A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

When has the DoD expressed concern prior to Obama?

 

There was damned near none.

Prior to 2008, we had a lot of projects on building remediation and replacement. A hell of a lot of the barracks and buildings that the military lives and works in date back to the Korean War (or older). And it was a long term project to replace all of those beyond a certain age that were not considered historic.

However, after 2008 that largely stopped. Instead there was this push to force every base there was to solar power. Installing massive solar power farms on bases, especially those that had their own independent power grid and then tie them into the commercial grid. And to be honest, it is costing a fortune.

One camp I worked at was in the middle of the New Mexico desert. They had their own generators, as it was not used full time or year round. Mostly during the summer months during peak reserve and national guard training, and it was without power at all any time it was not in use (which was most of the time). In around 2009-2010 they spent a fortune running commercial power to it, then a huge solar farm. And of course then removed the generators.

I talked to some of the electricians who installed the system in 2010, and they said it would never pay back the money spent to do that. But it did not matter, because the mandate from on high was to put solar in everywhere.

And I am going to laugh in another 15 years or so when those cells all degrade to the point they are useless, and yet another huge bundle of money is going to need to be spent to replace them.

More and more over the last decade and a half, I have seen a lot of military facilities that were independent of commercial utilities (power, water, sewer) forced to remove that infrastructure and instead become dependent upon commercial utility providers. Until 15 years or so ago, a lot of our bases were still using steam heating. It was efficient, as the steam and power plants were the same facility. Waste heat from the power plant made the steam, which then heated the water and buildings on the base. But the Obama administration ordered most of those plants shut down, and over the past decade or so most have been demolished.

 

If only intelligent people would question the narratives as Dr. Thomas Sowell has done every day of his life.

 

Can you please direct me to reliable sources that you get your information from? I agree with what you have been saying in this thread, but I am not a scientist. I would love to have the resources to combat the nonsense.

 

Did you even see that the first one was from NOAA.GOV?

And I admit that Inverse.Com is not a great source for actual information, but they have been pushing the "Global Warming Bandwagon" for ages, and they are an example of what many in that crowd were saying just a few months ago.

And while LiveScience.Com does tend to be a bit alarmist, it also tries to be more neutral than anything else.

If none of those are to your liking and "reliable", then I really have nothing to say.

 

Thanks

 

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge believer that people should "Vette their sources". And that is one thing I seem to constantly be saying when people pull out the most absolute garbage of sources just because it agrees with what they think.

But I am aware of that, and choose sources not based on my beliefs, but on reliability and credibility. You will not see me pulling from the absolutely partisan and garbage sites that some in here tend to use.

 

Here are some books. The advantage of a book is that they are footnoted and referenced. And ideas are fully developed and supported unlike most stuff found on the internet.

Climate Economics”, second edition, Richard S. J. Tol, 2019

“False Alarm - How climate change paniccost us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet”, Bjorn Lomborg, 2021

“Fossil Future - Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, Natura Gas - Not Less”, Alex Epstein, 2022

“Apocalypse Never - Why Environmental Alarmism Harms Us All”, Michael Schellenberger, 2020

 

Swiss glaciers see worst melt on record in back-to-back heat waves
Story by Reuters
Updated 6:27 AM EDT, Wed September 28, 2022

Swiss glaciers have recorded their worst melt rate since records began more than a century ago, losing 6% of their remaining volume this year or nearly double the previous record of 2003, monitoring body GLAMOS said on Wednesday.

The melt was so extreme this year that bare rock that had remained buried for millennia re-emerged at one site while bodies and even a plane lost elsewhere in the Alps decades ago were recovered. Other small glaciers all but vanished.

“We knew with climate scenarios that this situation would come, at least somewhere in the future,” Matthias Huss, head of the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network (GLAMOS) told Reuters. “And realizing that the future is already right here, right now, this was maybe the most surprising or shocking experience of this summer.”

... https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/europe/switzerland-glacier-melt-climate-intl/index.html​

Tomorrow comes today.

 

The weather changes everyday.

 

Melting glaciers that have been around for thousands of years isn't mere weather.

 

Glaciers that are receding are not melting. Glacier Bay in Alaska shows this literally side by side.

Iceland had no glaciers in the MWP.

Mt Kilimanjaro glaciers showed a very rapid diminishment in the late 1800’s.

Global warming is beneficial.

 

Yeah, maybe it will be beneficial in a way if we cause our own extinction. Whatever survives, assuming the planet doesn't end up like Venus, might evolve into something more sensible.

 

Here is the funniest thing in what you just said. Glaciers themselves have been melting for around 20,000 years.

If not for the glaciers melting, most of everything north of Iowa would still be covered under a miles thick sheet of ice, and it would extend in New York all the way out to Manhattan. You are aware that most of Manhattan is a Glacial Moraine, right? Literally that was as far as it pushed, and when it receded that was the pile of rocks it left behind.

