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.
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!
"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
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?
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
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.
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.
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"..
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
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.
‘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.
Clearly the best climatologist minds int he world are members of the utah
armchair climatologists' society.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
@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.
It has been proven. Many times in many different studies. Don't be so
@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.
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.]
@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.
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
@stuffThe 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-HuggerThere is a God, and he's not Michael Mann.@UtahBlueDevil
@UtahBlueDevilParticulates are different from CO2. CO2 is a
colorless, odorless gas which is good for plant life.
@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.
Nate - understood. It is all just part of the same soup that comes out of the
pipe. One comes with the other.
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.
Wait till everyone has three cars. Excessive man made carbon released will
affect the grand kids more thanadebt ever will.
@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).
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.
Letter: C02 bad? Prove it.’OK... Venus.
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 absorbedThe 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 diePlease follow the admissions of
the bridge builder
@AllisdairHave 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.
@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.
"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.
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.
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.
@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.
@Nate@AllisdairHave 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 mailThank 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 2012andFirst evidence of ocean acidification affecting live marine creatures
in the Southern OceanIssue date: 25 Nov 2012Keep looking and
reading widely and you will more fully understand the mess we are making of
Heavenly Father creation.
@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?
"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