The Military's Latest Enemy: Climate Change 163
Lasrick writes A surprising report from the Pentagon last month places climate change squarely among the seemingly endless concerns of the US military. Although a Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'), the report itself is straightforward and addresses practical military issues such as land management of bases and training facilities. "So, this plan is not really about mobilizing against melting glaciers; it's more like making sure our ships have viable facilities from which to launch bombs against ISIS. And the report doesn't just focus on home, though. It casts a wider eye towards how a changing climate will affect defense missions in the future."
The Pentagon is more important than climate change (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because SDI was never mothballed.
Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff! [youtube.com]
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'. It packs more lies, ridicule, non sequiturs, and manipulation into three minutes than I've even seen before. Are people really expected watch that and then form their own opinions? If that is how Americans get their news, it explains so much about American ignorance, xenophobia, and thirst for war.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'.
I used to work for a guy who founded a software company in Sunnyvale. After Bush got reelected, he decided to sell the company to Agilent for a couple million bucks, went back to Australia, and formed a new company there. He comes back to visit sometimes, and says that he now gets a lot of questions from people in Australia- "What happened over there? Americans used to be smart!" His standard answer: "No, it's not that they're stupid, but the news they get in the U.S. is really bad."
Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry. When the guys at ABC, MSNBC, and CBS all have someone who works either for, or under the current administration in some form you're going to run into problems. People like to complain about Bush and all that, but under Obama it's been a run of "how can we bury this to protect our guy." At least under Bush they were willing to actually be reporters.
Joe Biden for 2016 (Score:1)
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry that is not factually true.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How many people from the various news agencies have someone either directly or indirectly working at the Whitehouse these days, or in the recent 6 years. You've got the presidents of ABC and CBS who have relatives who work there. You've got Carney who's married to a ABC news contributor, though he's no longer there. Yeah the list goes on, and on, and on.
Speaking of which, when was the last time you heard the media trot out the "deaths of american soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan" bit? I'll bet it w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha (Score:4, Insightful)
I would rather put it an other way, if you only hear one side of the story and you can't really be bothered to research the subject, why should you have an other opinion? Do you know how boring most news is? The special problem in the US is that it appears that there is collusion between news sources. In most western countries there are multiple news sources, yes they all push an agenda to a certain degree, but they are in competition. In addition a well informed individual will look at multiple news sources from different countries. But in the US, unless you really go out of your way you will not get different points of view, because the same point of view will be parroted over and over. Most people do not want to spend that mental effort...
Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'.
Personally I'm in great anticipation of the upcoming flag day, when some particularly onerous climate-change related events (e.g. the permanent evacuation of Miami, or perhaps just food shortages due to widespread crop failures) occur, and Fox News shifts seamlessly from denying the existence of global warming to blaming the Democrats for not having done enough to prevent it. Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'.
Personally I'm in great anticipation of the upcoming flag day, when some particularly onerous climate-change related events (e.g. the permanent evacuation of Miami, or perhaps just food shortages due to widespread crop failures) occur, and Fox News shifts seamlessly from denying the existence of global warming to blaming the Democrats for not having done enough to prevent it. Good times.
They don't need to shift. Fox News is perfectly capable of denying it exists, blaming the Democrats for it, and blaming the Democrats for not doing enough about it, all the same time from the same speaking head. That wouldn't even be anything unusual, we call that day Tuesday.
Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha (Score:4, Informative)
Denialism is much worse than Alarmism (Score:3)
There is an age-old adage; you're not paranoid if someone is actually out to get you.
In predicting climate change, there are always the best-case scenarios and the worst case scenarios.
And, there is always intentional ignorance, like denying the reality that climate change has the potential to cause, "an immediate evacuation of major cities over a short period of time."
We built our major manufacturing and population centers based on the stable climate that had existed for thousands of years. A huge chunk i
Re: Denialism is much worse than Alarmism (Score:3)
I realize the worst case scenarios he was mentioning were in reference to storm surges, the problem is the lack of reality in the suggestions to stop climate change. Its already happening and sea levels will likely go up 2 feet by 2100. Here's where it gets tricky: amortize the cost of mitigating disaster in these areas to those 84 years. Its called levees, its not that hard, its expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the alternative.
