Readers' forum: Ice Age is upon us


Return To Article
  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    June 2, 2011 9:25 a.m.

    Too funny, thanks for the humor Mr. Gilmore!!!

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    June 1, 2011 11:36 p.m.

    atl134 11:26

    If only Obama did math like you do...Our economy would be fixed. No more adding trillions to the national debt and compounding it year after year.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    June 1, 2011 7:38 p.m.

    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...

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 1, 2011 4:26 p.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 1, 2011 3:46 p.m.

    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!

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 1, 2011 2:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 1, 2011 2:34 p.m.

    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 track.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 1, 2011 2:23 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    June 1, 2011 1:34 p.m.

    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?]

    Get a legitimate education, and please stop parrotting the rantings of AM radio college drop outs.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 1, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    I'm so glad the amateur climatologists who can work Google are out in force today.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    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 long-term variable.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 1, 2011 12:28 p.m.

    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

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    Can conservatives ever discuss anything without being sarcastic, disregard science, and angry?

  • Murray Dad Murray, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:04 p.m.

    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)

  • Chris Bryant SLC, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    "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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 1, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    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

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 1, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    Sad little myopic bubble view of the world.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 1, 2011 10:53 a.m.

    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 1, 2011 10:15 a.m.

    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....

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 1, 2011 10:10 a.m.

    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....

  • Murray Dad Murray, UT
    June 1, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    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 classification.

  • chilly Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:58 a.m.

    "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 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    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 arrogance!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 1, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    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!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    " 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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:14 a.m.

    "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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 1, 2011 8:47 a.m.

    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, "one-trick pony."

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 1, 2011 8:36 a.m.

    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!

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 1, 2011 8:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Ok Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 1, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    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.

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    June 1, 2011 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 1, 2011 7:18 a.m.

    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!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 1, 2011 6:52 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 1, 2011 6:34 a.m.

    Climate and weather.

    Climate changes doesn't mean that you still won't have local weather conditions.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    June 1, 2011 6:29 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 1, 2011 12:07 a.m.

    Google the effects of warming on the jet stream before making such a comment.