Climate change is real: Just ask the Pentagon

a reply to: Grimpachi



Forgot Link .



friendsofscience.org...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

A who is friendsofscience.org?

They appear to be bunch of oil, gas, and petroleum shills.

www.sourcewatch.org...

The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable."

In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation

No thanks, I'll trust NASA.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: lordcomac

Indeed. Ask the mayor of Miami whether climate change is real. Florida's biggest and most vibrant city probably wont be around 30 years from now - as the Leonardo Dicaprio movie "Before The Flood" documents.

If people have any shred of selflessness in them - they will not put their selfish and extractive materialism ahead of the continuity of our species - or existence in general on this beautiful and amazing Earth.

If this was true land prices would plummet and insurance would skyrocket. There are long term issues with building cities on top of swamps(due to the soil the city is sitting) on regardless of AGW.
I am not denying AGW, but this needs to be clarified.

a reply to: jrod

“We see the rising sea levels and flooding events,”

I live on the beach, the sea level has not risen! water finds its own level so if its risen in other places it should rise where i live?

originally posted by: lordcomac
Just ask the banks- there are entire cities in florida where you can't get a 30 year mortgage because they're already leveling neighborhoods to raise the ground by a couple of feet every few years.

Estimates say it'll be under water in 15.
They don't make their money back on a 30 year mortgage if the homes are literally under water in 15.

Yep, echoing this is insurance companies. Basically anyone whose interest it is in being objective on the matter, for the sake of their organizations survival. I don't understand how anyone can think these entities, with vast resources, are somehow conspiring... against their selves. It makes no sense.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased bybabout 40% as a result of human activity, burning fossil fuels.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I in no way wish to disparage Sagan. He was a good scientist and had this inherent talent for getting others interested in science. His indirect contributions to the STEM disciplines cannot be overstated and quite probably dwarf the direct contributions made by most. Neil Degrasse-Tyson is a wonderful successor with a similar talent.

But the best scientists are also human and can err.

If I remember correctly, Sagan published a proposed method for Venusian colonization based on terraforming the atmosphere using blue-green algae strains and water from ice-based asteroids. His proposal seemed sound at the time, but as more information on Venus was uncovered it was eventually deemed impractical and theoretically questionable.

Still, many coastal cities face disaster - and the economy and civilization we have built may be vulnerable under the stresses of frequent natural disasters.

Everyone is facing disaster every day. From earthquakes in California to tornadoes in Oklahoma City to hurricanes in Florida to Nor'Easters in New England to blizzards in Chicago, we have all been at the mercy of nature since the first man walked on two legs.

But evidence has not borne out the predictions you reference. Hurricane frequency and severity has not increased. Neither has tornadic activity. North America has seen sporadic but severe drought conditions, but this has not been definitively tied to carbon dioxide levels. Pacific currents seem to have much more you do with that phenomenon.

Miami is a good example of recent (incorrect) reports of sea level increase. Yes, the water level in Miami is rising relative to the land. But that is due to land subsidence, not absolute sea level rise. Miami is built on weak soil, typical of Florida. The sheer weight of development has caused the land to slowly sink. Other beachfront areas have experienced accelerating beach erosion due to man's incessant desire to 'beautify' coasts by removing 'ugly' components of the ecosystem... components that once controlled beach erosion.

And Antarctic ice is not melting overall. One side is melting while the other is gaining ice. Concerns about coastal devastation caused by the Antarctic melt are unfounded. The Arctic is indeed melting, but this appears due to the same anomaly that caused the California drought and Southeastern deep freeze recently: a shift in currents bringing warmer water into the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

What time period are you u sing as a baseline for that statement?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Check out NOAA's data points. 280ppm is the widely accepted starting point of CO2, now we are over 400ppm and rising, that is well over 40%.

We have excellent data since 1960, where CO2 was just over 300ppm. In just over 50 years we have observed a 100ppm rise of CO2.

This is a significant event! We also can conclude the excess CO2 is a direct result of human activity.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hurricane frequency has increased in my lifetime. In the early 90's an average Atlantic hurricane season had 9 named storms, now an average season is around 12 storms. Also the frequency of category 5 hurricanes has increased.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Wow, an ad hominem attack on the Pentagon is your way to denounce anthropogenic climate change.

The ignorance is strong with you my friend.

Yeah, ignorance, if you say so, that means about as much to me as the pentagon saying it. Have you ever worked for the intel community or the military? I have, nothing is what it seems, but you just keep running with that personal delusion, towing the party line or whatever floats your boat. The pentagon has very little credibility, much like the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA and the rest of the government. Until government is forced to remove the propagandization of everything for their political agendas and personal enrichment, they will collectively have no credibility, you might as well read The Onion for your news.

Why don't you go ask an international banker on wall street why there is a financial crisis and whose fault it is LOL. You'll get about the same level of truth.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: jrod

If C02 were to drop 10%, would that equate to a 10% drop in global temperature?

Are there any factors in nature that drive C02?

Is C02 the sole proponent in temperature rise?

How does C02 affect stronger or weaker storm seasons?

I sure hope you can answer those simple questions. I mean, if you can start a thread and call those who disagree with you ignorant, surely you hold the knowledge they are lacking.

a reply to: network dude

Wow. That is not how this works....for a seasoned poster here, i am surprised you would make such a claim, unless you are intentionally trying to be obtuse here.

It is obvious the concept of radiative forcing is over your head unless.....

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Astrocyte

If there is one thing I've learned the hard way, it's that people believe what they want to believe.

You can tell them the truth, but you can't make them believe it.

It will all become clear at some point and better minds will prevail. Even those who realize what is happening are not doing enough to suit me. Maybe when the human race has to move underground to survive, they will shut up and listen.

On second thought, I doubt it. People have a tendency to listen to who is the loudest. The ignorant are very loud, I've noticed. There are times when it's important to not be shouted down.

On third thought, I think the conservative arm of the beast will continue to say it's a non-issue until it is, then blame their liberal arm for allowing it. lol

a reply to: jrod

I didn't ask NOAA... I asked you. I know what NOAA says.

You quote 300 ppmv increasing to 400 ppmv in 56 years. That's 20 ppmv increase in just over a decade, precisely what I said.

Hurricane frequency has increased in my lifetime. In the early 90's an average Atlantic hurricane season had 9 named storms, now an average season is around 12 storms. Also the frequency of category 5 hurricanes has increased.

Figure 2: Atlantic tropical storm counts adjusted for likely missing storms. Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change. Figure adapted from Vecchi and Knutson (2008, J. Climate)

Both graphics are from www.gfdl.noaa.gov... , and indicate storm frequency perfectly within historical norms when adjusted for 'likely missing storms.' In other words, the only thing making it appear that storm frequency is increasing is the growth in population and advances in technology to report them.

Although I suspect that there is also a bias from those who want to see an increase to 'prove' Global Warming.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

That is not how this works....

So, let me get this right... increasing carbon dioxide levels lead to increasing global temperatures, but falling carbon dioxide levels do not lead to decreasing global temperatures.

Logically, that indicates that the Earth should never cool when carbon dioxide levels decrease throughout history. That in turn, considering that there he's been carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for a couple billion years at least, indicates that we should now be warmer than at any time in those billions of years.

That is a false conclusion, ergo, the assumption driving it is false.

THAT'S how this works.

TheRedneck

You could plant yourself on any coastline city in the world at just about any time in civilized history and claim that there was climate change going on, and you would be correct. The Earth is a super-dynamic planet, and is constantly changing, with minor and major trends all the time.

Today, look out at your ocean views and reflect that the sites of many ancient peoples, especially Paleo Indians, are a hundred or more miles out towards the continental shelves.

We keep building condo's and homes right up to the beaches... What could go wrong here!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

Wow. That is not how this works....for a seasoned poster here, i am surprised you would make such a claim, unless you are intentionally trying to be obtuse here.

It is obvious the concept of radiative forcing is over your head unless.....

actually, I'm trying to make several points here. First off, being a dick to those who engage in discussion with you is not a good move. Second, we don't know as much as we think we know about climate change. There are lots of factors involved that we don't have the ability to measure. So the high horse, might not be the best seat in the house.

a reply to: jrod

I agree we must deal with climate change in the future. But personally, I think the idea of a cooling climate put forward by Russian scientists is just as likely as global warming. Here is a link to the theory I found attractive:

wattsupwiththat.com...

Sure ... atmospheric CO2 is going up, but if the sun cools, that could have a much bigger, diametrically opposed result, no?

Climate change is real: Just ask the Pentagon

The Pentagon also tells you that a 757 crashed into their office and mysteriously disappeared after.

I wouldn't be surprised if they told us tomorrow that climate change is the fault of terrorists.