The alternative is to turn back time, because we dont have the tech
Re: (Score:2)
How do you use levees in a port? A certain amount of the infrastructure and functionality of port cities depends on being open to whatever the heck sea level is. You could barricade off the port, I guess, but that's going to cause its own problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the evidence, I do not believe that market-driven solutions will work, because the solutions are long term (over many generations) but almost all profit-driven corporations focus on short-term returns to their current shareholders.
For instance, in terms of cost per kilowatt hour, solar solutions are usually within one standard deviation of the market-cost for electricity. However, no for-profit utility has expressed any interest in developing the massive infrastructure to take our electrical grid
Re:The Pentagon is more important than climate cha (Score:5, Informative)
and that idiot just got re-elected to the senate, where he will now be in charge of the Environment and Public Works Committe, giving him direct oversight of the EPA, an agency he wants to kill.
he is the single worst science denier in the congress now that Broun is gone.
he thinks Michael Cricton is a climate expert. no seriously, he called him as a "expert" witness at a committee hearing.
he thinks the earth hasnt warmed. at all. in fact he says its the world's greatest hoax.
he thinks scientists are secretive liars engaged in a conspiracy and wants to "shine a light” on scientist’s activities.
he said that AGW is a myth because...the bible:
The Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
The man is dangerous....who who is more foolish?
the fool? or the fools that all voted overwhelmingly for him?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we spending so much money on satellites? We could have bought a couple Cold War fighter jets that will never be used and that explode on liftoff! [youtube.com]
Is that parody or is that news? I cannot believe that one-sided, war-mongering, short-sighted propaganda piece is called 'News'. It packs more lies, ridicule, non sequiturs, and manipulation into three minutes than I've even seen before. Are people really expected watch that and then form their own opinions? If that is how Americans get their news, it explains so much about American ignorance, xenophobia, and thirst for war.
Aren't you understating what the Americans receive from Fox, CBS, NBC, etc? Americans are for the most part, kept ignorant about whats happening outside of the football or baseball field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The better question would be why is pure flamebait getting modded informative?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it flamebait?
Because it's obviously off-topic, worded in a way that's intentionally incorrect and hopelessly hyperbolic, and evidently meant to evict an emotional response. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "Hurr Durr, FOX is teh dumb and Micro$$$oft maeks crappy computers!". The article is about the military trying to plan for global warming, but you're taken it as an opportunity to slag random talking heads on the news and Lockheed Martin all in one stroke.
Or did you mean "why am I posting flamebait"? I'm
By electing a Republican President (Score:2, Insightful)
Our military can *eliminate* this enemy once and for all!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Our military can *eliminate* this enemy once and for all!
Is there something Americans WON'T declare war on ?
I mean, it's kind of disturbing if you think about it. An entire society devoted to "solving" problems by using weapons.
No suprise they're so fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already did (US ground troops in Liberia)...and Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope no one mentions to them Ebola is in DRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Easily fixed. Obviously it's the democracy that's causing the problem, we'll just overthrow the government and install a puppet dictator. It won't actually solve the problem, but why pass up the opportunity?
Re: (Score:1)
james inhofe, head of the senate environment committee says, flatly without and caveats, that climate change is a hoax,
No problem, the NSA has a dossier on him. Just find the right kind of trash and good ol' Inhofe will be leading the war on climate change.
those who live in glass houses (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
But don't you see? Climate change means victory for ISIS!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We've been fighting imaginary threats to democracy for 13-14 years now...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except... Drugs and Communism.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously using ozone depletion as an example of government hoaxes? A case where the science was so strong that we had essentially no problem arranging global cooperation to radically reduce industrial scale usage of ozone-destroying compounds? The reason we don't have that major crisis on our hands is because we all got together and bandaged a major problem we were creating. After years of rapid growth the Antarctic ozone hole has now been stabilized for years.
But man, what a price we paid - havin
Re: (Score:2)
I see that with your above post and your reply [slashdot.org] to Immerman, that you attempted something similar, even going as far as to state:
Communication 101: know your audience
If you had really "known" your audience, y
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't I have confused Immerman? He wasn't my audience at the time I replied to you.
He didn't stop reading slashdot just because you posted to it.
Well, since you're interested enough to reply
Yay for high standards.
Re: (Score:2)
I was once playing one of those stealth-based games. As I sneaked behind the guards, one asked the other: "yeah, but why do they tell us which way to face?" or something to that effect.
