Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Ignore the theoretical mathematics on global warming

Comments

Return To Article
  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:31 p.m.

    Another expert comment?

    But please explain your qualifications to write as an expert. Listening to the radio is not a valid qualification.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    This letter is a prime example of the belligerent, willful ignorance and mind-boggling distortions of how science works that saturates the global warming denialists. It's like they've wrapped their brains in Kevlar to keep reality from penetrating.

    Please, read the science journals and pay attention to the peer-reviewed research. Pay attention to reality instead of cranks.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    This reminds me of the comment made by Rep. Rob Bishop at a seminar at Weber State.

    He was denying global warming when someone in the group mentioned that much of the evidence for warming is based upon research done by NASA scientists. They commented that NASA is supposed to provide "good science" for the country.

    Bishop's reply, and this is an exact quote, was: "Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to buy it."

    Denial without looking carefully at what the evidence has to offer, either for or against an issue, is worse than simple ignorance.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    Nitrogen and Oxygen are the most abundant gasses in the atmosphere by far, comprising over 97% of the atmosphere... neither are greenhouse gases. Argon is another 1% and it's not a greenhouse gas. Water vapor (H2O) is the largest greenhouse gas constituent (about 1%). Remaining gases are only about .05% of the atmosphere. Of these many are greenhouse gases, CO2 is the largest among those in terms of concentration.

    Greenhouse gases do not all have the same level of effect though. There's more CO2 than methane (CH4) in the atmosphere, but the effect of methane per molecule is larger than CO2 because it stays in the atmosphere longer for one.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    For far too long, the left wing fear mongers have used the threat of global warming to scare a gullible public into supporting left wing policies. The time has come to put a stop to this once and for all.

    Global warming is an unproven theory that has no scientific support. During the entire history of this planet, the climate has undergone constant change. The history of Iceland and Greenland is just one example.

    The left wing extremists want a complete prohibition on the use of fossil fuels and they will continue to use the false theory of global warming to get what they want. It is time for the slumbering masses to awaken before it is too late.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 23, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    Recently in Russia, a volcano erupted spewing millions of tons of gases into the atmosphere, including massive amounts of CO2. Since the beginning of time, volcanoes have polluted the atmosphere far more than anything the human race has ever been able to do, and we are still here, and our planet is still healthy, in spite of what some say! Don't waste your very limited time on this earth worrying about things you can not control. But if you just can't do that, if it makes you feel better, go get in your hybrid car, shut off your electricity, stop eating food and wearing clothes that growing and manufacturing them pollutes, just tell yourself you are saving the planet! Enjoy your wasted life as much as you can because volcanoes will continue to erupt and continue to pollute and there is nothing you can do to stop them!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    Mountanman,

    Climate scientists and volcanologists have a good understanding of the amount of CO2 that volcanos put into the atmosphere.

    From research published by the American Geophysical Union in May 2011:

    "Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year."

    Please pay attention to scientific reality, not rightwing blogs and FOX.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 3:20 p.m.

    ATL and Blue -- please be quiet. Don't confuse them with facts. They can't handle that sort of thing. It results in increased whining and there's already enough of that in the conservative fantasy world.

  • material_awake Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 4:33 p.m.

    He asks us to "conduct a test in real time"? That's what's happening, a big human geo-engineering experiment; what will happen if we add CO2 to the atmosphere in large amounts? We are a few hundred years into this experiment, why doesn't the writer realize we are testing it in real time?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 23, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    @ Blue. You can believe whatever "scientist" you wish. They lost me when they told us that dinosaur flatulation caused the ice age!

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 5:24 p.m.

    I like science. I think we should all pay attention to things like facts and scientific evidence. But I also realize that much of science is interpretive. We like to take evidence and sometimes jump to conclusions that are not real.

    As humans, we tend to ignore science that seems to contradict our own beliefs or desires. We also love to cling to any science that seems to support them. We would all do well to recognize that science has long been a tool to promote ideologies and try and subject people to political power (just as religion has also been used).

    I really don't know if human-caused climate change is real or not, but I try to keep an open mind. I try to be a good steward of the environment, but I am also incredibly skeptical of anyone who gives cataclysmic predictions about what will happen if we don't all give a bunch of money and power to a group of people who will "solve" it for us.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 6:27 p.m.

    No increase in temperature for 16 years. Russia is having its worst winter in 70 years temps to minus 58 in siberia and minus 40 in Moscow. Antarctic ice enlarging. This means global warming?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 7:50 p.m.

    Now wait just one minute!

    When I tried to reply to Mountainman's comment about dinosaurs and global warming by writing: "Mountainman, are you sure that wasn't Congressional flatulence?" your censors rejected it.

    Now I know that DN has a decidedly right leaning tilt, but how is anything I said different than what he wrote?

    Or is it necessary to misspell the word? Is "flatulation" somehow more acceptable than the proper term?

    Or is humor verboten?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2012 7:51 p.m.

    Well there's no point because even if they did the "real time" study you and every republican would deny that too as a NASA/Liberal/UN conspiracy.

    You painted into a corner of conspiracies.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 8:49 p.m.

    To "Screwdriver" the problem is that there is no conspiracy. The climate is still quite unknown. Historically temperatures have risen faster than they have over the past 100 years, and they have risen slower too. We are looking at a snapshot of the history of the earth. We have accurate satellite data going back to 1979, and beyond that it is a combination of data stations and conjecture based on various sources. We don't have an accurate picture.

    Imagine your friend goes to Hawaii for a week. In their suitcase you see snorkel gear, leis, swimming suits, a tux, and flip flops. All they show you is some pictures from the last half of the last day in Hawaii. Without your friend telling you what he did, do you know for sure what they did, or do you just have a guess? What do you think happened?

    It turns out that your friend spent 6 days sick in Hawaii and wasn't able to get out until the last day.

    This is what is going on with climate change. We don't know the story and are making conjectures based on what we see. That is no better than just guessing.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 9:30 p.m.

    When we are dealing with Spring, Montan, and Red we have a formidable trio. They are firmly in the "If God had wanted fluoride in the water, He would have told us so in the Bible or the Constitution" crowd. No one of substance really offers any credible science to support their position, but they don't trust anyone anyway especially the experts. They see conspiracy, black helicopters and the need to be ready for the end time, but the end time won't happen from warming. They are not believers like the people of the Maldives who see their land disappearing with warming. They are not believers like the people of Australia who see their biggest tourist attraction dying due to the rise in temperature and acidity of the sea water. They are not believers like the owners of ski resorts who have skin in the game and are ready to cut the games and talk reality of their investment disappearing like the snow.

    Their game will probably survive their short lives, but someone will pay someday all because they were so sure they were "right".

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2012 10:11 p.m.

    A letter like this one has only one place...

    A letter calling for the ignoring of years of research done by professionals and facts displays how truly desperate the right wing is.

    I encourage everyone who reads this letter to place it where it deserves to go, the garbage.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 23, 2012 10:46 p.m.

    @ Real Maverick. Not so fast! Science is not consensus and any scientist who tell you that they have the FINAL word on anything, is no scientist, they are politicians. Besides, there are many scientist who do not believe mankind is causing climate change, if it in fact really is changing. Science is about discovery and all science, especially climate science, is fleeting because it is new! I know something about computer models, the tools most scientists use to predict climate change and I can assure you that computer models can be pre-programed to give you exactly the "data" you want!
    Hardly solid science, is it?

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    I appreciate the advice to pay attention to the peer-reviewed scientific journals. I've been doing that for a long time. Someone please show me the study that definitively links human CO2 emissions to global climate change of any kind - particularly the study that proves the tipping point assertion. Hint: you won't find one. What you'll find is a mountain of papers that assume the connection, but none that prove it using empirical data. There's a lesson to be learned in all of this, and that lesson has to do with the corrupting influence of politics on science.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    Sigh.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 24, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    @ RanchHand. My sentiments exactly! These are people selling a hoax and using junk science to do it so they can extract carbon taxes and control the wealth. Its all about control, they will stop at nothing to try to control us! It seems it will never end. But rest assured in 50, 100 years when this hoax is totally exposed, there will be another one tried!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    The day Rush Limbaugh admits Global Warming is real,
    is the same day he admits tobacco cause cancer.

