I could barely comprehend this article, as my dimly lit neolithic prefrontal cortex processes information so slowly, but I wanted to add to the discussion (as a nod to WD's military affiliation):
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/retired ... l-1.552180The former head of oceanography and meteorology for the Navy argued for more funding for research to understand the impact of climate change while delivering the keynote speech at a science symposium at the University of Rhode Island on Tuesday.
"It's not just science at stake. It's our survival," Rear Adm. (Ret.) Jonathan White said to hundreds of people at the event at the Graduate School of Oceanography campus in Narragansett.
White is president and CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for ocean research, education and policy. His name was mentioned last year in connection with the top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but President Donald Trump instead nominated Accuweather CEO Barry Myers.
Standing in front of images of the destruction wrought last week by Hurricane Michael at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., and flooding around Naval Station Norfolk, Va., he said that climate change is a threat to coastal military installations and, in a larger sense, to national security overall.
"Our military, the more and more they have to deal with infrastructure and the effects of climate change, whether it's helping others or trying to get in and out of our bases, the less ready they are going to be to go on missions ... all over the world," he said.
It was a point that was also raised by U.S. Rep. James R. Langevin, who has pushed for an assessment of the military's vulnerabilities to climate change.
"The dangers to national security are real and we must support the researchers who improve our understanding of the threat and ways to mitigate it," he said.
The symposium's focus was not just on security issues but on the effects of sea-level rise, more powerful storms and increased rainfall on coastal communities in general.
The event came the week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that the impacts of climate change are now expected to be more dire than previously thought. The report predicts major droughts, coastal flooding and other effects by 2040 if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate.
"We only have 10 to 20 years to solve this now," said John King, a professor of geological oceanography at URI. "And transformational change is what we need."
White described potential impacts on drinking water, food supplies and ocean health caused by increased runoff and by harmful algae blooms. The key to understanding them all is science, but the projections and models need to be improved to reduce uncertainty and spur action, he argued.
"We have to keep investing in it because the answers and uncertainty are not where they need to be," he said. "The investments in ocean science are critical."
Here's a quck rundown of his background:
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navy ... ?bioID=545He's member of this board:
https://climateandsecurity.org/advisory-board/And CEO of this consortium:
https://oceanleadership.org/Bottom line is he's a firm believer in key anthropogenic drivers of climate change being the primary reasons behind global warming (really climate change and global warming are just interchangeable).
So, the question is, how do we communicate "key anthropogenic drivers of climate change" in a way to rally support from the masses, and what does that actually mean in practical terms? How are our lives altered, for better or for worse, in a day to day existence, by trying to reverse our impact on the earth that results in it cooling, if that's even possible?
When people of import suggest we're past the point of no return, which I've read a handful of times, or that we only have x-amount of time to solve this thing they fail to consistently and concretely tell us:
1) What exactly is going to happen that will kill off our species and here's the science that proves it.
2) What can we do exactly to prevent the doomsday scenario, and here's the science that proves it.
3) Here is how our lives will change, why we will actually have better lives if we change this or that, and here is the science and political policies whereby we achieve this.
or
4) Climate change is unavoidable, and here's how we can adapt to it in order to sustain our lifestyle/quality of life. Here's the science behind it and here are the political policies we can implement to ensure humankind continues to prosper.
The sense I get is we all know global warming is occurring, but there's really no sort of understanding or consensus that is being effectively discussed in a manner that's accessible to people who're buys living their lives on a day to day basis. Trusting the government to fix anything that won't have a desultory effect on your average Joe is, well, a very faithful position to have. And the fact of the matter is politicians really aren't our best, brightest, most competent, or otherwise preferred people to be in a position to understand and direct us on this issue. They just believe, too. And that's a problem when you're talking economics.
- Doc