Comments about ‘New study links wildfires and climate change’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 30 2012 6:06 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

I feel so guilty for living and exhaling CO2. Where can I sign up to pay a carbon tax so I won’t feel guilty anymore?

MapleDon
Springville, UT

Wait a minute. I thought fires were caused by target shooters.

gray man
Orem, UT

sounds like common sense to me: it's hotter - easier to start fires. after all heat is one of the 3 ingredients needed for fire.
but of course, just because we have had some more fires this year doesn't actually mean the climate is warming. one year is not significant. also of course, if the planet is warming, it doesn't mean it was caused by humans or that humans can do a thing about it.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

61% of land in the lower 48 states was experiencing drought conditions, stretching from Nevada to South Carolina, the highest percentage in the 12-year record of the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Some say climate change isn't happening. Others say it isn't man made so attempts to halt climate change are a waste of resources and effort. Then more say, climate change is okay, mankind will adapt.

So I want to know how Utahns might adapt to a decreasing snow pack in the mountains?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@DN Subscriber
"So, yes we might have more fires as the climate arms, but it has NOTHING to do with you driving your car to work or vacation."

Another recent study estimated that at least 70% of the decline in Arctic sea ice over recent years is anthropogenic forcing. (National Centre for Atmospheric Research, University of Reading).

@The Rock
"Scientists find strong link between being a left wing liberal and believing in man made global warming."

Actually studies have shown strong links between being liberal or conservative and believing in man made global warming. Of course the strongest correlation was between climate scientists and believing in man made global warming, you know, the people most informed about the matter.

Hunt
Spanish Fork, UT

What I find laughable is the use of the term "climate change." Any weather related event can be blamed on "climate change" due to the fact that "climate change" is always happening. Convenient isn't it? So why don't they just call it like it is and say it's "global warming"?
I have my theories and they are all based on political self serving motivations (i.e. Al Gore being a primary invester in a company that was set to make millions off the back of carbon taxes.)

New's Flash! "Climate Change" found to be responible for cold weather in the winter and warm weather in the summer! Everybody start panicking!

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Hunt
"So why don't they just call it like it is and say it's "global warming"? "

Because it's more than just "it getting a bit warmer". Shifts in the jet stream pattern, changes in drought and flood frequency, declining Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification...they decided global warming didn't adequately represent what they were talking about.

Hunt
Spanish Fork, UT

@atl134

So in other words "global warming" isn't specific and/or descriptive enough so they went with a more generalized term? Sounds counterintuitive to me. I have a sneaking suspicion that the more generalized term of "climate change" is used in an effort to make it easier to claim that climate fluctuations up or down are man caused. No matter which way you slice it, or which side of the isle you stand on, the use of the term "climate change" acts as a disservice to the public's ability to become educated on the subject and I believe this is the way the powers that be want it.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

ExecutorIoh: "Climate is a composite of different environmental factors over a long period of time where weather is the refined, detailed look. Climate doesn't lead to fires...a macroscopic look would suggest that fires burn all the time everywhere."

Oh really? Why does Utah have to worry about fires every year, while Ohio does not? Of course there are the occasional fires here in the Midwest, but only VERY rarely. Would not a change in climate to warmer average temperatures increase the likelihood of a dry day intersecting with a lightning storm (which is also affected by warmer temperatures)? As much as you hate it, climate change will lead to more fires in more places.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Let's all deny the law of gravity.

But when you're standing at the edge of a canyon, you're only one step away from finding out for sure.

Could humans on this planet be standing only one step away from finding out if we're right or wrong about climate change?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Hunt
"So in other words "global warming" isn't specific and/or descriptive enough so they went with a more generalized term?"

Not being representative enough was the issue. Climate scientists don't use the term climate change as a catch all so they can blame any change on it. Now everyday people using it that way... yeah that happens, which is why I try and correct those types of errors as well. For instance, contrary to what some people might say, in relation to the massive April tornado totals last year, the IPCC report actually notes no link between climate change and tornadoes.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Whenever I'm tempted to re-evaluate my thoughts about "...climate change..."...

I go to my trusted Koch Industries Resource Manual.

The manual helps me avoid temptation as well as make the "right" re-evaluation...everytime.

VST
Bountiful, UT

It never fails to amaze me, that when another article is published about "climate change" or "global warming," all the nut cases come out of the woodwork on both the liberal and conservative side of the political spectrum. They spout forth their rhetoric in a vain attempt to back up their claim that global warming IS, or IS NOT, anthropometrically caused (AGW). Furthermore, if you do not agree with their argument, you are an idiot.

What both sides continue to completely ignore is this: The real question regarding proof to the hypothesis of AGW is "HOW SENSITIVE is the earth's atmosphere to these increased CO2 forcings?" Compounding the answer to this question, there are also many other atmospheric forcings that can cause increases in average global temperatures. But it is difficult to isolate and measure the overall sensitivity of each forcing along with their respective interrelationships.

The answer to this question is still under investigation by the REAL climate scientists. But until they have that answer, the hypothesis that AGW is the main cause of rising average temperatures on earth, it will remain just that – a hypothesis and not yet a proven scientific fact.

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: VST

Actually studies have been done on this, and the conclusion was 2/10 to 3/10 of 1 degree.

In other words insignificant.

Even worse if you spent trillions of dollars over a hundred years you not be able to change this by any significant number.

IN other words mans role is extremely insignificant,

and the only ones( besides those drinking the kool-aid or been brainwashed by liberal education) shrilling fighting for intervention are those set to make billions if not trillions of dollars over climate change with energy credits, pollution credits, light bulbs, and other products, those like gore and GE among others, not to mention the power and control many will gain over us and our lives ans businesses.

VST
Bountiful, UT

"@the truth" said, "Actually studies have been done on this, and the conclusion was 2/10 to 3/10 of 1 degree."

What is your source for those studies? Did those studies directly address the SENSITIVITY aspect of increased CO2 forcings upon the atmosphere? How did they nullify the effect of other atmospheric forcings that can cause increases in average global temperatures?

CHALY0
OREM, UT

This debate is a perfect example of some welcome disagreement. However, there are folks who tend to think they are more brilliant than you because they are more educated and in the correct areas of thought. How many times have you listened to some of those brilliant folks and thought 'he/she is a moron'. The studies on global warming do not say 'man-made' for a very good reason. If these effects were here before man, 'who' was the cause then, smokers or Congress or George Bush?

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

CHALYO, what are the "correct areas of thought"? Are you talking about people that are educated in climate science?

"The studies on global warming do not say 'man-made' for a very good reason." Uhh. . . I was just wondering where you heard that. I mean, its a strange idea. Did you hear it from somebody like Hanitty or Beck? Well anyway, it's not true.

" If these effects were here before man. . ." Again. No. Where are you getting these ideas? Sorry, but it seems that you don't understand the issue. But, you know, you've got a lot of company, you can see if in the posts.

Allen
Salt Lake valley, UT

I've been collecting scientific articles about climate change in my doesclimatechange blog. It's pretty obvious that our climate is changing. It's less obvious that climate-change is man-made. Evidence indicates that climate change is caused by both natural and man made things. The key question, then, is how much influence do man made things contribute to climate change compared to natural causes.

One reason scientists believe climate change is primarily due to man made things is that the rate of climate change has significantly increased since the industrial revolution.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments