Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Extreme weather

Comments

Return To Article
  • Svenn Morgan, UT
    July 10, 2014 9:18 p.m.

    @StalwartSentinal

    That's all you got?

    You said:

    "What you have proven is NOAA noticed a slight inaccuracy and took the steps necessary to correct it on their own – which is the exact opposite of lying."

    This "slight inaccuracy" just happened to make it appear as if July 2012 was the warmest July of all-time, indicating a steady rise in warming since 1895. How convenient! You really want us to believe that this "worthwhile institution" botched two sets of temperatures? Doesn't NOAA peer review their data before it goes into a major report? NOAA never reported this gross error; they quietly added the correct temperatures back into their data.

    Normally you Warmers go apoplectic when your "scientists" indicate the potential of the earth to warm a fraction of a degree, but in the case of NOAA's bogus temperatures, "Hey, it really isn't that big of a deal..." Um, yeah.

    Facts:

    *We haven't warmed in 17 years (Confirmed by IPCC)

    *The Arctic Ice Sheet grew by 60%

    *NO increase in catastrophic storms/hurricanes

    *Like NOAA, the researchers at the University of East Anglia were also found to be cooking their data in order to supposedly show AGW.

    AGW = Pseudoscience & Lies

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    July 10, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    I think I've discovered the source of warming - it's all the hot air here in the comments.

    Anecdotal evidence isn't science. Science requires empirical data to match the theory. None of the empirical temperature data matches the computer models, not even the frequently-adjusted GISS data set (although if you subtract the raw temperatures from the adjusted temperatures, the resulting curve looks a lot like the warming in the computer models). It doesn't matter if 110% of scientists agree with the theory - I guess that must be possible given some of the weird statistics being used around here.

    There simply is not any statistically significant correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. That's the bottom line.

  • StalwartSentinel San Jose, CA
    July 10, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    Redshirt – Factually incorrect, no one said it is “impossible to have 15 years” without warming – especially NOAA. You should read the entire report to understand what is “needed to create a discrepancy” with “expected… warming trends.” I will reiterate, yet again, you are looking exclusively at recorded air temperatures in the US, which is the wrong form of measurement since more than 90% of heat is absorbed in the oceans. It’s as if you’ve stuck your head in the garage and claim to know the thermostat inside the house – your incorrect analysis considers less than 10% of the required information.

    No, you did not hold your sources to a 95% CI interval. Don’t you recall pushing multiple “opinion” articles from non-scientists as the “most recent scientific advancements”? You are aware we can read your previous posts, correct? Your “misdiagnosis” article was not a 95% CI either.

    Sounds like you've finally found the 99.99% (not 99.9% – you even fail basic math) of scientific journals that support my position – what more do you need?

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    July 10, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    To "StalwartSentinel" then tell us, which models are right since they all predict that it is impossible to have 15 years or more without any warming.

    I did hold my sources to the same standard. The article "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance" challenges the assumption that the models are correct (CI of 95%), and they prove that the models do not have a CI of 95%. The NOAA statement also makes the same assumption that the models are 95% accurate, and that 15 years with no warming means the models are wrong.

    So, now it is your turn. Show us the model that has met the 95% CI (typical CI for scientific articles to meet for publication). I have yet to see a study linking CO2 to climate change actually meet that criteria.

    Also, it is only 99.9% of IPCC referenced articles claim that man causes climate change.

    Now, where are your sources. I am waiting for you to meet the same criteria that you set for me. Unless you are a hypocrite, I am sure you can easily provide some sort of proof.

  • StalwartSentinel San Jose, CA
    July 10, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    Redshirt – 99.99% of peer-reviewed scientific journals provide you with proof but first - please explicitly admit to me that you have searched yourself and cannot find anything on your own. Speaking frankly, I know you have the ability to get this information so, let’s test your integrity - again, please explicitly state that you cannot find this information using your own faculties and I’ll happily provide you with more proof than you will ever truly read. Also, nice addition on the 95% CI "requirement"; funny how you didn’t hold your own sources to that standard.

    No, NOAA did not say the models would be wrong - their most recent reports say the exact opposite, please stop misrepresenting things. NOAA actually noted there would be potential for discrepancy based on expected warming rates. It is intellectually dishonest to extrapolate that to “all models are wrong”. And again, you are using the incorrect form of measurement (US surface air temp) – please correct your mistake.

    Yeah, all climatologists are junk scientists, federal guvmint, new world order, blah blah blah. We’ve heard it before so spare us.

  • StalwartSentinel San Jose, CA
    July 10, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Svenn – You have not proven the NOAA lied. What you have proven is NOAA noticed a slight inaccuracy and took the steps necessary to correct it on their own – which is the exact opposite of lying. Much like any worthwhile institution, they found a possible miscalculation and, of their own accord, corrected it. But you’re right, I’m not bothered; I’m relieved that scientists are constantly perfecting their craft.

    However, let’s have some fun and assume the evil masterminds at NOAA are plotting to take over the planet by federal fiat and they’ve hatched this sinister fraud by slightly altering the surface air temperature for 1% of the globe so as to denote 2012 as the hottest July on record rather than 1936. Now what? How do a few tenths of a degree from surface area temperate (less than 10% of earth’s energy absorption) from one month out of twelve from 1% of the earth’s surface area over the span of 100 years make any difference? This question is not rhetorical, please answer.

  • CMO Beaver Beaver, UT
    July 10, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    roland K... insurance rates are up because there is so much more properties in harms way... heck nobody lived beachfront until well after WW II... swamps and empty beaches did not warrant much insurance coverage. add inflation for construction to the mix and voila.. high rates

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    July 9, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    To "airnaut" but by saying that it is getting colder, that it climate change. So again, where are these people that say that the climate is not changing? Mountainman has been clear that the climate is changing.

    You don't like it that he says it is getting colder and not warmer, but that is a different issue.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 9, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    @RBB -- It is interesting that you think that the vast majority, no really pretty much all, scientists are so lacking in integrity that they would make up false data just for some research grants. I could see one or two percent (interestingly about the percentage of scientists who claim there is no man made climate change) who might be so morally deficient, but nearly all of them? Does that sound realistic? And why are these governmental entities giving them grant money to lie? What's in it for them? It's mind boggling the lengths the Tea Party faithful will go to to convince themselves that their world view (as told to them by the learned scientist Rush Limbaugh) is true. Now if you want to get into the question of whether or not proposed policies are worth it (will make a difference), then that's a legitimate realm of discussion.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 9, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    Yes,
    We ALL know, only God can control the elements.

    Thus proving Fracking can not possibly be causing Man-made EarthQuakes "in diverse places" either...

    BTW -- God only said they WOULD happen,
    he never said He'd be the one responseible for all our Woes and Misery...

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    July 9, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech
    Pasedena, CA
    To "Wonder" name the Tea Party person that says there is no climate change.

    ---

    OK,
    Here's 1.
    Mountanman comes on here DAILY saying the Earth is actually getting COLDER.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    July 9, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    To "Wonder" name the Tea Party person that says there is no climate change. I have never heard of one Tea Party person or scientist say that the climate does not change.

    Why do liberals have such a limited understanding of science that they will support or promote junk science? Why do they think they can play God with a system they don't even understand? Why is it that liberals think that the solution to any problem is to throw government money at it? (Cap and Trade)

    Why is it that liberals claim to be open minded and open to all ideas from all sources, at the same time they refuse to even consider any ideas that contradict their liberal view?

    Why do liberals have such a poor view of humanity?

    Honestly, I don't see how liberals can cope without massive doses of anti-depressants.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 9, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    Why has it become an article of faith for the Tea Party conservatives that there is no climate change? Is it because they think that God will not allow anything bad to happen? (If so, why do bad things happen all the time?) Is it because they like to make big messes and not clean them up? (Possible) Is it because they think that if they don't worry about something it won't happen? (Possible, but of course, this is magical thinking.) Is it because they think there is a huge conspiracy among hundreds of scientists to trick them? (Why? Why would all these scientists be trying to trick these poor conservatives?) I honestly can't see why conservatives have no problem relying on the latest medication to cure their high blood pressure, but think scientists are out to get them when it comes to climate issues. Weird.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    July 9, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    To "StalwartSentinel" then present some proof. Give us a verifiable study, article, research paper, or something that meets the 95% Confidence Interval standard for determining that something is accurate.

    You complain about the sources, yet have no proof. You did not address the fact that the NOAA staid that if there was 15 years or more without warming that the models would be proven wrong. We are now approaching year 17 with no warming. How do your sources explain that? Everything I have read shows that they ignore the fact that their models are wrong, and that they keep pushing results based on faulty models.

    Would you fly on an airplane after the FAA said that the engineering analysis was wrong and that there was a consensus that it was probably ok?

    You do realize that the pseudo-scientists that you may have looked at have been completely discredited, and that you are just following junk science. I sincerely wish that you would put 1/10 the effort into understanding science, than you do looking for ways to attack scientists.

    FYI, Wolfgang Wagner resigned because the paper disproved man-made climate change and he was protesting that fact.

  • StalwartSentinel San Jose, CA
    July 9, 2014 6:01 a.m.

    Redshirt – Face palm. My “ilk” and I have already addressed your ignorance surrounding NOAA. To pick up where we left off, more than 90% of the earth’s heat is absorbed by the oceans so when you assess only land surface area temperatures you are actually using the wrong form of measurement – very amateur of you to repeat the same mistake. Even the NOAA article references El Nino right before making the statement you clipped. Perhaps you should read the entire article and supporting literature to avoid such egregious errors in the future.

