The two by-elections in Australia this weekend were meant to be a “bloodbath” for the conservative Liberal Party right? After all, the Liberal Party have had their worst two weeks in history, where they were described as “imploding” over the ETS (Emissions Trading Legislation), and just elected a rather unexpected new leader. The two electoral seats were also held by high profile leaders who’ve resigned (former Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson and former Treasurer Peter Costello).
George Megalogenis said, “Tony Abbot could not have wished for two less friendly seats to test his leadership”.
Analyst Malcolm Mackerras was adamant that climate change would play a critical role in the calculations of voters on Saturday. [Here]. He was utterly confident the Greens would win (and that was only two days ago).
“…Higgins and Bradfield would be the electorates in which people most strongly feel resentment at climate change denialists,” he said. “That is why electing Abbott was a complete disaster. They will get a terrible shock on Saturday night, they really will.”
And the “complete shock” was a shock for Mackerras instead. The Liberal Party did just fine.
The main two candidates in the seat of Higgins were Kelly O’Dwyer (the conservative from the Liberal Party) and Clive Hamilton, the Greens’ candidate who has a high profile in “Intellectual” circles. He’s been a director of a left-wing think tank The Australia Institute (which he set up), and has written books with titles like What’s Left: The death of social democracy, and Silencing Dissent. Which is all the more ironic because he recently said that the climate emergency was so bad we might need to suspend normal democratic processes, and he talks about how dangerous skeptics are. In other words, “Vote for me, I’ll take away your right to vote”. He’d kill democracy himself if he could, and he’d silence climate-dissent too. And he’ll fight for your right to free-speech, as long as you agree with him.
Clive (lets-suspend-democracy) Hamilton was absolutely a climate change candidate. So whose votes did he win? In the 2007 election for Higgins, 10% voted Green, 30% voted Labor, and 53% voted Liberal (primary votes, not preferences). Since Labor didn’t bother to run a candidate in 2009, voters in Higgins had a clear choice – if they wanted an carbon trading scheme, they had to vote for Clive. At the last election 40% voted Green or Labor, but this time, only 35% voted for Hamilton. It’s a great result for a Green candidate, but a lousy result for the ETS. So at least 5% of the electorate, who voted Labor or Green last time, have abandoned the scheme, and did not even want to risk a “protest vote” for Hamilton.
It’s worth looking more closely at Hamilton, because even though he didn’t win, he polled 35%.
Hamilton calls anyone who is unconvinced about the “catastophic” science a Denier, and effectively, mass murderers.
Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming. [Crikey.com]
There are three parts to an interview he did with The Monthly.
In comments on a previous thread, commenter Scott describes this interview (below): “Clive wants people who question what he believes run out of their professions, and for media to remove balance from its reporting.” (Balance? What balance?) This is part III. (But it’s long and a painful to watch…)
Anne-Kit who found this suggests: It’s all so incredibly smug and self-satisfied. Prof. Glikson in his section comes up with a bizarre set of slides purportedly depicting the kinds of claims made by ‘denialists’. I’ve been following the controversies of global warming/climate change now for nigh on 2 years and this is the first time I’ve seen any of it. It is simply made up. But the audience of the faithful seem to lap it all up as gospel…
Anthony Green is one of Australia’s foremost election analysts and he described Hamilton as a strange choice for the greens:
(In other electorates where they won) “the Greens ran candidates with local credentials who could concentrate on local issues, classic think-global-act-local politics. Yet in Higgins the Greens have done the reverse, choosing a candidate who lives in Canberra and has no links to the electorate, and is running on a climate change agenda that can only be described as act-global politics. It is the exact opposite of a previously successful Green strategy.”
The question I have is: why did 35% of voters vote for a man with such totalitarian ideas?
a) They aren’t worried about their freedom?
b) They didn’t know he said things like that.
c) They think the Greens won’t get enough power to be relevant, so it doesn’t matter.
Aren’t people who are worried about our carbon emissions just a little concerned that their side has to resort to use name-calling and act like dictocrats in order to “solve” this problem? Do they really believe that they alone have been gifted with the intellect and insight to rule the world?
The Hamiltons around the world claim they are suppressed, backed by science, and struggling for money to save the world, which sounds a lot like what skeptics say, so what’s the difference? They want their views rammed into legislation and they want your money. We just want a real debate. The ambitious power grab and the vested interests are there for all to see.
Oh, and we can back up our claims of our suppression and their funding. They can’t. (See Clive Spash‘s story and his resignation. See my article on the exile of Mitchell Taylor. See Climate Money.)
If the believers in the carbon crisis were really interested in the science, or the environment, they’d want a real debate too. If they weren’t so arrogant about the rest of humanities’ abilities to make good decisions, they’d happily endorse a real vote on the climate uncluttered with other issues.
Let’s have a referendum on an ETS. Let’s have open debate.
May the best theory win in the light of day.
UPDATE:
Malcolm’s former colleague at Goldman Sachs has suggested Malcolm split the Liberals and form his own party. Clever suggestion (for those who want to push through legislation). But it won’t work. Even if the media omits and trivializes ClimateGate coverage (and there’s been very little coverage in Australia), the word is getting out anyway. They can’t expect to contain the biggest scandal of the decade. It’s making the media look silly or hopelessly compromised. The voter backlash will be huge, against the media, and against the people who are trying to hard to profit from fraud. At this stage Turnbull says he will not form his own party, but given his lack of grace about his successor, it’s hardly a stable situation to have Turnbull on the Liberal Party backbenches either.
Unfortunately there are many people who think that a vote for the Greens is a benign sort of protest, unaware of the actual platform. It represents a massive coup for that party, as their vote is always inflated this way. They enjoy a good image with a modicum of brand management. Green sounds a lot more benign than Hamilton’s totalitarian musings, but what do they say about perception in politics.
20
The Greens will no doubt spin this as well as they can. But on Oct 23 “Greens leader Bob Brown said the Greens have a chance to win the seat”.
The election didn’t even get to a preferences deal. It wasn’t close. The Greens had big hopes here, and it didn’t fulfill them.
It certainly would have been a massive coup if they had won, but in this “Doctors’ wives seat” where previously people had supported politically correct causes like reconciliation, the ETS was not popular enough to change voting habits.
In blue-collar seats, when the scam becomes known, the ETS will be toxic.
20
George Megalogenis said, “Tony Abbot could not have wished for two less friendly seats to test his leadership”.
George Megalogenis is a twit….. Journalists like him have been deliberately distorting the information that the public get.
Megalogenis has refused to scrutinize anything claimed by the AGW supporters, even when Andrew Bolt has been sitting alongside him during Insiders, telling him there is a huge problem with the science and that the whole IPCC process is a political hotbed of corruption. Annabell Crabb is another AGW cheerleader, Fran Kelly, David Marr…. etc, they were all in on distorting the facts.
