Published: Friday, Dec. 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
WRZ…. you are way over simplifying what is going on. As arctic ice
melts, it cools the average temp of the ocean. That has the effect of altering
currents and jet streams. Those changes mean that you have extremes in all
directions. Pointing to one data point here, or another there, proves nothing.
It is taking the sum total of these that makes up the full story.Anecdotally, we were working with one of the largest oil companies on some new
exploratory wells in the Alaska tundra. We had to abort the pad because the
permafrost had thawed more than usual and the ground would not support the
weight of the rig. Same year, a open sea rig had to be pulled early because
that same year the ice came in earlier as well. Both events, one pointing to
aberrant cooling, another pointing to an unusual thaw. Both just a couple
hundred miles from each other.Don't take these data points by
them selves. People who have no idea what they really mean are publishing
trying to prove things without knowing that a warmer planet can also lead to
@Nate – “And where do you think I said that? Welcoming warmth and
causing it are two different things.” You’re
right… I stand corrected. I was confusing you with 97% of all
climate scientists. And considering the margin of error (3%) is about the same
as polled people who still believe Elvis is alive – and that based on some
of your past (intelligent) comments I didn’t peg you for an Elvis-is-alive
type guy – I hope you’ll understand and forgive my error.
I have only one proposal for each side, Show me the proof! As soon as either
side truly can, then we can have a real debate. And don't use a con census
of scientists, science and truth is not by concensus, they just are.
Hey folks, check out the weather (climate) forecast for the NE. More bitter cold
weather (climate change) headed your way!
@Tyler D "I was confusing you with 97% of all climate scientists."Don't ever do that. That figure exists only in John Cook's
imagination. His study has been debunked so many times, it's a surprise
anyone still cites him without embarrassment.Dr. Richard Tol
arguably did the best job of destroying this myth. A curious individual could
start with him. For those who don't read much, a brief quote:"I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense."
Yes, truth and reality are what they are, high school. But, see, the question is
is how do you determine what truth, or reality, is? Gut feelings? Hunches? What
some guy on talk radio tells you? A chain email you received? What you read
here? You ask for someone to show you the proof. I'm curious.
Do you think someone is going to deliver that proof to you personally? Come to
your house and lay it all out for just you? I'd be surprised if
that happens.No. It might take some effort on your part. Go research
the science. It might take a while. You will have to put in effort. Go right to
the original studies. Read the science behind the theories. Read the writings of
people that actually work in the field. And read a wide range of these writings.
And indeed, read from legitimate sources on both sides of the argument. And then
read the counter arguments. Educate yourself. It might take awhile.
Even more then one or two evenings. Some people dedicate their entire lives to
it. But you can do it. Don't accept ignorance.
@wrz'weather forecaster on public radio described the storm as
'historic.''Largest December snowfall since 1954 (up
to 3ft)."Antarctic snow pack is growing. Record low recorded
there. Try 135.8 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. Look it up"Actually, in locations where the temperature doesn't get above 0F during
the year, a growing snowpack can be a sign of warming since warmer temperatures
lead to more water vapor and more precipitation (since it doesn't get warm
enough to melt it, sure there's sublimation but that only does so much).
This is not the case in locations where temperatures do get above 0F since that
runs into increased melting and some of that snow falling as rain instead.As for the -135.8F, that's a location that's barely been
monitored, it might've been colder than that the past century, we just
wouldn't know about it. Regardless, when making a point about global
climate, one should be looking at the entire set of data rather than one point
@high school fanI'd recommend the IPCC 5th Assessment Report: Summary
for Policymakers or at least just look at the figures in it since even the
"summary" is rather long.
Incredible dishonesty from the author and from DN for posting such a ridiculous
letter. Both should be ashamed.Every winter conservatives snark that
it's cold so there is no problem with changing the atmosphere composition.
What do you think it does to change the atmosphere by adding CO2? It's
going to do SOMETHING.I may as well say, "where is George Bush?
he promised we would never have to worry about terrorism again." Pffff!
Please get a tatoo that says you don't believe in global warming. I just
think your grandchildren should know who to slap.
