By CNN's Richard T. Griffiths
Stresses from global climate change are increasing the threat of wars around the world, a British admiral said Wednesday.
Royal Navy Rear Adm. Neil Morisetti told students and faculty at Georgia Institute of Technology that global climate change threats to food, water, land and energy will present substantive security challenges in regions of the world where there are already stresses.
"Those climate stress multipliers are increasing the threat of armed conflict around the world," Morisetti said.
Morisetti pointed out that existing stress points form a band around the globe, running from Central and South America, across Africa, the Middle East and south Asia. That band, he said, intersects with the regions of the globe most susceptible to climate change.
With climate change, Morisetti said, "we're going to add more to that cocktail."
Morisetti, who holds the title of the British government's climate and energy security envoy, is on a tour of the United States, speaking to academics and military officials.
He says climate change represents a significant challenge for governments because the "new and emerging threat doesn't fit into the traditional stovepipe of governments.
"It's a threat that won't manifest for the next 15 to 20 years, which means that you have to look at potential threats, not particular threats."
"Part of the problem is to get people to understand that there is a problem," he said, and governments and the public "have to be able to see the opportunities, not just the threats."
Governments will have to work together to deal with the problem, he said.
"Climate change just doesn't recognize national or international boundaries."
The recent pattern of global weather-related disasters illustrate how climate change is already putting pressure on military forces to help with rescue and disaster-recovery missions, Morisetti said.
As a Royal Navy admiral, Morisetti also says he sees soaring energy costs affecting the ability of governments and their military forces to be able to adequately respond to security threats.
He described how one of his former commands, the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, required an imperial gallon (1.2 U.S. gallons) of fuel to move just 12 inches. If fuel prices spike, he said, it would not be financially cost-effective to operate.
"We just couldn't do it."
To compensate, military forces must develop new fuel sources, Morisetti said.
As to how soon and precisely where global climate change would present a security threat, Morisetti was not willing to make guesses.
"I can't tell you when or where," he said, "but they will happen."
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions (i.e., more or fewer extreme weather events). Climate change is caused by factors that include oceanic processes (such as oceanic circulation), biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics and volcanic eruptions, and human-induced alterations of the natural world.'
Please do find out more about our very own web site
<http://www.caramoantourpackage.com
I blog frequently and I seriously thank you for your content.
The article has really peaked my interest. I'm going to bookmark your blog and keep checking for new details about once a week. I subscribed to your RSS feed too.
Hey There. I found your blog the usage of msn. That is an extremely neatly written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of your useful information. Thank you for the post. I will certainly comeback.
Just wish to say your article is as amazing. The clearness in your put up is simply cool and i could suppose you are knowledgeable on this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to take hold of your RSS feed to stay updated with imminent post. Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work.
The catastrophic effect of climate change (read "environmental collapse") in combination with population change (read "population explosion") is going to make this "cocktail" quite lethal indeed (billions will most likely die at the very least). The result will be the 6th mass extinction event on our planet (the Holocene mass extinction event) which is already under way, and which will probably be the worst mass extinction event of all. From what I have seen so far, I suspect that much of the human race will still be in denial right up to the very end. Keep in mind that you probably have to start at least 20 – 30 years ahead of any tipping point (of no return) if you are going to effect any meaningful change. We can already predict impending apocalypse for our planet right now, which unfortunately makes many hundreds of millions of terminally infected religious followers totally ecstatic, who are eagerly awaiting the imminent return of their Christ or Messiah. – Rick Carter
AGW is BS, and everyone knows it.
"AGW is BS, and everyone knows it."
really so these institutions http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm are all wrong but brain bigger than a planet JR is right...
Hum, let me think about that for a mo, do we trust the lives of every man, woman, child and critter on the planet to the advice of institutions and scientists who have facts, training and experience on their side or to JR the shill bot?
I'll go with the clever people ta.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE LISTEN TO ME, HUMAN WORLD, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My name is Rick Carter, and I have been studying thermonuclear energy ever since the 1960s when I was still in high school (my senior high school science fair project was a theoretical thermonuclear propulsion system for space), and I have known for a VERY LONG TIME now that there are FAR EASIER WAYS to generate thermonuclear energy, if we only use our heads !!! We actually have TRILLIONS of years of thermonuclear fuels right here on Earth, and we can begin using these thermonuclear fuels right now! PLEASE understand that you DO NOT use up your initiation energy when you try to stimulate thermonuclear reactions (using accelerated thermonuclear fuel particles), since the majority of this energy still remains in the thermonuclear core (as heat) even if it fails to initiate a thermonuclear reaction, to be used all over again in the generation of electrical energy for the electrical grid. I CAN PERSONALLY TELL OUR ENTIRE WORLD HOW TO GENERATE ALMOST UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE THERMONUCLEAR ENERGY RIGHT NOW !!! (There are actually TWO APPROACHES which we can use to begin doing this RIGHT NOW, and we actually could have been doing it for decades already. If you doubt me, then please write me at thermonuclear.fusion1@gmail.com. – Rick Carter
(I personally foresee thermonuclear powered ships in the future, as one of the first mobile applications of thermonuclear energy.) – RC
Cost? How do you put a price on THE END OF THE WORLD because NOTHING is worse than a climate crisis. You can't have a little "catastrophic climate crisis" and “Unstoppable warming” is the established consensus or in other words; THE END IS NEAR.
So why are the thousands of scientists not marching in the street? This "IS" the ultimate in emergencies after all so putting a cost on "the end" and not seeing the scientists acting like it's an emergency, leaves the "EXAGGERATION" of climate crisis is all too obvious.
Real planet lovers are former believers who are happy for the planet now, not disappointed. We are still environmentalists and planet lovers and progressive or otherwise and we renounce the 25 years of needless panic that this criminal exaggeration of climate change has brought us. Don’t trust these lab coat consultants because it was they who denied the dangers of the pesticides and chemicals they gave us. They are not saints and not trustworthy enough to condemn our children to a death by CO2. Remove the CO2 and continue stewardship anew. Besides, even Obama is a former believer now since he never even mentioned the “crisis” of climate in his state of the union address. And what was the scientists reaction to being snubbed?
NOBODY is going to vote YES to taxing the air by Carbon Trading Markets run by corporations and politicians.
Anyone who does not think that climate changes have impacted civilizations should think again. Of course there have been climatic fluctuations in the past; some were survived, some were not. For example, the American Indian cultures that thrived in America’s four-corner region for over a thousand years were felled by two dozen years of drought. Before these cultures perished, they fought over diminishing resources, just like the British Admiral is predicting.
We are in an inter-glacial or warming period. Unfortunately, we are speeding up that warming by adding large amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Global temperatures are rising; there is no dispute to that, or that we are helping to raise these temperatures. If you want to believe otherwise, then believe what is convenient for you. My personal concern is that as our environment changes, we might not have enough time to adapt without life becoming more difficult. It would be nice if we could slow down the rate of warming, but with China and India striving to match the standard of living in the US and Europe, so this will not happen.
Maybe life has not become more difficult for you, yet. Maybe you have not been affected by flooding, fires, multiple weeks of 100 degree plus temperatures and/or drought. There will come a time when volcanoes put enough dust into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool global temperatures – this, or some other natural phenomenon, will be the cause of cooling, not anything humankind does. Until then, believe that life on this planet is going to get more difficult, or believe what is convenient for you.
Well said, but I would like to add that the other species on Earth will simply adapt and keep on living. Earth along with the life that recides on it, is not going anywhere. Earth has survived these climate cycles and other catastrophes for eons. We, Humans, creatures of habit, will find it very hard to adapt. It is sad to think that in the coming decades we will hear on the news about thousands and thousands of people starving due to massive droughts in Africa and other regions of the world.
The world has been warming and cooling for billions of years. We have been measuring temps for about 150 years. Let's stop and take a little measure of what we are hearing and believing.
Obama's own climate warming czar was one of the scientists warning us about cooling in the 70s.
OMG. It's reality imitating fiction with Simon Bar SInister and his Weather Machine. Under Dog, save us!!
Climate is WAY beyond just a security threat.
It is going to become a threat to our very existence.
If the East Antarctic ice sheet melts sea levels could rise 85m (~285 ft). The catastrophic migrations and disease and famines that would be spawned would be enormous. It could bring about the end of the human race.
.
Given that our own sun accounts for over 99.99% of global warming I think we should modify it first. We could stop it's natural fluctuations or just remove some of it so it doesn't put out as much heat.
The planet has warmed and cooled for billions of years and we have survived it until now. I think we'll be OK.
WE havn't survived for billions of years – WE have only been around for some 200,000 years. The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years – during that time there have been many well documented mass exitnctions – what makes you think we will survive the next one?
Bad climate, bad, bad, bad!! I don't think it's the 'climate change' promoting the violence – shoot it's been going on over there for thousands of years, LOL
Im no believer of global warming but i strongly believe the climate warming up was part to due because of man....the amount of trees we have on this world is decreasing therefore leaving more more dioxide which also means a warmer climate.He isnt reallly bringing up whether global warming is true than he is saying due to chinas recent issues with water and disasters they are more apt to start a war for resources.
Simply, but eloquently, stated. What you say is fact.
If the climate is "warming up" as you put it then isn't that global warming but just reworded a bit ?
what a bunch of crap. 40 yrs from now the world will look back on these "chicken littles" and mock them forever in history, just like the do the Salem Witch hunts now.
Global warming has nothing to do with these people starving.. the evil government they live under is the direct problem.
I don't think it's a matter of whether global warming factually has anything to do with people starving nor does it matter much whether we believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon or is caused by human influences (I tend to believe it's a mix but what I believe is irrelevant). You're probably right, corrupt or unjust governments are much more likely to have a proximal impact on the health and well being of their citizenry than the nebulous concept of global warming. That said, fact and reality are often trumped by perception and misinformation and I can see where loss of livelihood (due to drought, monsoons, etc.), property (due to rising sea levels or other climate related issues), family (due to famine or fighting over scarce resources like water) could absolutely become the next breeding ground for extremism in our world.
Well, in that band there have been crop failures and drought at an increased level. Even stable countries in that band have suffered. Government instability causes distribution problems and poor responses to humanitarian need but it doesn't in general cause crops to whither, rivers to dry up and fields to turn to sand dunes.
Whenever a military leader's lips move, grab your wallet.