Journalism is in disgrace as much as Science is at the moment.
It is pleasing to see change in the Political climate… pun intended.
10
Hi Joe,
I read your article quickly so maybe I missed this but you forgot to add the Climate Sceptic party results (currently at 1.66%) to the liberal % (currently 53.95%) as a vote against the ETS.
Thats 55.61% versus Greens (Currently at 33.19%) as at 4.29 pm 6/12/09
Two party preferred is 60% Lib 40% Green. I think that is a No vote for the ETS
Latest % here
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-14358-215.htm
20
I had thought Clive Hamilton had some fairly good ideas – especially about overconsumption (he wrote a great essay about having a Plasma TV crisis).
Then later his true colours showed. The Bill Henson paintings affair was a terrible beat-up, but there was Our Clive all gung-ho for locking up an artist. It seems he’s become even more strident. I think he falls now into the barking loony category. And yes, that’s Ad Hominem. But I can think of no other explanation for his becoming completely irrational of late.
10
Whoever told Malcolm Mackerras he was able to read the political times? He is just about ALWAYS wrong. Not only that, this has proven his leftiness one and for all. He is certainly not a good or objective political analyst.
10
Clive is advocating Suspending the democratic process for Deniers and Running Deniers out of their jobs.
Now, Replace the word “Denier” with “Jew” in the above sentence …
Doesn’t it strike you as ironic that on the one hand we’re being associated with Holocaust Deniers and yet on the other hand Clive here appears to be advocating the same kinds of fascist policies.
10
The Paradox of Freedom is that you cannot truly be free unless you do what Clive Hamilton tells you to do (or something else).
The vote result has nothing to do with either Clive or the Greens, it merely demonstrates that 35% of that particular electorate will vote Liberal Party last on every ballot they ever write.
Hey did anyone watch Dr Who tonight? Yankees probably don’t have much affinity for Dr Who but I see that show as a barometer for how the British and Australian public view science. Lately Dr Who has become kind of long winded and preachy with random bits of mysticism, demons, zombies and what have you. I still regard this as an accurate barometer — science has moved to the point where it is strongly disjoint from modern society. The scripts are obviously written by people who want to sound techie but don’t comprehend the basics, and no doubt the audiences like it that way.
10
Curious Alliegences with Big Oil (sorry a bit O/T)
I just read in one of the emails 1019513684.txt that the appointment of DR. R. K. PACHAURI ( current IPPC Chairman who is not a climate scientist, but a Railway Engineer) was a deeply political appointment at the direct request of G.W.Bush who was heavily lobbyied and pressured by Exxon. Say What?
10
I think it’s worth noting also that voting in Australian Federal elections is compulsory.
A lot of the Green votes in both electorates would have been from Labor voters who had nowhere else to put their vote, and who would have abstained had voting not been compulsory (people get fined for not voting in Australia).
So when the Greens claim this huge swing they are being disingenuous.
10
Logic is the property of the state, answers come from authority. We say there is no contradiction, no irony whatsoever. A good citizen would understand this.
10
Whilst it may appear that Climategate is not recieving the airing it deserves, “the truth will always out.” The latest report from Climategate of the falsifying of the tree ring data by including one tree which disagreed with all the others is totally damning. It shows the utter contempt that these richly funded scientists would do to get more funding.
10
No, not ironic at all. You see, the world is round, not flat, so when the green left marches far enough one way, it eventually meets the fascists coming the other way. And when they mingle, no one can tell them apart.
10
Wow, the SMH finally ran an article about the leaked emails and code today on the front page of their printed edition (nothing on the online version, however). It’s only two weeks since the story broke. A cynic like me might ask why they waited until now. Could it be a)The ETS vote in the Senate is over, or b) the byelections are over? Now there is nothing to gain by sitting on embarrassing news any longer in the vain hope that it might prevent outcomes not to the liking of the editorial board.
10
Dear all, while I suspect AGW scepticism may have been a factor (and, as an AGW sceptic I certainly hope so), another factor in Bradfield and Higgins may have been the Greens’ platform of supporting death duties (inheritance tax) at the last Federal election. Australia, alone out of almost all developed countries, has avoided this tax grab and many Australians, including the comparatively affluent residents of these two seats, are determined to keep it that way. Despite the Greens having assiduously removed all tax policy, including death duties, from their website prior to these by-elections, I suspect many voters have long memories on this issue. (Similar to the memories of other voters on the Liberal Party’s “Work Choices” policy, which was not so much of an issue in these two by-elections.) So I hope I haven’t deflated anyone’s greenhouse gas-filled bubble, but I think other factors may have been at play (apart from the ETS) in the Greens’ failure to make an impression.
10
My father was a meteorologist.. To date I have not met any meteorologist who believes in AGW…
10
Ashleigh, on your trusted recommendation I started reading that very essay.
What this tells me is that Clive does not have the first idea of how money works. Doubling the average wage merely flows through to doubling prices, it does not make everyone wealthier. If I would like to buy a house (and it is better than living in a tree or under a bridge) then I have to bid against everyone else who also wants to buy that house. Having an above average income makes it a whole lot more likely I can buy that house.
This also tells me in one quick paragraph that the people surveyed (the people Clive obviously looks down upon) are a whole lot smarter than Clive.
Walk into any real estate agent and ask why all the houses on sale are at such outrageous prices. They will tell you that you are primarily paying for the land. What size home you stick on that land is largely irrelevant so people figure they might as well have something big. Whilst Clive is ranting about big houses, there are plenty of very small flats being built in the inner city areas and for the most part they are more expensive than the giant suburban mansions. Apparently location is important when it comes to real estate.
By the way, if state governments made a concerted effort to get more land released, they could bring land prices down very easily (Australia is a big place don’t you know). The prices are high deliberately because it is convenient to have our banking system riding on the collateral of a lot of housing debt and now that trend is established, to crash the prices would be a political nightmare.
There has been a long trend towards part-time jobs and away from full time jobs. It’s not a new thing, it wasn’t a sudden change and the state space diagram is shown here:
http://lnx-bsp.net/ABS_6202001_state.png
Please note that full time employment percentage has wandered around (I measure employment, not unemployment for reasons that are hopefully obvious), part time employment has continuously risen since 1980 (other than a few very brief periods at the worst moments of various recessions), probably the trend goes further back, that’s all I have stats for.
On the basis of this one essay, I’m happy to regard the man as a prize fool.
By the way, although a lot of people have flat screen TV’s, most of them buy the much cheaper LCD screens that are much easier to recycle (and less dangerous) than the old heavy glass tubes, and much much cheaper than plasma. If you want any sort of TV you won’t be able to buy a CRT screen anymore, and a base-model flat screen TV costs about $300, for example:
http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-pro-16-hd-lcd-tv-w-dvd-player-digital/
For a typical 9 to 5 worker, catching public transport to work, $300 is less than three months for just railway tickets in Sydney. That’s four flat screen TV’s just getting to work and back each year.
A mid-range 26 inch flat screen TV from the same supplier costs about $600 which is what you would see in typical working class or middle class Australian home.
To put these numbers in perspective, aggregate Aus government tax income is around 300 billion, for a population of approx 20 million people making the average tax burdon per PERSON (not per working person) about $15000 or equivalent to one 26 inch flat screen TV every TWO WEEKS for every man, woman, child and retired old-fogie in Australia! On average, a family of four is being taxed at a rate of one 26 inch flat screen TV every four days (including weekends).
10
Most of the Lib voters probably didn’t notice that their party’s climate change policy changed in the last week. Either that or they figure they have enough faith in their party to ditch Abbott pretty soon. Seriously anyone who openly thought these seats were not safe for the Libs were just after a headline.
If we are quoting people…. Tony Abbott :”That’s why I think there is a strong case for an ETS”
and
“But the fact is we’ve got a leader. Malcolm Turnbull is a man of extraordinary accomplishments. I think we’re very lucky to have a bloke of that level of achievement in our public life and leading our party.”
10
p.s. CLives genius as embodied in the ALP’s internet censorship proposals would have hurt him too. Lets face it there are plenty of ALP voters who hate the greens. Also I’m pretty confident both Lib candidates are not skeptics.
10
Also VG – maybe your father should eet China’s top meteorologist:
“China’s top meteorologist has warned climate change could cause “incalculable” damage to the country and that efforts should focus on adapting to global warming rather than slowing it.
The comments by the head of the China Meteorological Administration appeared to mark a departure from the government stance that has so far stressed both as equally important.
“Global warming is a fact. For a huge developing country like China it’s more practical and urgent to adapt to climate change than to seek to slow down the process,” said Zheng Guoguang.
Zheng was writing in the latest edition of Seeking Truth, a Communist Party magazine, released this week just days before a global conference on climate change in Copenhagen where China is expected to play a crucial role.”
10
May I point out that nowhere in your quoted excerpts does Mr Zheng refer to climate change as man-made. If he views climate change as largely natural,
1) it would validate VG’s experience with meteorologist, and
2) his recommendation of adaptation over mitigation would make a lot of sense.
10
OK AK here is the last line : “Beijing says the developed world is largely to blame for climate change and should bear the burden of reducing emissions.”
so either they think there should be an A in AGW, or they think the developed world is largely responsible for a natural phenomenon… which would be strange don;t you think?’
Full article :http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/china-needs-to-adapt-to-climate-change-top-meteorologist-1835074.html
10
Matt, that last line is not a quote from Mr Zhang, it is simply reporting the official Communist party line.
If you read further up it even says: “It is rare for officials to express views at variance with China’s official line.”
VG’s experience seems to be spot on. You need to read carefully before you link to articles you think prove your point.
I rest my case.
10
Hello Joanne,
I am a first-time “blogg replier”. I am an Australian. I recently have been following your blogg intensely and it’s readers’ replies. I am so relived the ETS was not passed. I am sure most people want to reduce pollution, but this scheme was not the best way to go, especially to commit to it before the rest of the world.
I feel that our climate is changing, but I don’t think it is only caused by man made CO2 gases. We should spend more energy in planning to adapt to potential changes, rather than trying to stop it. But that leads to a debate on how to reliably predict the changes in the first place? I will leave this question for another time.
Today, I have two comments to make/ask? One about an article in today’s AGE newspaper and about Clive Hamiltion’s re-published (2nd edition?)book, expected to be released in March 2010.
1. Have you read this article from the AGE 5/12/09?
blog http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/fraction-too-much-fiction-in-climategate-20091205-kb9g.htmlg
The author, Stephen Lewasndowsky states “Stolen emails do not support wild claims of scientific misconduct”.
Essentially he dismisses the emails, because the artic glaciers are melting etc. I don’t think he mentions that the rise in temp is due to human induced carbon emissons. There is no talk about what is causing the ‘perceived’ warming. What do you think of his article?
Is this how the AGE intends to “debate” the leaked Emails Scandal?
2. “Requiem for a species – Why we resist the truth about climate change” is Clive Hamilton’s potential, re-published book. It was first published in 2005. I say potential beacuse the copy I have is an uncorrected proof. So, what is in it can still be “corrected” or changed and the content may not be what the author intends on publishing or supporting. Have you read it? (2005 ed). It is about his belief that it is too late to save the world from catastrophic warming. If we reduce some CO2 now it might lessen the devastating affects. His book also intends to explain why humans have let themselves get into this predicament. He also gives ideas on what we can do now.
He has also left a few lines to fill in about the Copenhagen summit – watch this space!
If he had won the by-election yesterday, it may have boosted his sales?
The uncorrected proof quotes many articles dated post 2005, some from “peer reviewed” scientific journals. The first chapter is perhaps, ironically titled, “No escaping the science”. Surely he must question the science in light of “climategate”?
Mr Stephen Lewasndowsky certainly feels no need to. (reference to above mentioned article in point 1)
Looking forward to reading yours and others’ comments.
10
AK you are such a party-machine animal. independent thought is a gift you know. there is nothing in that article to suggest he does not agree it is human induced.
10
SO here is some more from the article.
“China faces potentially disastrous consequences from climate change, wrote Zheng, who is also a member of a group tasked with developing China’s climate change policies.
He estimated grain production could slump 37 percent in the second half of this century without “adequate adaptive measures”, threatening the country’s food security.
“If extreme climatic disasters occur twice or more within five years, for example, a major drought over two or three years, then the impact on our country’s economic and social development would be incalculable,” Zheng said. Zheng said annual grain output could fluctuate by 30 to 50 percent from long-term averages as climate change leads to more severe drought and floods.
Extreme weather conditions currently cause production to fluctuate by between 10 and 20 percent, he said.
China should prioritise “reducing the impact of global warming on the country’s food security and strengthening the capacity of agriculture to withstand climatic risks,” Zheng said.
Zheng urged Beijing to increase the nation’s grain reserves, boost productivity and better protect arable land and water supplies.”
So if Zheng thought there was no A in AGW, then why would he think the above scenarios are likely? I have yet to hear an argument from skeptics that any of those dire consequences are likely to occur due to natural warming. I thought it was meant to be good for us… more plant growth etc etc.
10
OK MattB, now you have really painted yourself into a corner on this one. I’d leave well alone if I were you.
It’s typical of you to start making snide comments about me when you’re out of arguments. What a joke!
Your last two sentences do not make any sense at all, indeed seem to be contradictory of each other.
If Zheng is not an AGW believer he can still advocate prudence and precautions against natural disasters. In fact, we would all do well to concentrate on REAL environmental and humanitarian issues and confine expensive, useless CO2-reduction measures to the scrap heap.
10
It’s the dame in the UK with the government of Brown (and his energy and climate change minister, Ed miliband) trying to stifle debate in a very arrogant way. Read Prof Philip Stott’s article about Pope Brunius at http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times.html His blog is always worth reading.
10
@ Mattb: December 6th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Perhaps Zheng doesn’t read Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. From “The Global Soil Moisture Data Bank” [Alan Robock, Konstantin Y. Vinnikov, Govindarajalu Srinivasan, Jared K. Entin,
Steven E. Hollinger, Nina A. Speranskaya, Suxia Liu, and A. Namkhai]
“Land surface models, in general, do not capture the observed soil moisture variations when forced with either model-generated or observed meteorology. In contrast to predictions of summer desiccation with increasing temperatures, for the stations with the longest records summer soil moisture in the top 1 m has increased while temperatures have risen. The increasing trend in precipitation more than compensated for the enhanced evaporation.”
China/Siberia is the Global Warming Hot Spot. Summer soil moisture is the major crop-limiting factor. China (and Siberia) are doing very nicely from Global Warming and I suspect will want to continue to do so. Ex cathedra pronouncements for the Gullibles count far less than actions.
I can just here those pesky Chinese singing: “Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we’ll keep our hot spot over here”.
10
Almost 4am: insomnia, now made worse.
Oh dear, dear poor Jo: how to distract your readers from the actual result with shallow spin and vitriol? Love your work sister!!!
What about some counter-spin?
The result (with 72% of votes counted):
Liberal 53.95% Swing +0.34 (i.e swing statistically insignificant)
Greens 33.19% Swing (+22.4%) (i.e massive shift to Greens! No, of course not – Labor didn’t even contest this time.)
Now, lets see how the sceptics went against other minor parties (how did that Melbourne anti-ETS rally go by the way, darling? Notice you promoted it in advance but didn’t report the result – massive turnout was there?)
Informal 3.87%
Democratic Labor Party 3.75%
Australian Sex Party 3.27%
Australian Democrats 2.30%
Stephen Murphy 1.66%
GOSH!!! – SO strong, SO powerful is the groundswell of public support for the sceptics that the surging anti-ETS anti-AGW sentiment in Higgins resulted in twice as many people voting for the Sex Party as they did for your dear Mr Murphy.
He couldn’t even top the near-extinct Democrats, let alone reach half the vote of the fossilised DLP.
Here’s how the the admirably positive self-styled “Independent Candidate for Higgins and Climate Sceptic” puts it on his website:
The final result was: 1.7% of the primary vote – after the Libs and the Greens, and following the Sex Party, DLP and the Dems. don’t you just love the way he says it, sweeties?
As Peter Hartcher puts it:
First, the 48,000 citizens who cast their votes for Labor in these seats at the 2007 election were, in effect, disenfranchised in the byelections.
Second, if any of the voters who previously chose the Liberals were alienated by that party’s behaviour in opposition, they were deprived of the chance to direct their support to the meaningful alternative.
To desert the Liberals, they had to vote for the minor parties and fringe dwellers of the political world. And they did. The Greens on Saturday enjoyed the biggest share of the vote they have ever enjoyed. So did the Australian Sex Party.
I think the clearest spin we can put on it is that even against a candidate who is as shallow and odious as you seem to be suggesting, and in a poll in which Labor voters were free to express their next preference, the good citizens of Higgins preferred the Greens to the sceptics by a margin of 20 to one.
Back to my beauty sleep.
Miss M.
10
A Great response to your article here Joanne! It’s great to see this being hashed out amoung you. This is what “Free Speech” is about and “Thank God for the Internet” to break the walls of distance and make the “Post Man” poorer?? Well, almost..They make very good money here in the U.S..
Hey, I invite those who come over to GWH.com..Admin. is doing changes to Our Site! Check it out! Basic layout is the same but it’s those “Hide inbetween the Articles” that count! 🙂
The Latest! Understanding ClimateGate’s Hidden Decline
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1411.last
Are the Russians involved in ClimateGate?? Were Russian Security Services Behind The Leaks of ‘ClimateGate’ Emails
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1412.last
Another great posting from Dr. Hoffman: Extinction, Climate Change & ModelingMayhem http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1413.last
10
The heavy duty funding coalition that created the ‘Yes We Can’ campaign for Obama and all the would-be carbon trading supremos lined up behind front man Al Gore (same thing) must be squirming right now.
Given all the difficulties the global AGW movement is going through at the moment e.g. the Global Financial Crisis, Copenhagen not going to be the promised grand stitch-up, Climategate, 740 plus days of a spot-free Sun, rising opposition to cap and trade and related carbon taxing legislation in the US and Europe, deniers and flat earthers seemingly breeding like flies etc., I think we can expect to see the financial backbone of The Great Bandwagon which has survived the GFC to drop it down a gear and give it a big burst of accelerator ‘real soon now’.
Of course that also means that the odiously fascist unsuccessful candidate in Higgins can expect another big injection of funds from the Pew Foundation etc., and we are all in for yet more of his ‘green wisdom’. Sigh.
But more significantly (for me), this means I’m also going to have to waste yet more of my upcoming retirement playing devils advocate for my precious offspring, trying hard to protect them from the Catastrophic Rise in Global Hucksterism.
10
And the “complete shock” was a shock for Mackerras instead. The Liberal Party did just fine.
Is Malcolm Mackerras the Tim Flummery of psephology?
10
We think of infrared as radiant heat, but its really just an arbitrary band of e/m radiation. Infrared doesn’t appear to effect Temperature in a gas as defined by the kinetic gas laws (as the average, total translational, vibrational and rotational energies of a ‘gas particle’) there is more energy moving through the gas, but there’s no way for it to increase the average kinetic energy because any transformations from radiation into kinetic energy are symmetric the other way. If an excited molecule loses energy in a collision its just as likely to absorb energy in the next collision.
Imagine two gas-balls in space, same size, same mass, same initial temperature (average total kinetic energy) the only difference is one gas-ball has a greater concentration of GHG’s (really, just a molecule that is active and reactive in the infrared) let’s say its CO2. There is no external source of radiation. Which gas-ball cools quicker? The one with the extra GHG’s. Why? Because the greater GHG concentration means there’s a greater chance a molecular collision will excite a GHG molecule, which can then radiate that energy out of the gas ball (kinetic energy is bound to the gas-ball whereas radiation is not) kinetic energy has been lost from the system and the gas-ball with more GHG’s cools more rapidly than the other one.