No idea why your comment reminded me of that. Weird.
Re: (Score:2)
if that were true, there are 3 possible scenarios that would occur:
a) the rest of hte country would get on board the science train and we'd solve global warming in a heartbeat because...terrorists
b) we'd convince the half of the country who's freaked out ignore ISIS and realize they arent actually a threat
c) half the country would go into apolectic fits trying to choose between a or b
Re: (Score:2)
The Wall Street Journal has become a tabloid. (Score:3, Informative)
A Wall Street Journal editorial misrepresented the report in an editorial (subtitled 'Hagel wants to retool the military to stop glaciers from melting'),
The Wall Street Journal has become a tabloid. It is beyond ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Murdoch still owns it, right? Well, there ya go...
Re: (Score:3)
The 'Wall Street Journal' Parade of Climate Lies [huffingtonpost.com]
Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn't real! XD [discovermagazine.com]
And from the pot herself: remarkable editorial bias on climate science at the wall street journal [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The Wall Street Journal has become a tabloid. It is beyond ridiculous.
Yeah, ever since they added color, it's all been downhill.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that is is an *editorial*, i.e. lunatic ramblings with no fact checking. The WSJ has always allowed nutjobs onto the editorial pages even if their claims are directly contradicted by the news in the same edition. This is not a new phenomenon.
They are going big into alternative energy (Score:2, Troll)
Such as solar cells and hybrids. see http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]
Part of the reason was the number of supply convoys hit by attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan and the strategic problem caused by dependency on foreign fuel suppliers. Protecting supply lines can be expensive. But personally I am waiting for this new Congress to kill the initiatives in favor of fossil fuels and the obsolete methods of powering the military.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turn to Google and look up "king tides."
Re: (Score:1)
Solar cells are nice, but what we really need is real money (not a token amount) put into battery research. If we can get storage batteries at power substations, that would mean a grid that better can handle varying loads. This way, energy at non-peak levels can be stored to offset peak generation, and once solar can handle all peak, energy can be stored for nighttime.
Next to that, we need a system of converting CO2 from the air into a usable fuel, ideally propane, because propane is not a greenhouse gas
Re: (Score:2)
Next to that, we need a system of converting CO2 from the air into a usable fuel, ideally propane, because propane is not a greenhouse gas and inert.
Really? My reading is that the equation for propane combustion is: C3H8 + 5O2 = 3CO2 + 4H20
Maybe propane produces less CO2, pound for pound, than say, coal. (I don't actually know, and don't care to look it up.) But it certainly produces CO2 when burned.
Oh, and anyone who's ever cooked on a propane grill, or used a propane torch, will attest to its distinct non-inertness...
Re: (Score:2)
If the carbon in the propane is drawn from CO2 in the atmosphere then burning the propane will be carbon neutral. But it's going to take more energy to draw that CO2 from the atmosphere than you'll get back out of the CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
The Wikipedia article is labeled Power to Gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] There's a section for hydrogen and another section for methane. And of course, once you have methane and CO, you h
Repeat (Score:2, Informative)
This was already posted when it came out last month
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/10/13/2044217/pentagon-unveils-plan-for-militarys-response-to-climate-change
Nothing new, CC identified as threat long ago ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We have met the enemy and he is us?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just try to be part of the Coast Guard in any state on the northern border of the Mediterranean. It's not going to get better.
Fortunately (?) these changes happen fairly slowly. A few more refugee boat sinkings get wrapped up in Kim Kardishain's latest divorce or another Ebola scare. The US is largely immune from this - I'd worry if I were Canadian, however.
I suppose we could give the refugees an old aircraft carrier ....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some reason you'd expect the Sonaran Desert to be anythng like Miami Beach? Aside from both having sand, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Recent example:
Climate change --> drought in Syria --> crop failures --> population movement to cities -->
Ass-hat regime pushes population to rebellion --> civil war --> [...] --> Islamic State.
Many potential impacts of climate change (Score:5, Informative)
It was my sense that the military was examining several factors that can impact their mission and ability to meet that mission over the coming decades. This includes not only the recognized increase in regional conflicts due to displacement of people by flooding and/or changes in food supplies due to climatic changes in rainfall patterns. It also includes thinking about the predictions for ocean rising and that impact on the bases that support the military around the world - naval bases, and airfields near current sea levels aren't something that one moves in a couple of years.
