Military.com; Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau | 2 Jun 2017 | by Vera Bergengruen

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement puts him at odds with the Pentagon, which has been warning for years that c*****e c****e poses a critical national security threat.

At his confirmation hearing, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called c*****e c****e a "driver of instability" that "requires a broader, whole-of-government response."

For more than a decade, military leaders have said that extreme w*****r p*****ns and rising sea levels are aggravating social tensions, destabilizing regions and feeding the rise of extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

Closer to home, scientists estimate that rising sea levels threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, some of which are already flooding.

"The nature and pace of c*****e c****es being observed today ... are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security," says a 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board, an elite group of retired three- and four-star f**g and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. "It is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects."

In 2014, the Pentagon released a C*****e C****e Adaptation Roadmap that declared "c*****e c****e will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security." Another Pentagon report in 2015 called c*****e c****e a "threat multiplier."

As politicians have squabbled over what actually causes c*****e c****e, or whether China or India should be doing more, the Pentagon has been trying to map out a long-term strategy to mitigate the risks that it not only sees on the horizon, but is already experiencing.

"C*****e c****e is already impacting the military itself, how it operates, and the countries in which we have an interest where it can result in instability, which leads to violence, which leads to conflict and where we end up moving our young men and women overseas," said retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Gerald Galloway, who is now a University of Maryland engineering professor.

U.S. military operations, personnel and installations are already being affected by the increased risk of instability overseas as a result of c*****e c****e, and dealing with it will require international cooperation, he said.

Trump's decision, which he dramatically announced in the White House Rose Garden, will have "an immediate effect" on the relationship with U.S. allies, Galloway said.

"We need our allies to be dealing with this the same way we are, so the concern is that pulling out of the existing treaty sends a message that we don't really care about the issue," he said. "Mattis has already said, 'I am going to be worried about this,' but it's the concern that [Trump's announcement] will be taken as the definitive statement."

It was a concern echoed on Wednesday by Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres.

He warned the U.S. that "if one country decides to leave a void, I can guarantee someone else will occupy it." The only other countries not in the accord are Syria and Nicaragua.

"Around the world, military strategists view c*****e c****e as a threat to global peace and security," he said in a speech at New York University. "We are all aware of the political turmoil and societal tensions that have been generated by the mass movement of refugees."

On a more basic level, extreme w*****r p*****ns and rising sea levels are already having an effect on U.S. military facilities.

Naval Base Ventura County in southern California has lost about 400 feet of beach since the 1940s. The sea level at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the facility was built.

Military installations on waterfront properties are facing hundreds of floods a year, and in some cases could be mostly submerged by 2100, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report calculated that a three-foot sea level rise would threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, which are valued at $100 billion. Nine of those are major hubs for the U.S. Navy.

Earlier this month, a group of 17 retired military officers sent letters to Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging them to remain firm in their commitment to combat c*****e c****e as the White House weighed leaving the accord.

"C*****e c****e poses strategically significant risks to U.S. national security, directly impacting our critical infrastructure and increasing the likelihood of humanitarian disasters, state failure and conflict," they wrote.
___

This article is written by Vera Bergengruen from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau and was legally licensed via the Tribune Content Agency through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.

Military.com; Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau | 2 Jun 2017 | by Vera Bergengruen

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement puts him at odds with the Pentagon, which has been warning for years that c*****e c****e poses a critical national security threat.

At his confirmation hearing, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called c*****e c****e a "driver of instability" that "requires a broader, whole-of-government response."

For more than a decade, military leaders have said that extreme w*****r p*****ns and rising sea levels are aggravating social tensions, destabilizing regions and feeding the rise of extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

Closer to home, scientists estimate that rising sea levels threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, some of which are already flooding.

"The nature and pace of c*****e c****es being observed today ... are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security," says a 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board, an elite group of retired three- and four-star f**g and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. "It is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects."

In 2014, the Pentagon released a C*****e C****e Adaptation Roadmap that declared "c*****e c****e will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security." Another Pentagon report in 2015 called c*****e c****e a "threat multiplier."

As politicians have squabbled over what actually causes c*****e c****e, or whether China or India should be doing more, the Pentagon has been trying to map out a long-term strategy to mitigate the risks that it not only sees on the horizon, but is already experiencing.

"C*****e c****e is already impacting the military itself, how it operates, and the countries in which we have an interest where it can result in instability, which leads to violence, which leads to conflict and where we end up moving our young men and women overseas," said retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Gerald Galloway, who is now a University of Maryland engineering professor.

U.S. military operations, personnel and installations are already being affected by the increased risk of instability overseas as a result of c*****e c****e, and dealing with it will require international cooperation, he said.

Trump's decision, which he dramatically announced in the White House Rose Garden, will have "an immediate effect" on the relationship with U.S. allies, Galloway said.

"We need our allies to be dealing with this the same way we are, so the concern is that pulling out of the existing treaty sends a message that we don't really care about the issue," he said. "Mattis has already said, 'I am going to be worried about this,' but it's the concern that [Trump's announcement] will be taken as the definitive statement."

It was a concern echoed on Wednesday by Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres.

He warned the U.S. that "if one country decides to leave a void, I can guarantee someone else will occupy it." The only other countries not in the accord are Syria and Nicaragua.

"Around the world, military strategists view c*****e c****e as a threat to global peace and security," he said in a speech at New York University. "We are all aware of the political turmoil and societal tensions that have been generated by the mass movement of refugees."

On a more basic level, extreme w*****r p*****ns and rising sea levels are already having an effect on U.S. military facilities.

Naval Base Ventura County in southern California has lost about 400 feet of beach since the 1940s. The sea level at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the facility was built.

Military installations on waterfront properties are facing hundreds of floods a year, and in some cases could be mostly submerged by 2100, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report calculated that a three-foot sea level rise would threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, which are valued at $100 billion. Nine of those are major hubs for the U.S. Navy.

Earlier this month, a group of 17 retired military officers sent letters to Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging them to remain firm in their commitment to combat c*****e c****e as the White House weighed leaving the accord.

"C*****e c****e poses strategically significant risks to U.S. national security, directly impacting our critical infrastructure and increasing the likelihood of humanitarian disasters, state failure and conflict," they wrote.
___

This article is written by Vera Bergengruen from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau and was legally licensed via the Tribune Content Agency through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.

In 1982, I was inspecting potable and wastewater lines on the piers at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, several of which were being submerged at high tide. When the facilities were built, the pipes were designed to endure exposure to seawater, but not prolonged submersion, so were built 8 inches above peak high tide markers. This means that sea levels had been rising even back then. The recommendation to replace the old pipes with new ones rated for submersion, was not met with any enthusiasm by the Commanding Officer, who's public works department estimated would the cost of replacement to be around 2 million 1982 dollars.

One can argue about what to call the phenomenon of rising sea levels, argue about the cause, argue about whether or to what extent man's role in it is - but one must NOT argue about what to do when sea levels DO rise, putting facilities and personnel at risk. Salt water contamination of a ships potable water tanks and/or lines, are a serious issue, requiring extensive flushing and decontamination - resulting in that ship being out of action for 2 days if sufficient potable water is available, or nearly a week if She must distill Her own water.

The danger at Mare Island in 1982, was that back syphoning was possible with submerged water lines, an event that would have shut the base down for an indefinite period of time. This is just ONE example of the dangers of c*****e c****e - and is 25 years out of date. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the situation has improved on it's own since then.

Military.com

Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau | 2 Jun 2017 | by Vera Bergengruen

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement puts him at odds with the Pentagon, which has been warning for years that c*****e c****e poses a critical national security threat.

At his confirmation hearing, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called c*****e c****e a "driver of instability" that "requires a broader, whole-of-government response."

For more than a decade, military leaders have said that extreme w*****r p*****ns and rising sea levels are aggravating social tensions, destabilizing regions and feeding the rise of extremist groups such as al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

Closer to home, scientists estimate that rising sea levels threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, some of which are already flooding.

"The nature and pace of c*****e c****es being observed today ... are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security," says a 2007 report by the Military Advisory Board, an elite group of retired three- and four-star f**g and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. "It is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects."

In 2014, the Pentagon released a C*****e C****e Adaptation Roadmap that declared "c*****e c****e will affect the Department of Defense's ability to defend the nation and poses immediate risks to U.S. national security." Another Pentagon report in 2015 called c*****e c****e a "threat multiplier."

As politicians have squabbled over what actually causes c*****e c****e, or whether China or India should be doing more, the Pentagon has been trying to map out a long-term strategy to mitigate the risks that it not only sees on the horizon, but is already experiencing.

"C*****e c****e is already impacting the military itself, how it operates, and the countries in which we have an interest where it can result in instability, which leads to violence, which leads to conflict and where we end up moving our young men and women overseas," said retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Gerald Galloway, who is now a University of Maryland engineering professor.

U.S. military operations, personnel and installations are already being affected by the increased risk of instability overseas as a result of c*****e c****e, and dealing with it will require international cooperation, he said.

Trump's decision, which he dramatically announced in the White House Rose Garden, will have "an immediate effect" on the relationship with U.S. allies, Galloway said.

"We need our allies to be dealing with this the same way we are, so the concern is that pulling out of the existing treaty sends a message that we don't really care about the issue," he said. "Mattis has already said, 'I am going to be worried about this,' but it's the concern that [Trump's announcement] will be taken as the definitive statement."

It was a concern echoed on Wednesday by Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres.

He warned the U.S. that "if one country decides to leave a void, I can guarantee someone else will occupy it." The only other countries not in the accord are Syria and Nicaragua.

"Around the world, military strategists view c*****e c****e as a threat to global peace and security," he said in a speech at New York University. "We are all aware of the political turmoil and societal tensions that have been generated by the mass movement of refugees."

On a more basic level, extreme w*****r p*****ns and rising sea levels are already having an effect on U.S. military facilities.

Naval Base Ventura County in southern California has lost about 400 feet of beach since the 1940s. The sea level at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia has risen 14.5 inches in the century since World War I, when the facility was built.

Military installations on waterfront properties are facing hundreds of floods a year, and in some cases could be mostly submerged by 2100, according to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The report calculated that a three-foot sea level rise would threaten at least 128 U.S. military bases, which are valued at $100 billion. Nine of those are major hubs for the U.S. Navy.

Earlier this month, a group of 17 retired military officers sent letters to Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urging them to remain firm in their commitment to combat c*****e c****e as the White House weighed leaving the accord.

"C*****e c****e poses strategically significant risks to U.S. national security, directly impacting our critical infrastructure and increasing the likelihood of humanitarian disasters, state failure and conflict," they wrote.
___

This article is written by Vera Bergengruen from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau and was legally licensed via the Tribune Content Agency through the NewsCred publisher network. Please direct all licensing questions to legal@newscred.com.

I read this article and didn't know what to make of it. Mr Bombastic just posted an article entitled: Rising sea levels, 'the greatest lie ever told' http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-104324-1.html
which appeared in the Telegraph -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html.

"Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about"

Basically he says that the scare is based on computer projections and that the data fed into the calculations was false or deliberately skewed by selecting the worst values available. He bases his opinions on 35 years of direct observations and measurements of sea levels all around the globe. He makes the point that the islands predicted to vanish have capitalized on their endangered status to garner contributions for "relocation" for over twenty years. In other words it has become a money making scheme without real threat.

The article in the Telegraph is worth reading, it has the ring of t***h.