You mean Dr. Tol the economist? I suppose next you’ll ask us
to review the latest findings from Dr. Such and Such the podiatrist, who likes
to write papers (in between curing athletes foot) about monetary policy…
forgive my skepticism.To be fair Dr. Tol may have something to say
about the best (market friendly) policies to address climate change, but as an
authority weighing in on whether or not AGW is a fact, I think we can dismiss
that nonsense out of hand.No, I was talking about the survey that
found in over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists only 3% (again,
an Elvis-is-alive margin of error) explicitly rejected AGW. While it’s
true that the Cook study was flawed in the sense that some among the other 97%
still had questions (as all good science does), none of those 97% reject the
hypothesis. When that trend begins to reverse in a significant way
then I (and likely many others) will alter our views, but I’ll wait for
the science (rather than a guy pontificating on demand elasticity) to inform me
on this one.
Sure, there is man made global warming and if frogs had wings, they
wouldn't keep bumping their bottoms when they hop. We have a consensus of
scientists that agree about the frogs and all their computer models show it as
Tyler D,Very nice.
MarkNo I am not looking for someone to present me the reality but to
present to all of us. You ask me to read, to study, to talk to knowledgeable
people, I have done those things over the years and I have formed my opinion
which is this, we do not have a clue what is going on as to whether it is good
or it is bad or that any of it matters at all.Of course things change but
we do not know if the change is what was meant to be. And so far I still have
no proof just hypothesis. I also believe that we should be wise but we should
also be careful that we don't overreact either way.As I said, as soon
as either side can present proof on the national stage, we can then have the
"First, Al Gore said nothing of the kind. Mr. Haynes has distorted the
man's message.Second, Global Warming models have never predicted a
sustained and consistent raising of temperatures everywhere on earth. There is a
difference between climate and weather."I agree that there is a
difference between weather and climate and that the climate is changing.The letter writer has used the same bad logic that Al Gore used once
when, in the middle of a summer heat wave, he said that we only need to feel the
temperature to see that there is a problem.Both Al Gore and the
letter-writer are making the same dumb error.
What a shame...Not 1 single global warming denier remembers we JUST
had the HOTTEST summer ever recorded!Right here, where they witnessed some
it for themselves.Like Gold-fish - can only remember what they heard
on their radios this morning.
The earth goes through cycles. Many factors affect these cycles. The sun most
of all. Then there's those pesky volcanos. I wonder how much C02 that he
volcanos on the big island of Hawaii spew out? Not to mention the one in
Mexico, the Philippines, and others. How about earthquakes and how they change
the earth. Does something happen there? How about the natural winds? We
haven't had an El Nino for a while. Could that have something to do with
what is happening?Bottom line, man's puny efforts may be a
small contributor, but with our limited knowledge and history, how can we be
sure that we are the total cause of so called "Global Warming"?I remember well in 1976/77 Newsweek did a cover story which asked the
question, "Are We headed for another Ice Age?" Back then, all the
reasons outlined for the ice age coming are duplicated today with the global
warming crowd.They rely too much on computer models, and computer
models are only as good as the person who programs them. Also the science
reflects the bias of those making the study. On both sides.
Yea LDSLiberal, and our records here go back to what? 1847?
I have to admit, it’s hilarious watching the Algore devotes try to explain
the cooling we’ve had for the past 15 or so years. The leaked IPCC report
has said as much. Looks like the majority of their bogus models over estimated
the “warming” we were supposed to be undergoing during this period.
It’s also interesting that the cataclysmic hurricanes that were predicted
due to AGW also didn’t seem to pan out. But wait,
there’s more bad news for the Algore devotes: 1) this past summer had
record cold temperatures recorded across the nation, 2) in July, Antarctica
recorded a near record low temp of -135.3 degrees...burr!, and 3) the arctic ice
cap has grown by 29%.Adding insult to injury to the AGW Alarmists is
the fact that most people put the bogus idea of AGW at the bottom of their
concern list. Strange the AGW Alarmists aren’t celebrating the good news
that we aren’t warming…hmmm? Must be sad to have to deny reality.
@Tyler D "You mean Dr. Tol the economist?....I think we can dismiss that
nonsense out of hand."No, we can't, and here's why:
you don't have to be a climatologist to know how to conduct an honest
survey. Dr. Tol, economist, has all the skills necessary to expose the
spectacular problems in Cook's survey, and he has done so.It
got his attention when five of ten of his own papers were rated incorrectly. Of
that number, four were classified as "endorse" when they should have
been classified as '"neutral." And he's not the only person
whose views were misrepresented.A few examples:"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly
against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational
facts." (Nils Axel-Morner, Ph.D Quaternary Geology)"I am
sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor
correct." (Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist)"Nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my
paper." (Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst, EPA, retired)Anyone who can read can understand that Cook's survey is bogus.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments