U.S. Navy “Taking Climate Change Seriously,” Despite Trump… Because Guam!

U.S. Navy “Taking Climate Change Seriously,” Despite Trump… Because Guam!

https://ift.tt/2tHqFY7

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

What’s missing from this article?

Trump’s skepticism aside, the Navy is taking climate change seriously

Gerald Harris, Medill News Service June 28, 2018

TAMUNING, Guam — The Trump administration has vigorously downplayed the threat of global warming, insisting that the science is still unproven.

But an increase in the number of severe storms combined with rising sea levels and surface temperatures are forcing the U.S. Navy to adjust to the mounting threat of climate change.

The 2018 National Defense Authorization Act has ordered the Pentagon to identify the top 10 military bases threatened by climate change for the Navy and the other service branches by November.

[…]

While the Navy has a long history of responding to weather-related catastrophes, a world-wide increase in extreme weather and climate-related civilian unrest has led to more requests for assistance from the Navy.

The demand could hamper naval readiness, said Ann C. Phillips, a retired rear admiral who spent 30 years in the Navy and is now a member of the advisory board of the Center for Climate & Security, a non-partisan think tank.

[…]

“By reputation Guam has the largest fuel capacity than any place in Asia, largest weapon capacity, so Guam is the base which the United States can project its power to this part of the world without asking anyone’s permission,” said Robert Underwood, the outgoing president of the University of Guam and a former Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

[…]

According to Austin Shelton, an assistant professor at the University of Guam and director of the Sea Grant research program, Guam is facing multiple challenges.

[…]

According to a report by the Center for Climate & Security released earlier this year, 200 military installations participating in a vulnerability assessment have already been affected by storm surge flooding.

A 2008 assessment found that only 30 military sites faced elevated risks because of sea level rise.

USA Today

The article doesn’t cite a single U.S. Navy source.  It cites:

  • A retired Rear Admiral who works for the Center for Climate & Security.
  • The Center for Climate & Security, a warmunist activist group.
  • The “outgoing president of the University of Guam and a former Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives,” a liberal Democrat.
  • An “assistant professor at the University of Guam and director of the Sea Grant research program.”

I’m surprised they didn’t cite the world-renowned Guam expert, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)…

The article exhibits the standard warmunist trait of mis-conjugating verbs and making unsupported claims:

While the Navy has a long history of responding to weather-related catastrophes, a world-wide increase in extreme weather and climate-related civilian unrest has led to more requests for assistance from the Navy.

The demand could hamper naval readiness…

Unsupported claims:

Regarding the claim of a climate change driven increase in extreme weather, this is extreme horse schist.

CEICEI

Contiguous U.S. Climate Extremes Index. No trend, R² = 0.0367. From 1910-1940, three years exceeded +2σ. From 1998-2017, five years exceeded +2σ. From 1941-1997, the CEI was mostly below average. (NOAA)

Compo et al., 2011 found no evidence “of an intensifying weather trend” during the 20th century.

Some surprising results are already evident. For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century.

Compo et all. 2011

20CRv2_PWC_NAO_PNA20CRv2_PWC_NAO_PNA

“Some surprising results are already evident. For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century.” Compo et al., 2011

The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder

The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.

By Anne Jolis
Updated Feb. 10, 2011 12:01 a.m. ET
Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions.

[…]

As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

WSJ

Regarding the idiotic claim that the U.S. Navy’s operational readiness is being affected by Gorebal Warming… This is unmitigated bull schist!

December 14, 2017

A New Report Reveals Why the U.S. Navy Is in Big Trouble (And Offers a Solution)

Over the years, due to a brutal operations tempo and a shrinking fleet, the Navy has reached the breaking point.

by Dave Majumdar

he United States Navy has released its new Strategic Readiness Review (SSR), which was ordered by Navy Secretary Richard Spencer earlier this year in September. The SSR, as was expected, has revealed severe deficits in the U.S. Navy’s readiness level, which have led to a rash of accidents in recent month.

“The U.S. Navy is without question the most capable in the world but its primacy is being challenged as it sails into a security environment not seen since before the collapse of the Soviet Union,” the SSR reads. “Another era of sustained peer-on-peer competition has arrived and failing to recognize and prepare for its very different challenges will have severe consequences. Even in a non-peer-on-peer environment, the Navy and the nation can ill afford the readiness deficiencies revealed in the recent ship-handling incidents in the Pacific.”

Over the years, due to a brutal operations tempo and a shrinking fleet, the Navy has reached the breaking point. “Many of these deficiencies have been observed and authoritatively documented for years, however the naval capacity that had been built up for the Cold War masked their impact,” the report reads. “That past margin in ships, aircraft, and sailors enabled the Navy to make mitigating adjustments in fleet operations, training, maintenance, and funding to accomplish assigned missions. Today, those margins are long gone. A smaller fleet with fewer sailors is straining to meet the operational demands placed upon it.”

[…]

The National Interest

The U.S. Navy is stretched very thin protecting the national interests of these United States.  Since the end of Cold War I, the Navy has had to manage a “shrinking fleet” and a steady, if not expanding, operational tempo.  Note that neither “weather” nor “climate” is mentioned in the article.  Nor are they mentioned in the report.  This is the closest that the report got to climate change:

To define what each service provides, the service chiefs and the joint staff review and validate force requests (the demand) from the geographic combatant commanders and prioritize them for consideration. The output of this process is a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense regarding which naval assets will be made available to each geographic combatant commander (the supply). This Global Force Management Allocation Plan is reviewed quarterly and when unplanned requirements arise.13 These unplanned requirements can be in response to threat increases in theater, natural disasters, or changes in force availability. When one of these emergent requirements arises, a geographic combatant commander submits a Request for Forces.

Responding to requests for forces pressurizes the fleet, as it requires either diverting another ready unit that may be in line for another assignment or disrupting the maintenance and/or training phases of a unit not deemed ready in accordance with established Navy standards. Some Requests for Forces can be accommodated without disruption to near and long-term readiness by using only those units that are certified ready to deploy. However, the small fleet and the need for specific unit capabilities frequently limit the options to answer emergent mission requirements. For instance, in the case of hurricane relief, amphibious capability and helicopter capacity are likely to be the limiting functions; on the other hand, certain high end threats might require ballistic missile defense capable ships.

Strategic Readiness Review 2017

No schist Sherlock.  Hurricane relief missions call for Gators & helo’s rather than Aegis-equipped DDG’s & CG’s.

One would think that if the the Navy was facing increasing demands for Gorebal Warming-related assistance, in might just have made it into a report on readiness challenges.

Mis-conjugated verbs

  • The unsupported claims *have* led to more demand for assistance from the Navy.
  • The increased demand *could* hamper naval readiness in the future.

If the Navy has faced more demand for Gorebal Warming relief missions, then any effect on readiness would have already occurred.

  • A future demand could affect readiness.
  • A demand that has already occurred would have affected readiness.

I think the author is making the common mistake of conflating model-based predictions with things that are happening or have already happened.

That said, the Navy should take climate change more seriously

Climate Change Weather Disables US Navy’s Newest Ship! (WUWT)

t;/a>)

Superforest,Climate Change

via Watts Up With That? https://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s