Utah's wildfires, record heat and low snowpack — welcome to climate change, experts say

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Dec. 11, 2018 1:22 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" so you are saying that the House Committee on Science issued a fake Press release stating the name of the scientist that witnessed NASA scientists manipulating data.

    You have yet to explain why the 1997 climate report lists a higher average global temperature than the 2017 report lists for 1997. How did the temperature for 1997 get changed in the data set?

    How can we trust the current data being used in the models if they are changing the data set?

    Again, you ignoring answers does not mean I have to answer them again.

    So once again, you can't refute verifiable facts showing that NASA is corrupt with their handling of the temperature data set.

    Keep trying. Maybe you should actually look up the references I gave you last week.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    Dec. 11, 2018 12:12 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech - Not Pasedena
    Dec. 10, 2018

    “I provided verifiable sources that were akin to Alex Jones. If anything you are the science denier because you won't accept testimony from NASA scientists”.

    Continue repeating yourself all you desire, I explained in detail unlike yourself Red. No NASA scientist made any such statements! Furthermore. If suddenly you now accept NASA as credible source material, investigate statements made regarding the devastating effects of global warming!

    “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia”. {NASA}

    Again. What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? I’m waiting! All I’ve heard was an opinion containing non-cited claims regarding how “many economists feel”. Speculation. Zero direct answers. Well? “Keep trying, maybe you can find a fact” rather ongoing empty rhetoric Red. I’ve asked repeatedly. You refuse. Keep digging!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 10, 2018 7:52 a.m.

    To "Lib living on Planet Utah" I provided verifiable sources that were not akin to Alex Jones. If anything you are the science denier because you won't accept testimony from NASA scientists. Nor will you accept the challenge to look at NASA data from 1997 and compare that to the altered data that is being used today.

    Here is a bit of science for you. According to the Global Climate Report - Annual 1997, the average global temperature was 62.45 degrees F. Yet now NASA reports it as 57.5 degrees F (Global Climate Report - Annual 2017). How did the year 1997 cool by 5 degrees?

    Yes, those are verifiable. Sorry!!

    Keep trying, maybe you can find a fact.

  • Lib living on Planet Utah Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2018 5:17 p.m.

    RedShirtnotCalTech -Not Pasedena

    “I am starting to feel sad for you”.

    States the poster that implies attendance at universities they previously, unwillingly admitted they never attended!

    “You can't disprove any of my statements”.

    Continued empty from the one that is a science denier. You been proven inaccurate throughout Red!

    “According to economists, it is worse for us if the climate scientists are all wrong. It is cheaper for us in the long run to deal with problems as they arise”.

    Absolutely absurd! Credible, cited source material, rather the “I heard” sources.

    “What was propaganda, the first hand reports, the NASA data that you can look up yourself and see the manipulation”?

    Absolutely everything! No NASA employee has ever “testified” regarding such!

    Why isn't Gore's home a relavent?

    Stated the comparison isn’t relevant. Please thoroughly read and comprehend!

    Keep digging! Hint: use verifiable facts next time, not anti-science propaganda. Again. What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? I’m waiting for the ongoing deflection and refusal for detailed answers!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 7, 2018 4:13 p.m.

    To "Lib Living on Planet Zion" I am starting to feel sad for you.

    You can't disprove any of my statements yet you keep coming back as if your empty rants actually have any meaning.

    According to economists, it is worse for us if the climate scientists are all wrong. It is cheaper for us in the long run to deal with problems as they arise.

    What was propaganda, the first hand reports, the NASA data that you can look up yourself and see the manipulation? The only propaganda that I know of in this discussion is the 97% consensus idea.

    Why isn't Gore's home a relavent? If you add is Nashville home with the Montecito home, to his private jet use he sure has a big carbon foot print. Also, think of it this way, unless Al Gore gets over 80% of his electricity from renewable sources he still has a bigger footprint than the average family.

    Try again. Hint: use verifiable facts next time, not alarmist propaganda.

  • Lib Living on Planet Zion SLC, UT
    Dec. 7, 2018 1:26 p.m.

    RedShirtnotHarvard - Not Cambridge, MA

    “Again, where is your proof that the 97% claim wasn't debunked”?

    Deflection at its finest. How ridiculous Red! Ask and answered multiple times including debunking the source Richard Tol!

    “What answer are you waiting for”?

    What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? You’re refusing to answer!

    “I presented 4 articles from 4 different sources using various methods proving the 97% claim was wrong”.

    You actually believe this Red! You supplied absolutely nothing proving the 97% fact is incorrect, which I pointed out. Including the fictitious NASA employee!

    “You have refused to even look at the documents”.

    It’s anti-science propaganda Red! You supplied nothing concrete regarding such.

    “Al Gore produces 20 times”

    Wrong! Equating Gores’ home to the average American home certainly isn’t a relevant comparison! The Tennessean noted that the Gores had been paying a $432 per month premium on their monthly electricity bills in order to obtain some of their electricity from “green” sources”.

    Keep digging Red!

  • John Simpson ARLINGTON, VA
    Dec. 6, 2018 4:18 p.m.

    The most recent "climate report" is a hoax designed to separate the citizens from their money; just like all other such doom-saying reports since Thomas Robert Malthus predicted massive famines based on his belief in the impossibility of increases in food production such as those that have actually taken place over the past 200 years. Based on the early scare reports of supposed anthropogenic global warming, sea levels were supposed to have risen enough by now to inundate coastal cities and island chains by now, but instead the sea level rise has been measured only in millimeters - the same as the pace of sea level rise before all of this hysteria. As to Utah, it evidently had dry periods between 900 AD and 1300 AD and again in the late 1500s that exceeded anything experienced in recent years. The Medieval Warm Period can't be blamed on human emissions of CO2. The Greenhouse Effect is real, which is a good thing since otherwise we would all freeze to death. But water vapor (1% to 4% of atmospheric gases, depending on location) contributes over 100 times as much to the Greenhouse Effect than CO2 (which is only about 0.04% of the atmospheric gases)

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 6, 2018 2:23 p.m.

    To "Lib Living on Planet Zion" I did provide the source document. It is from February 2017

    Again, where is your proof that the 97% claim wasn't debunked? The only reference you have given was from Skepticalscience, which, as I have stated is equal to Inofowars in its believability. You have no other proof than the word of people who are no better than Alex Jones.

    What answer are you waiting for? I have given you proof that you have yet to refute.

    I presented 4 articles from 4 different sources using various methods proving the 97% claim was wrong. You have focused only on 1 of those, the other 3 you can't touch because there is no refuting them. Even the 1 you have tried to refute, the best you have is a group that uses the same methods as Alex Jones.

    You have refused to even look at the documents that I have referenced showing data manipulation. Documents ranging from Government press releases to seeing the manipulation yourself by looking at NASA documents.

    Then you ignore reports from ABC news shown how the High Priest of Climate Change (Al Gore) produces 20 times the CO2 that the average person does.

    If you refuse to look at the facts, I can't help that.

  • Lib Living on Planet Zion SLC, UT
    Dec. 6, 2018 12:59 p.m.

    RedShirt -

    “how is testimony to a House Committee fake”?

    As stated numerous times it never happened. That’s how it’s fake Red! Provide the source material, and not a sentence fragment from an article 6-8 years ago!

    “I don't think you know what a simple direct answer is. I provided sources and documents that confirm everything I have been told to believe. You have only produced a poorly written article from the Infowars of climate change according to me”

    Really? I don’t know? A simple read of our comments posted clearly indicates otherwise Red. You have refused to answer a very direct question. Again! What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? I’m waiting! No more empty rhetoric, just answer the question Red.

    Keep watching Faux News and citing propaganda, I am certain not dealing with factual information makes life that much easier for yourself and fellow members of the low information demographic. Enough rhetoric Red. How about FINALLY answering the question? I’m waiting! You’re clearly unable to simply provide an answer. Prove me wrong and finally answer the direct question!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 6, 2018 11:20 a.m.

    To "Lib on Planet Zion " how is testimony to a House Committee fake?

    I don't think you know what a simple direct answer is. I provided sources and documents that confirm everything I have written. You have only produced a poorly written article from the Infowars of climate change.

    You have yet to actually prove your points. Come on, where is your evidence that hasn't been debunked.

