Change 'more dramatic' in winter than previously thought, ecologist says
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."
". . . 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.
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.
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.
MountanmanHayden, IDNews 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]
"the entire global warming argument is based upon the models."Whynotthink, of course that is not true. What a silly thing to say.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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..."
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?
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
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.
@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,
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?
@ Ernest T. Bass, who wrote The conservative head-in-the-sand mentality never
ceases to amaze me." I'm equally amazed by the "sheeple"
mentality of the typical liberal, who trusts anything the government wants them
If you have ever done any type of modeling you should be familiar with the moto:
"All models are wrong, some are useful."
The globe is too big for me to fit my head around. How about air quality in the
Salt Lake basin? Would it, or would it not, help to subsidize public
transportation enough to get more people riding Front Runner, Trax, and/or buses
instead of driving their cars? Stop UTA from spending their millions of dollars
lobbying the legislature and Congress to get our tax money--just put that money
toward lowering the ticket prices, both the same tax money they would have
gotten and the money they would have spent lobbying for it.
When curve fitting the top global warming models (that are all based upon a
rigid application of the Clausius Clapeyron equation to our Troposphere) to the
glabal temperature data for the last 20 years, the data curve fit has an r^2 of
less than 0.35. To those who actually have the scientific or statitical training
to understand this...would you base any serious decision on this type of data?
To "Truthseeker" but what do the findings that Richard Muller say. Does
it matter who funds it.If funding source is enough to discredit a
study, then all IPCC, NASA, and any other study funded by government is also
invalid. They are invalid because they are just being used by governments to
justify centralized planning and taxation.If climate change is
caused by human activity, show us a source that is not funded by a government
agency that states such.You only show that many liberals have no
problem being controlled by government and anything that they deem as fact.
Richard Muller directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a
'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now
admits is caused by human activity. Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic
of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by
the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian
petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of
backing groups that deny climate change.It is clear that many DN
commentors put their faith and trust in propaganda TV--Fox. It is quite ironic
that those that raise the paranoia about control are the ones being
controlled--by big moneyed corporate interests.
UN agenda 21 is all that's needed to expose the lies and junk science of
once upon a time "Global Warming" which was absolutely refuted by real
science to the mis-information moniker of "Climate Change"
There is no reliable data to say that climate change is the fault of carbon
based fuels. The fact that scientists had to manipulate their data to prove
it...it is just not right that our government is taking that information and
killing our coal industry, driving up our electricity rates, and keeping us from
using our own natural resources.
"It is caused by solar flares and a shift in the earths polls."Unfortunately, these imaginary events did not happen, nor could they explain
the global temperature anomaly. Note also that solar flares do not last many
decades: perhaps you mean "total solar irradiance?" As for Earth's
axis shifting, that did not happen either.Regarding the current
global temperature anomaly:"There is very high confidence that
natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular,
over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite
observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero ( 0.04 W
m^2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of
~1.0 0.3 W m^2."Human activities are observed to be the cause.
We have known the physics involved for almost 200 years.
"...It isn't -- it's been flat since 1998."Heh.
No. Global average temperature has not been "flat since 1998." Anyone
who makes that odd assertion is being silly. Anyone foolish enough to believe
such a short time span has any significance can perform the math and calculate
the warming trend since year 1998 (it is R^2 = +0.1349 by the way). Why not
start at year 1999? Starting at year 1999, the warming trend is R^2 = +0.2715.
Ooops! Another FOX "News" obeyer refuted.The sad fact is
that the data show that human-caused climate change, and global average
temperature, has not "stopped," nor "slowed down." The rate of
global average temperature increase has held steady at about +0.12c per
decade--- and it is very important that Utah, like every other state in the
union, prepare for coping with this crisis.
To my friends who think humans are affecting climate change. I invite you to
consider who it is postulating these theories and why. First, if you are a
"scientist" and your grant money continuation is dependent on finding
"data" that supports man made global warming, you WILL find some, even
if you have to speculate. Publish it and the money flow continues. Don't
and your "research" money dries up! Also consider the agendas of those
who want to see this theory advanced and why! CARBON TAXES! Yep folks, its
always about getting more control of our money! Why? because if you control the
wealth, you control everything else! Now go back to work and stop worrying about
things that we can't control, like the climate changing, which it always
has and always will!
