State peat bogs to be climate study labs

  • Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 27, 2012 - 10:25 AM

They are a unique ecosystem for studying global warming dynamics.

  • 28
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
aonealphaFeb. 25, 12 3:12 AM

Operational costs fo $4 - $5 million per year? No wonder we have a federal spending deficit of more than a trillion dollars annually.

13
17
eddie55431Feb. 25, 12 7:49 AM

Do you think they would be so interested in studying this if they only had enough money for a notebook and a chair instead of $50 million to waste. This whole global warming scam is driven by the big money behind the research and other "green" and "eco" spending. They have to spend $50M to find out what will happen if the thing that isn't happening happens. That way they can sound the alarm about how terrible it's going to be, and justify more grant money to study how to stop the fake stuff they just made up from happening.

12
20
mn_cameraFeb. 25, 12 8:37 AM

So our friends the denialists are back. The evidence they ignore is irrefutable. We - humans - are changing our environment in ways we may no longer be able to adapt to without severe dislocation and disruption. It's not a scam. It's reality.

17
13
tflinnFeb. 25, 12 8:38 AM

Right out of the gate, first two responses from the uneducated right. Folks, get over it, global warming is here, it is a real phenomena. Denying it, or politicizing it will not make it go away. You people on the right have put us 30 years behind in understanding and making meaningful changes to lessen the effects of global warming.

18
12
eddie55431Feb. 25, 1210:26 AM

It's the believers in the global warming cult that are the ones in denial. The scientific method consists of establishing a theory, then verifying it through observation and experimentation. The entire AGW movement is based on climate modeling that fails to predict the actual results when applied to historical data. The models ignore major inputs to the system (the sun, cosmic rays, cloud formation, etc.), and use data sets that are hand picked and with "tricks" applied to achieve the politically correct outcome (see:Climategate emails). Most of the major "scare" claims of the IPCC have been disproved by actual observation (Himalayian glaciers, Arctic/Antarctic ice cover, Sierra snowpack levels etc.), yet we are supposed to be continuing to support this with blind faith. The followers of Hansen, Mann, and Gore are as blinded as Jim Jones flock was years ago. Walk off the cliff lemmings, that will leave more gas for my SUV and snowmobile.....

8
14
esayerFeb. 25, 1211:03 AM

Eddie, you need to get your head out of 2009. Climategate was completely and utterly debunked. That is a fact, so your talking points are moot.

11
3
medas2005Feb. 25, 1211:06 AM

Eddie55431: It's good that you know the scientific so well and when we propose a scientific study you slam it. If your problem is with the science, then why don't you support new science that might provide bettre evidence as to what is happening. Of course, I assume you already know that you won't believe the results no matter what they find.

9
3
esayerFeb. 25, 1211:13 AM

Eddie -- Dec, 2011: KATHMANDU — Glaciers in the Himalayas have shrunk by as much as a fifth in just 30 years, scientists have claimed in the first authoritative confirmation of the effects of climate change on the region. The findings, published in three reports by the Kathmandu-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), show Nepal's glaciers have shrunk by 21 percent and Bhutan's by 22 percent over 30 years. The reports, launched on Sunday at the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa, form the most comprehensive ever assessment of the extent of Himalayan ice melting.

9
3
esayerFeb. 25, 1211:17 AM

Eddie -- January 2012 compared to past years Arctic sea ice extent for January 2012 was the fourth lowest in the satellite record. Including the year 2012, the linear rate of decline for January ice extent over the satellite record is 3.2% per decade. Based on the satellite record, before 2005 average January ice extent had never been lower than 14 million square kilometers (5.41 million square miles). January ice extent has now fallen below that mark six out of the last seven years.

7
3
esayerFeb. 25, 1211:20 AM

Eddie -- I have no idea why u think Sierra snowpack levels have anything to do with GW, but... The Sierra Nevada snowpack is a key source of California’s water supply. Officials said Monday that snowpack water content was just 38 percent of average, compared to the 19 percent they measured in early January.

8
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Who will win the Wild-Colorado playoff series?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT