclusively weather.
But you are a DISHONEST little Whacky Hypocrite TROLL.
`


----------



## ding (Mar 3, 2022)

abu afak said:


> I do not.
> However sea level rise will MAKE weather events into persistent Climate ones.
> 
> If you want to complain about misuse of Weather Events I suggest you speak to Skookerasball and ALL his threads, including his 9 YEAR (backwards) BLOG, "skeptics are winning" which is almost exclusively weather.
> ...


You are constantly arguing weather events are signs of climate change.  That's arguing weather is climate, dummy.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 6, 2022)

`


`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 6, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century. *
> 
> Sounds serious!!!!
> If we buy $2 trillion worth of windmills, how much will the sea level rise?


Denier!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 6, 2022)

abu afak said:


> `
> 
> 
> `


Shutting the global economy in 20-21 didn't move the needle on CO2

Fuck him militarizing your fake fucking "science"


----------



## abu afak (Mar 8, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Shutting the global economy in 20-21 didn't move the needle on CO2*
> 
> Fuck him militarizing your fake fucking "science"


The Global economy was not shut.
You still had Power? Ate processed foods (trucked in)? Drove your car?
Wore the hell out of your computer and TV set.
Our livestock still producing GHG Methane
etc, etc, etc

*IAC, call it HALF the usage (which would probably still Increase GHGs).*

CO2 PPM might go from 410 to 408. MIGHT, in one year.
That will not change the Temp.
It does not start at Zero every morning/week/year.
You are by far Thee Stupidest person on this message board and have voiced this IDIOCY at least a dozen times.

`


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 9, 2022)

abu afak said:


> The Global economy was not shut.
> You still had Power? Ate processed foods (trucked in)? Drove your car?
> Wore the hell out of your computer and TV set.
> Our livestock still producing GHG Methane
> ...


There were so few cars on the roads in 2020, office buildings were empty, shopping online increased dramatically....and CO2 moved up

Your stupid man madeup global climate warming change theory fails at so many levels.

The AGW Cult has never once demonstrated any statistically significant "warming" from increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM

Your predictions never materialize

All you have is the constant Global Climate drum beat of American hating press and Globalists who seek to destroy America


----------



## abu afak (Mar 17, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There were so few cars on the roads in 2020, office buildings were empty, shopping online increased dramatically....and CO2 moved up
> 
> Your stupid man madeup global climate warming change theory fails at so many levels.
> 
> ...









`










`
`


----------



## abu afak (Apr 8, 2022)

Aug 15, 2018
Add bookmark
#84



> polarbear said:
> Ridiculous! Obama was at odds with the military and ordered it (Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013) to comply, declaring climate change a "national security threat".....while Iran and North Korea were going nuclear, China and Russia were upgrading their armaments and he decimated the US military readiness. -
> *So let`s see who was at odds with the military shall we?*
> The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy
> ...


*TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE*
SEAN MOWBRAY
JAN 18, 2018
Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change

While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, *the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security. *The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.

On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a Hoax and a Chinese plot.

On the other hand, t*he Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat *and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.

As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, *with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level *(which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world),* to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.*
[.....]​
`


----------



## abu afak (Apr 10, 2022)

High-Ranking Defense Official Explains Why Salt Marsh Is Critical for Military and Communities​Natural habitats help to buffer bases and installations from storm surge, flooding, and Sea level Rise​ARTICLE March 25, 2022 

".....Today, the 57-year-old U.S. Military Academy (West Point) and Yale Management School graduate, who hails from a family that has served in the military and militias for more than 300 years, is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for environment and energy resilience, a top-ranking Department of Defense position that manages, among other things, the agency’s climate change programs, compliance with environmental laws, pollution prevention, and energy resilience, including renewable energy.

This interview about Kidd’s work and the South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative—an effort to protect shorelines, military installations, and wildlife by conserving a million acres of coastal habitat from North Carolina to northern Florida—has been edited for clarity and length:

*Why is it important for the Department of Defense to address climate change, particularly in the Southeast?*​
[.................]
[.................]
[.................]









						High-Ranking Defense Official Explains Why Salt Marsh Is Critical for Military and Communities
					

Richard Kidd witnessed the horrors of war as an Army soldier, an international emergency relief worker, and a diplomat in countries ranging from Afghanistan and Bosnia to Rwanda and Mozambique.




					www.pewtrusts.org
				




`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> High-Ranking Defense Official Explains Why Salt Marsh Is Critical for Military and Communities​Natural habitats help to buffer bases and installations from storm surge, flooding, and Sea level Rise​ARTICLE March 25, 2022
> 
> ".....Today, the 57-year-old U.S. Military Academy (West Point) and Yale Management School graduate, who hails from a family that has served in the military and militias for more than 300 years, is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for environment and energy resilience, a top-ranking Department of Defense position that manages, among other things, the agency’s climate change programs, compliance with environmental laws, pollution prevention, and energy resilience, including renewable energy.
> 
> ...


explain what the issue is in your words.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> explain what the issue is in your words.


YOU, the 7 word TROLL who never posts a paragraph is asking for own words?
LOFL
Of course if I do that, you'll ask for a Link to "Prove it."
LOFL

IAC it's a headline which proves the point of my OP and does not require explanation you ldlot!

What a Idlot TROLL You are.
`


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

abu afak said:


> YOU, the 7 word TROLL who never posts a paragraph is asking for own words?
> LOFL
> Of courser if I do that, you'll a k for a Link to "Prove it."
> LOFL
> ...


Exactly what someone with no knowledge would write


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Apr 11, 2022)

jc456 said:


> Exactly what someone with no knowledge would write



I dunno...seems like he nailed your modus operandi.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 11, 2022)

PV System said:


> I dunno...seems like he nailed your modus operandi.


You would, amazing how you stupid congregate


----------

