Re: [asa] Trees don't lie

From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
Date: Fri Mar 20 2009 - 12:12:26 EDT

Another red flag for me was the G&T perspective that molecular chemistry
wasn't applicable and that thermodynamic principles were the way to go.
Well, the two are certainly related and I don't understand how you can avoid
molecular spectra. Take a look at any lake or the ocean and ask yourself
"why is water blue?". Answering that from thermodynamics alone is rather
difficult. But a molecular spectroscopist can tell you right away that there
is a H2O molecular stretching frequency ( I think it is the H--H bond in
liquid form) at the low frequency end of the visible spectrum. As Rich
pointed out, we now know the spectra of the various gases in the atmosphere
and can determine the absorption and emission quite well. To dismiss that in
favor of a hand-waving thermodynamic argument (which I still don't
understand) is not very compelling. I'll bet the reviewers of that paper are
glad that reviewers are anonymous.

Randy

Burgy wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> BTW, detailed rebuttals to the G&T aricle are being carried on at
>
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/open-thread-11/
>
> Randy's comments on this seem to be on course. The arguments G&T use
> are akin to the "evolution could not have happened because of the 2nd
> law of thermo."
>
> Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 20 12:13:07 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 20 2009 - 12:13:07 EDT