Well said for an over fed couch potato
So this discussion should not be about how climate change is a hoax or not. This discussion should be based on preserving the human species. We only know of one place that can support life, yup Earth. If we destroy the Earth, we destroy us. Therefore, we should all do our part to help take care of this beautiful spaceship we call home.
the irony of global warming is that ice-ages last for hundred of millions of years followed by brief warming periods of only ten thousand years, well we have past that ten thousand year point so we should be moving into a rapidly excelling ice-age making places like Canada, Iceland , England and Ireland, all of northern Europe, China and Russia, all of northern U.S, uninhabitable, billions of people pushing their way south, dang what a mess that would be, talk about Irony
From what I've read, you're just talking smack or reading a geology textbook published before the Johnson administration.
Absolute and utter nonsense. Ice ages have been occurring cyclically for about 3 million years. The overall periodicity of the cycle (from one peak to another, i.e. the last interglacial to the present) is very roughly 100,000 years. Cooling tends to occur gradually, while warming occurs somewhat more quickly (the last deglaciation took a a bit less than 10,000 years).
Neither the warming or cooling part of the natural cycle occur at the current rate of observed warming. Also, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are now a bit farther above preanthropogenic interglacial values (i.e., any time before the industrial revolution in recorded human history) as those values were removed from glacial-maximum values. Those values: Current atmospheric CO2 is 390 ppm, preindustrial levels were ~ 290, and glacial-maximum values were ~210. If 210 ppm = 2 miles of ice where Boston now sits and 290 gives the climate we're all used to, isn't it just dimly possible that 390 might be cause for some alarm?
Greg,
That's the problem. The scientific community (in the most part) is so blinded by their faith in the so-called scientific factual evidence and research based on nothing but pure speculation. Unless you were there, 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 1 million years ago, or whenever. There are 0% facts to the evidence you bring. I am not a scientist. I am not as smart as most scientists. But I am wise enough to realize that what you are spouting about what happened 10,000 years ago, is nothing but pure speculation-AKA-scientific fact. The world would be better off if everyone could just realize that we aren't sure about what is going to happen in the future. We waste so much time worrying about what may happen. The FACTUAL EVIDENCE suggests that we do not have a clue! (Example: 1970's warning on global cooling)
After 6 billion years of existence and countless trillions of variables that factor into weather patterns we are supposed to believe that 150 years at best of reasonably accurate weather recording combined with some ice core samples provides a suitable statstical database to unquestionably forecast temperature trends 50 to 100 years in the future when these same models cannot predict weather trends to the same claimed level of accuracy 50 to 100 days from today? Looking at it strictly on an unbiased, analytical basis the arguments supporting global warming are a joke.
It didn't take Kepler too long to be able to predict planetary orbits with sufficient accuracy for his time. It didn't take many years to use Einstein's theories to successfully point interplanetary probes at distant planets and moons years and decades away. There's more than weather station readings and ice cores – other analogs are being used – tree rings, geological formations, preserved flora and fauna, etc. Your first argument fails.
Secondly, weather is not climate. I can easily predict when a pot of water will boil (climate), but forecasting when and where each bubble will form requires quite a different model (weather). Your second argument fails.
Bill, then tell me to the same level of accuracy what the temperature will be 100 days from today. You cannot. Forecasting is solely dependent on historical data and is unable to compensate for future systemic risks such as sunspots, volcanoes, or a host of trillions of other variables that combined contribute to global climate. To correlate a perceived global warming to a single variable such as CO2 for forecasting very future events based on a database of information that represents a fraction of a percentage of the existence of the planet is statistically foolish.
Inferred data is not science. The carbon data from ice rings is extremely suspect because they rely on inaccurate and prejudicial factoring. Tree rings are useful, but have the same problems. Geology is useful, and indicates a constantly changing climate for every region in the world over billions of years. We see the models predicting global doom simply not accurate. The idea of man changing climate is simply a religion until science can override the current mystical pseudo-science.
More nonsense. We have a bit more than 500,000 years of paired hydrogen-isotope derived temperature and CO2 concentrations from air inclusions in the Vostok ice core (and plenty of other supporting cores in Greenland, but I digress). CO2 and temperature are tightly correlated throughout the record. The physics of greenhouse gases is also well-understood and not in dispute. It isn't rocket science to see where this all points.
As to not being able to predict the weather- that's a function of stochastics. I can't predict the weather on a certain date with any precision, but it's trivially easy to call the mean monthly temperature for any time and place in the world from historical records. I know for a fact at high northern latitudes August will be much warmer than December. Climate is much more like this latter example, since predictions are based on long-term averages (i.e., I can't predict if the year 2100 will be unusually warm, but I can say with pretty good certainty that the period from 2080-2100 will have a higher average temperature than 1980-2000). While there's a lot we don't know about climate change, there is a lot we do know pretty well, too, and to be bluntly dismissive of that body of knowledge simply shows you are ignorant on the subject, nothing more.
The question isn't "can we really predict what might happen next."
It's, "How wrong can we – as a nation, as a culture, as a species – afford to be."
To be generous to the Flat Earth science deniers: let's say there's a 20% chance that if we do nothing and continue on our current ecological course, the changes in conjunction with peak oil, overpopulation, etc. will result in the deaths of 90% of the world human population and reduce the rest to a subsistence level of survival. Think "equatorial Africa."
Would it *really* kill you to hedge that bet just a little bit? It might kill all your family, your neighbors, and everyone you know and all their children and grandchildren if you don't.
Think of it as a poker bet – if the card in front of you is anything but a spade, you get to keep your life as it is, and all your family and friends. But if it's a spade, your family dies, your friends die, and you yourself are deposited in a jungle someplace with no tools, no friends, no money, and will have to survive as best you can.
How much would you be willing to put down on the table as "insurance" to keep that from happening?
Are you feeling lucky? Well, are you?
Show me hard evidence that supports your 20%. Facts based on science are never facts. They are theory. The sooner you learn to think for yourself, sooner you will become enlightened to the fact that we are not as smart as we think. Another thing you must ask yourself is, are you willing to sacrifice yourself and your family if it meant the Earth could be saved? How about, do you really think there is anything we (Human Beings) can do to fix the climate? It is amazing to me that we can think that we are more powerful than the Earth. This just goes to show that we have a very large ego problem that is ultimately self-serving. Next time you find yourself in an earthquake, tsumani, tornado or any other event created by nature, try to stop it and let me know what happens. We will then do a scientific study with your results and relay them to everyone as FACT.
That's absurd, Marine Engineer. In less than one human lifetime Darwin deduced the principles of evolution that have been at work for billions of years. Einstein's Theory of Relativity describes laws of physics that have applied for nearly 16 billion years. You know, one thread that seems to be common to many of these llimp-minded Denialist arguments is a profoundly poor self-image. It could never be us causing warming. We can't possibly understand it, the science is too hard. We could never solve it, it is too expensive and too hard.
Well listen up, dandelion. Global warming is happening and it IS us. Sure, science is hard, but so is flying, talking to another person half-way around the world, and flying to the moon. And fixing global warming would be a great challenge, the challenge of a lifetime. We would be bettered by it, we would be ennobled by it, and our children and grand-children would venerate us for solving it.
I'm getting tired of fools like you telling me what we can and cannot do. You're just trying to make yourself feel better about what you are too lazy and stupid to do.
Thank you. I couldn't have worded that response better myself.
I never said we couldn't understand it Thanes I said there are so many external variables involved that make forecasts based on a selected few of those variables within a narrow window of time statistically worthless. That Darwin deduced evolution does not mean he has the ability to forecast human evolution to come. Global climate is always in change; this rush to blame man for it based on questionable and selective data is rediculous. I find it funny that during the last ice age I would be sitting under a glacier right now.
Well said!!! (especially the 'dandelion' part)
Weather and climate are not the same. You may doubt all you wish but the penalty for being wrong about shifts in atmospheric and oceanic chemistry will be lethal on a global scale. The key point from the Admiral's remarks, to me, are that changes disrupting food and water access do not respect artificial boundaries and that the attempts by governments to either secure for their own gain or for the health and safety of their own people may take drastic turns quite unlike the dislocations caused by energy disruptions.
When the time comes to combat global warming catastrophy, I'm sure a fundamentalist christian Texan will rise to the occasion and run for president, then invade some weak, easy-to-blame nation in order to delay the apocalypse. No worries!
They will hold a prayer meeting.
I will be interested how you respond when this catastrophe hits and your family is starving to death and your neighbor has food that he will not share with you. Will you fight to keep your family alive? Or will you lay down, give up and die? And right before you die will you ponder if there really might be a God? Think first, then post.
This is the kind of thinking the world needs most. We all need to get better with disaster planning.
What America needs is to return to fundamentalist beliefs and elect another Texass fundamentalist who will have a team like the team that Bush used to plan the Iraq war aftermath. No need for concern, or any thought whatsoever when god is our co-pilot. That's their motto.
Having read some of the remarks on this subject I have to say disaster discussions sure bring out the cynicism in many Americans. Are the British as cynical as we Americans about the future of our planet? I certainly hope not but then the British are world famous for their cynical wit.
Us british are far more cynical.
It's all doom n' gloom. But we're like that in the best of times, so it's nothing new.
Since the British Navy is sinking into oblivion, the Admiral needs to fill up his time sticking his fingers into other areas.
Epic fail on his part.
Sinking? The UK Navy is recognized as 2nd only to the US Navy. Not even China at this point. If their ships are sinking, somebody better warn the pilots who will be landing F-35's on the deck! UK forces contributed a nice flock of Tomahawk cruise missiles, a naval blockade, fighters, and ship-based Apache helicopters. No, the British Navy is nowhere near sinking. The Admiral would have a finger for you, but he's too busy with real responsibilities to pay attention to you.
Just like the Admiral's speech, your post should be labelled epic fail.
1. The carriers you speak of are not in active service (currently, the Brit navy has no active non-VTOL carriers and only one helicopter carrier). The next fixed wing carrier to enter the fleet will be in 2020.
2. In 2008, they had to move half of their escorts to inactive service to save money. These have not been restored.
3. The Brits had to stop naval operations off of Haiti for lack of money.
4. And, here's a quote from a CBS new story (2010):
After the devastating cuts, the British Navy will be at its smallest size since the time of Henry VIII and will be roughly half the size of the current French Navy.
and on, and on...
plus:
5. The Brits have no capability to project power with their fleet. They could defend Britain against any Naval threat (except from the US, of course) and they can operate in conjunction with the US Fleet, but that's about it.
6. The size of the fleet is diminishing, and will be going down in the next decade and for the foreseeable future.
The Admiral can give me any sign he wishes, but he'll have to do it from land. It's too expensive for him to do it from one of his ships. Since he has a lot of time on his hands, he has to meddle in something else.
Epic fail, you and him.
