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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I friggin guarantee you that I will turn on enough power/energy during that hour to “undo” at least 4 of the supporters of this anti-freedom, anti-humanitarian, anti-rational, anti-logical, anti-intellectual, anti-progressive, anti-intelligent, pro-scumbag, pro-dopehead, pro-hyprocite, pro-obama, pro-liberal moron. I am going to even turn my oven on and open the doors! We need MORE CO2 for plant food. LOL.
The world would be a lot better if the legion of liberal morons would take physics 101 and economics 101. I still have not seen ONE of them that demonstrates that they understand the concepts in these two basic courses. That includes, especially, and very unfortunately, the President of the United States of America!
It’s your power bill turkey ! Do it for a month – go on …
“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. ”
It’s a symbolic act? Of course it is!
The biggest greenies in Canada (other than the Frogs) are the free spirits on the west coast. Not sure how much they’ll be into the Earth Hour fraud this year after suffering the coldest and snowiest winter in a long time. If there is any justice, the gods will ensure that Sydney sees some snow in the forthcoming SH winter!
Yeah, Earth hour doesn’t do very much in practical terms and it is touchy feely and there is an inevitable bandwagon of greenwash traveling with it. However, the worst thing for denialists about Earth Hour is just how subversive it is. When people find that their decisions to turn off lights etc along with useless lighting and power systems going off in skyscrapers and all the rest, results in no loss of comfort, lifestyle, meaning to life, status and so on then people will think, “gee, changing to lower our carbon foot print thingy can’t be so bad, it not going to hurt my family and I, so who’s these people telling us otherwise and just why do they want to tell me otherwise?”
Aw damn. Earth hour again? Seems like we already had one of those this year. Or was it a brown out. So hard to tell the difference.
Ok I just did a spot count of outside lighting viewable from my front yard. I count 79 assorted streetlights, iluminated storefronts, and private home security lighting.
Tomorrow at the designated hour I’ll make a recount, and report back the visible participation of my neighbors, if any happens.
At halloween I like to display flaming pumpkins as decoration. It has a bit more of the “wow” factor. A little service provided for the “tweenie” kids, who are on the cusp of feeling too self conscious to dress up like a ghost and beg for candy from strangers.
Anyhow there are a couple of gasoline soaked toilet paper rolls left over that have been waiting on an occasion for use.
I think the time has come. We’re going to celebrate Earth Hour 2009 with a safe and sane totally contained but alarmingly big fossil fueled bonfire.
I’ll let you know if the fire trucks show up.
If you enjoy being a minimalist, sceptical consumer and then see people who are 50 kgs overweight, consuming all they can [and can’t] afford, bleeding over earth hour and purifying themselves in front of a candle, you have to shake your head.
If the crazies get off on this stuff good luck to them but it doesn’t say much for our future chances.
saving energy is a real possibility. raising awareness is a good thing.
“…the worst thing for denialists about Earth Hour is just how subversive it is.”
Subversive? ROTFL… Earth Hour is as subversive as getting a wowser pamphlet handed to you by the local church ladies, only far more eldritch because the only cultural tradition it connects to is authoritarian collectivism.
Jeremy C illustrates the cognitive disconnect with empirical reality the left really represents. Jeremy must imagine Rudd and Wong are Castro and Che! Dude, YOU are The System now, and the next revolution is OURS and it will be televised.
Oh, and comrade Jeremy, normally when you are the majority and in control of government referring to a minority group as hatefully contemptuous stereotype is considered, well, insensitive.
Subversive? ROTFL… Comrade, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Cheer up guys, it gives you a good opportunity to find out who the mindless morons are in your street and who the thinkers are. Just walk down and record all the blackouts and you have the morons down pat. The remainder are the people who you could rely on in an emergency and the ones worth engaging in a conversation.
The ones with the lights still on will also identify the best kids for your own kids to play with because they will be less prone to peer pressure and less likely to be mindless “pack runners” who need to drop a pill or squirt something up their arm or some other low life tribal rite of passage than the candle molesters.
And if you really want to get active you will have a first rate “filter” for a local pro-sceptic mail-out so you don’t waste resources on the drop-kicks and planet groaners. It is quite helpful of them, don’t you think?
Well, we’re all lit up again for dirt hour. Even have the tennis court lights on. Have also made sure that our off farm businesses are all lit up.
And by the way, Sydney did experience a heavy snowfall. Around about 1810, but will have to check the date. But then the world was just coming out of the LIA.
