GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

NoCarrier · 05-17-2004, 05:18 AM

Scary article..

Apocalypse soon, warns U.S. report

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188492

Global warming called a threat to national security
Shelved Pentagon study paints bleak picture of future

PETER GORRIE
FEATURE WRITER

It's 2010: After years of steadily rising temperatures and increasingly fierce storms, the next stage of global climate change is about to take hold.

Melting Arctic ice and high rainfall have dumped massive amounts of fresh water into the North Atlantic Ocean. That sets off a chain of events that causes the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift ? the northward flows of water that warm Europe by about 10 degrees Celsius ? to weaken and eventually collapse.

Temperatures in Europe, northern Asia and North America plummet. Strong winds and intense drought knock food production into a tailspin.

Other effects wrack the rest of the world: Much of Africa, Australia and South America is hot and parched while southern Asia becomes waterlogged and stormy. In the Far East, destructive monsoons alternate with prolonged dry spells.

By 2020, Earth no longer provides enough food, water and energy for its teeming population. By the millions, desperate refugees flee from places of cold and hunger to areas that look more promising. Economies collapse. Borders are breached. Wars erupt.

This apocalyptic picture is painted in a bleak report commissioned by the United States Pentagon.

Threat to ocean currents (.pdf)
http://www.thestar.ca/static/PDF/nr_conveyor_belt.pdf

"Humans fight when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment," the report states. "Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid."

Among the likely responses:

The U.S. and Australia, with enough resources to stay self-sufficient despite the climate upheaval, erect "defensive fortresses" around themselves.

Countries hit by famine, water shortages or disease become aggressive. Eastern Europe eyes Russia. Japan goes after oil reserves on Russia's Sakhalin Island. India, Pakistan and China ? all armed with nuclear weapons ? fight over rivers and arable land.

Nuclear weapons proliferate; in part because more countries must switch to nuclear power as oil and gas grow scarce.

Canada locks itself in with the U. S. Or, alternatively, it hoards its hydroelectric power, causing problems for Americans.

All this means climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern," the $100,000 (U.S.) report concludes.

For years, scientists have predicted a wide array of dramatic climate changes will result from global warming ? the raising of Earth's temperature because of increased carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping pollutants in the atmosphere.

Their warnings get short shrift from U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration. Reports on the issue are routinely ignored. But the new study attracted attention because of the defence establishment's involvement.

When the report was made public in late February, a story in Fortune magazine, typical of the media coverage, stated that the potential for abrupt and catastrophic consequences from global warming: "has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it." The threat "has riveted their attention."

Surely, many observers concluded, if the camouflage set believes such a dark future could come to pass, Bush and his advisers must finally take notice.

"Can Bush ignore the Pentagon?" World Bank scientist Bob Watson mused in the Observer, a British newspaper. "After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group; generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act."

In actual fact, global warming has not suddenly grabbed Washington by the throat.

Pentagon planners are neither riveted by, nor grappling with, the issue. The report, written by two California futurologists, is quickly gathering dust.

"None of the above," Pentagon spokesperson Dan Hetlage replied when asked if the study has either significance or resonance.

The Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment ? which tries to look years into the future and whose 82-year-old director, Andrew Marshall, is affectionately known as Yoda, the ancient and revered Jedi Master of Star Wars ? commissions such studies all the time, Hetlage says. "There are hundreds in the works today."

As for this report: "No specific work follows from it."

"The study indicates the limits of the science. There's just no way to predict" what will happen, Hetlage notes. It's a line that could come from any administration official.

So, the military isn't compelling Bush to act on this issue. He's expected to keep opposing the Kyoto Protocol, the global treaty that calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Even so, the report is having some impact.

"It's talked about a lot," says Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

"The (Bush) administration would just as soon it disappeared. ...

"It's an interesting contribution."

And concern generated by the study might garner support for Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Joseph Lieberman when they reintroduce legislation that would impose a cap ? less stringent than the Kyoto target ? on American emissions, Oppenheimer says. Fellow senators defeated their proposal last fall.

The report is of some use to those campaigning to stop global warming.

Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson ? whose government signed the protocol but is losing ground on compliance ? refers "quite frequently" to the study and has circulated it among his colleagues, says Phil Kinsman, chief spokesperson for Environment Canada.

"Any time you put the word Pentagon on something, even if it's not done internally, in the context where security is such an issue, it does raise the profile," Kinsman says.

A recent report for CSIS, Canada's national spy agency, concluded that "over coming decades" this country could face an influx of environmental refugees from areas hit by climate change. Warming of the Arctic could also draw more people to the North, raising concerns over security and smuggling, states the report, which CSIS funded but doesn't necessarily agree with.