And lastly, thinking about how the impact on troops and equipment might change - will there be more fighting in high heat locations? Heavy rain? What will be the impacts on availability of fuel sources and on supply chains?
The military is a huge "ship" that takes much time to turn. Looking out a few decades and postulating what might be needed is not a bad exercise. They would be soundly criticized later if they hadn't. But it is interesting that the main military supports on the right are also the main body of climate change deniers, which puts the military in a dicey political environment. They need to prepare, but carefully.
Is anyone surprised that a Rupert Murdoch owned paper decided to misrepresent what the military was doing about climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about professional paranoia is that you can worry about everything. Global warming (err, climate change), Ebola, vaccines, Republicans and Zombies. Even UFOs. There are one hell of a lot of three ringed binders in the Pentagon.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Global warming = the increase in average temperature of the globe
Climate change = the changes in the climate which are caused by global warming
It's not difficult, so you don't really have an excuse to get these confused.
Re:Many potential impacts of climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
And that, right there, is why the military needs to be cut to a fraction of its current size.
When World War II broke out, the US military was tiny - compared with its enemies', or with itself at any later time. Yet that was the war that established American world dominance. You don't win a major war by having the biggest army at the start, you win it by having the biggest economy. A military establishment that drains that economy is actually counter-productive to national security. (Just ask the Former Soviet Union.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. I might add that as time has pressed onward, so has the the compression of war. Put simply, we're really good at killing people and really good at killing them quickly. What would have taken months in 1940 took us a week in Iraq. Technology tightens the screws on first strike advantage, to the point where you now don't have time to ramp up production.
Re: (Score:2)
When WWII broke out, the US Army and Army Air Corps were tiny. The US Navy was the second largest in the world.
We started building up the US Army in 1940. This considerably delayed US participation in the war. US ground forces were not used against the European Axis (if you consider the Vichy as European Axis) until roughly two and a half years after the buildup began, and it was more than another year and a half before US ground forces started to reach their potential.
Had the US started the buildup
Congressional funding (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see the Republican controlled congress debate military funding for a problem they deny the existence of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That man
Which man?
That man controls the climate which is like saying we control the climate of our galaxy as we orbit around it through various galactic conditions.
Is earth approximately the same volume as the galaxy?
Re:Congressional funding (Score:4, Informative)
You know that the current Secretary of Defense, top guy in the Pentagon, appointed by President Obama, is a Republican, having served as such as senator from Nebraska in the US Senate for two terms. Also being a former Army enlisted squad leader in Vietnam with two Purple Hearts, I doubt he would adjust his views much and sell out the armed forces for Democratic Party politics.
Climate change will eventually be accepted by all (Score:5, Interesting)
All that is needed would be for new "climate change industrial complex" consisting of industries with huge growth potentials from climate change after-effects (such as dike/levee builders, water management including reclaimation & desalination, fertilisers for new growing regions with marginal soil, mega construction for displaced infrastructure, etc.) to make more money then the coal and petroleum industries. It may not sound like much, but many trillions of dollars will be needed for this.
Then they will be able to give/bribe more money to politicians, who will the universally accept climate change as fact and change the public perception.
Until then there is enough money from a new "climate change industrial complex", public doubt will remain.
Rising sea levels (Score:1)
Rising sea levels mean we need a larger navy. There is more ocean to patrol, to one.
Nuke it (Score:1)
Not a big deal (Score:2)
military does this kind of stuff a lot. Anti war demonstrators like to insult the military saying it's stupid and "military intelligence" is an oxymoron, etc. But actually the military has many forward thinkers and they do a lot of planning and debating "what if" scenarios.
Back in the 60's they did a lot of strategizing about a possible moon base, in the 80's they did thought exercises on the possible implications of a Soviet meltdown, what would happen to our military capabilities in a worldwide AIDS/Anthr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes in my experience there are a lot of smart people in the military. It is the politicians that send the military into quagmires that are stupid.
John McCain says ... (Score:2)
... Obama needs to put boots on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time before Congress declares war on global warming.
In dishonor of Samzenpus (Score:2)
#cuethedeniers
flooding of bases (Score:2)
It's always, ALWAYS "defense" (Score:1)
"It casts a wider eye towards how a changing climate will affect defense missions in the future."
