2011-01-18 18:44:03Even Moderators need to have something to laugh at
Glenn Tamblyn


To those of you who have taken on the onerous task of moderation, my hats off to you (if I had one)

Just to add a lighter note - don't read the darker aspects into this - co2isnotevil has been hard at work. Here is a recent post by him over at JoNova http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/half-of-the-energy-is-flung-out-to-space-along-with-the-model-projections/ that is essentially George strutting his stuff. Do Not, Do Not, Do Not comment. You don't want the wasps (or was that dung beetles) to swarm. But you can't help reading through the comments and laughing. This is what passes for 'informed debate' over there.

The great classic comment has to be this from George '...While joules are removed from the surface as the water is evaporated, the same amount of joules must be added back to the water as it condenses to fall as rain...'

Jesus, Mary & Joseph!

2011-02-08 05:59:58This one made me laugh
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Reader Michael M makes this comment for the ages, now preserved here for posterity:


MichaelM at 02:40 AM on 8 February, 2011

I would enjoy CSI: RSVP where corpses lie around with bullet wounds and axes sticking out of them and they are all deemed to have died of 'natural causes'.

2011-02-08 11:54:16Trolling
Julian Brimelow


It seems that you have an anti-science troll on the site who goes by the name of "mozart".


2011-02-08 12:17:58On the radar
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

He reeks of troll...

2011-04-27 01:04:26Boundless irony and potential for negative critical mass in the future
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
damorbel at 00:43 AM on 27 April 2011

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #1015 Fred Staples you wrote:-

"The theory suggests that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere moves the boundary between the optically thick region below, and the optically thin region above, where radiation to space is relatively unimpeded. Since this region is colder, outgoing radiation falls, and the sun warms the entire system, shifting the lapse rate to the right."

This hypothesis has many weaknesses. One of Tyndall's most important discoveries was that GHGs were the perfect absorbers of their own emissions. This has the important consequence that, if two samples are irradiating each other, heat energy only goes to the cooler from the hotter, (tending to raise it temperature) thoroughly in accord with the 2nd law.

The same is true for density, the denser emits more radiation than the less dense, assuming the two samples have the same temperature.

Of course in the atmosphere both effects (density and temperature difference) are to be observed, so there is considerable energy transfer, but only upwards.

Without energy transfer 'downwards' there will be no heating of the surface by adding GHGs

2011-05-01 20:36:51


I'm not a mod here, but if I was I'd delete this spam:



At the edge of the blog-sphere lay crying

 a spammer a'crying he lay

and the spam-busters gathered around him

 to ask if he'd something to say.


From the hobnail boot marks on my cheekbones

 from the hockey stick stuck in my ear

I assume that you do not like spammers -

 you've made that most perfectly clear!

2011-05-27 11:56:50
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey

Reader Bern chalks one up on the posterity list:


The Stockholm Memorandum

You know the tune!

Troll troll troll your post
Gently down the screen
Drag the comments so off-topic
The science can't be seen

Troll troll troll your post
Gently down the page
Build some strawmen, tear them down
Generate some rage

(sorry, I'll go away now... :-P )

2011-06-24 02:29:34OMG: Striving valiantly for (unintentionally) funniest comment of the year, Argus weighs in
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
  1. #50, What is so bizarre about that? The ocean basins themselves must be shrinking because of the enormous amount of eroded material that is transported daily into the oceans by all major rivers. So the question is valid. The volume of the silt should be compared to the volume of melted glaciers, before we call the idea bizarre, but who can find the figures?
2011-06-30 15:14:18Sphaerica weighs in
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
Sphaerica at 09:56 AM on 30 June 2011

Ocean acidification: Coming soon
I object strongly to the focus on ocean acidification, when ocean squirrelification is clearly the bigger issue. Climate change is adding squirrels (look! squirrel!) to the ocean at an alarming rate, and we cannot ignore the effects that this is having on coral acorning (like coral bleaching, but the coral winds up in the squirrels' mouths), among other things.

And I don't want to hear any complaints that it's not actually squirrelification, but de-chipmonkification. Everyone knows that removing chipmonks from the oceans increases the squirrel content, and vice versa. The fact that the oceans are not yet squirrelidic and are currently chipmonkic (i.e. a cR [cute Rodent] value above 7) is irrelevant.

But, barring a 23 part expose on squirrelification, I do look forward to a series on ocean acidification. I have a handle on some of it, but it's a weak area that I'd like to correct.

And many have argued that a better understanding of the effects of CO2 in the oceans will also correct our squirrel problem.