    Keep drinking the koolaid, I am sure it tastes great going down.

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 6, 2018 10:56 a.m.

    RedShirt -

    “so let me get this right. You base your entire argument on the Infowars equivalent for climate change, and you reject the MULTIPLE articles that explain and prove the 97% consensus to be false”.

    Absolutely absurd! As previously explained, the articles you provided were nothing but absolute propaganda! Explained in detail regarding this, especially the absolutely ridiculous claim that a NASA employee “testified” about data manipulation. This is 100% fake news Red, unless you are able to provide cited, source material proving such, as you have yet to provide! Furthermore. I’ve asked 7 times and you have done absolutely everything not to provide a simple, direct answer. I admit it’s been fun watching you dig yourself further and further into a hole of regurgitated, low information. Once again Red. As I’ve asked from the onset....What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? You are clearly unable to supply a direct answer to this very direct question Red. Prove me wrong and finally answer. In the meantime. Happy digging Red!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 6, 2018 7:04 a.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" so let me get this right. You base your entire argument on the Infowars equivalent for climate change, and you reject the MULTIPLE articles that explain and prove the 97% consensus to be false.

    You also reject first hand testimony from a NASA employee that saw first hand the data manipulation.

    So, tell me again why I should trust or even consider anything you say?

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    Dec. 5, 2018 5:42 p.m.

    RedShirt -

    “so now you are a science denier”

    I’ve been down this rabbit hole with you countless times Red! Science deniers are the individuals that continue burying their heads in the sand regarding climate change. Not to mention the Big-Bang Theory. You see, science doesn’t care what you believe Red.

    “You do realize that the article "Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97%”

    It would comical if it wasn’t so nauseating Red! There were also countless articles one may simply Google search. Screaming “fake news” will not alter nor change the factual information involved regardless of the ongoing, frivolous attempts!

    “The sad part is that you won't even accept the testimony of a NASA employee”.

    Due to the fact no NASA employees “testified” regarding your absurd claim!

    What is “so sad and funny” is the fact your posts contain absolutely nothing but regurgitated, anti-science rhetoric, while still refusing to supply direct answers! Once again. What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? You’re clearly unable to supply direct answers as usual Red. Thank you and keep digging!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 5, 2018 4:59 p.m.

    To "Liberal living on Planet Utah" so now you are a science denier. I have supplied articles from sources as you requested. Yet you now deny their validity without giving any evidence yourself.

    You do realize that the article "Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus" is from an alarmist web site. You might as well be pulling it from Infowars.

    The sad part is that you won't even accept the testimony of a NASA employee who is involved in whistle blowing at NASA.

    It is so sad that despite meeting every one of your requirements for data you still refuse to accept them.

    How can I trust you if you won't believe my statements that were backed up exactly like you wanted.

    The funny part is that you can't refute what I said.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    Dec. 5, 2018 4:48 p.m.

    RedShirts-

    “Forbes”
    Wrong! The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure! {Forbes, 12/14/16}

    “Richard Tol, former IPCC”
    You certain?

    “Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus”!

    “The crux of Tol's paper is that he would have conducted a survey of the climate literature in a slightly different way than our approach. He's certainly welcome to do just that – as soon as we published our paper, we also launched a webpage to make it as easy as possible for anyone to read the same scientific abstracts that we looked at and test the consensus for themselves”. {Skepticalscience.com, 6/4/14}

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct”. {Richard Tol}

    “House House Committee on Science”
    Nonsense!

    "NASA”
    Unable to find anything regarding this claim!

    Keep digging Red!

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    Dec. 5, 2018 4:08 p.m.

    showlowdoc? -

    “Doc”. Please don’t disparage climate science with regurgitated, low information, anti-science rhetoric. Furthermore. Many people are “doctors” after completing their PhD. My thoughts are, any medical “doctor” would most certainly be much more aware of factual information regarding climate change. They certainly would not be attacking another field of science, while making absurd claims that catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not physically possible. {All of course omitting credible, cited source material} Furthermore. You’re aware of my point regarding the comparison. Feel free to pass along source material attempting to support your beliefs. Lastly. Possibly you’ll answer the question in my previous post that was ignored by yourself and fellow deniers. Again. What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 5, 2018 4:06 p.m.

    To "Lib on Planet Zion" no, Forbes did a nice job debunking that myth in "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong"

    You also have Richard Tol, former IPCC lead author who said "But the 97 percent is essentially pulled from thin air. It is not based on any credible research whatsoever."

    From the Guardian we read "The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up"

    The National Review's article "The 97 Percent Solution" does a very good job debunking the consensus.

    From the House House Committee on Science the press release "Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records"

    "NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud" Principia Scientific International

    (If that isn't enough look at the 1997 climate report for the global mean temperatures then compare that to what the latest report says)

    From ABC News "Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'?" we see his Nashville home alone is "20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours."

    You will notice that I have not used a single news agency you claim is biased.

    If you want to understand many of the climate alarmists, read up on Lysenkoism.

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 5, 2018 3:16 p.m.

    Redshirt - Lost in Deep Space 9,

    “First, the idea that 97% of scientists”

    According to yourself, Faux News, Breitbart, Infowars and fellow deniers Red. You will not be able to support this absolutely absurd claim with credible, cited, source material as usual. If I’m mistaken Red. Prove it! Along with your claim the data is “manipulated” and being personally aware of Gore’s carbon footprint, if that has anything to do regarding climate change! As usual, you’re grasping with low information talking points that were simply cut and pasted from another extremist, alt-right, anti-science “source” used regularly by yourself and faction. Lastly. Myself and numerous posters have gone down the rabbit hole with you on many occasions and have answered each of your questions countless times previously. Possibly you’ll supply answers for once? Again. What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? I’ll be waiting Red.

  • showlowdoc Show Low, AZ
    Dec. 4, 2018 7:12 p.m.

    Please don't compare climate science with medical science. As a medical doctor. It's insulting.

    Medical science advances change almost DAILY as a result of evidence based research comparing controlled outcomes and recording results.

    Climate science rests on pre-determined outcomes based on loose generally accepted physics principles such as CO2 and the greenhouse effect, then applies that same thinking to predict impossible outcomes that are no more plausible than cooking a steak in a greenhouse by using CO2 as the fuel, or racing a tricycle against a Porsche and predicting the tricycle will beat the Porsche.

    Clinical medical researchers are constantly besieged by humility thrust upon them by failed experimental results (e.g. did the patient die or not?), but then use those failures to gain new insights into how to improve outcomes later.

    Climate scientists has no ability to compare or contrast their theory against real world obersvations, because everything is played out over hundreds of years. So they circle the wagons and manufacture scary claims that have no application to today.

    Catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not physically possible.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 4, 2018 12:38 p.m.

    To "Liberal On Planet Zion" first, the idea that 97% of scientists agree has been disproven multiple times.

    Next, I trust the doctors because they base their diagnosis on scientifically proven studies. The climate alarmists base everything on computer models that are not accurate and are using data that is constantly manipulated.

    The question for you is would you trust a doctor or medication that was using data that had been manipulated?

    Here are a few questions that you won't answer.

    1. If the science is so settled and accurate why do we keep funding research, why not save billions and just maintain the model?

    2. If things are as bad as the alarmists claim, why do so many have huge carbon footprints like Al Gore?

    3. If the models are so accurate, why do they keep changing the raw data?

    4. If things are so well understood, why do they keep making new discoveries?

    5. If the models are so accurate, why did they not predict the 20 year pause in warming?

    6. Why do we still rely on all of the ground stations when they miss most of the planet's surface?

    7. Why don't they use the 95% CI like other fields?

    8. How does man's 3% contribution to CO2 cause all the problems?

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    Dec. 4, 2018 11:10 a.m.

    Redshirts/Kaladin/Pops/3grand

    What is worse, the majority of climate change scientists being wrong but we act anyway, or climate change deniers being wrong and we don’t? I challenge any deniers to be specific, to go beyond vague assertions of terribleness and repeating empty tabloid slogans. Apply the identical logic you all would regarding doctors! Do you trust doctors? Have you ever taken a doctor’s advice? Possibly they recommended you lose some weight or get that weird growth biopsied. Doctors rarely guarantee that bad things will happen if you ignore their advice, but it’s quite risky to gamble! It’s not just one opinion! 97% of climate scientists believe the planet has a bad case of human-induced climate change, and the prognosis isn’t great. If 97 or even 9 doctors out of 100 told you that you had life-threatening but treatable cancer, would you act? Or would you keep looking until you found one doctor who told you not to worry about it, that the cancer isn’t serious, and that it’s all just a medical conspiracy to sell you chemotherapy? The idea of an international conspiracy across dozens of disciplines, hundreds of institutions and thousands of individuals is laughable!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 4, 2018 7:13 a.m.