Tech people have a special obligation to quit using this Orwellian euphemism when talking about the US military.
Seriously? Find a better reason (Score:2)
Come on, Lasrick, haven't you heard that aircraft carriers don't need "facilities" from which to launch bomb strikes? Or that the B2/B52/F117 aircraft are more than capable of flying from the US to any damned place in the world to drop a bomb? Mid-air refueling and all that....
If you want credibility, don't spout inanities.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I should mention that a carrier group is far more expensive than an island airbase, and can't have anywhere near the time on station. Also, that there are great advantages in having aircraft near the front as opposed to having to send them on day-long missions, or that many missions are best done by smaller aircraft that aren't actually transcontinental.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't spend time on station? Seriously?
There is a reason that aircraft carriers are the first choice for applying force when long-term force is required.
I've spent six months at a time tooling around in the Arabian Sea. I know of at least one year-long cruise by the Nimitz where they spent about 5 days in-port (crew relief was the only reason they went off station). American aircraft carriers are refueled, rearmed, and resupplied by a massive fleet of auxiliary stores vessels capable of delivering anything,
Re: (Score:2)
The original comment was about losing land for land air bases, as I remember. Aircraft carriers and land bases serve somewhat different functions.
Sure, you can park a carrier somewhere for a long time. It can move there fairly fast, much faster than we could build a land base. It then needs relief every so often, if only for the crew's sake. In the meantime, we have ten carriers in the Fleet, and they won't all be available at the same time, so by keeping an aircraft carrier on station we're losing f
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. But there have been many times the US has had two thirds of the carriers deployed, and that was when we had had that "600-ship" Navy. While there are ten carriers active, Heck, the JFK, Ranger, Kitty Hawk, and the Indy could all be back in the game in less than a year if necessary. As always, the primary issue is manning.
I think long-range strategic aircraft will hold the day until sub-orbitals come into play. After that, the aircraft carrier will quickly lose relevance. And once laser/particle w
Re: (Score:2)
So we need a few more aircraft carriers. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Re: (Score:3)
"If the sea level rises even three meters most of these will be under water."
At the current rate, that will be one thousand years from now. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/f... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
There is a tad bit of difference between mass executions and accelerated retirements. The US officer core is very top heavy. How many generals do you need, anyway? There is a clear plan to thin those ranks over the next decade or so. It's slow enough that the largest military in the world (TM) can handle it. Not to worry. Colonels and majors can push paper quite well, thankyouverymuch.
Re: (Score:2)
Core / corps - although either one sort of works. Grrr.
Re: (Score:2)
The notion that illiteracy is rising on the Internet is a liberal hoax.
Re: (Score:3)
Now, with the rise of ISIS, a newly expansionist Russia, and the spectra of a waking dragon, the US officer core is saying weather is our biggest threat.
Ignoring the "spectra of a waking dragon" (whatever the hell that is), and fact that you don't appear to understand the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' -- can you point to the place in the report where it says that "climate change is our biggest threat"?
I suspect you cannot, and the reason you cannot is because you pulled that claim out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is nothing more or less than the integral of weather.
Sure, in the same way that everyday mechanical physics is nothing more or less than the integral of quantum mechanics.
The statement is technically true, but also quite misleading, in that in both cases knowing something about the behavior at one scale isn't going to give you much intuition about how things behave at the other.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that if you are unable to derive a good (predictive) model for a function (weather in this case), then you have no hope of modeling the integral of that function (climate)./quote.
My point is that the above is simply not true -- for example, despite the fact that at the quantum level events are happening randomly and unpredictably all the time, we are nevertheless able to use Newton's and Einstein's laws to predict the future positions of planets and spaceships with amazing accuracy.
In a similar fashion, climate scientists can predict long-term climate trends with much better accuracy than the weatherman can predict the weather, precisely because all the little random events average each other out over a large enough sample size.
I doubt you're in the military (Score:1)
I'm a navy vet, and I was smart enough to know how vital protecting oil supplies is. Most ships run on oil. Most military equipment runs on various refined petroleum products. Most civilian technology uses refined petroleum products as ingredients, in the manufacturing processes, and/or in transportation. Even if the US was entirely petroleum-free (not actually possible in the real world) we'd STILL have to be deeply involved in protecting free commerce (keeping the sea lanes open, etc) because we'd still