Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Fuck nuclear. Too expensive, too dangerous, too dirty.
And think of all the CO2 it produces.
No waste from solar and wind energy.
No waste? All the turbines sitting idle isn't waste?
The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas (2016)
- Thread starter abu afak
- Start date
Fuck nuclear. Too expensive, too dangerous, too dirty.
And think of all the CO2 it produces.
No waste from solar and wind energy.
No waste? All the turbines sitting idle isn't waste?
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,978
- 2,772
- 315
- Thread starter
- #82
Saying people don't care about Climate change is like saying they don't care about Dying.
The certainly do, but they don't see it as immediate as a Job, etc
But most states and large organizations are planning for it.
Virtually every Coastal state has plans in place, as well as our Military.
Climate change threatens half of US bases worldwide, Pentagon report finds
Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the US Department of Defense (DoD).
“Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.
“If extreme weather makes our critical facilities unusable or necessitates costly or manpower-intensive workarounds, that is an unacceptable impact.”
The findings put the military at odds with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on British television.
Trump has also pulled the United States out of the global 2015 Paris accord to fight climate change.
The Pentagon survey investigated the effects of “a changing climate” on all US military installations worldwide, which it said numbered more than 3,500.
Assets most often damaged include airfields, energy infrastructure and water systems, according to military personnel at each site, who responded to the DoD questionnaire.
John Conger, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, said the report’s commissioning by Congress showed a growing interest by lawmakers into the risks that climate change poses to national security.
The study was published late last week and brought to public attention this week by the Center for Climate and Security.
- end-
The certainly do, but they don't see it as immediate as a Job, etc
But most states and large organizations are planning for it.
Virtually every Coastal state has plans in place, as well as our Military.
Climate change threatens half of US bases worldwide, Pentagon report finds
- Defense department says wild weather could endanger 1,700 sites
- Findings run counter to White House views on climate
Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the US Department of Defense (DoD).
“Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.
“If extreme weather makes our critical facilities unusable or necessitates costly or manpower-intensive workarounds, that is an unacceptable impact.”
The findings put the military at odds with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on British television.
Trump has also pulled the United States out of the global 2015 Paris accord to fight climate change.
The Pentagon survey investigated the effects of “a changing climate” on all US military installations worldwide, which it said numbered more than 3,500.
Assets most often damaged include airfields, energy infrastructure and water systems, according to military personnel at each site, who responded to the DoD questionnaire.
John Conger, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, said the report’s commissioning by Congress showed a growing interest by lawmakers into the risks that climate change poses to national security.
The study was published late last week and brought to public attention this week by the Center for Climate and Security.
- end-
“Changes in climate can potentially shape the environment in which we operate and the missions we are required to do,” said the DoD in a report accompanying the survey.
The findings put the military at odds with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on British television."
Ridiculous! Obama was at odds with the military and ordered it (Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013) to comply, declaring climate change a "national security threat".....while Iran and North Korea were going nuclear, China and Russia were upgrading their armaments and he decimated the US military readiness.
So let`s see who was at odds with the military shall we?
The Obama era is over. Here's how the military rates his legacy
More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military
Their complaints include the president’s decision to decrease military personnel (71 percent think it should be higher), his moves to withdraw combat troops from Iraq (59 percent say it made America less safe) and his lack of focus on the biggest dangers facing America (64 percent say China represents a significant threat to the U.S.)
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,978
- 2,772
- 315
- Thread starter
- #84
TRUMP AND THE MILITARY ARE AT ODDS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
SEAN MOWBRAY
JAN 18, 2018
Trump and the Military Are at Odds on Climate Change
While the Trump administration has largely rejected climate change as an issue, the Department of Defense and Congress have identified it as a major potential threat to national security. The United States government appears to be of two minds, with utterly opposing worldviews, on climate change policy.
On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a Hoax and a Chinese plot.
On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.
As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.
[.....]
`On one hand, the Trump administration has pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, proposed eliminating three vital new climate satellites, reneged on an Obama-era $2 billion commitment to the Green Climate Fund, and wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency's domestic climate programs and the Department of State's USAID climate programs around the globe. The president has also denounced global warming as a Hoax and a Chinese plot.
On the other hand, the Republican-dominated Congress has affirmed that climate change is a prominent national security threat and mandated that the Department of Defense (DOD) look closely at how climate change is going to affect key installations, while also addressing the need to boost the military's finances considerably to deal with global warming threats. When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators.
