Posted on 10/25/2016 6:03:57 AM PDT by rktman
"Norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do something to slow down sea level rise," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told a gathering in Washington, D.C., on Monday.
Naval Station Norfolk, the largest naval complex [1] in the world, is located in southeastern Virginia.
"All our bases are in some way or other at risk," Mabus said.
And that's not the only risk posed by climate change, Mabus said. The warming planet also expands the Navy's mission:
"We're the first responders. We're the ones -- the Navy and Marine Corps are the ones sent. We get a request for humanitarian assistance or disaster relief an average of once every two weeks. And as these storms get bigger, as sea levels rise, as instability follows, a lot of times, our responsibilities increase.
"As the Arctic begins to be ice-free, Russia's already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. They're not. "Part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can.
"And so climate change and things like that are -- it's a risk in the future for things like Norfolk and our bases, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we've got to respond to, in terms of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles."
Mabus was speaking at the Center for a New American Security along with the secretaries of the Air Force and the Army.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
This is most depressing.
America has a Navy Secretary who is so ignorant as to believe man has the technology and where withal to control climate. Depressing indeed.
“If the seas rise, will our ships be underwater? Will islands tip over?”
This is not a laughing matter! And yes, islands will tip over. This has even been seriously discussed in the US House Of Representatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA
The Iranians are not kicking the a** of our Navy. Our response is hampered by the CIC (who has no Military experience, no Military intelligence and no love for our Military). They can only do what he (again without ANY Military experience or education!)authorizes........we must get Trump into the WH and save our great Military!
One thing Hank Johnson forgot toadd is that guam could fall off the earth on the next rotation...why worry about capsizing?
Sheese! The way to fix this is SOOOO easy:
1) Have the Navy prepare to drop a nuclear bomb in the Atlantic Ocean (lots of prior warnings, etc. to keep ships and people safe)
2) Blow a hole in the Atlantic
3) The excess water that would cause the ocean level to rise will fall INTO this hole
4) Repeat as is necessary
(OK,OK, WE know it will not work, but anyone who thinks that they can control the climate might just buy it)
Yes I agree I should have not posted that. I too love our great Military.
Forget trying to falsely play God, and then tax the crap out of all for a plan which was never designed to work, just to take your money..
31,000 emails and not one about the dire climate change circumstances our planet faces?
Probably haven’t gotten down to them yet.
Mabus shouldn’t be commanding a rubber ducky in a bathtub.
Good point.
The Schmuck has over half of our carriers sitting in one port at one base {based there not counting shipyards rotation} and he’s preaching to us about Gorebull Warming? Foreign Flagged ships pass our carrier fleets berthed at N.O.B. Norfolk daily over two critical interstate tunnels and he want’s to lecture us on Gorebull Warming? N.O.B. Norfolk has carriers berthed there in a shipyard posture {in Material {Damage Control} Readiness and again he wishes to sound an alarm about Fake Gorebull Warming?
Maybe they should just move it to the Rockies; much less risk.
another liebral cesspool of operatives..
check out the director emeriti
Madeline Albright??
I once lived on an island that was 6 feet above sea level. It still is. These idiots claim it should not be.
Does this mean Norfolk is going to tip over ?
I live one mile from the ocean, near sea level. Have done so for the last 45 years.
Never has there been the slightest mention of rising sea levels, and there is a meaningful contingent of environmentalists here.
There were once significantly different sea levels, for example bridging Alaska with Asia, and bridging England with mainland Europe.
After humans crossed those land bridges, the seas rose. Those sea level rises were long before any magnitude of human activity could have contributed.
Bogus science is at play with current era alarmists, I think. They want us out of cars, in high rise cities, eating soylent green.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
The graph makes it seem YUGE, but, since 1881, the global sea level is a total of 6.29 inches higher today.
What they don't tell you is before 1881 they had no clue as to what the “global” sea level was, only local data from various sources, all with different accuracies of measuring.
Also in the webpage (and it is a US Government site), they mention that sea levels started a higher rate of climb around 1993, and this is now being monitored by satellite.
HOWEVER, that year was when those satellites started the monitoring in the FIRST place.
The “fact” that Norfolk and other areas will soon be underwater is a “projection” of that rise in the graph. It hasn't actually happened...
They're just assuming so, and even a higher rate is plugged in for future years in some cases, based on the absolutely not-proven idea that the climate will continue to warm at an alarming rate and start melting the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, in a kind of accelerating feedback loop. But we certainly do not know that as a fact. In fact, the ice sheet in Antarctica has been GROWING these past several years.
I think to me the biggest debacle of CO2 causing global warming is that as--currently--CO2 (parts per million in the atmosphere) levels have been growing, and this can be shown in a chart as a steady growth, BUT the overall corresponding air temperature is not matching that same rate of growth. The hiatus we've had is proof of a not so steady rise, or even leveling, AND, as we've learned about El Nino, peak temperatures from it can cause anomalies in the data depending on the time length of the measurement. So, for example, 1985-2000 looks huge, due to a massive El Nino in 1998. But again, where's the steady rise in temperature? Now some of these Climate Believers say that the increase got swallowed up by the oceans, but it'll be back, just wait and see.
NONSENSE. If carbon dioxide growth doesn't match temperature growth, than carbon dioxide is not the cause.
Also, they say some of this change is the result of “land subsidence”. Which means, in many places, like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, etc., the land is still rising 14,000 years after the mile thick glaciers have melted, which is causing other land masses to get slightly lower, in a reaction to the rising elsewhere.
It's complicated, but these so called floods are predictions based on sometimes still incomplete data sets and understanding of what's really happening.
Actually, I should have wrote this as:
NONSENSE. If temperature growth doesn't match carbon dioxide growth, than carbon dioxide is not the cause of rising temperatures.
Nostradamus told him that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.