    To "Sophie 62" you do realize that even with billions of us on the earth, humans and their activity only accounts for 3% of atmospheric CO2 emissions. Even if you eliminated the human element, the CO2 concentrations would not be significantly changed.

    The problem is that the climate scientists don't actually validate their research very well. They make predictions based on their model, then adjust their model when predictions are not met. Their record of accurately predicting calamities is horrible at best, often they use fear to scare us into throwing more money their way.

  • 1Reader Alpine, UT
    Dec. 4, 2018 12:21 a.m.

    This may all be true. But remember that earth is normally just one big volcano away from severe cooling; who knows. The future is definitely unclear. I remain quite optimistic.
    Does these prognosticators factor in all new cars being electric within a decade? Or how about probable population declines in nearly all advanced economies? Or the precipitous fall in solar panel costs (and batteries)--which could well mean economically viable solar power on a broad basis within the next several years? Or new modular and safe nuclear power plants--with no emissions at all.
    Simply put, the absolutely only real way out of this is technological progress and industrial advancement (which merit investment and incentives). I would be shocked if we don't have significantly lower total carbon emissions by 2030--and we better. The future should be great.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:48 p.m.

    Pretty sad.

  • jameshrust Atlanta, GA
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:25 p.m.

    Utah is a small area compared to the planet. So all weather events cited in this article are local events and in many cases no correlation with what happens on the globe. Atmospheric carbon dioxide increases due to use of coal, oil, and natural gas is universally said to occur since 1950 when atmospheric carbon dioxide increased from 310 ppm to 410 ppm today. We had about the same global increase in temperatures of about 0.8 degrees from 1910 to 1940 as we have had from 1975 to 2000. Most catastrophic weather events like storms, hurricanes, wild fires, etc. have occurred with the same frequency in the early days as with today. There is a lot of data showing a decreasing tendency in recent times such as hurricanes off the U. S. East Coast.

    The alarmists seize on recent events and claim this is due to fossil fuel use and then keep quiet when events stop or maybe temperatures decrease. We are seeing temperature decreases from a high point in 2016 to the end of October 2018.

    All attempts to restrict of stop use of coal, oil, and natural gas will accomplish nothing and result in poorer Americans.

    James H. Rust, professor of nuclear engineering (ret. Georgia Tech)

  • FactBasedDataDriven Alpine, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:06 p.m.

    I'm taking a fresh look at the topic of climate change. We should take good care of the earth. We enjoy many outdoor activities, plus leaving things better than we found it should be the goal of every generation.

    Just got back from a 10 day trip to China, driving up from Las Vegas. The roads were horrible with many cars/trucks sliding off the road.

    Checked with KSL and saw the updated snow totals. If what is said in this article and the government report is true, why do we have snow totals throughout the state over 100% of normal? www.ksl.com/?nid=978

    I am also thinking about the "dust bowl" years earlier in the 19th Century and its possible causes. Surely man made carbon emissions were very minimal then.

    Last years snow totals were down. The two previous years were outstanding. I do a lot of back country skiing and loved 2 out of the last 3 years.

    Lastly, I believe "following the money" is a sound way to approach things. Who will benefit by controlling citizens' $$$ and restricting proper activity?

    I really am open minded, but isn't a healthy discussion about this necessary?

  • jeclar2006 Oceanside, CA
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:31 p.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX
    ---
    * In 1938, people feared an attack from Mars.
    ---

    In 1938 most people were worry about German expansionism, and Chamberlin pretty much was the representative of "Nothing to Worry about, Peace in our time".

    ---
    worf
    * In the 1970's, people feared the world supply of oil would run out by 1985.
    ---

    The US could not sustain the growth in consumption of petroleum that it had been prior to the 1970s. The 1973 Arab Boycott brought how dependent the US was on 'foreign' oil, and perhaps was a shock to some, but had been noted in the years before, when the US transitioned to being dependent on external sources.

    The End of Oil cry induced research in to conservation, more efficient use, even for Detroit, and better extraction, and better reserve detection. But as a finite resource, there will be an End

  • Sophie 62 Spring City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:22 p.m.

    Congratulations to the Deseret News for publishing this article.
    Climate change is real. Yes, the climate has always changed, slowly. It's the relatively rapid and accelerating rate that is going to get worse that is different.
    You think that people cannot do something so immense as changing the climate? Back when there were only a billion of us, they couldn't. But now, yes indeed, we can and do.
    You can choose to deny it all you want. It won't go away just because you don't believe it's real.
    You can sneer at the science. That won't invalidate it.
    It isn't a hoax. You can learn how it's happening or you can remain in the Dark Ages.
    Your choice.

  • Harrison Bergeron Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 5:59 p.m.

    Frozen Fractals: "Do you think CFCs continued as usual until the ban went into effect? The move away from them started as soon as the Protocol was signed in 1987. By 1992 global CFC use was already cut in half."

    As per NOAA, peak levels of atmospheric "ozone-depleting gas" occurred in 1994, well after the decline in ozone levels had stopped. And despite a steady linear decline from 2250 ppt in 1994 to 2000 ppt in 2007, the "ozone hole" grew to its second largest size in 2000 (29.4 million sq. km), its third largest in 2003 (28.5 million sq. km) and its largest ever recorded in 2006 (29.5 million sq. km). For comparison, at the peak of atmospheric "ozone-depleting gas" in 1994 it was 23.6 million sq. km.

    There is no correlation between the "ozone hole" and atmospheric CFCs. However, there is a relationship to a patented molecule and it's price. Patented refrigerants cost 2,000% more than what off-patent Freon costs.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 4:44 p.m.

    patriot: "Cherry picking the things that support your favorite pop culture cool word of the day. - climate change. Rewind 3 years Amy and we had record snowfall in Utah. "

    Nope. No irony here. Use a single favorable data point to criticize cherry picking data.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 4:27 p.m.

    ERB - Eagle Mountain, UT
    Two years ago the Wasatch Front got tons of snow. Last year very little snow. This year so far so good for snow. Question is, which year was climate change?

    patriot - Cedar Hills, UT
    This is so ridiculous. Cherry picking the things that support your favorite pop culture cool word of the day. - climate change. Rewind 3 years Amy and we had record snowfall in Utah.

    Butch wax - Orem, UT
    Got a lot of climate change on the mountains and valley today, sure trying to push this a lot lately.

    Sportsfan123 - Herriman, UT
    Record snow storms in the east and we just had a big snow storm ?

    Dr. G - Bountiful, UT
    Global cooling and warming is dictated by the sun.

    Robroy - Salt Lake City, UT
    The key driver of climate on the earth is....guess what..... The Sun and the earth's relationship to it.

    OK boys, lesson #1, Know the difference between WEATHER and Global Warming. What happens in your backyard is weather.

    Next, for you folks that claim it is the sun that determines "weather" please understand that we have ATMOSPHERE surrounding the earth. As the air changes, it works like a filter on a camera. It blocks out some light rays and traps heat. Globe warms!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 4:14 p.m.

    @Harrison Bergeron
    "The CFC ban resulting from the Montreal Protocols did not go into effect until 1996. Declining ozone concentrations stopped in 1991 - before the ban went into effect."

    Do you think CFCs continued as usual until the ban went into effect? The move away from them started as soon as the Protocol was signed in 1987. By 1992 global CFC use was already cut in half.

    @NeifyT
    " Why are we not then building desalination plants and pumping water in from the ocean"

    You think renewable energy is too expensive but pumping water from several hundred miles away, bringing it several thousand feet up, and desalinating it is practical?

    "but it appears climate dot gov is still just a propaganda site!"

    Propaganda sites practically by definition don't give complete information and yet you had no trouble using info on that site to talk about sea level rise over previous decades.

    @dski
    " The Lompoc Island volcano ... The sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere was so thick, it blocked the sun for months."