In reality it’s the inverse.
Even if the whole street are sceptics – Mottsa’s street should be black as pitch. Anything to deter him. Imagine having to live near it. The boring extremist opinions. The wacky ideas. The interminable lectures.
BUT HEY – you’re an anti-suburb metro hater – Don’t tell you’re actually living in … in .. in a suburb. What hypocrisy. Surely you should be living the pure life at the prickle farm?
The organizers of Blackout Night left out one small detail. All thinking people should mail NASA’s James Hansen a lump of coal as a Christmas present!
Just for that Luke, I’ll burn some wood as well.
Yeah. A good friend of mine, who so happens to be a Maths teacher, told me of the goings on at school this week. The Students Representitive Council (SRC), took it upon themselves to hassle and badger the teachers for the supposed transgression of having too many lights on during class and through the day generally. Come school Monday, this same SRC have announced that they will checking to see if parents were on board the train to…….crikey where’s this taking me?
My very good friend also told me that she suggested to some students who approached her on these goings on, to study up on the Hitler Youth and Khmer Rouge tactics, to at least raise their awareness of where this sort of ugliness can lead.
For our little contribution, we celebrated by having most lights on and sharpening the chain saws in readiness for the carbon sequestration season.
Don’t expect these kids to see you through your dottage hey
James Taranto put up this amusing statement on the 03/27/09 opinionjournal website:
“Reader, if you are against global-warming hysteria, high taxes, socialized medicine and a weak foreign policy, Sunday is your day. Show how you feel about the issues by turning on your lights in the evening and leaving them on until you go to bed. If you go out for a drive after dark, make sure you turn your headlights on too.
Granted, the EarthHour people have a head start on us. They started planning this months ago, whereas we’re giving you all of 48 hours notice. Yet we think the outlook is bright for this effort. Tell your friends, tell them to tell their friends, and so on, and we’ll bet millions of people across the country will turn their lights on Sunday night.”
Ian the only recognition I will give it is to say I ignored it. If it was last night then my lights would have been out since that is what I normally do if I go out. You would be counting me as believer so a good idea but not at all accurate. How about they try switching all power off at 9:00am on Monday. Better yet perhaps Luke could show some conviction and blow up a Sub Station or two.
In Canada a lot of us are pushing back … tonight will be official oven-cleaning hour.
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/03/anti-canada-hour.html
That’s exactly the point, Gavin. I’m on to it. Are you going to wait for the knock on the door?
Eli Rabett pulls G&T apart
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/rabett-is-fisky-as-part-of-rabett-runs.html
Interesting, after checking out the street last night I can report that my neighbourhood is a climate cretin free zone. Lights were on all along the street. So while the global media has been fed lots of images of public monuments going into darkness, in the real world, people stayed away in droves.
What we need to do next year is get some good aerial shots of the real picture, in cities all over the world, to show what a complete load of bull$hit this thing really is.
Probably a special gated community that has to pass the Mottsa redneck test for admission. You probably also need a chain-saw, illegal semi-automatic and a banjo.
In contrast the Chinese got right into it – http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-03/28/content_7626927.htm
Holey smokes – Louis is right – maybe it’s a commie plot.
Anyway some great commie UN world govt conspiracy reading at http://www.earthhour.org/home/
But more conspiracies on our think-tanks at http://www.quarterlyessay.com/qe/currentissue/
Funny about Viv Forbes though – I didn’t know they had electric power up there at Rosewood. They could always burn their banjos for winter fuel I guess. I do enjoy Viv’s web carbon nonsense coal-ition site though – nothing like a complete wingnut site to put people off sceptics.
Keep it up Viv.
Eli is wrong; the G&T thesis forbids a net transfer of heat from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface; read 5 & 6 here;
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2007/10/21/summary_of_gerhard_gerlich_criticism_greenhouse_effect
SJT: Rabett should know that theoretical physics is not dealt with via rude and supercilious blog posts. Rabett should know that the proper forum is to attend lectures, discussions, and conferences where Gerlich and Tscheuschner will present and to deal with the issue by way of a meeting of true peers where Gerlich and Tscheuschner will stand or fall by their own explanations or lack there of. (Rabett may find it an educational experience)
Furthermore, the unprofessional language as used by Rabett & co. makes it clear that Rabett is writing for political purposes and from a position of ignorance in regards to the proper flow of things within the physics community. Rabett behaves as little more than a political blogger, not someone worthy of the label … scientist. Silly Wascally Wabett.