    Re: UAH report – You do realize that article, published in 2011, has been widely disproven even to the point that it was so scientifically inaccurate that the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing stepped down for having published something that was ultimately shown to lack any credible evidence whatsoever. In fact, articles previous to it had already addressed the issues they claimed to have – the authors never mentioned the scientific community’s rebuttals.

    I sincerely wish you’d put 1/10th the effort into understanding the science that you put into ignoring and deflecting it.

  • Svenn Morgan, UT
    July 8, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    @Stalwart Sentinel

    You’ve not addressed/answered one question put forth by those of us who are skeptical of AGW. All you’ve done is attack the sources used, but never once addressed the actual, legitimate issues brought forth.

    I presented you with hard numbers and facts directly from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, proving that they lied about July 2012 being the warmest month on record, by concocting bogus temperatures. In response to this, all you had to offer was:

    “The contiguous US makes up about 1-2% of the earth ’s surface area. A single, solitary data point, among thousands, that changes by a few tenths of a degree from 1% of the planet is not indicative of a worldwide cover up to fleece the human race.”

    What I found most telling about your response, was that you didn’t even seemed bothered that NOAA outright lied to get their desired results. You’ve made the point better than I could, that this is a political issue, not a scientific one.

    And NO, NOAA never came out with a formal announcement/retraction indicating that July 1936 is still the warmest month on record. They simply slipped it back into their charts.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    It is very foolish to ignore what we are doing to our planet and that is what most republicans do! They feel it is fine to do whatever it takes to use up as much of our natural resources as we can and to allow big industry to do whatever they want to gain a buck! Take a look at the worlds glaciers! They are melting like they never have in millions of years! Don't tell me that is a natural cycle. It is worse than being foolish to not see what we are doing and even if you don't believe in global warming, surely you have brains enough to see the damage we are doing. Sure, over a long period of time, the Earth will recuperate, but we will have perished long before then!

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    July 8, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" ok, how about the NOAA. They stated in 2008 "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate." Since we are now nearly at 17 years with no significant warming, that means that the models are wrong.

    If the models are wrong, how can the conclusions drawn from them be right? Do you care to answer that one? None of your ilk seems to be able to answer that.

    Even UAH scientists agree that the models are wrong. See "On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance" in the Journal Remote Sensing. They state that "It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

    So, we have a model that the NOAA says is wrong, combined with peer reviewed journal articles stating that we still don't understand how the earth releases heat into space.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 8, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    Svenn – Please see my first post. The contiguous US makes up about 1-2% of the earth’s surface area. A single, solitary data point, among thousands, that changes by a few tenths of a degree from 1% of the planet is not indicative of a worldwide cover up to fleece the human race. I’m sorry to spoil your tin hat convention. And yes, NOAA did mention it – on their website - which is how people found out about the edit in the first place.

    Redshirt – This is becoming an exercise in reductio ad absurdum - please show some intellectual integrity. Opinion articles from non-scientists in non-scientific daily news outlets are not the “most recent scientific advancements” - they merit no response. It should serve as a wake up call to you that you are reduced to scavenging for such illegitimate sources in order to prop up your position. It's rather alarming the lengths you conservatives will go to in the form of cognitive dissonance in order to keep your worldview in tact.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    July 8, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    A couple of days ago I listed to part of a talk by one of the top climate experts in the country. He believes global warming is happening (so he cannot be attacked as "a denier"), but he is opposed to all of the extreme plans being put forward by environmentalists. According to him, we could spend trillions to cut our CO2 emissions and it would only result in a decrease of 0.5 degrees over 100 years.

    All one has to do is look at Al Gore to understand what is really driving this. He has made over $100 million on green energy companies. Scientists who hop on board with the global warming alarmists get research money to create warming models (which have been showed to be remarkably inaccurate) and to develop carbon sequestration technologies. Meanwhile, the American people get fleeced.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 8, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" so what you are saying is that you have NOTHING contrary to the information gathered in those articles that I presented to you.

    Why do you deny the most recent scientific advancements and insist on your flat earth idea that climate change is manmade? Why the anti-science sentiments?

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    I believe in climate change - because the climate has never done anything else but change; so I cannot be a climate change denier.

    However, I don't buy into climate hysteria from people who clearly lie in order to maintain the drama merely so thy can pretend to be morally superior when in fact they have no clue.

    Both the Antarctic and arctic ice sheets are growing.
    Global temperatures have not changed during the entire time Al Gore has been preaching about a hockey stick disaster
    The claim that 97% of scientists believe in global warming has been repeatedly debunked as a political farce.
    Utah's dirty air is caused by peoples messing in their climate, not climate change. It consists of carbon monoxide and particulates dumped into a naturally foggy climate (if the climate warmed perhaps the inversion would go away) Carbon dioxide is not Utah's winter problem and is nothing more than plant food and its concentration was hundreds of times higher during the last ice age

    I proudly deny the need to buy into phony hysteria that does not clean the air or water, and in many cases is counter productive

  • Svenn Morgan, UT
    July 7, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    @Stalwart Sentinel:

    Let's see if you or any other Warmer will address this specific issue with NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC):

    The NCDC’s National Overview – 2012 said:

    “The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.”

    Small problem; when you go to the NCDC’s “Climate at a Glance” and check the Average Temperatures for July, 1895-2014 for the contiguous U.S., the average temperatures for July 1936 and July 2012 have mysteriously changed! The NCDC notes these temperatures as follows: the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July 1936 as “76.80°F”, and the average temperature during July 2012 as “76.77°F.”

    See any problems here?

    Strange, but I don’t remember NOAA mentioning this little error…do you? Hmmm, wonder if it had anything to do with their desire to show a trend that wasn’t there?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 7, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    Redshirt - So, you presented "opinion" articles from non-scientific news outlets as your "evidence" that human-caused climate change is not occurring. I point out that there are thousands of peer-reviewed articles that you can access in order to more accurately and honestly inform yourself with respect to the subject matter. And your rebuttal is to cite yet another opinion article from an avowed conservative Forbes economist (read: not scientist). You do realize not all articles and writings are created equal, correct?

    I'm sorry but if you conservatives are now reduced to opinion articles emanating from your own right-leaning news outlets as your best-foot-forward for this topic then let's just get real and admit you have no leg to stand on. That way, we can collectively begin to address the issue rather than sit around and pretend your side retains any semblance of legitimacy. I promise, we won't rub it in how woefully wrong you all were and how you ignored an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in order to retain the ever-present conservative cognitive dissonance if, in turn, you roll up your sleeves and help us work towards a solution. Deal?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    Meanwhile at Lake Mead:

    "The last time Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the United States, reached maximum capacity was 1983. This week the lake, located along the Colorado River near Las Vegas, Nevada, is expected to reach a new milestone — its lowest point ever."

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    Last month was the warmest May for the Earth on record, according to a climate report released Monday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    July 7, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    In Oklahoma they said there were more tornadoes. Fact the rate is lower. There was supposed to be a drought and rain was greater, etc. etc.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    Well here we go again climate change deniers:

    "Typhoon Neoguri reached sustained winds of over 150 miles per hour Sunday, making it a ‘super typhoon,’ as it continued to gain force and approach Japan’s southern and western islands. It is likely to cause heavy rains and strong winds across much of Japan, and threaten at least two nuclear power plants in its path."

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 7, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal:

    You didn't refute anything, all you did is attack Forbes and the Koch brothers. Care to try again...this time refuting the original assertion...?

    Tell you what, since Frozen Fractals hit his four comment limit after his last post, why don't you be a friend and answer the question I posed to him as to why NOAA was putting forth bogus temperatures back in July 2012. See my comment posted to him at 2:35 PM (Three comments up from your last comment).

    Since the "settled science" is on your side, and we're nothing but a bunch of deniers, it should be easy for you to provide an answer for the contradiction in temperatures reported by NOAA. Maybe while you're at it, you could also explain why it was necessary for the "scientists" at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain to cook their data in an attempt to show warming when there was none.

    Oh, BTW, Al Gore isn't a scientist either, but you Liberals drink deeply of that Carbon Credit Fraud's Kool-Aid.

    Looking forward to you clearing up NOAA's little temperature problem. ;-)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 7, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    Myth – BUSTED!
    a 2 minute web-search…

    This entire letter is based on ONE article, by a paid for mis-information specialist:

    “Don't Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent”
    By James Taylor
    Forbes Sept. 05, 2012

    Consider the soruce:
    Heartland Institute and James Taylor

    Heartland received $20,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2011 and another $200,000 in 2012. Charles Koch and David Koch, have donated millions to groups that spread climate misinformation.

    Despite their industry ties and lack of scientific expertise, Heartland Institute fellows are often given a media platform to promote their views on climate change. Most visible is James Taylor, a LAWYER with NO climate science background who heads Heartland's environmental initiative. Taylor dismisses "alarmist propaganda that global warming is a human-caused problem that needs to be addressed."

    But that hasn't stopped Forbes from publishing his weekly column, which he uses to spout climate misinformation and accuse scientists of "doctoring" temperature data to fabricate a warming trend. It also hasn't stopped Fox News from promoting his misinformation.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 7, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    To "ECR" see the article on Lysenkoism, that will explain most everything about why government is pushing the junk science behind Climate Change, or whatever they call it this week.

    To "silo" you didn't read the articles very well either. Look at the NSICD web site, even they say that the artic is increasing in ice volume, since 2011. You should use more up to data when making your statements. Plus, look at the starting year, 1979, a year with excessive ice.