As a result of this dichotomy, the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level (which threatens naval bases such as Norfolk, Virginia, the largest in the world), to the "mother of all risks"—unpredictable and worsening political instability around the globe brought by climate chaos.
[.....]
Last edited:
"When Trump's national security strategy—announced in January—erased climate change as a threat to U.S. security, that decision drew the ire of a bipartisan group of congressional legislators."
106 of them wrote a letter.Wow 106 out of 535 that`s not even 20% who think climate change is a threat. That`s is even less than the other polls you brandished .
And then :
"the DOD has emerged as an unlikely champion of climate action in the Trump government, with the Pentagon declaring emphatically that a Rapidly warming world is bringing with it Alarming security risks ranging from rising sea level"
That`s a copy&paste from the same old crap you used to start this thread because the Pentagon has made no such a declaration, in fact they came to this conclusion:
The Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama administration
The Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama administration
The final version of the reported eliminated any mention of storms become 'more destructive' due to climate change
A final version was presented to Congress in January 2018 without the draft’s 23 references to “climate change,” leaving just one mention of the phrase.
And the Washington Post:
Pentagon survey details effects of climate change on military sites
"The idea was to try and figure out . . . how climate effects were impacting the installations and in what way," said John Conger, who served as a senior Pentagon official under the Obama administration and was among the officials who initiated the survey.
Officials suspected that flooding was taking a toll on coastal installations such as Naval Station Norfolk, and that drought and wildfire were affecting inland facilities. But they needed reporting from those locations to have a clear nationwide picture.
According to the survey, which was rolled out to military sites in 2014, the most frequent problems named were drought, wind and non-storm-surge-related flooding. Nearly half of the sites reported no impact.
Besides yourself who are you trying to convince here? It`s not even a challenge to debunk the crap you post 24/7.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,978
- 2,772
- 315
- Thread starter
- #86
October 02, 2018
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change
Underfunding, lack of strategic planning and denialism are hindering the DoD’s climate response
by Daniel Ross
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. (Photo: Sgt. Jerry Rushing / Dept of Defense)
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change
Underfunding, lack of strategic planning and denialism are hindering the DoD’s climate response
by Daniel Ross
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. (Photo: Sgt. Jerry Rushing / Dept of Defense)
A rock seawall protecting the Air Force’s Cape Lisburne Long Range Radar Station on the North East Alaska coast is under increasing duress from extreme weather patterns affecting Arctic sea ice. early $50 million has been spent replacing vulnerable parts of the wall already.
In 2013, a late summer monsoon rainstorm struck Fort Irwin, in California, flooding more than 160 buildings and causing extensive damage that took weeks to clean up. Some buildings were out of commission for months.
The 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado’s history, only narrowly missed Peterson Air Force Base. The fire cost some $16 millionto battle.
These are just some of the findings that make up a US Department of Defense vulnerability report, published earlier this year, looking at the impact of climate change on more than 3,500 military installations. Its conclusion? That more than half of these installations are affected by flooding, drought, winds, wildfires, storm surges and extreme temperatures. Drought proved the single biggest challenge to the military, affecting nearly 800 bases. Next up was wind, which affected more than 750 bases, while non-storm surge-related flooding impacted a little more than 700 bases.
“As an institution, the military sees climate change as a threat to what they do on multiple levels,” said Michael Klare, professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. “It’s a threat to their bases. It’s a threat to their operations. It creates insurgencies. It creates problems for them. They’re aware of that, and they want to minimize those impediments.”
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. It was the George W. Bush administration, for example, that required the Defense Department to procure 25 percent of its energy for its buildings from renewables by 2025. Even President Ronald Reagan received military memos warning of global warming. While in 2014, the department published a roadmap establishing an outline to deal with the threats from climate change within the military, as ordered by then-President Barack Obama.
Although President Trump’s administration is known for its climate change denialism, major figures within the military are still noticeably vocal about the issue. In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned in a Worldwide Threat Assessmentthat the impacts from global warming—more air pollution, biodiversity loss and water scarcity—are “likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been called the “lone green hope” for his long-established views on the threat of global warming.
Given the immediate threat of rising sea levels, the US Navy is leading the charge to better understand these impacts at the ground level. Last year, a Navy handbookprovided a planning framework for incorporating the threat of climate change into development projects at Navy installations. To put this into context, a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of 18 military installations along the US East coast and the Gulf of Mexico found that by 2050, most of these bases will experience 10 times the number of floods than they do currently
[......]
`In 2013, a late summer monsoon rainstorm struck Fort Irwin, in California, flooding more than 160 buildings and causing extensive damage that took weeks to clean up. Some buildings were out of commission for months.