    Until then --
    It's college-drop-out AM radio shows,
    against all reality.

  • starman52 Magna, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    Utahns fiddled while their snow melted, rain decreased, wildlife died and utility costs increased.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Dec. 24, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    @ John Charity Spring Sorry the statement "Global warming is an unproven theory that has no scientific support" is incorrect.

    @ Mountanman "They lost me when they told us that dinosaur flatulation caused the ice age!" It was cooling due to methane coming from dinosaur, please if you are going to quote something, quote it correctly.

    @ JoeCapitalist2 I understand people are frightened by "cataclysmic predictions", but what are you prepared to give up?

    @ What in Tucket? No increase in temperature for 16 years, This is Cherry picking and untrue. Antarctic ice enlarging Sorry the latest report is "The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, whose melt may be responsible for 10 percent of the sea-level rise caused by climate change, is warming twice as quickly as previously thought. A re-analysis of temperature records from 1958 to 2010 revealed an increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius (3.63 degrees Fahrenheit) over the period -- three times the average global rise. Also " there are many scientist who do not believe mankind is causing climate change" who are they and what is their specialty?

    Please stop the Left Wing Right Wing Rubbish, it is science not politics.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Dec. 24, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    @ RedShirt you say "Historically temperatures have risen faster than they have over the past 100 years" please provide your source because you also say we have no accurate record prior to 1979.

    @ Pops The connection of "human CO2 emissions to global climate change of any kind" has been proven through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms. As we have burnt more Fossil fuel the percentages of the carbon isotopes have changed. With a bit more reading you will have your proof.

    Please stop the Left Wing Right Wing Rubbish, it is science not politics.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 5:47 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" just a bit of information for you. It is no longer called "Global Warming". That term was tossed out when the temperatures stopped warming. It is now called "Climate Change". As far as I know, it is only the liberals who deny climate change. Conservatives and political commentators all say that climate change is real. The climate is never constant, and is always changing, that is a fact that has never been in dispute.

    The ironic thing is that it is your ilk that thinks they can control nature, and bend the climate to your desires. Your ilk thinks they can play God with the climate.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2012 5:53 p.m.

    @Mountanman
    " Besides, there are many scientist who do not believe mankind is causing climate change"

    True, only about 65% of scientists do. However 95% of climate scientists do which is rather more relevant than scientists as a whole. Being a scientist means squat if you're in a field of study that is completely unrelated. A meteorologist is most likely not much of an authority on brain surgery and a brain surgeon is likely not much of an authority on climate change.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2012 12:38 p.m.

    @Allisdair
    You're both correct. The Western Antarctic ice sheet is in decline. What in Tucket was referring to Antarctic/southern ocean sea ice which is increasing (albeit very slightly). It's the counterclaim to the Arctic rapidly losing sea ice the past 10 years (way faster than IPCC projection). However, the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic is that the Antarctic land continent is much colder than the Arctic ocean. A few degrees of warming to Antarctica doesn't really change much in terms of melting but a few degrees means a lot to the warmer Arctic sea ice.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Dec. 25, 2012 8:19 p.m.

    @atl134 An update for Tucket and the other Cherry pickers

    Researchers at the University of Tasmania examined the Antarctic thaw in research published in October, finding that although some parts of eastern Antarctica ice were growing, this was more than offset by melting in the west.

    The Australian team, led by Professor Matt King, developed a new analytical model that matched satellite data to ground-based observations.

    As ice melts from the continent's surface, the weight on the ground beneath the ice is reduced and the land rises at the rate of about two millimetres a year. The scientists refined earlier models to better fit the existing data and showed that the net ice loss in recent years was an average of 190 million tonnes a day.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 26, 2012 7:14 a.m.

    @Allisdair
    That's the answer to a different question. What is needed is proof that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are driving the climate, bearing in mind that correlation is not causation. Yes, we know that CO2 does, in isolation, act as a greenhouse gas. The computer models "prove" that CO2 is driving global temperatures higher, but unfortunately measured temperatures have not cooperated with the models. There have been a few papers that have claimed to establish a connection, but they all contained serious defects which invalidated them. You would think that after 20+ years of trying somebody could come up with something...