Comments on: The 60-Second Climate Skeptic http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html Dispatches from a Small Business Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:08:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Danny Shahar http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6161 Danny Shahar Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:57:51 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6161 <p>I'm sure you're not reading these anymore, and I'm not sure if someone's already pointed this out, but the reason the estimated climate sensitivity is supposed to be higher in the long run is because the oceans and ice caps take a long time to adjust to new temperature conditions. In a disequilibrated warming world, the ice caps and oceans would be expected to cool the atmosphere as their temperatures slowly rose to the new equilibrium. Accordingly, assuming that the sensitivity of a 36% increase in CO2 is 0.6C is unjustified; it's likely far higher.</p> I’m sure you’re not reading these anymore, and I’m not sure if someone’s already pointed this out, but the reason the estimated climate sensitivity is supposed to be higher in the long run is because the oceans and ice caps take a long time to adjust to new temperature conditions. In a disequilibrated warming world, the ice caps and oceans would be expected to cool the atmosphere as their temperatures slowly rose to the new equilibrium. Accordingly, assuming that the sensitivity of a 36% increase in CO2 is 0.6C is unjustified; it’s likely far higher.

]]> By: Rick C http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6160 Rick C Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:53:52 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6160 <p>Im just a mechanic but I never hear about all of the carbon (an ingrediant for CO2) That we sequester. I mowed my lawn yesterday and placed the cuttings in a container. These cuttings will be hauled off and buried cutting off their access to 02 and they will not contribute to CO2. I flushed my toilet and that will be buried. All the trash and garbage that used to be burned is now buried. It may not be as much as we produce but if you don't count it how can you have a true model.<br /> I guess it really doesn't matter to me because I work out doors and died years ago from radiation poisining due to the hole in the Ozone.<br /> </p> Im just a mechanic but I never hear about all of the carbon (an ingrediant for CO2) That we sequester. I mowed my lawn yesterday and placed the cuttings in a container. These cuttings will be hauled off and buried cutting off their access to 02 and they will not contribute to CO2. I flushed my toilet and that will be buried. All the trash and garbage that used to be burned is now buried. It may not be as much as we produce but if you don’t count it how can you have a true model.
I guess it really doesn’t matter to me because I work out doors and died years ago from radiation poisining due to the hole in the Ozone.

]]> By: Andy Carman http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6159 Andy Carman Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:48:35 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6159 <p>Are the majority of glaciers retreating? Is Artic ice melting at a faster rate than all but that most negative models predicted?<br /> What are the freedoms you're afraid of losing? The freedom to drive any size vehicle wherever and whenever you want?<br /> What was the temperature of Earth and the relative depth of the ocean the last time CO2 was at 400 ppm? 500ppm?<br /> If the average Earth temperature raises 1-2 degrees, what is the average temperature increase in Canada - 5 degrees or 10 degrees or 15 degrees?</p> Are the majority of glaciers retreating? Is Artic ice melting at a faster rate than all but that most negative models predicted?
What are the freedoms you’re afraid of losing? The freedom to drive any size vehicle wherever and whenever you want?
What was the temperature of Earth and the relative depth of the ocean the last time CO2 was at 400 ppm? 500ppm?
If the average Earth temperature raises 1-2 degrees, what is the average temperature increase in Canada – 5 degrees or 10 degrees or 15 degrees?

]]> By: Andy Carman http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6158 Andy Carman Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:47:39 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6158 <p>Are the majority of glaciers retreating? Is Artic ice melting at a faster rate than all but that most negative models predicted?<br /> What are the freedoms you're afraid of losing? The freedom to drive any size vehicle wherever and whenever you want?<br /> What was the temperature of Earth and the relative depth of the ocean the last time CO2 was at 400 ppm? 500ppm?<br /> If the average Earth temperature raises 1-2 degrees, what is the average temperature increase in Canada - 5 degrees or 10 degrees or 15 degrees?</p> Are the majority of glaciers retreating? Is Artic ice melting at a faster rate than all but that most negative models predicted?
What are the freedoms you’re afraid of losing? The freedom to drive any size vehicle wherever and whenever you want?
What was the temperature of Earth and the relative depth of the ocean the last time CO2 was at 400 ppm? 500ppm?
If the average Earth temperature raises 1-2 degrees, what is the average temperature increase in Canada – 5 degrees or 10 degrees or 15 degrees?

]]> By: aaron2 http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6157 aaron2 Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:38:15 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6157 <p>Interesting stuff.A few comments.Why does the God crowd insist on making their deity so small minded?After all,isn't this the dude who created it all,the universe(s)complete with the 'billions&billions'of galaxies,stars,planets,yada yada?I'm not doubting his/her/its existence,mind you;just as we would consider ourselves higher up on a scale of development than say a virus,makes sense to believe that we aren't the pinnacle of beings in all this creation.All I'm trying to point out is the unlikelihood that us humans even are on the radar.It is a big universe.As far as the global warming thing goes,all the science (and lack thereof)gets a bit confusing.However,simple observations can be powerful.Next time you fly over an industrialized nation(like the US),make sure to look down.Chicago is a good place,but there are so many.Keep in mind that a scant few centuries ago,there was nothing here except the natural world and a very few human beings,engaging in a(by modern standards)minimalist lifestyle.Anyone who still insists that we aren't affecting the environment is either not thinking straight or has never observed what too many grazing sheep will do to a pristine pasture.This argument basically boils down to two positions:those who care what becomes of the air,water,climate,whathave you,and those who,for whatever reason,do not.Yeah,the whole GW debate does have a large element of hysteria and crises-of-the month,but until recently anyone who even mentioned 'the environment'was considered a whacko.If it takes this circus to get people to have this conversation,then bring it on.The way I see it,we all became'environmentalists'the day we stopped shitting our pants.Some people's environment is just a bit bigger than others.Thank God.</p> <p><br /> </p> Interesting stuff.A few comments.Why does the God crowd insist on making their deity so small minded?After all,isn’t this the dude who created it all,the universe(s)complete with the ‘billions&billions’of galaxies,stars,planets,yada yada?I’m not doubting his/her/its existence,mind you;just as we would consider ourselves higher up on a scale of development than say a virus,makes sense to believe that we aren’t the pinnacle of beings in all this creation.All I’m trying to point out is the unlikelihood that us humans even are on the radar.It is a big universe.As far as the global warming thing goes,all the science (and lack thereof)gets a bit confusing.However,simple observations can be powerful.Next time you fly over an industrialized nation(like the US),make sure to look down.Chicago is a good place,but there are so many.Keep in mind that a scant few centuries ago,there was nothing here except the natural world and a very few human beings,engaging in a(by modern standards)minimalist lifestyle.Anyone who still insists that we aren’t affecting the environment is either not thinking straight or has never observed what too many grazing sheep will do to a pristine pasture.This argument basically boils down to two positions:those who care what becomes of the air,water,climate,whathave you,and those who,for whatever reason,do not.Yeah,the whole GW debate does have a large element of hysteria and crises-of-the month,but until recently anyone who even mentioned ‘the environment’was considered a whacko.If it takes this circus to get people to have this conversation,then bring it on.The way I see it,we all became’environmentalists’the day we stopped shitting our pants.Some people’s environment is just a bit bigger than others.Thank God.

]]> By: Impressed http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6156 Impressed Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:05:53 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6156 <p>Wow, such convincing arguments! Perhaps you should send<br /> your article to the IPCC. Once they study your analysis<br /> we will surely see them advising governments that they got<br /> the calculation all wrong, and there<br /> is no need for worry or action. I'd say there's a fair<br /> chance that this body comprised of many of<br /> the world climate scientists (you know, the people who<br /> spend their lives studying this), just simply are<br /> not aware of your compelling arguments. When they <br /> receive them and take the time to study them they will<br /> no doubt be greatly relieved. I know I am reassured<br /> by you, I was concerned for the future of my children,<br /> but tonight I will sleep easy.</p> <p>Thanks so much, and please pass your wisdom on to the<br /> IPCC as soon as possible. Oh, and you should probably<br /> consider a paper in Nature, I'm sure that after some<br /> peer review they will put out a special issue for you.<br /> </p> Wow, such convincing arguments! Perhaps you should send
your article to the IPCC. Once they study your analysis
we will surely see them advising governments that they got
the calculation all wrong, and there
is no need for worry or action. I’d say there’s a fair
chance that this body comprised of many of
the world climate scientists (you know, the people who
spend their lives studying this), just simply are
not aware of your compelling arguments. When they
receive them and take the time to study them they will
no doubt be greatly relieved. I know I am reassured
by you, I was concerned for the future of my children,
but tonight I will sleep easy.

Thanks so much, and please pass your wisdom on to the
IPCC as soon as possible. Oh, and you should probably
consider a paper in Nature, I’m sure that after some
peer review they will put out a special issue for you.

]]> By: Dan http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6155 Dan Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:26:05 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6155 <p>@ Marv-<br /> Would that make Al Gore the anti-christ?</p> <p>(JK)</p> @ Marv-
Would that make Al Gore the anti-christ?

