Google the effects of warming on the jet stream before making such a comment.
Back home in maryland my mom returned from vacation to find the house at 90
degrees (so much for that leaving the AC off plan). You see, Frederick, MD hit
102 today and that's a city that has the same average temperatures yearround
(roughly) as Salt Lake City but you're not going to see me say that proves
global warming. The reason is there's anomalies everywhere and if we're talking
about global warming, you have to look at the globe.
Phoey! The big argument is whether any of our weather is caused by MAN. What
little science implies that it is...is countered by Nature itself. Most CO2 is
a result of natural causes, most polution is a result of natural causes,
therefore, unless "Mother Nature" can be swayed by legislative means,
the weather will continue to frustrate those who wish to control the globe.
Climate and weather.Climate changes doesn't mean that you still
won't have local weather conditions.
Kirk - look a little beyond your North Salt Lake neighborhood and you might find
a different story. A friend of mine from Logan reported snow on Memorial Day
while I was sweltering through 95 degrees with a humidity factor making it feel
like 103. This tornado season has been one of the most deadly in recent history
and one of the most deadly in all history. The hundreds that have been killed
by these horrific, violent storms might have a different take on the changing
weather than your simplistic viewpoint.
Real, unbiased,financially detached science is now debunking the global warming
hoax. Satellite imagines show ocean levels are stable,not raising as James
Hansen NASA "scientist" predicted in the 80's. Global mean
temperatures have been dropping steadily since 1999, not increasing as some
predicted. This in face of increasing CO2 emissions from China and India.
Rasmussen polls show most Americans no longer believe in man made global
warming. We have just had the coldest winter and spring in N. America since 1917
documented by real, honest meteorologists. None of the dire environmental
predictions made in the 80's and 90's have come true. They could not have been
more wrong! And still some still hope for a massive cap and trade transfer of
wealth, which is really this silly scam was about!
Presidents involved in CCX makes me question the relevance of global warming.
If there is something to be gained by these evil groups and people by selling
carbon credits then, in my opinion, its probably a scam.
DougS and Mountanman,The scientific evidence is abundant that global
warming is real and man-made. "Most CO2 is a result of natural
causes..."That is incorrect. Scientists can study the nuclei of
the carbon atoms in atmospheric CO2 and trace the source of the carbon.
Earth's rapidly climbing levels of atmospheric CO2 comes from the combustion of
fossil fuels. That's an established scientific fact."Real,
unbiased,financially detached science is now debunking the global warming
hoax."That's wildly untrue. The real and unbiased science
establishing the reality of anthropogenic global warming is massive and growing.
Google "global warming evidence" and see what happens.If
you're going to argue against that, please cite your sources and the
professional science journals that publish that research. Op-ed pieces from
Exxon-funded "think tanks" don't count. "Rasmussen
polls show most Americans no longer believe in man made global warming."The laws of physics could care less."None of the dire
environmental predictions made in the 80's and 90's have come true"What a whopper! Cite your sources for that claim. The reality is that
the warming is _faster_ than predicted.
I kind of like the cold weather we have been having. But then, I own stock in
the gas company. The cold weather works for me, thanks Mother Nature.
G-L-O-B-A-L does not mean YOU right there. It wasn't funny the first
thousand times and it's still not funny. People laugh when you say it allright,
it's just that they aren't laughing with you like you think.
Re Blue. Thanks but I am obliged to stand by the findings of my own open minded
study of this issue. I invite you to site one example of any dire prediction
happening caused by man made global warming! Oceans are not rising, snow still
falls everywhere it always has, deserts are not getting larger and the earth has
been cooling since 1999. These facts are indisputable regardless of an ever
shrinking number of people who want it to be otherwise!
Re: "How many of these sophomoric, ignorant comments will the Deseret News
print?"As many as climate "scientists" pass their
way, is my guess.At least until these "scientists" run out
of excuses as to why their global warming theories are unable to predict
anything, and can't be otherwise validated.But by then, of course,
these "scientists" will have moved on to some new imminent catastrophe
that can only be addressed by the immediate destruction of capitalism and an
unthinking, head-first dive into redistributive socialism.That's
their scam. Has been for years. Proponents of these tired, discredited
socialist scams, whatever else they may be, are best categorized by the phrase,
Mountanman, you're pursuing your own "open minded study"? Please
explain."I invite you to site one example of any dire
prediction happening caused by man made global warming!"This
took about a minute to find: Amber J. Soja et al., Climate-induced boreal forest
change: Predictions versus current observations, Global and Planetary Change
(2006).Quoting from the research conclusions: "Scientific evidence of the transformation of landscapes due to changes
in climate is mounting throughout the circumboreal zone in Alaska, Canada and
Russia. In this investigation, we reviewed previous predictions of
climate-induced landscape-scale change in an effort to determine whether the
currently warmer conditions have resulted in the predicted effects. We found
that the predicted keystone indicators of initial change demonstrate that
alterations in ecosystems are currently underway. Given the increases in
temperature in boreal regions over the last decades, these modifications of the
landscape are in agreement with modeled predictions. In some instances the
warming and/or the effect of warming is more rapid than predicted, suggesting
potential non-linear rapid change, as opposed to a slow linear progression of
change."There's much, much more science along these lines.
Please look beyond rightwing blogs.
@Doug"Most CO2 is a result of natural causes"That is
true but natural causes are rather balanced leading to very slow rates of change
in CO2. If you look up the Mauna Loa CO2 dataset you'll see a consistently
steady increase in CO2 that's now up to about 380ppm from I think 310ppm half a
decade ago. You have to go back several hundred thousand years for the last time
it even got to 300ppm but in half a century it went from 310 to 380 in a way
that is a clear human signature.
" Global mean temperatures have been dropping steadily since 1999, not
increasing as some predicted."1999 is the coolest year in the
1999-2010 range. I think you meant to say 1998 and it shows a statistical flaw
in your statement. You're cherrypicking. Every year from 2001-2010 is warmer
than all years from 1991-2000 except for 1998 which is statistically tied for
first with 2007 or 2010 depending on dataset (noaa or nasa). 1998 had a very
very strong el nino and el nino years tend to be warmer. You're basically saying
that the earth is cooling even though the 2nd to 11th warmest years are this
past decade and you used a clear outlier year as the base point. Here's what you
should be doing, use a 3yr average or a 5 yr average to smooth the data. Then
you'd see that we're still warming because well... again, when you have 10 of
the 11 warmest years on record the past 10 years... that means we're warming.
2008 was a la nina (those tend to be cooler) and a solar minimum, yet it was
still something like 10th warmest.
Re Blue.. What you have provided is uncollaborated and unverified, not even good
gossip. One person's olympic leap of science and subjective opinion of a very
small area of the world (a part of Russia). One could also use the same
arguement about record snow and cold in the US this winter and extrapolate that
across the entire world to prove there is no global warming! Your example is too
small, too subjective (no real numbers, no real data). Back to your left wing
blogs I guess!
btw the climate has been changing for eons. Why o why do you think that man can
stop the climate "change" in its tracks? Its the audacity of
"Most CO2 is a result of natural causes..."Blue:
"That is incorrect. Scientists can study the nuclei of the carbon atoms in
atmospheric CO2 and trace the source of the carbon. Earth's rapidly climbing
levels of atmospheric CO2 comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. That's an
established scientific fact."Of the 750 gigatons of CO2
"produced" annually, 30 gigatons are man-made. I'll let you do the
percentage calculation on that Blue. On second thought better ask.... By volume, CO2 represents around 5% of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor, over
99% of which is natural, makes up almost all of the remaining 95% of GH gases.
KM, Mountainman, procuradorfiscal et. al.,If you are referring to the
cherry - picking data offered by Steve Goddard re:Global Mean Sea Level (Jason 1
and Jason2 satellite altimeter data) using 2010 as data, without the seasonal
signal or reverse barometer; this has been widely panned as classic selective
skewing.There is again a disconnect between extreme weather events and
climatic trends.The reference noted by Blue is a comprehensive overview, I
offer the work of Rubel, F., and M. Kottek, 2010: Observed and projected climate
shifts 1901-2100 depicted by world maps of the Köppen-Geiger climate
It's true, there is an Ice Age upon us. Over the years, I have noted an overall
cooling trend in conservatives' ability to research and intelligently discuss
any topical issue. It seems the permafrost that has blanketed Texas and the
southern US for so long has leap frogged into Utah. Conservative conspiracy
theories have chilled their ability to reason and analyze the information at
hand. Where's my coat....
Even Sarah Palin agrees that the climate is changing. The scientific questions
are: Is it caused by man? and Can man survive it?The first question
is debated far and wide and other posters on this thread are addressing it. So
on to the second question.Let's look at the effect of the current
local weather on the local population.Local farmers are either not
able to plant their crops or their crops are not getting a chance to grow. One
farmer I know predicts it will take 3 years for him to recover from the
financial loss he has suffered this year based on the local weather - and that
is assuming that those 3 years are what is considered "normal" for
Utah. Another not normal year or two and he loses his farm.And that
doesn't even address food availability or prices. Be prepared for a steep
increase and potential shortage of food with a grain base - especially when you
consider what is happening in other areas of the US that grow grains.I guess whether or not man survives depends on how you define survival....