@Gene – I see the US Navy recently announced its first batch of 1000 redundancies. Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have created – its power is insignificant against the power of world economics.
Wow, ad hominems on an entire branch of another nation's military. You Denialist felchers are not content with threatening humanity's existence, you want to insult all of us, too!
Is it just me or does anyone else wonder every now and then if the Denialists aren't actually aliens trying to get humanity to off itself?
See my post above. Epic fail!
Why do we need governments to work together? This would put the bill on American taxpayers. Why can't we let 7-11 or Exxon solve the climate change problem. Good ol' American inginuity is what we need, not BIG government!
I just want to start a rumor that Slurpees are made from polar glaciers.
And exactly what incentive do private-sector companies like Exxon and 7-11 have to gain from using their profits to tackle climate change? They are (and should be, under capitalism) more concerned with meeting the demands of their shareholders. Big, risky, costly endeavours to push our country to the next step have almost always been backed and funded by the our gov't, because really no one else has the resources or support to do it themselves. Has nothing to do with "BIG" gov't, and everything to do with using our collective strength to create better conditions for our children.
If commercial concerns (7-11, Exxon, etc.) want to maintain future profits, they should be concerned that their customers will have disposable income. If a lot of our economy is sucked into disaster recovery, that will tend to shrink their slice of the economic pie. They, as we all, have an interest in maintaining a reasonably stable climate.
Bill744, you make the same mistake Bernie Madoff's investors did. "Bernie is taking good care of my money! Of course he is! His reputation depends on it!"
, A crisis is a tierrble thing to waste , and Michael Platt reckoned that, A risk tamed is a reward captured . There is more to look forward to than there is to fear when it comes to Climate Change. There are opportunities that will be realised in many sectors of the world's economies. Rather than just trying to mitigate this risk, let us face this planetary emergency with courage and resolve, and create value. And a large part of this will be a paradigm shift in how we deal with everything in life, from energy use to waste management.
Shara – Your remarks sear of American isolationism and is why I can not support your politics. I am sure you are a nice lady, with good intentions, but please think of the consequences of what you say.America has to live in harmony with the rest of the world or face untold misery. I do agree America pays too much and too often but that part is fixable. Have a great day.
It, as an American, makes me Ashamed of how Ignorant the general population here is on Global Warming! What a majority of Sheeple, especially the TeaGOPhers are. Then again, they don't realize majority of stockholders, corps, presidential canditates, etc., have major investment$ in the oil & dirty energy sector. Wonder why they're cut, cut, cutting things which will help climate change? Simple economic$, Greed, and uneducated followers/slaves. GO GREEN! Recycle! Press our "representatives" for cleaner alternatives rather that cutting all the R&D, etc. Educate yourselves deniers/sheeple. Our kids & Grandkids are going to be living in worse h ell than you can imagine on planet earth. Would love to see/hear this man debate the naysayers & kick some common sense into pea sized brains.
Sorry, I'm still educating myself from the 1970's Global Cooling epidemic. Those scientists insist the world is going to die from Global Cooling. We MUST do something!!!
The fact of the matter is we need to stop trying to pretend like we can affect the global climate and start coming up with technologies that allow us to LIVE with global warming, not try to stop it. Trying to stop a natural cycle of the planet is just going to cause more problems. We need technology that will make drinking water more accessible. Technology that will make energy very cheap to produce. Things like that. Spending resources on trying to "fix" a natural planetary cycle is going to get us all killed.
So you're saying without a doubt that the massive amount of green house gases we have been pumping into the atmosphere for almost 200 years has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with climate change. You make laugh. Get off your couch and go spend time outside you fat American, while there is still an environment to enjoy.
There were a small number of scientists hypothesizing an incipient ice age from the 50's through about 1975, when Newsweek picked it up and blew it all out of proportion. The Ice Age forecast was never a consensus among scientists; less than 15% promoted that position. That's nothing like the current consensus of greater than 95% of scientists with current, relevant publications in refereed journals.
I'm saying that until there is true, peer-reviewed results (outside of the very biased IPCC) that prove anthropogenic global warming exists, then I don't have to believe it and for you to call people names who refuse to believe something without proof shows how your logic is flawed, not mine.
Look at it like religion. People are allowed not to believe in a God and you can't call them wrong, because those people want proof of God. Anthropogenic climate change is the same thing. No true results exist that this same global warming wouldn't be happening if humans didn't exist...because global warming HAS happened when humans didn't exist. This is a natural trend. And until they prove otherwise, that's what I will believe.
But, either way, no matter what the truth is, we have to learn to live with climate change, regardless if it is anthropogenic or not. Trying to stop it from happening is a war nobody can win. Learning to live with it is the only way we will survive. Now, go ahead and get back to your name calling, it is what you do best obviously.
Bill744, for every published article by a scientist that says climate change is anthropogenic, I can show you an article by another scientist that proves it is natural. So what? That doesn't mean it's not happening. It's happening and it's time to start learning to live with it instead of trying to stop it.
Humtake, you are just lying. You cannot produce anything like a one-for-one response of peer-reviewed research arguing Global Warming is a natural forcing. You can't come close. I think the ratio at last careful search showed a ration of about 10,000 to 3 of evidence in support of global warming versus those against. And between retractions and plagiarism those three articles don't look so good.
So do you need education, Humtake, or do you need to be exposed as a liar?
Jon-
Blow it out your A$$.
Not all americans are fat, stupid, or lazy. Take your stereotypes and leave.