Something else too. The models/diagrams/descriptions all describe the excited CO2 molecules in the atmosphere emitting or radiating isotropically. There’s a problem with that, a photon emitted from the earth’s surface has momentum, no mass but definitely momentum (I’m sure I’m teaching you to suck eggs here). Momentum isn’t being conserved if the CO2 molecule absorbs that photon and then radiates istotropically (emits in a random direction). It turns out that Einstein considered the matter in his paper “On the quantum theory of radiation”, in it he identifies and describes stimulated emission, whereby a molecule or atom is excited by an absorbed photon, and emits an identical (magnitude, direction and phase) photon in order to conserve momentum. Spontaneous emission is the process whereby an atom or molecule becomes excited (moleculear collisions being one option) and emits a photon without first having absorbed a photon, and that radiation IS isotropic, which is to say the photon is emitted in a random direction, but apparently that randomness troubled Einstein quite a bit and he felt that he ought to be able to account for it. I think we all know how he came to feel about the implications of the quantum theory he basically created.
Einstein asserts early in his article,
[..] for the case of incident radiation, the magnitude of the transferred momentum is the same [as in the case of absorption], but it is in the opposite direction.
but at that point he offers no proof. There is analysis later in the paper on a number of topics and then Einstein states
Most important, however, appears to me the result about the momentum transferred to the molecule by incoming and outgoing radiation. If one of our hypotheses were altered, the result would be a violation of equation (12); it appears hardly possible, except by way of our hypotheses, to be in agreement with this relationship which is demanded by thermodynamics. We may therefore consider the following as pretty much proven. If, through an emission process, the molcule suffers a radiant loss of energy of magnitude hν without the action of an outside agency, then this process, too, is a directed one.
So, random molecular collisons involving CO2 molecules will cause spontaneous emission of IR and that radiation will be isotropic, however, upwelling photons from the earth’s surface will cause stimulated emission and that radiation is definitely directional, not isotropic, momentum must be conserved. In addition to the stimulated emission of IR photons, there’s fewer CO2 moleucles above lower CO2 molecules and therefore less chance that IR photons will be absorbed in that direction, so I think there’s a directionality imposed on the large/macro scale too.
10
The former gt britain is taking the cop15 gig very seriously and are taking an entourage of some 38 to assist them in signing over whats left of their soveiegnty to the UN. I`m somewhat perplexed that we (in the words of the `bankstown` boy mr Keating)domiciled in the arse **** of the world are sending a contingent of some 90!… those who would wring their hands at the thought of the yowie sized `carbon footprint` can rest assured as we are told that our planet saviours are staying in a `carbon neutral hotel` and that the 20 odd tonnes of CO2 belched backwards from our heros 747 is offset by the `fact` that Sydney is a carbon neutral city!!! which is almost as amusing as the story that abc news radio was running sat morning. apparently some ` very upset` AGWophiles were recently in the arctic and `wittnessed starving` polar bears eating their offspring. the inference was that agw has deprived the fured carnivors of their staple diet and that the `DENIERS` are complicit in this most heinious infantcide. Am I alone in wishing the cannucks send their under employed babyseal culling hordes to copenhagen to ply their trade on the cop15 glitteratai?
10
Mike W #34:
“…but there’s no way for it [Temperature] to increase the average kinetic energy because any transformations from radiation into kinetic energy are symmetric the other way.”
Nearly wet myself (;-).
A poor wee thing called Brownian Motion (Robert Brown; 1827) just died.
10
Mark Stevens #35
“I`m somewhat perplexed that we (in the words of the `bankstown` boy mr Keating)domiciled in the arse **** of the world are sending a contingent of some 90!…”
Don’t be perplexed. Be cheered!
After all, it is highly likely most of those 90 will be of the same sterling calibre as the people ‘we’ (aka the Rudd government) used to staff a Nairobi office for 11 months (cost a mere A$2.5M) set up to free Nigel Brennan and Amanda Lindhout.
10
Steve, a CO2 molecule absorbs an incoming photon, it becomes vibrationally excited, it undergoes a collision, and the excited molecule can lose some energy, however it is equally probably that it will gain energy, the process is symmetrical. As an average, over time, the kinetic energy will not change due to radiation, 1 joule of radiation in equals 1 joule of radiation out. What the collions will do is add or subtract energy to the emitted photon, which may have a slightly different energy or frequency to the absorbed photon, causing spectral broadening. Energy, momentum, are all conserved.
10
Brownian motion is not dependent on a one way transformation of radiation into translational kinetic energy.
10
Cheers Steve! I couldn`t see the wood for the… deforestataion!
10
This just in from Senator Fielding who is petitioning for a Royal Commission into the “science” of manmade climate change.
As you would have heard by now the Australian Parliament voted against the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on Wednesday of last week.
Whether you agree or disagree with global warming or a CPRS, the fact is most Australians still have many questions they want answered before any emissions trading scheme is passed by our Federal Parliament.
1) Is the science right? (in other words, are we certain that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of climate
change)
2) What effect will the CPRS have on the Australian economy?
(especially if we commit to targets before the rest of the world and major economies like China, Russia, India and the USA)
3) What are the costs and the benefits of alternative emissions trading schemes? (is there a more effective way to achieve emission reductions than the government’s CPRS)
I have proposed a Royal Commission to investigate the science behind climate change and whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions are responsible, and the Productivity Commission to look into the economics of an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction scheme.
This is the most important piece of legislation to come before Parliament given its direct impact on every single Australian. We should be taking the time to get it right.
<a href="”>To find out more click here and sign my petition
10
And you misquoted me, this is the correct way to read it. Well done.
“…but there’s no way for it [Infrared radiation] to increase the average kinetic energy because any transformations from radiation into kinetic energy are symmetric the other way.”
10
I, too, was amazed that people had such little insight into the things that Clive Hamilton has gone on record as saying, assuming rather that a vote for Hamilton was a safe vote for a standard Green’s platform.
I made a comment over at Anthony Green’s election blog, asking if he thought that there would be a swing away from Hamilton because of his comments re: climate deniers and holocaust denial (with the link to crikey provided), and how drawing parallels of this nature might potentially poll with the large Jewish constituency of Higgins (I used to live there and therefore have an insight into the community). I was very careful in my phrasing to present the question and quote Hamilton in a neutral tone, however Green declined to publish my comment (or answer my question re: a percentage swing away from Hamilton).
At this juncture I must assume that many people are largely unaware of Hamilton’s comments.
My first media censure. Yay, me.
10
Sorry – I don’t seem to have the link right… Try this…
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition“
10
PartySplit?
Turnbull vows to cross floor on ETS and urges colleagues to follow him.
Accuses Abbott of ” climate bullshit”
10
Australian Royal Commission into Climate Change
Quote;
I have proposed a Royal Commission to investigate the science behind
climate change and whether or not man made carbon dioxide emissions
are responsible, and the Productivity Commission to look into the
economics of an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction
scheme.
Steve Fielding
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
10
Mattyb (I`m a fan and thought you were hot in the spice girls)sez:-
suprising,eh matty? untill the monkey pushes the button and you realise that suckers like us will in fact be borrowing from this `Emerging economy` in order to repay our`carbon debt`to them.. which could explain why the chinese are not shy to tell us what they want, what they really really want…
10
Turnbull … Accuses Abbott of ” climate bullshit”
Come on, Mal, just where does Tony’s climate bullshit outshine your very own brand.
Evidence, please, not just blathering.
10
no comment required from one of the top climate scientists…
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/218-petr-chylek-open-letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html
10
I reckon it`s only a matter of time until one of the banks start to offer a `Carbon credit card`…. .where users never know the interest rate, the bank at will, can impose ad hoc penalties enforced by green police and you can never cancel the card….
10
Hmmm, another way of looking at it, radiation is absorbed and emitted by the gas, it is not ‘part’ of the gas. Only the kinetic energy of the gas ‘particles’ counts in reference to Temperature. If the particles retained their vibrational energy when excited that would effect Temperature (total average kinetic energy per particle). But the molecule doesn’t retain vibration because it emits. The molecule is only ‘hot’ for the very short time it is excited, but as an average over time it’s much cooler, all motion has to be averaged over time to determine velocity and energy. The translational energy of the molecule however is not transient, it is always present. Radiation moves through the molecules, but isn’t part of it, and the energy contained in the radiation does not count towards the Temperature of the Gas as calculated by the Ideal Gas Laws or the Kinetic Gas Laws.
10
After reading that East Anglia had appointed Sir Muir Russell to investigate the “Allegations” against CRU I also saw some disturbing remarks about his objectivity. I’ve finally had the chance to look up sources for them. The following links speak for themselves.
http://www.infowars.com/climategate-investigator-is-member-of-vehemently-pro-man-made-global-warming-organization/
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=240
He’s a member of the Royal Society which is aggressively pro carbon emissions reduction and also on the board of Scottish Power, a company positioning itself to make money from green technology. One has to wonder about his objectivity.
10
Goldman sucks lickspittle and three time withered loser malcom turnbull`s web site link where you can express how you feel… unmoderated….
10
Jo on 2gb now!
10
Great work Jo!
10
Mattb,
Hey there Matt!!! Look at what they found in New Zealand??? This site takes “True” temperature readings…Wow, another typical Befoggle!!! Wake up, Matt!!! See the Temperature!!! CO2 isn’t the cause!! It’s these darn, missed placed Temperature sensors that you so much rely on your data!!! 🙂 Real Science??
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-92-surrounded-by-science/
10
Re: Rumble Mourdre: December 7th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Although I dislike the tenor of your post, you are the only blogger to give some reasoning and analysis of the results. I for one, a long-time Liberal voter, was prepared to vote otherwise in Bradfield given the Malcolm in the Muddle ETS proposals. After declaring my intentions to the Lib candidate who had been supporting Turnbull, then receiving his declaration after the palace coup that he was supporting the Mad Monk, I was so mad at this turncoat, evidently with no original convictions, that I voted for the charming member of the Australian Sex Party, rather than just spoil my paper. To my surprise, I found my deep-thinking daughter had done the same thing independently. I was even more surprised to find we were not alone and that the ASP came next to the Greens (admittedly a long way behind, but this is after all the Doctors’ wives belt). I think not just the Labor voters were disenfranchised, but (for Bradfield) the quality of candidates had something to do with it.
10
Mark Stevens #35 – at least there will be no need for religious self-flagellation amongst our group of 90 heroic climate evangelists. A Danish union has seen to that;
Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to “be sustainable, don’t buy sex,” the local sex workers’ union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate’s pass.
The term “carbon dating” just took on an entirely new meaning.
10
Lol category 4 – that looks about the least UHI skewed location to be honest Denny. I think Watts is barking up the wrong tree with that one.
10
Joanne,
Who is in denial now? Media starts to wake up.
In an opinion piece, SMH notes that Julia Gillard used the word “Deniers” 11 times ( about Abott )
Comments that it is now the Rudd Government that appears to be in a StateOfDenial.
10
Excellent video (&song) Imagine there’s No Global Warming
10
The AGE having doubts ?
The Age has DeclinedToParticipate in a Global editorial, penned by the Guardian, in favor of immediate action on global warming
10
Carbon Trading – not such a financial winner either …
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
Trading was a wee bit light Friday …..
10
Tel @17:
That essay of Clives was written about 5 years ago when an LCD TV was both small and terribly expensive. Plasmas were the only way to go for a big TV, with a price to match.
I was also on a bit of a voluntary simplicity kick at the time 🙂
And – big houses are far more complicated than land value. There is also status / keeping up with the joneses, + the effective price of building has been coming down + its a capital gains tax free asset. I could go on. I don’t agree with all Clive wrote, back then, I agreed with parts of it.
He is however, meanering further and further away from reality.
10
No.
Entropy always increases: you can stir the milk into your coffee, but you can never stir the milk back out of your coffee… thus the arrow of time.
Similarly, the probability is always higher that the excited atom will spill its energy away to neighbouring atoms through collisions, than the probability of the once-excited atom getting it’s energy back (although strictly speaking the physics is reversible and there is a small but non-zero probability of a single atom becoming highly excited through collisions).
10
A piece of “brilliant” Warmist NewResearch now predicts that, while not wanting to be overly alarmist, warming due to Anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse gases is (drumroll) more severe than previously thought by 30-50%. Have any of the Warmists ever considered how lame their religion is? By their own religious edicts, there is really no point in reducing CO2 emissions by [80%, 90%, 95%] (insert as required), because there is no hope for salvation – the planet is DOOMED anyway!
10
Are you commenting on the media story, the press release, or the study itself?
10
Anne-Kit Littler said, fairly accurately, “voting in Australian Federal elections is compulsory.”
Well, if you enrolled, attending a polling booth is compulsory, but your ballot papers (so far) are not checked to see whether you numbered the boxes correctly or just drew some facetious doodles thereon.
(I, however, have been disenfranchised and may not vote at State or Federal elections.)
Sen. Bob Brown declared that the Greens had enjoyed their best performance so far, in seats contested by Liberals without Labor candidates, and that the Greens will soon be picking up seats in the House of Representatives all over the place; but he always says that.
Greens senator Christine Milne was recently on TV, sounding like Sen. Wong on steroids, echoing Wong’s claims (a) that AGW is dooming the planet, making seas and temperatures rise and life untenable, and (b) that Sen. Joyce and Mr. Abbot are naughty, scaremongering alarmists.