The current rate of temperature increase for Utah, all climate divisions, is
2.2f per 100 years. Over the entire state, precipitation has also increased by
1.1 inches over the past 100 years. Different climate divisions within the state
have different values: division 1 for example has 0.25" more precipitation
and 2.3f increase in temperature. This has already had a very deleterious effect
on the biosphere in Utah, and all of the data show human activities are the main
cause. We (scientists) know all of the forcings involved, and we know with high
confidence the values: to assert the belief that we are lying or mistaken is not
just wrong, but silly.
Is climate change real? Yes.Do we need to be smart about planning for it?
Yes.Do we need to see if there is anything we can do to mitigate it?
Yes.Is climate change man-made? Almost certainly not.Do 9 of
10 published climate scientists think it is? It seems that way.Are 9 of 10
climate scientists getting funded by groups who believe it is? Yes.If a
climate scientist wants test a theory that would disprove man-made climate
change, are they going to get funding? Probably not.A perfect example of
natural selection at it's very worst.
Human Beings are no different than any other animal species. We'll over
extend the carrying capacity of our ecosytems and Mother Nature will hit auto
correct. The only non-believers are those that cling to their religon so tight
they can't see the truth or have the courage to address it.
"You think I'm just another "nut-case", with yet another
conspiracy theory, right?"Yep
okay, now what? Start hiring Native Indians to do their rain dance or something?
I can not believe how many Utahans will ignorantly take college drop outs radio
show (not even weather announcers) like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's
word over 97% of the world's Scientific community.
Ah, yes. So many "experts" posting here today.Posting with
absolute certainty, we have one spewing the old nonsense about contrails from
jet aircraft -- a perfectly natural happening when humidity is just right to
produce them.We have others who completely ignore the fact that
never before in Earth's billions of years of history have there been over 7
billion people on the planet.And we have others who obviously gain
their expertise from such scientifically credible sources as hate radio.Then there is one who credits it all to changes in Earth's opinion
polls.Not much credibility in any of them.Is paranoia
really a Utah Value? Seems like it.
The biggest problem our wildlife faces is not global change / warming, it is the
idiotic re-introduction of the wolf back into the woods. They are breeding and
killing machines. They are being seen all over Northern Utah, and making their
way south. They do not only kill for food, they kill for fun, it is a game to
them. They will wipe out our deer, elk, and moose herds.
To my friends and neighbors who doubt global warming science, I direct you to
Josh Willis’ ocean warming work at NASA JPL. You will find that he has
been the brunt of much of the pseudo-science that some of you are unwittingly
quoting as fact. But don’t believe me. Please search on his name, read his
article and lectures or watch his YouTube videos or phone him yourself. It is always best to investigate topical issues by contacting the expert
The conservative head-in-the-sand mentality never ceases to amaze me.
There is global warming. But, it hasn't been brought about by man. It is
caused by solar flares and a shift in the earths polls. NASA has followed much
of this for several years
Comparing cancer to climate change ridicilious as most doctors want what is best
for there patients. So we should listen to 9 people that are lying. Can the
law of gravity be changed if 9 out of ten scientists don't believe it?
"The climate is always changing, always has (ice age) and always will and
humans can't change it, never have, never will."And you
come to this sweeping conclusion based on what? Special training? Research?
Revelation? Science? Religion?
I hate to break it to the political scientists behind this farce, but the global
temperature has been falling since its peak in 1998. There is no credible
evidence than man has any effect on temperature, the climate, or the weather.
The government (the military, in particular) has been manipulating and creating
weather for many years. Though it isn't published or acknowledged in
mainstream media, the unprecedented storms, like Hurricane Sandy or Katrina,
weren't just a fluke of "nature". They were man made. I know.
You think I'm just another "nut-case", with yet another conspiracy
theory, right? Fine! Google the topic, "Weather Manipulation"
You'll quickly change your mind. The evidence is overwhelming!I live in the Sanpete valley. Until about a week ago, we’ve witness
multiple aircraft spewing chemicals in our lower atmosphere, on a regular basis
- not just a plane or two, once in a while; but, three or four days out of any
given week. They're not simply seeding the clouds. The government has
been developing, testing and perfecting the use of specialized chemicals for
many, many years. The results have been the outlandish, almost unbelievable
storms we're now witnessing and experiencing.Millions of people
became the "victims" of Hurricane Sandy. Many are still without
shelter, adequate food, or necessary services. If they only knew!
I like warmer weather myself increased growing season and yield. We can't
control the climate why let it control us?
News flash: The climate is always changing, always has (ice age) and always will
and humans can't change it, never have, never will.
Climate has been changing throughout the course of human history, and evidently
prior to the appearance of humans, according to scientists. However the issue is
where environmentalists are taking it; "human caused" climate change.
Climate changed when there were no or few humans, no factories, electrical
energy, and cars. So why suddenly is it all the fault of humans? Humans do have
an impact but so far the measurable effect of human caused climate change does
not hold water.For better or worse, nature will have her way.
I have come to believe that we are in a period of warming and perhaps climate
change, but our view of the world's climate history is so microscopic that
we can't possibly tell exactly what all of the data portend. Nevertheless,
a scientist whose job title is "senior sustainability scientist" at the
Arizona State University's Global Institute of Sustainability (whatever
that means!) is not likely to contribute to a report or draw a conclusion that
contradicts her job description or questions the necessity of her institute.
And the "U.S. Global Change Research Program," mentioned as the sponsor
of this study, suggests by its own name that it has already drawn its
conclusions and is only looking for alarmist data to get everyone excited.
As John Huntsman said earlier this year, when 9 out of 10 doctors tell a patient
they have cancer, a wise patient seeks treatment. Here's to our collective
National Wildlife Foundation? That group is incredibly biased, past good
science, and into alarmism and activism. All of their reports are of the same
vein. My favorite was a recent one titled "The Psychological Effects of
Global Warming on the United States - And why the US mental health care system
is not adequately prepared"Yes, they tie everything bad into
global warming. Including mental health. No surprise that they
release one of their monthly reports again saying everything is doomed.
When I ponder the amount of waste involved with the antiquated system currently
in place to distribute newspapers as well as the wasteful destruction of trees
to produce the papers themselves it seems obvious that any person with a social
conscious would cancel their newspaper subscriptions immediately as a first step
in saving the planet.
The sky is falling!!!!
Wow, scientists with an agenda also write official sounding reports! Climate researchers who don't support the official "Climate Change
Doctrine" don't get research grants from the government. In as much as
nobody else pays Climate researchers it is safe to say that 100% of climate
researchers believe in Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever Al Gore needs
to call it these days to keep selling his video of a Power Point Presentation
(PPP). All those who don't believe in Climate Change have been forced to
seek work elsewhere. Those who remain in the profession know they must speak the
party line or face unemployment; and that is not a pleasant prospect in the
Welcome to water wars, higher prices and more human-made misery. Humans it
appears are indulging in world-wide genocide of the human race and the entire
biosphere of live here on earth. Another mass extinction and another whole
round of new ecological development of new species. The human experiment may be
another failed evolutionary attempt. Man's greed has outstripped
women's nurturing kindness.
SS & Kyle,Actually, there _is_ evidence to support the findings
that climate change is already impacting Utah.First, look at average
low temps during winters for the past decade. They're rising.Second, the assertion that global average temps have been flat since 1998 is
intentionally deceptive cherry picking of data in the extreme. It's like
observing that because 12 year-old kids are about the same height a week before
their birthday as they are the week after their birthday that kids don't
get taller as they age.Finally, there's nothing
"outlandish" about comments regarding unprecedented stress on
ecosystems. Give these scientists a little credit for their areas of expertise
- they know how to study tree rings and other proxies for long-term changes in
the local climate.I can tell this news story is going to generate
the usual denialist talking points, but that doesn't make the reality of
human-caused climate change any less significant. The science is there, and
growing every day. At some point you folks are going to have to accept the
"Ecological systems are already more stressed than at any comparable period
in human history" It makes me laugh inside when people, especially supposed
experts, make outlandish comments like this. There is no way to prove an
assertion like that.
This ecologist (not a climatologist) seems to equate weather, which cycles in
years to decades and varies by region, with climate, which has longer cycles and
is hemispherical in scale. Climate experts keep saying those are no-no's.
Hmm.Either way, climate models said the global average temperature
was supposed to be higher by now. It isn't -- it's been flat since
1998.Another no-news article.