Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!

[Tonington]

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish. I suggest that you go directly to the IPCC document (I believe to be high skewed and therefore the supporters will not rebut the source), but in that doc, you'll find conclusive statements that water vapour is by far and away, the largest contributor to this hysteria.

Nobody is denying that water vapour is the largest component of the natural greenhouse effect. Without it, we wouldn't be +14°C, we'd be -18°C on the average.

That's not contested. It's established, just as the stratospheric cooling is established. The problem with invoking the sun, or any of the other lame attribution hypotheses, is that there are many phenomena that you're going to have to explain away.

Just try explaining away the stratospheric cooling. If you can solve that, we'll go through the rest of the phenomena that the greenhouse effect can explain, that the other ideas cannot.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well, the results are in, and by all accounts the earth hour (remember earth hour folks, the one this thread is supposed to be all about?) has been a smashing success.

According to World Wildlife Fund, organizer of he event, 1 billion people participated in it, it met the expected target.

4000 cities in 88 countries took part. That is up from 400 cities in 2008, and one city, Sydney in 2007 (that is when the whole thing started).

The event progressed from 2.2 million people in 2007 (all of them in Sydney) to 1 billion people worldwide. Impressive showing indeed. The event is spreading like wildfire (if one is an environmentalist) or like Ebola virus (if one is an anti-environmentalist).

What say we shoot for 2 or 3 billion next year? Anyway, I was glad to do my bit; I brought the event to the attention of the posters here.

Through vigorous, sometimes passionate debate, the posters kept the thread alive; it has received more than 1000 views so far (obviously less than that last night, when the event took place).

So I would like to thank all the participants, including those who were opposed to the event. You indirectly helped promote the event, by participating in the discussion.

So both environmentalists and anti-environmentalists contributed to the success, congratulations all around.

Now what do you guys say we give the thread a decent burial (we will resurrect it next year, of course).

Anyway, again, congratulations everybody, congratulations WWF, and of course, pat on the back for me.

I am signing off on the thread.

 

[Francis2004]

Sir Francis, that will lead to what the Physical Chemists call Brownian Motion. It is random motion of gas molecules.

So a group of drunk drivers (assuming they are totally drunk) would collide with each other in a random way. The mathematics of the Brownian motion can be worked out beautifully.

In fact, I remember from my college days, we used Drunkard’s Walk in analyzing random motion.

But the drunks are no supposed to collide according to this theory. These people who used to believe this of course thought the opposite is quite true..

 

[captain morgan]

Nobody is denying that water vapour is the largest component of the natural greenhouse effect. Without it, we wouldn't be +14°C, we'd be -18°C on the average.

That's not contested. It's established, just as the stratospheric cooling is established. The problem with invoking the sun, or any of the other lame attribution hypotheses, is that there are many phenomena that you're going to have to explain away.

Just try explaining away the stratospheric cooling. If you can solve that, we'll go through the rest of the phenomena that the greenhouse effect can explain, that the other ideas cannot.

I am new to this forum and as such I cannot point to previous discussion. Regardless, the biggest elements that will affect the stratospheric conditions are confined to 'mechanical' heating component (ie solar) and the capacity of those waves (or particle theory if you prefer) to, en mass, filter through that system. Cloud cover is not relegated to the lower elevations (although it is more concentrated), but the components in the upper elevations is also important to the physics of the system. the clouds act to filter-out many components of the radiation. The more clouds (obstacles) the greater the reflection back into space (as well as the insulation effects).

Again, I will point to the concentrations emitted by the various sources and ask you relate that to the dynamics at all levels of the atmosphere.

Suggesting that one solitary component (man-made ghg's) is solely responsible for the changes (or plays a significant role) is nothing simply seeking to remand a trendy belief as opposed to analysing the entire picture.

Again, believe what you wish, however, do not expect to force that explanation down the throats of those that have alternate opinions..... That simply won't wash.

 

[Cannuck]

According to World Wildlife Fund, organizer of he event, 1 billion people participated in it, it met the expected target.

Oh really!! According to CNN (the news source you respect most) only 100 million partook.
Lights go out across planet for Earth Hour - CNN.com

""We think we are going to have 100 million people around the world sending a message that climate change is real, and we need to take action now," World Wildlife Fund CEO Carter Roberts told CNN."

It would appear that either you are lying or WWF can't count. The link also says..

"More than 2,800 cities and towns worldwide dimmed their lights at 8:30 p.m. local time for the third annual Earth Hour -- a day-long energy-saving marathon spanning 83 countries and 24 time zones."

4000 cities in 88 countries took part. That is up from 400 cities in 2008, and one city, Sydney in 2007 (that is when the whole thing started).

If I didn't know any better I could swear somebody is making this shyte up as they go along.

What say we shoot for 2 or 3 billion next year? Anyway, I was glad to do my bit; I brought the event to the attention of the posters here.