10
The Greens will self destruct soon enough. The only thing keeping them together is Bob Brown, who is decidedly moderate (for a Green) when he goes, the lunatics take over the asylum and they will become unelectable.
10
JS #66
Then it must be time for one last binge and bender. Anarchy all round lol
10
Deadman,
Do I read you correctly? If you are enrolled (we would say registered) to vote then voting is compulsory. Is there a penalty? If so, what is it?
I’ve often wished the same was true here in the U.S. It would put a lot of lazy citizens to a sore test (and they need it badly).
Good for you!
10
Roy,
Yes Australia has true compulsory voting. If you don’t vote in state and federal elections or referendums you get sent a “please explain” letter, and a fine of $25 or so, if you don’t have a good excuse.
Jo
10
Jo,
How hard is it to get permanent resident status in Australia?
Things are not looking good here. Our so-called Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared CO2 to be a public danger. So even If Copenhagen fails as I think it will and even if cap-and-trade fails in the Senate, the EPA is now free to start mandating all sorts of emissions restrictions.
Then there’s California where I live with its own version of cap-and-trade ready to go into effect.
I could go for a place where the people have the good sense and the courage to fight back against their government.
Just an aside: it seems ironic to me that the Copenhagen meeting opens on December 7, the 68th anniversary of the attack on our base at Pearl Harbor in 1941.
10
I’d very much like to know that, too. Here, in Sweden, we don’t have exactly an ‘EPA’, but there are a tremendous lot of ‘mini-EPA’s’ in form of politicrats, NGO’s and so on, all ‘sown’ in into their own agendas and with vast financial [tax] support, these fraudsters are close to do just anything they wish in their totally sqrewed minds. “I kill people for money, but you are my friend, I’ll kill you for nothing…” Symptomatic for the presenet EU-‘mentality’… Go figure!
Brgds/TJ
10
Tel, now we’re talking! “Similarly, the probability is always higher that the excited atom will spill its energy away to neighbouring atoms through collisions, than the probability of the once-excited atom getting it’s energy back (although strictly speaking the physics is reversible and there is a small but non-zero probability of a single atom becoming highly excited through collisions).”
Interesting, my understanding of the energy transformations had definitely neglected entropy. However, a ‘kinetically’ hot gas will radiate in the emission spectrum of its constituent molecules. Molecular collisions will result in radiation, I dont think it’s as assymetric as you describe, I still suspect that 1 Joule of radiation in = 1 Joule of radiation out, rather than 0.75 joules of radiation out and 0.25 joules of extra kinetic left in the gas, but that’s based more on intuition. I’ll have to see what zee books say.
Also, from some course material on radiative transfer (not mine).
ii) Kinetic collisions, by changing the translation energy, influence rotational levels
strongly, vibrational levels slightly, and electronic levels scarcely at all.
Seems to suggest transformation between radiation and kinetic energy is limited, I think the collisions only tend to result in spectral broadening, whereby the emitted photon is slightly lower or higher in energy (frequency/wavelength) than the absorbed photon, the difference in energy being due to kinetic energy gained or lost from the molecule in the collisions.
Love to discuss it some more.
10
Ah you know what? If the energy lost (transformed) in the collisions were greater than the the energy gained (on average, over time), you would end up with an emission spectrum skewed to one side of the emission peaks (more energy in the longer wavelengths) and that doesn’t happen, the energy in the emission spectrum is distributed evenly around the peak. I think my original desciption still stands.
10
The temperature of the gas will increase until the system settles. At this point 1 Joule in = 1 Joule out BUT the statistical temperature of the output radiation must be lower than the statistical temperature of the input radiation.
Let’s give an example, if you are in space and you point your pyrometer at the sun, you start to collect photons. The sun radiates across many bands — infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet, etc. Collecting one single photon in your pyrometer doesn’t tell you anything, you need to collect enough photons to build a statistical histogram which gives you an estimate of the surface temperature of the sun. If you know the diameter of the Earth then you can work out how much energy is flowing into the Earth.
Now point the pyrometer at the Earth, there’s a sunny side of Earth and a dark side so this is a more difficult measurement. For argument’s sake suppose you collect a spread of photons from right the way around the Earth at various times of year and you build a histogram out of that. You can make an estimate of the temperature of the Earth, you can also make an estimate of the total energy flowing away from the Earth.
The histogram of radiation leaving the Earth will predominantly be lower frequency (i.e. lower energy) photons, as compared with the histogram of radiation entering the Earth.
In the long run, the inflow and the outflow energy must be equal. But for short times this is not the case because the system never fully settles.
Another way of thinking about it is, suppose there was a thin hard shell around the sun at the same radius as the Earth’s orbit. Standing inside the shell you would see a small, hot object (the Sun), but standing further out in space you could not see the Sun and would instead see a much larger not-so-hot object (the Dyson shell). However, the power entering the shell from inside would have to balance the power exiting the shell from the outside (once the shell has heated up and reached equilibrium temperature).
The outside of the shell radiates at a lower temperature over a larger area, the surface of the sun radiates at a higher temperature over a smaller area. Total power is the same in either case.
Lets take a step further and suppose a farmer is growing crops on the inside of the Dyson shell — the crops get normal sunlight and they grow. The guys inside the shell can run solar panels too.
Someone else is in space outside the Dyson shell (in a space station) trying to grow crops, they get only dim infra-red from the outside of the shell, they can’t grow any crops at all. They can’t run solar panels either. The guys in the space station are foobar (unless they have their own nuclear reactor). Why do the guys on the inside have it so much better than the guys on the outside? The power available is the same (over sufficiently long timespan).
Weirder still, the Dyson shell would make the Sun look dark from a distance (possibly making primitive astronomers on some other planet believe that the universe was made of mysterious dark matter).
10
“The temperature of the gas will increase until the system settles. At this point 1 Joule in = 1 Joule out BUT the statistical temperature of the output radiation must be lower than the statistical temperature of the input radiation.”
Ahhh, now that’s interesting. When you say statistical temperature I take it you mean a histogram of frequency and intensity that relates the observed radiation back to the total average kinetic energy of the source. I could be wrong but I don’t think radiation can be said to have a temperature; temperature as I understand it, is a statistical quality of matter and aggregates of particles.
But yeah, point about entropy and the energy from the radiation being able to do less useful work as it is absorbed and re-emitted is taken.
Tel, I’ve skirted around the explanation of the origin of blackbody radiation in the textbooks because it wasn’t really required to understand absorption, excitation and emission in CO2 molecules. But if you know anything about it, feel free to unload.
10
Easy! jump into any boat, point it towards Oz and sail.you will be intercepted by our navy and taken to christmas island. destroy all documentary proof of who you are and answer only.
when questioned on the purpose of your trip. within 3 months you will be given permanant resident status. the govt will give you a house in preference to thousands of Aussies that have been waiting for up to ten years. you can pay for the house out of the social security payments that you can recieve for the rest of your life. we wouldn`t want you to be lonely, so you can bring the family over and they too can have all these freebies. we ask only that when you get to vote, you remember who `gave` you this neat lifestyle package.