Cohenite,
“Eli is wrong; the G&T thesis forbids a net transfer of heat from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface; read 5 & 6 here;”
That doesn’t make sense mate, its Eli that is saying the G&T thesis is wrong. I read the stuff posted on the Torygraph site you linked to and didn’t understand it so could you go through both G&T’s and Eli’s stuff by say, laying them out side by side and explaining why one is correct and the other wrong according to physics. (btw I’m being genuine).
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2007/10/21/summary_of_gerhard_gerlich_criticism_greenhouse_effect
“7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine]. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.”
Hey, Luke, I think they’ve found a cure for the first and second thermo laws! Just hook up your local GCM and you’ll get free unlimited energy for nothing! Those bloody coal miners must have been suppressing this info from the public.
And Elephants can fly!
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will..fly.” (cf. Ref. [185].)
I hope everyone remembered to turn all yer lights off last night. Earth Hour is an important symbol of Human Folly.
“Eli is wrong; the G&T thesis forbids a net transfer of heat from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface; read 5 & 6 here;”
Maybe you didn’t read the part I specificially quoted.
“SJT: Rabett should know that theoretical physics is not dealt with via rude and supercilious blog posts.”
You clearly haven’t read G&T.
“Figure 13 is an obscene picture, since it is physically misleading. The obscenity will not remain in the eye of the beholder, if the latter takes a look at the obscure scaling factors already applied by Bakan and Raschke in an undocumented way in their paper on the so-called natural greenhouse effect.102 This is scientific misconduct as is the missing citation.”
Rude and supercillious papers on the other hand…
From your link Cohenite.
“9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.”
They have completely missed the physical change in the radiation wavelengths that occurs. If infrared was coming in, they may be right. But shortwave radiation is coming in, that the atmosphere is largely transparent to, and longwave radiation going out, that it is not. As I said before, the ‘trapdoor’ effect.
Don’t worry Cohenite, SJT has answered my question with his posts here.
Tonight the count is 85 lights lit, — 97 if you include the decorative outdoor lighting we purchased today just for the occasion.
Almost 9 o’clock and no sign of planet groaners or fire trucks here. (love that term Mr Mott – going to use it as often as possible) 😉
Rabett’s quote seems a non sequitur but it’s not worth following up…..
“Rabett should know that theoretical physics is not dealt with via rude and supercilious blog posts. Rabett should know that the proper forum is to attend lectures, discussions, and conferences where Gerlich and Tscheuschner will present and to deal with the issue by way of a meeting of true peers where Gerlich and Tscheuschner will stand or fall by their own explanations or lack there of”
I kacked. Fancy writing that on a blog like this. ROTFL…. and giggle fit
Jeez if the septics really did this they’d be decimated as a species.
Oh the Socratic irony of it all.
(Hey James – remember goober – you’re paying for it!).
“Rabett’s quote seems a non sequitur ”
I think the problem for you is not that the logic is faulty, but that you are incapable of following a logical argument. That doesn’t make it a non-seqitor, it just means you can’t get from one step to the next.
Sorry for plagiarism Dr Wabbit but these guys need a laugh. Now have a hernia from laughing fit ….
ooooo – it hurts so good.
“Memetic Disease: Greenhouse Effect Denialism
Causes:
(a) The G&T meme.
(b) The Miskolczi meme.
Long Term Effects:
(a) Succeptibility to other Loonish Ideas
(b) Unrecoverable loss of credibility
(c) Enhanced risk of publication in Energy and Environment
Susceptibility: Most people are immune to infection. Those at most risk are those with
(a) Elevated levels of paranoia, or Conspiracy Syndrome.
(b) BS immune deficiency.
(c) A grasp of basic physics (just enough rope..)
(d) Blog Fever
Early Symptoms: An infected individual will often display the following symptoms within 24 hours:
(a) Frequent and fevered claims to the effect of “a cold atmosphere can’t warm a hotter surface”.
(b) Frequent references to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Within the first week of infection an infected individual can become highly infectious as they propagate the meme to those around them.
Treatment: Recommended treatment involves sustained application of logic to the infected individual. If symptoms still persist after 24 hours of treatment this is usually a sign that the infection is permanent and there is no known cure. Warning signs of permanent infection include rapid switching in the obfuscation cortex leading the individual to discover confusion over words such as “warms”, “heats” and “net”.
Known Vectors include:
(a) Icecap.us
(b) Watts
(c) Inhofe
(d) Marohasy
Do you know someone with GED? Denial Anonymous can help.”
From: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/fred-says-when-anonymice-comments-are.html#links
I liked this part from eli’s philiosophunctionalism;
“Coupled with the authors’ embarrassing false pride, the manuscript would pass from hand to hand labelled as a revenge of social scientists for Alan Sokol’s joke, were it not for the demonstrated capacity of this paper to mislead the naive and those hungering to be mislead. It is only this that makes a reply necessary.”
The irony will be lost on little will.
Jeremy; I consider that I have said enough on G&T and Arthur Smith’s paper here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797
See if you can get Gordon from Canada interested; I have suggested to him that he do a post on G&T and some of the rodomontade masquerading as rebuttal from such funny people as eli and his chipmonk followers like little will. But I will say this; I think MEP favours G&T rather more than Arthur.
Cohenite, didn’t you read Jeff Id’s comment?
“I had no idea anyone disputed the greenhouse effect.
I thought the only argument had to do with rising CO2 levels creating dramatic increases in greenhouse effect.”
Get with the times. If you are going to be a denier, at least be one who accepts what is basic science.
I didn’t volunteer to join the Earth Hour as I have already had 3 involuntary Earth Hours so far this year.
This howler from G&T.
“Disproof: The concept of an radiation budget is physically wrong. The average of the
temperature is calculated incorrectly. Furthermore, a non-negligible portion of the incident
solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Heat must not be confused with heat radiation.
The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is
rather obscure. The described mechanism of re-calibration to equilibrium has no physical
basis. The laws of cavity radiation do not apply to
uids and gases.”
Yet when you read the claim it is
“\As a point of a departure the radiation budget of the Earth is described. In
this case the incident unweakened solar radiation at the Earth’s surface is partly
absorbed and partly re
ected. The absorbed portion is converted into heat and
must be re-radiated in the infrared spectrum. Under such circumstances simple
model calculations yield an average temperature of about
“\As a point of a departure the radiation budget of the Earth is described. In
this case the incident unweakened solar radiation at the Earth’s surface is partly
absorbed and partly reflected. The absorbed portion is converted into heat and
must be re-radiated in the infrared spectrum. Under such circumstances simple
model calculations yield an average temperature of about 18C at the Earth’s
surface. Adding an atmosphere, the incident radiation at the Earth’s surface
is weakened only a little, because the atmosphere is essentially transparent in the
visible range of the spectrum. Contrary to this, in the infrared range of the spectrum
the radiation emitted form the ground is absorbed to a large extent by the
atmosphere and, depending on the temperature, re-radiated in all directions.
Only in the so-called window ranges (in particular in the large atmospheric window
8 – 13 m) the infrared radiation can escape into space. The infrared radiation that
is emitted downwards from the atmosphere (the so-called back-radiation) raises
the energy supply of the Earth’s surface”
Didn’t cut and paste too well.
Smith’s paper argues that the 33C that the Atmosphere/surface is above a surface of an equivalent Earth like planet without an atmosphere without GHGs is due to those GHGs, particularly CO2; but CO2 has exhausted its absorption at about 20ppm with a consequent effect on temperature;
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1994/logwarmingillustratedeo8.png
This is verified by Lindzen’s paper;
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf
That is, the GH effect is about 25% of a purely radiative situation, or about 8C [so where does the remainder of the 33C come from?]; the issue of backradiation has been thrashed in recent threads, notably the Michael Hammer one; the reason backradiation is of no consequence is because of convective uplift due to water vapour’s effect on the lapse rate; even in a desert the atmospheric content of water is 6-8000ppm which means the energy leaving the surface is always equal to what is arriving and since the atmospheric window does not change [actually it is 8-14mu] no enhanced greenhouse occurs.
Cohers “new physics” – one day you must do a guest post for Jen so we can all giggle at the All Time Worst Blog Post ever.
Isn’t it strange Cohers that none of this stuff ever makes the serious literature.
Most be galling to have F1 racing in Melbourne today for all those carbon reduction purists.
Imagine all that extra carbon being admitted for no good reason.
Earth Hour is just another Carbon Reduction Action Plan.
As much fun as it may be to skewer the hypocrisy of today’s AGW dilettantes, there is a great danger here. The greens have the capacity for endless radicalisation. Does anyone believe that the Wahhabi menace can be combated with more jokes about how Saudis could never live without whiskey, hookers or young boys?