    Major volcanic eruptions can have temporary (few year) cooling effects that are readily observed and understood in the climate data.

  • dski HERRIMAN, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 3:20 p.m.

    We call these hoax, science? The earth's climate changes all the time. Computer modelling seems to drive these climate scientists instead of observed data. Believe it or not, the earth have gone through some terrible changes because of volcanoes explosion or some other disaster. The Antioch disaster of 526 AD was so bad it send Europe into chaos. The Lompoc Island volcano in Indonesia exploded in 1257 and caused a worldwide famine the following year. The sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere was so thick, it blocked the sun for months. There was no summer to plant crops. The Great Wind of 1362 brought great disaster to Europe. There are more examples of great disasters because of climate change throughout history. T o scare us with fake science should be a crime.

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    Dec. 3, 2018 2:43 p.m.

    @Liberal in Zion - Your solutions: 1) Government should insure people that can be flooded. Insurance is not going to change the climate - the government will save us. 2) Hold corporations accountable for disinformation. Suing companies is not going to change the climate. 3) Urge the government to be climate crusaders. The government will save us. 4) Take action in your life. I agree wholeheartedly with this - we can each reduce as much as we can. The problem? No way currently to get to negative carbon emissions. Perhaps we can all curb it some, but in the end, if the predictions are true, there is nothing we can do to stop a large rise in temperature. The best way to combat climate change is to find better ways to produce energy. I'm all for that. Goals are good - mandates with fines and prosecution, I am against. Crippling the energy we now have is not going to advance new technology. A big part of the problem with AGW peeps is going around making everyone an enemy.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 3, 2018 1:25 p.m.

    To "Liberal On Planet Zion" if the science is settled, why do they keep adjusting the raw data? Why do they keep changing their predictions and models if the science is settled? Better yet, if the science is so settled, why do we continue to fund research in it? If it is so settled why did the models all miss the 20 pause in warming? Why are so many of their predictions wrong, if the science is settled?

    We don't fund research into the Law of Gravity, and that is settled. It doesn't seem like there is any funding going into researching anything else that is settled. So, if AGW is a settled science, why are we funding it? The only logical conclusion is that it isn't settled.

    One of the big questions is this: if Al Gore is right and we need to reduce our carbon footprint, why does he still have such a massive carbon footprint? Shouldn't he lead by example? (FYI, buying carbon "credits" doesn't actually reduce your footprint any more than the sale of indulgences worked for sin).

  • Harrison Bergeron Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 1:14 p.m.

    Frozen Fractals: "Ozone hole reports are happy since we fixed that problem."

    How fitting that you justify the agw hoax with another environmental hoax. We were told that ozone was being depleted by the chlorine released into the atmosphere by the breakdown of CFCs. People were made to believe that 7500 tons of Chlorine being release by the breakdown of CFCs was more important than the 650,000,000 tons released into the atmosphere from natural sources like volcanoes.

    The fact is that solar radiation creates ozone. Variations in total global ozone increases and decreases with sunspots (i.e. solar radiation). The CFC ban resulting from the Montreal Protocols did not go into effect until 1996. Declining ozone concentrations stopped in 1991 - before the ban went into effect.

    So what is the result? DuPont Chemical who threw their weight behind the ozone scare got Freon (which was going off patent) banned and replaced with a other molecules (which were are patented). And since those other molecules are smaller, they leak out of our AC units faster and we get to buy them more often!

  • 3grandslams Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 12:12 p.m.

    @liberal on planet zion

    If its going to take everyone to change global warming, we are doomed. Currently, the US has invested billions if not trillions into global warming initiatives with other countries and the UN. No one else is really paying their dues, no one. So basically, global warming has become another hoax to bilk the US out of billions of dollars. Other countries laugh at us as they make token efforts on climate change, yet run off will free money received under "agreements."

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 11:59 a.m.

    @marxist,

    I have been to climate dot gov before; and found a lot of propaganda, and zero science. So, today I am going back, 1200 characters isn't enough to begin my analysis; but just a few things I see.

    9 charts: Global temps risen since 1980 close to 1 degree C. And that means what?

    Spring snow cover, huge shifts any given year; pointless chart.

    Global sea rise: The first chart that I can compare to the "predictions" that I read about regularly. They predict anywhere from inches to feet any given decade; and predicted coast line flooding long ago still hasn't happened. The charts show rise in millimeters... not enough to even effect any change whatsoever. Clicking that link gives me 3 inches since 1993; not even enough to move the water even a foot further inland at high tide.

    Where is the real data that they come up with these from, certainly not linked on their website; at the bottom of the article I get lots of links to yet again not the actual data and studies, but the results or "conclusions" of studies; one claiming sea rise a whopping 8 inches since... 1880! No coastline flooding yet.

    I could go on, but it appears climate dot gov is still just a propaganda site!

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Dec. 3, 2018 11:56 a.m.

    Just a few years ago, when a number of lawsuits had been filed to permit same sex marriage, any number of DN readers wrote in , opposing this----because of some anticipated damage to "the family". Then were kind of vague on just what kind of damage would occur, but were adamant that SSM not be permitted--at least, not until it was somehow determined that legally changing the law would have no harmful effect.

    A number of these same readers have written in on this article, arguing that we should not change much of anything that we are doing until we have more conclusive proof that man-made climate change is real.

    Go figure.

  • Liberal On Planet Zion SLC, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 11:53 a.m.

    Kaladin-
    What is the solution?

    The idea that as a civilization we ignore clearly settled science is absolutely absurd! The consequences of global warming are here today. Period! From sea level rise and flooding on the East Coast to wildfires and drought in the Rocky Mountain West, communities around the country are confronting the growing consequences of global warming.

    *Urge Congress to strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program so that we can better protect people/property from the impacts of climate change!

    *stop funding climate disinformation. Hold Corporations Accountable for Climate Deception!

    *Tell your governor to step up and be a climate leader! The overwhelming majority of Americans, including those who voted for trump, support climate action, energy efficiency, and renewable energy!

    *Take action in your life!
    -Reduce the amount of gas you burn
    -Buy efficient appliances that use less electricity.
    -Reduce every day electrical use. Develop a plan to reduce daily electricity use around your home.

    We can reduce global warming emissions and ensure communities have the resources they need to withstand the effects of climate change—but not without everyone!

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    Dec. 3, 2018 11:06 a.m.

    @Lib on planet Zion - But what is the solution? I tried to find the solution through a Google search. The solution is negative carbon emissions. But how is that achieved? Right now, impossible. What are we to do, according to some sites I looked at: reforest the planet - I'm in favor of this one; stop driving - not so much; get energy efficient appliances - check; switch to renewables - sounds great, but technology is not there yet; don't eat meat - seriously?; figure out how to get CO2 out of the atmosphere - go for it, but the ideas are far from being achievable right now. That's what I'm finding out there - a lot of ideas and no real solutions. Like I said, there is no solution that is viable right now. Who is going to pay for taking everyone to zero or negative emissions? I can't afford an electric car, solar panels, etc. Hardly anyone can. Al Gore can't even do it - his carbon footprint is larger than whole towns. What is the solution?

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 11:01 a.m.

    @tsobserver,

    You ask the same questions I do, though I would add some. All I see are supposedly scientists claiming the climate is changing because of green house gasses; and then thousands of claims of calamity... as if their entire push is just to generate income.

    The only "solution" they ever advance is to reduce greenhouse gasses; but the cost of such a reduction would pretty much end the entire nation's economy outright, if we did everything they said. Which pretty much boils down to "the poor need to live in caves while the rich get all the perks of modern amenities."

    Why do they never talk about other solutions. The globe has been both warmer and cooler. Humans of all creatures are the best at adaptation. Why are they not proposing solutions for adapting to the higher climate temperatures?

    For Utah, for instance, sometimes they claim that we are going to go completely dry. Why are we not then building desalination plants and pumping water in from the ocean, so that we don't have to rely on snow-pack? Well, that just wouldn't give the money to the rich that control the "climate change" discussion that is why. Etc.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Dec. 3, 2018 11:00 a.m.

    The consensus of the climate change deniers can be summarized in one sentence:

    "Man-made climate change isn't true because we don't want it to be true".

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:40 a.m.

