Posted on Jul 23, 2014
1SG Larry Everly
33.8K
680
512
8
8
0
Posted in these groups: 6262122778 997339a086 z PoliticsArctic ice nasa goddard flickr Climate Change
Avatar feed
Responses: 94
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
1
1
0
Almost everyone knows that climate changes and that we affect it to some degree, what we do not know if this change is potentially catastrophic. And we know that people pollute so much that major waterways have been nearly killed. But life goes on and we continue to study. And will adapt. Not because some eggheads pretend to understand the science behind the science.

Atmospheric physics are the primary determinant in what is going to happen and there is NEVER a slam dunk, an irrefutable and immutable truth in regards to weather. One example was that used to be forecasters assumed ALL Tornadoes rotate cyclonically and just when we are sure of something, new insights prevail. This is what science is and Max Planck summed it up best when leave the interpretation of a theory to succeeding generations. Avoiding the pratfalls of dubious presumption.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
SSgt (Join to see) Do you know what a "buffer sytem" is? It's how your body works - and how the earth works. Buffer systems in your body maintain temperature and pH. It takes a very small deviation in those to cause death. The earth is the same way. The ecosystem is precisely balanced. Things like ocean acidity are reversible/solubility equations - and once the acidity gets too high, the CO2 comes pouring back out. The oceans are the only thing saving us from our carbon emissions now, and that will change very soon.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) Yes, it is a buffer zone indeed like the thermosphere and the tropopause. They too aid and abet this system of atmospheres. We are not as close as you say and we have always heard of armageddon and this time is no different. I believe in cleaning up pollution but keep out of progessive's hands. They are devils in suits.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
SSgt (Join to see) So you agree that we're warming?
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Yes, but this may only be a transitory period and we must stop polluters and get alternative sources of electric. Gas engines are not good as should in the Philippines.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG City Carrier
1
1
0
First of all, the largest problem with this issue is the terminology. The first scientists who saw the trend toward higher average temperatures - worldwide - used the term "Global Warming" too loosely. The fact that North America doesn't fit that mold is irrelevant. The Arctic and Antarctic regions are experiencing higher then normal temps and that is what will affect our ocean levels, which in turn affects our currents, which in turn affects the climates of more temperate regions; i.e. between the two tropic latitudes and aforementioned circles. Too bad most Americans have a very narrow world view and miss that we are not the center of the world.

The more commonly accepted term nowadays is Global Climate Change. I believe once the science community at large begins insisting on that wording, their argument will have a lot less detractors. Or at least I hope so.

As for the actual reason for the climate change, I personally agree with the scientists that say the natural ups and downs of Earth's average temperature, which has caused both extreme droughts and ice ages in the past, are nothing new. However, from samples taken from glaciers and study of the gases trapped in them, we can deduce that human influence - especially since the industrial revolution - has sped up these natural changes.

And I, for one, am scared of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren not being able to play outside because of polluted air, water, and extreme temperatures. We can slow down our influence on these changes, but only if we all work together.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
MAJ (Join to see)
10 y
MAJ Carl Ballinger If you read the literature from the 70s (and I previously cited a large publication from 1978), global warming was being predicted even back then. The whole "global cooling" thing was never big within the scientific community - it was an invention of the media.
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG Michael Blount
1SG Michael Blount
10 y
I believe the current phrase is "climate change" and yah, it's real
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC Michael Hartwig
SFC Michael Hartwig
10 y
The theory I like to believe in and holds the most water is that the Earth hasn't settled into a solid orbit yet. Therefore our seasons will be fluctuating until we are all dead and gone. That being said, air quality laws are not a bad thing but lets not get crazy with them.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt James Stanley
SSgt James Stanley
10 y
What further proof do we need than what SFC Warrick has posted? That's the kind of facts we need, SFC Warrick, good work!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
To the global warming deniers, please answer these questions:

1) CO2 levels now are increasing at amazing rates, and there is NO correlation between volcananic or any other natural phenomenon to explain this, outside of human activity.

2) The heating pattern does not support solar genesis. Heat in the stratosphere vs atmosphere vs oceans rules out extra-terrestrial sources.

3) The oceans are acidifying and heating.

4) We're warming now almost 100 times faster than at any other transition from a cold to warming period than has been seen in the last million years.

5) For 30 years now, we've had monthly record highs. Even though the solar position would suggest a cooling stage.

The funny thing too - I drive a 4WD truck, I really don't pay that much attention to recycling - I'm not even close to a "green" type person. But the evidence is the evidence and I'm not going to just ignore that.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
>1 y
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
>1 y
.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
SPC Randy Torgerson
>1 y
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

I just don't know what else to say......

