Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Climate vs. weather’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Allisdair
Thornbury, Vic

The Records keep falling extreme heat and cold, more storms and higher wind speeds. The frog gets slowly warmer.

It is not about single events it is about trends.

It is about greed I was totally impressed by the announcement that all the drilling and fracking will make the USA independent of fuel imports then came the the kicker it will only last 5 years.

When will stop looking at ourselves in a bubble we are in a world what we do effects others. My concern is our short term greed will result in our children's long term struggle.

As for FOX would you trust Rupert Murdock he changed nationality for greed and convenience and treats truth the same way, i.e. the testimony to the British Parliament.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

LDS Liberal,
"Science" is based on facts, data, and being able to reliably (100% accurately) demonstrate your theory. It's not based on a majority vote (like Global Warming).

Thus... Global Warming does not equal "Science". You can keep saying "It's Science"!... but it's not. Not yet. It is still a theory many scientists are trying to prove (it may take some time).

When people can predict what will happen with known test inputs... it will become "Science".

For instance... we can calculate the the gravity a given body based on it's mass. And we can reliably predict the mass of an object based on it's gravity. We can predict with 100% accuracy where a body will land if launched at a given velocity at a known angle. THAT... is "Science".

It's not getting enough people to vote that they believe... THAT.. is "Religion".

It may be BASED on science... but that doesn't make the theory science (until you can prove it). Scientists have yet to find an equation or a mathematical model for the climate. So it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote).

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "David Folland" actually, depending on which dataset you look at, the Earth's temperature has remained constant or has been DECREASING over the past 16 years. That is not a weather event, that is a climate event that has confused the climate scientists that think that CO2 is the driver in climate change.

To "LDS Tree-Hugger" most conservatives have a better understanding of climate change than the liberals do. They are the ones that have stated that the models are wrong long before the models proved themselves wrong. Most conservatives do not deny that the climate changes. The difference is in what the belief is for the driver. Is it the sun or other natural causes, or is it man made, that is the only difference.

Also, since the period that Al Gore claims we have had AGW, Utah has been wetter than it was before man-made global warming. See "Re-examining Drought in Utah" by USU.

To "Allisdair" the question for you is do you trust Al Gore who stands to make Billions if governments buy into his warming theories.

jsf
Centerville, UT

Increased temperatures and increased CO2 result in less water needed for plant life. Agriculture will increase with CO2 at higher levels. Science, proved. Since the increase in CO2 the earth has 11% more green coverage. Science, proved. During the mid 70's scientists said the increasing ice sheet in the Artic would result in more wild and devastating weather, now if it shrinks it will result in wild and devastating weather.

Report to the Utah water users discussing water patterns in Utah. "There are models that indicate that northern Utah is in the transition zone and could be either wetter or drier." 75 percent of models show it will be drier and 25 percent of the models show that it will be wetter. They did not discredit the six models that said it would be wetter. An open mind would approach the topic with rational skepticism. Not absolute ideology.

jsf
Centerville, UT

The true monument to scientific ideology sits out in the west desert. Scientist said the pumps were needed because it would take one hundred years for the Great Salt Lake to return to its prior levels. In the early sixties, scientists said the lake would be dry by the end of the century due to the drought at the time. In both cases scientists thought they new more and were absolute.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To 2 bits: "It may be BASED on science... but that doesn't make the theory science (until you can prove it). Scientists have yet to find an equation or a mathematical model for the climate. So it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote)."

Nobel Prize winning Swedish Physicist Svante Arrenhuis produced an equation showing that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will lead to higher temperatures. His equation predicted that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in an average temperature increase of 8 degrees Centigrade. He did this in 1896. Despite the fact that his equation was all done in long hand, before the invention of computers, even before the invention of mechanical calculators, it is quite close to the best projections we can achieve with supercomputers.

Also, when used in science, the word "theory" does not mean what you think it means.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@2 bits – “… it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote).”

Quite a bit of confusion going on in your comment…

First, you’re confusing math/deduction (proof) with science/induction (evidence). It is math that tells us where a body will land if launched at a given velocity at a known angle. It is science that builds theory based on mounting evidence (e.g., evolution and climate change).

Second, you’re confusing what scientists currently know (explaining past events) with what they can predict. Scientists know for a fact that climate change is happening and we are contributing to it. What they are still working on is prediction, but that is always the last piece of the puzzle to fall into place.

By your standard of mathematically precise 100% accurate prediction, neither medicine nor economics have any claim to scientific validity and what… we should go back to having Shaman treat our ailments and return to the barter system?

one old man
Ogden, UT

higv -- do you really, truly, honestly believe that weather does not control us even now?

Let's see -- do you have a furnace in your home? Do you have A/C in your car? Do you wear the same clothing in summer that you do in winter? Have you ever had a crop failure in your garden when an early frost hit or when an extremely dry, hot summer parched your crop?

Mercy!

one old man
Ogden, UT

And higv, perhaps Erlich's predictions have not come to full fruition YET, but they are working on it. With how many billion people on our planet pumping how much more pollution and carbon into the sky, how much of climate change is being driven by the additional humans? What about water in many parts of the earth? In many places there isn't enough now. Where will water come from for future population increases?

You may not be here when it finally happens -- but Erlich's predictions are slowing coming to pass.

one old man
Ogden, UT

The extremes of heat and cold WEATHER are actually demonstrating the accuracy of climate change predictions. Those predictions call for extreme changes in patterns of jet streams that drive weather. Arctic air will be pushed farther south in winter because of slight increases in water temperatures in the Arctic Ocean. Those streams of Arctic cold will come right down our chimneys.