    @strom thurmond
    "Which fires were started by climate change?"

    Which homers did steroids produce? CAs worst fires have mostly been in hot/dry years and CA has shifted warmer/dryer.

    "Scientists requiring grant funding"

    Shoddy research doesn't earn funding. You left out big oil.

    @Herbert Gravy
    "Can "the puny arm of man""

    Ozone hole, acid rain, we've made/fixed things.

    @Cool Headed
    " intentionally setting the “beginning”...low global temps in the 1700’s"

    Most charts start late 1800s (like NOAA and NASA).

    "trace increase"
    "“proving”... manmade activity"

    CO2 takes 8000 years to to 190 to 290ppm in an orbital cycle... it went from 320 to 400ppm from 1955-2015.

    @Kristjhn
    "Those models have failed when compared reality. "

    Arctic sea ice and temperature are in line with models.

    @Common-Tator
    "who say the reports in the 70s were "really" about warming"

    I recommend 'The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus' (Peterson et al 2008 from BAMS)

    @Harrison Bergeron
    "Isn't that what "climate change" reports... do - predict dire consequences?"

    Nope, just reality. Ozone hole reports are happy since we fixed that problem.

  • John Brown 1000 Laketown, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:22 a.m.

    Having said that, and knowing the data isn't as perfect as we'd like, it does appear that the indirect measure of glacier mass supports the idea that we are warming. They are diminishing all over the world. Go read the reports produced by the world glacier monitoring service.

    But, of course, even if we can answer question 1, that doesn't answer questions 2 and 3.

  • Harrison Bergeron Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:21 a.m.

    Kellso: "I guess I don’t understand why anyone would make up climate change..."

    Margaret Thatcher had watched the coal miners' strike bring down the Ted Heath government and was determined not to let the same happen to her. She didn't trust the middle east for oil or the miners for coal and wanted to promote nuclear power. She went to the British Royal Society and offered them money to prove the link between CO2 and global warming. At her request the UK Met Office set up an intergovernmental climate modeling group called the IPCC. And guess what came out of its first report? Yep, climatic disaster from CO2 emissions.

    The environmentalists quickly jumped on it as a means to accomplish all of their anti-capitalism/ industry/progress/development goals. The more apocalyptic the predictions, the more media attention they got, the more government funding that poured in. Climate science funding went from $170 M/yr to more than $2 B/yr. Now if you want funding to research kangaroo rats, bark beetles or mosquitoes you just attach "with reference to the effects of global warming" to your grant application and you are guaranteed approval. If you want more, you better deliver the goods.

  • John Brown 1000 Laketown, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:19 a.m.

    There are three questions we have to answer.

    1) Is the earth warming?

    2) If it is, what are the main drivers?

    3) If it does warm, so what?

    Let's look at the first question.

    A direct measurement would read land and ocean temperatures all over the globe and average the changes. The thermometers would be evenly spaced apart. For example, you don't want to average 500 temperature readings in downtown LA and one in the rest of America. These direct measures would also flag temperature changes that were due to things like a thermometer that was in the shade of a tree, but is now in open sun, and vice versa. Or a thermometer that was in a rural area, but is now surrounded by a city and inside an urban heat island.

    Indirect measurements of heat would include things like the change in the mass of glaciers, the change in the mass of sea ice at the poles, how long your frost free season is, and when spring starts. Again, you'd need to gather data all over the world and average it because it's possible for a glacier in Utah to grown, while those in the Alps diminish.

    Do we have that kind of data? Well, it's tricky. That's the problem. And that's only the first question.

  • cougs108 South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:15 a.m.

    The wildfires are a result of poor forestry management especially in Spanish Fork Canyon. This weekends very nice snowfall...global warming don't think so! Ask CA about their wildfires and Governor Brown aka moonbeams forest management debacles.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:15 a.m.

    @Pops - since you have obviously run the models yourself, why don't you collectively save us all a lot of time and report on your findings - the corollary numbers? Did you use R or something else to run your models?

    People..... climate change doesn't mean every spot on earth gets warmer. Take some time and actually study the subject rather than relying on sound bites from your local source.

    The real impact is the change in ocean temperatures. Changes here result in changes in both the course and strength of the ocean currents (warm and cold water reacting to each other). These result is changes in the jet stream and as a result weather patterns. Yes, this year, Anchorage is warmer than it should be. It has been above normal for all of November and now into December. Did you notice how much snow was on the ground in Alaska from the shots earth quake shots?

    The warming of the atlantic gulf stream results stronger storms, warmer waters further north, and as a result a deeper dive by the jet stream into the US. Please stop over simplifying this with anecdotes like "there was a lot of snow in 2014".

    They why is debatable... but that it is happening isn't.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:05 a.m.

    @Mainly Me
    " I find it amazing that these so-called "scientists" have never heard of climate oscillation. Geologic records prove that the earth heats up and then cools back down on a regular basis. "

    They're well aware of Milankovitch cycles (orbital patterns). We're near the peak of one of those cycles. But the warming trend of those cycles is on the order of 5C over ~8,000 years. The recent warming is way faster than that. Plus the peak in CO2 in those cycles is around 290ppm (up from 190ppm over ~8,000 years) and we jumped up to 400ppm in a century.

    @AaronS
    " That means colder colds, hotter hots, rainier rains, snowier snows, windier winds—basically, it means more extreme weather events of all kinds. "

    No. We aren't seeing colder colds. Cold records are being set less frequently than one would expect. For example (I'm picking one location but this applies globally at somewhat varying ratios for locations), in a 120ish year dataset we would expect around 3 record highs and lows per year if there were no shift in climate but in the past 10 years at SLC we've had around 80 record highs and around 5 record lows rather than 30-30.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:02 a.m.

    * In 1938, people feared an attack from Mars.
    * In the 1970's, people feared the world supply of oil would run out by 1985.
    * During the 1980's, thousands of loggers loss their jobs because birds would lose their homes.
    * In the 1970's, people feared having too many children and using up earths resources.
    * Through out history, many civilizations used human sacrifice as a way of worship and keeping the gods from becoming angry.

    Uneducated and uninformed societies are easily persuaded by those desiring power. It's a reason why most human inhabitants through out earths history has lived in poverty and starvation.

    Climate change is the newest gimmick.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:02 a.m.

    @kellso

    Who would benefit from "preaching"(my word) about climate change?

    How about Al Gore, for one. Believe he has made millions from this "fraud".

    And, I don't think he is alone by any stretch.

    🤔

  • Lib on Planet Zion Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 10:00 a.m.

    ERB - Eagle Mountain, UT
    “2 years ago the Wasatch Front got tons of snow. Last year very little snow”.

    patriot? - Cedar Hills, UT
    “The effect of carbon emissions is still up for debate but lefties insist it is settled science. Its only settled when it supports their fun little ideology”.

    Butch - Orem
    “Got a lot of climate change on the mountains and valley today”.

    grandslams - Eagle Mountain, “Brilliant scientists predicted in the mid 70’s that in 15 years we would be suffering from extreme ice age”.

    Boris-Layton
    “there isn't enough data to prove there is even a problem”.

    RickBob - Paducah, KY
    “no scientific EVIDENCE that climate change is anthropogenic”.

    Apparently low information and physical location are correlated. These intellectuals are clearly unaware the difference between weather (snow) and human-caused global warming! Our children/grandchildren thank you for the overwhelming intellectual prowess. Lastly. “It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming.
    All-star team with authors of 7 previous climate consensus studies collaborate to debunk the ‘no consensus’ myth once and for all”. {The Guardian, 4/13/16} You’re welcome!

  • The Trooper South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:45 a.m.

    I am not a climate change skeptic. The Earth's climate has been changing for forever. I am skeptical about how much of the current changes are man made. If I truly believed that the planet was in peril due to man caused climate change, I would behave much differently than what I see those believers doing. If I thought we had a decade left, I would be far more willing to compromise on a solution. I would not try to block nuclear; I would be a fanboy. I would be all for more dams and more hydro power. I would be for anything I thought could save us. I could not believe the Earth is to become a fry cooker on one hand and believe solar power and wind power is the only acceptable solution.

