Pick a holiday, and you can virtually guarantee that someone in the Cult Of Climastrology will link it to “climate change”. For this Memorial Day, The Baltimore Sun and its Editorial Board win the Moonbat Award with their “the sky is melting, the sky is melting” mantra
It’s Memorial Day, and the forecast is for renewed mocking and derision regarding man-made climate change from the know-nothing, science-averse wing of the Republican Party. President Barack Obama’s warning — issued during his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremonies Wednesday — that climate change represents a national security threat seems certain to provoke that kind of stormy reaction.
For those who actually serve in the military, however, the response is far likelier to be something along the lines of a matter-of-fact “yes, sir.” Whether it’s flooding or more severe storms at U.S. Navy bases or the manner in which thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities in Alaska, the evidence of the changing global climate is pretty obvious to the men and women in uniform. With climate-induced rising sea levels already causing problems for some coastal communities, the Coast Guard is certain to be on the front lines of this particular challenge right along with the National Guard.
Of course they say “yes, sir”, because their bosses have told them to, along with gay marriage and other Progressive policies being enforced on the military. No one is actually denying climate change: the argument is on causation. Will the Baltimore Sun give up their own use of fossil fuels to deliver their paper, and stop killing trees to publish their paper?
Perhaps what Senator Cruz and others should do is simply visit the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis where faculty have been looking into how much damage climate change will have on coastal facilities around the Chesapeake Bay and what are the most cost-effective strategies to deal with it. That might teach them why the Navy and the other branches of the military can’t afford to be climate deniers anxious to appease special interests or play to certain voters: They have a country to defend. As Mr. Obama observed, “climate change impacts every country on the planet.” It’s no laughing matter to imagine a future president who would ignore such an obvious security threat for no good reason beyond some measure of short-term political gain.
Yes, let’s let them visit and ask the Naval members exactly what their opinions are in private, without the command influence of those above them who are Cult of Climastrology members, who demand Obedience. Changes in climate will always have effects on life, some good, some bad. A massive change in the climate from an asteroid 65 million years ago had a pretty bad effect on dinosaurs, but led to the rise of the mammals, and Mankind. The climate changes, there’s no need to assign blame to Mankind. Unless someone has a political agenda.
All that said, it’s beyond shameful that the Baltimore Sun uses the occasion of Memorial Day to push its wholly unscientific political doctrine. All for new taxes, as well as for more government and less personal freedom, freedom which our military members gave their lives to defend.
Our esteemed host wrote:
Well, there are some who deny that he climate is changing, and your frequent pointing out that the results have not been what the Chicken Littles of the Church of Climacatastrophe (did I get that right?) have claimed they would be strikes me as just as much a denial that it is occurring at all as simply an argument that the warmists have gotten the causation wrong.
I do not den that he climate might be changing, but I also do not deny that it really might not be; I don’t believe it has been proved either way. There is some evidence that the past few decades have been slightly warmer, but it’s nothing like what the CLotCoC have predicted, and is within the variations seen before the invention of the infernal combustion engine.
Nor do I think that there’s something wrong with trying to clean up the environment and develop alternative energy sources; both of those things make good sense. Where I differ with Archbishop Jeffrey of the CoC is in the leftist response that we must impoverish ourselves — or, more realistically, we must further impoverish the poor — to combat something which may not be subject to change anyway, and to which, if it does occur, we will be able to adapt; human beings have proved that they can survive, and thrive, in virtually every climate seen on earth, from the Arctic wastes to tropical rain forests to bone-dry deserts.
@Dana
Well Said Dana. I too am all for alternatives and reducing smog and pollution and keeping the planet clean. This is our responsibility as a people and as nations around the globe.
I also know for a fact that according to geological record the planet has warmed substantially for the last 11,000 years since the end of the last ice age.
The vast reduction in co2 in the air is what causes the planet to be COLD. Increases in CO2 causes the planet to be warmer.
Their is cause and effect and the science proves this over and over again.
CAREFULLY NOW….TO ALL AGW CULTIST.
****The AGW crowd will take an entire epoch of millions of years, compress it into a few decades or a century and claim THIS IS WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN IF THE TEMPERATURE RISES 2C or 3C in the next 20-50 years.
THIS IS JUST FLAT WRONG….and this is what we scoff at….it took millions of years for all that to happen in just the last epoch…not a 100 or even 50 years.
This is why we laugh and scoff at YOUR SCIENCE!!****
Our esteemed host asked:
Well, yes, it will . . . at which point the left will bemoan the death of a major daily (liberal) newspaper!
Newspapers are, for all of their upgrades, 18th century technology, and it’s common for their information to already be out-of-date by the time the print edition arrives on your doorstep. Eventually, the newspapers will be digital-only publications, because the generation that wants to hold a physical paper in their now-newsprint smeared hands is dying out, and a generation far more comfortable with getting the news, from multiple sources, on their PCs or tablets or iPhones or whatever comes next won’t really be interested in buying the dead trees edition.
The newspapers will try to herald going digital-only as some great step forward in combating
global warmingclimate change, but it will really be an economic decision based on the changing market.Will you share the source of your fact? Paleoclimate reconstructions show the Earth has been cooling slightly (-0.5C) but steadily for the past 6000 years. In the past 100 or so years it has warmed almost 1C.
And yet many self-proclaimed skeptics deny that CO2 has any significant influence on temperature. Your claim is that it does cause warming, just that the source of the CO2 is natural, although unprecedented for about the past million years. The best estimates are that these previous massive changes in CO2 take thousands of years, not a hundred. But science has been wrong before and may be wrong on this.
What say you, Pirates? Liam claims CO2 causes warming but denies the CO2 is from human activity, thus he denies the theory of AGW. Are you skeptical? You guys deny the theory of AGW by a completely different reasoning – claiming the CO2 is from man but is not causing the warming but is a coincidence – that warming is occurring from unknown physical processes. What you have in common is that you all deny that man could possibly cause global warming.
Can you expand on your reasoning? Why is it better for the Earth to warm 2C or 3C in the next 20-50 years, than if it happened over 50,000? That seems counterintuitive. Is it because it takes time for many cubic miles of ice to melt? Are you assuming that the temperature will drop 2C to 3C over the following 20-50 years? What if the temperature stays 3C warmer than now for 1000 years?
And always keep in mind that human civilization evolved during a time of remarkable global climate stability (the Holocene).
You scoff at climate science since it disagrees with your beliefs, nothing more.
Dna typed:
High Priestess from the Church of Deniers (COD), Dana, do you have even a shred of evidence that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables will impoverish ourselves or the poor? The professional literature in the area disagrees with your conclusion. It is repeated often by COD members but never supported. Why is that?
How many of the 10 billion humans in 2100 will the bone dry deserts, tropical rain forests and dwindling Arctic wastes support?
And rather than having to worry about the impact of a preventable massive change in the Earth’s climate, doesn’t it make more sense to moderate behaviors now?
If climate realists are wrong – we would have transitioned to renewable energy sources earlier rather than later, which you all agree is a good outcome.
If Deniers are wrong (and they probably are), you’re condemning our future generations to unnecessary misery.
Think of it terms of risk and reward. The reason Deniers make up stories about “impoverishing” everyone or “destroying economies” in the future is to… hell, I can’t understand why you do it. I guess you would harm future mankind because you hate liberals.
No I actually scoff at you AGW groupies making stuff up to meet your needs.
I will shorten this to a very brief reason why I fear global warming….but its not for the same reasons you do.
Sudden warm and moist phases occurred at various times during the timespan of the last glacial phase, often taking Greenland and Europe from a full-glacial climate to conditions about as warm as at present.
For the time period between 115,000 and 14,000 years ago, 24 of these short lived warm events have so far been recognized from the Greenland ice core data (where they are called ‘Dansgaard-Oeschger events’), although many lesser warming events also occurred. You can find this in Dansgaard et al. 1993.
From the speed of the climate changes recorded in the Greenland ice cap and by observation of the speed of change in sedimentation conditions on land, it is widely believed that the complete ‘jump’ in climate occurred over only a few decades.
This brings up to the start of the present warm phase, the Holocene.
Following the sudden ending of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago (or 10,000 14C years ago), forests quickly regained the ground that they had lost to cold and aridity. Ice sheets again began melting, though because of their size they took about two thousand more years to disappear completely.
Now here is the key….. The Earth entered several thousand years of conditions warmer and moister than today. As a result the earth has actually cooled slightly from this initial surge of HEAT and MOISTURE. Hence your gotcha question.
This does not alter the fact that overall the earth has warmed remarkably since the end of the last interglacial.
The real danger is that we have had 24 of these short lived warm events that has once again led us to another ICE age. And why is that you ask…..
Im glad you asked….It would be a rapid build up of heat from a ton of differing sources which then completely shut down the warm currents that heat the northern hemisphere and cause the onset once again of another EVENT.
We have had 24 of them when Man did not basically exist other then in caves. So you should be stocking up on winter gear not shorts and surf boards because my moneys on another glacial age not another sauna. But once again I can take a model and begin modeling at anytime I want in geological history and prove just about anything I want….I chose the last 120k years because thats the time reference that is most key to our current situation….not the epoch of 3 million years ago.
Ideology doesn’t determine the views of global warming realists; honesty and real data do. Conservatives and libertarians are more likely than liberals to “look under the hood†at the science driving the global warming movement because they don’t like the direction that vehicle is taking the world. When they do, they discover great uncertainty over the causes and consequences of climate change. If liberals paused for a moment and actually looked at the science, they too would quickly become “skeptics.†Alas, most don’t and never will. It’s called “confirmation bias.â€
— Joseph L. Bast (1 May 2015)
I eagerly await a DeSmog (or equivalent alarmist blog) “cut and paste” hit job from the little one.
A cut and paste from Joseph Bast, President of the Heartland Institute, lol. An industry-funded “think tank”.
From a Texas Court ruling in 2014:
A court said that Mr. Bast doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to economics, where he pretends to be an expert. He knows even less about climate, lol.
Heartland is funded by the Koch Foundation and Exxon/Mobil in part and funnels money to bought and paid-for Deniers such as Tony Watts, Craig Idso and Fred Singer. [Teach: Do you get any money from Heartland?]
are
Do you think the excursions in the glacial period are the same as the Holocene or are you suggesting the current rapid warming period is similar to the excursions in the previous glacial period?
Little jeffy is so predictable.
Attack the messenger, ignore the message.
Thanks for proving my point.
What else might it be that is causing climate change? None of the usual suspects of climate change have been seen
“…Should visit the US Naval Academy where faculty have been looking into how much climate change will have on coastal facilities.” “Will have?” So, still not sure about it-always in the future. As said, it’s just like the sign at your favorite watering hole: “free beer tomorrow.”
Like you, Bast is a charlatan and a liar. His “message” is paid for by Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries.
It’s the rare butthole that has a court ruling calling one a liar. Bast is such a butthole.
Butt he’s telling the hole truth here:
He just think that he’s a climate realist instead of shill for the energy (and previously the tobacco) industry.
Of course Deniers discover great uncertainty! They’re Deniers! They get paid to Deny!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair
By and large only “liberal” climate realists are conducting science. Most climate scientists (>90%) agree that man is causing the current bout of rapid warming.
Relying on Bast for your climate information is like relying on Dorian Johnson, except Johnson doesn’t get paid to lie.
Try again, Wee Puppy. Why did you post the Bast nonsense? Does the Wee Puppy need his nose rubbed in the newsprint again?
And someone has to prove your points since you are so inept.
Every branch of the US military acknowledges AGW
Every branch of the US military is on record as saying that climate change is a matter of national security.
The right wing used to admire our military now they are mocking them as belonging to the warmist cult OR thinking that they are about to invade Texas
The Deniosphere cites magic, and recently here, rotting trees.
Denier Dogma: Anything but humans.
Wee Puppy,
We understand you trying to add to the discussion. But Joseph Bast? If ever there is a climate nobody it’s Bast.
I’ll try by bast to ignore your pitiable posts from now on.
As usual, little jeffy reverts to ad hominem and retarded johnny uses the the other logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’.
Classic.
here is a report from the US Navy done in 2001 http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/2007IceSymp/FinalArcticReport_2001.pdf
Maybe you right wing nuts think this is the first evidence of the cult of climate change in the US military.
Of course many of you climate truthers are also way beyond concerned that Obama is sending in our military to INVADE TEXAS
climate truthers have special knowledge
Archbishop Jeffrey wrote:
If you artificially increase the cost of electricity, with no concomitant gain for the consumer, you make the consumer poorer, in real terms, because now more of his income must go to purchasing the same commodity he purchased previously for less. That’s just plain common sense . . . which may be why it completely escapes the left.
Further, that would be High Priest!, not priestess. And it seems that you didn’t even read what you quoted from very closely: I said that I accepted the possibility that the climate is warming slightly, but I also said it is possible that it isn’t.
How many of the 10 billion humans in 2100 will the bone dry deserts, tropical rain forests and dwindling Arctic wastes support?
And rather than having to worry about the impact of a preventable massive change in the Earth’s climate, doesn’t it make more sense to moderate behaviors now?
