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.
Old Sparta. What a nice place some say. They used classic concepts to fix problems.
I think science outside of government may be the final straw of free thought. Media is well within the corral and the gate is swinging closed. Gov’mnt science is Academia world wide. Teach the kids, and change the world.
Military is disciplined aggravation. There are accounts of several cowboys (not the later UFO one’s) that witnessed from afar a very large ‘dust cloud rising vertically in 45’ New Mexico. Manhattan media section did a superb job of smoke and mirrors by playing into public science ignorance.
Spartans of old , at least for a short time before their world collapsed, would annually put the politicians (Congress, etc) on trial. Purpose was to validate ‘their’ effectiveness and truthfulness. ??.. Mass starvation-super-sized Little Ice Age may be the only fix by the Spartans of today.
Gordon Walker:
That is, until you throw water vapor feedback into the equation. As there’s little water vapor at the poles (none in winter) there cannot be any such feedback.
Which of course means that, as they’ve failed to demonstrate that temperatures in the tropics (where there’s more water vapor) have risen faster than at the poles, water vapor feedback hasn’t been shown to be a factor.
Didn’t Emmanuel Kelly recently publish a book in which he argued, as does Chris Landsea of the NHC, that global warming would tend to produce stronger mid-level shear zones and thus diminish the strength and frequency of tropical cyclones?
There is a consensus that there is a consensus that there is a consensus.
‘I’ll retire to Bedlam!’ There’s a seasonal refernce for you.
Leif said:
“Better to say directly what is on your mind without using “Sarcasm as a form of speech or writing which is bitter or cutting, being intended to taunt its target”. Sarcasm is unnecessary ad-hom, and it’s not that funny, especially not if it is intended to insult and taunt.”
Hmmm… Perhaps Leif should follow his own advice, particularly when the discussion revolves around the sun and its effect on climate. Leif not only seems to think his (the sun has only a minor effect) is the only valid viewpoint, but goes out of his way to belittle the views of others. The link between our climate and solar activity, while not entirely understood is certainly a valid one.
‘Santa Clause sliegh test gone wrong.’
Sanity clause? I don’t believe in no sanity clause!
That’s as Marxist as I get.
Here is a quotation from the October summary issued by the Office of the State Climatologist of New Jersey.
‘Despite the wide swings in temperature and precipitation, the averages of each variable were quite close to their long-term means. At 53.5°, the preliminary temperature was 0.7° below average, making for the 39th coolest October since 1895.’
My observation is that there is an apparent contradiction between stating that a monthly average temperature is ‘quite close to [its] long-term mean’ and then stating that the month was ranked among the top third in terms of coolness. I wish they would present this datum in terms of standard deviations.
Let’s see if I got it right.
Now, whereas AGW is considered a hoax by most people here (incl. myself) involving most of the world’s goverments, the UN and other intergovermental organizations, numerous transnational corporations and a handful of scientists – let alone the mainstream media and the public (hey, we’re talking about millions of people here) – “chemtrails”, on the other hand, are just a “ludicrous fantasy”?
Now, did you come to this conclusion before doing any research on the issue or what?
Before opposing something that I don’t know much – or anything – about – and in case I get interested in the issue, of course – I at least try to do some research on my own first.
So, let me help you at it – first a few documentaries in English (with a lot of pictures 😉 at
http://thebigagenda.com/channel.php?id=17
And a recent presentation in German – for those who know German, of course at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2948615405691506381&ei=vME7SfaDM4-MiQKv1fikDA&q=chemtrails&so=1&dur=3
Just for starters – and you either want to know more about it or you don’t, and either way, it’s fine with me. However, I’m really not interested in Saddam Hussein’s “Weapons of Mass Distraction” – nor UFOs…
Now, someone mentioned the magic word “compartmentilization” – and that’s exactly what I was after too. I feel most of us have gotten quite used to it already, but I wish to remind you all that we’re still at a – neverending – global war called the “war on terrorism”, remember?
Well, never ever has the world been more “compartMENTALized” than today. While “specialized” (=compartmentilized) “experts” (scientific, political, financial etc.) run the “show” – “just don’t mind the men behind the curtain” – the majority of people are in a constant hypnosis made possible by the conditioning mainstream media, dumbing down effect of the modern school systems everywhere and the constant flow of entertainment.
