Posted on Oct 15, 2014
The ways global climate change threats may affect servicemembers
18.3K
268
107
9
9
0
Climate change is now being looked at as a national security threat. Rising global temperatures, increasing sea levels and intensifying weather activities will challenge global stability, says Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. The changes could even lead to food and water shortages, disease and clashes over refugees and resources.
On Monday, Hagel unveiled a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” to several defense ministers at an international meeting in Peru. He stressed leaders inside and outside the military need to set aside the intense political debate over the issue. Hagel says our armed forces have to prepare for all possible threats to keep our country secure. This includes our military bracing for a global warming crisis that will cause sea levels to rise 12 to 18 inches over the next 20 to 50 years.
Flooding and erosion will threaten military installations’ infrastructure and training areas, including port facilities such as San Diego, Hawaii and Norfolk, Virginia. The number of humanitarian assistance missions will increase. Climate changes can create new health risks by expanding infectious disease zones and boosting health service demands. Bases in the West will have to consider new water management programs to handle droughts, as dust can ruin military equipment and increase equipment costs.
Hagel outlined a list of potential changes for the Defense Department, including how all branches will be affected:
Marine Corps: Rising sea levels could make it harder to mount amphibious landings.
Air Force: Changing weather patterns could make it more difficult to fly for investigation and surveillance missions.
Navy: New ship technology might be needed to maneuver in the Arctic icy waters, in facing new zones of competition as new fossil fuel and mineral deposits become accessible.
Army: Soldiers may need to help manage instability caused by flooding in densely populated coastal areas, where mass-migration creates chaos and a breeding ground for extremist groups.
National Guard: More severe weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, will cause serious damage that will require more support from members.
The Pentagon is assessing the vulnerability of more than 7,000 bases and installations around the world. As the assessment winds down, leaders are reviewing all budget plans, war game scenarios and off-the-shelf operational contingency plans to determine if revisions are needed in light of projected impact of global warming.
Can key decision-makers put aside their political differences and focus on preparing for climate changes? Given what Hagel has outlined, how will preparing for global warming threats affect you and your service?
On Monday, Hagel unveiled a “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap” to several defense ministers at an international meeting in Peru. He stressed leaders inside and outside the military need to set aside the intense political debate over the issue. Hagel says our armed forces have to prepare for all possible threats to keep our country secure. This includes our military bracing for a global warming crisis that will cause sea levels to rise 12 to 18 inches over the next 20 to 50 years.
Flooding and erosion will threaten military installations’ infrastructure and training areas, including port facilities such as San Diego, Hawaii and Norfolk, Virginia. The number of humanitarian assistance missions will increase. Climate changes can create new health risks by expanding infectious disease zones and boosting health service demands. Bases in the West will have to consider new water management programs to handle droughts, as dust can ruin military equipment and increase equipment costs.
Hagel outlined a list of potential changes for the Defense Department, including how all branches will be affected:
Marine Corps: Rising sea levels could make it harder to mount amphibious landings.
Air Force: Changing weather patterns could make it more difficult to fly for investigation and surveillance missions.
Navy: New ship technology might be needed to maneuver in the Arctic icy waters, in facing new zones of competition as new fossil fuel and mineral deposits become accessible.
Army: Soldiers may need to help manage instability caused by flooding in densely populated coastal areas, where mass-migration creates chaos and a breeding ground for extremist groups.
National Guard: More severe weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, will cause serious damage that will require more support from members.
The Pentagon is assessing the vulnerability of more than 7,000 bases and installations around the world. As the assessment winds down, leaders are reviewing all budget plans, war game scenarios and off-the-shelf operational contingency plans to determine if revisions are needed in light of projected impact of global warming.
Can key decision-makers put aside their political differences and focus on preparing for climate changes? Given what Hagel has outlined, how will preparing for global warming threats affect you and your service?
Climate Change
Command Post
Environment
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 48
1
1
0
I don't see how this is a threat to national security over what we currently face. I have no doubt there are political agendas at play. Experts have been saying we will experience an increase in hurricanes since Katrina. Yet, this has been one of the quietest seasons. I think the climate always changes and it is funny how the term changed from global warming to global climate change. Yes, changes will happen but the significance of these changes is still up in the air.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
COL Jon Thompson What is happening is akin to having the biggest butt on a teeter-tooter and saying people with big butts make the teeter-totter move. It does but only in one direction. LOL AGW is largely a talking point, especially when I am told that Meteorologists are not climatologist which IS a talking point. Our experience with climate regimes and forecasting are inextricably linked and that is not even debatable.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
You young soldiers will have to fill a lot of sandbags. Likely for the best it will keep you from going to the clubs and getting in trouble.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Rising temperatures? Increased sea levels? Intensifying weather activity?
Where is all this data coming from?
Where is all this data coming from?
(1)
(0)
MAJ Derrick J.
It's coming from skewed sources such as NOAA, NASA - the Uni of Angola email dump showed the numbers were cooked - follow the money.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I do not believe in "global warming". I do believe Climate Change is happening constantly, however, but we are not humanly responsible for it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
With the scientific consensus that the mean temperature of the world is rising, and that it can create changes in the environment, which will directly effect the actions of humans it is important the military consider how this will factor into future missions. As many of the other commentators on this thread have expressed that they do not believe it is man made, it really does not matter if it is man made of not. If weather patterns change to the extent that they bring drought and famine to regions that already cannot handle the insult, and will result in situations that breed extremism.
If the military does not look at the root cause of the reason that people are going to be ready to strap bombs on themselves to kill Americans they need to fired, and the leader who can look at 97% of scientific study on the manner and say that there is not even a slight chance that they are wrong is going to do serious damage to our national security.
If the military does not look at the root cause of the reason that people are going to be ready to strap bombs on themselves to kill Americans they need to fired, and the leader who can look at 97% of scientific study on the manner and say that there is not even a slight chance that they are wrong is going to do serious damage to our national security.
(1)
(0)
MSG Brad Sand
Cpl Chris Rice
IF this was an attempt to work at the roots cause of extremism in the World, I would be with you. The scientific consensus is not really a consensus, it is a majority of the people involved in science agreeing to a report, outside their field, as being a consensus...see this microbiologist signed his name to this report, even though he never studied the climatology or even looked at the data...so see another scientist agrees with the report. Many of the leading climatologist have gone against the report, but we do not want to consider their finds because the consensus is that there is global warming...I mean climate change...because the data shows there not no current warming. Chris, there is a very real reason that they start their model of 'warming' in the mid 1800s. That was a documented cold period...which is actually much more troubling than a warming period...so of course you will show warming after an extended cold period.
Take the time to look at the data yourself and make your own opinion. Also, look closely at the data. You find yourself a doubter too. No one sane and rational can come to another 'consensus'. Of course, you are not a scientist and should trust the opinion of those who are...because they are scientist and should not be doubted.
IF this was an attempt to work at the roots cause of extremism in the World, I would be with you. The scientific consensus is not really a consensus, it is a majority of the people involved in science agreeing to a report, outside their field, as being a consensus...see this microbiologist signed his name to this report, even though he never studied the climatology or even looked at the data...so see another scientist agrees with the report. Many of the leading climatologist have gone against the report, but we do not want to consider their finds because the consensus is that there is global warming...I mean climate change...because the data shows there not no current warming. Chris, there is a very real reason that they start their model of 'warming' in the mid 1800s. That was a documented cold period...which is actually much more troubling than a warming period...so of course you will show warming after an extended cold period.
Take the time to look at the data yourself and make your own opinion. Also, look closely at the data. You find yourself a doubter too. No one sane and rational can come to another 'consensus'. Of course, you are not a scientist and should trust the opinion of those who are...because they are scientist and should not be doubted.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
MSG Brad Sand,
Surveys of Peer-Reviewed literature carrying the opinions of climate experts have shown 97-98% consensus; not microbiologists voting on what they think, this numbers is derived from meta-analysis. Further it is the position of 80 different county’s academies of science that there is a human component to the current warming trend. A survey of persons holding a graduate level education in any science was a 77% agreement, while in Climatologists who are actively researching and publishing it was 97.5%. Your argument that there is no consensus stands stronger with the inclusion of the microbiologist.
