The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

[abu afak]

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​

July 6, 2020

"...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that “installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”

One of those conditions is Sea Level Rise that will affect multiple coastal installations (see here and here).
Sea level rise will not only affect the physical infrastructure on these installations, it will also potentially lead to the inland migration of portions of the populations who live in the surrounding communities – some of whom form part of an installation’s work force. Depending on how far away and how many migrants move, their loss will degrade an installation’s ability to continue to function at an acceptable level over time."..>'

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise

By Dr. Marc Kodack In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that …

climateandsecurity.org

`

 

[Crick]

A military installation also includes housing for shore-based military or their families. If sea level rise forces the population to move, they will also be forced to move and the facility will become untenable.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​

July 6, 2020

"...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that “installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”

One of those conditions is Sea Level Rise that will affect multiple coastal installations (see here and here).
Sea level rise will not only affect the physical infrastructure on these installations, it will also potentially lead to the inland migration of portions of the populations who live in the surrounding communities – some of whom form part of an installation’s work force. Depending on how far away and how many migrants move, their loss will degrade an installation’s ability to continue to function at an acceptable level over time."..>'

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise

By Dr. Marc Kodack In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that …

climateandsecurity.org

`

Great job! You listed the same link twice!

To give you an idea how screwed up this report is, it mentions flash flooding at Fort Hood being a result of climate change. There is absolutely no evidence of that as the terrain has not changed and the dry creek beds become inundated with even heavy rain. I loved the fact it mentions the loss of several troops in trying to cross a river. First, there are no rivers on Fort Hood, Second, the attempt to cross the flooded stream was stupid, as the drivers had been warned not to do so. It is standard procedure.

How do I know this? At the time of the incident, my daughter was a transportation platoon commander in another unit at Fort Hood.

 

[abu afak]

Great job! You listed the same link twice!

To give you an idea how screwed up this report is, it mentions flash flooding at Fort Hood being a result of climate change. There is absolutely no evidence of that as the terrain has not changed and the dry creek beds become inundated with even heavy rain. I loved the fact it mentions the loss of several troops in trying to cross a river. First, there are no rivers on Fort Hood, Second, the attempt to cross the flooded stream was stupid, as the drivers had been warned not to do so. It is standard procedure.

How do I know this? At the time of the incident, my daughter was a transportation platoon commander in another unit at Fort Hood.

September, 2017

"...The Naval station Norfolk in Portsmouth, VA, the largest naval base in the world, already floods ten times a year when full moons cause especially high tides—sea levels there are one and a half feet higher than they were when the base was built in 1917, and rising twice as fast as average global sea levels. By 2050, Norfolk is expected to flood 280 times a year.".."
[.......]
Moving to Renewable Energy

The Department of Defense has a department-wide goal to obtain at least 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, reduce its petroleum use and draw on more alternative fuels. (Each branch of the military also has its own renewable energy goal.) This has nothing to do with the political controversy over climate change. It is because the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy and oil in the world, and moving fuel along supply lines in conflict areas invites attack and endangers lives. Moreover, it’s costly—according to a Defense Department spokesperson, “a $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately $130 million over the course of a year.”

The number of renewable energy projects in the U.S. military almost tripled between 2011 and 2015, with many of them enabling bases to be energy independent in case of a natural disaster or attack. The use of distributed renewables at bases reduces the possibility of disruptions in procuring energy, and increases resilience in case of cyberattacks on the grid.

The Army’s goal is to get 25% of the energy it consumes from renewable sources by 2025, and to be net zero by 2030 (meaning it will generate as much energy as it uses). [/B]In 2015, it derived 12% of its energy from renewables and by 2016 had 17 large renewable energy projects in development.

The biggest U.S. military base, Fort Hood in Texas, is already drawing almost 50% of its power from renewable energy, with 63,000 solar panels on site and 21 off-site wind turbines producing 65 MW of power. This is expected to SAVE more than $100 million over 30 years.

