Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: C02 bad? Prove it.

Comments

Return To Article
  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 12:35 a.m.

    This letter displays a staggering level of ignorance on the subject of climate change.

    Instead of an irrational rant, Mr. Gibbs, how about you educate yourself on the subject of greenhouse gasses and climate change? Global warming information derived from careful, objective, peer-reviewed research is readily available online from NASA, NOAA, AAAS or any of a dozen other respected scientific organizations.

    These are scientifically proven facts:

    > CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since the mid-1800s.
    > CO2 levels in our atmosphere are now higher than at any time in human history.
    > Global temperatures have risen faster in the past several decades than at any time in human history.
    > Yes, our climate has and will change naturally, but these natural changes occur very slowly, while the climate change currently observed is happening at (scientifically speaking) breakneck speed.
    > Many critical ecosystems can't adapt to changing temperatures this fast.
    > Possible natural causes for this warming have been investigated and found _not_ to be responsible.
    > Isotopic analysis of the increased CO2 in our air identifies it as having come from the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    Everyone can continue to ignore the threat of rising seas, melting ice and the degradation of life-sustaining environment. Mr. Gibbs has proven that 97% of climate scientists are dead-wrong about our "precious greenhouse gasses" and that everything's cool! What a relief to the huge number of Utahns who share Mr. Gibbs! Go about your business and don't worry about the future!

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 26, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    "What a cruel hoax is perpetuated. We see and hear who says so, but who has demonstrated and proved that carbon dioxide is bad, or worse than oxygen? When and where were such scientific tests published? Blaming changes in climate on carbon dioxide is a bait-and-switch game. Perhaps we all should quit breathing and emitting carbon dioxide."

    We expel CO2 from our bodies as a waste product - obviously, our bodies cannot use it the way they use oxygen.

    But since you do not believe this, why don't you do the experiment yourself - lock yourself in an airtight room and see how long it takes for you to get lightheaded breathing in your own CO2. Make sure you have someone outside the room to monitor your safety so that you do not die from suffocation.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 26, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Global warming ice cores provide evidence of what transpired after the world emerged out of the Ice Age era. They contain particulate matters & trapped gases of what was in the Earth’s atmosphere thousands of years ago. This science has strengthened the theory that global warming is a normal part of global climate cycle. Not to worry folks, the climate is always changing and always will and mankind has nothing to do with it. But hey, who's scientists are you going to believe?

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    May 26, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    I don't think many would want us to go purely for wind power at this point. Natural gas is a no brainer for vehicles including semis. China builds a new coal power plant each week. They are the culprits if you are a global warming fan.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    May 26, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    Venus

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    May 26, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    Really? The new argument is to MISS the point of the science completely? You only prove that you don't want to be informed at all.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    May 26, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Well sir, It has been proven that increasing CO2 levels will change the climate. I think you are missing the point the climate scientists have been making for the last 20 years. If the atmosphere were 100% CO2 we would all be dead in a few minutes.

    Oxygen if increased, would have a negative impact of increased wildfires and the smoke would change solar heat gain and radiation.

    Any change has consequences.

    I'll never understand how people can believe that we can change the atmosphere composition and think there will not be any effect.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    May 26, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Blue.. take your "facts" and explain how plant life will suffer when you eliminate carbon fdioxide.. use them to explain why they are called a "green house" gas.. Do your "facts" explain the demise of the "Ice Age"? (remember mam wasn't here then) Apparently, your scientists know everything since no others see the same "facts"..

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 26, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Mr. Gibbs:

    You lack even the most basic understanding of the underlying science here. To suggest that oxygen could be as much of a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide shows that you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is or how it works. Oxygen does not absorb infrared radiation, it allows it to pass unhindered out into space. Carbon dioxide does absorb infrared radiation at specific wavelengths, trapping its energy in the atmosphere, where it contributes to warming the planet.

    The subject of global warming is complicated, with many contributing effects, but your letter shows that you lack the understanding of even the most basic of these effects.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    Doug, what's with the quote marks re the "facts" of global warming? You're saying you don't believe the evidence?

    Who is saying we should "eliminate carbon fdoxide (sic)"?

    Do you really _not_ know about how CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas and why it's more significant as a driver of global warming than water vapor or methane? Are you incapable of even this basis bit of self-education?

    The end of the last Ice Age was a slow process resulting from slow, natural changes in climate. Didn't you read my post? No one denies that climate change occurs naturally. The issue here is the extremely rapid climate change we're seeing now and that is conclusively attributed to human combustion of fossil fuels.

    "Apparently, your scientists know everything since no others see the same 'facts'.."

    Do you understand the difference between knowing about what _is_ well-understood about the connection between fossil fuels and climate change and "knowing everything?"

    What's stunning is the active rejection of science, research principles, and evidence by global warming deniers.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 26, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    ‘Letter: C02 bad? Prove it.’

    "...but who has demonstrated and proved that carbon dioxide is bad, or worse than oxygen?"

    ===========

    This guy want s "proof",
    And yet somehow, I don't think he'd be willing to put a tightly sealed plastic bag over his head.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 26, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    Clearly the best climatologist minds int he world are members of the utah armchair climatologists' society.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Oxygen (and nitrogen which combined make up the vast majority of the atmosphere) are not.

    @Mountanman
    "This science has strengthened the theory that global warming is a normal part of global climate cycle."

    There are natural cycles (like the Milankovich) but we are clearly having an anthropogenic component to the current warming. The increase in CO2 over the past 100 years was overwhelmingly a result of anthropogenic sources.

    @DougS

    "them to explain why they are called a "green house" gas"

    CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases because they have absorption lines in the spectrum that coincide with the IR energy emitted by the earth. Some of this absorbed energy ends up re-emitted back to the surface of the Earth, keeping the Earth roughly 25-30C warmer than it would otherwise be. O2 and N2 (the primary gases in the atmosphere) do not have absorption lines that match up with IR emitted by the earth so they aren't greenhouse gases. It is estimated that CO2 is responsible for roughly 10% of the greenhouse effect and we've increased it roughly 40% the past 150 years.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 26, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Alt134,

    Nice.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    May 26, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    I know about green house gases.. Just wondered how many tree huggers did. Blue never had an original thought as to others who blindly accept whatever the media puts out. I, on the other hand, sort through many sources to seek the best fit. "Man made" global warming isn't a fit as yet.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 26, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    DougS..a fit for what? First of all there are sources worth consulting and sources not. If you want to know what the weather is going to be tomorrow I suggest you consult a meteorologist not a tea leaf reader. When over 90% of climate scientist agree that humans influence the climate it would take some pretty interesting arguments against human influence to create a better fit for reality.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    May 26, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    Here's the real truth,

    Temperature has risen ONLY .2 to .3 degrees over the last century.

    So called climate scientists predicted years ago the oceans would rise 25 feet by now, they haven't.

    CO2 is not predictor of climate or weather or temperature. CO2 levels have changed over the years without any subsequent change in climate or temperature.

    And temperature and climate has changed without and corresponding change in CO2 levels.

    There is no causal link.

    But I guess the Gore-ites and chicken little climate changers will believe silly anything they are told.

    Is there climate change? YES!
    But is is natural.

    So enough with irrational and silly fears and predictions. (and for CO2 nuts Venus was never like Earth, and it's CO2 was natural, no aliens with hairspray or polluting saucers)

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 26, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    The Truth,

    Your data appears flawed. According to graphs available on the NASA website, the average surface temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees centigrade or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.

    As to prior predictions, it would help to know who and when.

    I have no idea if CO2 is a “predictor” of climate. But, as a greenhouse gas, it has an effect on climate, and that is the causal link. Climate of course is a long term phenomenon. It is not about our weather today or even this particular year.

    As to CO2 on Venus. The source is irrelevant to the effect. I have no idea what your point is about aliens, hairspray, or flying saucers.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 26, 2013 7:37 p.m.

    @the truth

    "Temperature has risen ONLY .2 to .3 degrees over the last century."

    There is no temperature unit of which that is true. It's gone up around .9C globally the past century.

    If you want to talk about the "real truth" I suggest starting off with something that isn't demonstrably false.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 26, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    It has been proven. Many times in many different studies. Don't be so naive.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    May 26, 2013 11:45 p.m.

    @alt134 and other greenies -

    Have you measured the output of every surface and oceanic vent for it's output of greenhouse gases? No, you don't even know how many exist. Could a false assumption occur due to the lack of completeness in the measurements of the sources of greenhouse gases, whatever they are? Of course.

    Have you measure the total CO2 output of all vegetation on the earth? Of course you haven't.

    Do you totally understand the complex interactions between the Sun, wind currents, man, animal, plant, water, volcanic and every other component of the earth? Of course not.

    Reportedly, the Hawaii measurement putting CO2 at over 400, was measured near a volcanic vent rather than in downtown traffic or over residential or farm area. Could a false, misleading result would come from that measurement? Of course.

    Man's best guess, which is all man can do regarding the sum total, complex nature of our world, is bunk. The only motive is continued research money being given out to those who favor an anthropogenic cause. FALSE SCIENCE IS THE RESULT.

    Get over it. It's all lies.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    May 27, 2013 1:33 a.m.

    The letter writer wants proof before he believes...
    and this for the same sort of people who tell us there is a God who is responsible for everything. [who believe without any proof at all].

    [FYI - I firmly believe in God, but it is a matter of faith. And I believe WE are the ones responsible for messing up the planet he gave us.]

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 27, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    @Truth.... do us a favor and cite some of the sources for your claims. I am dying to know what your sources are.

    I will grant you... yes.. there is global warming. I will also agree that much of it may not be human activity attributal is unknown at this point.

    But that isn't the point. This doesn't have to be about global warming to still need to control the amount of CO2 we pump into the air. What silly logic. You don't need to look very far to see what life is like without emission control. Just hop on a plane to the larger cities in China. Or look back to what our industrial cities were like before we had controls.... Pittsburgh, Cleveland for example. The impact of failure to control emissions is well documented. The only way you can miss the evidence is if you don't want to see it.

    I don't think those being delusional here are the "tree huggers". Arguing against "Al Gore's global warming" is completely missing the point. We know the impact of pollution at a micro level on quality of life for people living here, now, today.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    In Utah, a lot of people subscribe to the Rove/Bush/Cheney philosophy which I believe is "repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and it becomes the truth".

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 27, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    @stuff

    The alarmists had it all worked out on paper; then along come 15 years with no warming, and it leaves them scratching their heads. Their models were wrong, and they don't know why.

    @LDS Tree-Hugger

    There is a God, and he's not Michael Mann.

    @UtahBlueDevil

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 27, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil

    Particulates are different from CO2. CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas which is good for plant life.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    May 27, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil and everyone:

    None of us want pollution. We would all like responsible production that cleans up, reprocesses waste to the extent possible, etc. We all want clean air and land. I'm all for inventions and processes that prevent pollution and for supporting business to use them.

    The earth is a great recycler of everything we could ever take from her. How we take from and return things to the earth is one of the big questions. There's no doubt that the cleaner we do it, the better.

    However, the liberal/progressive movement is nothing more than a way to control people, business and money. It's based on manipulated data and false assumptions.

    I am NOT for taxing people or for mandating businesses to the point that they fail under the guise of a false atmospheric event that we really can't control. There's not a single thing we can do to prevent an ice age or a warm age if Mother Nature decides to make it happen.

    Get real.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 27, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Nate - understood. It is all just part of the same soup that comes out of the pipe. One comes with the other.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    It seems that many are shouting the sky is falling (climate change will be the end of the world as we know it) and have identified a culprit, CO2. The cure 'give us control of your economy, lives, and western civilization', as all are based upon carbon in one form or another as fuel for industry and the products industry produces, and in return we will save you from yourselves.

    We heard not too long ago that the earth was headed into a mini-ice age, but we didn't.

    I think that there may be change in the climate but there seem to be so many variables and the measuring cycle we have is so short, and since money is involved in research and remediation of the alleged problem I choose to remain a bit skeptical.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    Wait till everyone has three cars. Excessive man made carbon released will affect the grand kids more thanadebt ever will.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 27, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    @stuff
    "Could a false assumption occur due to the lack of completeness in the measurements of the sources of greenhouse gases, whatever they are? Of course. "

    The Mauna Loa dataset you referred to shows an extremely clear trend. You can even see the annual cycle in it. Try looking up the graph and you'll see what I mean. That isn't a volcano signature.

    If you want you can also look up the salt lake city CO2 datasets. They show basically the same thing (except for occasional extreme days that are over 500ppm, generally it sticks near the same annual pattern as Mauna Loa).

  • stuff Provo, UT
    May 27, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    Is the 'raw' data available from both the Hawaii and SLC monitoring stations? Were the published results manipulated, massaged, transformed or were any other calculations done to get to the published numbers?

    Where were the SLC tests done - the tailpipe of a 1968 diesel truck, a busy downtown intersection, the top of a mountain peak?

    Can you explain what happens to a CO2 molecule 24 hours after it's released by a car, a plant, a human being or a volcano? What does it do 7 days or 7 months later? How soon is it transformed into something less 'innocuous' to GWers? How soon is it used by something that depends on it?

    You've all been caught lying and are now hardly trustworthy. Sorry but the world isn't going to die and neither are we because of any slight change in the atmosphere.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    May 27, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    Letter: C02 bad? Prove it.’

    OK... Venus.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    May 27, 2013 10:01 p.m.

    To those who subscribe to - CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas which is good for plant life.

    Sorry please think about the CO2 is being absorbed

    The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels. The extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels. This process is known as ocean acidification.

    Other chemical reactions are also triggered which result in an actual net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available. In the oceans, this makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and existing such structures become vulnerable to dissolution. Thus, ongoing acidification of the oceans also poses a threat to the food chains connected with the oceans.

    Like all thing CO2 is good in moderation just like Vitamin A without it you die with to much of it your skin falls off and you die

    Please follow the admissions of the bridge builder

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 27, 2013 11:22 p.m.

    @Allisdair

    Have you been following the more recent research on ocean acidification? You should check out Hofman, Smith, Johnson, Send, Levin, et al (2011). They placed sensors in a variety of marine ecosystems, and found that the pH level fluctuates naturally, swinging much more widely and rapidly than the 0.1 shift you are worrying about. At one location, it was found to change much more than that within a single day -- and the food chain is doing just fine.

    "your skin falls off and you die"

    The greater danger here is hyperventilation.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2013 1:45 a.m.

    @stuff
    "Were the published results manipulated, massaged, transformed or were any other calculations done to get to the published numbers?"

    No, aside from any sort of quality control to throw out obvious errors from broken instruments of course.

    "Where were the SLC tests done"

    Shows what I get for trying to direct you to look things up... the U of U Aline Skaggs Biology Building, Rose Park, Sugarhouse, Murray (Hillcrest JHS), and outside of Kennecott. They are currently, 402, 448, 405, 410, and 405ppm.

    "How soon is it transformed into something less 'innocuous' to GWers?"

    The mean atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is 30-95 years.

    "You've all been caught lying and are now hardly trustworthy."

    Yet you ask me for stuff rather than looking it up so you either trust me or you're wasting your time. I have no idea what you're referring to with regards to "been caught lying" though I'm going to assume "Climategate" which if you bothered to look into really isn't a controversy and all the datasets show the same warming trends anyway +- .02C/decade (+.13 to +.17C/decade) including the satellite based datasets including the UAH dataset led by an anthropogenic climate change skeptic.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 28, 2013 6:22 a.m.

    "I am NOT for taxing people or for mandating businesses to the point that they fail under the guise of a false atmospheric event that we really can't control."

    @Stuff.... name one... a single company that closed its doors because the burden to compete at the same standards everyone else lives to was too great for them to bear. It a company failed, it was because they were poorly managed... real simple.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 28, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    I remember the same "conservatives" whining about lead in gasoline and paint.

    It's so little,
    It's not causing any enviromental problems,
    Mother nature can absorb it,
    Earth naturally already has these elements in it...

    Blah, blah, blah...

    I guess we'll be dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 29, 2013 7:06 a.m.

    When did being conservative become synonymous with anti-environmentalism? I would think conservatives would want to do what they can to take care of the precious world in which we live. I would think they would want to recycle and cut down on harmful gas emissions. Unfortunately, the dollar has become more precious to far to many at the expense of a healthy earth.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 29, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @Really???

    Conservatism is pro-environment, and we do want to take care of the earth. But you haven't shown how a few extra parts-per-million of CO2 does anything to harm the environment.

    On the other hand, if we disrupt the economies of all industrial nations, we are certain to bring harm to people -- mostly to the very poor. Wacky science fads have consequences.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    May 29, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    @Nate
    @Allisdair

    Have you been following the more recent research on ocean acidification? You should check out Hofman, Smith, Johnson, Send, Levin, et al (2011)

    Do you mean the - High-Frequency Dynamics of Ocean pH: A Multi-Ecosystem Comparison by Gretchen E. Hofmann, Jennifer E. Smith, Kenneth S. Johnson, Uwe Send, Lisa A. Levin, Fiorenza Micheli, Adina Paytan, Nichole N. Price, Brittany Peterson, Yuichiro Takeshita, Paul G. Matson, Elizabeth Derse Crook, Kristy J. Kroeker, Maria Cristina Gambi, Emily B. Rivest, Christina A. Frieder, Pauline C. Yu, Todd R. Martz mail

    Thank you for pointing me to it, it made intereting conclusions pointing to Ocean Acidication in Antaricia and vulnerable species. I.e. it supported my concern.

    Also look at: -
    Marine Climate Change - Report Card Australia 2012
    and
    First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean
    Issue date: 25 Nov 2012

    Keep looking and reading widely and you will more fully understand the mess we are making of Heavenly Father creation.

  • Alter Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 30, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    @Allisdair "...it supported my concern."

    The conclusion section was full of speculation. That's how they make the case for doing more research. The study itself shows that pH fluctuates naturally, and that organisms exposed to those fluctuations are thriving.

    "First evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures in the Southern Ocean"

    Okay. Let me get this straight. The water at the locations where damaged shells were found is welling up from the depths. It can take thousands of years for upwelling water to reach the surface. How does it come to contain CO2 supposedly dissolved from the atmosphere within the past few decades? Isn't it more likely that the source of its acidity is deep below the surface, where the water came from?

    Further, calcium carbonate is more soluble in colder water. Is it any wonder that pteropod shells dissolve more readily in water welling up from the depths?

    Do you not question anything the alarmists tell you?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 2, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    "Conservatism is pro-environment, and we do want to take care of the earth."

    Is that why I read and hear about conservatives who promote turning on every light in the house, driving more than necessary, and doing other anti-environmental activities on days such as Earth Day so they can "stick it to the liberal agenda?" I will believe that conservatives care about the environment when their leaders call for a stop to such activities and make an effort to promote clean, renewable energy use and other green living suggestions.