GOP Hinders Defence Planning

[TimG]

5 Soloman Islands are already underwater and 6 more are about to follow suit.

Something that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

Right now, people have temporarily evacuated areas in the US Southwest due to wildfires and extreme temperatures.

Wildfires are a fact of life in many regions and are not connected climate change. They have been exacerbated by aggressive fire suppression procedures are there is no evidence that fire occurring today are outside the historical norms:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140806173838.htm

"Climate change is certainly important on some landscapes. But at lower elevation, we should not be thinking just about climate change," said Keeley. "We should be thinking about all global change." Land use change and population growth create more opportunities for fires to start.

Edited June 26, 2016 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Temperatures, disasters and rising water are already causing people in the US and around the world to evacuate areas and move completely. Yet, the GOP is preventing the Pentagon from enacting their plans to deal with the fallout from a national security perspective.

No It's because we are living in more areas that are prone to natural disasters. We are changing the landscape to the point where the planet cannot naturally do what it does best.

Climate change?? How about the impact of roads on natural migration routes of many species? How about the impact of every day pollution on the health of plants and animals alike. Chemical and plastic toxicity, more radiation due to nuclear plants, and other things we use.

I went down for a walk to the river today and I saw a lot of garbage, plastics, paper, broken glass, it's a real shame. Not to mention it was the Ottawa river, quite polluted. But sure, keep on about climate change and not see the garbage right in front of you.

[Guest]

Cancer happens even without cigarettes, you can't definitively say that tobacco contributes to any specific case of cancer.

[TimG]

Cancer happens even without cigarettes, you can't definitively say that tobacco contributes to any specific case of cancer.

Except there is statistical evidence that conclusively shows a correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes. There is no equivalent evidence when it comes to 'climate change' and adverse weather events we see today. In fact, the statistical evidence that does exist shows that weather events are well within the historical norms (case in point: we are in the middle of longest hurricane lull in history). Edited June 27, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Something that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

What's your explanation?

[TimG]

What's your explanation?

These atolls float on the the ocean. They are constantly changing and shifting. The only reason these normal changes have become problematic is because of human habitation.

[eyeball]

Too many people are definitely a problem but I wouldn't say it's the only reason. An overabundance of dissolved CO2 in the ocean and warmer water temperatures are clearly a part of the mix.

[GostHacked]

Too many people are definitely a problem but I wouldn't say it's the only reason. An overabundance of dissolved CO2 in the ocean and warmer water temperatures are clearly a part of the mix.

It that really was such a big deal we would not still be building on ocean fronts. But yet, they are highly sought after by retailers/developers and people in general.

[The_Squid]

These atolls float on the the ocean. They are constantly changing and shifting. The only reason these normal changes have become problematic is because of human habitation.

Do you have a cite for this explanation, or did you make it up?

[TimG]

Do you have a cite for this explanation, or did you make it up?

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract

There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level.

The exception occur when humans interfere with the natural geology.

[The_Squid]

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstractThe exception occur when humans interfere with the natural geology.

The first line in the abstract:

The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change.

So this study says exactly the opposite of what you contend in the very first line.

[TimG]

So this study says exactly the opposite of what you contend in the very first line.

Try reading the entire abstract. The first line is simply the premise which turned out to be false (e.g. the reason why they did the study because people presume it to be true).

The *conclusions* of the study are:

Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level.

More info here:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/fate-atolls-not-necessarily-tied-sea-level-rise

Edited July 1, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Try reading the entire abstract. The first line is simply the premise which turned out to be false (e.g. the reason why they did the study because people presume it to be true). The *conclusions* of the study are:More info here:http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/fate-atolls-not-necessarily-tied-sea-level-rise

For those islands in the study, that may be true. It also says sea level is a threat.

You are cherry picking statements and trying to get them to agree with your own narrative.

[TimG]

You are cherry picking statements and trying to get them to agree with your own narrative.

No that is what you are doing. The study concludes that the islands adapt to changes in sea level but you don't like that narrative so you cherry pick one line from the abstract and ignore the actual conclusions. Edited July 1, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

...the key question in all of this is not just whether an island, or islands, will survive into the future, but “does a habitable island survive?” Even if some atoll islands grow and change shape, rising seas and waves will still increase the flood risk for inhabited, urbanized islands, he says.

[TimG]

...the key question in all of this is not just whether an island, or islands, will survive into the future, but “does a habitable island survive?” Even if some atoll islands grow and change shape, rising seas and waves will still increase the flood risk for inhabited, urbanized islands, he says.

Which is exactly what I have been saying. Any problems are caused by modern human impacts on the natural geology of the islands. Not by rising seas themselves because without human interference the islands would have no problems.

[waldo]

These atolls float on the the ocean. They are constantly changing and shifting. The only reason these normal changes have become problematic is because of human habitation.

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2015/04/27/G36555.1.abstract

Try reading the entire abstract. The first line is simply the premise which turned out to be false (e.g. the reason why they did the study because people presume it to be true).

The *conclusions* of the study are:

Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level.

More info here:

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/fate-atolls-not-necessarily-tied-sea-level-rise

you can continue to drop linked reference to and quotations from... that same study. Per MLW search, this is at least the 3rd time you've referenced it. Each time I notice you doing so, I will provide you the same reply I initially posted; again:

the study area was within a subset of the central Pacific involving a relatively small number of atoll islands - the study authors caution extending the findings to a broader coverage area level... in that regard, of course, sea-level rise varies considerably across the complete ocean area, notwithstanding other localized impacts related to the preponderance of tropical storms/typhoons, etc.

even taking the study's own data, against the generalized 120mm of sea-level rise in the study area, 14% of the atolls showed a decrease in total land area. Equally, another 43% of the atolls remained 'relatively stable' in land area... which only means the respective coral reef growth managed to keep pace with that associated 120mm sea-level rise. That "keeping pace" presumes upon healthy coral growth balanced against that existing sea-level rise rate... if the rate increases, the coral growth may not be able to keep up. Equally, there are other climate change related stresses that directly affect coral growth... coral life, for that matter: a warming ocean, ocean acidification, bleaching and (possible) changes in storm frequency/intensity. All these factors weigh heavily on whether atoll island nations will "remain afloat"... will be able to potentially adapt, if even partially.

additionally, the referenced study analysis was based entirely on area size comparisons... vertical growth/height was not measured questioning whether the study suggests any change to the vulnerability of atoll islands to sea level rise. Per the study authors:

This study did not measure vertical growth of the island surface nor does it suggest there is any change in the height of the islands. Since land height has not changed the vulnerability of the greater part of the land area of each island to submergence due to sea level rise is also unchanged and these low-lying atolls remain immediately and extremely vulnerable to inundation or sea water flooding.

.

[waldo]

There is no equivalent evidence when it comes to 'climate change' and adverse weather events we see today. In fact, the statistical evidence that does exist shows that weather events are well within the historical norms (case in point: we are in the middle of longest hurricane lull in history).

say what? Are you presuming to ignore localized regional focused impacts? Oh my! Another guy who does the ready-reach for landfall incident... for the single focus on the U.S., as a determiner of hurricane activity. That ole nugget concerning the narrow landfall focus/skew has been dispatched in prior MLW threads/posts. Here's the thing... there are many oceans across the globe... apparently more than just the North Atlantic Basin... and, surprisingly, many/most don't hit landfall. Go figure, hey!

.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Stop the thread drift.

[GostHacked]

Do you have a cite for this explanation, or did you make it up?

The islands are more susceptible to erosion.Also tectonic plates move and shift and we gain and loose land accordingly. This kind of stuff was taught in high school physics and geograhy when I was a teen.

[cybercoma]

Folks,

Stop the thread drift.

What's off topic here? The discussion is about how the GOP is interfering with planning for environmental changes in defence planning. The posters before you are discussing the importance of environmental changes.

[Charles Anthony]

What's off topic here?

Discussing How To Recognize Climate Change is off topic.

The discussion is about how the GOP is interfering with planning for environmental changes in defence planning.

Discussing The Defence Planning is on topic.

The posters before you are discussing the importance of environmental changes.

They should take it to a new/old thread. Call it What Color Is The Sky? And Why? if you will.

[cybercoma]

The topic is about climate change. Did you read the OP?

[dre]

Except there is statistical evidence that conclusively shows a correlation between lung cancer and cigarettes.

Maybe... but the climate change argument sounds an awful lot like the tobacco cancer argument did in the past. It took decades for any sort of consensus on cigarettes. Tobacco companies lobbied, hired or funded armies of scientists, and people who suggested a health risk were branded as alarmist quacks.

[WestCoastRunner]

Maybe... but the climate change argument sounds an awful lot like the tobacco cancer argument did in the past. It took decades for any sort of consensus on cigarettes. Tobacco companies lobbied, hired or funded armies of scientists, and people who suggested a health risk were branded as alarmist quacks.

It sure does. Agree completely.