10
For Tel, some stuff on spectral broadening, sorry if it’s teaching you to suck eggs mate, I found it a good read.
Besides that, what do you make of Einstein’s take on stimulated versus spontaneous emission and the conservation of the absorbed photons original momentum, do you think it’s relevant? I think it probably is.
Impact pressure broadening: The collision of other particles with the emitting particle interrupts the emission process. The duration of the collision is much shorter than the lifetime of the emission process. This effect depends on both the density and the temperature of the gas. The broadening effect is described by a Lorentzian profile and there may be an associated shift.
Quasistatic pressure broadening: The presence of other particles shifts the energy levels in the emitting particle, thereby altering the frequency of the emitted radiation. The duration of the influence is much longer than the lifetime of the emission process. This effect depends on the density of the gas, but is rather insensitive to temperature. The form of the line profile is determined by the functional form of the perturbing force with respect to distance from the perturbing particle. There may also be a shift in the line center.
Thermal Doppler broadening: Atoms will have different thermal velocities, so they will see the photons red or blue shifted due to the Doppler effect, absorbing photons of different energies in the frame of reference of the observer. The higher the temperature of the gas, the larger the velocity differences (and velocities), and the broader the line. This broadening effect is described by a Doppler profile and there is no associated shift.
10
Mark Stevens,
I hope you realized that I was kidding. I have a life, a career, friends and family here. This is my native land and I intend to stay and fight. The Stars and Stripes Forever still stirs up a lot of pride and emotion in me when I hear it played. It’s by far my favorite march. Nothing else compares. This is my country.
If nothing else I would rather go down fighting than quit.
10
I think the upshot about spectral broadening is that only small amounts of energy (relative to the initial energy of the absorbed photon) are transformed during molecular collisions and it is quite symmetric, i.e. it IS equally likely the molecule will gain or lose energy.
10
I know it was a joke, but heck, we could use more sane people here:
HEre’s the skilled immigration points calculator
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/point_calculator.htm
These are apparently the jobs we are looking to fill.
http://www.workpermit.com/australia/skilled/occupation_list.htm
But if Copenhagen succeeds and Western Australia secedes, then all bets are off.
10
Tell,
The Dyson sphere radiates at least half of the energy it absorbs back towards the Sun.
George
10
Yes, the pyrometer will observe a histogram of frequency vs intensity. If the pyrometer is pointing at an ideal black body of uniform and constant temperature then the shape of the histogram will follow Planck’s law of black-body radiation. In this case you can be exactly sure of the temperature. It takes some time to collect such a histogram, this cannot be an instantaneous reading.
If the object in question is not an ideal black body, is not uniform temperature (and nothing ever is), or is not constant temperature (and nothing is that either) then you won’t have a perfect match to Planck’s law but typically you get something close. Then you do your best fit and you can estimate how big your error is by how well the histogram fits the theoretical ideal. If that makes an unacceptable error by whatever standards you might be using then you will need to focus multiple pyrometers on patches of the radiator under observation and break it down into smaller regions, refine the model, etc. You may also need a theoretical model of the surface properties if they are a long way different to a classic black body.
I picked the Dyson shell example because it is completely symmetric and deliberately simple to calculate. All I was trying to show is that, even though the Dyson sphere fully encloses the Sun and thus captures ALL of the energy from the Sun, it will still have a lower temperature than the surface of the Sun. None of the energy is lost, but once outside the shell the same total radiative power exists in lower frequency photons.
10
I would argue that only the exterior surface of the shell should be calculated as the radiator area. The interior surface will merely radiate from same temperature to same temperature so no nett energy transfer takes place. I guess the sun would also heat up very slightly due to the back radiation.
10
Hey Jo
Sorry off target but relevent
from Wattsupwiththat
Darwin Temperature Manipulation – what a disgrace to true science
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#comment-252294
10
Tel, CO2 is not evil; just to illustrate a point, if the Dyson Sphere wasn’t a solid, but was in fact a gaseous spherical shell (for ease we’ll say just one molecule thick) Einstein’s theory of stimulated emission (sometimes called induced emission) tells us that there would be no back-radiation towards the sun because the original momentum of the sun’s emitted photons is preserved thoughout the absorption/emission process.
10
…conserved rather, though I am sure preserved photons taste quite delicious.
10
Clive (lets-suspend-democracy) Hamilton
l-s-d?
This could explain a few things about Clivey’s brain and how it works.
10
Roy @81,
Altho I’m an expat in Switz, I’m still a patriot. When the time comes – I’ll go back and go down fighting too.
10
Kendra,
Let us all hope it doesn’t come to that. But if it does I think going down fighting is the only way to keep your self-respect.
10
Mike W, I can’t say for sure but a thin gaseous Dyson shell would be blown away on the solar wind like dust. Only a strong solid shell could maintain position and this sort of shell merely transfers momentum to other parts of the shell.
It’s not by any means a close analogy to the Earth’s atmosphere, it was illustrative of a particular point (re-radiation at a lower temperature), that is all.
10
Below is a link to a well written and very easily understood description of what and why Peter Spencer is protesting about,
in regards to Carbon trading and the position Australia and it’s government now find themsleves in.
I suggest it is a MUST READ for everyone, but particularly Australians.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/12/12/carbongate-the-great-carbon-heist/
Maybe you will consider joining this group,
http://agmates.ning.com/group/peterspencerhungerstrike
Jo is it worth a thread in it’s pwn right.
Below is another very well put together series of videos / report into how the Carbon trading schemes are effecting innocent people in Brazil.
Another MUST WATCH, I suggest.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/
10
Lol, Tel, likewise, my gaseous shell was merely meant to be illustrative of how ‘stimulated emission’ conserves momentum whereas the AGW view of CO2 molecules re-radiating isotropically does not. In fact, for the AGW theory to hold in the real world, momentum will be destroyed if CO2 re-radiates isotropically, not a very palatable idea at all is it? So what gives, where does the momentum go warmers?
10
“So what gives, where does the momentum go warmers?”
My understanding of the Earth’s atmosphere is that it is held down to the Earth’s surface by gravity. Thus, the momentum can transfer down to the surface of the Earth by the same mechanism (i.e. gravity).
Now that I’ve said that, I can’t clearly visualise the mechanical details at the microscopic level. I have not seen a clear explanation of this effect but people on both sides of the debate seem to just ignore any large scale accumulation of momentum.
10
[…] But maybe Clive was blessed with a premonition there. When he ran for election in Higgins two years later, he didn’t do so well. […]
10