And it seems to me as if most of the so called experts were in a hypnosis too – for you can’t really explain any other way how this AGW hoax has gotten this far – and why it’s still far from being over.
Time to wake up, folks?
CodeTech:
“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.”
Whenever I make this same point to my alarmist friends they just stop talking. There is a fairly long list of “stop talking” points that can be made with simple facts. The problem is that 10mins later?…They’re right back on it.
Whack-A-Mole…
But I still find a common “theme” among them…and that is that someone must somehow suffer…that us human’s have somehow gotten away with things long enough, and now it’s time for us to PAY. Us Americans are spoiled brats, along with some other civilized countries, and we’ve long used up more than our “fair share”…so it’s time to pay, etc. etc.
Me?…I just like being happy 😉
Oh…and warm.
Warm good.
Mmmmmmmmmm.
JimB
Here is a bit of interesting history concerning glacial retreat from the national parks web site. It appears, as noted by the the founder of the Sierra club, the effects of “CO2 man made global warming climate change” on glaciers started well over 100 years ago. How can this be??? Now I know why my great great grandfather moved to higher ground.
Sailing through Glacier Bay today, you travel along shorelines and among islands that were completely covered by ice just over 200 years ago. When Captain George Vancouver charted adjacent waters of Icy Strait in 1794, he and his crew described what we now call Glacier Bay as just a small five-mile indent in a gigantic glacier that stretched off to the horizon. That massive glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick in places, up to 20 miles wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias mountain range. By 1879, however, naturalist John Muir discovered that the ice had retreated more than 30 miles forming an actual bay. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier – the main glacier credited with carving the bay – had melted back 60 miles to the head of what is now Tarr Inlet.
Also, the mean temperature for October based on the record from 1895 to 2007,
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/njhisttemp.html
is 54.7, which makes October 2008 1.2 degrees below the mean. The 54.2 figure is the average from 1971 to 2000. October is one of two months (the other is January) for which the 30-year average is lower than the 100+ year average.
I think the key point is that military planning requires facts. Political spinning does not.
The shame is that most organisations don’t risk admitting their doubts because they will be targeted, as shown by the deteriorating comments in blogs. For companies, being targeted can cost the business.
I personally believe we are in the highly variable period that occurs after the end of the inter-glacial. The primary cause of the inter-glacial has ceased and we are now subject to a variety of second order effects as the earth moves into the next ice age.
Lex
I love how many of the comments here applaud the military for saying that climate change may or may not happen. One wonders the reaction if a defence force’s paper said that gravity may cause something to fall or it may not.
Lysenkoism comes to mind…….
News from the Hadley Centre.
Of particular interest is Mr. Stott’s title in this article. George Orwell would be proud!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
I live where we never see frost. But in areas subject to frosts, (so they tell me) when there is no night cloud cover, there can be severe frost. When there is cloud cover, no frost. Patently, on a cloudless night there is vast heat escape by radiation from the earth’s surface, providing the loss of sensible and latent heat necessary for frost formation.
Am I a simpleton in thinking this tells me that atmospheric water vapour and cloud cover play the major role in controlling heat escape from the surface of the planet? Am I a simpleton in believing that atmospheric CO2 would be incapable of playing role in any way comparable with this? Is this whole issue being absurdly over complicated? But then again, I am no sparkling bright scientist!
Having read this piece regarding the feminisation of males of many vertebrate species – I thought – well – there’s something the global warming catastrophizers could get behind to some good effect.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/its-official-men-really-are-the-weaker-sex-1055688.html
Sadly, one expert links his concerns about this catastrophe to – yes – global warming.
“Whole wildlife populations could be at risk, he said, because their gene pool would be reduced, making them less able to withstand disease and putting them at risk from hazards such as global warming.”
I guess the link has to be made to garner funding for research. Depressing.
Robert,
I’m sure you know this, but hothouse/car in the sun warming != atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect. It isn’t the same thing.
An inconvenient truth? CouId? If?
Melting ice may slow global warming
Scientists discover that minerals found in collapsing ice sheets could feed plankton and cut C02 emissions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/07/melting-icebergs-slow-global-warming
Collapsing antarctic ice sheets, which have become potent symbols of global warming, may actually turn out to help in the battle against climate change and soaring carbon emissions.