The 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado’s history, only narrowly missed Peterson Air Force Base. The fire cost some $16 millionto battle.
These are just some of the findings that make up a US Department of Defense vulnerability report, published earlier this year, looking at the impact of climate change on more than 3,500 military installations. Its conclusion? That more than half of these installations are affected by flooding, drought, winds, wildfires, storm surges and extreme temperatures. Drought proved the single biggest challenge to the military, affecting nearly 800 bases. Next up was wind, which affected more than 750 bases, while non-storm surge-related flooding impacted a little more than 700 bases.
“As an institution, the military sees climate change as a threat to what they do on multiple levels,” said Michael Klare, professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. “It’s a threat to their bases. It’s a threat to their operations. It creates insurgencies. It creates problems for them. They’re aware of that, and they want to minimize those impediments.”
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. It was the George W. Bush administration, for example, that required the Defense Department to procure 25 percent of its energy for its buildings from renewables by 2025. Even President Ronald Reagan received military memos warning of global warming. While in 2014, the department published a roadmap establishing an outline to deal with the threats from climate change within the military, as ordered by then-President Barack Obama.
Although President Trump’s administration is known for its climate change denialism, major figures within the military are still noticeably vocal about the issue. In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned in a Worldwide Threat Assessmentthat the impacts from global warming—more air pollution, biodiversity loss and water scarcity—are “likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been called the “lone green hope” for his long-established views on the threat of global warming.
Given the immediate threat of rising sea levels, the US Navy is leading the charge to better understand these impacts at the ground level. Last year, a Navy handbookprovided a planning framework for incorporating the threat of climate change into development projects at Navy installations. To put this into context, a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of 18 military installations along the US East coast and the Gulf of Mexico found that by 2050, most of these bases will experience 10 times the number of floods than they do currently
[......]
Last edited:
News are fake news if you write an article "The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change" and use a picture from another article published on March 14 2016October 02, 2018
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change
Underfunding, lack of strategic planning and denialism are hindering the DoD’s climate response
by Daniel Ross
The U.S. Defense Department Is Losing the Battle Against Climate Change
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. (Photo: Sgt. Jerry Rushing / Dept of Defense)
A rock seawall protecting the Air Force’s Cape Lisburne Long Range Radar Station on the North East Alaska coast is under increasing duress from extreme weather patterns affecting Arctic sea ice. early $50 million has been spent replacing vulnerable parts of the wall already.`
In 2013, a late summer monsoon rainstorm struck Fort Irwin, in California, flooding more than 160 buildings and causing extensive damage that took weeks to clean up. Some buildings were out of commission for months.
The 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Colorado’s history, only narrowly missed Peterson Air Force Base. The fire cost some $16 millionto battle.
These are just some of the findings that make up a US Department of Defense vulnerability report, published earlier this year, looking at the impact of climate change on more than 3,500 military installations. Its conclusion? That more than half of these installations are affected by flooding, drought, winds, wildfires, storm surges and extreme temperatures. Drought proved the single biggest challenge to the military, affecting nearly 800 bases. Next up was wind, which affected more than 750 bases, while non-storm surge-related flooding impacted a little more than 700 bases.
“As an institution, the military sees climate change as a threat to what they do on multiple levels,” said Michael Klare, professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. “It’s a threat to their bases. It’s a threat to their operations. It creates insurgencies. It creates problems for them. They’re aware of that, and they want to minimize those impediments.”
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. It was the George W. Bush administration, for example, that required the Defense Department to procure 25 percent of its energy for its buildings from renewables by 2025. Even President Ronald Reagan received military memos warning of global warming. While in 2014, the department published a roadmap establishing an outline to deal with the threats from climate change within the military, as ordered by then-President Barack Obama.
Although President Trump’s administration is known for its climate change denialism, major figures within the military are still noticeably vocal about the issue. In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned in a Worldwide Threat Assessmentthat the impacts from global warming—more air pollution, biodiversity loss and water scarcity—are “likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been called the “lone green hope” for his long-established views on the threat of global warming.
Given the immediate threat of rising sea levels, the US Navy is leading the charge to better understand these impacts at the ground level. Last year, a Navy handbookprovided a planning framework for incorporating the threat of climate change into development projects at Navy installations. To put this into context, a 2016 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of 18 military installations along the US East coast and the Gulf of Mexico found that by 2050, most of these bases will experience 10 times the number of floods than they do currently
[......]