It is dangerous to call for more zealotry from extremists; history shows that they will rise to the challenge. This sort of thing plays into the hands of the green Taliban enemy within.
The flip side of the hypocrisy argument is that when faced with a ‘genuine’ hairshirt, we would be obliged to give him the Obama treatment.
Hang on, Cohenite, I found there is a blatant error in the G&T paper. Do you not acknowledge that? Once again, you move the goal posts. It must get tiring after a while.
This post at a U.S. website explodes the myth that one hour on a Saturday night when some buildings turn out some lights amounts to a REAL thing. It is an imaginary calculation that has been deliberately misrepresented, and people who have no concept of the difference between power consumption and power generation have been coerced into believing that they actually are saving on CO2 emissions.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/the-earth-hour-fallacy/
Blatant error; Where?
lukey; read section 3.9 of G&T; eli plainly hasn’t.
Have just read about Human Achievement Hour to be run at the same time as Earth Hour from now on. We can all leave our lights on to celebrate the wonderful achievements of Civilisation, which have brought us out of the mud and humpies and disease and early death to the advanced state of living we now enjoy. As we celebrate these achievements we know that more and more underdeveloped people will also come to enjoy them.
The hour will make as all the more determined to make sure that the Earth Hour crowd don’t succeed in taking us all back to the dark and the cold and the mud and the humpies and the disease and the misery, that they, and all the AGW believers want to take us.
anyway luke and little will, you 2 have severely dented your AGW credentials by not being on this expedition;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/admiration-for-the-catlin-explorers/#more-6565
SJT:
“I think the problem for you is not that the logic is faulty, but that you are incapable of following a logical argument. That doesn’t make it a non-seqitor, it just means you can’t get from one step to the next.”
Most of us have great difficulty following logical gibberish but it’s fun watching you goosing around in a lexical sort of manner.
SJT:
A blatant error which you cannot identify immediately. What, G & T’s paper is not printed on organic paper?
” that they, and all the AGW believers want to take us.” Pure evil. Don’t you love these old cranks.
Cohenite, the first quote I presented from Eli sums it all up. They talk about the earth as a closed system, with no sun providing an energy input. Without that, the greenhouse effect would be over in a very short time, the earth would cool down quite rapidly, no perpetual motion machine, no violation of 2LOT. Add the sun, and you have something that keeps the greenhouse effect going, an external energy source. No violation of 2LOT. It’s that simple.
The secon quote displays there inability to understand what they are reading. The is not made that the greenhouse effect sends all the energy back to the surface of the earth. The quote they refer to specifically says it is sent out in random directions, and then refers to the portion of that energy that is sent back towards the surface.
Ask Jeff Id about it.
Anton,
“and people who have no concept of the difference between power consumption and power generation have been coerced into believing that they actually are saving on CO2 emissions.”
Absolutely correct! It something that that both the denialists and those who want to make a difference by making their own decisions to turn off lights during Earth Hour may not understand. So thanks for pointing it out. It would be interesting to find out if any coal fired spinner reduced its rpms in response to Earth Hour.
However it comes back to the subversive symbolism of Earth Hour. Once people find that the meaning they derive from life is not destroyed by turning off lights then perhaps people will start questioning the whole construct of ‘baseload power’ and even start to wonder why an advanced civilisation sees the use of energy via a particular ever increasing energy carrier as being a marker of technical civilisation.
PS Can anybody tell here tell me the difference in the amount of back up power needed for wind versus the amount of back up power required by legislation and accompanying regulation for coal fired power(i.e. when it breaks down or needs to be taken out of service)?
luke, translate please;
“The secon quote displays there inability to understand what they are reading. The is not made that the greenhouse effect sends all the energy back to the surface of the earth. The quote they refer to specifically says it is sent out in random directions, and then refers to the portion of that energy that is sent back towards the surface”
Seriously, little will, can you source that ‘quote’ you had trouble in cutting and pasting; and stay off the turps.
Jeremy; there is a good discussion about baseload and the respective advantages of different power sources in respect of baseload here;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002363.html
Thanks for the link Cohenite. A lot of the posters on it had quite a good grasp of how the concept of ‘baseload’ is just a construct but I wasn’t sure how many of them were denialists (I think Earth Hour started after that particular discussion). However it didn’t answer my question question at the end of my last post but thats just a small quibble.