Reliable data on the subject only goes back to 1880 that would allow them to make broad conclusion on the state of global temperatures. Through borehole technology which is far less reliable we find that this is the hottest period in the last 500 years, which is as far back as this science allows us to see. With all the different types if science out there the most recent time the earth’s climate may have been this warm was 6000 years ago, and many researchers say that is may have been as long as 100,000 years ago.
I have looked at the researcher and it has not made me anymore of a doubter than before, of course I can consider that 2.5% may also be correct with the rest of science wrong. I am not against questioning, but planning for all possible conclusions is something the military should.
Surveys of Peer-Reviewed literature carrying the opinions of climate experts have shown 97-98% consensus; not microbiologists voting on what they think, this numbers is derived from meta-analysis. Further it is the position of 80 different county’s academies of science that there is a human component to the current warming trend. A survey of persons holding a graduate level education in any science was a 77% agreement, while in Climatologists who are actively researching and publishing it was 97.5%. Your argument that there is no consensus stands stronger with the inclusion of the microbiologist.
Reliable data on the subject only goes back to 1880 that would allow them to make broad conclusion on the state of global temperatures. Through borehole technology which is far less reliable we find that this is the hottest period in the last 500 years, which is as far back as this science allows us to see. With all the different types if science out there the most recent time the earth’s climate may have been this warm was 6000 years ago, and many researchers say that is may have been as long as 100,000 years ago.
I have looked at the researcher and it has not made me anymore of a doubter than before, of course I can consider that 2.5% may also be correct with the rest of science wrong. I am not against questioning, but planning for all possible conclusions is something the military should.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Chris Rice
SGM Charles Brainard
Okay so one person tells me that it is only because they do not utilize climatologists, and now the next says that they are corrupt because they are climatologists. Climategate was investigated by multiple organizations, and the worst conclusion they found was that the emails should have utilized clear English, as the great majority of the scandal were bits of conversation taken out of context. It is easier to believe that emails can be taken out of context than that 97.5% of the scientific community in this matter is lying.
The Pax Romana was a period of Roman peace, (which is largely fictional), as the country experienced a change in leadership, not so much a change in weather. I mean read about the fall of Jerusalem, which happened during the Pax Romana, and Wars with the Germanic tribes occurred, the best understanding would be that the bigger governments were cooperating. The improvements to Egypt were also associated with the consolidation of leadership under Cleopatra, and the reliability that is provided by the Nile. I spent 39 minutes googling attempting to find any information on this rise in temperature that you mention, and I cannot even find a reference in passing.
You are correct that the ice cores hold information, but they prove that a threat is posed by the introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere as it exacerbates warming trends that do occur naturally. This usually begins when heat rises before CO2, and then increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as opposed to now when the baseline is already higher as the historical peaks of CO2, and current trends continue will create an even hotter natural cycle.
Whatever you want to tell yourself on the insurgent thing, I think history can beg to differ on repression, and poverty breeding extremist views and undertakings. That is why we are seeing wars in Syria, and Iraq were their own population is attempting to hurt them at times, and not in Germany, the UK, or US.
Okay so one person tells me that it is only because they do not utilize climatologists, and now the next says that they are corrupt because they are climatologists. Climategate was investigated by multiple organizations, and the worst conclusion they found was that the emails should have utilized clear English, as the great majority of the scandal were bits of conversation taken out of context. It is easier to believe that emails can be taken out of context than that 97.5% of the scientific community in this matter is lying.
The Pax Romana was a period of Roman peace, (which is largely fictional), as the country experienced a change in leadership, not so much a change in weather. I mean read about the fall of Jerusalem, which happened during the Pax Romana, and Wars with the Germanic tribes occurred, the best understanding would be that the bigger governments were cooperating. The improvements to Egypt were also associated with the consolidation of leadership under Cleopatra, and the reliability that is provided by the Nile. I spent 39 minutes googling attempting to find any information on this rise in temperature that you mention, and I cannot even find a reference in passing.