Whoaaaa, slow down there Tex. Let's maybe try to equal the US population first.

I am signing off on the thread.

Of course you are. That's alot easier than backing up your rubbish.

 

[Francis2004]

Oh really!! According to CNN (the news source you respect most) only 100 million partook.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/earth.hour/index.html
""We think we are going to have 100 million people around the world sending a message that climate change is real, and we need to take action now," World Wildlife Fund CEO Carter Roberts told CNN."

It would appear that either you are lying or WWF can't count. The link also says..

"More than 2,800 cities and towns worldwide dimmed their lights at 8:30 p.m. local time for the third annual Earth Hour -- a day-long energy-saving marathon spanning 83 countries and 24 time zones."



If I didn't know any better I could swear somebody is making this shyte up as they go along.



Whoaaaa, slow down there Tex. Let's maybe try to equal the US population first.



Of course you are. That's alot easier than backing up your rubbish.

Simple.... Go to the source you quote in the World Wildlife Fund ( Earth Hour US ) Site..

Landmarks Darken Around the Globe for Earth Hour

Sunday, March 29, 2009

By VOA News
29 March 2009

Time zone by time zone, nearly 4,000 cities and towns in 88 countries marked Earth Hour Saturday, by dimming nonessential lights from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m.

From an Antarctic research station, to the Great Pyramids of Egypt and several buildings in Washington, including the Smithsonian Castle, famous structures went dark in a campaign to highlight the threat of climate change.

China participated for the fist time, cutting the lights at Beijing's Bird's Nest Stadium and the Water Cube.

In the Chilean capital of Santiago lights were turned off at a number of buildings, including the Presidential Palace where President Michelle Bachelet hosted a dinner by candlelight for U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden.

Earth Hour organizers say there is no uniform way to measure how much energy was saved worldwide.

The event was first organized in Sydney in 2007.

http://eh09-breakingnews.blogspot.com/2009/03/landmarks-darken-around-globe-for-earth.html

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Simple.... Go to the source you quote in the World Wildlife Fund ( Earth Hour US ) Site..



Earth Hour US

Sir Francis, some people open their mouth just because they like to hear their voice, for no other reason.

 

[RanchHand]

Sir Francis, some people open their mouth just because they like to hear their voice, for no other reason.

In this modern era where everyone gets a feel good award for everything whether they finish first or last I would like to be frank with you and say your posts here were not among your best efforts.

 

[YukonJack]

Re #161.

SirJosephPorter, I did not bother to refute your reply to my post because in your inimitable style and unsurpassed talent to spin and twist the words of others in order to support your own views, you totally ignored my point that a 60 watt light bulb used the same amount of energy wheter in India or Canada.

I just happen to use 60 watts as an example. If I had used 25 watt light bulb as an example to illustrate my point, I am sure you would have found another, equally twisted illogical spin in an attempt to appear smarter.

You know, you and your posts remind me of Jesse Ventura when he was a colour man on WWF wrestling TV brodcasts. Gene Okerland described the action between another wrestler and Tito Santana. Jesse Ventura, in his comments, repeatedly referred to Santana as "CHICO" Santana. When Okerland told him "It's TITO not Chico", Ventura, indignantly declared: "That's what I said: CHICO".

Makes me suspect that the bombastic and obstinate former wrestler (and Governor of Minnesota) and you were twins separated at birth.

 

[TenPenny]

Uhmm....OK, educate me. When power consumption drops, say 10%, for just an hour do they shut off 10% of coal fired generators? How do you turn off a very large, hot coal fire? And do they turn it on again the instant consumption surges back of to previous levels? How do you do that with a coal generator?

I'm all ears.

Coal is burned to produce steam. Steam is run through a turbine that spins a generator to make electricity.

As the load on the grid goes up and down, the steam flow to the turbine is altered so that the turbine runs at the right speed and load to generate the required power.

As the steam load changes, the load on the boiler changes, and the firing rate of coal is changed. The boiler isn't 'shut down', but the burn rate is changed.

Similarly with hydro plants, the water flow through the turbines is changed.

Every utility has a team of people monitoring the demand all over the grid, working with the individual plants to trim loads to suit the demand. If a big chunk of the load suddenly disappears, and the generating capacity doesn't change, the grid is overloaded, which is exaclty what happened a couple of years ago when a big chunk of NY, Ont, etc went black. It was the result of a big chunk of demand dropping off (due to a failed transmission line in Ohio if I recal correctly), and the generating capacity wasn't changed quickly enough, so it overloaded the grid, which caused more of the grid to shut down, which caused more overloading....

 

[YukonJack]

Re #199.

SirJosephPorter's logic in this typical post of his is exactly like the one about the rooster:

The rooster crows in the morning.
Morning comes.
Therefore the rooster caused the morning.