Yeah, all those deluded fools at CERN debunking warming. Whatta they know anyway. Well I mean...besides everything.
If you paid attention to the actual study, not the sensational headlines from a few ignorant news sources that claim CERN debunks global warming. The actual scientists involved in the CERN study still adamantly recognize the human influence on climate saying "the result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate". There are a lot of factors in climate the CERN study points to the fact that cosmic rays may play an influence on cloud nucleation. That doesn't mean we can ignore the 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide us humans release, known to heat the atmosphere.
Wow, Alan. You ever think about reading anything about a piece of research before you refer to it?
Please tell me how many degrees (or fraction thereof) carbon offsets and carbon exchanges will lower the earth's temperature. You can't. You COULD, however, tell me how many lives the billions we've spent on such things instead of simply encouraging efficiency (which we're doing) could have saved. You also can't tell me how much humans are contributing to global warming vs how much is natural, nor whether or not current trends will reverse themselves naturally, or when. Getting your panties all in a bunch isn't going to save the world.
There are reports that do tell you how much warming is natural versus natural. I think I saw it at NASA, but it could have been on any number of other reputable sources.
Also, it's not difficult to predict the impact on global average temperature of a known quantity of carbon dioxide added to or subtracted from the current concentration, now at least 391ppmv (pre-industrial level was 280ppmv and is now higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years and probably higher than in the past 20 million years).
So let me get this right, kbnj. If your doctor tells you you have lymphoma and you need treatment, you would tell hm he's 'got his panties in a wad' if he couldn't tell you whether you would be cured, and on what day, and if your kids will get it, and if he can't tell you what day you will die on if you don't get treated?
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you and all the rest of you Ayn Randians 'Go Galt!' and get the f*&k off this planet before you ruin it for the rest of us that don't deserve to die an ignorant preventable death?
Yeah, so now addressing "global warming" is considered fighting "terrorism"!? The "war on terror", the "war on drugs", "global warming" are all phony. Attacking third world nations is a threat to our national security.
It sounds like he listens to Rush and Beck too much,instead of getting a real science education. He rather listen to rehotric speech.
At least he can spell rhetoric.
Does anyone else find it pathetic that people are so misinformed that they don't realize what it is they are actually supposed to disagree with? There is no disagreement about climate change, people. The thing you're supposed to disagree with is whether or not human beings activities are a contributing factor. Don't worry – you're still ignorant if you don't believe humans have an impact...but the jury is out on the climate changing. *sheesh*
I think you mean the jury is in. If the jury is out, then they're still thinking about it. As in: the jury is out on whether Republicans are rational.
What do any of these comments have to do with the article??
The article is about a British rear-admiral who is responsible for the navy strategic responses and has to do the job whether the British government is left or right wing. So why the references to American politics?
Climate change is an issue for all ideologies, if your ideology does not recognise AGW then you have no future.
Whether u wanna believe in climate change or not earth is been warming up for thousands of years
Have you never heard of 'the Little Ice Age'? Google it (it might even help your argument).
That was a blip in the historical scheme of things.... YOU look it up... It didn't last long at all, and had a very specific reason for happening. Cause and effect... It reveresed almost immediately, and continued doing so.... A quick, sudden anomoly like that doesn't prove a thing.... You must consider the long term.
as a stupid ignorant republican teaparty supporter: I BLAME OBAMA HUSSAIN!! he wasn't born in america. HE's LETTING ALL THOSE MEXICANS GO THRU THE BORDER!!!!! SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CITIFICATE!!! RON PAUL 2012! LOLOLOL
...and we think the International Space Station(ISS) could play a major role in developing the science of climate change.
Concepts may be found here :
http://denecs.usc.edu/hosted/ASTE/527_20111/
Do you think better to spend more time and resources on adaptation than on the nascent science of climate change, which does not even have a handle on all the complex parameters ? If you look at biology, that is what our bodies do 24/7, and that's what plants and animals do too. Adapt – to – change. "Response engineering" is better and far more effective in the short term than orthodox, conventional "prediction science", in this case, perhaps ?
Ahhhh yeah, global warming. It will be taught one day in history as a footnote similiar to the earth being flat. The children will laugh and ask how anyone could be so silly. For the oh so serious ones, the earth does All of this on its own. Cooling, warming. Ya know.
Earth has been cooling and warming forever! If I shoot somebody dead just tell the Jury men have been dying since forever and if the jury are dumb tea partiers, I'll be aquitted.
That's a smart answer to a difficult queisotn.
YkqibY njzgxinhsprp
GO GREEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT WILL sOLVE THE PROBLEM.
Everyone go greem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well Glen Beck says that global warming is a lie so, I don't see there being any problem.
There are many right-wing types that think global warming is a hoax perpetuate by the liberals. They are so ignorant it is frightening. The evidence that GW is happening is overwhelming. There are 1000's of scientists in many countries and many scientific fields that know that GW and climate change is happening because of the work they are doing. Even the leaders of China know it's happening and that it's affecting their country so they are trying to do things about it, although they got a long ways to go on coal burning.
They won't believe it until you convince them that a magical, invisible man in the sky said it was true in some random book he supposedly wrote a while back.
