Climate Change: Real or fake?

[Kobuk]

Month after month, and year after year, politicians, scientists, enviromentalists, and so many others have debated about whether climate change is real or fake. To be honest, I really don't know who or what to believe in any more. 

Are the change's in the Earth's climate the result of man-made interference, or is it a naturally occuring cycle of the Earth? Or both?

Feel free to discuss away.

P.S. - A little reminder.

If you intend to make any sort of scientific, political, religious, etc. "claim" in a controversial topic, then please be prepared to back up that claim with proof of facts, figures, statistics, percentages, etc. with links to well documented references/resources. 

[cause the rat]

The difference between now and when I was growing up. We're talking 40+ years. The only time you would see color in the sky at sunrise was right after a large volcano eruption  Now we have color in the sky at sunrise all the time here in mid MO. You Never heard thunder in late Nov. threw Feb. It's all year round now. Lightning was unheard in those months. Now it's the norm. We have always had temp swings here. I can remember walking home from school wearing nothing but a T-shirt in late Dec.  But then it turned cold again. I also remember as a kid when we had -50 wind chills. It did warm up a bit. But stayed cold. A few years back I didn't have to scrape my car windows. All winter long. My car sits outside on the driveway. Never experienced that before in my life here. An entire winter without frost or ice on my car windows.

We are experiencing a magnetic phenomenon that happens every 10.000 years. Magnetic north and south are switching positions. That is natural. And we know the earth was 2 deg. warmer that it is today almost 2000 years ago. And we have historical accounts of glaciers forming quickly in the middle ages. Plus the mini winter of the 1700. So we have evidence that the earth does in fact fluctuate in temps. However. The steady rise of temps. Plus the rise in sea level is not normal. There has been no geological reason for the increase of green house gasses. And no proof, or study that I've heard of, that links the magnetic phenomenon to rising temps. So I'm going to have to agree with science. We are cooking our own gooses here.

[Foxpup]

I'll just leave this here:

xkcd.com/1732/

[GrayWolf448]

i  myself believe climate change is real. though even if its fake physical pollution is still really bad (garbage, chemicals, ect.)

[Iara Warriorfeather]

So I'm going to have to agree with science. We are cooking our own gooses here.

Climate change is real. It has been occurring on the surface of this planet for over 2 billion years. And humans have definitely escalated the issue.

Proof:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/aaf7671

[Keitsu]

Of course it's real.

[Kobuk]

The difference between now and when I was growing up. We're talking 40+ years. The only time you would see color in the sky at sunrise was right after a large volcano eruption  Now we have color in the sky at sunrise all the time here in mid MO. You Never heard thunder in late Nov. threw Feb. It's all year round now. Lightning was unheard in those months. Now it's the norm. We have always had temp swings here. I can remember walking home from school wearing nothing but a T-shirt in late Dec.  But then it turned cold again. I also remember as a kid when we had -50 wind chills. It did warm up a bit. But stayed cold. A few years back I didn't have to scrape my car windows. All winter long. My car sits outside on the driveway. Never experienced that before in my life here. An entire winter without frost or ice on my car windows.

When I was a young pup back in the 70's and 80's (But especially the 70's.), I remember the winters being quite brutal. Deep wind chills, Heavy snowfalls, Bitter cold temps, and so much more. And it was a bit fun too. Snowbanks at the end of the driveway were almost 8 feet high one winter when I was around 7 or so. Made for great sledding.    But here it is 40+ years later and mid-November. Right now, average temps during the day are about low or mid 50's when they probably should be low to mid 40's. Heck, there were even a few days in early November here when there was 60+ degree days. 

[animagusurreal]

I believe there is some truth to it, but I also believe it's used to manipulate people via fear, to sell media and gain funding and political power.  The environmental scare started becoming prevalent in movies just after the Cold War ended and the fear of nuclear war declined. In the (awful) remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still", environmental concerns replaced the nuclear scare plot of the original. They almost did the same with the movie of "Watchmen", but thankfully thought better of it. As they say, nature abhors a vacuum. There was a vacuum of fear in our society's collective consciousness, and environmentalism just jumped right in there.

