O. M. G.
It appears that Mr Ludwig wasn’t pleased by a review of his photon exhibition here. It went on, and on, and on in a most angry tone:
Aye carumba. Let’s see if I can locate the essential misunderestimation going on.
This post is provided for the gentle reader to get a picture of how utterly stupid and divorced from science the typical science denier is. I recently wrote a very simplified picture of the the nature of greenhouse gases. It was purposefully written on a basic level so as to give an accessible, yet accurate picture of the basic driving mechanism behind AGW. There was a lengthy response amongst my devoted denier fans.
That was really dispassionate, wasn’t it? Let me cut to the chase: this was neither accessible nor accurate. And it wasn’t close enough to be “fake but accurate”, either.
I made a number of relatively minor points in order to support the argument that the whole thing was rough around the edges. I’m not going to argue all of them again, but this statement:
Those are statements of fact. They are absolutely correct and not more or less so.
Is simply nonsense.
But rather than chase all of those squirrels up all those trees, let’s concentrate on the major blunder, that he still doesn’t seem to get:
The flow of the argument is that for a certain reason, the sun puts out a large amount of IR light and that this has been measured and understood.
There is nothing in that, or any other statement that he has said, this time or before, that indicates that he understands a very simple fact; that it isn’t primarily IR from the sun that’s causing all of the heating. It isn’t, as he said in the original post, IR reflected from the surface, it’s visible and near IR being converted to far IR, which is what can be caught on the way back out by greenhouse gases.
Let’s go to our handy-dandy alarmist-approved wikipedia page here. OK? This is the site that William Connolley lives at 24/7, and erases dissenting views within minutes. So this site is 100% guaranteed alarmist consensus. Got that so far?
So let’s look at the outline:
The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2 – 4 μm, corresponding to the Sun’s radiative temperature of 6,000 K.[11]. It is no surprise that this is the “visible” light; our eyes are adapted to use the most common radiation.
About 50% of the sun’s energy is absorbed at the Earth’s surface and the rest is reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. The reflection of light back into space – largely by clouds – does not much affect the basic mechanism; this light, effectively, is lost to the system.
The absorbed energy warms the surface.
Let me repeat that. It’s not the longwave IR that CO2 absorbs, it’s a combination of visible and much shorter wavelength IR. Specifically, the radiation that comes from the sun is centered around 0.5 um (the center of the visible spectrum, which is roughly the color green), and tails off to 1% intensity at about 2 um. CO2 doesn’t start absorbing until about 3. This is made clear from this set of curves that are universal for all radiating objects; the yellow curve being at the temperature of the sun, and the red curve being at the temperature of the earth’s surface.
The rainbow stripe is the visible spectrum. To the left is ultraviolet, and to the right is infrared. The IR is conventionally broken into “near” and “far” IR, a distinction that the critic seems to ignore, but is crucial for understanding the greenhouse theory. The sun radiates UV, visible and near IR in toward the earth. The UV is intercepted by the ozone layer, and the rest, it it doesn’t reflect off of a cloud, sails right in. None of the greenhouse gases absorb at those wavelengths. If it reflects, it goes sailing right out the way it came, again unmolested by any greenhouse gases.
When they hit the earth, what doesn’t reflect turns into heat, and warms the surface. The surface then re-radiates according to the red curve. That is in that 4-20 um range that can be absorbed by greenhouse gases.
And that, is the greenhouse theory. Please learn it, if you’re going to pontificate on how it’s going to raise sea levels 200 feet.
Again, resisting chasing all of those squirrels, however some items need to be disputed:
He would like to convince you that because the sun gives out broader bands of IR than the ones that CO2 accepts, somehow CO2 does not cause warming. This is just stupid and utterly false. IF he were correct, energy would no longer be conserved.
Never said that. Never said anything even suggesting that. The guy has severe reading comprehension problems.
It should be noted that the fool who wrote this also denies in his other writings that methane is a problem, yet he is too stupid to realize that he posted the very spectra that prove that methane is a vastly worse GHG than CO2. Of course such a detail would never cross such a little mind.
It should be noted that the fool who wrote this also denies in his other writings that methane is a problem, yet he is too stupid to realize that he posted the very spectra that prove that methane is a vastly worse GHG than CO2. Of course such a detail would never cross such a little mind.
It seems like Donald Duck is getting angrier. The truth is that the series of charts show nothing of the sort. They are based on actual atmospheric concentrations, and they are exactly what they show. All the cussing in the world doesn’t change that.
He would like to convince you that because the sun gives out broader bands of IR than the ones that CO2 accepts…
Just thought I’d point out one more time that he’s still under the mistaken notion that IR is driving all of this.
The important thing to get straight is that space is a vacuum. For convection or conduction to work, one must have a medium to transport heat. Now to be sure, the atmosphere has many modes of conduction and convection, however, the only way it- and hence the Earth as a whole can cool is through radiation. Why? Because space is a vacuum and you can’t conduct or convect heat out into space.