From today's The Guardian we see that International Energy Agency chief
economist Fatih Birol warned that global emissions are moving closer to levels
that shouldn't be reached for another 10 years if climate change is to be kept
in check. The International Energy Agency announced that emissions have
increased by 5 percent from 2008 levels.The IEA said energy-related
CO2 emissions in 2010 were the highest recorded. At least 80 percent of the
projected emissions from the energy sector in 2020 are on the books because of
current or future construction plans. Dr. Birol said the latest figures
represent a "serious setback" in the effort to keep global temperature
fluctuations in check.Prior to joining the IEA, Dr Birol worked for
six years at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in
Vienna. He earned a BSc degree in power engineering from the Technical
University of Istanbul. He received his MSc and PhD in energy economics from the
Technical University of Vienna.I don't think Dr. Birol's credentials
or his past experience make him a wild eyed scientist with some left wing
political agenda. We should listen to what he says.
Sad little myopic bubble view of the world.
To "Blue | 8:06 a.m." NASA would disagree with you about the source of
atmospheric CO2. See "NASA hopes to track disappearing CO2" from the
DN where they find that "Humans account for only 2 percent of the world's
carbon dioxide emissions."Also read "Colo. cloud study may
lift insights into climate" in the DN where the scientists there clearly
state that "The biggest greenhouse gas is not CO2. It's water, water
vapor. A 1 percent change in cloud cover globally is on the same scale as
man-made CO2. (Clouds) have ramifications on climate, not weather, but
climate."The AGW theories are only being pushed by governments
and people who stand to profit through manmade global warming.The UK
Register found that the NASA data claiming warming over the past 30 years is
wrong. See "Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" where
they compare NASA's ground based data to 30 years of satelite data. Satelite
data from Remote Sensing Systems shows a slight cooling and the University of
Alabama at Huntsville shows that temperatures have remained constant from 1998
to 2008. Also read "Global Warming Models Come Under Physicist's
Scrutiny" - University of Rochester
"Humans account for only 2 percent of the world's carbon dioxide
emissions."Yes but the problem is excess. If the environment
produces 98 units of CO2 while humans release 2 but the environment only gets
rid of 98 units of CO2 a year, you're building an increasing excess of CO2 in
the atmosphere (+2 one year, +4 the next, + 6 the following year) with the
source of the excess primarily being human contributions.
I love how the left makes fun of extreme right wingers for their constant fear
of everything (I mock them too) and yet the left would have you live in fear of
global warming. Get real folks. The Earth goes through cycles. Always has,
always will. Trying to justify every fluctuation as being part of "global
warming" is sad. Someday, we will all laugh at the global
warming scare. Our grandkids will be ashamed of us if we were one of the sheep
who bought into the hoax.
Re: Mountainman"Real, unbiased,financially detached science is now
debunking the global warming hoax."'900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers
Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm'
announces the headline on the Global Warming Policy Foundation's website.Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or
co-authored 67 of the 938 papers analysed, which is seven percent of the
total.Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change, a thinktank which has been funded by ExxonMobil. Idso has also
been linked to Information Council on the Environment ( ICE ), an energy
industry PR campaign accused of "astroturfing".The second most
cited is Dr Patrick J Michaels - with 28 papers to his name. Michaels is a well
known climate sceptic who has revealed that he receives around 40% of his
funding from the oil industry.Third most cited is Agricultural scientist
Dr Bruce Kimball - the list shows that all of his cited papers were co-authored
with Dr Sherwood B Idso.Unbiased, financially detatched - my
foot.(or other anatomical part)
Can conservatives ever discuss anything without being sarcastic, disregard
science, and angry?
