Make a Night of It – Earth Hour
Posted by jennifer, March 28th, 2009 - under Humour, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
THE Carbon Sense Coalition today came out in support of Earth Hour, but said it should be renamed “Blackout Night” and be held outdoors, for the whole night, in mid-winter, on the shortest and coldest day of the year.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that spending just one night in the cold and the dark, with no hot coffee or beef on the barbecue, using no light, heat or vehicle energy from coal, gas, petrol or diesel, and without protection from metal or concrete structures, would be good practice for the blackouts and shortages to come if world rationing of carbon products and carbon energy is achieved.
“Winter nights are usually still and cold, so the candles crew can really experience what it will be like to depend on alternative energy when there is no sun and no wind. The back-to-nature brigade can also try living without iron roofs and concrete walls. And the eat-no-meat mob can experience a night without hamburgers and cappuccinos.
“To hold a candles-and-champagne party indoors, on the mildest night of the year, for just one hour, shows that the whole thing is tokenism. Moreover both candles and champagne emit carbon dioxide. Let the true believers try the real thing in one of the extreme seasons so they can appreciate the great benefits we take for granted when using all of our carbon fuels and foods.
“Instead of sneering at human achievements they should salute the people who keep the lights on for the other 364 days of the year.
“Australia gets almost 90% of its electricity from hydrocarbon fuels – black coal, brown coal, gas and oil. And without the nuclear power that underpins electricity supplies in more advanced countries, the massive cuts in carbon dioxide emissions demanded by the deep greens would see Australia headed for the Romanian power rationing experience – during the Ceaucescu regime in Romania, each house was limited to ONE 25 watt bulb for all of their light.
“All over the world we have aging power stations and an orchestrated campaign by a few warm and well-fed agitators to harass, delay and deter construction of new power facilities.
“Such a campaign can only have one result – blackouts and brownouts will recur erratically every time we have extremes of cold or hot weather.
“So we support “Blackout Night” to prepare our population for the dark days ahead”.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood, Qld, Australia
*********************
Notes
Earth Hour website
http://www.earthhour.org/home/
Carbon Sense Coalition website
www.carbon-sense.com
The picture of the pot – cooking without electricity – was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in northern Sulawesi, Indonesia in 2007.
“What; even more science fiction on the blog?”
Among Louis nuttier beliefs is his idea that Velikovsky should be taken seriously.
Hey Wes!
Read my post as to see why I think Earth Hour is so subversive. A bit of evidence is the energy put into denouncing it by denialists.
And Louis. Quadrant magazine quoting CS Lewis! The poor guy will be spinning in his grave at the smashing by wing nut publishers of the context of his remarks.
SJT,
“Among Louis nuttier beliefs is his idea that Velikovsky should be taken seriously”.
Good, puts me in the same group as Harry Hess, Albert Einstein and a few others. Incidentally Velikovsky got as much right as he got wrong, and his biggest achievement was to suggest that there might be another force operating in the cosmos, in addition to gravity.
He was right – it forms the basis of the physics of the plasma universe. Other than that most of us have left Velikovsky’s erroneous ideas and gone forward – science stands still for no one.
And you continue your “Back of Conrflakes Pack” scholarship of issues you are ignorant.
Jeremy C
“Wingnut publishers”? Another ad hominem ? Is that all you can write?
“When the switch off hour comes the network controllers
go looking for available loads to make up the load to
what is the normal load”
Barry: That’s most likely because the alternative is letting off steam then cooling the furnace, but my guess is they turn of wind or hydro for the duration of the lights out period.
“Yet when the bottom of the cliff is a place of death and destruction, then we desperately need such prophetic voices that will raise the alarm.” – Man – are you some sort of deranged right wing wacko or what.
Earth Hour is little better than symbolism IMO – but I don’t have any issue with people wanting to engage in a bit of harmless symbolism if it arrives at better energy solutions.
Including new tech nuclear.
What differentiates the naysayers here is their sheer nastiness and meanness of spirit. Fancy having to share a planet with the likes of you.
Indeed what is it that makes people like SJT and Gavin seem so threatening?
What there is to fear is innovation itself – and a selfishness to live in your antiquated 19th century power generation mentality. You’re the anti-capitalists. You’re the real fascists.