——————————————————-
He said the number of icebergs in the Antarctic was expected to rise by about 20 per cent by the end of the century, which could remove an extra 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, if they all seeded plankton growth.
OT-Cryosphere’s arctic ice image. Not only is there the odd exclamation point image, but massive melting has occured overnight from the tip of the point to western north Russia. There is melting in between Alaska and east Russia as well. ‘Russia’ might be dated, can’t think of what they call themselves today.
http://i37.tinypic.com/33ejz4p.jpg
I’m a whole lot tired of reading in these scare the horses tales about how this or that Government agency may not take global warming or climate change seriously enough.
Just what is the scientific measure of “seriously enough” ?
Some of us actually consider “very seriously” that it is essential to get the science correcct. For me, that is my only interest; and that we do that before stampeding fools do some actual real damage to this planet and its human population.
And please don’t go flying off and asking; “what about the rest of life on earth.
I consider the wellbeing of all life on earth to be of serious interest to human wellbeingand for more reasons than just our enjoyment of the wonder of life.
So it isn’t us at any cost; but one thing is for darn sure; if WE don’t survive, in a sane fashion, it doesn’t really matter (to us) what else happens.
So I’m not interested in whether some beurocrat thinks government agencies don’t take climate change seriously enough: I am concerned that supposedly educated people who actually imagine themselves to be scientists; don’t take that station in life seriously enough to follow some sort of Hippocratic oath to first DO NO HARM.
Instaed we see many operate under a hippocritic oath: to scare the less informed into foolish actions.
The English language does not have words to describe my contempt for people who lie or steal; they are vermin.
I feel the same way about so-called scientists who set out deliberately to deceive for some other personal agenda: those who understand have a moral duty to not mislead those who for no fault of their own, do not.
Leif, just check your shoes for gravel – would you mate? Some things just aren’t needed to be stated. Do you understand? Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with sarcasm at all, in fact it’s very often appropriate. And if I remember my grammar lessons (often I don’t) Michael J Bentley’s post couldn’t be “ad hom” either, as (again, IIRC) ad hom can only be against a singular person, not a group. Found the gravel? That’s it, just shake it out mate, then you won’t be so needlessly grumpy.
A lot of posts run the theme that “whole AGW panic is a hoax by people who stand to make a lot of money” to quote one poster (Postee?).
Has anyone looked at this in terms of “The Hydraulic Empire” concept?
If you do it makes more sense and gets a whole lot scarier.
N.
I’d echo what Jeff Alberts said about certainty. Look at the table (Figure SPM-2 “Radiative Forcing Components”) on page 4 of the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers report. That table covers the anthropogenic factors the IPCC thinks is adding to global temperature: GHGs, ozone, surface albedo changes (from land use or deposition of carbon black on snow), aerosols (an anthropogenic cooling effect), and contrails. Note in the right hand column of that table (“LOSU” meaning level of scientific understanding) that for most of these factors the IPCC report admits the scientific understanding is “medium” or “low.”
Logically, you cannot posit that you are highly certain of the effects of man on global climate when most of the man-made factors influencing temperature are not extremely well understood. The conclusion is inescapable: We. Don’t. Know.
But what we do know is that over very long periods of time, CO2 levels have not driven global temperatures to major swings up or down. If anything, it would appear that the reverse has been true. On very long time scales (say 500 million years), assuming the proxy measurements of temperature and CO2 levels are anywhere near accurate, it is hard to see any correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature at all.
This talk of “certainty” from the global warming alarmists is illogical. It is pure hubris, poppycock, and fantasy.
I read the above article,
“This is where we have found the temperature rising between 0.1C to 0.4C in a year, and that means species are shifting northwards at the rate of 80 to 200 metres in 10 years,” says Mr Sharma.
“This is quite alarming.”
OMG, how will they adapt having to move an entire 8 meters in just a single year. [sac off]
The climate in this region is quite harsh. The reality, I imagine, is warming (if it even happened in this region) would be a significant positive influence.
Off topic: I’m looking for a story, published here a few months ago, about how GISS processes temperature data. It had graphics of a pulling a rabbit out of a hat, driving a bulldozer, etc. Anyone have the link to this?
Thanks