To "atl134 | 11:26 a.m." Another thing you should have read in the
article is teh fact that Scientists don't know where the CO2 goes. While you
read the article, think about this, since when are CO2 levels constant? You
should read the following articles that are quite clear about CO2 not being the
primary driver of GW and articles that show that the methods for measurement are
wrong:"The Right View: MITs Lindzen: CO2 has little effect on
climate" - Cambridge Chronicle"Alternatives to Traditional
Transportation Fuels 1994 Volume 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions" - US DOE
website. They found that "Given the present composition of the atmosphere,
the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5
percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.""Water vapour a 'major cause of global warming and cooling' "
UK Daily Mail"Earth approaching sunspot records" - Topeka
Capital Journal"Geophysical, archaeological, and historical
evidence support a solar-output model for climate change" - Proceedings
from the National Academy of Sciences"The Holocene Asian
Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate" American
Association for the Advancement of Science
VST - re fossil fuel carbon as the source for increased atmospheric CO2:CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a
different isotopic composition from naturally occuring atmospheric CO2. Plants prefer the lighter isotopes of Carbon (12C vs. 13C), and exhibit
lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient
plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio. As CO2
from fossil fuel combustion increases, the average 13C/12C ratio of the
atmosphere decreases.Redshirt - the NASA research to which you refer
is _not_ related to the isotopic evidence that the increase in atmsopheric CO2
is due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels. Try emailing any of the
scientists involved in the "missing" CO2 research and as them if they
think that their research somehow supports the belief that global warming isn't
significant and man-made. Please - email them. Share your replies, please."The biggest greenhouse gas is not CO2. It's water, water
vapor."Yes, but other GH gasses, including water vapor, has
short-term effects and in general, self-regulate. CO2 is the important
I'm so glad the amateur climatologists who can work Google are out in force
Why does the ultra-Conservative mind believe every cotton-picking Conspiracy
Theory under the sun to be true -- Whilst believeing the Scientific fact
of Global Warming to be a hoax? [i.e., it just being another in a long, long
lists of Government Conspiracies?]Grow-up.Get a legitimate
education, and please stop parrotting the rantings of AM radio college drop
The letter writters sarcasim sure rolls the religious. June of 1969 it snowed
two inches in Mueller Park. In 1972, I skied on fresh snow May 22. In May of
1977, I remember a cold wind blowing off the fresh snow in the Oquirhs. A
couple of years ago, we poured concrete on June 4, it was 105 degrees. The
weather is normal, it changes year to year.
To "Blue | 1:07 p.m." you are a true liberal. When proven wrong you
change what you said. DougS said "Most CO2 is a result of natural
causes", to which you said "That is incorrect. Scientists can study
the nuclei of the carbon atoms in atmospheric CO2 and trace the source of the
carbon. Earth's rapidly climbing levels of atmospheric CO2 comes from the
combustion of fossil fuels." The NASA study shows that in fact most CO2
does come from natural sources.The other problem is the simple fact
that temperatures are stagnant while CO2 rises.The other problem is
that the CO2 measurements are not very accurate. They are being taken
indirectly rather than by direct chemical means. Then, you also have the
problem of the soluability of CO2 vs other atmospheric gases in water that the
people who study ice core samples never address.CO2 is also a self
regulating atmospheric gas, just like Water Vapor. The problem is that Water
Vapor accounts for 95% of surface warming, yet we do nothing about it. So,
think of it this way, we are trying to stop a train by putting pennies on the
Jurassic Period, average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm. Paleozoic Era
occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher
than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only
geological periods when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To
the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was
also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12
times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should
have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than
today. "Climate and the Carboniferous Period" A poster once argued
that rising seas inundating pacific islands was a reason to fight natural global
warming, but tsunamis can sweep the same islands clean, and erosion will
ultimatly sink the islands in total. Populations will have to move off the
eroding islands at some point in the future. The earth can handle global
warming. So can the human race. Al Gore and his zealots can quit their massive
fear mongering. You would think they were conservatives.
An Ice Age is upon us?No, not really.Just the lack of
intellect that is known as the radical right wing headed by folks like Beck,
Palin, and Bachmann. If they're not threads to our society I don't
know what is!
The Real Maverick | 3:46 In geological time we are just coming out or still in
an ice age. Yes, really. Not a radical right wing concept. So as you loose
your argument, you Alinsky those whose intellect conflicts with yours as a lack
of. Time for you to get off the playground and get to a millinia thought
process not the short lived alarmist of the gw religion. Kind of like the May
21, worlds coming to an end.
Actually, I was taught, and maybe this is still accurate now as when I learned
about a generation ago, that we are in a interglacial time period, or a time
period between Ice Ages and that the next Ice Age would occur 10-12K years after
the last one. Also, the Earth was indeed much warmer in the time of dinosaurs
and beyond then it is now.As for climate change, I can go with some
of that theory because the climate does change. Do humans have anything to do
with it? I don't know, I wouldn't rule out that possibility. In regards to
natural disasters, well tornados happened now as in the past. But we have many
more populated areas now than in the past so that might explain some perception.
The worst earthquake to hit CA was in the 1850's but CA was sparsely populated.
The worst tornado to hit Utah (yes the can hit Utah) wasn't the one in Salt
Lake but one that hit in the Uinta Mountains (EF-3). So frequency of natural
disasters and climatic changes/conditions hitting populated areas has as much to
with this as anything...
atl134 11:26If only Obama did math like you do...Our economy would
be fixed. No more adding trillions to the national debt and compounding it year
Too funny, thanks for the humor Mr. Gilmore!!!