Northern Utah tree rings chart droughts going back to Columbus

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    "As the rest of the study shows, unless Columbus' sailing ships produced an astronomical amount of CO2, I think it is safe to conclude that the droughts indicated by the tree rings shows there can be "extreme" conditions without any contributions by mankind. "

    Climate science doesn't claim that there aren't extreme conditions that happen without contribution by mankind. When it comes to something like drought projections in climate change for somewhere like say... Spain, it's only saying the odds of drought or severe drought are more likely than before, not that they never existed before.

    "Your call for population reduction- are you for voluntary or involuntary termination?"

    Voluntarily choosing to have fewer kids. Why do you have to jump to conspiracies about killing people?

    "Don't worry, the Left will be out in force discrediting this report."

    Why? There's nothing in this report that is contrary to the generally held climate community view on climate change and even if there was, I'm more interested in science being accurate anyway so if it did somehow fix an error I'd be glad it did.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Droughts going back to Columbus? How can this be? I thought the "settled science" of Global Warming said that the industrialized world ("Big Oil") was the culpret for all of the droughts and other weather/temperature phenomena? I thought the climate, prior to the advent the evil capitalists came around, was prestine, perfect, and without deviation?

    This points out a key problem for the bogus science of climate change; people's history begins when they were born. There is NO imperical data to indicate what the earths history for "normal" climate is.

    Don't worry, the Left will be out in force discrediting this report. This goes against the Left's template...and we can't have that.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Further evidence that fossil burning sailing ships caused "global warming" or is it "global cooling" or is it "climate change" or is it what they call now "global disturbance"? Even the experts that claim it is happening can't even figure out a term to call what they have in circumstantial and controversial evidence.

    Science is pretty straight forward once things are worked out. I was told in Elementary school that the world cannot sustain another single human being, all jungles will be wiped off of the earth, there wouldn't be a single tree, and we would have massive wars fighting for the remaining that time we have added several billion people to the world, consume more than ever, we have forest in the US that are increasing and we have had wars, but, if it's over resources we certainly haven't seen them.

    If climate change is real, then why hasn't the major spokepeople for it ie. Al Gore, Clintons, Obama, Pelosi etc give up their lavish resource consuming lifestyle?

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    Baron Scarpia,
    Your call for population reduction- are you for voluntary or involuntary termination? Should we start with illegal immigrants or maybe you would prefer the elderly?
    Physics professionals will tell you CO2 in the atmosphere does not trap heat. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas but it also acts as a cooling agent once it condenses.
    The study of tree rings in Utah cannot be extrapolated to imply anything regarding global warming except this: climate disruption is a canard as well as the global warming sham. Local climate disruptions have always been and always will be a part of weather dynamics. Using them to prove global warming only proves desperation on the part of its adherents.
    The single thing this tree ring study reaffirms is that we must prepare for dry years during or maybe even before wet years. Of course, our innovators who discover new recycling schemes will always be rewarded for their work once the technology becomes economical.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    May 14, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Interesting interpretations above regarding climate change. Here's another view: Without climate change, Utah suffers from severe drought. That, we can all agree.

    What is changing in Utah, however, is our self-produced explosive population. What we're facing is that we'll have significantly more people to serve with our limited, non-expanding water resource, with or without climate change.

    Now, basic physics tells us if you pour CO2 greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, you heat up the system, creating changes. So if the laws of physics are real, we can expect that we're simply feeding and provoking our current status-quo drought situation -- coupled with an ever exploding population.

    Climatologists say that Utah is ground zero for decreased precipitation by the end of the century, so our own children and grandchildren face (1) either a status quo of severe drought or (2) the risk of even MORE severe droughts as climate change impacts Utah.

    Neither scenario is good, so putting climate change aside, Utah needs to think about its water future. This means non-water based energy generation (e.g., wind, solar), toilet-to-tap purification technologies, and population reduction.

  • NorthOfHere Rexburg, ID
    May 14, 2014 8:22 a.m.


    Well said.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 14, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    It seems that the only prediction we can count on is that "there will be thirst".

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    May 14, 2014 4:05 a.m.

    The left wingers still don't beleive it, climate change is real maybe but not caused by
    fossil fuels. Tree ring evidence is tangible, computer animated speculation is not tangible or real scientific sutdies. Remember, science is not based on facts and its speculative tunnel vision guess work. Science is one mans opinion which is always subjective crystal ball trickery.

    Since the inception of nuclear power and green energy development with oil well fracking are the only interruption of the water supply world wide. By interruption I mean we have removed billions of gallons of water from the eco system than any other time in the history of the earth existence. Less water evaporation means less arctic ice implying global warming. We bury water faster than the ice cap can melt so coastal flooding is not realistic.

    We have dehydrated the earth of its natural water content in a scorched earth campaign. Energy creation by other than fossil fuel use is why our eco system is running out of water, we bury billions of gallons of water a year in under ground water graves that cannot be recycled after it has been processed through green energy production.

  • James E. Sandy, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:30 p.m.

    One of the most basic laws of physics is that "matter cannot be created nor destroyed". Water is one of the most basic forms of "matter". The amount of water on the earth remains constant and has been since its creation.

    The only known variations of water is where and how it is distributed over the earth (evaporation, precipitation) and in what form it is in (ice, rain snow, steam).

    When studies are done, they only reflect the amount of water that was available at the precise geographical location of the study (through weather patterns) that move the water, not an increase or decrease in the total amount of water that is on the earth. That law of physics must be kept in mind when considering issues related to floods, droughts, and other "water related issues.

    We are NOT running out of water! Maybe the amount of available water in specific geographical locations. But, the amount of water on the earth and in its atmosphere has always been and will always remain constant.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    May 13, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    Something seems to be missing. It would seem that such an invaluable study would also include data about maximum water years and standard deviation through time. It is quite unlikely that researchers would make such an omission. To make a news article that presents such a hydrology study with a focus on only drought years is a gross injustice to thorough scientific research work.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    "In the research, scientists tracked Utah's climate record back to 1429 and found that the most severe drought in that period began in 1492 -- and the five worst droughts happened during the explorer's lifetime. ..... 'Uncertainty is a hallmark of this region’s hydroclimate, and climate change will only increase that uncertainty,' the study concluded."

    Though it includes a now almost obligatory a reference to "climate change", I'm very pleased to see that the study concludes with a comment about "uncertainty", even if it is only used as a caveat about "this region's hydroclimate".

    As the rest of the study shows, unless Columbus' sailing ships produced an astronomical amount of CO2, I think it is safe to conclude that the droughts indicated by the tree rings shows there can be "extreme" conditions without any contributions by mankind. Thus, the "certainty" about the causes of "climate change" being due to too much CO2 spewed from too many SUV's or coal-burning power stations is, it seems clear, a bit presumptuous. Such presumptuousness being a hallmark of far too many pseudo-scientists regarding global climate warming/change/disruption.