(JK)

]]> By: Marv http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6154 Marv Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:11:15 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6154 <p>My wife and I recently went on a trip to Alaska. Many of the "tour guides" and rangers made comments on how much of the area was under 2,000-3,000 feet of ice as recently as 14,000 years ago when the melting began. One tour guide attributed the melting to Global Warming. I snidely remarked how horrible it must have been to have all those carbon-emitting vehicles back then.</p> <p>When I read Genesis, the Word of God stated that the whole world was a paradise. Studying the Word closely reveals that the world was like a green house. Before Noah, it had never rained (which made the story of the Ark even more remarkable). Fossil findings in places like Greenland brings credibility to His words (actually, His words brings credibility to the scientific findings). These fosils were not only of warm-weather creatures but also plant life such as ferns found in the tropics.</p> <p>It only goes to reason that the warming of the earth is God's attempt to bring this world back to the state prior to the fall of man and of Adam's original sin. The world is being prepared for the return of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Why would anyone want to try and stop that?<br /> </p> My wife and I recently went on a trip to Alaska. Many of the “tour guides” and rangers made comments on how much of the area was under 2,000-3,000 feet of ice as recently as 14,000 years ago when the melting began. One tour guide attributed the melting to Global Warming. I snidely remarked how horrible it must have been to have all those carbon-emitting vehicles back then.

When I read Genesis, the Word of God stated that the whole world was a paradise. Studying the Word closely reveals that the world was like a green house. Before Noah, it had never rained (which made the story of the Ark even more remarkable). Fossil findings in places like Greenland brings credibility to His words (actually, His words brings credibility to the scientific findings). These fosils were not only of warm-weather creatures but also plant life such as ferns found in the tropics.

It only goes to reason that the warming of the earth is God’s attempt to bring this world back to the state prior to the fall of man and of Adam’s original sin. The world is being prepared for the return of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Why would anyone want to try and stop that?

]]> By: Andy http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6153 Andy Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:00:10 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6153 <p>Hi an interesting discussion. I have a question that has been bothering me though, maybe someone here can help?</p> <p>1) I understand that the Ice Cores show CO2 lagging behind temerature and that a warmer ocean releases more CO2.</p> <p>2) I also understand that CO2 absorbes IR energy and the more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of heat absorbed.</p> <p>Now I don't understand the properties of CO2 but generally there is a time difference in how a particular type of material absorbes heat and how it releases it.</p> <p>Therefore if CO2 readily absorbes heat but is reluctant to release it, in a similar way as the silicon tiles on the space shuttle, would not CO2 be acting as a coolant and if so wouldn't this view of CO2, as a negitive feedback through absorbing heat, be more consistant with point 1 and 2 above rather than CO2 being part of a positive feedback machanism?</p> Hi an interesting discussion. I have a question that has been bothering me though, maybe someone here can help?

1) I understand that the Ice Cores show CO2 lagging behind temerature and that a warmer ocean releases more CO2.

2) I also understand that CO2 absorbes IR energy and the more CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of heat absorbed.

Now I don’t understand the properties of CO2 but generally there is a time difference in how a particular type of material absorbes heat and how it releases it.

Therefore if CO2 readily absorbes heat but is reluctant to release it, in a similar way as the silicon tiles on the space shuttle, would not CO2 be acting as a coolant and if so wouldn’t this view of CO2, as a negitive feedback through absorbing heat, be more consistant with point 1 and 2 above rather than CO2 being part of a positive feedback machanism?

]]> By: earl stockwell http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html/comment-page-1#comment-6152 earl stockwell Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:19:27 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/07/the-60-second-c.html #comment-6152 <p>Nothing has been inconvertably proved either way about GW. However, a GW debate is a positive thing. It is infinately better to have a non polluted world than a polluted one. If this debate results in a more, non polluted world, then, that's a good thing. As George Carlin once said, "If it gets bad enough [world pollution] the world will just shrug us off and start all over again." One day, we all must come to understand that our planets' ecosystems are finite and somewhat fragile; that we all 'should' adjust our lives and standards to meet that consideration. </p> Nothing has been inconvertably proved either way about GW. However, a GW debate is a positive thing. It is infinately better to have a non polluted world than a polluted one. If this debate results in a more, non polluted world, then, that’s a good thing. As George Carlin once said, “If it gets bad enough [world pollution] the world will just shrug us off and start all over again.” One day, we all must come to understand that our planets’ ecosystems are finite and somewhat fragile; that we all ’should’ adjust our lives and standards to meet that consideration.

]]>