Thank you, Mr Mayeau. Of course, if the planet groaners were honest they would call it “Mugabe Night”. Three beans a day and “Mozart thinks of Mugabe most of the time”.
Oh, sorry, that comes next. All the classical music will be rebadged to serve the brave new green utopia. So we will have “Bethovens fifth attempt at planet salvation”, “Handel’s planet messiah” and who could go past “Holst saves the planet”.
“anyway luke and little will, you 2 have severely dented your AGW credentials by not being on this expedition;”
Moving he goal posts again. You will tire of that soon, won’t you? It just get boring.
Cohenite, can’t you recognise a quote from your own bible, G&T?
“Disproof: The concept of an radiation budget is physically wrong. The average of the
temperature is calculated incorrectly. Furthermore, a non-negligible portion of the incident
solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Heat must not be confused with heat radiation.
The assumption that if gases emit heat radiation, then they will emit it only downwards, is
rather obscure. The described mechanism of re-calibration to equilibrium has no physical
basis. The laws of cavity radiation do not apply to
uids and gases.”
Page 41. They claim “then they will emit it only downwards”, when the quote they are ‘disproving’ clearly says.
“Contrary to this, in the infrared range of the spectrum
the radiation emitted form the ground is absorbed to a large extent by the
atmosphere : : : and, depending on the temperature, re-radiated in all directions.”
The claim is “all directions”.
Can’t they read?
“Eli Rabett pulls G&T apart
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/03/rabett-is-fisky-as-part-of-rabett-runs.html
“Gerlich and Tscheuschner assert that Clausius’ statement of the second law of thermodynamics forbids transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. Their entire 90 page argument rests on this claim. As made clear below, the second law requires consideration of all heat flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Ref. 1 does not do this and thus errs. When done properly, there is no contradiction”
Their whole paper fails on this one fact.
“As made clear below, the second law requires consideration of all heat flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere.”
Bunny is confusing energy and heat; They are related concepts but they are not the same.
“Heat is a transfer of thermal energy from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature.”
Not confusing anything.
Apart from that, the basic claim is that even if there is back radiation, it is much less than the transfer of energy to space. No breaking any laws of thermodynamics.
““Heat is a transfer of thermal energy from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature.””
This statement is correct but the precious quote from bunnies blog
“As made clear below, the second law requires consideration of all heat flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere.”
confuses heat with energy. The two words, “heat” and “energy” do not belong in the same sentence in th way the are used here.
I honestly doubt the eat no mean mob will worry too much about a night without hamburgers.
Interesting to see at least where I live that all is talk about anecdotal about the impact of Earth Hour. What did the facts actually say? I returned home last night just prior to 9:30 and I didn’t see candles in the windows in many homes! Well the facts tell us that Earth Hour in Ontario was a complete bust! Actual power usage at 8:30 continued to increase and peaked at 9:00 above projected use. It looks that Human Achievemen Hour was a success though!
http://www.theimo.com/imoweb/siteShared/demand_price.asp?sid=ic
whoops meat…
Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. Both words in the same sentence, as you agree.
Heat flow = transfer of thermal energy. The word flow is possibly redundant, but conveys they idea that heat involves the transfer of something from one place to another, in this case energy.
Either way, the point is that the violation of 2LOT is not happening as claimed by G&T. You are nitpicking and avoiding the substantive claim, that G&T is invalid, since their whole paper rests on their claim that a greenhouse gas violates the 2LOT. It does not, when the trasfer of thermal energy from the surface is much larger than the transfer of energy towards the surface.
G&T also misrepresent the claim that energy is only sent from a greenhouse gas molecule towards the surface, when the claim is quite explicit, the energy is radiated in random directions, some of which is towards the surface.
will try to address the issue which is confusing heat and energy the phrase “consideration of all heat flows in a process” is confused nonsense there is one “heat flow” from hot to cold there maybe (and in fact are) a number of of energy fluxes the signed sum of which is the heat flow.
Then there is this “larger transfer of thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere.” what larger transfer of thermal energy? (this is still energy not heat unless there is a net transfer of energy) This to a very near approximation with a global average empirically measured difference of .7 W/m^2 in >300w/m^2 is zero over time. That <.23% difference is well within instrument error.
There are larger (positive and negative energy fluxes +/- |300+| w/m^2 but 300 Watt/m^2 in and 300 W.m^2 out adds up to a net zero transferred and hence zero heat flow.
SJT needs a real world example.
Ok. Lets use the flaming halloween pumpkin. It’s a jack-o-lantern with a gasoline soaked roll of toilet paper used instead of a candle. The flame shoots up about 3 to 4 feet (1 meter) out of the top of the pumpkin. It doesn’t shoot sideways, back, forth, or down (thank God and Lord Kelvin, or my poor lawn would be scorched).
A gas flame in open air reaches temperatures up to 3000 °F (1649 °C). [ McGee, Harold. On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen. New York: Fireside, 1984: 614.]
A gas fire is hot enough to raise a blister to say the least. and yet one of the neatest qualities of my flaming pumpkin is that the meat of the gord is cool to the touch, despite the 3000 ° flame. You can pick it up and move it around the yard without fear of injury.
Hope that clears things up for you.
A gas fire is hot enough to raise a blister to say the least. and yet one of the neatest qualities of my flaming pumpkin is that the meat of the gord is cool to the touch, despite the 3000 ° flame. You can pick it up and move it around the yard without fear of injury.
James, that pumpkin example is simply stupid.
whether it is a cloudy night or the sky is clear, will have ZERO effect on the temperature at the bottom of that pumpkin.
so i conclude, that clouds have no effect on the temperature on earth!
your example just solved one of the biggest problem in climate science! you are a genius!
Next year they should go for Earth Week and make compliance non-voluntary by shutting down the whole grid.
“will try to address the issue which is confusing heat and energy the phrase “consideration of all heat flows in a process” is confused nonsense there is one “heat flow” from hot to cold there maybe (and in fact are) a number of of energy fluxes the signed sum of which is the heat flow. ”
There is nothing confused about it, it is a selected quote from an extensive paper that debunks another paper. If you are confused, read it in context.
SJT ” If you are confused, read it in context.”
I did and it makes no difference the phrases themselves in or out of context highlight his confusion about heat and energy. Elsewhere he even confuses absorption and remission with reflection when he compares atmospheric emissions with the effect of a space balnket.
Take double stupid pills today Jan? 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. As Eli showed, if done you consider both entropy increases, and the process is spontaneous.
You idiots are really a trip
Oh yeah, thermal energy IS heat. Joule proved it about 150 years ago.
Eli I am ROTFLMAO over this one. In a way you are lucky that you don’t have to take you stupid pills since it appears that you were born that way.
” 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
http://miskolczi.webs.com/2004.pdf
and so does (and this is something you have sedulously avoided) MODTRAN.
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=659&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60
When are you going to show the stuff you are made of bunny boy? I’m finding increasingly difficult to believe you know anything at all about spectrography.
Bunny “Oh yeah, thermal energy IS heat. Joule proved it about 150 years ago.”
You are a tad confused about what Joule proved. I’m quite surprised to find that even little will has a better understanding than you do:
From a post 29/3/09 @ 11:47PM
“Heat is the transfer of thermal energy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat#Thermal_energy
“Thermal energy is a term often confused with that of heat.”
“Thermal energy then is often mistakenly defined as being synonym for the word heat. This, however, is not the case: an object cannot possess heat, but only energy. ”
You can read the rest to get your terms straight.
I half expect Bunny and SJT to next insist that one of those cute red light laser pointers you use for powerpoint presentations could cook an egg in, hard boiled, 20 minutes? After all the temperature of the laser beam is rather high.
Enough, my sides are starting to hurt.
Louis “I half expect Bunny and SJT to next insist that one of those cute red light laser pointers you use for powerpoint presentations could cook an egg in, hard boiled, 20 minutes? ”
With all due respect I think you are wrong about those two I don’t think they are quite that silly. Still it would surprise me if either of them will try to boil a pot of water from the top with a hair dryer.
Jeremy C says:
“…it comes back to the subversive symbolism of Earth Hour” and “the worst thing for denialists about Earth Hour is just how subversive it is.”
It’s curious that Jeremy C believes that Earth Hour is “subversive.” Every government and mass media on the planet supports Earth Hour. The lights went down on every landmark in the free world — the Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, the Sydney Opera House and bridge. Luna Park Etc, etc…
Yet somehow Earth Hour is a “subversive” symbol? You know, as in revolutionary, rebellious, dissident, insurrectionary, inflammatory, renegade, troublemaking, seditious.