Beckinator and Limbarf are publicly denying climate change to help big fossil fuel get in a few more good quarters. "It isn't due to man" so it's ok seems to be the gist of it, any excuse to kill cap and trade or other attempt to reduce carbon emissions. We'll get the real picture soon enough. Unfortunately, the right is correct that alternative fuels are not economical. But then again, we haven't been serious about R & D on alternative or we would have had a decent photovotaic solar cell that was way more efficient by now.
The effects of climate change have been around for decades. It's part of the reason that we're seeing massive emigration from countries suffering through it to the countries that haven't been hit as hard yet. It's only a matter of time before the entire world is affected.
Communist propaganda and lies! (Just kidding it's actually something to be concerned about.)
Well I am not an american....But I know one think politicians (no matter from where they belong) are leeches they are drinking our blood dry and we are cheering them for that...something is really really wrong here. These politicians just take religion as an issue and let the humans slaughter each for this...If humans want peace then first they have to let of religion and work as equal other wise....we are all doomed.
You are absolutely correct. You DO realize that the official definition of politician is "too sleazy to be a used car salesman", right?
So now we can add, to lack of purpose, loss of morality, arrogance, racism and genocide the impact of stupidity in explaining the decline of England.
No, it's you and other climate-change deniers who are the ignorant lunatics.
You are all a bunch of idiots. Right wing monkeys and left wing faggots, tea party whores and independent idiots. I don't see the difference. You are tearing this country apart. Some of you apes may "listen" to scientists; however, I doubt you understand science. We have been in an ice age for thousands of years now. We are, in fact, in the latter stages of an ice age (from a scientific standpoint). Most of you will be astounded at this... Revelation. Actually, I must admit that there is no revelation at hand. The aforementioned FACT is known to any real scientist. Most of you are idiots to stubborn to admit when you just don't know. The earth has been warming for thousands of years. Yes, humans have impacted the environment. Dinosaurs, comets, bacterial microbes, bearable fish and even volcanoes have some influence on our environment. You'd be surprised what a single oceanic bacterial microbes can do... More like trillions. You get the point?! Let me leave you with one FACT: Everything has a price... EVERYONE can be bought. Doctors, lawyers and even SCIENTISTS have a price. Politicians are great snakes. They have nearly every American fooled into thinking that they care aout the general public. You are just a vote in their eyes.
The hardest thing to find in this world is the TRUTH
CORRECTION: *TOO* STUBBORN
I love rediang these articles because they\'re short but informative.
@Ezio: I'm a scientist and apparently you haven't been paying attention to me or any other real scientists: we are NOT in an ice age. No matter whether it's human-caused or not, climate IS getting unusually warm and the CO2 content of the atmosphere, which has not been higher than 294 ppm over the last 420,000 years [based on air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice] is now 385 ppm and something's really scary about that.
Google 'Keeling Curve' it is certain evidence that atmospheric CO2 is increasing annually and the more CO2 the greater the greenhouse effect and the greater the ocean acidification. Humans are the cause of most of this CO2 increase.
Ezio, you are the stubborn one. If you would stop listening to GOP pundits and take a class in thermal radiation heat transfer you'd get it. If you're not up for that then just do a little research or take a trip north of the Arctic Circle and see for yourself what is happening. You're right Ezio, we have been coming out of an ice age for 10,000 years, but the changes that have been happening over thousands of years are now happening over 10s of years. You're the idiot because you refuse to go out and actually survey the evidence and research that opposes your convenient point of view. You're right, scientists can be bought, but that doesn't mean they're all bought, or even a large percentage of them. So go take that class, do a little research, or find a scientist or mechanical engineer that you trust and ask him/her. We're so past the hypothesis stage on this that when people like you make statements like your above you just make yourself look like the ignoramus that you are.
Here we go. Yet another Wikipedia/Google "scholar". You may want to actually read the data regarding CO2 content. Also, if you were actually in any scientific occupation, you would understand a term called "rate of change". It's a relatively simple mathematical concept. The fact that the Earth is getting warmer is not, in and of itself, the cause for concern. The cause for concern is the rate at which it is happening. The fact that this rate of change is gradually increasing is also a cause for concern. It does not fit the model data for known natural cycles such as your Ice Age. It greatly exceeds it.
Learn math. Then learn science. Once you have done this, learn to form an intelligent, logically valid, thought.
Try not to project your morals onto the rest of the world. Just because you could be bought doesn't mean that anyone could be bought, much less everyone. When you point a finger at the world your own fist typically has three fingers pointing back at you. Now that's the truth.
Weather is a terrorist.
Cool... but I thought "Weather" was "Underground"
if the world fuel supply stops every country on the planet is going to war for the last resources of energy to keep their economy going..the threat is real than you think.
No worries. We'll be in an ice age in a couple of years. Also, did you know the sun is actually hotter?
poop is the anwser to everything. your welcome!
Poop. Spread the word.
Prove it.
Apparently this Admiral has never been to Costa Rica on vacation. There is anything but lack of food or water in Central America, a region notorious for fertile soil and heavy yearly amounts of rain.
I see alot of government employees on here from the USA. Everyone knows the whole global warming thing was a hoax. It was a good idea, until you got exposed, LOL. So much for that carbon tax you trolls.
@Larry – let me guess, you are a tea party republican who has little or no education and follows Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.
VJATL: Let me guess, you voted for Obongo, and you're slavishly pc.
Jim, you have no credibility when you call the president names. It doesn't sound like you're old enough to be in high school, let alone vote.
