US Department of Defence Worries About The Weather
By Paul Homewood
The US Department of Defence obviously has nothing better to do than worry about climate change!
dod-climate-risk-analysis-final4846
Most of the document is gobbledygook management speak, but the Foreword sums the whole nonsense up nicely.
For a start, the basis of the report, the so-called unprecedented scale of these disasters, has no basis in fact.
But more to the point, they utterly confuse “climate” with “weather”. Whether, for instance, typhoons are becoming slightly more common is immaterial. The Navy should be prepared for all weather eventualities, no matter how unlikely. Indeed it should always build in substantial margins for the most extreme weather events.
They offer a few examples:
There is no evidence at all that extreme weather events have increased in the US, and it is not clear exactly how such events would impact the Armed Forces anyway, other than when they are directly affected, such as when Hurricane Michael hit the Tyndall Airforce Base three years ago.
Hurricanes hit the US every year, and they are not becoming either more frequent or severe. Clearly any base in the path of hurricanes needs to be constructed to be hurricane proof as far as possible.
Equally all bases in the US should be able to withstand extreme weather.
The suggestion that training capability could be undermined is absurd. Service staff have always needed to be trained for all climates, hot, cold, wet or dry, jungle, desert, mountain or ice. The idea that they will be inconvenienced by a spot of bad weather is ridiculous.
It may be that competition in the Arctic steps up as it becomes more accessible, but these sort of geostrategic changes are happening all the time, and constantly need reassessing. A couple of decades ago, I doubt whether the Department of Defence guessed how big a threat China has now become to global security.
As for sea level rise, it is so small that it can be safely ignored over the time frames being considered here, essentially the next decade or two.
At Guam, for instance, sea level rise is tracking at the bottom of the projections. In ten years time, on current trends, it will only be about an inch higher.
Moreover the relevant statistic is not average sea level rise, but extreme water levels, and these show no increase at all in recent years.
And typhoons? According to Wikipedia, the worst to hit Guam were in 1900, 1962, 1976, 1997 and 2002. Hardly evidence that they are getting worse.
Guam lies in the path of typhoons[31] and it is common for the island to be threatened by tropical storms and possible typhoons during the wet season. The highest risk of typhoons is from August through November, where typhoons and tropical storms are most probable in the western Pacific. They can, however, occur year-round. Typhoons that have caused major damage on Guam in the American period include the Typhoon of 1900, Karen (1962), Pamela (1976), Paka (1997), and Pongsona (2002).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam
This whole report smacks of political correctness, produced to satisfy political masters rather than to be of any use to the defence of the country. Indeed the Executive Summary confirms this:
Ordinarily we might just laugh it off as the work of a few cranks with nothing better to do. But the report recommends that:
Climate Change will be keyed into every decision in future. Not only is this a grave distraction from the real job in hand, but it could well lead to wrong decisions being made and misallocation of resources.
In a dangerous world, this is the last thing the US needs.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Is this the same Department of Defense whose expert analysts predicted, under the last President Bush, that climate change would cause the UK to have a ‘Siberian Climate’ by now? How’s that prediction going? Zzzzzzzz
UK issued one last March. just as stupid.
Corporate reports overview:
Ministry of Defence Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach
The Ministry of Defence Climate Change and Sustainability Strategic Approach sets out the ambition, the principles and the methods needed for UK Defence to meet the challenge of climate change.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-defence-climate-change-and-sustainability-strategic-approach
Put wokey monkeys in charge…..why is anyone surprised when they behave like wokey monkeys? I get feelings of Greece before the Battle of Thermopylae where religious practices hobbled their military capability
just a reminder. BBC 2 8pm Life at 50C .. A propaganda / accurate and unbiased (delete as necessary ) documentary on the impact of extreme heat.
Anyone fancy a game of global warming bingo? water shortage and wildfires anyone?
The UK government haven’t built a major reservoir since 1991.
UK POPULATION has exploded from 57million to 67million in that time.
Drought will be difficult, net zero doesn’t solve this.
The South East receives less rain per head of population than Morocco.
What is this 50 degree nonsense? 10-20 degrees above today’s highs? Just ridiculous models taken to absurd extremes and then presented as inevitable rather than just about possible under worst case scenarios.
Perhaps they are confused and mean 50°F, not 50°C.
so i watched it – was going to critique it but where to start.. The biggest load of sh*te i have ever seen.
Knowing that the US military are fighting climate change – when not learning about CRT that is – will have the PLA quaking in its boots (when they finished laughing their heads off).
COP26 Tuvalu ludicrous dishonest stunt.
Even BBC admits in 2010, growing not sinking – confirmed by later research the vast majority of these islands are stable/growing (of course nature constantly remodels them as it has always done and man’s activities – coastal engineering, mangrove destruction, underground resource extraction etc. – do cause issues; that is not climate).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10222679
Strange then that they are fueling their own destruction with the help of the world bank.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/351556/new-airport-terminal-opens-in-tuvalu
“And now for something completely different” …. Is that the Tuvalu answer to John Cleese?
You can’t post that any more, he just cancelled HIMSELF for an ancient Hitler impression! Stop the world……..