Emphasized by the very mature "Sez you".

 

[Tonington]

Again, I will point to the concentrations emitted by the various sources and ask you relate that to the dynamics at all levels of the atmosphere.

Concentrations of what?

Suggesting that one solitary component (man-made ghg's) is solely responsible for the changes (or plays a significant role) is nothing simply seeking to remand a trendy belief as opposed to analysing the entire picture.

I didn't suggest it was a single factor. I also said ozone depletion was a factor.

There's nothing trendy about this belief, it's observed. Check out the RSS or UAH satellite records and you'll see it.

Again, believe what you wish, however, do not expect to force that explanation down the throats of those that have alternate opinions..... That simply won't wash.

What won't wash is an explanation for why the globe is warming that is inconsistent with the physics we know to be occurring. Your opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the physics of our atmosphere.

 

[GreenFish66]

I get tired of reading the "to sun" and listening to people like Goldstein constantly slaming everything "green" with no solutions..So go tell your kids to turn on all the lights..the vacumm...the water taps...the furnace ..the t.v's..the air conditioners..the heaters...the washers ,the dryers ,the dishwasher...See how long they'll make it in their own house before they go broke!....Conservation saves money! Is good for everyone!...My son and I had a great time playing games and enjoyed being part of something bigger than our selves!...It was fun..My kid loves the environment and is the one that brought it up to me this year!....

Everything makes waste...Who cleans it up?....unfortunatley ,more ofen than Not..It isn't the people who make the mess..The people who should.. ..The people who clean up the mess tend to be the few that actually care about others and the world around them...."Greens" and kids clean up most of the waste...They shoudln't be the only ones!....

 

[GreenFish66]

There is global warming ..there is also global cooling...It is called climate change...It is what comes along with climate change that everyone should be concerned about...The earth will be fine..It will balance itself...But at what cost to The human animals?.....It get's pretty damned hot above those tar ponds and fire stacks..

 

[captain morgan]

Concentrations of what?

PPM of whatever.. CO2, NO2, particulate, ash, water vapour, etc., etc.

There's nothing trendy about this belief, it's observed. Check out the RSS or UAH satellite records and you'll see it.

Really?... Seeing how there is no consensus, no proof and nothing other than hearsay that global warming is predominately man-made, I'd say that this is a massive tempest in a tea pot.

Let's be honest. If the IPCC or any of the doom-sayers had any form of real, measurable, debatable and hard evidence, this wouldn't be an issue. The fact of the matter is that the enviro movement and the IPCC (let alone the Gore's and Suzukis of the world) form a support base on marketing and debasing any opponent with dereogatory tags and idioms... Not exactly awe inspiring, is it? But then again, as another poster pointed-out, those that are unable to mount a factual argument often resort to launching campaigns challenging the credibility of the opponent.

What won't wash is a explanation for why the globe is warming that is inconsistent with the physics we know to be occurring. Your opinions have no bearing whatsoever on the physics of our atmosphere.

Are you suggesting that higher concentrations in the atmosphere do not impact the climatic conditions (specifically temperature)?

Tell you what. Rather than us kick this ball around to no avail, perhaps we can start the discussion with explaining the dynamics of the earth's system. Seeing how you posssess a deep understanding in this area, perhaps you will explain the advent of the multiple ice-ages experienced long before humans walked the planet.

I can only assume that the basic systemic forces are present today that existed way back when, leaving us with humanity being the big variable.... So, let's hear it and get to the bottom of the issue, eh?

 

[JLM]

I not really convinced that it proved much, except for the fact if we can do without the lights for an hour like on the parliament bldgs. why not just remove the lights altogether. Basically it costs more to turn the lights on than it does to run them for an hour.

 

[Tonington]

PPM of whatever.. CO2, NO2, particulate, ash, water vapour, etc., etc.

In order, warms, warms, warms/cools, warms/cools, warms/cools. Those that do both obviously depend on where it is they occur spatially.

Really?... Seeing how there is no consensus, no proof and nothing other than hearsay that global warming is predominately man-made, I'd say that this is a massive tempest in a tea pot.

So you say, that doesn't make it so.

Let's be honest. If the IPCC or any of the doom-sayers had any form of real, measurable, debatable and hard evidence, this wouldn't be an issue.

There is plenty of evidence. The deniers have memes.

The fact of the matter is that the enviro movement and the IPCC (let alone the Gore's and Suzukis of the world) form a support base on marketing and debasing any opponent with dereogatory tags and idioms...

That's pretty rich. It moves both ways you know. You're new here, it may take you a while to figure out that I don't give a crap what Suzuki or Gore say. You won't hear me quoting them.

Not exactly awe inspiring, is it? But then again, as another poster pointed-out, those that are unable to mount a factual argument often resort to launching campaigns challenging the credibility of the opponent.