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Gerhard S.
>1 y
I would also add that our rate of change is NOT unprecedented. The mini Ice Age of the late 1700- early 1800's saw much greater change, and in 1816, known throughout the Americas and Europe as the year without a summer, temperatures plummeted in June leaving ice and snow throughout New England, and Europe. All this caused by a single volcanic eruption in Indonesia that spewed 36 cubic miles of sulfuric ash into the upper atmosphere (100 times more powerful than the Mt. St. Helen eruption. This idea that Humanity is the greatest threat to the climate is simply not true. Our influence pales in comparison to the effects of Mother Nature.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
1
1
0
Climate shifts are part and parcel of resultant weather patterns along with highs and lows. Transference of temperatures horizontally, vertically and through unseen events like temperature inversions, gravity waves and a host of other mitigating factors.
(1)
Comment
(0)
TSgt Scott Hurley
TSgt Scott Hurley
>1 y
Sgt Randy Hill Have you heard stories in Vermont about "The Year Without a Summer or 1800 and froze to death?"

I do like your post about the jet stream. I think sometimes WE New Englander's do think that from time to time.....
(2)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Randy Hill
Sgt Randy Hill
>1 y
It even influences whether or not we receive anything from the tropics. When Irene came through high pressure was to the east and the jet stream was quite a bit north. For Irene we were the pins in the bowling alley. It also makes a great tail
wind flying from Tennesee northward if you catch it right.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Randy Hill
Sgt Randy Hill
>1 y
The jet stream does lol.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Sgt Randy Hill - Indeed it does. The Long Wave Patterns (Major Highs and Lows) are the highways around with which weather patterns traverse the globe. Typically, these systems are pushed by Jets and usually those jets start at 50Kts. I've seen Jet Maxes of 310kts. Usually the Jet streams go way north in summer and an occasional dip during that time. Jets are associated with severe weather and turbulence.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Randy Torgerson
1
1
0
A new discovery has recently brought many questions to the future of climate change with the discovery of an ancient ice core that was drilled out in Greenland when a team of international scientists working on the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) project hit bedrock. The team achieved this monumental find after a full two summers of work, which involved drilling down more than 1.5 miles to try and assess the risks of abrupt future climate change. Some of the key implications and findings surrounding this find include the following:

The ice core originates from the Eemian interglacial period, which was from about 115,000 to 130,000 years ago. The temperatures at this time were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit above today's temperatures. The Eemian period was the most recent interglacial period on Earth. During this period there was a huge deal less ice on Greenland, and in addition to this, sea levels were 15 feet or more higher than today.

Do we have global warming today? Perhaps, but is it man made or a natural occurrence? You can believe anything you want. But real science with real facts should make a reasonable person come to an honest conclusion. I cited the article below by a link.

http://www.worldissues360.com/index.php/ice-drilling-project-greenland-climate-change-global-warming-10290/
(1)
Comment
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
SPC Randy Torgerson
>1 y
No its not. In the last million years or millions of years the volcanic ages vrs the ice ages all vary in total time to arrive. There is no empirical evidence (not opinion) to suggest otherwise. And furthermore, by definition global warming means higher over all temperatures, not simply the change or rate of change. Why would it matter if it got warmer faster now if the overall temperatures are cooler? If it gets warmer faster now then it will get cooler faster... I do respect your opinion MAJ Dews. I just do not believe we humans can effect such a large natural event.
(2)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC Randy Torgerson Why would the rate matter? Wow... some of you really don't follow climate science. If you don't understand why the difference in rates (along with differences in heat patterns between stratosphere/atmosphere/ocean) is critical, then you don't understand the science here. The fact that the earth was warmer a billion years ago means nothing, because the ecosystem was COMPLETELY different. We weren't here back then. The continents weren't as they are back then. The RATE of change that cannot be attributed to ANY natural causes is WHY we conclude that it's humans causing it. The carbon emissions now are way beyond anything in recent history, and the warming trend is outside of any pattern observed in a million years. Coincidence?
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC Randy Torgerson And think about this... the fossil fuels that we burn took millions of years to be created - sequestered under ground. We've burned them in a matter of decades, completely changing the ecological balance - something that has NEVER happened in the history of earth. Now we're seeing changes in temps that also have NEVER been seen in the history of earth. Do you really think these are somehow unrelated? Our oceans are acidifying (because they absorb CO2) and heating - again, completely outside of natural cycles. ALL the evidence is there, yet so many want to ignore science in favor of politics.

The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest for June since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 38th consecutive June and 352nd consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

That means it's been THIRTY years now that temps have been above average, and based on solar positioning we SHOULD be cooling.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) I have been in the weather field for over 35 years total. First as an observer and then forecaster/Meteorologist. When I get leftwing yahoos saying Meteorologists are not climatologists, I tell them, that we ARE 'defacto Climatologists with a much better handle on the weather and climate. The basis for our climate models are based on weather and an experienced forecaster hates politicians speaking for the 'true' experts.

I remember watching a Science Channel program where researchers done studies where they sheeted a part of the polar ice cap and found some good results. The problem according to this study? The carbon footprint was larger than when they started.

Nextly, good scientists disagree with each other prolifically as with Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind about the idea of matter being destroyed in a black hole.

Good scientists like Max Planck (Planck Universe) stated that ours is not to prove anything necessarily but that future generations will do that, one way or the other.

Saying that man-made Climate Change is going to destroy the planet being the issue. The book is still out and even the IPCC is a little disingenuous. The Emperor is naked and these convolutions are anything but.... scientific.

Meteorologist Larry Olson
(5)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Team Chief
1
1
0
I wouldnt exactly call it "Global Warming" but I would call it Climate Change. Whether or not it is a man made or man aided phenomenon is irrelevant at this point as it is happening. You cant just flip a switch and say look, we stopped doing this and that so everything will get better now! It just doesnt work like that. I took a small block of leave to Michigan back in January and it was one of the winters on record since my birth. People would argue that a cold winter goes against a "global warming" theory, to them I would say, get your head out of your rear and stop taking things literally. The Term "Global Warming" was a misused term and does NOT directly indicate that all weather should now become warmer. Sure, the Desert is hot as hell when the sun comes out....what happens at night though...Its the same thing with climate. In Michigan right now, its one of the weirdest summers ever, it barely reaches the 90s and each week or day is a completely different temperature from the last. Before you spout off on jokes about Michigan being in the north, understand this, Michigan does have routine summers months of 80-90 degree temperatures, something they have not had this year for more than a few days at a time. Could this be a strange year for the State...I could give in to that idea but is it strange and does it make you wonder...it certainly does. I dont think the argument over whether or not climate change/global warming is man made or natural even has a place in science anymore, the argument needs to be, what can we do to assist ourselves in more efficiently using our resources and what to do if a cataclysmic event caused by a global shift in weather suddenly affects crop cycles and fresh water levels.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Maintainer
1
1
0
The Science is there to prove that humans can impact small areas. (Smog in LA or China for example). But there is no evidence that mankind causes anything on a global scale.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Deputy Director, Combat Casualty Care Research Program
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
PO1 (Join to see) There's actually plenty of evidence - or do you think that CO2 and other green house gasses just reside locally and never diffuse globally?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Software Engineer
Cpl (Join to see)
>1 y
The largest green house gas is water, H2O. CO2 is plant food and essential for life on this planet. In the 70's they were screaming GLOBAL-COOLING, OZONE, GLOBAL-COOLING, OZONE. During our solar-minimum they will be shouting the same thing. Even NASA's graphs show a trend line going down. See Maunder Minimum for a correlation between low solar activity with the "little ice age" http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
(2)
Reply
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
Cpl Ray Fernandez
>1 y
The geography of Los Angeles between two major valleys contributes greatly to the air quality, and over the last several years air quality has improved here.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
Top, it's not called Global Warming any more; rather it's called the more accurate Climate Change.

All you have to do is consider the extremely violent tornado and hurricane damage over the last several years. Or consider this winter, where west of the mountains there's been no winter, while east, the winter has been extreme.

The Jet Stream, the Gulf Stream and all the other flows have been horribly disrupted. The melting of glaciers in Alaska, Greenland, Iceland; the melting of the Ice Cap in the North Pole; the calving of glaciers and exposure of bare land in Antarctica. All of this is very real, and it is caused by man made action.

It IS a national security threat, and it IS a threat to our very existence...
SPC Donald Tribble
0
0
0
We can argue semantics until we're blue in the face, but no one has ever seen this before. Something is not right.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/03/24/4444583/five-pictures-of-yosemites-half.html
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Bill Sier
0
0
0
The planet has been steadlily warming since the last Ice Age - long before mankind had any appreciable effect upon it. It is a natural occurence which is being hyped far out of its scope. Eventually, the tectonic plates will rearrange, making current borders superfluous. Where's the alarm about this?? Magnetic north will change, putting Garmin and other GPS vendors out of business. Where are the celebrity "Chicken Littles" trying to scare us??
This also is possible only if we aren't smashed into asteroids by a rogue planet, sucked into a black hole and rulled by a robot named Maximillian, or blown out of our solar orbit by a super volcano. Ain't skeered.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close