Oh come on. All these agencies are copy-cat climatologists funded by other copy-cat politicians. What goes around comes around. Can it keep doing that as energy prices rise with increasing shortages? Even printing the money uses the same biofuels as all those who flew over to Glasgow to plead for the money.
The money that is now printed on oil based polymers rather than wood fibre.
Every bureaucracy creates its own work, given a chance to do so. If the military can’t handle 1 or 2 degrees higher than before, should they encounter that, then they weren’t much good to start with.
Those 1 or 2 degrees are model forecasts? So far, CO2 has increased by 150% but centigrade temperatures by only 6%. Fahrenheit even less. The military handled it back during World War I. So did most people and they had no air-conditioning. The current military must be spoiled…the Pentagon is air-conditioned (using fossil fuel energy).
On average…which is mostly having somewhat fewer cooler days.
The misunderstanding of what is actually happening is extraordinary .
The Guam sea-level data clearly has an inhomogeneity at year 2000, where there is missing data, if the new data was lower than the old we can be certain that enormous efforts would be made to correct the inhomogeneity.
I’d love to see them model the fighting in WWI at the Somme, or Passchendaele, or Gallipoli. There was some serious destruction in these places, partly caused by horrendous weather – sorry, climate – I’m sure, when, getting sucked into the mud or failing to make a beachhead was a terminal ’emergency’. In fact, the loss of my grandfather and his brother during this climate-change-enhanced conflict must mean I can claim some sort of reparation for their loss.
The DoD Risk Analysis uniformed nerds are what we in the RAF called shinys’s (as in clerks who polish their bums on office chairs. I call them w*nkers. Arrgghh!
Too many people behind desks finding “busy work” while they wait for the next “tour of duty” on ships/planes/surface vehicles. NASA and NOAA are too much invested in Climate Change and the associated project funding. China is building low lying artificial islands and I would have guessed they did their homework. Guam and the Indian Ocean Bases surely have been keeping records which will show no change same as the Maldives with its six new airports.
Wot me worry I looked at this:
Hey! The good Doctor is stealing my pitch! 🙂
I have struggled for years to understand why those who write about the Carbon Cycle never consider its geological history. They look at what it is now as if it never was different. This “error” has been carried into the Climate Industry. When primates evolved the atmospheric CO2 level was around 1500ppm ( You will here activist scientist wannabes hyperventilating about the CO2 level in the atmosphere has never been this high during human history). When the Angiosperms evolved ( the plants we eat) the level was 2500-2800ppm which is exactly why any greenhouse grower producing C3 plants pumps CO2 to make them grow bigger, faster while using less water. What is there not to like about that? A valid measurement over any time series is the average of a quantity. The longer the time series ( the more data,) the better. In respect of atmospheric CO2 that average number over 650 million years of Geological Time is 2500ppm. Only one other time during Earth’s history has the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere been as low as today which was during the Carboniferous and Permian Periods.
On all counts the Climate Industry avoids certain basic discussions. Like what is the optimum average global temperature ( an absurd measurement if ever there was one) and what is the optimal CO2 level. Instead they have let the public think the temperature at the end of the Little Ice Age was a good one, the same as CO2 concentration then of 280ppm. Basic science is not and has never been part of this circus. Cherry picking of out of context information has been there since the get go and now forms the cornerstones of a politically motivated religious racket.
O/T but this posting by C-Fact is revealing: protest marchers at COP 26 showing their true colours – which we all know anyway – it’s all about politics and nothing to do with climate. Unbelievable.
https://mailchi.mp/cfact/socialists-in-the-streets?e=3826076df6
Dirt farmers beat the US army. Maybe they need a softer target to waste dollars, like the weather. Follow the money, net zero bombs and bullets incoming.
Books have been written about how bad weather has had major impacts on battles through the ages, but this must be reducing rapidly (an upside down hockey stick) since the advent of reliable weather forecasts.
You mean like:
Never invade Russia when winter is approaching.
No one has ever kept Afghanistan.
Not so long ago there were distinct campaign seasons, partly because of the weather and partly because living off the land was so hard outside of summer and autumn. Us Brits should be grateful for the extreme weather that scattered the Spanish Armada I suppose!
You never know, if humanity is really, really naughty, we might even get ourselves back to the balmy climate of 218BC when Hannibal was able to make an autumnal crossing of the Alps without losing a single casualty to frost bite. Obviously such an expedition was only made possible because of the warmth inducing, turbo charged emissions of all those pesky Carthaginian SUVs he brought with him – elephants to you and I.
“new frontier of geostrategic competition”
= We know its bullshit, but give us more money anyway.
Why? By the end of the year they won’t have any troops, sailors, or civilian workers.
This isn’t the first: “There is moreover, growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend. If it continues, as feared, it … could have an enormous impact, not only on the food-population balance, but also on the world balance of power”. (CIA, Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate, 1974)
It’s the nonsense-speak at the start that grabs my attention.
“Growing consensus…” doesn’t mean it’s right but is taken to prove it is.
“Leading climatologists…” how are they defined? And if they are wrong – as they were – not so leading really!
This is paywalled but it might a reason why the Windsors are so green
“Crown Estate floats plans for Celtic Sea wind farms | Business | The Times” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crown-estate-floats-plans-for-celtic-sea-wind-farms-hv8b5cqsp
Peace Dividend.
As if they could do something about it.
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/