    If this is really true, then we are doomed. This issue has been co-opted by left wing politics around wealth re-distribution and the 0% growth crowd. That is why the solutions are carbon credits for the elites (looking at you Al Gore), to cover the planet in solar and wind farms, and for everyone but the zealots (looking at you Hollywood) to live in tiny houses and give up clothes dryers. Meanwhile, China, India, and California wild fires spew carbon into the air at prodigious rates.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:29 a.m.

    @Pops "I suggest everyone who has bought into climate alarmism try this experiment: go directly to the source and download both the unmodified and modified ground temperature data sets from NASA. Compute the correlations between both temperature sets and atmospheric CO2. You will get very poor correlation. What does that tell us?"

    You ignore ocean temperatures, which have been rising much faster than land temperature. Go to climate dot gov. Look at ocean heat. What do you make of this?

  • All American Herriman, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:22 a.m.

    People are conflating climate change with air pollution. They are two distinct issues. Of course, we should try to reduce air pollution, but climate change is natural on this planet. I find it interesting that the only solution the "elites" who "know all" can come up with involves us paying more money to supposedly stop climate change. Follow the money - it's about control over us.

    And settled science? The minute I hear someone use those two words, I immediately discount them because, if you ask any real scientist, they will tell you that science is never settled - on any subject. It is always evolving as they research and learn more.

  • kranny utah, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:08 a.m.

    To ssasrt: You can find peer reviewed research to support or denounce any idea out there. You need to look at who funds that research. Follow the money trail, and you'll know better what to trust, or not. Sincerity of a position does not validate a claim.

  • Harrison Bergeron Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:07 a.m.

    "A congressionally mandated climate change report predicts dire consequences…"

    Isn't that what "climate change" reports are designed to do - predict dire consequences? Has there ever been one that hasn't predicted the end of the world? This is a religion that continually revises its predictions of the Agwapocalypse when the previous date comes and goes unremarkably.

    Now we are supposed to believe that mosquitoes are moving north because of agw? Guess what, mosquitoes have thrived in the Arctic, Greenland and Russia long before humans were even there. And if we really want to control mosquitoes, we have a proven solution. It's called DDT; which was one of the first innocent victims of an environmental hoax.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:05 a.m.

    What happened to using naturall gas in our vehicles? I converted my Toyota Camry v6 over 5 years ago and I drive from St. George to S.L. (300 miles) for about $15 and cut pollution in a big way. The corn farmers hate it, the oil company's burn it off, so it goes unused with large reserves under ground. Utah has plenty of retail stations selling it for about $1.75 per gallon so I have got it made driving in Utah. Let's get serious about this folks, it saves your vehicle as well.

  • Flipphone Sandy, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 9:01 a.m.

    Climate change is a man made fraud. I'm still waiting for the Liberals prediction of the 1970's new Ice age warning.

  • Soon To Springville guy Parowan, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:54 a.m.

    Read what rob Roy wrote and you need not read any other comment!

  • 3grandslams Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:54 a.m.

    @impartial7 @silo...

    Your talking points are what I'm finding all over the internet to cover the ice-age scare. But too bad for you, I live through it, I remember it. The tactics haven't changed, fear, fines, demonization of people who won't agree.

    I've seen the farce of the approaching ice age, which we were warned we needed to immediately reduce family size because so much of the earth would be covered with ice there would be no room to grow crops, I laughed through the ozone scare but saw a lot of companies make money on non-aerosol cans, I watch the world freak out over paper bags and the destruction of the forests and begged all responsible citizens to use plastic!

    How should you convince me of global warming? Take politics out of it, let people have an opinion, discuss these things amicably not in anger, discuss all sides of the issue and have Al Gore stop being the poster child of Global Warming.

  • Robroy Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:44 a.m.

    Of course there is climate change. The glaciers in Glacier national park have been shrinking and many have disappeared altogether. 15,000 years ago what is now Glacier national park was under a 1+mile thick ice sheet that covered all of Canada and some of the northern US. In about 13,000 BC the ice sheet started to melt and it is no longer there. Why did this happen? Was it too many cars? Too many factories? Too many humans? Too many cows? Please. The key driver of climate on the earth is....guess what..... The Sun and the earth's relationship to it. Changes to the sun's output happen regularly. Changes to the earth's axis happen regularly, (in terms of the total history of the earth). The work for clean air and water as well as conserving resources make sense. However, wasting Trillions of dollars to reduce greenhouse gases does not. Until you can reach out and change the sun's output and change the earth's axis tilt please save your (my) money.

  • Kellso North Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:33 a.m.

    I guess I don’t understand why anyone would make up climate change. What would the purpose be? Who would benefit from it? So we should just keep polluting our planet without restraint? Sounds like a bad choice.

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:35 a.m.

    Every year is the "last chance" to save the planet. Every year there are predictions of never seeing snow again, an ice-less Arctic, flooded New York, etc. If these failed prophecies would stop, more people will take it seriously. I believe the climate is changing to a degree, but I do not believe the dire predictions because they keep failing to come true. The other thing I take issue with is the lack of solutions. Even if I were to go 100% off grid, nothing would change. If every person in the US cut back, nothing would change. The Paris agreement has had zero effect, and would have had zero effect with the US behind it. There are over 7 billion people on the planet. If global warming science is true, there is nothing we can do to stop it, or even slow it. Taxing corporations is not going to stop it. Taxing "big oil" is not going to stop it. Wind farms are not going to stop it. Solar is not going to stop it. What is the solution?

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:30 a.m.

    "Climate change" has been and will ALWAYS be with us.

    Perhaps we should all stop exhaling?

    🤔

  • bamafone Salem, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:24 a.m.

    Turning the thermostat down now as I comment. Now, where to get a sweater like Jimmy Carter wore in his White House fireside chat when he explained we were running out of oil.

  • Dr. G Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:21 a.m.

    The earth has been cooling and heating for millions of years based on solar radiation. During 2018 the sun entered a no-sunspot phase which is cycle the earth into a cold phase. We're entering what is known as a "mini-ice age" sunspot dependent phase similar to what occurred in 1700 through 1850 that will likely disrupt global food production.

    Google it. Keywords: "No Sun Spots" and "Mini Ice Age". You can find thousands of scholarly articles on the subject.

    To think humans can alter the planet's powerful cyclical weather patterns is profoundly arrogant, similar to the arrogance of the 1960s and 70s when environmental scare tactics were employed to frighten people into believing humans were causing a new ice age. You can google that too.

    Why do governments get behind these weather projects? Think of the trillions of dollars in taxes they could collect from a frightened public with the promise to save them from inclement weather.

    Global cooling and warming is dictated by the sun. Not autos. Not emissions. Environmentalists should limit their efforts to the effects of air pollution on lung cancer and human health and leave global weather patterns to the sun.

  • Alys1 Logan, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:24 a.m.

    Even if climate change is false, oil and fossil fuel reserves will eventually run out. Not in this generation but in generations to come. As a world, we fight wars over oil, so imagine how much worse it will be for coming generations.

    Even if climate change is false, we have been commanded to be good environmental stewards over the earth. (See LDS.org under Gospel Topics "Environmental Stewardship)
    So how are we doing with that? Not too good.

    Even if climate change is false, what if it is true? Then those who hold power in this country at this time will be held accountable for their decisions. History will remember these leaders as the one's who saved or destroyed the world. It is their choice. What if it is true and we do nothing about it? Our posterity will suffer and they will look back on us and ask why we were too selfish to do anything about it.

    I believe God will hold us accountable of our treatment of the earth. Some of Earth's climate problems are our fault, because we are the Earth's stewards. God has given us the agency to use the earth for our benefit, but he has also given us the agency to abuse it.

  • Jennifer Huefner Garden City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:16 a.m.

    Why no mention of the obvious consequences of geo engineering? Geo engineering is a huge factor here.

  • MaxHeadroom Ticonderoga, NY
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:18 a.m.

    I'd suggest, the the "Climate Change" folks, take a real good look at the surrounding mountains. The visual effects of climate change for the last million or so years are all around us. There has NEVER been a time in the earth's history when the climate was NOT changing. Should some genius come up with a way to stop the current warming cycle, then buy stock in fur coats, cause the next cycle is when it starts getting colder, personally, I'll stay with the warming cycle.. The evidence indicates that the planet has frozen solid at least once, I'll pass on that..

  • Wasatch Al South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:15 a.m.