You're the one who is launching into non-sequiturs about talking media heads. I've discussed only the physics with you and you're driving it of course to fit your needs.

Are you suggesting that higher concentrations in the atmosphere do not impact the climatic conditions (specifically temperature)?

No. What the hell are you smoking? I'm suggesting that your opinion doesn't matter one iota as far as the physics are concerned.

So, I can wait while you try to explain this discrepancy you seem to have, a la other causes.

We have a theory, a theory that explains the observed warming of the troposphere, a theory that explains the poleward movement of heat, a theory that explains a cooling stratosphere, a theory that explains why night time temperatures are rising faster than daytime temperatures, a theory which works well, and makes successful predictions.

You can't just take that and say, it could be something else, without having a good reason. In science, you accept the theory that works until something replaces it. When you can replace it, let me know. Until then, your weak assertions, and memetic rhetoric are worth nothing.

It should be simple, I mean you must have a reason for saying it's something else. Let's hear it.

I'll wait. I'll not hold my breath, but I'll wait nonetheless.

 

[YukonJack]

Do a Google search using "Al Gore Earth Hour". You will find so many refrences that he ignored Earth Hour that quoting all would be impossible, and quoting some would be futile. Just read them all if you have all day.

Even those put all their faith in "consensus" must be impressed.

Appearently Al Gore, the Oscar-winning Nobel Peace Prize laurate is nothing more than a hypocrite.

However, I am sure some of the posters - who declared anyone who disagreed with the idea of Earth Day here liars, deniers, anti-environmentalists and worse - will give him a pass.

 

[Extrafire]

Well, the results are in, and by all accounts the earth hour (remember earth hour folks, the one this thread is supposed to be all about?) has been a smashing success.

According to World Wildlife Fund, organizer of he event, 1 billion people participated in it, it met the expected target.

4000 cities in 88 countries took part. That is up from 400 cities in 2008, and one city, Sydney in 2007 (that is when the whole thing started).

[...]

Anyway, again, congratulations everybody, congratulations WWF, and of course, pat on the back for me.

I am signing off on the thread.

"Global warming is one of those holy causes in which journalist may freely lie."

And indeed they do! Those statistics (1 billion people and 4000 cities) were published before "earth hour" even took place for 3/4 of the world!

The Age and Sydney Morning Herald sponsored last night’s Earth Hour, in which warming worriers demanded we turn off lights and stop burning stuff to save the world from our nasty gases. But the papers’ gallery of pictures of the event shows that none of the candle-waving believers seemed to think the message applied actually to them.
The Age detects some apathy:

However, while the world embraced the third annual Earth Hour, only 500 Victorian businesses signed up to last night’s event online, a third of last year’s total. Australia-wide, there were 2,500 businesses against last year’s 7230. Apathy, financial woes and the whine of the Grand Prix were among reasons cited by Melburnians for staying alight amid so much darkness.
​

Pardon? Melburnians say they’d cut their emissions, if it wasn’t that the sound of fast cars stopped them? We can’t be bothered now even trying to make a good excuse.
UPDATE
The Sydney Morning Herald didn’t bother to see what people would actually do during Earth Hour before reporting unprecedented support. This news story on Earth Hour appeared on its website site just after midnight, before almost three quarters of the world had had a chance to flick a switch - or not:

Planet Earth turned on the dark last night as 1 billion people flicked the switch for Earth Hour 2009. In a record show of support for action against climate change, the lights went out in thousands of cities and towns in more than 80 countries.
​

But global warming is one of those holy causes in which journalists may freely lie, and indeed must and do. Do you really think 1 billion people, or more than one in seven people around the world, from the villages of Uttar Pradesh to the working-class suburbs of China, turned off their lights for an hour? Could that figure be even remotely true?
UPDATE 3
NEMMCO detects only a tiny blip in power use in NSW and Victoria - with, it seems at first glance, more power being used at the end of Earth Hour than at its start:

More data when it comes in.
UPDATE 4
New Zealand has cooled on Earth Hour, too:

Orion New Zealand estimated the electricity saved in the city during the lights-out event was 8.1%, well short of last year’s 12.8%.
​

Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

 

[Francis2004]

Do a Google search using "Al Gore Earth Hour". You will find so many refrences that he ignored Earth Hour that quoting all would be impossible, and quoting some would be futile. Just read them all if you have all day.

Even those put all their faith in "consensus" must be impressed.

Appearently Al Gore, the Oscar-winning Nobel Peace Prize laurate is nothing more than a hypocrite.

However, I am sure some of the posters - who declared anyone who disagreed with the idea of Earth Day here liars, deniers, anti-environmentalists and worse - will give him a pass.

You just don't get it do you..

Other then the fact that Al Gore made a movie and won an award most of us don't care about him.. He is only your whipping person. I am glad you are into that sort of life style..