Is man-influenced climate change an actual problem?

2016-09-13T20:42:03-04:00

With a little bit of tongue in cheek, this recent XKDC comic puts into perspective climate change and the impact of recent generations on it. Additionally, it helps to show the comparison of "the Earth has always been warming and cooling" vs what we are experiencing now.

That being said - should climate change be addressed by the world powers?

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 13 at 2016 8:45 PM

2016-09-13T20:45:16-04:00

Yes it is a Problem and the Human influence has had an extreme and bad influence on it. Yes it should be addressed by world powers.

Response by MSgt Richard Rountree made Sep 13 at 2016 8:46 PM

2016-09-13T20:46:30-04:00

The _only_ reason this is an issue are power hungry politicians looking for ways to control the general populace. Man-influenced climate change is laughable.

Response by SFC George Smith made Sep 14 at 2016 1:33 AM

2016-09-14T01:33:39-04:00

Climate Change happens every Day ... every week every month and every year...
If you don't like the weather wait it will change or go some place else... unless you are in the desert... and humans had nothing to do with that...
Global Climate Change Is the Biggest Crock of Crap in the last 50 years... There are problems and they are being fixed as we find them and realize they are there...
If Al Gore was not pushing the issue so dam hard it would be bothering every one Other than it is Part of The UN's Agenda 21... but he is and all his Career criminal politician and business buddies are getting Richer by the minute by hocking this BS...

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 14 at 2016 8:55 AM

2016-09-14T08:55:41-04:00

MAJ Bryan Zeski I like how you phrased the question because it opens the possibility of cost-benefit analysis. First, is increased CO2 and warming a net bad, or a net good? Historically, the warmest periods in history have been associated with the best of times, while the coolest periods have been times of poverty, disease and famine. We need an objective analysis of whether increased CO2 and warmer weather is a benefit or a drawback before we jump into government policies to tax carbon and give our tax money to questionably efficient sources of power. We don't even know it's bad yet (though we've been told it's horrible many many times) and we are assuming it is SO bad that we need to implement drastic policy changes which will have their own negative consequences, also without measuring those negatives.

Response by 1SG Al Brown made Sep 14 at 2016 5:34 PM

2016-09-14T17:34:36-04:00

My part of the planet seems normal. I'm sorry to hear about all the "could be worse than usual" issues that are affecting others. World leaders continue to fly their jets to big, important meeting that decide the various pollution reduction responsibilities. I'll end up paying more taxes on the subject if the socialists stay in power globally. That's ok. I just burned the trash on the farm today. I wonder how that compares to the tires being burned in Kabul yesterday to fire brick kilns. Whatever. No one gets out of here alive.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2016 5:24 PM

2016-09-15T17:24:37-04:00

The science says that it's a problem and we should be doing something about it. Human nature says it's not likely to directly impact me in the near future so why should I care? We better hope and pray that it adversely impacts the economy before its to late.

Response by SPC Shaun Eaves made Sep 16 at 2016 8:38 AM

2016-09-16T08:38:24-04:00

First of all, a question. So, we have now gone from calling it "global warming" to "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (in order to concretely state that man was causing it), to now it is "climate change" and "man-influenced climate change" (denoting that man is not THE cause, but only an influence?)? Now to answer the question that the OP posits. No, I do not believe that AGW is an actual problem...and there are several reasons why.

Firstly, why can I not access the data that is used to create these predictions in raw form? I have tried numerous times to access raw temperature data as collected by the measuring stations. After the "climate-gate" scandal it come out that most of, it not all of, the "scientific" units tracking AGW apply "fixes" to the raw data before running their figures. After these so-called "fixes" are applied we some how end up with every subsequent year being the "hottest on record". It turns out that these "fixes" are typically adding into the raw data adjustments based off of calculations as to what the global mean temperature was supposed to have risen by. If I posit that global mean temperature was supposed to have risen from 1998 levels by 1.5C so I add in that 1.5C to all of my raw data, then yes I am going to show an increase in average temperature...because I have artificially adjusted the average.

Secondly, the rise in global mean temperature since the 1880's is actually scientifically expected. It is true that global mean temperatures when this country was first settled by Europeans was 4C lower than it is today. The winters in New England in the 1620's were historically brutal. This is due to the Earth being in the midst of the "mini-ice age". The "mini-ice age" happened to peter out (coincidentally) with the start of the industrial revolution, circa 1880. This explains why temperatures rose from that point.

Thirdly, According to scientific data, we have still yet to achieve temperatures witnessed during the medieval warm period. Since our feudal ancestors neither burned coal for fuel nor drove the dreaded "SUV" I cannot find anyway that they caused the medieval warm period to be warmer than present day through their activity. This means that there must be something else at play besides human activity.

What the medieval warm period, the "mini-ice age" and present day all have in common that the climate "scientist" seem to leave out of their forecast models is...sunspots. During the medieval warm period the solar cycle was at its apex with sunspot activity, and during the "mini-ice age" we entered the Maurnader Minimum. Global mean temperatures have been flat since 1998, and many scientist not on the IPCC project mean temps to start going back down (when not adjusting the data prior to calculations).

I myself watched the animated graph that you posted a picture of in the OP. One must wonder why the anchors were chosen the way they were. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so why only start the graph during man's existence? However, even the graph itself shows that as far as the data that has actually had a chance to be recorded (not the projected data) we still haven't reached temperatures as high as were experienced during the Egyptian Dynasties. The way the data is presented is also suspect. At no other point in the graph is data broken down in such small scale as it is at the end of the graph. By presenting the data in this manner an outlier year at the end of the graph looks much more sinister than an outlier year within a 1,000 year period elsewhere in the graph (as those lines appear more flat and normalized).

Response by SPC Lyle Montgomery made Oct 8 at 2021 11:11 AM

2021-10-08T11:11:19-04:00

Climate change may be happening ,but this current bullshit being touted by Biden and his liberal, socialist/ communist democrats is a bunch of crap. There are many scientist who bo not agree with man causing climate change but all we hear from the left and the left media is the liberal side, not the facts. I don't believe a word of it.