GOP T-Party likes poorly educated voters. Bachmann isn't the only one though she is the most recent. Of course, she has a degree from Harvard U. GOP T-Party wants people who will believe them when politicians and party leaders lie to them.
You are a right-wing moron. With 98% of the world's climatologists (less the oil company boys) and every single science institute on earth in agreement, you still choose to listen to Dr. Limbaugh and Dr. Beck who have... thats right... absolutely zero for credentials. I forget – the earth is only 6000 years old and stem cell medicine is the Devil's work!
Just remember – the more you listen to Fox News the less you know. You must listen a lot!
Everyone knows global warming is a hoax? You need to back away from Fox News and listen to actual scientists rather than the Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity school of climatology. Science is not the enemy. Ignorance is the enemy.
Do two things for starters, google 'Keeling Curve' and read up about it. Next read sciencedaily.com every day for a couple of weeks, esp. those under 'global warming'. Also note that the articles are summaries of scientific journal papers. It's these published, peer-reviewed papers that carry the weight of scientific evidence, NOT opinion pieces by political hacks, no matter who the hacks are. It's the journal articles that carry the weight of evidence and point in the direction of truth.
As far as sustainable energy goes, how much electricity could be generated if every home in Florida, Arizona and other sunny states had solar panels installed on the roof? My guess is more than enough to energize the home. Sadly, you have to have a good disposable income in order to have them installed.
Pay attention blind people:
"He described how one of his former commands, the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, required an imperial gallon (1.2 U.S. gallons) of fuel to move just 12 inches."
No where is the word "gas" in this statement; only "fuel" A ships engine COULD burn the absolute, left over sludge AFTER all other chemicals (Material is extracted from crude oil from good old mother earth) which is pennies on the gallon.
The word "fuel" encompasses anything used for powering a man made item, get it???
Pay attention blind people:
"He described how one of his former commands, the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, required an imperial gallon (1.2 U.S. gallons) of fuel to move just 12 inches."
No where is the word "gas" in this statement; only "fuel" A ships engine COULD burn the absolute, left over sludge AFTER all other chemicals (Material is extracted from crude oil for good old mother earth) which is pennies on the gallon.
The word "fuel" encompasses anything used for powering a man made item, get it???
Presuming fuel consumption is actually 1 imperial gallon per 12 inches, presuming a fuel supply of 4,000,000 imperial gallons, the range of that carrier would be under 700 UK nautical miles. That claim is preposterous, unless the good Rear Admiral's vessel can actually fly.
clearly this man is a godless communist
At the end of the article, when he says it took a gallon of gas to move 1 foot, I had a sudden flashback to my Team Fortress 2 days.
"It costs one hundred thousand dollars to fire this weapon, for 10 seconds" – The Heavy, "Meet the Heavy" short.
The carrier should have been nuclear powered.
i love the brits, but why do that have to be so stupid sometimes.
You mean you think you're smarter than a Royal Navy admiral who once commanded an aircraft carrier?
No, that makes you the idiot.
A brit admiral needs to know only two things: who to call in the US navy and how to use a prybar. In case you don't know the joke: how do they separate the men from the boys in the british navy? Prybars
Stupid? Well, SOMETHING is going on. It is either natural or man made or a combination of the two, but SOMETHING is going on. Best we face it ,eh?
Uh, no disrespect, but old Admirals CAN do very stupid this as when Bull Halsey was fooled by the Japanese late in the Pacific War. People who might have once been smart can become VERY stupid.
The British Navy subsists on rum, sodomy and the lash.
There is essentially unanimous consensus that the world is warming. The only question is whether or not the warming is caused by humans. For the purposes of the admiral's analysis, it doesn't really matter - the problems that he describes will be an issue whether or not climate change is caused by people or natural cycles. In other words, he is simply stating what everyone who has studied the issue (both global warming proponents and skeptics) agree on - we need to prepare for a warmer world.
with the exceptio of CERN laboratories and thousands of scientists who have signed documents to the contrary. You ice huggers keep on using that word "unanimous"...I do not think it means what you think it means.
There was a "unanimous consensus" that the earth was the center of the universe not too long ago as well.. That didnt make there consensus any more correct...
Americans have their heads in the sand when it comes to global warming. The rest of the world acknowledges the problem and is searching for solutions. Meanwhile, we are Chicken Little, running around without a clue as to why the sky is falling...
We know why, it's the right-wingers who don't understand science and are shockingly ignorant who don't.
Countries will warring over water long before the 15 – 20 years Adm. Morisetti cites. Water will be the next "oil"
- and soon.
Thanks in part to global warming and climate change.
When Rick Perry, Republican candidate for President, heard about this fascinating analysis, he said he would
get rid of climate change once for all.
Imagine the security risk if someone told you that you "have to have" a job, and then, snickering, added, "but there aren't any."
once again another global warming tale.anyone heard about the latest snafu about the ice caps,or was it greenland this time?
Shouldn't you be busy putting your head in the sand instead of commenting? Careful, you might learn some facts while you're up for air.
Nice insightful post, glyder. Do they pay you by the hour or by the word?
If we could get glyder to start piping some of that hot air he's producing we could heat 100,000 homes
the hot air is coming from nasa's james hansen.bought and paid for.of course you probably don't know about that story.
A new renewable low cost fuel source is at hand. See New Scientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128285.100-ammonia-cleans-up.html?full=true#bx282851B1
and
http://www.electrogenhydrofuels.com