Comments on: Make a Night of It – Earth Hour http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/ a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:27:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: wes george http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92873 wes george Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:57:51 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92873 "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.' “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.’

]]> By: SJT http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92772 SJT Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:44:59 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92772 "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. “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.

]]> By: Jimmock http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92767 Jimmock Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:06:34 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92767 "A world of more Gavins and SJTs would be a better place." Yes, but for whom, paleface? “A world of more Gavins and SJTs would be a better place.”

Yes, but for whom, paleface?

]]> By: wes george http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92761 wes george Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:50:05 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92761 STJ is lying through his teeth, assuming he has teeth. "Thinking is a momentary dismissal of irrelevancies." — Buckminster Fuller STJ is lying through his teeth, assuming he has teeth.

“Thinking is a momentary dismissal of irrelevancies.”
— Buckminster Fuller

]]> By: SJT http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92730 SJT Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:26:44 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92730 "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. “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.

]]> By: wes george http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92717 wes george Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:52:19 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92717 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.

]]> By: SJT http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92688 SJT Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:28:47 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92688 "There are only a few skeptics who do not believe in the greenhouse effect." You haven't been around here for long, have you? “There are only a few skeptics who do not believe in the greenhouse effect.”

You haven’t been around here for long, have you?

]]> By: Gary http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92642 Gary Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:53:53 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92642 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. 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.

]]> By: Blink http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92604 Blink Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:58:03 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92604 ""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. “”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.

]]> By: Blink http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/make-a-night-of-it-%e2%80%93-earth-hour/comment-page-3/#comment-92601 Blink Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:31:58 +0000 http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=4607#comment-92601 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? 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?

]]>