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.
from Dylan (06:35:49) :
One wonders the reaction if a defence force’s paper said that gravity may cause something to fall or it may not.
-end quote
Well, I, for one, would say they had it right! Sometimes it makes the airplane fall and sometimes the pilot points it nose up and hits the gas 8-}
From Geoff Alder (06:59:43) :
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?
-end quote
Nope. I’d say you’ve got a pretty good handle on things… Oh, BTW, clouds are not modeled in the computer models that predict our demise from AGW. Just one of many bogus items in them…
Why? No idea, but I’d speculate that its because clouds are very hard to model so easier to just make them an invariant plug number…
On this we are basing our future economic health?
From eric anderson (08:49:46) :
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.
-end quote
A wonderful example (proof?) of the fact that we can’t know is here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
where he used IPCC data and shows that even it is is accepted as true, the error band on the aerosols swamps the CO2 impact. You can’t even know the sign of the net human impact, never mind the magnitude.
Never have your precision exceed your accuracy…
Ok, I asked for some “educated” and “open minded” thoughts on the phenomenon called “chemtrails”.
And though not as “open minded” nor as “educated” as I was hoping for – here are some of them along with some comments & questions added:
Quote:
“To get an industry and even military organizations to be
co-operative in such a cover-up is ludicrous… To keep something secret, you have to have the loyalty and trust of your staff and underlings.”
Questions:
(1) Isn’t military ALL about “loyalty and trust of your staff and underlings”?
(2) And if it was a secret military operation still running, they wouldn’t talk about it in the open at this point, would they?
Instead – and considering the possible size of it – they’d do it in “secrecy”, disguise and/or “compartmentilize” it – one way or the other (Open Skies, HAARP, “fight against AGW” etc.) – and so that it would be very difficult for anyone to “connect dots” for a full and clear picture.
Besides, corporations, too, and even universities tend to keep things secret as well as compartmentilized – especially when they make deals/co-ops with the military/military complex.
Quote:
“I’d believe in UFO’s before Chemtrails….”
Question:
(3) Now, that’s a “straw man”, isn’t it?
Quote:
“…ludicrous statements like that completely invalidate everything else you wrote…
Question:
(4) Using the word “ludicrous” is probably meant to make your the “point” stronger, but is it really?
Well, I’ve heard the “argument” before – for example: “Lyndon LaRouche was in jail for fraud – don’t listen to him, he’s a criminal.”
Or – “Ron Paul is a creationist, so anything he says about the Federal Reserve, the US Constitution, Austrian Economics etc. must be crazy too”.
And please note: I’m an “agnostic atheist” myself – yet that hasn’t stopped me from listening to what he has to say on other issues. I also listen to what LaRouche has to say, for his views make a lot more sense than the “official” stories.
Quote:
“..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.”
Question:
(5) What “damage” and to what or to whom?
Now, I personally doubt the official 9/11 story – which BTW also is a “conspiracy theory” and questioned by a lot of experts such as engineers and scientists – and very much like in this AGW-believers vs. sceptics debate – the circumstances are strikingly similar. Then again, science never is, and never can be completely free of politics.
But I also doubt the UN-sponsored AGW-theory – so, the argument above doesn’t apply here now, does it?
On the WMD-issue – well, it was fairly “safe” to assume that S. Hussein still had them then for it was made possible in the first place by the US during the 1980’s. It was also the West that originally put S. Hussein in power… but since we’re way OT already, I’ll just stop here and return to the original issue. 😉
Quote:
“They are contrails, nothing more. I find the arguments for them about as convincing as the ones for the WTC conspiracy.
Comment/question:
(6) The first sentence is a statement – and the second one is just another “straw man” to “support” that statement, isn’t it?
Quote:
“Probably about as bogus as the chemtrails Haarp is linked with. Try the source: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html”
Comment:
Why not go directly to: https://www.cia.gov/
“.. an INDEPENDENT US Government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior US POLICYMAKERS.”
(emphasis added)
Sounds a bit like the IPCC, doesn’t it ? 😉
anna v (22:18:25) :
I assume that the images are stitched together from multiple passes of a near-poalr orbitting satellite. My guess is that there were gaps in the scans that day and the software that does the stitching together of the stripes did the best it knew how, leaving a bit of a mess for later processing that figures out the ice coverage.
It’s curious that http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ has 12/05/2008 images for NH ice and 12/07/2008 images for SH ice. They’ll probably straighten it out today, if not, it would be worth contacting them.
Freezing Finn (04:44:35) :
And you did that with a two line request and posted a Wikipedia link. So, just how much time did you expect people to spend on a response to an OT request like like that? I’m sorry I replied – I’ve wasted enough of my life responding to other people people as lazy as you. I did stumble across one quote that I’d seen before and convinced me that 95% of of the people who take Chemtrails seriously have no understanding of what they’re looking at.
Consider this quote:
Give me a break. Have we descended so far into TV watching, computer game playing, Weather Channel watchers to not bother to go outside to experience weather? In my experience, jets flying through cold dry arctic air that visits us in New Hampshire (like today) leave contrails that last a few minutes. I’ve seen some that lasted about 10 seconds and wouldn’t be surprised if dry enough conditions lead to no contrails at all.
Conversely, when a more southern air mass comes in contrails persist much longer and in cases where the air is supersaturated they can grow, spread out, and “drip feathers and mares tails” just like ordinary cirrus.
If you want conspiracy, consider this – why has no one bothered even to aim an IR spectrometer at a “Chemtrail”? If they’re all over the place and defy normal cloud science, surely some curious scientist would have done that. Why don’t Chemtrail sites suggest natural explanations for parallel Chemtrails? I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an active movement to suppress sensible explanations in order to garner more attention to the conspiracist’s sites or to distract the public’s attention from the real evil designs by the mastermind behind the Chemtrail conspiracy. Who may well be Lyndon LaRouche.
I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense. Many people who could say something haven’t because people like you post a one or two sentence troll and have (despite protestations to the contrary) no intention to apply simple science to the question.
Oh, and use your real name too – “Freezing Finn” sounds like a name a “professional wrestler” in the US would use.
Robert Bateman (21:23:04) :
Why was my name and timestamp included with your post above?
Anthony,
Wow! Just finished reading through most of this blog. Feels as though I just went through the comments section in one of those crackpot British tabloids. Tin hat wearers have taken over WUWT.
Ric Werme wrote: “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”
Bingo, count me in.
Novoburgo: Tin hats? Taken over? Nah… but it is a good example of how actual open comment sections attract all types. I’d prefer the occasional nutjob posting to the gleeful censorship at, you know, some sites around…
Personally, I sometimes find myself posting humor that I later realize is not being taken as humor. I apologize if my post explaining how Santa’s heavy industry and transportation operations at the eco-fragile North Pole was taken seriously. But I still say it’s foolish to build a base of operations on a frozen-over stretch of ocean.
CodeTech (08:08:48) :
Ric Werme wrote: “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”
“Bingo, count me in.”
————–
All in favor? (Raises hand…)
Habit.
Jeff Alberts (06:51:44) :
Robert Bateman (21:23:04) :
Why was my name and timestamp included with your post above?
I would also like to nix the chemtrails nonsense.
Mike Bryant
Freezing Finn: You win, Chemtrails do exist – they do, they do, they do. And, there goes Bigfoot…
Ric Werme (06:17:30):
“I’m sorry I replied – I’ve wasted enough of my life responding to other people people as lazy as you.”
Ad hominem abusivis?
Anyway – I’m feel sorry too – trying to participate in online discussions seems like such a waste of time.
Reading articles is fine, but the “discussions”… well, there seems to be no point really for it’s ultimately all just an “us-against-you-tribal-sorta” thing.
“Have we descended so far into TV watching, computer game playing, Weather Channel watchers to not bother to go outside to experience weather?”
My point exactly.
Now, I don’t even have a TV – my kids play computer games though I let them do that only a max. of one hour a day + I have “weather channels” – meaning windows – all around my house.
And about “experiencing the weather” – well, I grow some of my own food (and not in a greenhouse), I make the firewoods needed for the winter myself (30-40m3 per year on average) and thanks to the fact that we have snow around here for 5 months each year, I spent quite a lot of time shovelling snow, too…
“In my experience…” etc.
Well, how do you explain this – “artificial clouds over Germany” – on German TV with English subtitles (note: the tranlation isn’t perfect, yet the point is still pretty clear):
http://chemtrailawareness.multiply.com/video/item/11
“I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an active movement to suppress sensible explanations in order to garner more attention to the conspiracist’s sites or to distract the public’s attention from the real evil designs by the mastermind behind the Chemtrail conspiracy. Who may well be Lyndon LaRouche.”
Sounds like a “conspiracy theory” to me – and I figure you’re not a fan of LaRouche either.
“I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense. Many people who could say something haven’t because people like you post a one or two sentence troll and have (despite protestations to the contrary) no intention to apply simple science to the question.”
Understood -now, I’ll be outta here right after this one:
“Oh, and use your real name too – “Freezing Finn” sounds like a name a “professional wrestler” in the US would use.”
Well, it seems to me it’s not a very wise thing to do – unless you already agree with the rest – or at least with the “majority” and on the “key issues” here – otherwise you get attacked pretty easily – and on the personal level too.
But hey, that’s what the internet is all about, in my opinion – the ultimate tool for “social compartmentilizing”…
Got me convinced! Yup, those anomalous clouds over Germany did it.
Never did trust the Deutscher Wetterdienst!!
(strictly sarcasm)
Freezing Finn don’t stop now, you’re beginning to attract a following.
Ric Werme (05:31:54) :
I assume that the images are stitched together from multiple passes of a near-poalr orbitting satellite. My guess is that there were gaps in the scans that day and the software that does the stitching together of the stripes did the best it knew how, leaving a bit of a mess for later processing that figures out the ice coverage.
