Quantcast

Comments about ‘Climate change already playing out in West, report says’

Return to article »

Change 'more dramatic' in winter than previously thought, ecologist says

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18 2012 6:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

It wouldn't help to increase the subsidy to mass transit. The problem that Utah has with mass transit comes in 2 parts. First, the SLC valley is too rural and spread out. Second, which is related is the fact that you can typically drive to your destination in 1/2 the time that it takes to use UTA.

For example, when I went to college, I had a 45 minute bus ride followed by a 15 minute walk to where my classes were held. That does not include the time to wait for the bus, and the time waiting around because the bus schedule didn't have more than 1 bus/30 minutes. With my own car, I had a 10 to 15 minute drive and less than 5 minute walk to class. Why take up to 2 hours of your day to go somewhere you can drive to in 15 minutes?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Sensible Scientist and mdp
"but the global temperature has been falling since its peak in 1998. "

The 2000s were .2F warmer than the 1990s. Also most datasets have 2007 or 2010 as the warmest year on record, not 1998.

esodije
ALBUQUERQUE, NM

My career as a trial lawyer was blessedly short, but it didn't take long for me to learn that the real prostitutes of the legal system were, and are, expert witnesses. In short, if a litigant needs an "expert" to testify to a given proposition, and there's a buck in it, there will ~always~ be someone with credentials ready to swear to it. Which is why I've never believed herd science's hysterics concerning anthropogenic climate change--their credibility is irretrievably compromised by the monetary, power-driven, and ideological dogs they have in the fight, and, as is the case with all True Believers, they lack even enough self-awareness to recognize their own biases, much less admit to them. When, regardless of the evidence, your conclusions are ~always~ (a) that mankind is destroying the Earth, (b) that we're teetering on the proverbial "tipping point" past which no remedy is possible, and (c) that the solution is increased taxation and/or government regulation (i.e., socialism), eventually you're simply not going to be taken seriously.

HonestOrPolite?
Provo, UT

The Anasazi suddenly vanished from the Southwest maybe 700 years ago. A change in climate has been blamed for their demise. We may be headed for the same fate. But that doesn't prove the "carbon causes climate change" case. Cycles are warm; cycles are cold. Cycles are wet; cycles are dry. Utah had a bumper crop of snow a season or two back, and we may be headed for another this winter.

Allisdair
Thornbury, Vic

What I enjoy about comments here as they are so predictable, however it is interesting to observe there is a shift in the numbers with more people on the climate change side.

It is sad that the divide is based on being left or right politically as science is about research and fact finding. I am certain that we all celebrate scientific research in the medical area that has extended our life expectancy or the science behind the development of water treatment. Both these areas of science are paid for by grants.

I know that I enjoy the benefits that have come from research into weather forecasting which are paid for by the government.

So why is it suddenly political when the science means we have to change our lifestyle? Or is it just greed, because we are comfortable with business as usual?

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

The irony of a headline just to to left of this item on the Des News "World & Nation" page is worth a good chuckle: "Snowstorm causing problems from Rockies to Midwest".

If you are really scared by the incessant doom and gloom from both of Utah's major "newspapers" on this topic, do yourself a favor. Google - "Matt Ridley: Cooling down the fears of Climate Change" in the WSJ.

"Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis (an impartial student of climate science with a strong math and physics background) comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good..."

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Do I understand the sentiments of this board correctly? Findings of research scientists employed by NOAA, NASA, USGS, and public universities are inherently suspect because their conclusions are fore-ordained as a condition of their grants, while the findings of scientists employed by Exxon-Mobil, the Heritage Foundation and other Koch-funded think tanks, and the American Coal Association are reliable and noble because they have no possible financial interest in the outcome of their work? Just checking.

donquixote84721
Cedar City, UT

For many years Doctors and Scientist debated over smoking, and what they swore to, under oath, depended on who paid for their research and testimony. For many years, our government, sent powder formula, as part of aid packages, to third world countries, convincing new Mothers that their breast milk was not good to the babies, when in fact, breast milk was not only the best thing, for the babies, it was the only gift these Mothers had to give their babies.

donquixote84721
Cedar City, UT

When you read or hear so called Expert, Scientist, and Doctors swear to anything, check into who pays them. To get rich all you need to do is create a cause, such as save the DODO Bird, then hire a bunch of Experts to testify that we need to save the DODO Bird, and you can get government and private funds, and use those funds to hire more Experts. The Facts are, our globe is warming something like 1/2 degree per 100 years. Whenever any planning for building something outdoors, it is only prudent to consider what is called the 100 year event, which acknowledges that there long term cycles on this globe. Global warming must be on a several thousand year cycle.

