Calls theories on the cause ‘contradictory’
By Bryan Bender
Boston Globe / December 6, 2008
WASHINGTON – A new US military report has come under scrutiny for asserting that the scientific data on what is causing global warming is “contradictory” – a position one leading specialist said indicates the government still hasn’t fully embraced the urgency of climate change.
The long-range planning document, published Thursday by the US Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., which is responsible for developing blueprints for future military strategy, is intended to provide a “basis for thinking about the world a quarter of a century from now.”
But a section of the 56-page report on climate change and natural disasters prompted criticism yesterday from some leading specialists who said that spreading the inaccurate perception that the causes of climate change remain an open question could result in government agencies not taking the issue seriously enough.
The report, titled Joint Operating Environment 2008, states that “the impact of global warming and its potential to cause natural disasters and other harmful phenomena such as rising sea levels has become a prominent – and controversial – national and international concern. Some argue that there will be more and greater storms and natural disasters, others that there will be fewer.”
It adds: “In many respects, scientific conclusions about the causes and potential effects of global warming are contradictory.”
That last line in particular was singled out at a panel discussion hosted yesterday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, on the topic of climate change and national security.
Sharon Burke, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a specialist at the Center for a New American Security, said the report was factually “wrong” and “out of line,” saying that there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.
Other specialists had similar reactions when they read the report.
“It’s very wrong,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose work was cited in the military report. “The jury is not out” on what is causing global warming, he added. “I don’t know where that statement came from, but it’s pretty bizarre.”
Emanuel also took issue with the report’s assertions about future storm intensity.
“Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much,” he said in an interview.
The Joint Forces Command maintains that it is fully cognizant of the threat posed by climate change, saying the purpose of the report was not to debate what is or isn’t causing global warming.
“We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future,” said Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command. “We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects.”
He added in an interview yesterday: “Don’t take away that we think it is any less important.”
At yesterday’s conference, specialists agreed that the cascading effects of global warming – including drought, flooding, population flows, and disease epidemics – present the United States and other countries with enormous security threats in the years ahead – warnings that have been echoed by recent Pentagon reports and intelligence assessments.
Ronald Sugar, the CEO of Northrop Grumman, one of the nation’s leading defense companies, spoke of the need for private industry and the government to begin the difficult task of bridging the enormous knowledge base about what is happening to the earth’s climate to development of technical solutions that can help repair it.
“We have to build something that does not exist,” Sugar said.
But Burke said in a follow-up interview that it remains worrisome that some in the military command responsible for helping prepare for future dangers still appear to question the science of why global warming is occurring. She believes there are many in the government who still don’t fully embrace it. That makes it far more difficult for the leadership necessary to move the country to make the enormous changes necessary, she said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Finn,
“You mean like the Manhattan Project which involved 120.000 people (I think it was) and not so long time ago?’
Actually that isn’t that hard to do, especially in wartime. it’s called ‘compartmentilization’. While all 120,000 people contributed to the development of the first atomic bomb, it’s doubtful that very many knew that that was the end goal. They knew what they were assigned to do, but had no real idea about the end goal. Even enlisted who were at the site and set it up when the first one was set off did not know what it was, other than some secret weapon.
“Or the “Saddam-was-behind-9/11″ hoax just “recently” and which involved the United Nations as a whole?”
?? Apparently that was kept SO secret that I’m not even aware that it was ever there. As early as Sept 2002 President Bush stated to the press that he didn’t believe Saddam was behind 9/11, so who perpetrated this ‘hoax’ you’re talking about?
Code Tech and Freezing Finn,
Wading into this discussion without using sarcasm, (((HUMOR – JUST HUMOR)))
And taking the latest first, Saddam and WMD’s. In retrospect, it looks as if there were some attempts to link SH with Al Quida and on balance, I think there were some contacts. The real reason for going to Iraq will come out in the future. We had our noses bloodied badly on 9-11. The world was days away from a financial meltdown because of the collapse of the twin towers – which knocked out the communication circuits to the New York Stock Exchange. (that building with the widow-maker sticking out of it was a telephone building that had the circuits to the NYSE by the way)
After the death of some 3K innocent people, Saddam blustered about WMD’s and like the playground bully, got his nose punched for his efforts. My belief is he did have them and shipped them to friends elsewhere, but that’s not important here. You can speculate all you like about the reasons, I’m willing to wait for history to illumine me.
The Manhatten project was a bit different. Yes, it was a large secret undertaking, and yes it involved many people, but what you’re both missing is the attitude of the time. The US had been attacked by Japan, and almost to a person, people were committed to seeing that nation destroyed.
Yes, there was propaganda and yes there was secrecy, but the average person wanted revenge on the warmongers. In addition, the press was carefully controlled.
Not so today. We are much more individual in our outlook. The press is in the field with soldiers, and I think it’s a mistake. Soldiers have to ask the question before they pull the trigger; “Am I going to be courtmartialed for doing this?” I think the press hampers the prosecution of a war, because they bring the carnage of the situation into your livingroom each night.
War is insanity, and to permit someone untrained and unused to combat into the theater is a disservice to our fighting men and women. Bad things happen to people in war, such is the nature of the activity. The “If it Bleeds it Leads” theory of news, projecting that into our living rooms at 5 PM is warping our society.
The ability to keep a secret in today’s society is much less than in 1942. Look at the tabloids and the number of folks who speak out on subjects that make you say – OH, My! I didn’t want to know that!!
Sort conclusion: I don’t think any secret the size of Manhatten could be kept today.
The military, in looking at all options, is looking out for the soldier as best it can. If the AGW folks change the equasion toward GW and the catastrophies projected by computer models, ordinary citizens and soldiers will die who didn’t have to.
Mike
Mike
Sigh! In the Clinton administration it was settled fact that Saddam was allied, if loosely, with alQuaeda. That’s why Berger e-mailed Armitage, that the missiles that were being lobbed into training camps in Afghanistan would cause “old Osama to boogie to Baghdad.” Late in ’01 and early ’02, the focus of the Left was on stopping us from “getting entangled in a horrible quagmire in Afghanistan,” if we were so foolish as to invade. My Lefty university type friends were sure that we ought to let the UN handle the Taliban. Then, in later ’02 and early ’03, Democrats and Republicans in Congress were all very concerned that Saddam would give the weapons he had been known to have since the Clinton years, to al Quaeda.
I was paying very close attention to NPR in ’02 and early ’03, and daily listened to the reports of the games Saddam’s people were playing with the UN inspectors, e.g. allowing them to inspect a warehouse at the end of a long road into the desert, which, when they got there was found to have been scrubbed clean, as the inspectors saw a dust trail stirred up by trucks, driving overland into the desert, away from the warehouse. If people don’t remember that far back, they would do well to do some research, reading newspapers from those days, for example, or else leaving the thinking to the grownups.
Leif,
(and you don’t have to post this) OK, I understand your argument, but in re-reading my original post, intended in a somewhat sarcastic tone, I impuned no one. The military in this country is looked upon by some as troglidites, who are merely those doing the bidding of government masters. I used that in my post to illustrate the ultimate word-meaning conflict – an intellegent military response (ie. Military Intellegence)
While my response to Mango was terse, it was intended to reflect the meaning of the piece. There are many other examples of thoughful folks using similar vehicles on this website.
I will be careful to label my humor (of any kind) in the future –
I do respect your opinion, but in this case, don’t agree with it.
Mike
eric anderson (09:23:04) :
I read this blog every day. I hope I didn’t miss someone posting this earlier, but I think it deserves a new blog entry of its own. Hansen, as reported in the Wall STreet Journal is as apocalyptic as ever about global warming, but he disagrees with the cap and trade being promoted by politicians.
“Mr. Hansen also had the honesty to follow his convictions to their logical conclusion, while reproaching his followers — President-elect Obama among them — for not doing the same. To wit, Mr. Hansen endorses a straight carbon tax as the only ‘honest, clear and effective’ way to reduce emissions, with the revenues rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. ‘Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,’ he writes.”
Hansen’s saying that Washington politicains shouldn’t get the tax money raised from carbon?
He won’t last long with that suggestion…
Prof. Svalgaard, I am very appreciative of your participation here. What I would like to know is what you think will happen with climate trends in the next 3 to 5 years and what the drivers will be, and why. Thank you.
Sorry OT,
Hi Steve Bloom,
I want to congratulate you on being the topic of discussion on Anthony Watts’ website. Your head must have swelled after reading that one. Despite your ‘stature’ in the AGW community, I am questioning how much merit one has as being a ‘representative’ of the Sierra Club, especially when the Sierra Club recommends…
“After you’ve finished baking, turn off the oven and open its door to let the heat into your kitchen. You’ll be amazed by how long the extra warmth lasts.”
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/greenlife/2007/11/daily-tip-no-12.html#comments
It appears that the Sierra Club has trouble understanding how radiation works, ehh Steve?
Also Mr. Bloom, wouldn’t the ‘green’ in greenhouse gas suggest that we are already being green?
“Change or die!” – Kipp Alpert
Steve, respectfully wondering, how much have you personally paid in carbon offsets? You should lead by example. How much have you paid and how much should I be forced to pay? How will this help?
Harold Ambler wrote:
Off topic, but holy crazy-sea-ice-melt-pattern, Batman, has everyone seen this?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.2.jpg
Hmmm… volcanic eruption? Military test? Carbon footprint? Looks like a nice exclamation point. =)
I agree with Leif. Even though it’s mostly just us Anti-AGW’s here, sarcasm gets old very quickly and is more a measure of our frustration than of someone else’s lack of wisdom.
And now for the word of the day:
burke, transitive verb:
burked , burk•ing , burkes
1. To suppress or extinguish quietly; stifle: he burked the dissent by declaring it ‘out of line.’
For me it’s not even about that. It’ll go up, it’ll go down, it’ll go up… For me it’s about certainty. I just don’t believe those who say they’re certain when there’s still a lot of things they don’t understand about weather or climate. There’s certainly no proof of catastrophe, so we have time to find out what’s really happening, and I suspect that nothing out of the ordinary is going on.
Craig Moore (18:57:43) :
What I would like to know is what you think will happen with climate trends in the next 3 to 5 years and what the drivers will be, and why.
The answers are mostly unknown, except that some well-founded speculation may be given:
(1) 3-5 years do not make a climate trend, a couple of decades would be needed. Climatologists define climate as the mean weather over a 30-year interval.
(2) There is little doubt that land-use and CO2 have some [small] effect; nobody knows how small. It is not correct to claim that e.g. CO2 has no effect whatsoever [although you might come across some rabid people that go to that extreme].
(3) Climate has changed all the time without much help [or damage – depending on your political view] from human activities and will continue to do so. The Sun varies too little on a time scale of centuries, so cannot be counted on for significant climate change, although a small effect on the order of 0.1 of a degree is often claimed to have been detected. Variations of the Earth’s orbit are large enough to influence the solar insolation in such a way as to cause serious climate change [glaciations] because of the uneven distribution of land and sea. This theory [the Milankovich effect] has recently found some confirmation from studies of deposits on Mars [which has its own – different from the Earth’s – Milankovich cycles]. The oceans store 300 times as much heat as the atmosphere and circulation of sea water driven by salinity, wind, and temperature can [and does] have significant climate effect, and may be causing the recent [small] temperature changes.
All of this is rather bland and un-sensational, but you can find all kinds of interesting nonsense on the Internet to spruce up any discussion. This blog has its fair share, so stay tuned.
Anthony,
Your readers may also be interested in this lecture from Leeds: http://www.env.leeds.ac.uk/envi2150/oldnotes/lecture9/lecture9.html.
The link to it was posted on Test Blog on Friday. See: http://my-test-blog-website.blogspot.com/2008/12/global-warming-direct-and-indirect.html.