If climate realists are wrong – we would have transitioned to renewable energy sources earlier rather than later, which you all agree is a good outcome.
If Deniers are wrong (and they probably are), you’re condemning our future generations to unnecessary misery.
Crap! Posted before my entire response was typed in!
And you would condemn the people alive today to unnecessary misery, by unnecessarily impoverishing them. You’ve told us before that you are very well off; I’m not badly off myself, but I did grow up poor, and know what it’s like to try to have to juggle the bills and live from paycheck to paycheck. If you ever experienced that, you sure don’t write like you did!
What’s that you say? Why it’s just a measly $10 a month extra on someone’s electric bill! Of course, that might just be a few gallons of milk for the kids for a lot of families. What’s that you say? Why, it’s just another 27¢ per gallon of gasoline, not really that bad . . . unless you’re a working mother who has to keep putting gasoline in the clunker she didn’t have the credit to trade in under C4C, and that’s money that she won’t have to buy something else for her family.
John wrote:
And every branch of the United States armed forces are subject to the civilian command authority, which has Barack Hussein Obama as the Commander-in-Chief. The military cannot do anything that does not reflect the views of the Commander-in-Chief.
So cutting the federal subsidies for fossil fuel generated electricity is artificially increasing the cost?
Subsidizing non-CO2 emitting technologies for electricity is artificially increasing the cost?
Why do professional economists who specialize energy and environmental issues disagree with your analysis?
Here’s a brief overview of the economics of climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html
Paul Krugman?
You went with Paul Krugman?
That’s laughable. He has been proven wrong on his predictions and statements so many times that the only people who think he has a clue are left leaning liberals.
You inadvertently neglected to point out where Krugman is wrong on the economics of global warming.
Or if you wish to incriminate his views in total, please list five or ten of his predictions proven wrong.
Or perhaps you question his credentials as an economist.
“I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.” It’s one of our all-time favorite quotes, and it was published 10 years ago this Sunday. As former Enron adviser Paul Krugman might say, this statement is false.
It was, of course, Krugman who wrote that statement, in his Jan. 29, 2002, New York Times column.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204573704577187081831886976
Do you actually want to have a serious discussion or are you going to try to lull me into more gotcha science?
But evidence suggest the complete shut down of the northern warm currents that warm the norther hemisphere….these shut downs occurred in as little as 100-200 years. We are currently experiencing a time reference of nearly 150 years in which the oceans have been sinking heat as well as melting glaciers have changed the alkalinity of the oceans.
It is here that we find quick switches from heat to cold. Ice to thaw. 24 of them in 115,000 years as evidenced by Greenland Ice core samples and validated by tree ring data, sedimentation values and coral reef analysis of akalinity values corresponding to the 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger events.
When you compare this to the rapid rise of CO2 which lags heat build up by as much as 50 to 1200 years depending upon which group you want to agree or disagree with it becomes quite evident that the AGW crowd believes the 50 years scenario.
Hence if we have a 50 year scenario of co2 lagging heat then its quite obvious that we are headed into the teeth of another Dansgaard-Oeschger event…..a time in which the rapid rise in temperature will actually lead to another DEEP FREEZE.
Each of these freezes last roughly 1500 years….followed once again by a rapid release of CO2 and methane which warms the planet, melts the ice.
Coincidently the onset of a Dansgaard-Oeschger event is preceeded by a period of extreme ARID or DROUGHT stricken planetary conditions.
One only has to study Alaska, the North Pole and the Antarctic to realize that they are all three extremely arid and the plague of droughts being seen around the globe gives rise for concern as the arid conditions are returning….signaling another Dansgaard-Oeschger event or in this case.
Another deep freeze. By my calculations we are nearing the 200 year maximum that these events require to be completed for our 25th event since 115,000 years ago and the end of the last interglacial period.
I surmise that If I was to take you under my wing for a year as an intern that you would realize that their is so much we do not understand.
In the proceeding 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger events….CO2 rose dramatically along with temperature bringing about a warming period that ultimately led to another deep freeze.
There is very little question of this. The data overwhelmingly supports this. What is questioned is WHAT caused the sudden rise in Heat….and did the heat lag the co2 or did the co2 lag the heat.
Its predominantly thought that the co2 lags the heat and therefore is not a driver of FAST temperature rises but rather a consequence of FAST temperature rises that release tundra from freezing and the released tundra is actually a storage facility for co2 which then decays quickly releasing co2 into the air.