That said, the logic of climate change deniers often doesn't make sense to me - i.e., "It's snowing where I live - therefore, there's no climate change!" Also, I've seen some pretty wacky conspiracy theories about climate change, like that it's a communist plot to redistribute wealth.

[Holt5]

As I see it: climate change is something that happens all the time - global warming and cooling are things that happen all the time. What's up for debate is how much either one actually affects life on Earth and to what extent. There are currently too many opposing opinions on both sides for me to care to delve into each one specifically, because I don't care about our planet obviously.  So as per my general rule of thumb, I think there's truth to both sides. The Earth does have "natural" climate patterns so to speak, but we've also gained capabilities to effect weather patterns in micro-climates. With micro-climates being altered en masse, it's common sense that it will effect the climate globally to some degree, but it really depends on how the climate is being altered in the first place.

Different pollutants have different effects - most I would assume to be producing higher temperatures, while some few produce lower temperatures (mainly refrigerants I guess). We also have so many devices that churn out pollutants while other devices filter them out of the air. I think concern over global warming/cooling is being blown way out of proportion for the sake of political gain though, and by proxy is just shooting the legitimate bulk of information in the foot for associating it with political goals. With a Republican establishment now in place, which seems to be largely against belief in extreme global warming, I think a lot of global warming activists are now going to be in a much worse state of affairs for the simple fact of trying to juxtapose scientific beliefs with a political platform. I think if one believes in something that actually matters, it's best not to invest it all in partisanship - way too risky on multiple levels. 

People will catch onto the truth of things eventually - and I'm certainly not claiming I have it myself. But it would happen a lot quicker if people weren't using their theories for the sake of pandering to their other deep-held beliefs. And that can be said of a lot of scientific scuffles, past and present. 

[Old Rabbit]

According to Trump global warming is a Chinese plot. At least that's
what I heard.

Locally the thing I have noticed is winters are coming later. When I was
a kid we had frost by the middle of October. This year we just had our
first frost. I can't say spring is coming later, but earlier.

It all boils down to shorter winters. At least where I live in southern Missouri.

I can't say the summers are hotter, but winters seem to be a bit warmer
on average.

Actually I think from what I have heard is the Oceans are warming a bit.
This affects world climate. Larger cyclones, less rain or more rain depending
on where you live. China is burning huge amounts of coal, and the soot
particals in the air will collect more heat from the sun. This could be
why the north pole is loosing more ice along with greenland.

Time will tell, but there is a slight increase in world temperatures. It's likely
due to man. If things continue as is those living aling the sea coast will need
build a sea wall or move.

[animagusurreal]

One of my facebook friends just wrote a post about how she hates to travel, and then added on the end, "If it were only a personal sacrifice I might do it a bit more, but it's also bad for the environment." So the Earth is now so fragile, it's going to keel over if I take a VACATION!? 

[Rocket T. Coyote]

Climate change is real--it's otherwise known as The Seasons. Whether humans are directly responsible? Then we should make a real attempt at it and lower our heating bills. The Sun tends to trump everything though, and it goes through cycles too.

[Old Rabbit]

The GOP claims they don't see any real evidence of Climate change. But they
also say they aren't scientists either.. The problem I see is the GOP being more
concerned about business interests than the world we live in. They want to
look the other way even though most scientists around the world try tp point
out the signs.

Perhaps it's just a cycle and a 100 years from now it will go the other way. But if
it doesn't it's going to cost a lot more to stop coastal flooding then than some
regulations to slow or prevent increases in CO2 production now.

We can set a good example to the rest of the world by showing we care enough to
help make it a better world to live in. I think sometimes people forget there isn't
anywhere to move if life on earth becomes impossible.

[Avan]

Why are people even buying into the nonsense these denialists are outputting?

The only reason they deny it are for business/job interests, or because their political alignment tells them this is what to think.

Climate change is an actual thing, the average global temperature is already going up far faster and more sharply by entire orders of magnitude than it has ever done so before. This isn't a natural anomaly. This is a bunch of selfish people with short-term interests who think they will probably die out before the feces really hits the fan (Even though its already beginning).

