Deseret News | Reader comments: Arctic study raises warming questions

Reader comments
Arctic study raises warming questions

Dome | 3:18 a.m. March 20, 2008

It requires further study!

Buttons | 5:21 a.m. March 20, 2008

Wow, great job!! You also prepare the information so that it was middle of the road, just the facts....Thanks

Greenhouse gases good? | 6:58 a.m. March 20, 2008

When I was in grade school in the 1960's they told us we were headed for another ice age. Will the greenhouse gases we are putting out now forstall that?

Comments continue below

Shortsighted science | 8:27 a.m. March 20, 2008

I'm amazed that studies like this haven't gained momentum earlier. It makes complete sense to me that the accumulation of gasses and pollution in the atmosphere would have been occurring many many many years ago. The progress of the industrial revolution would certainly have had an effect on things, and the fact that climate change seems so pronounced and quickened today just supports that fact. There is little chance that the past few years have caused so much trouble and change on a very stable platform like the Earth is. Human involvement over the hundreds of years certainly impacts how the earth functions! Science needs to accept this and start communicating this to the populous; we're naive if we think that making a few changes to how we pollute and what we burn will make an immediate reversal of the current climate issues. If we accept that humankind has been affecting the climate for hundreds of years then we can better evaluate our current state and not get discouraged when decades of change still seem to have no or little effect on things. I expect more of science, it needs to evaluate long term effects and our impact on things!

Bad science, yet again | 8:28 a.m. March 20, 2008

Wait a sec, didnï¿½t the PBS program NOVA recently demonstrate that air pollution and haze actually *reduce* warming on the planet? Now these guys are running around scrapping at bits of data and conjecture for anything that could support their weak theories and fancies, and of course with such lax standards they will find them, and of course itï¿½s manï¿½s fault.

This article is yet another great example of very bad science in the pursuit of understanding climate change, and of course it all comes back to human activities. Why do we listen to these people?

p.s. those of us who have a clue what good scientific standards are, *donï¿½t*.

shecky | 8:50 a.m. March 20, 2008

Unless I am mistaken, Mr./Ms. Bad science, I thought that good scientists DO pay attention to inquiry of all varieties. It's all out there for peer review. Where is your data? And what are these "weak theories"?

AND OF COURSE you will share with us exactly what those good scientific standards are?

Anonymous | 9:08 a.m. March 20, 2008

The UNs own people have said that their global warming report was a scientiic diaster. It was not based on actual data or evaluated properly. We now have all the chicken little types running round telling the rest of us what to do baed on a bogus report. The sun is the major source of global waming or cooling to start with. How did the last ICE AGE end? Cavemen having a barbaque?
Before one of the wac-jobs has a fit, yes we can do some cleaning up. Lets try not burning dow the forrests in thrid world countries to clear lnd nd put te polutionscrews to Chins and India. They wil just chuckle and keep it up.

Concerned | 9:36 a.m. March 20, 2008

It's amazing how so many people can reject scientific research with out their own evidence to support their opinion, but rather because they view it as a political, or even religious, debate. You're right, you don't base any decisions on one single study. That WOULD be bad science. We also don't know the exact effect (causational/correlational) of human behavior on the climate. We DO know (from many peer reviewed studies) that the climate is changing for the worse and it is correlated with our pollution emissions. And whether it has devastating effects or not, we do know, at least, that our pollution emmissions creates a poorer air and water quality. Isn't it worth changing our behavior for better air and water, at minimum? Wouldn't you like to have less of those hazy days in the valley and breathe in fresher air?

Sly | 9:53 a.m. March 20, 2008

It's important to recognize that everything we put into the atmosphere stays with us. Everything. There is no free lunch. And because of it, our earth is threatened. It's really quite simple.

Surprised | 10:00 a.m. March 20, 2008

Didn't Gore-bal warming just start more recently, since Gore invented the Internet to get the word out?

Right | 10:09 a.m. March 20, 2008

I support man made global cooling. Save the snow!

BH | 10:09 a.m. March 20, 2008

Perhaps one reason most people find it easy to reject scientific studies, is they have seen too many studies that claim one thing, only to have another study released years later that contradicts the first. It is easy to understand why so many have very little confidence in scientific reports.

However, I do agree with Concerned, in that, regardless as to the validity of global warming, we should all do more to reduce our pollution and improve the quality of life for ourselves and future generations. Who among us actually enjoy hazy days and polluted rivers and lakes?