The Pentagon's report is not a forecast. Instead, it presents a "plausible" worst-case scenario that's intended to prod the Pentagon into exploring possible impacts of climate change on the military.

The report's two authors are not climate scientists and their work contains no new scientific information.

They simply take to its extreme the longstanding consensus that global warming could lead to immense changes.

Scientists believe the end of the ocean circulation system is just one of three potentially overwhelming consequences. Global warming could also cause the collapse of the Antarctic ice shelf, an event that would raise sea level around the world by five or six metres. Or, less likely, it could thaw the Arctic tundra and release vast amounts of methane, triggering far greater warming.

The main question is not if, but when, any of this could happen.

The theory it could come very fast is just a couple of years old. Most experts are cautious about the idea.

If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, "the risks of a Pentagon-type scenario have to be very seriously looked at," says Gordon McBean, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and policy chair at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, founded by Canadian insurance companies to research how to reduce disaster losses.

However, he says, while the dates mentioned in the report aren't impossible, "it's highly unlikely that in this century you'd see the turning off of the (ocean) circulation."

"The expectation is that the response of the (ocean) circulation is gradual, but you can't rule out the possibility it could be abrupt," says Henry Hengeveld, Environment Canada's climate change specialist.

Scientists have found limited evidence that the North Atlantic is becoming less salty ? the first step in shutting down the global circulation pattern, a slow-moving current that's equivalent to 100 Amazon Rivers and is known as the "Great Conveyor."

Here's how the circulation works in the Atlantic Ocean.

As warm water flows north it gradually cools and, because of evaporation, gets saltier. Both changes make it heavier. When its temperature drops close to zero, in an area between Greenland and Norway, it sinks. Eventually, it flows south, deep under the surface.

More warm water moves up from the south to replace it. It eventually cools and sinks, continuing the cycle.

According to the theory, the influx of fresh water produced by global warming will make the ocean water lighter, it will no longer sink, and the circulation will stop.

As always in matters of global climate change, things aren't simple.

For example, warm air and water are also shoved around by winds and tides. Moving air masses also affect climate. These forces could reduce the impact if the Great Conveyor grinds to a halt.

