Pussy Liberals at Pentagon moaning about climate change again

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change
"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises."

MORE

Sure.

Here's the actual report

PDF

So what do I do with it? Do I not plant a crop this year? Just throw my hands up? I'm not some dork in a cubicle, I actually make decisions on forecasts, should I just start building boat docks? Shoot my cattle in the forehead rather than let them starve/drown?

Sure.

Exactly.

The most immediate danger is that a lot of the smaller Navy vessels' decks aren't that far above the present sea level. They were carefully engineered to have their waterlines in a pretty narrow range. As the oceans rise they'll have their freeboard, and thus their maximum loading, reduced. Eventually they'll lose their seaworthiness and have to be scrapped before they founder, to be replaced by vessels with higher designed waterlines that can sail with higher sea levels.

Submarines, of course, will just be cruising a few feet deeper than they used to.

No urgency meter hasn't even budged. I was in the military. Guarantee a lot of officers/senior NCO's are getting serious
career mileage out of global warming. Soon contractors, GS employees and everyone involved will start getting some job security
out of the threat of global warming. This could be a financial goldmine, and transcends Liberal/Conservative mindsets.
Trust me when that green starts spreading around all political in-fighting stops in its tracks.

That was almost funny. Keep tryin'!

What the shit?

Military industrial complex: We need more money.

Tell the right wing liars who continue to deny climate science to stop doing that? Maybe speak out against them when they claim climate science is a hoax? If you want to get really serious maybe refuse to vote for candidates and parties who deny the validity of science?

It really isn't that complicated.

No. Me. What do I do. My financial stability depends on growing crops an fattening livestock. This isn't an academic exercise. Telling a Republican what to think isn't going to put food on my children's plate. (Or yours)

You guys. What do I do?

Do you vote? I believe I made a suggestion wrt that and two others which you can do even if you don't.

If you refuse to be part of the solution then, at the very least, I would recomend planning for hotter weather and extended periods of drought. Maybe do something to secure a drought proof water supply and put in irrigation systems if you don't have them already?

Sorry youngster - it's way more complicated than you could ever imagine. You think this has anything to do with right wing versus left wing?
I've got some ocean-front property in Kansas to sell you.

Wait - that may be a reality in our lifetimes! Anyway, things are not just that simple sadly.

Good luck with that.You're dealing with an idiot who can't think outside of the left/right box. At the least you'll get more republican bashing along with talking points that are easily found in the left wing blogosphere or MSNBC. At best you'll piss him off to the point that he has a mental breakdown and disappears for awhile only to reappear with a new name. I suggest CALIFORNIA NUTJOB for the next one.

OK, I have to admit that was good.

One side sides with science (though seldom offers real solutions) while the other side denies science and actively works against solutions. Yes, one side is definitely doing more harm.

Ahh, posts like this are what the pat on the head smilie are for. The imputant rage and refusal to respond to the facts are exactly what I've come to expect out of you.

Very little of headline grabbing climatology is science - with replication and verification, open discourse, or debate. It's mostly seers consulting oracles and reading entrails. I say this as someone who reads books on coupled atmospheric ocean dynamics, along with GCM source code.

The best option for the science at this point is to put more emphasis on understanding past variability and the links between multiple circulation patterns and climate cycles. The model runs have been falsified by subsequent data (they all over-predicted the warming), and as Feynman said, when your beautiful theory doesn't fit the data, then it's simply wrong.

Quite a few climatologists and physicists have taken the recent failures, and hysteria, to dig into the philosophy of science to see what went wrong, and why. Those are some very interesting discussions.

So mine the Ogallala Aquifer, which is to be depleted in a couple of decades? That doesn't sound very sustainable.

Seriously, I want to feed you, and I want to be paid for it, can we work something out? Are you willing to pay me to keep you and yours in food through these coming years of distress? I'm serious, I'd just as soon deal with a reliable buyer rather than the angry mob, can I count on you? I'll gladly feed you I this coming hardtime, what do you have to barter?

If you can't prepare yourself for climate change and you are unwilling to do anything positive to change it then I guess you better just hope for the best. As for me, I am sure I will be able to buy food come what may, but maybe you should be more concerned about what will happen to you livelihood where you are if nothing is done. It very well might make your land a whole lot less productive but the market won't care, you'll just make less while the city folks still will find willing sellers of food.

Individually you are just not as important as you think. None of us are. The system will adapt but there will be a lot of losers especially folks in middle America.

It really boils down to this: the world's current population is not sustainable in the long run.
We as a planet have dealt with severe climate change before during the ice ages- but with a tiny fraction of the population.
And if the climate changed we just moved - easy to do before civilization. Once we learned how to farm and other basic technologies
our population exploded. And as we learned even better farming and irrigation techniques, the population kept exploding.
Now we have way too many people to support if our climate changes significantly to the point of massive crop failure.
Factor in weapons of mass destruction and we could be in for some serious shit. The human herd is too big because everything went right
for the past 5,000 years or so. Now when it goes wrong (as it must with climate being what it is) we have a lot of skin in the game
population-wise. Civilization as we know it hasn't been around very long compared to the age of our species. Civilization is the new kid on
the block.

Are you responding like this because it's Dinner?

Removing hysteria is always the hardest part because there's a lot of idiotic people out there who turn many off this important subject with their doomsday bullshit.

As populations continue to grow and resources become more scarce this problem will only get worse.

Well, at least right forge has stopped denying there is a problem. They're still denying the basic findings of science and trying to ignore the causes but I suppose they've progressed some what.

They're no longer screaming it is all a hoax perpetrated by greedy scientist out for research money.

Among the most recent findings of science is a paper in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change that uses a more advanced radiation model and comes up with a climate sensitivity of 0.4 C to 0.6 C (for a CO2 doubling). That would mean a transient climate response of 0.23 C to 0.34 C. We've already had 43 percent of a doubling, so we'd have 0.13 C to 0.20 C yet to come. 0.13 C to 0.20 C is the climate change you get by driving 11 miles to 18 miles south, so the catastrophic effects are that the north side of town many decades hence will feel like the south side of town does now.

That's science.

Oh my. Is it budget time already?