2016 Year in Photos
and change the caption from
Traffic Sign Army Sgt. David Breaud directs a high-water vehicle down a flooded road at Latt Lake in Grant Parish, La., March 13, 2016. Breaud is assigned to the Louisiana National Guard’s Headquarters Company, 225th Engineer Brigade. Louisiana Army National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Jerry Rushing"
To :
Indeed, climate change has long been on the military’s radar. (Photo: Sgt. Jerry Rushing / Dept of Defense)
In order to elevate that scene where a national guard traffic sign Sgt is directing a high water vehicle to a "Department of Defense losing the battle against climate change".
That`s what fake news op-eds do, scour the internet for material and events several years ago and rewrite it as "news" while plagiarizing whatever they need and then insert it into the crap they publish for their internet forum socks to post in a forum, on Twitter or facebook.
If Jerry Rushing sees this he can now rewrite his resumes from being a Louisiana National Guard to reflect his new status, an official of the Department of defense.
Last edited:
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,978
- 2,772
- 315
- Thread starter
- #88
A Warming Arctic Heats Up US-Russian Military Rivalry
A Warming Arctic Heats Up US-Russian Military Rivalry
The 40-year-old Polar Star, the Coast Guard’s only operational heavy icebreaker capable of conducting Antarctic ice operations, carves a channel in ice near Ross Island on Jan. 16, 2017. (Chief Petty Officer David Mosley/Coast Guard)
31 Dec 2018
Military.com | By Joseph V. Micallef
-- Joseph V. Micallef is a best-selling military history and world affairs author, and keynote speaker. Follow him on Twitter @JosephVMicallef.
`
A Warming Arctic Heats Up US-Russian Military Rivalry
The 40-year-old Polar Star, the Coast Guard’s only operational heavy icebreaker capable of conducting Antarctic ice operations, carves a channel in ice near Ross Island on Jan. 16, 2017. (Chief Petty Officer David Mosley/Coast Guard)
31 Dec 2018
Military.com | By Joseph V. Micallef
-- Joseph V. Micallef is a best-selling military history and world affairs author, and keynote speaker. Follow him on Twitter @JosephVMicallef.
"The Arctic is the only theater of operations where the U.S. Navy is outclassed by a peer competitor. Russian surface warships have demonstrated the ability to carry out complex combined operations in the High North, while the American Navy maintains a policy that only submarines operate above the Bering Strait." -- Andrew Holland, chief operating officer at the American Security Project.
Historically, the Arctic Ocean has not been a significant military theater of operations for the United States. At the height of the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet ballistic missile submarines hid below the polar ice cap while hunter-killer submarines searched relentlessly for them. Both sides maintained early warning networks defended by Arctic brigades steeled for the cold, inhospitable polar climate, and both sides maintained regular anti-submarine warfare and bomber patrols over the region. Militarily, however, the Arctic's significance was that it represented the shortest flight path for each side's intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear armed intercontinental bombers in the event of a nuclear conflict.
In recent years, marked temperature increases across the Arctic have steadily diminished the extent and thickness of the polar ice cap. Most years, thenortheast passage across Russia's Arctic seas can be utilized for two to three months of the year; even longer with the appropriate heavy ice breaker accompaniment. Canada's northwest passage has less infrastructure, is shallower and prone to being clogged by ice compared with the northeast passage, but it too has seen a limited increase of commercial traffic.
With the prospect of Arctic warming continuing, the Arctic Ocean and its periphery is emerging as a theater of Russian/American military rivalry. Moreover, China, which is not an Arctic state, has adopted a self-styled description as a "near-Arctic state" and has announced that it sees itself as, "an important stakeholder in Arctic affairs." In January 2018, a white paper that laid out Beijing's ambition to add a "Polar Silk Route" to its Belt and Roadinfrastructure development initiative noted that: "The utilization of sea routes and exploration and development of the resources in the Arctic may have a huge impact on the energy strategy and economic development of China."
Beijing already has deployed a Ukrainian built icebreaker, the Xuelong, in the region, ostensibly for scientific research purposes. It has recently launched its first domestically built icebreaker, Xuelong 2, and has announced plans to build its first nuclear powered icebreaker. The latter will be the first nuclear powered surface ship in the Chinese Navy.
Russia and the High North
[......]