    To "1BigP" have you seen what the concentration is of CO2 in the atmosphere is? For it to reach toxic levels you would kill everything on the planet. If you look at it from a warming level, the CO2 in the atmosphere would have to be nearly double what it currently is before it CO2 could actually begin to warm the earth. The problem is that the models, that the NOAA has declared to be wrong, assume that CO2 causes a forcing effect. This has yet to be proven. NASA has figured out that a warming earth with the additional CO2 will result in higher food production and the capability of sustaining hundreds of millions more people.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    @redshirt

    "You obviously didn't read the articles"

    You are mistaken, and you obviously didn't research sea ice extent.

    The articles you cited on sea ice specifically focus on 'sea ice extent'. Sea Ice extent measuring is vastly different from Sea Ice Volume, and from Sea Ice Area.

    Sea Ice Volume estimates total volume of the ice at the poles (area X depth). This trend is declining globally, meaning ice is melting.

    Sea Ice Area estimates the total area of contiguous, uninterrupted ice (no gaps). This trend is also declining globally, meaning ice is melting.

    Sea Ice Extent is the total area in a region that has some ice coverage (gaps + ice). This extent changes due to winds, coriolis effect and ice area/volume. It is also is impacted by thin ice breaking off and drifting apart, all of which can be attributed to increased ice melting. Regardless, the historical trend of sea ice extent is declining, and the recent uptick in the 2012 measures is still below the historical trend.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 7, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals:

    Maybe you can set us strait here concerning conflicting data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). You folks love to cite NOAA…right?

    The NCDC’s National Overview – 2012 said:

    “The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.”

    However, when you go to the NCDC’s “Climate at a Glance” and check the Average Temperatures for July, 1895-2014 for the contiguous U.S., the average temperatures for July 1936 and July 2012 have mysteriously changed! In this area, the NCDC notes these temperatures as follows: the average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July 1936 as “76.80°F”, and the average temperature during July 2012 as “76.77°F.”

    Care to tell us why NOAA quietly changed their data and never said anything?

    ((Crickets))

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    @Sven
    "* We were then warned by other climate scientists, that the Arctic could be ice free by 2015 (Shhh, don’t tell anybody, but it actually grew by 60%!)."

    The IPCC 4th assessment was projecting the latter half of the 21st century. That was consensus. The 2012 or 2015 stuff comes from extrapolating 06->07 or 11->12, like what you did with 12->13, rather than using the overall 30-yr trends.

    @Redshirt1701
    "It either shows that the assumptions made by climatologists about the uniformity of warming to be wrong, or else shows that the Earth is cooling instead of warming."

    Flat global temperatures for a decade mean you'd find mixed trends across the globe, some up, some down. The US has warmed over the past century.

    "1million square kilometers more ice this year than last year or about 1.5 million square kilometer more ice than the 30 year average."

    Sea ice has two primary influences, temperature (predominant in the Arctic, warmer -> melts more) and wind stress (predominant in the Antarctic, stronger -> spreads out more). Antarctic ice increase is not inconsistent with global warming.

    (4th comment)

  • 1BigP Cedar City, UT
    July 7, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    It amazes me that we test foods, drugs and all manner of substances that may or may not harm the body...but we ignorantly put millions of ton of CO2 into the atmosphere thinking that it doesn't do anything and has no consequences...and I'm a conservative...how can people look upon this without any concern...

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 7, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    ECR,
    Sorry for calling that assertion "bunk". It's just that the claim that we are seeing more sever climate change now than the earth has ever experienced... is so obviously not true that I couldn't help it.

    I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think there are some "globalists" who would LOVE for us to turn governance over to them (because we don't trust our own elected governments). And I think there are people who have positioned themselves to benefit economically from it. But they are not the main drivers.

    The main drivers are the people who get caught up in the mass hysteria surrounding it.

    I did an experiment with this when I was young. My friend had a creepy basement we were all afraid of. One day we were looking in the basement window and getting freaked out. So I said, "WHATS THAT... in the corner"... and they all swore they saw something in the corner and ran away screaming... and swore for weeks they saw a creepy shadow in the corner.

    I think people are just freaking out and every data-point is a creepy shadow in the corner now.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 7, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    To "silo" trying to detract from the information presented in the articles, only shows your denial of NATURAL Climate Change.

    You obviously didn't read the articles, since what you say is in contradiction of what NASA is saying about their own data now. Had you gone to the article, and verified what was being stated, you would have seen that the National Snow And Ice Data Center has a nice graph showing that there are about 1million square kilometers more ice this year than last year or about 1.5 million square kilometer more ice than the 30 year average.

    You would have also read where the Alarmist scientists can't explain the increase in ice.

    To "Stalwart Sentinel" there are also thousands of peer reviewed journal articles saying eggs are both good and bad for us. Just because it is peer reviewed does not mean that it is accurate or even true. Read "The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" in Forbes. That articles goes over a historical incident where scientists wrote peer reviewed studies based on false scientific principles.

    What legitimate scientific community? Even the NOAA says the models are junk.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 7, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    2 bits “Are you seriously saying that the climate change during man's brief history on earth has been more severe than the climate changes that happened when man was NOT on the earth?? That's just complete bunk!”

    Can’t we have a civil conversation without you calling my position “bunk?” I’m saying that the graphs from NASA show that there has been a spike in CO2 in the atmosphere that has NEVER been experienced before – not in 650,000 years.

    Redshirt -Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany and his colleagues published a paper in 2008 that suggested ocean circulation patterns might cause aperiod of cooling in parts of the northern hemisphere, even though the long-term pattern of warming remained in effect .

    If there were a massive conspiracy to defraud the world on climate (and to what end?), surely the thousands of e-mails and other files stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and distributed by hackers on November of 2009 would bear proof of it. So far, however, none has emerged.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    @2 bits

    "But you can't factually say that we are experiencing changes the planet has never before encountered..."

    Absolutely not true.

    CO2 can be identified as human-caused or natural-caused, based on isotopic composition. By studying those ratios of natural and human caused, it can be determined that humans are in fact disrupting the process and putting CO2 into the atmosphere that would not have otherwise made it there.

    Yes there have been changes in CO2 levels throughout the history of the earth, but those changes have taken place over tens of thousands, or even millions of years. The changes that scientists are noting currently have taken place over the course of only hundreds of years.

    You can factually say that we are experiencing CO2 production through deforestation and fossil fuel consumption that the planet has never before encountered.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    @redshirt

    Citing James Taylor(forbes reference), a senior fellow from the Heartland Institute as your reference does not help your position in the least. The same Heartland Institute that claimed smoking wasn't harmful, and in fact was good for you.

    Neither does blindly citing an article from the Daily Mail, where the entire article misrepresents data on sea ice extent as sea ice volume and/or sea ice area. They are totally different elements, and an increase in sea ice extent actually supports global warming predictions. Feel free to research sea ice extent, and what it means.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 7, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    Redshirt - So, there are literally thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles demonstrating the existence of anthropogenic climate change and your rebuttal... opinion pieces from Forbes and the NY Post.

    Thank you for reminding everyone how incredibly one-sided this subject is, particularly when considering the legitimate scientific community.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 7, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    @ECR,

    Re: "Evidence shows that climate change is impacting our planet in ways never before encountered or recorded"...

    Are you seriously saying that the climate change during man's brief history on earth has been more severe than the climate changes that happened when man was NOT on the earth?? That's just complete bunk!

    Geological history proves that Utah was once completely under water (it's not anymore is it). It was covered by glaciers for a LONG time (not now). It was also a rain-forest type ecosystem for eons before dinosaurs became extinct. That's a pretty big climaate change... isn't it?

    So... in reality... the earth HAS factually encountered bigger climate changes than it has since the industrial revolution. The "changes our planet has never encountered" stuff is just hyperventilating.

    You can say it's happening faster now, or man caused it THIS time. But you can't factually say that we are experiencing changes the planet has never before encountered...

    That's just plain not true.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 7, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    To "ECR" according to the latest look at the scientific data, the scientists are starting to say that the earth is cooling.

    See "Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year" in the UK Daily mail. They report that for the past few years we have had MORE ice at the poles than we have had since measurements started in 1979.

    Also see "Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling" in Forbes. That article does one of 2 things. It either shows that the assumptions made by climatologists about the uniformity of warming to be wrong, or else shows that the Earth is cooling instead of warming.

    One final good read is "Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating" in the NY Post. There we see a collection of data and information showing how the only the only people in denial are the people who claim man is responsible for climate change.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 7, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    2 bits - "But man's existence on earth has been but a blink-of-an-eye in geological-time. A LOT of climate change happened BEFORE man even existed... how are you going to blame THAT on man???"

    But that's exactly my point. A lot of climate change DID happen before man was on the earth but it has been happening at an accelerated rate since man has been on the earth and more specifically, since the beginning of the 20th century. If I had more space to show you the information in the NASA article (which the DN won't give me) or if I could add a link (which the DN won't allow me) I could show you that, as I stated previously, the earth has experienced major ice ages over the past 650,000 years (apparently that's how far back they can measure) but in the last 100 years, the changes are astronomically more severe. Something is causing the change and fossil fuels seem to be the culprit.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    You Warmers really are hard to follow with your “settled science” and the ever changing predictions of global disaster.

    * Back in 2007, NASA climate scientist, Jay Zwally was warning that the Arctic Ocean could be ice free by 2012:

    "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." (National Geographic, December 12, 2007).

    * We were then warned by other climate scientists, that the Arctic could be ice free by 2015 (Shhh, don’t tell anybody, but it actually grew by 60%!).

    * Now the IPCC is saying that the Arctic could be ice free by 2050. (It finally occurred to you warmers to put your prediction out far enough in the future, where it couldn’t be verified, and you couldn’t be ridiculed.)

    *Let’s not forgot the IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report which indicated that we haven’t warmed in 17 years.

    You warmers keep getting the “settled science” wrong, and yet you call us “deniers.” :-D

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    @jsf
    "1936 was the warmest record for the 48 states, 2012 was the second warmest per records."

    2012 was the warmest year on record for the 48 states. 1936 was 4th (behind 2012, 1998, 2007). You might be thinking of the warmest month on record for the lower 48, where July 1936 narrowly edges July 2012. I would note that 1936 is not in the top 30 warmest years globally in the modern record.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    Just ignore the static.

    Let's move forward. These types of letters have been refutted ad nauseam. Let's move on. If the globe is flat promoters want to deny global warming still, let them. The rest of us must move forward.

    Life isn't living in the past and in ignorance. Life is about moving forward and progressing.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @ECR,

    Re: "Evidence shows that climate change is impacting our planet in ways never before encountered or recorded"...

    But man's existence on earth has been but a blink-of-an-eye in geological-time. A LOT of climate change happened BEFORE man even existed... how are you going to blame THAT on man???

    Geological history proves that even more severe climate change happened before man even existed on this planet.

    ========

    Some questions...

    Just because man wasn't around to record it... does that mean it didn't happen?

    And just because man didn't cause it... does that automatically mean it's not important?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    In other words, if it's not happening in your back yard this afternoon, it's not happening at all. And we don't have to do anything about it. It would be a shame to clean the place up for nothing, eh? Now that's lazy!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    You don't have to believe that global warming will lead to higher rates of extreme weather events. But let me tell you one group that does: Insurance companies. Their very survival depends on being able to predict the amount of losses they will incur to do extreme weather events. They seem to be quite certain that these events have been increasing and will continue to increase.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    In the last 15000 years the sea level has risen 400 feet. That is about 1/3 inch per year.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @Kent C. DeForrest

    There's only one problem for the Global Warming Alarmists (aka "reality deniers"); their gurus at the IPCC (whom we're told are the "experts") have confirmed in their Report from this past Spring, that we haven't warmed in 17 years. Oops! Like always, they were screaming several years back that we would indeed see an increase in catastrophic storms and hurricanes, confirming that AGW was the cause. Oops!

    These "reality deniers" and their "scientists" never, ever get it right. When the weather isn't warming the way they said it would, they simply change Global Warming to "Climate Change." They have a proven track record of getting it wrong, misrepresenting the facts, and outright lying to promote this myth. And yet we're told we're the "deniers."

    Since people aren't buying this garbage science, the "reality deniers" have to make even more outlandish, cataclysmic predictions. Talk about the Liberal who cried wolf! For some people (like the totalitarian we call President) it's a means to control a population; for others, it's a religion, where the deity is "Mother Earth."

    All they have left is to call us "deniers."

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    Don't make this statement to a paleoclimatoligist. "Evidence shows that climate change is impacting our planet in ways never before encountered or recorded."

    Technically, the Earth is already in an ice age at present. If glaciers were not receding, they would be growing. If glaciers are growing we would be returning to a period of glaciation the same as about 10,000 years ago. Sea levels would drop drastically.

    According to estimates, the interglacial period the Earth is in now may persist for another 50,000 years if CO2 levels increase to 750 parts per million (ppm). (the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about 398 ppm by volume) If CO2 drops instead to 210 ppm, then the next glacial period may only be 15,000 years away. 1972 to 2014 science.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    I don't really know which side is using which data for their hurricane land falls statistics, or were they break the decades, but this is the list from the NOAA website, for land fall hurricanes in the US.

    186019
    187015
    188020
    189023
    190021
    191019
    192021
    193012
    194018
    195024
    196017
    197014
    198011
    199015
    200014
    201018

    Fro these it shows a period in the 1800 with high incident, again around 1940 and 1950. Now reasonable people make your projections based on the evidence. 1936 was the warmest record for the 48 states, 2012 was the second warmest per records. Hurricanes are not indicators of global warming or caused by global warming, If so then the global temperatures in the 1800 must have been greater than they are now.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 7, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    According to NASA, the Earth's climate has changed throughout history. In the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century.

    All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.

    The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

    Evidence shows that climate change is impacting our planet in ways never before encountered or recorded.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    @jsf
    "Was he right or wrong about the last 10 decades?"

    His numbers seem a bit off, and he's only counting category 3+ landfalls instead of "hurricanes", but the ratio is roughly correct.

    The state heat record thing is way off.

    @Mountanman
    "Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2 degrees F per century rate."