John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee
Well, sorry to discuss politics, but that one issue really gets under my skin. I WAS paying attention in 2001, 2002, 2003. There WAS no attempt to say Saddam was behind 9/11, and everyone who had been paying attention in any way shape or form knew that. For one thing, Saddam was just a brutal thug with delusions of Hitlerhood, incapable of the vision required to actually pull off such a thing.
And yet I hear the two claims made by both sides, and I really wish people would get their facts straight before they repeat falsities.
Oh, did I say two? Yes… in addition to the fact that nobody ever claimed Saddam was behind 9/11 (except those who weren’t paying attention and twisted the association of Saddam with AQ into cause and effect), if your memory is working as it should be you’d know that Iraq wasn’t about, nor was it justified by, WMDs.
Unfortunately, WMDs were the one item in a fairly long list of justifications to ending Saddam’s brutal reign in Iraq that was seized on by naysayers. When the expected stockpiles were not found, it was simple to point and say “See? unjustified”, without even remotely considering where they went. Anyone else remember the satellite imagery of giant convoys of heavy trucks clotted at the borders out?
Anyway, in my earlier post I somehow lost an “a”, as in “I am aware of A few…”
The thing about giant conspiracy theories is that a large group of people can only be relied upon to keep a secret for so long. Compartmentalization extends that time, but after five, ten, twenty, fifty years, some or all of a giant project is going to become common knowledge. Was JFK assassinated as part of a conspiracy? 45 years later, it’s unlikely that a) few enough people knew, b) all who knew kept it secret.
The Manhattan Project was certainly secret for a while, but even if it hadn’t been officially revealed, it would eventually have come out.
What entertains me about the AGW industry is that a relatively small number of people are pulling the strings, and they are all operating from pure selfish interest. They’re all making money from it, and increasing their perceived value, so they have no incentive to tell the truth. AGW doesn’t qualify as a “conspiracy theory” to be ignored for the simple fact that there are so many people out there telling the truth. Watching them be silenced and marginalized was one of the first things that alerted me to the fact that the whole thing was fabricated. REAL SCIENCE doesn’t have to shut down naysayers or contrarians. Pseudo-science does.
Another thing I find interesting is that people who have no problem believing a conspiracy existed in the Bush administration to down the WTC or to fabricate evidence against Iraq to justify an invasion to steal their oil somehow have a BIG problem believing that AGW alarm is fabricated. I’d laugh more if I wasn’t watching the damage they are causing.
Of course climate change will be a major national security issue but maybe not in the way most people immediately think of when that is said.
Russia, for example, produces a lot of oil and a lot of other mineral resources in areas that are already pretty darned cold in Winter. What would happen if temperatures plummeted? How would Russia react to more difficult access to those resources and shorter growing seasons? What about Canada? How would our own activities in places like Prudhoe Bay be affected? What would happen in Northwestern China?
The world political climate and our security could be in for a dramitic change in the face of even a moderate cooling. Generally, cooling would be more of a national security threat than warming. Warming could ease access to resources, reduce energy consumption, increase food output and ease stresses that often result in conflict. Cooling would tend to aggrivate economic problems making conflict more likely.
Katherine wrote:
Hmmm… volcanic eruption? Military test? Carbon footprint? Looks like a nice exclamation point. =)
I thought it looked like the string for hanging Xmas baubles on trees.
The good thing is that the military can simply say “Yes, we must prepare for Climate Change (of all sorts) – and since that may include a [human induced] little ice age as [whoever it was] said, we clearly must prepare for weather extremes of all kinds.”
Then they can go about business as they always have. Preparing for the worst that man and nature can throw at them from any and all sides.
I’d expect the generals to be able to wangle both new amphibious vehicles [Sea Level Rise!] and new cold weather vehicles [Gulf Stream Shutdown!] out of it along with more airplanes [Avoid land changes!] and ships [Exploit the added sea!]. They are pretty bright folks.
I’m also quite certain that the military meteorologists will be unswayed by PCness in making predictions. WWII D-day hinged on the weather and everyone knows that. They will say what they need to say and salute whatever they are not busy polishing or painting; but at the end of the day they will get the weather right.
On the OT thread of WMDs. Aside from the Clinton era involvement that gets forgotten, we also have history & pictures. Sadam USED WMDs (poison gas) on Kurds and admitted it. There is no doubt what so ever that he had WMDs (gas). The only question is where they went.
Now, if you want to limit WMD to nuclear weapons (a wrong definition, BTW) then it’s more murky. He clearly wanted them. He was clearly buying plans and materials. My rampant speculation is that his nuke program was on the convoy of trucks that bugged out to Syria when the fireworks started. That would explain his actions later (as a distractor from what really happened – in a good shell game the pea is not under any of the shells…).
Per the (very beautiful!) polar ice picture: Clearly it’s just God putting an explanation point on who’s in charge! 😉 Have I mentioned lately that it’s getting colder?… (On TWC they are presently talking about the expected areas of abnormal cold in the next few days and where the snow will be piling up… gotta love it.) Do I read the picture right that Iceland is now 80%+ iced up to Greenland? Looks like you could snocat from Canada to Siberia…
At the present rate of cooling, January 20th is going to be Very Cold… Does anyone know if AlGore has an invite to the inauguration? If so, maybe we can get a blizzard out of it! tee hee …
Per secrets: Ever heard of the Skunkworks? Know what they are working on now? And what is really done at Area-51? Yes, they can keep secrets. Chemtrails? Looks like a fantasy to me. Though I do have a tangental related point:
I like to propose to AGW fans that we solve it with aerosols. Since sulphate aerosols reduce warming, and since airplanes have multiple fuel tanks… just fill up the ‘cruise’ tanks of commercial traffic with high sulphur fuel and put lots of sulphate into the stratosphere. Fuel costs would go down and we’d “solve” AGW. You can still use ultra-low sulphur fuel for takeoff and landing to keep smog down.
This usually just gets me dirty looks, but sometimes I can get them all the way to speechless! The fact that it might just work and would cost nearly nothing is just gravy 8-0
Michael J. Bentley, Leif Svalgaard LOL
thats all folks!!!
Doh….
1 more spotless day and we get back on the Spotless day list
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
Funny how when there isn’t any heat on in the house, no matter how well insulated or greenhoused it is, when you come home late at night in the winter, it darned cold in there.
And on a hot summers day, the dog or the kid left in the car with the windows rolled up and greenhoused doesn’t last too long.
I guess we will have to wait until the next super solar cycle trend rolls around to find out if AGW works with high input to the system.
In the meantime, we are close on the heels of 1911/1912 spotless days tracks (200/253) with 2007/2008 spotless days (163/250) wherein in 1912 the Great Lakes froze over and 1913 the West froze darn good.
We got 19 spotless days racked up:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
That stuff adds up when you’re not looking.
“New race to explore the Himalayas”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7765395.stm
“But those who have been in the climate business for years now say it is largely a money matter. “
With reference to the increased frequency of storms the argument seems to proceed as follows:-
1. Global warming is a bad thing which will cause more bad things to happen
2. Storms are bad things so global warming will cause more storms.
However, according to the climate models the poles will warm much more than the tropics. (which may well be true)
This reduces the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles which is the main engine driving the frequency and intensity of storms in middle latitudes.
Obviously climate alarmists have not heard of reductio ad absurdum!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.2.jpg
Santa Clause sliegh test gone wrong.
No, satellite data dropout. Happens now and then.
“Slingshots will be used as sidearms. The Air Force will use only gliders powered by catapult and electric motors. The Navy Ships will be converted to galleys and be powered by paddles. The Marines will power the galleys. Ships will be equipped with catapults and archers.”
Actually, that would be an army and a war, I could support!!
Can someone please turn on some global warming, it’s 17F here this morning and snow is on the ground.