As stewards of this globe, we need to make prudent use of all natural resources, and stop wasting them. This is only common sense, and does not require hiring Experts to lie under oath.

terra nova
Park City, UT

It is astonishing that people argue about global warming. As if arguing about it settles everything. It fails to address the larger problem at hand: Pollution. Regardless of anyone's belief in global warming, regardless of any proof or lack of proof; pollution remains.

If we are to be good stewards of the earth, we must pollute as little as we can. This means curbing our insatiable desire for ever larger homes, cars, huge diesel pick-ups, more food than we need, we add to the problem.

If we are to end the bickering, we need to learn to be content with less. We need to simplify. We need to learn to let go of the economy of Babylon and adopt the economy of Zion.

Jerome from Layton
Layton, UT

Lately, it's been warmer, but Accuweather says late December and January will be below average. Buggy trees may be a management problem allowing too many trees to accumulate and it's worse in California where they starve farmers to save the Delta Smelt and loggers to benefit the Spotted Owl. Meanwhile, "mother" Russia is abusing her kids with record cold weather and Europe is feeling the chill, too. Tune in after the 21st for that other story.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Well WilltheWolf, sheeple, how cleaver. Did you think of that yourself? Oh wait. No, you didn't. Conservatives think stuff like that is cleaver. Right up there with saying "libs", and thinking you've said something profound.

No, Mr. Wolf, most people, at least on this site, that recognize that the earth is warming have done more then just believe what others tell them. You can usually tell from reading their posts that they have studied the issue a bit. At least more then those that deny the situation, those people you can tell just repeat, for the most part, what they hear on talk radio. For instance "sheeple" and "agenda 21". Yes I heard Beck talking about that also, JDL.

WhyNotThink
North, UT

Dear Mark, have you really done your research? I noticed that no one answered my question including you. If you had done your research you would know the entire global warming argument is based upon the models. If you really do your research you will know the answer to my question and you will also understand the science behind the answer.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"the entire global warming argument is based upon the models."

Whynotthink, of course that is not true. What a silly thing to say.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mountanman
Hayden, ID
News flash: The climate is always changing, always has (ice age) and always will and humans can't change it, never have, never will.

6:57 a.m. Dec. 19, 2012

==============

Ya - That whole Desert blossoming like the rose!
I mean, what does Isaiah and Brigham Young know anyway?!

Ka-phewy!

[sarcasm -off]

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

As a life-time Boy Scout and LDS members --

I've been taught to:

Leave a place better than I found it.
Leave no Trace Behind.

And that WE will be responsible for creating this world into our Celestial Kindomg -- (not God's magic pixie-dust - the Atonement is about cleansing our sins, not about cleansing our polluted the Earth).

Polluting his beautiful creation is mocking God - and God will not be mocked.

WhyNotThink
North, UT

Mark,

Really? The entire hypothesis proposed by the IPCC is based upon the mathematics that relate thermodynamic/equilibrium greenhouse gasses to global warming. This math is referred to as a model. The scientific method requires a hypothesis (in this case the models or math that are proposed through the IPCC)and testing them against the real world events. If they hold true as predicted by the hypothesis (which in this case as stated by the IPCC the climate change model)then one can argue that man does indeed cause global warming. This is of course (for those who actually due understand the math) assume that the data is not confounded. Perhaps you also feel that the scientific method that the entire argument is based upon is silly.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

". . . the entire global warming argument is based upon the models."

You are wrong about what the "entire global warming argument" is based on. There is much more then "the models" backing up the argument. It is silly to claim otherwise.

But anyway, now you are moving the goalposts. Initially you stated "argument", but now you want to change the discussion to hypotheses. (A hypothesis and an argument are not analogous.)

Very slippery of you, but okay:

“. . . a hypothesis (in this case the models or math that are proposed through the IPCC)”

You are just as wrong in your understanding of what a hypothesis is as what the argument is. The models and the math are not the hypothesis.

“Perhaps you also feel that the scientific method that the entire argument is based upon is silly.”

Not at all. I think your understanding of the issue is.

John Simpson
ARLINGTON, VA

We crave the ability to predict atmospheric events, but the reality is that our ability to do so is very limited. Just as those who, forty years ago, predicted catastrophic global cooling as the result of human activity were soon revealed as foolish, the more recent warmist fad will eventually fail. The real danger is not so much a warmer winter as such or a horde of pine beetles, but rather the limitations on our freedom pushed by those who would insist on restricting carbon dioxide outputs in a vain attempt to fight "warming."

to comment

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