A world of more Gavins and SJTs would be a better place.
This thread about Earth hour is becoming a tad touchy; what would Big Al say;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/#more-6636
And how did the forced Earth [2] hour in peak time Sydney compare with the claimed actual Earth hour in terms of power saved;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/now_thats_a_real_earth_hour_or_two/#commentsmore
Luke,
It’s my understanding that Australia outlawed nuclear power. Or was that New Zealand?
How many nuclear power plants does Aus have?
“How many nuclear power plants does Aus have?”
None mate, we don’t need any either. Coal is just too cheap for the majority of the population.
SJT “and claim that there is more transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface than surface to the atmosphere.?
Oh boy you are quite confused.
James
A majority Australians would be against nuclear plants. But as far as I know there is no specific law against reactors. More a lack of “approval”.
We have a small research reactor for scientific and medical products at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Nuclear_Science_and_Technology_Organisation
and the British tested atomic bombs in the South Australian desert in the 1950s and 1960s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga
“Oh boy you are quite confused.”
That was what you said. The opposite of more from the surface to that atmosphere is more from the atmosphere to the surface.
cohenite Re the bandwidth of the atmospheric IR window
“the difference is crucial of course; where is an accurate or at least definitive source? ”
I don’t think there is one nor do I think we should expect one any time soon because the bandwidth is actually variable and dependent on the number and concentration of absorbing species in the atmosphere. In any case the variations aren’t great but if looking at the various spectra about I would opt for a middle of the slope at each side and come up with 740 – 1250 cm^-1. I’m getting this from a chart from data taken with an FTIR. M&M in 2004 draw the lines at the start of the slope (going toward the window). Ultimately what matters more is the tau and exp(-tau) gives the radiant energy that is transmitted.
Will “That was what you said. ”
What did I say? I certainly wasn’t talking about an opposite to “more energy being transferred to the atmosphere.”
You are still confused.
Spectrum absorption is right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
The definitive answer. ;)
Jan,
you said,
“” Any way you parse it, you can’t ignore the transfer of heat from the surface to the atmosphere which is larger than the transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface. ”
Empirical evidence shows otherwise”
SJT that’s right “otherwise” is not a synonym for “opposite” any more than “thermal energy” is a synonym for ‘heat”.
If you keep on using your own definitions for physical terms that of necessity need to be rather precise, you will remain confused.
“If you keep on using your own definitions for physical terms that of necessity need to be rather precise, you will remain confused.”
I am not using my own terms. I referred you to links for the definitions. As for using your own terms, you are the epitome of that after that David Smith Paper debate. No matter how much he tried to get you to get in line with accepted physics, you just went on your own way whenever what he raised was inconenient.
My bad, IIRC it was Arthur Smith.
Will G&T present accepted fairly basic physics Arthur Smith was in the long tall grass.
It was just explained to you, and you dodged it several times. The atmosphere does not transfer more energy to the surface than the surface does to the atmosphere. No breaking of 2LOT. Don’t know how many times I have to say it.
SJT “The atmosphere does not transfer more energy to the surface than the surface does to the atmosphere.”
Where have I said it did? Are you trying to make an argument out of nothing?
I am saying G&T are wrong. They claim that AGW theory is invalid because it breaks the 2LOT, when it doesn’t. Their whole paper falls on that one fact.
Luke said:
“What there is to fear is innovation itself.”
Gosh, Luke that’s probably the most unadulterated nugget of pure ignorance you’ve excreted since your claim that it’s possible for the complex nonlinear system we call “Climate” to be “stationary.” (1)
But before we hoist you by your own petard (as is the pathetically regular routine) out of sheer pity we’ll give you a chance to clarify that statement.
Mate. Just why should we fear innovation?
——————
(1) Luke January 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pm:
“Records can be broken any time in a “stationary climate”. However if there is an underlying trend towards warming or cooling (for whatever reason – natural or anthropogenic) one would expect…”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/so-hot-in-southern-australia-and-in-1900/?cp=all#comment-82548
Louis Hissink notes:
As C.S. Lewis once remarked, “When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind.”