The fact that the AGW crows tries so hard to prove that the co2 lagging heat can be shown to be reduced down to as little as 50 years actually speaks volumes to the validity of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events and if past histories hold true we are nearing the end of another 200 year cycle which means we are staring at another event…..Huge build up of heat followed closely by a gigantic BIG FREEZE.
Have you published your calculations and predictions anywhere other than this blog comments section? This is huge and important.
No thanks. It sounds as if we have only a few years to know if your model is reliable or not.
Let’s plug that into the “Liberal translator” machine and see what that really means:
“I’m too busy listening to rumors and false pundits than to actually listen to science.”
That sounds about right.
This has already been published. NOAA themselves pay attention to the D-O Events in their modeling.
Here you will find a study on the Delta 0 as I keep talking about the study of alkalinity in the coral reefs in the south pacific.
From NOAA's own analysis of the Heinrich and D-O events:
What caused Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events?
The cause of these glacial events is still under debate. Currently, the leading hypothesis involves a slowdown of the ocean's thermohaline circulation. During the last glacial time, large ice sheets rimmed the North Atlantic (Figure 2). At certain times, these ice sheets released large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic. Heinrich events are an extreme example of this, when the Laurentide ice sheet disgorged excessively large amounts of freshwater into the Labrador Sea in the form of icebergs. Scientists have hypothesized that these freshwater dumps reduced ocean salinity enough to slow deepwater formation and the thermohaline circulation. Since the thermohaline circulation plays an important role in transporting heat northward, a slowdown would cause the North Atlantic to cool. Later, as the addition of freshwater decreased, ocean salinity and deepwater formation increased and climate conditions recovered.
As you can see the last D-0 Event is on the near horizon. In fact many thought that the break up of the arctic ice shelf is just the beginning but that somehow the planet keeps fixing itself.
Could this be the additional release of C02 into the air by man? No one knows at this juncture but additional co2 is actually a laggart in the D-0 events causing a delay but not all together stopping the next event.
As the Graph shows at NOAA we are right smack dab in the middle of the next D-0 event....and IMO we have much more to fear from global freezing then any potential global warming because if D-0 holds true to form it will begin before any damage can be done by the destructive forces predicted by global warming.
And yes...this theory, Hypothesis and reasoning has been debated for a couple decades now....but the repercussions of this being reality is 1000x's more devestating then is gradual global warming and rising co2 levels.
Perhaps I was inelegant in a previous question, after which you accused me of playing gotcha.
Let me rephrase: Do you think the Dansgaard-Oeschger events observed in the latest glacial period explain the current rapid warming superimposed on the Holocene? It sounds to me as if you do. That’s all I was trying to understand earlier.
Jeffery To understand the introduction of an entirely new element when studying paleo climatology would require historical data which we do not have. Therefore the current modeling, hypothesis and theories of global warming due to man made Co2 is just that…..guesses.
Too Look at the Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events one thing has become abundantly clear.
Freshwater addition has been implicated by coupled ocean and atmosphere climate modeling (Ganopolski and Rahmstorf 2001), showing that both Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events may show hysteresis behaviour. This means that relatively minor changes in freshwater loading into the Nordic Seas — a 0.15 Sv increase, or 0.03 Sv decrease — would suffice to cause profound shifts in global circulation (Rahmstorf et al. 2005).
The results show that a Heinrich event does not cause a cooling around Greenland but further south, mostly in the subtropical Atlantic, a finding supported by most available paleoclimatic data. This idea was connected to D-O events by Maslin et al.. (2001). They suggested that each ice sheet had its own conditions of stability, but that on melting, the influx of freshwater was enough to reconfigure ocean currents — causing melting elsewhere.
The conclusion I have reached based upon what is happening all around the world and not just looking at thermometer readings is that the earth is setting itself up for another Heinrich event which always follows a rather fast moving D-0 event. (Remember D-0 events are fast warming periods) We are seeing a rapid warming right now and this rapid warming does not always lead to an Heinrich event. However we are long past the time in which a Heinrich event is overdue…..
Looking at current conditions all around the world events seem to be pointing towards this event in my opinion. However to know for certainty is beyond any scientists reach. One can only accumulate data, plug in the numbers compare that to climate models and reach a conclusion.
Too answer your question and I know you want me to say man made co2 is causing this and I cannot say that…I also cannot say it is NOT causing it. That is because Im an honest broker when it comes to climate science….what I do fear more then AGW though is another Heinrich event which is long overdue and the conditions are ripening for one and it is long overdue.