Interesting, I did not know that but should have guessed that the end result we see in such lovely images has undergone a lot of handling. What you say explains nicely the crystal like radial structure in December 1980
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=1980&sm=12&sd=06&sy=2008
and several months before and after. It could be excess overlaps by the program.
But the curious pattern of dec 6 2008 does not have such symmetry. I wish they had some explanation pages on their site :(.
I think I will ask where it says: Questions and/or comments.
Robert Bateman (09:59:00) :
Habit.
Jeff Alberts (06:51:44) :
Robert Bateman (21:23:04) :
Why was my name and timestamp included with your post above?
Your being framed. Just like CO2… 😀
Dr. Svalgaard:
Because seawater salinity varies little, and the effect upon the oceans’ heat capacity is consequently negligible, I’m mystified by your placement of it at the head of the list of possible “drivers” of oceanic circulation that “may account” for the variations in climate that we are experiencing. My understanding is that the global anticyclonic circulation is wind-driven. Also, it would seem that something more variable than heat capacity (perhaps cloud albedo) is required to explain the considerable year-to-year variations of global temperature that are observed. Please explain.
sky (14:07:40) :
Because seawater salinity varies little
It varies a lot, contrast the brackish Baltic Sea with the salty Mediterranean Sea.
There are good indications that the melting of ice barriers at the end of the last ice age would have allowed large glacial freshwater lakes [the Great Lakes of the USA and Canada are still such remaining bodies of water] to enter the oceans and temporarily change the salinity enough to upset the normal circulation and cause dramatic climate change. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
sky (14:07:40) :
It varies enough. Probably the most important case is the Gulf Stream. It’s high salinity is due to evaporation, but the warm temperature keeps it buoyant until it reaches the Arctic whereupon it sinks. If there is a flood of fresh water from Canada or Greenland, that can float on top of the Gulf Stream cutting down on the Gulf Stream warming in Europe.
Search for “Thermohaline Circulation”. My http://wermenh.com/2016.html may have some useful references. Basically, it’s density, not heat capacity, that’s important.
Kerry E of MIT better consult with Richard Lindzen he should be able to find him.
I dunno, I think they’re really stretching that theory there.
From the Wikipedia article [emphasis mine]:
So they’ve got multiple data points which conflict with the theory. It also seems to me that all interglacials would have such a problem. Also, with wind patterns then being roughly the same as today, the cold should have swept all across the northern hemisphere, but it seems only Western Europe, Greenland, and North America are mentioned (unless I missed something), as happening in conjunction with the Younger Dryas.
Novoburgo: “you’re beginning to attract a following.”
Can’t you read? The “tribe” has spoken already – remember:
– “I’m sure I’m not alone within this readership appalled with all this Chemtrail nonsense.”
– ““Bingo, count me in.”
– “All in favor? (Raises hand…)”
– “I would also like to nix the chemtrails nonsense.”
So, keep up the “good fight” guys!
‘Cause although the people behind the AGW-hoax are just too “simple” to understand most of your arguments, the “best” arguments – based on “good science”, naturally – will ultimately prevail, eh?
Well, dream on, folks – the AGW-tribe is a lot bigger than yours and they already have all the power they need to get what they’re after.
Cheers,
The Lazy Finn
Ps. ever cared to check out what the UN’s “Agenda-21” is all about? Oh well, I guess you’re busy enough as it is…
For Freezing Finn – from the mission statement of the Flat Earth Society:
“For over five hundred years humanity has believed the “round Earth” teachings of Efimovich and his followers. But all hope is not lost. For through all that time, a small but diligent band of individuals have preserved the knowledge of our planet’s true shape. And now, after centuries in the Dark Ages, we believe that mankind as a whole is once again ready to embrace the truth that has forever been the Flat Earth Society. Using whatever means are deemed necessary and relying heavily on a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of our members, we have slowly but steadily been spreading the news.
But why? Why do we say the Earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise? Because we know the truth.”
Well, I’m convinced. Now, excuse me while I go stock up on tinfoil.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Pointing to marginal, virtually land-locked, seas doesn’t alter the fact that for well over 95% of the oceans, the salinity is within 34.3-35.1 parts per thousand. Even in the marginal seas, the thermodynamic properties of sea water are scarcely affected by much more drastic salinity variations.
Notwithstanding the highly speculative claim that the release of glaciai freshwater lakes altered the oceanic circulation–thus climate–I remain mystified by your seeking explanations of climate variations in terms of factors of little significance, insofar as global average temperatures are concerned. The significant (sigma ~1/4K) year-to-year variability of those averages was the point of my question. Surely, as a physicist, you recognize that oceanic circulation can merely redistribute the globally absorbed heat, rather than change its average value. By contrast, cloud albedo, which can reduce the thermalized insolation by up to 100 w/sq.m locally, affects the heat content itself.