    Looks like most of the commentators today follow the Trump way of looking at climate change - just ignore it. OK to leave your future progeny dried out farmlands, burned forests, and super hot cities. Let them deal with it,

    Are you Just waiting for our clogged air in January and February and think the vehicles on the roads have nothing to do with it? Dream on.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:10 a.m.

    I suggest everyone who has bought into climate alarmism try this experiment: go directly to the source and download both the unmodified and modified ground temperature data sets from NASA. Compute the correlations between both temperature sets and atmospheric CO2. You will get very poor correlation. What does that tell us?

    Now compute the difference between the two data sets. This difference consists of changes that NASA has made to the original temperatures that were collected by reading thermometers. Run a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and the difference. What you'll get is 98% correlation between MODIFICATIONS to the temperature record and atmospheric CO2. What does that tell us?

    Then perhaps someone might explain why eminent climate researchers, such as Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Roy Spencer, and many others don't buy into the notion of CAGW.

    I've been following global warming for over 20 years, and my call is that it's Fake Science. But, you ask, why do so many scientists appear to buy into it? Ask Judith Curry - if you want to keep your job, you must buy into it, or at least not question it.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:07 a.m.

    I dare say those who ridicule AGW do not know people in the earth sciences. AGW deniers posit that earth scientists are political graspers, seeking only political power. I have known a number of earth scientists and they are the most apolitical people you can imagine. They care about their sciences and are objective.

    They know more about the geological history of climate than you AGW deniers will ever know!

    Two asides: 1) Yes in earth history climate is always changing. There are many reasons for this, but CO2 is a common element in these changes. 2) You deniers can't believe deity would allow man to change climate, but deity allows us to terriform the earth! Why not climate?

    Go to climate dot gov and have a look. Tell us what you think. I dare you!

  • kbee Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 8:07 a.m.

    One thing is certain, the climate does change. We can all agree on that.

  • Common-Tator Saint Paul, MN
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:51 a.m.

    Unfortunately, even this article itself contains the source of the dilemma and debate. The first half laments the rising temperatures and drought, while the second half states that we have 400% of the rainfall required and a growing mosquito problem. Is it any wonder why the average citizen is sceptical of that which is presented ... and particularly so when the claims include the caveat that we can solve this, if only you provide your money to those allegedly "more qualified" than you?

    As for the comments above by many who say the reports in the 70s were "really" about warming ... my memory is otherwise, as are the newspapers quotations cited in my high school yearbooks, warning about the pending ice age. As another astute observer wrote above, people will gravitate to whatever "source" fits their argument.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:51 a.m.

    The brilliance was changing it from global warming to climate change. Still waiting for the answer. Is it climate change when there is tons of snow or is the climate change when there's very little snow? It's called weather. Should we pollute like crazy? Of course not. But blaming all weather on climate change is hilarious. My favorite is when we hear it was the hottest/coldest/wettest/driest year since 1600 or whatever year they throw out. If it happened before the Industrial Revolution, then what man-made item caused it?

  • I have my opinion Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:47 a.m.

    Last comment, I promise: If you want a balanced view of climate change, watch on YouTube when Jordan Peterson speaks to the Cambridge union on Climate change. It's brilliant.

  • I have my opinion Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:43 a.m.

    So, we're not to take individual weather events (snow storm, forest fire) as evidence of climate change. But that rule seems to be ignored if you are a proponent of climate change. I can't keep up with the ever-changing rules of PC and climate change lobbying.

  • Out of the Blue Layton, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:38 a.m.

    I personally believe that we are underestimating the earth's ability to heal itself, but that does not take away the obvious fact that we are harming it! And even if the only effect of our inaction is worsening inversions due to inevitable population growth, that will have negative consequences economically and on quality of life in this part of our globe.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:38 a.m.

    Guess we ought to all be forced to drive electric cars...but that means more electric power from ...windmills maybe? Ok maybe we just return to horses. Maybe Amy can tell us the answer??

  • 65,000years Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:31 a.m.

    *Climate change* is the leftist term for the ever changing climate. It's never been static. We know average temperatures have risen and dropped significantly at least 30 times in the earth's history. The data sets used by the proponents of global warming do not include the sun and clouds. Oops. Some believe we should give $150B a year to rich elites living in fancy European estates will fix the climate. They promise fix the climate by a fraction of 1 degree in 100 years according to Gina McCarthy, Obama's EPA director in sworn congressional testimony. If they don't, will we get our money back into the US treasury + interest? What's your guess?

  • I have my opinion Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:27 a.m.

    I read the article. Eye-roll... So, the not-so-hidden-conclusion is that humans are to blame for climate change and we should make that the spending top priority to change the climate back to some arbitrary state of perfection. First of all, I don't doubt that the climate is changing -- we know it has been constantly changing for thousands/millions of years -- far before the industrial age. But man's influence, compared to natural causes (sun, volcanoes, etc.) is not verified. Sure, we should all do our best to not pollute (and we have come very far and can continue to improve), but should we take ourselves back to pre-industrial practices? Should we use wood or coal to heat our homes? Should we enact a 1 child policy? Are the recommenders/enforcers of this mantra showing an example of never using any machinery/technology/plastics/etc. that contribute to CO2's? There are much more important things we should spend our money on (hunger, cancer, world peace, etc.) than trying to get the globe back to 1.8 degrees colder. Who are we to decide what is optimal? Maybe if it's a little warmer, the further-north geographies will be more livable/profitable? We think to much of ourselves...

  • Kristjhn Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:27 a.m.

    The report from the government was riddled with errors and should not be taken seriously. The key issue is the projections are based on models. Those models have failed when compared reality. When compared to observable and actual climate data the models are off. Not just slightly off either.

    Also, I’m old enough to remember when we only had 5, 10, 15, years to save the planet. It seems like every few years we get another dire warning. Climate doomsayers are akin to those chaps who stand on the corner and shout that you should repent because the end of the world is coming.

    Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t clean things up. Nobody likes to live in a dump. But neither should we give credence to flawed models.

  • thunderbolt7 Dutch John, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:24 a.m.

    What can people do? 1- install solar panels, 2- Drive an electric car, 3- Drive less & walk more, 4- turn down the heat, wear sweaters.

  • Cool Headed Sandy, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:17 a.m.

    The alarmist sleight of hand marches on. The false logic is easy to spot: there is a gentle upward temperature trend, made to appear more pronounced by intentionally setting the “beginning” of the comparison point at a historically known decade of abnormally low global temps in the 1700’s known as the “Little Ice Age.” Add to this a trace increase in minute concentration of otherwise harmless carbon dioxide from the industrialization of modern civilization. Now go about “proving” a non-sequitur — namely that manmade activity is contributing to the warming trend. But they never address scientifically the boogeyman on which this house of cards resides: if man takes drastic action at enormous societal cost to reduce emissions globally, will eath’s temperature actually begin to drop as a direct result? The scientific answer is undoubtedly “no.” The alarmists instead cloak themselves in weasel words describing what amounts to “less” warming if drastic action is taken (almost exclusively by western democracies, to nobody’s surprise), but allowing for scenarios that still project continued warming even so.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    Dec. 3, 2018 7:12 a.m.

    We have built in to the foot hills for years. We stand at the precipice.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:56 a.m.

    As Chicken Little once said, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” This story quotes a lot of people, mostly environmentalists, and throws out a lot of ideas but does neither tie them all together or prove any one point. As for charging more for water, who gets the money and what do they do with it, get rich?

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:36 a.m.

    Who profits off climate hysteria?

    Businesses who require subsidies to sustain their model

    Scientists requiring grant funding for their mostly garbage ‘research’

    The government which employs the scientists

    I’m going to take a hard pass on self immolating in the name of the climate god folks have created and worship.

    Just like other religions, Climateism is all about someone wanting control over my behavior and access to my wallet. And you are not allowed to criticize the dogma.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:37 a.m.

    Can "the puny arm of man" really have much affect on this globe "hurtling" through space?

    🤔

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:30 a.m.

    Egypt once was a very green place, which allowd for the flourishing of that influential civilization

    Which human activity caused the radical change?

    Were the Egyptians powering their chariots with fossil fuels?

    Maybe the ancients were visited by extra terrestrials as they say on the history chanell. If they come back, we should charge them a tax for reparations.

  • tsobserver Mapleton, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:26 a.m.