05-17-2004, 05:18 AM
NoCarrier We need more free porn Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 16,356	Scary article.. Apocalypse soon, warns U.S. report http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188492 Global warming called a threat to national security Shelved Pentagon study paints bleak picture of future PETER GORRIE FEATURE WRITER It's 2010: After years of steadily rising temperatures and increasingly fierce storms, the next stage of global climate change is about to take hold. Melting Arctic ice and high rainfall have dumped massive amounts of fresh water into the North Atlantic Ocean. That sets off a chain of events that causes the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift ? the northward flows of water that warm Europe by about 10 degrees Celsius ? to weaken and eventually collapse. Temperatures in Europe, northern Asia and North America plummet. Strong winds and intense drought knock food production into a tailspin. Other effects wrack the rest of the world: Much of Africa, Australia and South America is hot and parched while southern Asia becomes waterlogged and stormy. In the Far East, destructive monsoons alternate with prolonged dry spells. By 2020, Earth no longer provides enough food, water and energy for its teeming population. By the millions, desperate refugees flee from places of cold and hunger to areas that look more promising. Economies collapse. Borders are breached. Wars erupt. This apocalyptic picture is painted in a bleak report commissioned by the United States Pentagon. Threat to ocean currents (.pdf) http://www.thestar.ca/static/PDF/nr_conveyor_belt.pdf "Humans fight when they outstrip the carrying capacity of their natural environment," the report states. "Every time there is a choice between starving and raiding, humans raid." Among the likely responses: The U.S. and Australia, with enough resources to stay self-sufficient despite the climate upheaval, erect "defensive fortresses" around themselves. Countries hit by famine, water shortages or disease become aggressive. Eastern Europe eyes Russia. Japan goes after oil reserves on Russia's Sakhalin Island. India, Pakistan and China ? all armed with nuclear weapons ? fight over rivers and arable land. Nuclear weapons proliferate; in part because more countries must switch to nuclear power as oil and gas grow scarce. Canada locks itself in with the U. S. Or, alternatively, it hoards its hydroelectric power, causing problems for Americans. All this means climate change "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern," the $100,000 (U.S.) report concludes. For years, scientists have predicted a wide array of dramatic climate changes will result from global warming ? the raising of Earth's temperature because of increased carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping pollutants in the atmosphere. Their warnings get short shrift from U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration. Reports on the issue are routinely ignored. But the new study attracted attention because of the defence establishment's involvement. When the report was made public in late February, a story in Fortune magazine, typical of the media coverage, stated that the potential for abrupt and catastrophic consequences from global warming: "has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it." The threat "has riveted their attention." Surely, many observers concluded, if the camouflage set believes such a dark future could come to pass, Bush and his advisers must finally take notice. "Can Bush ignore the Pentagon?" World Bank scientist Bob Watson mused in the Observer, a British newspaper. "After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group; generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act." In actual fact, global warming has not suddenly grabbed Washington by the throat. Pentagon planners are neither riveted by, nor grappling with, the issue. The report, written by two California futurologists, is quickly gathering dust. "None of the above," Pentagon spokesperson Dan Hetlage replied when asked if the study has either significance or resonance. The Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment ? which tries to look years into the future and whose 82-year-old director, Andrew Marshall, is affectionately known as Yoda, the ancient and revered Jedi Master of Star Wars ? commissions such studies all the time, Hetlage says. "There are hundreds in the works today." As for this report: "No specific work follows from it." "The study indicates the limits of the science. There's just no way to predict" what will happen, Hetlage notes. It's a line that could come from any administration official. So, the military isn't compelling Bush to act on this issue. He's expected to keep opposing the Kyoto Protocol, the global treaty that calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Even so, the report is having some impact. "It's talked about a lot," says Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. "The (Bush) administration would just as soon it disappeared. ... "It's an interesting contribution." And concern generated by the study might garner support for Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Joseph Lieberman when they reintroduce legislation that would impose a cap ? less stringent than the Kyoto target ? on American emissions, Oppenheimer says. Fellow senators defeated their proposal last fall. The report is of some use to those campaigning to stop global warming. Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson ? whose government signed the protocol but is losing ground on compliance ? refers "quite frequently" to the study and has circulated it among his colleagues, says Phil Kinsman, chief spokesperson for Environment Canada. "Any time you put the word Pentagon on something, even if it's not done internally, in the context where security is such an issue, it does raise the profile," Kinsman says. A recent report for CSIS, Canada's national spy agency, concluded that "over coming decades" this country could face an influx of environmental refugees from areas hit by climate change. Warming of the Arctic could also draw more people to the North, raising concerns over security and smuggling, states the report, which CSIS funded but doesn't necessarily agree with. The Pentagon's report is not a forecast. Instead, it presents a "plausible" worst-case scenario that's intended to prod the Pentagon into exploring possible impacts of climate change on the military. The report's two authors are not climate scientists and their work contains no new scientific information. They simply take to its extreme the longstanding consensus that global warming could lead to immense changes. Scientists believe the end of the ocean circulation system is just one of three potentially overwhelming consequences. Global warming could also cause the collapse of the Antarctic ice shelf, an event that would raise sea level around the world by five or six metres. Or, less likely, it could thaw the Arctic tundra and release vast amounts of methane, triggering far greater warming. The main question is not if, but when, any of this could happen. The theory it could come very fast is just a couple of years old. Most experts are cautious about the idea. If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, "the risks of a Pentagon-type scenario have to be very seriously looked at," says Gordon McBean, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and policy chair at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, founded by Canadian insurance companies to research how to reduce disaster losses. However, he says, while the dates mentioned in the report aren't impossible, "it's highly unlikely that in this century you'd see the turning off of the (ocean) circulation." "The expectation is that the response of the (ocean) circulation is gradual, but you can't rule out the possibility it could be abrupt," says Henry Hengeveld, Environment Canada's climate change specialist. Scientists have found limited evidence that the North Atlantic is becoming less salty ? the first step in shutting down the global circulation pattern, a slow-moving current that's equivalent to 100 Amazon Rivers and is known as the "Great Conveyor." Here's how the circulation works in the Atlantic Ocean. As warm water flows north it gradually cools and, because of evaporation, gets saltier. Both changes make it heavier. When its temperature drops close to zero, in an area between Greenland and Norway, it sinks. Eventually, it flows south, deep under the surface. More warm water moves up from the south to replace it. It eventually cools and sinks, continuing the cycle. According to the theory, the influx of fresh water produced by global warming will make the ocean water lighter, it will no longer sink, and the circulation will stop. As always in matters of global climate change, things aren't simple. For example, warm air and water are also shoved around by winds and tides. Moving air masses also affect climate. These forces could reduce the impact if the Great Conveyor grinds to a halt. Last edited by NoCarrier; 05-17-2004 at 05:20 AM..