Exactly. Or as the French philosopher Michel Foucault in his seminal treatise “Madness and Civilization” discovered, the mainstream collective (if unrestrained) can decide which dialectic discourse is reasonable and those out of favour are considered mad denialists of consensus reality.
That’s why determining empirical scientific reality by “consensus” rather than a strict adherence to the well understood rules of rational causality is a risk to society as a whole.
Science by consensus will eventually prove corrosive to civil liberties. This is what Jeremy C unconsciously sensed when he claimed that Earth Hour is “subversive,” though he rationalised his gut feeling into oxymoronic logic — subversive conformity — to fit his romanticised self-image as an intrepid conformist out to chase down and tackle those few poor lemmings heading the wrong way and drag them back to the cliff’s edge.
Luke, as usual, unwittingly represents the tendency of collectivism to veer towards authoritarian solutions. He doesn’t wish to “share the planet with the likes” of a dissenting minority of mad “denialists” and pines for universal docile conformity to orthodoxy “A world of more Gavins and SJTs would be a better place,” he sighs.
Naturally, collectivists are repelled by individual creativity because it represents the utter futility of the conformists’ efforts to control the human imagination’s search for meaning in the infinite world of potential ideas. “What there is too (sic) fear is innovation itself,” says Luke in a profound and concise summation of the entire philosophical gestalt of AGW orthodoxy.
———————————-
“There are more ideas on earth than intellectuals imagine. And these ideas are more active, stronger, more resistant, more passionate than ”politicians” think. We have to be there at the birth of ideas, the bursting outward of their force: not in books expressing them, but in events manifesting this force, in struggles carried on around ideas, for or against them. Ideas do not rule the world. But it is because the world has ideas… that it is not passively ruled by those who are its leaders or those who would like to teach it, once and for all, what it must think.”
Michel Foucault
Gentlemen,
This is truly an objective question as I’m attempting to ascertain the point of departure between the two schools of thought.
Please tell me which statements you agree with and which ones you don’t.
Ignoring NET effects…
1. Radiation from the surface of the earth adds energy to certain molecules in the atmosphere?
2. Such molecules in the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions as a result of the absorbed radiation?
3. A portion of such radiated energy (EM waves vectored towards the surface) will be absorbed by the surface?
4. Such absorption by the surface will retard “cooling” of the surface.
“Will G&T present accepted fairly basic physics Arthur Smith was in the long tall grass.”
They present a meandering series of accepted physics, then go in for the kill with completely wrong physics. Their 2LOT claim is completely bogus. I also pointed out a good example of them mispresenting a claim, then disproving it.
Blink; the first is problematic;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission
And therefore the rest are irrelevant.
Wes bereft of a scintilla of science nous returns to his previous vomit. Another tedious rant from the English Master – yawn …. zzzzz
Wes – you do fear innovation. Basically you guys are anti-progress anti-choice anti-innovation anti-capitalist resource depleting fascists.
And sorry you’re out-voted sport. So get back in line turd.
“Blink; the first is problematic;”
I must have missed something. What was the problem with accepted and well understood science?
cohenite, I certainly believe that AGW is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind, but I fail to see how your link shows that statement #1 is problematic.
What specifically bothers you about the idea that radiation from the surface of the earth adds energy to certain molecules in the atmosphere? Certainly you believe that IR radiation is absorbed by water vapor, right?
“”Wes – you do fear innovation. Basically you guys are anti-progress anti-choice anti-innovation anti-capitalist resource depleting fascists.”"
I doubt he fears innovation. Many of us “guys” on here aren’t anti-progress at all. We’d love to see many problems in the world addressed via the development of new efficient energy (including fission) solutions. However, we hate to see CO2 used as an artificial constraint on such development efforts – it’s a waste of valuable resources. We also hate to see inefficient energy solutions propped up by silly tax incentives or phony carbon credit systems – this, again, is a waste of valuable resources.
“”And sorry you’re out-voted sport. So get back in line turd.”"
Votes which are achieved through propaganda.
Guys, gals, please, enough.
I am a strong believer in the scientific method and a proud skeptic. If you believe in the former then you naturally fall into the skeptic camp. Because of this we should not tolerate Bad Science (BS). You do not combat BS on one side with BS on the other. This is why I have to speak out against the G&T paper. The paper is based on a false interpretation of the Greenhouse effect and this misunderstanding resides in both camps.
It is this misunderstanding which leads them to conclude that the 2nd law of thermo is violated ; it is not. The law states that the Net transfer of heat can only occur from high to low temperature. Emphasise Net. In our case the net transfer is from the hot surface to the atmosphere. All surfaces radiate including the atmosphere and is the back radiation referred to. Back radiation does not raise the temperature of the surface as it is previously came from the surface and there is no net energy increase. The increase can only come from a source external to the system, the sun. If back radiation raised the temperature we would have all fried long ago as the proposed mechanism leads to an infinite sum of increasing heat exchange.
Back radiation has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. The effect is a result of being enveloped in a layer of absorbing gas that is subject to a lapse rate ie temperature falls with elevation as thermal energy is converted to potential energy. There are additional complicating factors such as albedo,convective transfer, evaporation, condensation etc. If only radiative exchange is considered all you need is an Excel spreadsheet to model the greenhouse. When all other factors are considered that’s when a supercomputer is needed.
The greenhouse explanation relies on the assumption that the earths radiative flux to space is equal to the solar energy or insolation reaching the surface which in the absence of any other unidentified energy transfer mechanisms is not an outlandish claim. If the insolation on the surface is 230 w/m2 then you expect long wave radiation of 230 to be included in the radiation leaving the top of the atmosphere . The actual leaving will include reflected short wave radiation but this does not take part. Yet the surface radiation is approximately 370 w/m2 equal to 15 C (at emissivity of 0.95). How is this so? Most of the surface radiation is absorbed in the first 1000m of atmosphere. Because of the lapse rate and changes to emissivity the radiation leaving from 1000m drops to 364 w/m2. Remember the atmosphere at 1000m is also absorbing radiation from the first 100m, 200m etc. At 2000m it is 332 w/m2 until you get to 230 at the top. If the absorption capacity is increased then to arrive at 230 at the top requires a higher flux at the surface so the surface rises to a higher energy level (via the sun) to achieve this.
There are only a few skeptics who do not believe in the greenhouse effect. The argument is about the magnitude and the myriad of other factors which are determinants of surface temperature. There are many negative feedbacks such as albedo which have a huge effect on greenhouse. Minimising or ignoring these effects will always lead to much higher predictions of temperature increase and I guess this is where the argument should lie.
“There are only a few skeptics who do not believe in the greenhouse effect.”
You haven’t been around here for long, have you?
SJT illustrates that the basic defense of AGW hypothesis starts by misstating the skeptical critique.
“SJT illustrates that the basic defense of AGW hypothesis starts by misstating the skeptical critique.”
Every supporter of G&T, and there are plenty here, denies the greenhouse effect.
STJ is lying through his teeth, assuming he has teeth.
“Thinking is a momentary dismissal of irrelevancies.”
— Buckminster Fuller
“A world of more Gavins and SJTs would be a better place.”
Yes, but for whom, paleface?
“STJ is lying through his teeth, assuming he has teeth.”
If I have got it wrong, Wes, just let me know. G&T falsify the greenhouse effect of CO2. There have been plenty of supporters of G&T here.
“If I have got it wrong, Wes, just let me know.”
O.K. You’re Wrong.
———————
“A world of more Gavins and SJTs would be a better place.”
That reminds me of a bad joke. Goes like this:
Luke died in a fire and his body was burned pretty badly. The morgue needed someone to identify the body, so they sent for his two best friends, Gavin and STJ. The three mates had always blogged together…
Gavin arrived first, and when the mortician pulled back the sheet, Gavin said, ‘Yup, his face is burned up pretty bad. You better roll him over.’ The mortician rolled him over and Gavin said, ‘Nope, ain’t Luke.’
The mortician thought this was rather strange.
So he brought STJ in to confirm the identity of the body. STJ looked at the body and said, ‘Yup, he’s pretty well burnt up. Roll him over.’ The mortician rolled him over and STJ said, ‘No, it ain’t Luke.’
Curious, the mortician asked, ‘How can you tell?’
STJ said, ‘Well, Luke had two assholes.’
‘What? He had two assholes?’ asked the mortician.
‘Yup, we never seen ‘em, but everybody used to say:
‘There’s Luke with them two assholes.’