Our cold weather in winter and heat in summer are simply demonstrations of the correctness of predictions.

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

Roland Kayser: "Nobel Prize winning Swedish Physicist Svante Arrenhuis produced an equation showing that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide will lead to higher temperatures. His equation predicted that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in an average temperature increase of 8 degrees Centigrade."

Wrong. Arrenhius actually said that a quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 would lead to an increase of 8 degrees C. He said that a doubling of CO2 would result in 4 degrees. Today, very few scientists believe that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 4 degree increase. Many believe 2 degrees or less is more probable.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@2bits
"So it's called Global Warming "Theory" "

I think you have theories mixed up, from wikipedia: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

@one old man
"The extremes of heat and cold WEATHER are actually demonstrating the accuracy of climate change predictions."

Not really. We've set or tied 36 record highs and 4 record lows at Salt Lake City International the past 4.5 years. (Based on a 130ish year dataset we should have around 12 of each in a neutral climate for 4.5 years). Record lows still happen due to weather, but happen less often due to climate change, even despite the jet stream anomalies (which you are correct about).

@Roland Keyser
CO2 is a somewhat saturated band in the radiation spectrum, which may not have been found until after Arrenhius (I'm not sure). This reduces the rate of warming per ppm added (though does not eliminate it). However, CH4 (methane) is far from saturated and this is part of why some now argue that CH4 is the bigger potential problem than CO2.

chilly
Salt Lake City, UT

In fact, RK, in 1906 Arrhenius had lowered his sensitivity estimates to between 1.6 and 2.1C for a doubling of CO2.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

I've watched climate scientists try desperately for 20 years to find a mathematical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and we still have nothing to show for it but a bunch of computer models that have diverged significantly from reality. There simply is no detectable correlation. Yes, CO2 probably does affect temperature, but it's so far down in the noise that nobody has been able to coax a signal from the data.

It bothers me that some are still doggedly (and dogmatically) asserting that we're going to suffer a catastrophe as a result of atmospheric CO2. There's no evidence to back up that assertion. CO2 forms an intrinsic part of the carbon cycle, without which life would not exist. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. More CO2 gives us higher crop yields and more plant life, and that's the ONLY thing anyone has been able to correlate with increasing atmospheric CO2.

Let's worry about real problems instead of pretend problems.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

I have lived in Utah for nearly 50 years. Utah is a place of weather extremes. But it does seem the trend is overall warmer and must drier in the summer. It doesn't mean it wasn't dry in the past or hot either but I've noticed the summers of say the last two decades are drier and hotter. And since water is scarce in Utah, I agree with the poster above that we should at least take notice.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Roland Kayser" just because somebody made some equations, that doesn't mean they are correct. For example, when people thought that the earth was the center of the universe, they developed complex equations to describe the motion of the stars and planets. They had equations that correctly predicted the movement, but their premise was completely wrong.

Man Made global warming is today's is just like that theory. It has little scientific support, and is being resolved by "consensus" rather than by actual data.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Tree-Hugger" most conservatives have a better understanding of climate change than the liberals do.

=========

Says a man who believe's that the earth is creating oil and fossil fuels FASTER than we could possibly ever burn it.
Instead of taking millions of years, the earth performs some sort of pertetual fossil fuel making magic.
Based on just one guys "theory" - who doesn't even have proper creditials.
Against each and ever single know "Scientist" on the planet.

Only going to prove you only support the ideas you want to believe in, inspite and against ALL facts and data.

airnaut
Everett, 00

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT
LDS Liberal,

It may be BASED on science... but that doesn't make the theory science (until you can prove it). Scientists have yet to find an equation or a mathematical model for the climate. So it's called Global Warming "Theory" still... until they can TEST and PROVE it (not by majority vote).

1:18 p.m. Dec. 17, 2013

[Here is a list of current Scientific "theories" --
Molecular, Atomic, Sub-Atomic, Accoustic, Curcuit, micro-electronics, Semi-conductors, Electro-magnetics, ect.

My point is, just because we don't know or understand the "science" behind something 100%, doesn't mean can't or shouldn't use it or ignore it.

The "Science" behind Global Warming is there, it is established...we need to start doinging something about it.]

RedShirtCalTech
Pasedena, CA

To "Open Minded Mormon" for somebody who claims to be Open Minded, you sure are being closed minded.

Read "Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring" in USA Today and "Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'" in WND.

If you don't like those sources, read the Huffington Post articles "Methane Oozing in Alaska, Cows Jumping Over Mars, Dinosaurs in Arabia -- Peak Oil Pranksters Don't Read This! " and "Oil's Big Dirty Secret as Producers Rake in Hundreds of Billions"

Also read "Unravelling abiogenic and biogenic sources of methane in the Earth's deep subsurface" in Chemical Geology. This is a second scientist that confirms Gold's theories. There are more if you search for them.

There are more sources. Some of the oil researchers are now saying that the idea of biomatter decomposing into oil does not explain all of the oil. Plus there is the whole problem of the wrong isotope of carbon showing up in some oil fields now.

I don't know how fast the process occurs, but according to many scientists, there appears to be 2 methods that produce oil.

airnaut
Everett, 00

"Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material."

=======

Your "theory" is Scientifically out the window.
Same as your theory of Global Warming/Climate Change not happening by the 98% of the world's Scientists your are arguing against.

Face it Red,
you belief in an out-there fringe ultra-minority 0.01% of Science as opposed to the 99.99%.

But,
This is consistant and explains alot with your political views as well.

to comment

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