    The continental US has warmed by around 1.3F the past century. You used a cherrypicked 14 year sample size (2000-2013). And I'm not sure why people use selective small sample sizes over 1-2% of the surface of the Earth to say global warming doesn't exist and that we're in some dramatic cooling.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    July 7, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    A 49 degree day in the month of June. Have a nice day.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    Okay, I went to an online hurricane archive, and here are the figures for the North Atlantic for the past 100 years, starting in 2012 and working backward in 10-year increments:

    2003-2012 83
    1993-2002 69
    1983-1992 50
    1973-1982 53
    1963-1972 60
    1953-1962 59
    1943-1952 63
    1933-1942 49
    1923-1932 40
    1913-1922 39

    Okay, call me silly, but it looks to me like a definite uptick in the past two decades. What does this prove? Well, that depends on your politics.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 7, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    "Before we jump to conclusions, let's look at the facts."

    Sounds good, Kevin. Let's start with the "fact" that the area you've chosen to analyze (the US) constitutes roughly 1%-2% of the surface area of our planet. Therefore, your analysis is severely narrow and detrimentally myopic in it's ability to extrapolate any sort of conclusion/deduction towards the discussion of global anthropogenic climate change.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    "Over the last five decades, we have been hit by 5.6 hurricanes whereas the preceding five decades the average was 8.4 hurricanes.

    [5.6 hurricanes + 8.4 hurricanes = 14 hurricanes]"

    (5.6 average/decade x 5 decades) + (8.4 average /decade x 5 decades)=
    28 + 42 = 70

    Story problems are such a bite. Now if you are going to pick his letter apart the facts do matter. It is important to understand what is being said to make an argument against it. Was he right or wrong about the last 10 decades?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    Nice job of cherry-picking both random facts and random fantasy. Some of your numbers don't add up. Come on, DN editors, can't you do the simple math and just chuck a letter like this rather than print it? Oh, I get it--it denies climate science, therefore it has to be printed.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 7, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    Re: "Bottom line for conservatives: 'Let's continue to stink up the air--full speed ahead!'"

    It's ironic that some people who believe they're smart enough that we should pay attention to their comments still believe that carbon dioxide has a smell. Or that it can be seen in the air around the Wasatch Front. Or that it causes breathing difficulties.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 7, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Bottom line for conservatives: "Let's continue to stink up the air--full speed ahead!"

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 7, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    I think it's a safe bet that Kevin is going to be denounced as a "Denier" of the prophecies of Global Warming doom on these pages today. He should know better than to even question the people who believe.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 7, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    This letter is full of errors --
    Rather than look up and refract them,

    Let's pick it apart based on the letter alone ---

    ----

    Seventy hurricanes hit the U.S. between 1911 and 2010.

    Over the last five decades, we have been hit by 5.6 hurricanes whereas the preceding five decades the average was 8.4 hurricanes.

    [5.6 hurricanes + 8.4 hurricanes = 14 hurricanes]

    Since 2000, only one state recorded a record high.
    [You do not watch the local nightly Weather, we set and break records all the time.]

    Before we jump to conclusions, let's look at the facts.
    [WE do, it appears you do not]

    Based on data, global warming is not increasing extreme weather events.
    [OK, but you have to start with REAL data, first.]

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 7, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    The climate is changing, its getting cooler, not warmer! Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2 degrees F per century rate. It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' being mighty inconvenient. As the latest NOAA empirical dataset clearly indicates: "The hottest U.S. months took place in the 1930's when C02 was very low". We must not forget that the whole AGW scam started with the only idea and that’s to make money! Remember the Y2K bug? The CFC’s killing the Ozone? Peak-oil? As PT Barnum once said, "There is another sucker born every minute". Those who still believe in the scam probably didn't get the memo from NASA that solar activity is in a decreasing cycle and is the reason the earth is now cooling!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 7, 2014 6:35 a.m.

    It's lazy to deny climate change.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 2:53 a.m.

    There are claims made by those who aren't scientists but consider climate change to be a serious problem that are incorrect. An example: people saying that tornadoes will increase, however, the IPCC report says that there's no statistically significant link with tornadoes and climate change.

    "Over the last five decades, we have been hit by 5.6 hurricanes whereas the preceding five decades the average was 8.4 hurricanes."

    We've had 54 the past 5 decades (1964-2013), 72 between 1914-1963. Give or take 2 since I was counting from a NOAA FAQ chart on the 'complete list of continental U.S. landfalling hurricanes and I might have missed or overcounted one.

    "In the 1930s, half of the states set new record highs. Since 2000, only one state recorded a record high. "

    That is incorrect. States that set record annual temperature highs in just the year 2012: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah (and the contiguous 48 as a whole).

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2014 12:46 a.m.

    Is the writer's point that global warming is not occurring, or that such is occurring but is not causing an increase in extreme weather events? Remember, we just had the typhoon of the century in southeast Asia.

    According to the American Geophysical Union "Up to $106 billion worth of coastal homes and businesses in the U.S. are likely to be underwater by the year 2050 due to rising sea levels,.." occasioned by warming. Warming leads to increased evaporation, more water in the air and more violent storms, so the argument goes.