Military Analysts: Climate Change Will Pose "Profound Strategic Challenges" To U.S. Security

nytimes.com:

WASHINGTON -- The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[realpolitic]

See how much Arctic sea ice anomalies have declined since 1980.


http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep08.png

[fumes]

"The team believes that the oceans may change how much they absorb and radiate depending on factors such as shifts in ocean currents that might change how the deep water and surface waters exchange heat. In addition to the correlation with strange global effects that some scientists suspect were caused by climate shifts, the team says their data shows the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring "warming in the pipeline." Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrat­ion."
http://www.physorg.com/news169472486.html

''...no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrat­ion."

[realpolitic]

Actually, if you look at a graph of ocean heat content it seems like it has changed direction more than three times, but the trend over the last hundred years has been toward warming. There is a steady decline between 1960 or so and 1970.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

But scientists do not expect there do be an annual increase in ocean heat content. Surely, the oceans are absorbing co2 and that is why they are getting more acidic as defined by a drop in ph levels.

Dr. Josh Willis, a climate scientist and ocean expert at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who analyses the ocean heat content says..

"Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/?apage=3

Where has the heat gone in the last three or four years? ""Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's .. possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says."

"Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

[fumes]

say rp.. don't all liquids degas as they warm?

as the oceans warm they give up their CO2 and become less acidic..

and the CO2 content of the atmosphere then increases.

[realpolitic]

Yes, Fumes, but oceans are increasing their co2 content and becoming more acidic as they warm. That process is part of what is putting coral reefs in jeopardy.

"Evidence indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities over the past 200 years have already led to a reduction in the average pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units and could fall by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, at a rate of change probably 100 times greater than at any time over this period."

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249

"Since industrialization, the pH of ocean surface waters has declined 0.1 units, reflecting a 30 percent increase in acidity."

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/06/covering-ocean-acidification-chemistry-and-considerations/

[fumes]

the balance in nature is amazing isn't it!

looky here: http://www.physorg.com/news117390407.html

[realpolitic]

Why do deniers think that the ice extent in the Arctic has to always be less than the year before or else there is no anthropogenic warming? Such misinformation is insulting to the thinking crowd. For example, a graph of Arctic ice anomalies shows a clear downward trend, but variation within the trend.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

A graph of temperature anomalies shows a rising trend over time with yearly variations­...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif

Sea level rise shows a clear trend with considerable year-to-year variation.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

As does ocean heat content..

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

The trends all speak to a warming planet. When deniers construct these straw man arguments that each year must be worse than the preceeding year or else it dismisses warming. no one takes such arguments seriously, but them. It just shows a lack of sophistication with data analysis. It is too bad such unschooled arguments are what we are supposed to believe debunk warming when scientists acknowledge and expect year-to-year variation. Such denying arguments have a reality only in the mind of the denier, as do most of their arguments.

[Richard2]

The comments by climate realists regarding yearly changes in sea ice are simply a response to the Alarmists who proclaim that the earth will be lost in 4 years, or 10 years, or 4 months, or whatever. The alarmists who proclaim that an immediate disaster is occurring are certainly implying that every year should be worse than the one before. Otherwise, why the rush to act now, man's experience with climate over the past three thousand years hasn't included rapid, catastrophic climate change?

When Al Gore says that the Arctic will be ice free in 2013, it is unreasonable to think that he wasn't expecting a steady decline of minimum sea ice from the 2007 level. Otherwise, his prediction lacks any credibility.

[realpolitic]

Richard, again your post contains a lot of generalizations meaningless to anyone. No one says that each year must be worst then the year before. If you look at the trend of ice loss in the Arctic, temperature trend, sea water rise trend or ocean heat content trend, all are increasing, but do so with flucuations. So you are starting with a false premise the way you usually do and then drawing totally false assumptions. It is the way deniers always play the game! Originally, scientists thought Arctic ice would not totally disappear in summers until 2040 or so and now they expect it to disappear as soon as 2013. It is hardly good news and deniers have to bend over backwards to pretend it is.

[research]

Something many people are missing about Climate:

Climate is not the simpler averages of the weather,

Climates are PATTERNS of weather.

Complicated Patterns, like El Ninio, like Ice ages, etc...

Climate is Chaotic, mathematical chaotic.

Climate SWITCHES between various Patterns.

Radically changing the CO2 content is very likely to Switch our climate into another Pattern.

Into an Ice Age, or into the previous warm period, or into something completely different we have never seen.

[Richard2]

On the other hand, maybe the premise that changing the CO2 content makes a difference is simply false. Just look at the past ten years. Unprecedented amounts of CO2 released by humans. Over the same period, the earth's temperature has been roughly stable, possibly even marginally cooling. There has been no warming for ten years. How many more years of stable temperatures are needed to prove the CO2 hypothesis false?

[realpolitic]

And maybe there really is a tooth fairy? There had to be a reason I put those lost teeth under the pillow as a child and in the morning there was a dollar bill there. As long as we are speculatin­g....

[research]

you didn't understand my comment at all, did you?

Ice ages are 100,000 year cycles. it's been 3 million years since the warm period preceding the ice ages. CO2 is now over the level that exists 3 million years ago.

Yet you want to use the last ten years of data.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Someone got their feather ruffled...­...

[fumes]

lol.. you two have been going at it since yesterday!

say onevoice.. what ever happened to mioffe?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

he is around here and there.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

I know, are we going off on tangents yet?

[rblackbird]

One Voice in a Crowd disputes my post on a number of points.

First, he quotes NSIDC's findings on sea-ice extent. Readers should go to NSIDC's web-page for February 18, 2009 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

There you will find its report on the dramatic failure of its satellite sensor in early February to detect 500,000 square kilometers (!) of arctic ice that was actually present. NSDIC admits it used a failing SSM/I sensor (Special Sensor Microwave/imager) located on Defense Department Meteorological Satellites. NSDIC admits these satellites' "primary mission is to support U.S. military operations; the data weren't originally intended for general science use." In its investigation, NSDIC referred to ice extent data "derived from the NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor.” This is the sensor followed by global warming skeptics. NSDIC switched to another SSM/I sensor, not to the AMSR-E sensor. NSIDC explains:

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above.

whatever bird- they found a problem, reported it, and are fixing it. The data was not used in the peer reviewed literature. If anything they should be given credit for the way the responded to this.

[rblackbird]

This is fantasy. Go back and read what I wrote. There is no long-term decline of sea-ice, because the sea ice is going up, not down. 2009 shows more ice than 2007. Nobody at NSDIC has fixed anything; they admit continuing to use the 30-year old technology which was not intended for general scientific work. If NSIDC had switched to the more accurate system, how would they have dealt with the obvious question: "If you are now using a more accurate system, what does this say about the quality of your prior results? How dependable are they?" So, they keep repeating the fiction that their long-term record of less accurate daily records results in a more accurate long-term picture than a long-term record of more accurate daily results. NSIDC suffers from the fear of being found out.

[rblackbird]

"Some people might ask why we don't simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on sea ice conditions, it actually provides less accuracy on the long-term changes over the past thirty years. There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time periods. Our main scientific focus is on long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. With that in mind, we have chosen to continue using the SSM/I sensor, which provides the longest record of sea ice extent." So, consistency is better than accuracy! However, incorrect annual records distort the multi-year record.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

the inaccuracy is common as new instruments come online with higher accuracy. Their logic holds.

[rblackbird]

This is irrelevant. The AMSE-E went up in 2002, not last week. NSDIC admits that they are more accurate.

[rblackbird]

Next, One Voice appears to dismiss my use of the Sea-Ice Monitor data. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgii

This site is operated jointly by the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). JAXA developed the AMSR-E sensor mounted on NASA’s Earth Observation System (EOS) satellites (launched 2002). This is the source of the data used on the site.

The web address will take one to a page which shows a satellite image of the Arctic and ice extent, on a daily basis. The data began in 2002. One can use this page to go to the image for each day back to 2002. Clicking on “Data of Sea Ice Extent” will bring up a graph tracing the ice extent for each year since 2002. The graph also reveals the pattern of annual ice increase and decrease.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Ahh, did I dismiss it? I used it to show that on 7/31 2009 was 2nd after 2007. That is hardly a dismissal

PS - you can also download all their data- and sort it how ever you want. I showed you a sample of this in my response to you.

[rblackbird]

So what? All you have done is prove my point. 2009 has more ice than 2007.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

why not, i had the time. Ran the numbers for July from the sea-ice site. Did you know they also show that this July was 3rd smallest extent? Just like the NSIDC.

year ice summation days avg for july
2007 237627190 31 7665393.22­6
2006 250682661 31 8086537.45­2
2009 256183757 31 8263992.16­1
2005 257974225 31 8321749.19­4
2008 260242662 31 8394924.58­1
2003 274300314 31 8848397.22­6
2002 250916098 28 8961289.21­4
2004 279366097 31 9011809.58­1

That was your original point right? You were challenging my comment about July 2009 being 3rd smallest? What does it mean if the inaccurate NSIDC sensors reached the same conclusion as the Sea-Ice sites newer sensors? I might point out that NSIDC has about 23 more years of data.

[rblackbird]

What you apparently want to say is that there must be global warming because 2009 has less ice than 2002-2006. Again, so what? The point is that after 2007 the ice started growing back again.

You ask, "What does it mean if the inaccurate NSIDC sensors reached the same conclusion as the Sea-Ice sites' newer sensors? I might point out that NSIDC has about 23 more years of data." Are you saying that NSIDC's data is "close enough?" Or, "Pretty Good?" First, scientists always seek improvement in their instruments. More accurate data always trumps less accurate data. Second, NSIDC's data will remain less accurate and more likely to distort the overall picture. Third, if NSIDC's data is extended through 2009 it will probably confirm the AMSR-E data that since 2007 the ice has been coming back. Fourth, 23 years of inaccurate data has little value, and does not get better if it is extended with another seven years of inaccurate data. There is no sense in continuing to accumulate less accurate data, when more accurate data is available. NSIDC is just trying to cover its behind, and divert close examination.

[rblackbird]

The ice peak is reached in Jan-Feb-Mar. As spring comes on the extent starts its decline, Mar-Apr. The decline accelerates in Apr-May. The bottom is always reached by Sep-Oct. This pattern remains unchanged despite any “global warming.”

In addition, the graph shows the relative ice extent for the years examined. The warmists think that 2007 is the fire bell in the night because of its loss of a large mass of ice. Actually, 2007 had a much lower extent than all the other years. Both 2008 and 2009 extents exceed 2007. 2009 has been above 2007 all year by a substantial degree. If global warming is growing stronger and melting the polar ice caps, 2007 should show greater ice extent than 2008 or 2009. To read an alternative explanation for the 2007 loss of ice, go to http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/arcti3/

[realpolitic]

Each year does not have to be worse than the year before in terms of ice loss. There is variation within any trend. Look at the trend of Arctic ice or temperatures or sea rise and then are always up and down years, but the trend toward warming temperatures and a loss of ice is getting stronger over the years. Soon as the scientists say, there will be no ice in the Arctic in summers.

[rblackbird]

The next page, “Data Download,” shows the number of square kilometers for each day in the record. August 11, 2007, had 5,468,594 sq, k. while August 11, 2009 has 6,291,563, a difference of 822,914 sq. k.” There is much more to this story but this is all I have time for today.”

[Norge]

8 years ago, Marshal, then a long time guru with the pentagon had a research project done which outlined a number of stress points and security factors which would be needed to be focused on when and if the the conveyor shut down.

This article is really long out dated.

[Richard2]

The Canadian Ice Service reports that the Northwest Passage remains blocked by chunks of ice. No "profound strategic challenge" there this year. And the 2009 Arctic Sea Ice extent remains well above the level of 2007, and is now marginally above the level of 2008, as the season of sea ice melting approaches its end. Perhaps the profound strategic challenges will not be found in the Arctic Ocean.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

pshew- glad it is only the 3rd smallest extent on record. Wow, some might even say it is growing, probably the same that say globally we are cooling.

[rblackbird]

The point, if you would care to listen, is that ice HAS been growing steadily since 2007. According to data for Aug. 9, 2009 on Sea-Ice Monitor, there were 959,843 square kilometers MORE arctic ice than on Aug. 9, 2007. So, the ice has been growing since the 2007 low-point rather than continuing to shrink as you would have us believe.

2007 has had the same effect on global warmers as the acorn had when it dropped on the head of Chicken Little. Not only did Little fail to investigate fully what had happened, she also panicked the other animals who accepted her alarms without question or examination.

Two prime examples of how the warmists think are (1) the continued use by the National Snow and Ice Data Center of obsolete satellite sensors to detect ice. NSIDC admits that these sensors on defense department satellites are less accurate than the sensors on NASA satellites built and launched 30 years later and used by global warming skeptics. (2) The warmists also insist on using data from a declining number of ground-based temperature instruments (most sited improperly). Skeptics, instead, refer to NASA satellites that measure the earth's temperature and show that the earth has not warmed since 2002 when launched.

[Richard2]

Some might say the amount of sea ice is growing. As of 8/18/09, the sea ice is approximately 10% greater than on the same date in 07. This, despite exposure to two more years of the catastrophic forces of anthropogenic global warming.

[realpolitic]

Wow, now deniers are getting excited that Arctic ice is just above the all-time minimum recorded level. They do not have much real world information to use to reject climate change so they do the best they can. Of course, the last thing we can expect deniers to do is do simply admit they are wrong.

[lbrty 2112]

I love the timing of this. NOAA just released July temps were well below average for July.

[research]

Climate is not weather, for the Nth time....

[fumes]

uh..

W+W+W+W+W+­W+W=Climat­e

nobody knows why..

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

are you referring to this headline:
NOAA: July Temperature Below-Average for the U.S.

or do you mean:
Selected Global Highlights for June 2009

* Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.

are you mixing your local and global again?

[realpolitic]

Nice job, One. We really have to check out everything said by deniers they so easily confuse fact and fantasy!

[fumes]

~ BREAKING NEWS ~
Clouds: Central to Climate Studies:
Discovering a new and unexpected atmospheric compound in the air over forests is fundamental research. Nevertheless with manmade climate-change looming on the horizon, the research might find applications sooner that expected. The new aerosol-precursor may be extremely important when researchers attempt to compute projected climate change. "That means, that the new compound is a missing link in more that one sense", Professor Kjærgaard states.
"Clouds can retain as well as block the heat of the sun, so, if we don't understand what drives the formation of clouds, our climate-models are bound to be less than exact".
http://www.physorg.com/news169202056.html

at some point scientists just had to notice lol..

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Interesting article... this one is good too:
http://www.physorg.com/news169145892.html

[fumes]

“The most plausible explanation is that it's due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases,” he said.

plausible |ˈplôzəbəl|
adjective
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable : a plausible explanation | it seems plausible that one of two things may happen.

''most plausible'' onevoice does not a conclusion make..