Solar panel arrays at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, one of the Army’s net zero pilot installations. Photo: US Army
The Army Net Zero initiative created 17 pilot installations around the country which, at the end of 2015, had reduced energy use by 5 percent and generated 28,700 MWh of renewable energy, most of which was consumed at the bases. It also reduced potable water consumption by 11% and recycled and harvested rainwater, saving 89 million gallons of water.

The Navy aims to get 50% of its energy from alternative sources by 2020, and for half of its installations to be net zero by 2020. According to Stars and Stripes, the Navy was already getting almost 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2016....

What the U.S. Military is Doing About Climate Change

The White House may deny that climate change is happening, but the Department of Defense has been taking action for years to avoid and adapt to climate-related disasters.

news.climate.columbia.edu

`

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

September, 2017

"...The Naval station Norfolk in Portsmouth, VA, the largest naval base in the world, already floods ten times a year when full moons cause especially high tides—sea levels there are one and a half feet higher than they were when the base was built in 1917, and rising twice as fast as average global sea levels. By 2050, Norfolk is expected to flood 280 times a year.".."
[.......]
Moving to Renewable Energy

The Department of Defense has a department-wide goal to obtain at least 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, reduce its petroleum use and draw on more alternative fuels. (Each branch of the military also has its own renewable energy goal.) This has nothing to do with the political controversy over climate change. It is because the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy and oil in the world, and moving fuel along supply lines in conflict areas invites attack and endangers lives. Moreover, it’s costly—according to a Defense Department spokesperson, “a $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately $130 million over the course of a year.”

The number of renewable energy projects in the U.S. military almost tripled between 2011 and 2015, with many of them enabling bases to be energy independent in case of a natural disaster or attack. The use of distributed renewables at bases reduces the possibility of disruptions in procuring energy, and increases resilience in case of cyberattacks on the grid.

The Army’s goal is to get 25% of the energy it consumes from renewable sources by 2025, and to be net zero by 2030 (meaning it will generate as much energy as it uses). [/B]In 2015, it derived 12% of its energy from renewables and by 2016 had 17 large renewable energy projects in development.

The biggest U.S. military base, Fort Hood in Texas, is already drawing almost 50% of its power from renewable energy, with 63,000 solar panels on site and 21 off-site wind turbines producing 65 MW of power. This is expected to SAVE more than $100 million over 30 years.

Solar panel arrays at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, one of the Army’s net zero pilot installations. Photo: US Army
The Army Net Zero initiative created 17 pilot installations around the country which, at the end of 2015, had reduced energy use by 5 percent and generated 28,700 MWh of renewable energy, most of which was consumed at the bases. It also reduced potable water consumption by 11% and recycled and harvested rainwater, saving 89 million gallons of water.

The Navy aims to get 50% of its energy from alternative sources by 2020, and for half of its installations to be net zero by 2020. According to Stars and Stripes, the Navy was already getting almost 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2016....

What the U.S. Military is Doing About Climate Change

The White House may deny that climate change is happening, but the Department of Defense has been taking action for years to avoid and adapt to climate-related disasters.

news.climate.columbia.edu

`

You do realize that ships float. right? Also, the sea level is not rising. The land is sinking!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

September, 2017

"...The Naval station Norfolk in Portsmouth, VA, the largest naval base in the world, already floods ten times a year when full moons cause especially high tides—sea levels there are one and a half feet higher than they were when the base was built in 1917, and rising twice as fast as average global sea levels. By 2050, Norfolk is expected to flood 280 times a year.".."
[.......]
Moving to Renewable Energy

The Department of Defense has a department-wide goal to obtain at least 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, reduce its petroleum use and draw on more alternative fuels. (Each branch of the military also has its own renewable energy goal.) This has nothing to do with the political controversy over climate change. It is because the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy and oil in the world, and moving fuel along supply lines in conflict areas invites attack and endangers lives. Moreover, it’s costly—according to a Defense Department spokesperson, “a $1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates to approximately $130 million over the course of a year.”

The number of renewable energy projects in the U.S. military almost tripled between 2011 and 2015, with many of them enabling bases to be energy independent in case of a natural disaster or attack. The use of distributed renewables at bases reduces the possibility of disruptions in procuring energy, and increases resilience in case of cyberattacks on the grid.

The Army’s goal is to get 25% of the energy it consumes from renewable sources by 2025, and to be net zero by 2030 (meaning it will generate as much energy as it uses). [/B]In 2015, it derived 12% of its energy from renewables and by 2016 had 17 large renewable energy projects in development.

The biggest U.S. military base, Fort Hood in Texas, is already drawing almost 50% of its power from renewable energy, with 63,000 solar panels on site and 21 off-site wind turbines producing 65 MW of power. This is expected to SAVE more than $100 million over 30 years.

Solar panel arrays at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, one of the Army’s net zero pilot installations. Photo: US Army
The Army Net Zero initiative created 17 pilot installations around the country which, at the end of 2015, had reduced energy use by 5 percent and generated 28,700 MWh of renewable energy, most of which was consumed at the bases. It also reduced potable water consumption by 11% and recycled and harvested rainwater, saving 89 million gallons of water.

The Navy aims to get 50% of its energy from alternative sources by 2020, and for half of its installations to be net zero by 2020. According to Stars and Stripes, the Navy was already getting almost 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2016....

What the U.S. Military is Doing About Climate Change

The White House may deny that climate change is happening, but the Department of Defense has been taking action for years to avoid and adapt to climate-related disasters.

news.climate.columbia.edu

`

Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region

https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf

 

[abu afak]

You do realize that ships float. right? Also, the sea level is not rising. The land is sinking!

You do realize a naval base, this one our largest, doesn't float... nor the people who work there.
Ships (Duh) do. (Duh)

IOW you Got Refuted.
Not to mention all the other stuff I posted about our military having already done lots of work due to Sea Level Rise with alot more coming.

AND their big moves to Renewable energy.. SAVING MONEY

I mean, you got Triple Porked.

Dismissed and Dishonorably Discharged again.
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do realize a naval base, this one our largest, doesn't float... nor the people who work there.
Ships (Duh) do. (Duh)

IOW you Got Refuted.
Not to mention all the other stuff I posted about our military having already done lots of work due to Sea Level Rise with alot more coming.

AND their big moves to Renewable energy.. SAVING MONEY

I mean, you got Triple Porked.

Dismissed and Dishonorably Discharged again.
`

AND their big moves to Renewable energy.. SAVING MONEY

How much money are they saving using biofuel for jets and ships?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why are Obama and other AGWCult leaders spending millions to buy mansions currently on the ocean front?

 

[abu afak]

CrusaderFrank

III - and more relevantly:

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (Elektra, Crusader Frank, Rainy, Busted Ensign Torry) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CrusaderFrank

III - and more relevantly:

Can some Low IQ AGW denier here (Elektra, Crusader Frank, Rainy, Busted Ensign Torry) define 'Greenhouse Gas' for us?

I didn't think so.

`

For your gas issue..........

 

[abu afak]

It's particularly tough on RW denier guys (generally pro-military) when Our Military not only acknowledges warming but HAS BEEN Dealing with it for years..... and is planning/budgeting much more.
Norfolk that.

`

 

[ding]

Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Do some fucking math, dummy.

 

[abu afak]

This isn't even really new. (except to numb nuts deniers)
The Navy and other branches are already aware of Rising Sea Levels, and it has already caused problems.
This from the Union of Concerned Scientists, not just a climate group, but dealing in issuing reports on all disciplines of science.

The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)
Rising seas will increasingly flood many of our coastal military bases.
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)

....​

We must prepare for the growing exposure of our military bases to sea level rise.​

Naval Station Norfolk—the largest naval installation in the world—is projected to face 4.5 feet to nearly 7 feet of sea level rise this century. ​

​

Military bases at risk​

18 military installations are included in this analysis. Each location's changing exposure to flooding is projected through the end of the century:​

