Global Warming/Climate Change: What are the military implications?

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:20:25 -0400

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/?wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1

Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire...

It won't be anything like "The Day After Tomorrow." But it's definitely not good, either.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 6:15 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:15:56 -0400

Much like Dr. Patrick Moore (but on a much lesser educated level), I am skeptical that humans are changing the climate, SGM Private RallyPoint Member.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

I'm sure there are zealots on both sides of the argument. I think the military implications will be negligible. Or, more precisely, if there are military implications associated with climate change, we will adjust to and compensate for them. The zealots on the "we're-ruining-the-planet" side seem to think the sky is falling. I disagree.

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic | Heartlander Magazine

[Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.]

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 7:15 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 May 2015 07:15:06 -0400

lol. these guys are funny.... climate change is their Bible,

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 22 at 2015 8:19 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:19:03 -0400

How would the military be used to settle the debate on global warning? Is a military issue? No specifically, I would say it's a world issue.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Jul 22 at 2015 8:42 AM

CMSgt Mark Schubert — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:42:30 -0400

If the "science is unsettled" - then it's not an "issue" period. :-)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 8:50 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:50:22 -0400

The science is far from unsettled. To answer your question though, I don't think it's a military issue. Like SGT Keen said, its a world issue.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 8:53 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:53:58 -0400

yeah we can use our M4s to freedumb the hell out it

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 8:54 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:54:52 -0400

Anything that raises the specter of geopolitical instabilities is a military issue, at least up to a point. The military can't do all that much about AGW itself, but the second and third order effects of AGW on the global scene are something that it needs to study and understand in order for our forces to be capable of dealing with the circumstances that arise.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 22 at 2015 9:20 AM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:20:21 -0400

SSgt Alex Robinson On the surface absolutely "NOT". This is a world and environmental issue; the only time the military would get involved is if there was massive unrest by the environmentalist against the United States' stratgeic interests or locations! I don't see it happening.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 9:26 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:26:39 -0400

What are we supposed to do as the military? Shoot the ocean if the ocean level rises?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 9:32 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:32:30 -0400

Considering that Russia is mostly a frozen wasteland, seems to me that they would be all for global warming.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 22 at 2015 9:47 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:47:25 -0400

Yup - with only 97% of climate scientists being in consensus .. I would say the science is still unsettled.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jul 22 at 2015 10:20 AM

MSgt James Mullis — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:20:42 -0400

No and Yes, While climate change is very unlikely to affect how, where, and when the military will be needed. The "politics" of climate change clearly has the potential to negatively affect the military's budget and therefore the ability of the Services to complete their missions.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jul 22 at 2015 11:07 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:07:11 -0400

SSgt Alex Robinson I think we need to do our part in limiting what we put in the air, but other than that we don't need to get into it. IMHO anyways.

Response by SGT David T. made Jul 22 at 2015 11:11 AM

SGT David T. — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:11:54 -0400

The issue is a government and a people issue. The military is part of the government and it is comprised of people so yes it is an issue. The issue needs to be on what it can do to not destroy the environment or at a minimum reduce the impacts to it wherever possible. It's a balancing act really.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 23 at 2015 5:49 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 05:49:54 -0400

I don't know about "Unsettled" When 93% of Sceintist Agree and 100% working at Navy Research Labs. Hmmm let me think. I'm a Retired Technician and as Masters at Arms to COMSPAWARSYSCOM, Navy Research Labs were under our Cognisance so Yeah I agree that is a very serious problem and being Navy Bases are on the Water. It is a real serious problem for us.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 13 at 2015 7:46 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:46:12 -0500

Nope. The 14 year (soon 15) period of no measured warming by our most accurate global temperature instruments (satellites) indicate it is less of an issue than the alarm-ringers would have you believe. The climate has changed and will continue to change. The models have overpredicted warming 99% of the time...this is not a random error...it is known as bias error. As we approach solar Grand Minimum in 2030, we will see if the sun, or the difference between 280 parts per million and 400 parts per milllion (0.028% and 0.040%) of CO2 in the atmosphere has a larger impact. I am betting on the sun. https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/

The Next Grand Minimum

To examine the social and economic impacts of the next Grand Solar Minimum - See About

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2015 7:50 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:50:13 -0500

I am still waiting for the ice age that we were warned about when I was in high school.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Nov 13 at 2015 8:03 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:03:22 -0500

No.