You are correct that the ice cores hold information, but they prove that a threat is posed by the introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere as it exacerbates warming trends that do occur naturally. This usually begins when heat rises before CO2, and then increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as opposed to now when the baseline is already higher as the historical peaks of CO2, and current trends continue will create an even hotter natural cycle.
Whatever you want to tell yourself on the insurgent thing, I think history can beg to differ on repression, and poverty breeding extremist views and undertakings. That is why we are seeing wars in Syria, and Iraq were their own population is attempting to hurt them at times, and not in Germany, the UK, or US.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Cpl Chris Rice If you are talking pollution and the abuses that nearly destroyed the Great Lakes, rivers and estuaries I would agree but these peer-reviewed audiences preach to a bunch of nattily dressed people in pointed hats while hard core scientists from Fermi, Feynman, Einstein and Max Planck were always questioning whether they were right or not. From simple deductive observations Albert Einstein postulated 'Red Shift' and some other discoveries were heralded as uncanny. Max Planck suggest light quanta and intimated that he didn't try to prove anything but let further generations decide what they chose to accept.
So now we have a lot of brown nosers inferring that they know something that they do not. Even tops physicists of THIS DAY, dispute the existence of multiverses, braneworlds and matter/anti matter. Most of these farflung notions are theories built upon theories but no math. And this from one of the smartest physicists of this time. Lee Smolin. A lot of theories and this includes farflung notions of Manmade Climate Change is more political than purposed.
He said, then when negative energy becomes negative enough that in general relativity that it has the opposite effect. Bottom line here friends is that that peer reviewed stuff is STILL anecodotal. You cannot convince me that we know enough about dark matter to suggest that we know conclusively that we can carry on and really effect change if entropy is working harder against us. Even Einstein technically had misgivings about quantum physics and contemporary science has not done a lot in the last 100 or so years in finding new answers to mass and particles.
So with all that in mind and people working at the top Physicists Labs in the world are at each other's throat, should we be acrimonious if someone questions us? Come on now, they are very few Theoretical Physicists here...
So now we have a lot of brown nosers inferring that they know something that they do not. Even tops physicists of THIS DAY, dispute the existence of multiverses, braneworlds and matter/anti matter. Most of these farflung notions are theories built upon theories but no math. And this from one of the smartest physicists of this time. Lee Smolin. A lot of theories and this includes farflung notions of Manmade Climate Change is more political than purposed.
He said, then when negative energy becomes negative enough that in general relativity that it has the opposite effect. Bottom line here friends is that that peer reviewed stuff is STILL anecodotal. You cannot convince me that we know enough about dark matter to suggest that we know conclusively that we can carry on and really effect change if entropy is working harder against us. Even Einstein technically had misgivings about quantum physics and contemporary science has not done a lot in the last 100 or so years in finding new answers to mass and particles.
So with all that in mind and people working at the top Physicists Labs in the world are at each other's throat, should we be acrimonious if someone questions us? Come on now, they are very few Theoretical Physicists here...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Here is a link about climate gate for those interested in the political agenda part of the coming ice age,,,,er,,, global warming,,,,,,,er change, yeah that's it, climate change. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
We need more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Seems to be a deflection tactic of what is really happening in the world and what is happening to our military.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
"How will global warming threats affect you and your service?"
There's two ways to look at this question.
First, the threats themselves may cause slight action here and there. Over time they will be forgotten and a new crisis will replace them. So threats, or the fear of global warming, may have a slight impact on my service.
Second, how will it actually affect me? It won't- or my future children. I'm not in the slightest bit worried about that. There's real evil and real human problems out there with which we should be concerned.
There's two ways to look at this question.
First, the threats themselves may cause slight action here and there. Over time they will be forgotten and a new crisis will replace them. So threats, or the fear of global warming, may have a slight impact on my service.
Second, how will it actually affect me? It won't- or my future children. I'm not in the slightest bit worried about that. There's real evil and real human problems out there with which we should be concerned.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It likely won't even with the worst of predictions I'll likely be dead well before the worst consequences show up.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google