And as for how old the glacier is, that all depends on the glacier. Some of them in North America are very ancient, as in 20-30,000 years.

Now think on that for a moment, and you should realize something. A lot of the glaciers in North America actually formed after the last Glacial Maximum.

Don't believe me? I can prove it to you very easily.

Many of us are old enough to remember the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. And a lot of the damage was from the glaciers melting when it erupted. But look there today 40 years later and what do you see? Why, a new glacier.

Mount Shasta in California last went up in 1786, yet there are now seven named glaciers on it.

It does not take much, or long for a glacier to form. And by the same token, it does not take much for them to melt away either.

Up in Alaska, Portage Glacier is known since 1778 when Captain Bligh first sailed up the Turnagain Arm. And at that point it reached all the way into that inlet. Over a century later it was reported again and given that name in 1898. But then it had retreated almost a mile from the shore and left behind a beach that was once used for porting boats.

I last visited it in the 1970s, and by then it had retreated so far that you could barely see it from the visitor center. One my father had photographs of where the glacier was clearly seen not to far away. Today, it has retreated so far that it can not even be seen anymore from the visitor center.

Now notice those dates. If you know anything about this, you would know that is well into the Little Ice Age. Yet even then and well before when people claim "Global Warming" started, that glacier was retreating. And this is global, not even within the last century, or even the last 3,000 years or more.

And the only way to end that would be to return our climate to what it was around 30,000 years ago. Good luck with that though, a huge percentage of humans will have to be killed first. As the productive land that will be left over after you do that will not even come close to feeding everybody.

 

Read the college text book “Climate Economics” by Dr. Richard Tol former IPCC review scientist.

The earth has not turned into Venus at atmospheric CO2 concentration of 8000 ppm.

But facts don’t matter to the relgion of alarmists.

 

Hell, the last time that the Earth was even close to the conditions of Venus was during the Hadean, around 4 billion years ago. At that time out atmospheric pressure was 27 times what it is now, which is what allowed it to get so damned hot on the first place. It is absolutely impossible to see temperatures like that on our planet again, and the temperature of Venus has not a damned thing to do with the "level of CO2". It has to do with the insane 95 bar pressure of the planet. On earth today, one would have to go to the deepest parts of the ocean trenches to find the pressures that once existed on our surface.

And in relatively "recent times" (geologically speaking), we had CO2 levels of over 6,000 PPM. And we are at what now, a whopping 414 ppm? And most interestingly, most of the times of greatest biodiversity and expansion of the biosphere was during times when they CO2 levels were literally "off the charts".

This is why so damned many fail, they do not really understand science. Venus is not hot because of CO2, it is hot because of the proximity to the sun, being tidally locked to the sun, and an insane atmospheric pressure that would crush a human flat even at sea level. Because the equivalent of walking on the surface of Venus is like being over 3 kilometers underwater.

 

And as an FYI, that "27 times the atmosphere" was the tail end of the Hadean Epoch. At the start, it was around 215 atmospheres of pressure. And to give an idea of what pressure means, if one wants to boil water on Venus, they will have to heat it to over 300c to boil. Or almost 600f. The higher the pressure, the more the boiling point rises.

On Earth today, we have 1 atmosphere of pressure. But on the surface of our planet at our hottest, walking on the surface would have been the same as trying to walk over 7 kilometers beneath the surface of the ocean.

This is why I laugh at any that try to really make a comparison to CO2 on Venus, and CO2 on the Earth. As when they do that they are screaming they understand not a damned thing about science at all, because it is not the CO2 that makes it so hot, it is the atmospheric pressure.

 

I wonder why they think they can beat the Farmer's Almanac. All they can do make guesses. Humanity cannot save itself from itself. The planet may well do us in and it absolutely will do that when the sun becomes a red giant. A long way off for that so no need to worry.

 

All of this is about politicizing everything. Climate change is more about power and money than it is about temperature.

 

Nice bit of rambling there. The problems we are creating are more acute and more immediate than the sun's natural warming, and far easier for us to address and counteract.

 

Denying it is certainly about power and money, but it needs to be dealt with because it is a reality.

 

To put this in context, where I am, we had two record low high temps for the days. As in the lowest high temp reached ever on those two days in history. Given your hyperbole, and your logic, the forecast looks F'in cold.

 

This is a good summary; the best I've seen in awhile. I learned we were coming out of the ice age in earth science, HS, 1982. Do people not remember the basics they learned in HS?

 

No, the denial is not about power and money. And I haven't denied it. I have put it into perspective. We have seen an increase of 1 degree celsius in the past 100 years. Yet it has resulted in an amazing implementation of power and money. I don't doubt that the planet is warming. It has done that many times in geologic history. It just isn't as important as the power brokers want you to believe. My advice? Don't get your information from government. Government is not your friend.

 

Maybe if climate alarmists had been right about one thing in the last 60 years you'd have more support.