    The article suggests one solution. Reduce greenhouse gases. Quotes many experts on the consequences of climate change. But no concrete solutions. No hard data. For example, what would happen if we doubled taxes on automobiles, gasoline, etc.? How much difference would it make? What is the real solution? I see the dire predictions and hear the mantra to reduce greenhouse emissions, but I'm not seeing real evidence that government or the scientific community really know what to do. Assume we reduce emissions by half, what are the data? What is the cost? How will it be done. Let's get to proposing real solutions, if there are any.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:27 a.m.

    Which fires were started by climate change?

    If we all shut our cars off, when could we expect fewer fires, and would this include those started by human activity such as fireworks?

    In the absence of “Clamate Change” how many thunder storms would we expect? And would those miraculously not start forest fires?

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:26 a.m.

    Fifteen years ago I was a serious doubter on global warming. Today, I am pretty well convinced it is happening and it only makes sense to take it seriously. Climate change is happening and hiding your head in the sand won't change it, but it will get your back side burned.

    There are things we can all do to help that will actually save money. Why not do them? Why not try and make things better for our kids and future generations.

  • Aaron S GREEN RIVER, WY
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:23 a.m.

    Astonishing how many people are still in denial over climate change. My mother could see this in her lifetime, and told me over and over how things had changed since she was a girl. But people insist that "we had good snow last year, so it's a hoax", or like our "Beloved Leader" saying it was an extra cold Thanksgiving, so climate change is a hoax. I'm no scientist, but I know my science. Global warming means, more than anything, more heat in the atmosphere and oceans, which drives more extreme behavior in a chaotic system. That means colder colds, hotter hots, rainier rains, snowier snows, windier winds—basically, it means more extreme weather events of all kinds. There is an excellent, though somewhat outdated, book on Chaos Theory by James Gleick, titled "Chaos". I recommend it to all thoughtful people. Not only will it help you understand climate change, it will help you understand chaotic systems (which comprise most of our world) in general. And please, deniers, remember that the good Lord will hold us responsible for what we FAIL to do, as much as for what we do wrong.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:23 a.m.

    Journalists should be required to take basic science courses.

    “The heat and drought are also fueling unprecedented algal bloom outbreaks, driving the formation of more summer smog and wildfires are swamping Utah with unhealthy air pollutants.”

    The idea that any of that is the result of “climate change” (and you can add thunderstorms being ‘fewer’) is absurd in the extreme

    Reminder: the majority of the population of this state is living under what was once a massive body of water. Why is it gone?

    That’s right, the climate has never been, and never will be, static.

    This is hysteria. A solution (all left wing in nature) looking for a problem.

  • sgallen Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 6:09 a.m.

    It’s gonna be a wild ride!

  • RedRockUte St George, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 5:55 a.m.

    Ironic that most in Utah are against gambling for money, but are willing to gamble the future of their posterity that climate change science is a hoax.

    Not very smart either.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Dec. 3, 2018 1:09 a.m.

    Do what we can folks, we do not have all the answers. i take a scriptural view based upon prophecies I can rely on and conclude God is looking after the planet in the long run and will eventually have it His way.

  • Sportsfan123 Herriman, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 11:36 p.m.

    Record snow storms in the east and we just had a big snow storm ?

  • ssasrt Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 11:29 p.m.

    Thank you Amy for having the courage to write an article about the Utah-specific effects of climate change. Many more comments that ridicule the idea of a warming Earth are on their way, but you did the right thing.

    As a student at BYU in 2009, I had to write a paper about whether America should strive to reduce climate change. Before that time, I had been taught that human-triggered warming is a hoax. My opinion changed, though, when I was told I could only use objective, verified data to form my conclusions.

    My search through peer-reviewed research was shocking to me. I went from a climate change skeptic to someone deeply concerned about the future of our planet and Utah in particular.

    I invite any who are about to post a comment that mocks climate science to study peer-reviewed research on the issue. If one refuses to do this based on the mistakes of scientists decades in the past, then they have no business attacking Amy's well-researched article.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    Dec. 2, 2018 11:14 p.m.

    Climate change caused by mankind? Oh, please, what a farce! I find it amazing that these so-called "scientists" have never heard of climate oscillation. Geologic records prove that the earth heats up and then cools back down on a regular basis. That regular basis takes a great deal of time, but it still happens, which is where the term climate oscillation comes from.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 10:04 p.m.

    I always ask commenters to go to climate dot gov and tell us what they make of it. The AGW deniers never do. But all the same go have a look.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 10:03 p.m.

    @3grandslams
    "veryone relax. Brilliant scientists predicted in the mid 70’s that in 15 years we would be suffering from extreme ice age"

    Except that didn't happen. Newsweek magazine ran articles about global cooling, but the scientific community did not.

    The vast majority of published climate research during the mid 70s was already pointing to warming, not cooling. This is easily verified in less time than it took you to perpetuate the false notion of scientists predicting cooling.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 9:49 p.m.

    @3grandslams - Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 7:51 p.m.
    Everyone relax. Brilliant scientists predicted in the mid 70’s that in 15 years we would be suffering from extreme ice age. So that hasn’t happened, but scientists aren’t wrong, just wait and it should get really cold."

    That's false and you know it. There were a few 70's scientists that pushed that. But, 98% of world scientists laughed them out of town. But, I suspect you know that.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 9:37 p.m.

    @3grandslams
    "Brilliant scientists predicted in the mid 70’s that in 15 years we would be suffering from extreme ice age. "

    Most of the scientists then were still talking about warming, and the ones worried about cooling were worried about aerosols which had a large spike in anthropogenic emissions the then-preceding decades and those have a cooling effect. They also caused pollution problems so they were regulated and emissions, after tripling from 1950 to 1975, almost instantly flattened out.

    @ERB
    Climate change is the underlying trend loading the dice making certain situations become more common than they used to be.

    @patriot
    "Cherry picking the things that support your favorite"
    "Rewind 3 years"

    Sure, I can tell you this past summer was Utah's warmest out of the 124 year NOAA dataset but unlike when you pick something out I can also point to the full dataset of global data which shows a clear upward trend in temperature.

    "The effect of carbon emissions is still up for debate but lefties insist it is settled science. "

    The exact effect of a doubling of CO2 is not yet dialed in. But it being an upward forcing is clear.

  • RickBob Paducah, KY
    Dec. 2, 2018 9:25 p.m.

    There is no scientific EVIDENCE that climate change is anthropogenic. Climate has been changing since the creation. For 30 years, "scientists" have claimed the demise of the earth would occur "in the next 10 years". Not holding my breath.

  • Mr. Boris Layton, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 8:41 p.m.

    "This is not just an environmental issue. It's an economic issue as well."

    That's for sure. Give the scientists all your money and they will solve this "problem" for you.

    What a joke. "These are some of the hottest temperatures ever recorded by humans."

    And just how long have humans been recording temperatures? A relatively short time and too short of a time to conclusively decide that human activity is a cause of a problem that there isn't enough data to prove there is even a problem.

  • 3grandslams Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 7:51 p.m.

    Everyone relax. Brilliant scientists predicted in the mid 70’s that in 15 years we would be suffering from extreme ice age. So that hasn’t happened, but scientists aren’t wrong, just wait and it should get really cold.

  • Butch wax Orem, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 7:08 p.m.

    Got a lot of climate change on the mountains and valley today, sure trying to push this a lot lately.
    Thank God for Al Gore...

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 7:04 p.m.

    This is so ridiculous. Cherry picking the things that support your favorite pop culture cool word of the day. - climate change. Rewind 3 years Amy and we had record snowfall in Utah. I recall driving to Aspen Grove in 2014 and saw mountains of snow so deep even snow shoeing was difficult. The preceding summer was cool as well ...mostly in the mid 80 degree range. This is cyclic and has been since 1847 when Brigham Young entered Utah Valley. The effect of carbon emissions is still up for debate but lefties insist it is settled science. Its only settled when it supports their fun little ideology.

  • Utah_Happyman Orem, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 5:55 p.m.

    Sad that the Utah 6 and the Governor, legislature, and the GOP cannot realize this is happening and our behaviors are a dominant part of the equation...

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 2, 2018 5:54 p.m.

    Two years ago the Wasatch Front got tons of snow. Last year very little snow. This year so far so good for snow. Question is, which year was climate change?