[Yip]

I'm not sure how widespread it is in the rest of the world, but in the US there is WAY too many people that in many ways seem to be anti-science.  How bad does it have to get to convince these people?  The sad thing is, I expect a fair number of them would take the effects like more severe weather as "signs of the end times" or some other such thing; so they won't accept the truth no matter how bad things get.   

[animagusurreal]

I believe there are short-sighted businesspeople who are indifferent to anything outside of their company's profits. Given the choice between those people and scientists, I tend to trust the latter more. However, sometimes it seems to be glossed over that scientists are also people, with their own politics and biases, who need to get funding for their work. They can make predictions as far as what kind of effects certain chemicals will have, but they can't actually predict the future. The technology that produces pollution today was developed by scientists in the past, and evidently they thought it was a good idea at the time.

The other problem is that the news media has gotten ahold of it, and with a 24-hour news cycle, they constantly need something to scare people with in order to sell more media. The topic of catastrophic climate change has become a well they can dip into whenever it's a slow news day, much like the (insert-animal-here) flu pandemic or the "Big One" earthquake I've been hearing about since I was a child.

It turns out that when my facebook friend (mentioned in my earlier post) claimed travel is bad for the environment, she was mostly talking about air travel. Someone commented, "it's a lot of carbon to have on your conscience." Okay, first of all, that plane is leaving whether you're on it or not. I don't see how you being in the seat instead of someone else causes any more carbon to be released into the atmosphere. Second, the problem here is not people's natural inclination to travel. The problem is that the fastest form of travel available releases a lot of carbon. That's what scientists should be tackling (and for all I know, are) - how do we make planes emit less carbon, or how do we come up with a form of travel that's just as fast but emits less carbon? Posting on facebook that everyone just needs to stay home because it's some kind of carbon sin to travel helps nothing. Around the turn of the 20th century, my Italian great-grandmother got on a boat to America and never saw her parents again. At that time, the idea that people would one day fly to Europe in a matter of hours was probably inconceivable. Yet today, it's an everyday occurrence. And the Wright Brothers didn't need every random citizen in America to care about airplanes in order to figure out how to make one work. They just did it. So, can't scientists do the same with figuring out how to make them more eco-friendly? It can't be more impossible than the idea of creating an airplane in the first place.

[Firelight]

It's natural but humans re making it worse.

[Acton]

I see at  natural and  man made but have little effect on Human Life.  let not forget it became climate change when  the pushers of this  religion of environmentalism found out  Global warming hysteria  was falling out or serious flaws in Global  Warming predictions.     

The problem is  we been hearing the doom and gloom models  of Global warming  since late 1980's 1990's if the East, West Cost  and Pacific island are  going to be flooded should we see evidence of this now we are in 2017?

[Yip]

let not forget it became climate change when  the pushers of this  religion of environmentalism found out  Global warming hysteria  was falling out or serious flaws in Global  Warming predictions.

Actually, no. That's not correct at all.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
We, the general public, tend to use the terms interchangeably. 
And I know I for one have pretty much stopped using the term "global warming" entirely because it seems to be hard for some people to understand. It's the general trends that are warming, not the shorter term day to day or month to month stuff.  By calling it "climate change", it helps to emphasize that this is an issue on a longer timescale.

The problem is  we been hearing the doom and gloom models  of Global warming  since late 1980's 1990's if the East, West Cost  and Pacific island are  going to be flooded should we see evidence of this now we are in 2017?

It's true that many science organizations have been warning about climate change for a long time because they seen the signs of it back when it was still possible to stop it will little to no damage. We are passed that point now. Climate change will (and in many ways already is) causing irreversible damage. Polar ice is receding. Corral reefs are dying off.   These changes are well documented.   We can still stop the worst of it, but not if we keep denying there is even a problem.

Climate change is not a problem that will hit us fast. It's a slow process relative to our lifespans. The effects of it are too slow to notice for those that aren't paying much attention. Which is why those that have been paying attention (climate scientists) have been warning us.

[Varg the wanderer]

This past summer I visited Siiwolf (old member here, no longer active on the forums) and we did a lot of hiking around Alaska. On every glacier we hiked (and we hiked a lot of them) he would stop at some point as we were approaching it and say "When I first moved here 7 years ago, this is where that glacier ended." The glacier ended several hundred yards further up. That was undeniable proof in my book that the climate was changing, and just how much it was changing.

Why is an entirely different matter. I have "climate scientists" (Still not sure what that is) telling me the world is warmer than it has ever been, while Paleontologists telling me the Dinosaurs lived when the Earth was much warmer than it is now¹. Most temperature models I see only go back to the last ice age, which doesn't account for the span of life on this earth, or even land animal life on earth. Clearly someone is lying, and I'm incline to believe the Paleontologists, as they seem to practice better science.

This casts some serious doubt on CO2 being the culprit, along with recent reports of falsified data. Even if this were true, I see no reason to bend over backwards to curb CO2 emissions in ways that are uneconomical unless ALL nations do so. China has refused to do anything about their pollution, despite producing a THIRD of the world's man-made CO2². Why should the world handcuff it's economy when the single leading producer does nothing, allowing it to out compete everyone else and produce even MORE pollution in shipping everything to and from China?

Even if we look at things per capita, one can also compare the amount of industry to to number of people, making the argument that the US produces more CO2 per person moot. Plain and simple: the US does more and makes more per person than China. China simply has more people. Just look at the difference in GDP per person.³. To put thing in an even better perspective, consider that states in the US have GDP's that are very close to those of entire countries⁴.

1http://www.geo.arizona.edu/%7Erees/2004-1.pdf
2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
4http://www.businessinsider.com/map-renames-us-states-with-country-generating-same-gdp-2016-6

[Old Rabbit]

I think the largest change in temperature is in the oceans. If true this could cause
the release of gas frozen in sea beds around the world in the future. The ocean
currents move massive amounts of heat around the world. If enough cold water from
ice melts enter the oceans it could cause changes in these flows. Places like England
and northern Europe could see much colder winters if the Gulf Stream fails to move
warmer waters to that area. The world climate we now enjoy could change dramaticly
in a short time.

Of course small changes in solar output of our local star could create problems too.. There was a mini ice age a few hundred years ago that may have been caused by a
minor decrease in solar output. Or volcanic activiy. When a large volcano blew in the
early 1800's some parts of the world had frosts during a couple summers due to the
dust it threw up high in the atmosphere. Our climate is on a delicate balance where
seemingly small events can make changes causing crops to  fail around the world. 

The big problem with politicians is they are only worried about NOW.  Not the
future. They want to be re elected and if regulations hurt the pocket books of
those who vote for them they are not likely to worry about climate change. People
can see polution, and smell it. So politicians have to deal with it, but climate change
is slow, like the proverbial frog you can cook with slow heating. If the public can't
see it, smell it, or touch it. The politicians don't care about it.

We can only hope the world climate temperatures, and water levels don't continue
their upwared climb.

[Yip]

I have "climate scientists" (Still not sure what that is) telling me the world is warmer than it has ever been...

I think they put it as "warmest ever recorded" which is a very different claim and does not conflict with anything Paleontologists might say.

[Varg the wanderer]

Ever recorded would make much more sense, although that is a very short segment of time in environmental history.  I distinctly recall being told "ever" and not "ever recorded". Maybe a misspoken word, or maybe intentional; either way it is a fallacy.

Ever recorded I do believe holds, but we know the earth cycles beyond where we are now (and has been for millions of years). Who's to say this current warming trend isn't normal? It's not like we have much data on how fast the climate changed, just that it did.

[Old Rabbit]

I find it interesting when they quote records they often fail to mention the actual
temperature change. Perhaps saying it was 1 degree higher wouldn't get
the same attention.

Our friendly politicians say. "I am not a scientist so I don't know?" I find it
interesting they seem to know all about things they like, but nothing about
things they don't. 

[Kobuk]

The EPA just removed climate change data from it's website. 
http://www.tmj4.com/news/national/climate-change-information-removed-from-epas-website