Historically, the Arctic Ocean has not been a significant military theater of operations for the United States. At the height of the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet ballistic missile submarines hid below the polar ice cap while hunter-killer submarines searched relentlessly for them. Both sides maintained early warning networks defended by Arctic brigades steeled for the cold, inhospitable polar climate, and both sides maintained regular anti-submarine warfare and bomber patrols over the region. Militarily, however, the Arctic's significance was that it represented the shortest flight path for each side's intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear armed intercontinental bombers in the event of a nuclear conflict.
In recent years, marked temperature increases across the Arctic have steadily diminished the extent and thickness of the polar ice cap. Most years, thenortheast passage across Russia's Arctic seas can be utilized for two to three months of the year; even longer with the appropriate heavy ice breaker accompaniment. Canada's northwest passage has less infrastructure, is shallower and prone to being clogged by ice compared with the northeast passage, but it too has seen a limited increase of commercial traffic.
With the prospect of Arctic warming continuing, the Arctic Ocean and its periphery is emerging as a theater of Russian/American military rivalry. Moreover, China, which is not an Arctic state, has adopted a self-styled description as a "near-Arctic state" and has announced that it sees itself as, "an important stakeholder in Arctic affairs." In January 2018, a white paper that laid out Beijing's ambition to add a "Polar Silk Route" to its Belt and Roadinfrastructure development initiative noted that: "The utilization of sea routes and exploration and development of the resources in the Arctic may have a huge impact on the energy strategy and economic development of China."
Beijing already has deployed a Ukrainian built icebreaker, the Xuelong, in the region, ostensibly for scientific research purposes. It has recently launched its first domestically built icebreaker, Xuelong 2, and has announced plans to build its first nuclear powered icebreaker. The latter will be the first nuclear powered surface ship in the Chinese Navy.
Russia and the High North
[......]
`
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,978
- 2,772
- 315
- Thread starter
- #89
`
Climate Change threatens a Majority of Mission-critical Military bases, Pentagon report says
By: Tara Copp January 18 Military Times
new DoD report.
Climate change threatens a majority of mission-critical military bases, Pentagon report says
The January 2019 report, “Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,” was submitted to Congress Thursday without an official announcement of the report or a public release. Several environmental organizations made the report publicly available early Friday.
After several reporters questioned why the report was Not made Public by DoD, the Pentagon published it on Defense.gov mid-Friday.
[.....]
`
Climate Change threatens a Majority of Mission-critical Military bases, Pentagon report says
By: Tara Copp January 18 Military Times
new DoD report.
Climate change threatens a majority of mission-critical military bases, Pentagon report says
The January 2019 report, “Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of Defense,” was submitted to Congress Thursday without an official announcement of the report or a public release. Several environmental organizations made the report publicly available early Friday.
After several reporters questioned why the report was Not made Public by DoD, the Pentagon published it on Defense.gov mid-Friday.
[.....]
`
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
The reason the report was not made public is that it is a freaking joke!
God forbid we build naval bases next to the ocean, desert training facilities in the desert, mountain training facilities in the mountains, and air bases on flat land.
Whatever in the world were we thinking!
Those desert training facilities need to be moved to the mountains in upstate New York, those mountain training facilities to moved to the deserts of Death Valley, and all our naval bases relocated to Kansas. The air bases should be constructed in the air to make it easier for the planes to fly.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
I agree, we need at least 100 additional nuke plants.
abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,978
- 2,772
- 315
- Thread starter
- #96
The US Navy Has a Water Problem
The Second Fleet was reactivated to patrol the Arctic. Only problem is, the fleet’s home is on the front lines of sea-level rise: Naval Station Norfolk.
By Dave Lindorff SEPT 19, 2019
The US Navy Has a Water Problem
"....The United States Navy has a big problem, one quite peculiar for such a huge seagoing organization: too much water. The problem isn’t the water itself; the Navy knows how to handle water. The problem is that global warming is putting too much water in the wrong places.
One of those places is Naval Station Norfolk, a vast complex in southeastern Virginia whose 80,000 active-duty personnel make it the largest naval base on earth by population. The ships and aircraft stationed at Naval Station Norfolk have historically patrolled the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. But in May of 2018, as part of the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy “to deter Russia and China,” the Navy announced that it would be expanding operations in the Arctic Ocean. Rising global temperatures were melting polar ice and opening sea lanes in the Arctic, enabling access to sizable deposits of natural resources, including oil. To counter anticipated Russian and Chinese claims on those resources, the Navy has reactivated its Second Fleet, which had been deactivated eight years ago by the Obama administration; it’s based at Naval Station Norfolk.
