I had a lot I was going to say but I ran out of time. I have to go out and burn
my trash. You see, if the AGW THEORY is true, then we should all keep our
cars running night and day to warm things up, It's cold outside!
The effect of CO2 is logarithmic. Additional CO2 has less effect than the prior
CO2. It is like adding a 6th blanket on your bed when you already have 5. At
some point its effects are so small as to be meaningless. Climate is dominated
by 60 year tide cycles and 1,000 year cycles that brought on the little ice age,
which ended in 1850. What do you think should happen when something called the
"little ice age" ends? It is like leaving your freezer door open.
The food does not suddenly become warm. The temperature in your freezer will
move slowly to a new equilibrium. That is what has been happening over the past
160 years since the end of the little ice age.
A small stream of sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere will cool the
Earth to whatever average temperature we please, at much less cost than carbon
caps. The fact is that humans can change the climate by modifying
the concentrations of trace gases in the atmosphere, studies have shown that
this would not necessarily be expensive, and if we wanted we can probably push
it in whatever direction we choose. Of course that creates a conflict of
interest between countries at different latitudes and elevations. For example,
Russia and the Federated States of Micronesia would probably have different
global temperature preferences. It's also true that we can seed
clouds and trigger earthquakes (deep injection wells) but usually don't go out
of our way to.
Matt: I hate to keep repeating myself: definition of a THEORY: "a
well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"You are just deluding yourself if you don't believe the reality that CO2
absorbs longwave infrared radiation. It's an experiment that is conducted in any
high school science classroom. There are many videos on YouTube that can be
googled.The Law of Thermodynamics refers to NET energy. All bodies
that have heat can radiate it. All bodies can receive radiated energy.So what if CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm in the past. Humans weren't here then.
The problem is that you and I live now, in this reality.
Greenhouse gas "THEORY" says the the CO2 molecule will trap the heat radiating
away from the earth and re-radiate the heat back down to the earth. Two problems
with this theory first heat cannot be trapped. Second the troposphere is cooler
the the earth so heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body. So for
the greenhouse "THEORY" to be true it would have to contravene the first two
laws of thermodynamics. Anyway the CO2 levels have been 200 times higher in the
past ( 7000 ppm ) than they are now so I fail to see a problem.
I'm a liberal and I believe in global warming because it just sounds right.
While growing up I was repeatedly told in school that we are destroying the
earth. I was never told air pollution was getting less and less every year, or
that forests are much better managed and healthier. Now I believe we are
destroying the earth because that's what I was told, so global warming must be
true, because, if it weren't, then I'd have to find another theory to support
what I've been told and told and told and told. Why would all my teachers lie
to me? You think they were all wrong. They all told me we're destroying the
earth so it must be true. There is no other option. Global warming is true and
we are destroying the earth. I believe it in my heart because I've been told
and told and told that we're destroying the earth. We're bringing armageddon.
The earth is going to fly into the moon and pool ball bounce through the
universe. We're destroying the earth I tell you. Global warming has to be
Ah, Utah, the Royal Families and dictators of the oil producing nations of the
world thank you for your wise and profound declaration that the "science" behind
climate change is a fib. We know that moving to alter the wonderful status quo
of America's oil addiction to us is not good for our nations' economic futures
and the future of terrorism. We have a wonderful symbiotic
relationship that shouldn't be threatened. If it wasn't for your military here
in the Mideast to protect our (we mean "your") oil fields, what would your
military do? Our relationship provides jobs for your military and the
corporations that make the weapons to support our (we mean "your") cause!Keep your oil addiction! We keep our oil income! We love to provide a
home for your military. Rooting out the funding for terrorism must come from a
different means -- but not from curbing oil use. And we promise never to allow
gas to go above $3 or $4 a gallon ever again!Global warming is a
fib! Even our scientists funded by our oil organizations say so!
BYU Engineer:Surely as an engineer you are aware that spectral radiance
analysis can be used to determine temperature.It isn't the minute by
minute temperature that is being measured (either by satellite, balloon or
ground-based thermometer). It is the average temp. Temps are taken at the same
times and places and then an average per day / month / year / location are
compiled into a global average mean and compared against a base period looking
for an anomaly. The trends are also statistically averaged over 5 years or
longer year periods to see through fluctuations from ENSO (El Nino Southern
Oscillation) etc. When the averaging is ignored we tend to have people running
around claiming that we are in a cooling period when we aren't. The
RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.153 C/decade.The UAH analysis finds
+0.12C/decade.Those increases may not seem like much but represent
trillions of watts of excess energy that eventually has to do something.
Anthropogenic climate change started on bad data but with generally good
intentions. It has become a scam to redistribute weatlh and power.That fact that some of the data was "tricked" has now been exposed.Many of the so called GW scientists are primarliy interested in keeping the
hog trough of grants full.
I see temperature swings of 40 degrees from day to night. I see temperature
swings of 100 degrees from summer to winter. I have a hard time finding
temperature sensors that are more accurate than +/- 1 degree (some people don't
understand significant figures). I see temperature differences from one side of
campus to the other. Temperatures are constantly changing because of solar
radiation, wind, cloud cover, humidity, and etc. None of which really reflects
heat content.I have never heard of a satellite that can read
temperatures at different altitudes, different ocean depths, underground, or
even more than a small fraction of the earth at any given time.Yet
we are told that the entire Earth has warmed by 0.1 degrees in the last twenty
years. Where did this magic number come from? It certainly couldn't have come
from current technology or known science.
climate change is real it happens every day every year every century
naturally the last three years the globe cooled to 1950 levels since the
little ice age around 1470 the globe has warmed end of ice age great for most
everything to get out of the deep freeze since the high use of carbon
since 1950 or so the globe warming has not followed that trend line and the
globe is still under the average temp of the globe look it up on the net
This is like atheist voting on a resolution on whether god exists. They have no
education in climate science and they didn't go out to challenge their beliefs.
Utah legislators do not believe in global warming just like their predecessors
thought the world was flat and you would fall off if you went too close to the
edge. Utah legislators are trying to fund a NASA mission to the
sun. Warned that they may burn up, they said that they would travel at night...
So, you have read the resolution. Was it the amended resolution that passed the
house?If so, then why are the words an insult to the citizens of the
It is not going to get hotter. It is going to get colder. On the calendar of the
Great Year in astronomy it shows that winter is coming, an ice age.It is
easy enough for a child to figure out. A child looks at a calendar and is told
that all calendars are made to predict weather. Then the child is asked if it
snowed in January of this year, what weather should you expect in January of
2011? It is the same with the calendar of the Great Year which spans
26,000 years. It is for weather. If the beginning of the Great Year marked the
starting era of an ice age that lasted 17,000 years, what weather should the
planet expect after the beginning of the new Great Year that begins as 2012
I read the resolution, HJR12, and find the words an insult to the citizens of
the state. Legislatures do not practice science, often they do not even know
what science is about. If the legistaure wants to take a political position (in
any direction), that's fine. Please leave science out of the descision. It just
makes us all look foolish. This serves only to impeed investment in Utah.
The entire UN-IPCC report is nothing more than a collection of anecdotal
evidence of data that supports the preconceived conclusion. NONE of the data
proves that manmade CO2 emissions and ONLY man-made CO2 emissions are the direct
cause of the warming trend. They dismiss Ozone, biomass burning,
sulphates, dust, aviation contrails, land use, and even SOLAR. Further, the
level of true scientific understanding on any of these alternative causes is
miniscule. Even with an oscillation in global temperature that mimics the
sunspot cycle, they dismiss it as insignificant. They ignore that the sunspot
cycle may also effect other forms of radiation given off by the Sun than
infra-red and visible light. Ask any Ham radio operator how the sunspots affect
propagation. The report reminds me of the story about the blind men and
the elephant BUT with IPCC report there is only one blind person taking one feel
of the elephant, the others were discarded as they had no "peer review'" (and
the person doing the peer review is not only blind, but biased.)
Keep in mind there are many other factors that do contribute to global warming
and cooling (climate change), as it did during the Little Ice Age [early 1300s
to about 1855], e.g., radiation fluctuations received from the sun, changes that
occur in the oceanic currents (thermohaline circulation), changes in oceanic
water temperature and their movement over their surface, changes in the amount
of water vapor suspended in the atmosphere, sulfuric emissions from major
volcanic eruptions, etc.Have those variables from these other
factors been measured and tracked along with measured increases of atmospheric
CO2, which by the way, is less than 0.05% of the total atmosphere of the earth?
Many of these other factors could very well be a much bigger player to the
current warming trend than the increase of atmospheric CO2.So far, I
have not seen (nor has anyone provided) any published scientific evidence that
directly ties the current warming trend to increased anthropogenic generated
I find it amusing that alarmists tout the fact that they can find scientists
who will testify to the validity of AGW. I can find scientists who believe in
ghosts. This is meaningless. What alarmists cannot find is proof of man made
global warming. This is why they point to a nebulous "consensus" or the 3000
page IPCC report as a whole. There is no specific evidence of man made global
warming, only inferrence. While that may make a great ghost story, it does not
hold up to scientific scrutiny. One of the largest losses we have witnessed in
this hysteria is not the glaciers or the polar ice cap, but the "scientific
method". Alarmists have abandoned the gold standard of scientific scrutiny in
favor of fools gold.
Dixie Dan "If Glenn Beck supported Global Warming, this would be a non-event in
our legislature." Are you kidding? The legislature is standing up to
scientist from the only true church on the face of the earth. That's more then
standing up to Glenn Beck. Great job legislature for standing up to
I'm glad there is a state that is standing up to fight this lie, and
that's what it is, a lie, a scam. The EPA needs to concentrate on cleaning up
real problems. Improving our environment and throwing
billions of dollars to reducing CO2 are two different things.
The chorus is growing among legitimate climate scientists who are scrambling to
save something of their reputations as more ugliness dribbles out about the
badly politicized nature of the entire global warming movement. From
Great Britain, to Canada, to the US, to Australia, New Zealand, and now Africa
and Latin America - the list of phony baloney reports on which the IPCC
developed their carbon trading and economy-destroying policies for governments
to follow continues to grow.
We can never control the weather, we can never control the climate, but if we
pretend we can control the weather and the climate, then we can control the
people. If the people will do whatever we say they should, if
they'll only use so much of what we say, if they'll only drive what we say, if
they'll only live the way we say, if they'll only eat what we say then the
weather will change, then the climate will change. So that's
the answer, control the people.
If Glenn Beck supported Global Warming, this would be a non-event in our
I was going to point out flaws in your "arguement", but then I realized that you
graduated from byu and you probably wouldn't be able to understand anyway.
BYU alum, you have been sitting around KoolAid bar instead of paying attention
to the issue with an open and deliberative mind. The "scientific debate" of any
theory will, and must, continue until the theory becomes scientific law by
empirical confirmation and repeated replication which is based on sound, honest,
apolitical data being compared to historical evidence spanning many thousands of
years. Such a macro view of scientific data is compelling if you read and
understand that the earth has entered into and recovered from myriad cycles of
warming and cooling cycles. Only the last 120 years is being used to measure
change within the context of millions of years of historical evidence that earth
has been both cooler and warmer than now. Industrialization unquestionably never
played a part in climate changes prior to the starting point of "greenhouse
gases" caused by carbon emissions eminating from human activity. Here's a proven scientific point to consider given that you have ignored the
prior comments. The single greatest source of CO2 emissions is oceanic activity,
sans any human effects.
After being swamped by "hard" data that the world was entering an ice age ('60s
& '70s)I am skeptical of all scientific data "proving" we are now about to
"burn" the planet to death.
If you really believe "...this is not a matter of scientific debate anymore",
then obviously you failed to notice the reference to another scientific paper
referenced in (Scientists@7:23p), posted above, that contradicts who you just
".. the following scientific paper titled "Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" as recorded in the Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons (2007)"The author, Art Robinson told the Seattle times
that: "he has done no direct research into global warming." May 1, 1998. The paper was attached to the Oregon Petition Project, was NOT peer
reviewed and the National Academy said "The petition project was a deliberate
attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine
support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the
science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of
BYU alum: your statement that this is "NOT a matter of scientific debate
anymore" is simply laughable. There is even debate inside NASA, where James
Hansen works. Sea level changes, ice extent, glacier growth and retreat, surface
temperature, atmospheric temperature, precipitation, low-level cloud albedo...
all these and more are under serious debate, by qualified people. Please do
yourself a favor, and realize (1) scientists have to eat, and will follow the
money just like you will; (2) politicians like to control things, and will pay
for results that give them an excuse to do that; (3) poorer countries would love
to tap the "carbon" pockets of the rich ones; (4) CO2 is simply not capable of
driving climate, at 0.04% of the atmosphere; (5) what effect CO2 has is
logarithmic, so increases have even less effect; (6) water vapor is almost 50
times as significant a warming gas... oh, there's just too much more, and these
posts are limited. I have read lots of papers, and studied. Then I signed the
Graphs that show the world's CO2 emmissions and temperature over the last
400,000 years show that once every 80,000 years or so the levels rise
dramatically. Guess when the last time we had a temperature spike was? You
guessed it... about 80,000 years ago. And the rate is the exact same as in
those previous ones. Those stupid neanderthals should have learned to cut down
on the fossil fuel burning.
Any legislator that denies global warming at this stage doesn't deserve public
office. This is NOT a matter of scientific debate anymore. Climate change is
real.Denying it for political gain? disgusting AND/OR
Al Gore is in it for the $$$. Global warming is about politics and greed. How
many theories were false in Gore's movie? A lot. Global warming is a cycle.
Fact is, the data that supports man-made global warming is flawed. Around 80%
of the temperature recording stations in the United States are in areas where
external influences are polluting the data collected from them. For example:
one station was modified with a transmitter to transmit the temperature readings
elsewhere. The transmitter was placed RIGHT NEXT TO THE THERMOMETER! What do
transmitters and other electronic devices do? Give off heat. Example #2: one
station had a microwave tower built next to it. The exhaust vents from the
tower point directly at the station. What comes out of those vents? Yep, heat.
Example 3: Another station was situation in the middle of a city, surrounded by
asphalt and brick buildings, with the exhaust from an air conditioning unit
blowing right on it. Oops. Example 4: One station was moved from one place to
another. The data from before the move and after now do not correlate, since
they were taken from two different locations.If the data is flawed,
then the "experiment" must be thrown out. If you want to prove man-made global
warming, then you have to start over again from the beginning.
There has been plenty of specific evidence to show that climate change may or
may not be caused by man. The problem is that the Legislature is using this
resolution to politicize the issue even more than the EPA. As one of the BYU
scientists testified (at last weeks committee meeting before the full House
meeting), he did not believe in man-caused climate change, but using the bad
science in the resolution as a justification to oppose climate change was not
good public policy. For instance, their claims that all science
opposing climate change was being suppressed, despite the evidence in the above
comments, and Google, that disagreeing reports do exist perfectly well.My favorite was the clause that said the IPCC could not be trusted because
they rely on other scientists' work rather than their own science. As compared
to the Utah Republicans, who did their own science? Or rather ignored all
I'm surprised the legislature didn't blame teachers for climate change.
Those who don't believe there is a God who created the earth and heaven, tend to
be the one's who have made a religion out of "global warming."BTW, why are
you so afraid of discussion and debate on this matter?
The EPA decided to clean up the pollution in eastern Kentucky and Tennessee.
They determined that by far the greatest contributor to atmospheric haze was a
species of pine tree and they would have to cut down the majority of forests in
the area to have any significant effect.There is a reason they call
them the Great Smoky Mountains!
To Clueless at 5:13,My great grandfather's journal recounts that it
was common practice any time of year to bring an extra shirt when traveling from
Orem to Salt Lake. Not because of road dust, but because by the time you arrived
after this day long trip your shoulders would be quite black from the coal and
wood soot that fell on all travelers in the Salt Lake Valley. It was not so bad
in Utah Valley.I am sure when they did have inversions and no one
had any other alternative for heating that winter inversions could be quite
deadly.What you need to recognize is that man does not cause
inversions, he just makes them visible.
The London Times (Feb 8th) recently published the following report:"The UN's 2007 Report on Global Warming is under fire again… Chris
Field, new lead author of IPCC's climate impact team, says he can find "no
evidence" to support a claim in the report that rain-fed North African crop
yields could be reduced by as much as 50% by 2020 because of Global
warming…"[This] revelation follows IPCC's retraction of a
claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, and other inaccurate claims
about Amazon deforestation."With these kinds of "revelations" by the
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), I would think that one should
take pause about how much other data may be flawed before continuing to advocate
that global warming is directly attributable to emissions generated by
Since when has the human race caused high pressure over the Great Basin.
Temperature Inversions have been in Utah long before all those bad guys came to
Utah is the cause for climate change and global warming!!!
As a retired Professor from one of Utah's major universities, I can assure you
that not all of us buy the "Climate Change Theory" ( formerly Global Warming
).I have studied this for over 40 years and do not find that the science
is in any way settled and those that say it is are not being honest.I
agree that the resolution will not make much differnce in the debate, but I
believe that an opposing view to what is proposed by the radical agenda in
Washington needs to be made.
ScientistsRe: L Romney | 5:19 p.m.Not all scientists are
on the "same page" when it come to claiming that the current warming trend is
directly tied to anthropogenic generated emissions. For example, you may want
to take some time to read (in its entirety) the following scientific paper
titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" as
recorded in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007), 12, p79-90.
In the paper's conclusion, it states the following (summarized):"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in
human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global
temperatures, weather, or landscape… The Earth has been much warmer
during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects."The
Legislators' may have this one 'right.'
So if the cold weather across this country keeps going, that’s evidence of
climate change. And if it doesn’t, that’s evidence of man-made
warming. It’s a win-win for the warming fear mongers.
when you see the reasoning for assuming man is to blame, you see exactly the
same kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose reasoning. Last year
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) exposed how the EPA had suppressed a
scientific study that concludes natural forces as opposed to human activity are
largely responsible for temperature changes. Those who've
been spreading global-warming fears must be waking up each morning and asking
themselves: What's going to happen today? A new revelation about the corruption
of climate science has become almost a daily event.
We have significant atmospheric inversion problems in Utah which need to be
addressed. However, CO2 is not a significant global climate problem. A good
Canadian web site that has many peer reviewed papers on this subject is
www.friendsofscience.org. The distortion of good climate science has been going
on for about three decades.
"Guy With A Brain": You should really get your info from somewhere besides Faux
News. That's not what the scientists were saying. The ultra right purposefully
took things out of context. Read all the conversations in full, they say
something completely different than what you're claiming.
And Republican legislators think the Sun revolves around Utah too.
It is correct that the Earth has gone through many cycles of hot and cold. The
difference this time is THE RATE OF CHANGE that is being documented. Instead of
taking thousands of years to create a significantly harmful change, we are
talking about decades.Our legislature may not be able to understand
the science, but to disregard the scientists from Utah's major universities
(BYU, U of U, Utah State), or to dismiss them as being part of a world
conspiracy is ridiculous. We can spend all our time talking about
past cycles or we can do something now to prevent a future full of harmful
changes for life on this Earth. If we move quickly to a green, non-polluting way
of life the worst that will happen is the creation of new green jobs to help our
economy, freedom from the tyranny of foreign oil, cleaner air to improve our
health, and many species saved from extinction.It is a waste of
taxpayers money to spend time on a resolution that has no force of law, and
isn't even likely to be read by congressmen or federal agency officials.
Did we not just go through 5 weeks of man affecting the climate here in Utah
called inversion? Do you think the pioneers had red air, don't drive days? How
can anyone living in the valley say that man doesn't cause changes in the
It's a natural occurance for chucks of ice the size of small states to
continually break away from the polar ice caps.Are people in Utah
really this unintelligent?
There is no such thing as man-made global warming.I know this.So did the scientists who were sending e-mails to one another not to
disclose what was really going on to the public.Oops....
I am looking to pack my thing and move out of this state. Utah is a case