Our government has a whole Ministry of Climate Change prosaically staffed with hundreds of full time bureau- and technocrats managing the orthodoxy of AGW from a Brutalist concrete government building in grey downtown Canberra, yet Jeremy C imagines that he’s a valiant Rebel with a Cause. It’s like a Monty Python script–The Orthodox Rebel with a Subversive Dogma.
Why can’t Jeremy discern the difference between a government sanctioned propaganda campaign and minority dissent?
By Jeremy’s inclusive definition of “subversive” Hitler Youth Brigades are indistinguishable from 1960’s civil right marchers in Selma, Alabama.
One could dismiss Jeremy’s misuse of “subversive” as just a poor choice of words, but I think its indicative of a new variety of political posturing worthy of further analysis. We see the psychological need to feel as if one is a bold revolutionary expressed often in comments by other followers of the AGW orthodoxy.
Subversive Conformity? Hmmm.
“Empirical evidence shows otherwise”
Amazing, you can nitpick of the technical definitions of terms, and then go completely ga ga and claim that there is more transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface than surface to the atmosphere.
Thank goodness the renewable energy industry has moved on into the 21 century. Maybe the Carbon Sense Coalition will one day move out of the 20 century and get some up to date information.
Jan; a new paper [or at least one I haven’t seen] from M; how many more? M’s paper gives the window dimension as 721-1260 mu; this source gives a somewhat larger one;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
consistent with the recent Hammer paper; other commentators like Nick Stokes usually go for an 8-12mu window; the difference is crucial of course; where is an accurate or at least definitive source? What’s got up eli’s nose? very nasty.
“How Do We Measure Energy?
Energy is measured in many ways.
One of the basic measuring blocks is called a Btu. This stands for British thermal unit and was invented by, of course, the English.
Btu is the amount of heat energy it takes to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit, at sea level. ”
Heat is composed of thermal energy, it’s just a matter of how much you are talking about. Rabett says
“As made clear below, the second law requires consideration of all heat flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Ref. 1 does not do this and thus errs.”
He first refers to the simple fact that heat flows are occuring, that is, body to body. It could be a hair drier, it could be a laser, it could be infrared radiation from the surface to the atmosphere, it doesn’t matter. No mention of the amount of energy involved. That is pretty simple and beyond argument. He then mentions that the magnitude of the flow of energy from the hotter body to the colder body is going to be larger than from the colder body to the hotter body, also beyond dispute. No violation of 2LOT.
Perhaps Jen can start a fresh thread for a new issue, the Sydney power blackout late today
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2009/03/30/2530205.htm?section=justin
SJT:
“Amazing, you can nitpick of the technical definitions of terms, and then go completely ga ga and claim that there is more transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface than surface to the atmosphere.”
I think it’s called the diurnal solar cycle, you know, sun heats the surface of the earth, that then cools during night time?
With all these definitions being tossed about I’m suprised no body mentioned horsepower.
Must be old hey.
It’s quite clear the majority has no real idea of electric power generation, base load, distribution, phase shift etc. Then there is thermal lag at the station and so on.
What hapens to a multi burner boiler when many people switch off lights at once but a few leave their dishwashers on?
Louis, as I have said before, if there is one person that it is easy to ignore here, it must be you. Go out and read some more novels about “Worlds in Collision”.
“Go out and read some more novels about “Worlds in Collision”
What; even more science fiction on the blog?
I guess it’s worth another note; with furnaces and boilers etc we grew through fire and mechanics before thermodynamics came into the language of practice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_heat
SJT:
Amazing, you now start to direct your insults to the person intended. And your only retort is the standard ad hominem as well.
Actually I don’t know of any novels about “Worlds in Collision”, and I don’t read science fiction either, so try another one.
Gavin,
Indeed there is plenty about the science fiction of AGW on my blog.
Hilarious, you denialists should take it on the road.
From Quadrant online”
“The entire interview is worth reading (see the link below). But of course you will hardly see these words recorded in the Mainstream Media, only the bitter attacks on the Pope. Such is the state of the MSM and political correctness today.
There are plenty more examples which could be cited here. But hopefully you get the drift. The trouble is, as more and more lunacy becomes more and more normalised, the person waving the warning flag appears to be the one who is in fact loopy. 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.”
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. They may not be well-received by those rushing headlong to the cliff, but they must be heard nonetheless.”
I nopw rather enjoy being the loopy holding the flag while SJT, Gavin, Luke and their mates surge over the cliff.
Heard something interesting;
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.
Ho Hum what a waste of time and nonsense.
“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.’