Norfolk’s ever-increasing vulnerability to flooding and what sea-level rise means long-term for the Navy concerns some high-ranking former naval officers, including the Navy’s former top oceanographer and a former expeditionary strike group commander based in Norfolk. Already, key access roads to the low-lying Naval Station Norfolk are occasionally submerged during high tides. By 2037, access roads will be underwater during high tides for 50 days of the year, according to scientific studies by First Street Foundation, a nonprofit research group. In short, the very melting Arctic that the Second Fleet will patrol will increasingly engulf the fleet’s home base.
“Norfolk is a sea-level hot spot,” says Radm. (ret.) David W. Titley, who was the Navy’s chief oceanographer and initiated its Task Force on Climate Change in 2009. “So if I were to go into a secret room with the Navy brass I’d say, ‘Okay, no BS. We’re probably going to have a 3 to 4 degree Celsius temperature rise this century, and unless we find a way to take the CO2 out of the air in scale, that means we’re [eventually] looking at 15-20 feet of sea-level rise.’… What does the Navy do if Norfolk goes underwater?” Titley is now a professor of meteorology at Penn State, where he is the director of the school’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk.
“It’s certainly ironic,” says Radm. (ret.) Ann Phillips, former commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two in Norfolk, who is now the special assistant to the governor of Virginia for coastal adaptation and protection. She adds, “Coastal Virginia is very vulnerable to sea-level rise.”....
`
The Second Fleet was reactivated to patrol the Arctic. Only problem is, the fleet’s home is on the front lines of sea-level rise: Naval Station Norfolk.
By Dave Lindorff SEPT 19, 2019
The US Navy Has a Water Problem
"....The United States Navy has a big problem, one quite peculiar for such a huge seagoing organization: too much water. The problem isn’t the water itself; the Navy knows how to handle water. The problem is that global warming is putting too much water in the wrong places.
One of those places is Naval Station Norfolk, a vast complex in southeastern Virginia whose 80,000 active-duty personnel make it the largest naval base on earth by population. The ships and aircraft stationed at Naval Station Norfolk have historically patrolled the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. But in May of 2018, as part of the Trump administration’s new National Defense Strategy “to deter Russia and China,” the Navy announced that it would be expanding operations in the Arctic Ocean. Rising global temperatures were melting polar ice and opening sea lanes in the Arctic, enabling access to sizable deposits of natural resources, including oil. To counter anticipated Russian and Chinese claims on those resources, the Navy has reactivated its Second Fleet, which had been deactivated eight years ago by the Obama administration; it’s based at Naval Station Norfolk.
Norfolk’s ever-increasing vulnerability to flooding and what sea-level rise means long-term for the Navy concerns some high-ranking former naval officers, including the Navy’s former top oceanographer and a former expeditionary strike group commander based in Norfolk. Already, key access roads to the low-lying Naval Station Norfolk are occasionally submerged during high tides. By 2037, access roads will be underwater during high tides for 50 days of the year, according to scientific studies by First Street Foundation, a nonprofit research group. In short, the very melting Arctic that the Second Fleet will patrol will increasingly engulf the fleet’s home base.
“Norfolk is a sea-level hot spot,” says Radm. (ret.) David W. Titley, who was the Navy’s chief oceanographer and initiated its Task Force on Climate Change in 2009. “So if I were to go into a secret room with the Navy brass I’d say, ‘Okay, no BS. We’re probably going to have a 3 to 4 degree Celsius temperature rise this century, and unless we find a way to take the CO2 out of the air in scale, that means we’re [eventually] looking at 15-20 feet of sea-level rise.’… What does the Navy do if Norfolk goes underwater?” Titley is now a professor of meteorology at Penn State, where he is the director of the school’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk.
“It’s certainly ironic,” says Radm. (ret.) Ann Phillips, former commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two in Norfolk, who is now the special assistant to the governor of Virginia for coastal adaptation and protection. She adds, “Coastal Virginia is very vulnerable to sea-level rise.”....
`
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
We’re probably going to have a 3 to 4 degree Celsius temperature rise this century, and unless we find a way to take the CO2 out of the air in scale, that means we’re [eventually] looking at 15-20 feet of sea-level rise.’…
Can we use windmills to blow the CO2 away from Norfolk?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The problem is that global warming is putting too much water in the wrong places.
Doesn't help that the land is sinking.
What kind of green energy will make the land rise?
EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 87,848
- 63,246
- 3,645
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The thread where you can document all the good that we get from being kind to immigrsants.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
[Columbia U] Mahmoud Khalil/Joseph Massad's "bibol" of 'balestine'- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 1