C02 is plant food. | 10:16 a.m. March 20, 2008

"The sharp rise of carbon dioxide pollution levels is a recent change."

The recent change is calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. It's plant food. Plants take it out of the air and convert it to plant matter which are used by animals and man for food, clothing, fuel, paper and housing. It is called the carbon cycle.

Reduce the amount of carbon in the air enough and the plants won't grow, breaking the circle and causing starvation. Destroy our specialized economy in the name of reducing our carbon output and people will starve and die.

Plant more trees, grow some flowers, avoid wasteful excess and extremism in policy and the world will be a better place.

Robo | 10:20 a.m. March 20, 2008

The climate will do what the climate will do and it is ultimate arrogance to think mankind can affect significant change. That said, we need to use best available technology and be good stewards of the planet earth just because it is our home, not due to some threat, real or perceived. I for one, don't think that should mean shivering in the dark in the winter, sweltering in the summer heat, and driving around in unsafe vehicles. Technology and innovation are the answer.

BobP | 10:22 a.m. March 20, 2008

The Global Warming hype is a scam to redistribute world resources and wealth. The anthropomorphic component (man made) is an infinitesimal factor in the over-all problem.

To: BobP 10:22am... | 10:45 a.m. March 20, 2008

What are you talking about man!!! The only scams I know about are the MLMs, but I digress, why don't you use words that rest of can understand, but I guess that using the big words to make your point, makes you look like you know what you are talking about and be all-scientific like.
Personally I don't buy into the junk-science that Gore-ites are spreading, but this study is well-grounded and it basically points out that warming fanitics have it wrong. It has been happening a lot longer than two decades.

Don | 11:14 a.m. March 20, 2008

Another scam on the way. Follow the money, where are the funds coming from. Next thing we will be told, is that simply being alive is destroying mommy
earth.

Factmonger | 11:25 a.m. March 20, 2008

Last November, NASA published a study demonstrating that Arctic warming of the past 25 years was caused primarily by a change in the direction of Arctic Ocean circulation, and they said specifically that it was NOT because of atmospheric warming. Yet media and even some scientists continue to point to the Arctic's recent warm spell as "evidence" that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming. That's just bad science. Fact is, the Arctic was this warm and ice was this thin back in the 1930's. It then cooled and ice thickened until about 1980.

Fact: Global temperature trends have been flat for 10 years now.

The only constant in earth's climate is Change. There is no evidence that CO2 is a climate driver -- NONE!

I whole-heartedly agree with the conclusion of this research that we need to continue to work on air pollution, including aerosols and particulates. But we must not be distracted from that mission by tilting at the CO2 windmill!

Ken Baguley | 11:44 a.m. March 20, 2008

This finding is not new...Nearly 40yrs ago, I read an article that described the Antarctic a drop off point for pollution in the air...It went on to say that this a a natural process of the air moving to, apparently the Arctic and Antactic, cleansing itself and returning...Sounds like a divine plan to me.

MTM | 12:27 p.m. March 20, 2008

More comments from the false "global warming" crowd.

Jack | 12:29 p.m. March 20, 2008

Have scientists looked into the correlation between global warming and money for research. That's the motivation for the concensus of all these so called scientists. They can't prove we have global warming let alone prove it is caused by man.

Anonymous | 12:33 p.m. March 20, 2008

"If the ecosystem gets destroyed or the world is plunged into perpetual war, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
- Unknown Conservative

Mark | 12:58 p.m. March 20, 2008

The 'evidence' that rising CO2 levels, and other 'greenhouse gases' are causing an increase in world temps is circumstancial. Temps are up and CO2 levels are up, therefore CO2 is causing temps to increase.

By that same reasoning, I suggest that global warming is being caused by the increase in immoral NY politicians. Temps are up at the same time we have more self-admitted immoral NY politicians...ergo they are causing global warming.

You could also say the same for stupid/dishonest politicians of all kinds, or airhead bimbo actors/actresses in Hollywood.

Global warming studies cannot begin to make any sense of the impact on warming of clouds...some studies show they increase warming while other show they decrease it....but none of the computer models have the ability to take clouds into the picture.

veedub | 1:12 p.m. March 20, 2008

I'm curious why the DMN will continue to print articles like this, but totally ignore one put out by NPR, stating that thousands of undersea monitors have not shown any warming of the earth's oceans; in fact, they show a slight decrease in temperature since they monitors have been in place.

The article quotes scientists who are puzzled by this, confirming that ocean temperatures are more of an indicator of global warming or cooling than air temperatures. Of course, their conclusions ignore obvious question that this study begs: Could this mean that global warming isn't occurring after all? Still, this is data produced by "real" scientists, even scientists who are convinced that global warming is real.

So, DMN, how many other studies are being ignored and will not be published in this paper?

ken | 1:37 p.m. March 20, 2008

I just read this week in the JPL publication, that a group of robots and sensors have been placed in the oceans around the world to collect data. And the report stated that there has been no increase in water temperature in the worlds oceans for the past 20 yrs. What do they want to try and scare us with next

I don't believe it! | 1:45 p.m. March 20, 2008

Let's all stop breathing! Now! I'm serious! Stop it!

It's also important to remember. | 2:51 p.m. March 20, 2008

...that every ounce of pollution originally came from the basic elements of the earth and that every ounce of pollution will eventually find it's way back as a basic element of the earth. The earth is very good at cleansing itself. Polluted water that is moving, either as a river, from tides, etc., eventually is cleansed. Every wind, every storm cleanses the atmosphere. Pollution decays, the same as everything else on this planet. The earth will clean itself and achieve balance. God, the Creator of all, is in charge and has power to provide an earth for us to live and thrive on. He's not going to abandon us. So, lighten up. And, don't distribute money over this.

I'm all for clean technology and look forward to using it. I'd even like to invest in it.

And, to 'Concerned' and others who say that the warming is making things worse, I say - Who says it will be worse? Maybe it will be better! Longer growing seasons, more usable land, etc. It might be good!

Seth | 2:57 p.m. March 20, 2008

Artic? Why can't we just all do what nature intended and head over to Artic Circle for some hamburgers? If the real artic is destroyed we can akleast go to the restaurant of the same name, right?

two types | 3:04 p.m. March 20, 2008

There are basically two kinds of people:

Those who choose to leave the campground a tad nicer than how they found it.

Those who choose to trash the campground assuming a tree-hugging liberal will be along shortly to clean it up. (and they are right)

Sly | 4:54 p.m. March 20, 2008

It's also important to remember --

unbelievable nonsense! Obviously, you know nothing about chemistry, polymers, etc, and how organic elements mixed and burned become deadly. Take a look at the oceans, please. Note how much life is being strangled by plastic, for one example.

Preaching a bit of death here? My goodness.

Anonymous | 6:13 p.m. March 20, 2008

Don't do a thing Neocons.
The liberals (as usual) are working overtime to try and correct the problems for you.

ZtoA | 6:21 p.m. March 20, 2008

Anyone that has seen snow piled on the side of streets could have made the same conclusions. Snow falls, streets are cleared, snow gray with street grime melts faster than white snow. Same process works for any darker surface on snow, an easy gradeschool science albedo demonstration. No surprise scientific literature has been unequivocal that the effect of dark particulates on snow, ice, and glaciers increase melting rates. Wind transport of pollutants to the Arctic and Greenland was shown by elemental analysis long ago including full range of elements from coal fired power plants: Beryllium to Uranium by atomic number, including Mercury. More concern for particulates that donï¿½t get to the arctic and we breathe.

Everyone should be aware that industrial and diesel particulates have been shown to reduce brain functions. The public includes 87% of the US population that was above toxicity limit of lead poisoning reducing IQ. Some might be above the toxicity limit of mercury as over 650,000 children a year are born impaired. The educational system has been dumbed down so public accepts the source of science as the faxed talking points from the truth detector or media outlets as factual.

Factmonger | 10:46 a.m. March 21, 2008

I always leave a campsite or a trail cleaner than when I got there. I drive high MPG vehicles. I recycle motor oil, batteries, and cans. I was employed for 15 years cleaning up groundwater and other environmental issues. I never drive off trails.

And I am politically conservative. Don't give me this "liberals are the only ones who care about the environment" baloney! That is an incredible prejudice.

George Bush has done more to promote clean energy than Clinton ever did by putting money into wind & solar R&D and clean coal technology.

dear: two types | 3:04 p.m. | 3:12 p.m. March 21, 2008

it's good to see you tree huggers know your place in the world. now please try not to whine too much.

Professor I. Jenkins | 7:09 a.m. Dec. 4, 2008

Isn't asking if old pollution (or any other kind) contributed to "global warming" the very definition of a loaded question? You know what I mean.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.