• Maine: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
• New Jersey: US Coast Guard Station Sandy Hook
• Maryland: US Naval Academy
• Washington, DC: Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling and Washington Navy Yard
• Virginia: Joint Base Langley-Eustis | Naval Air Station Oceana Dam Neck Annex | Naval Station Norfolk
• North Carolina: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
• South Carolina: Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island and Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort
• Georgia: Hunter Army Airfield | Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay
• Florida: Naval Air Station Key West | Naval Station Mayport | Eglin Air Force Base

Key findings​

The military is at risk of losing land where vital infrastructure, training and testing grounds, and housing for thousands of its personnel currently exist.​

[.....]​

• By 2050, Most of the installations in this analysis will see more than 10 Times the number of floods they experience today.
• By 2070, Half of the sites could experience 520 or more flood events annually- the equivalent of more than one flood daily.
• [*]By 2100, eight bases are at risk of losing 25% to 50% or more of their land to rising seas.
• Four installations—Naval Air Station Key West, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Dam Neck Annex, and Parris Island—are at risk of losing between 75% and 95% of their land by the end of this century.
• Flooding won’t be confined to the bases. Many surrounding communities will also face growing exposure to rising seas......

The Military (and congress) acknowledge the problem and are budgeting, if low, for the problem.
Mar-a-Lago flooding regularly by 2040/50 and maybe partially under water by 2100.
`

 

[ding]

The Military (and congress) acknowledge the problem and are budgeting, if low, for the problem.
Mar-a-Lago flooding regularly by 2040/50 and maybe partially under water by 2100.
`

How much do you think the sea level is rising by per year?

 

[elektra]

I dont think floating ships need worry how much deeper the sea level gets.

Is this a real thread or a complete joke, what kind of moron links to scientists concerned about ships?

 

[abu afak]

You do realize that ships float. right? Also, the sea level is not rising. The land is sinking!

Rising seas threaten Norfolk Naval Shipyard, raising fears of 'catastrophic damage'​

“Every year you wait to make decisions and take actions, the risk goes up," said retired Rear Adm. Jonathan White.

"...But the shipyard now faces its greatest existential threat: Rising Seas and extreme weather driven by Climate Change.
In the past 10 years, Norfolk Naval Shipyard has suffered nine major floods that have damaged equipment used to repair ships, and the flooding is worsening, according to the Navy. In 2016, rain from Hurricane Matthew left 2 feet of water in one building, requiring nearly $1.2 million in repairs...
And that wasn’t even a direct hit — the most immediate worry, former military leaders say, is a strong storm that blows right through the area.

“It would have the potential for serious, if not catastrophic damage, and it would certainly put the shipyard out of business for some amount of time,” said Ray Mabus, who was the Navy secretary under President Barack Obama. “That has implications not just for the shipyard, but for us, for the Navy.”
Among the shipyard’s greatest vulnerabilities are its five dry docks, which are waterside basins that can be sealed and pumped dry to expose a ship’s hull for repairs. Once inside, vessels are often cut open, leaving expensive mechanical systems vulnerable to damage from storms and flooding.

The dry docks “were not designed to accommodate the threats” of rising seas and stronger storms, according to a 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office. Navy officials warned the government watchdog agency that flooding in a dry dock could cause “catastrophic damage to the ships.”
[............]

 

[abu afak]

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise​

July 6, 2020

"...In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that “installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme weather and climate change effects or consistently used projections to anticipate future climate conditions.”

One of those conditions is Sea Level Rise that will affect multiple coastal installations (see here and here).
Sea level rise will not only affect the physical infrastructure on these installations, it will also potentially lead to the inland migration of portions of the populations who live in the surrounding communities – some of whom form part of an installation’s work force. Depending on how far away and how many migrants move, their loss will degrade an installation’s ability to continue to function at an acceptable level over time."..>'

Depopulating Military Installations Because of Sea Level Rise

By Dr. Marc Kodack In case you missed it, an audit of the U.S. Department of Defense’s installation climate resilience from last year, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, found that …

climateandsecurity.org

`

IOf course the same goes for muvh of our coastlines and many big cities on them

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why is it you never seem to mention the Netherlands. How much of that country is below sea level?

 

[ding]

abu afak How much do you think the sea level is rising by per year?