This is actually the basic principle behind a thermos, and a supposed chemical engineer doesn’t get it.
And of course, the re-radiation is well modeled. It is after all, only QM.
Please show where that was disputed. This is a strawman.
It is at that point that you can be pretty certain that he is lying about his supposed degrees. Either that, or he once earned one, but suffered some sort of breakdown.
As was stated many times, Mr. Lensinger has proven himself an idiot and a fraud.
Stay classy.
Now in the comments of the stupid, was a particularly impressively stupid one because a fellow got it right but missed the point. He complains, in the context of re-radiation:
For the record, that was not my comment. The fact that that isn’t clear from this statement indicates a serious communication deficit on the part of the writer.
There is a very serious problem here. We have people falsely claiming to be experts, when in reality they would not pass freshman level physics or chemistry. This does not stop them from shooting their mouths off, but that is not the real problem. The real problem is that Americans - or at least some of them are so proudly ignorant, that they believe this shit.
The irony in that statement is enough to have a magnetic field. Just savor that.
And with that, his true tranzi nature reveals itself. Americans are the real problem. Not Russians who question climate alarmism, not Indians who criticize the IPCC, no. Only Americans. They must be liquidated.
No, the solution is Mr. Quixote needs to be ordered into anger management classes.
And btw, if I’m the one “denying” this, why do I have to explain how it allegedly works to him?
Do I get this right: LvQ doesn’t understand tha basics of “greenhouse effect” ? This is really O.M.G. !
(Btw.: “rightly tuned” seems to be more a term of religion/philosophy and music than of quantum mechanics).
Ludwig wrote:
I think that this sort of thing is going to be a lesson for my gentle readers on how the denier mind malfunctions and how to keep them cornered when they shift goalposts, outright lie about what they said and otherwise ignore when they have been checkmated.
It is important to understand that these fools hold their views as articles of faith. They feel the need to sound pseudo scientific however, so they are much more easy to take apart than a simple “well God said so” argument.
So let us look at Mr Reisinger’s latest mewling whine that somehow he is not a fraud and he does understand science beyond a fifth grade level. He goes through all of the denier schticks in one silly post.
Tactic one: Back up from the stupid thing you were saying and assume that the people you are talking to are stupid enough to forget what you said.
I made a number of relatively minor points in order to support the argument that the whole thing was rough around the edges. I’m not going to argue all of them again, but this statement:
Those are statements of fact. They are absolutely correct and not more or less so.
Is simply nonsense.
Actually, he was attempting to completely dismiss as nonsense an energy conservation argument. Those energy conservation statements are absolute fact. He was not gently trying to point out things that were “rough around the edges.” He was openly obfuscating one of the most core principles of physics in an attempt to mock science he did not like.
So when they try this stuff, point it out to them. The idiot fails not even freshman physics, but high school physics. There is no harm in pointing out the utter ignorance and stupidity of a blowhard. The average person has heard that energy is conserved and that anything that denies that or questions that is wrong.
1) Why did you post this text ? I can’t find a single scientific academic argument only rants, ad hominem attacks, name callings and blablabla. The language is completely non-academic and unscientific.
2) Some ethics for the allegedly physicist with a PhD called LudwigvanQuixote:
All postings about comments of LvQ and AGW here on DoD were posted under the nick “lapyx”. So LvQ has to use this nick as contact person in his answers. Anything else is unethical, especially if you hide yourself behind a nick. I know this is hard to understand for people coming from a blog which is infamous for outing former netizens but you have to accept this b’cause it is minimum standard.
3) Please, can you or rather LvQ provide us with the information when and where the term “rightly tuned” is used in quantum mechanics ?
4) Quote from LvQ´s original posting:
“Frequency is directly proportional to energy through Plank’s (sic !) constant. That is the photo-electric effect. “
i) This is a straw man argument since this is neither in lopyx´s posting nor in the IPCC report 2007 AR4 disputed. This is not even mentioned in the IPCC report 2007.
ii) The oh so well educated allegedly physicist with a PhD, running with the nick “LudwgvanQuixote”, should know that the name of one of the most famous physicists of the 20th century is PLANCK, Max Planck. Not “Plank”. This is as if someone would write Aynstein instead of Einstein. So it is “Planck’s constant”. Got it ? (I’ve never seen a physicist with or without a PhD who didn’t know how to write Planck but I’m still learning
But I doubt that we need any education in the basics of QM by one who doesn’t know how to write correct “Planck”.)
Ludwig wrote:
Tactic two: Pretend what you said was something else entirely. This is slightly different than a simple re-spin.
He started out by complaining that the argument about the suns’ composition causing it to give off a lot of IR was stupid and then went into a discussion of the surface temperature of the sun.
He has now shifted it to a description of the Earth being heated by light in the visible and that a great deal of light is emitted at a lower IR wavelength via black-body radiation.
His second argument is actually true. When a molecule is excited in the visible and heated directly, some of the energy of the incoming photon is converted into kinetic energy and then that hot molecule can radiate out a lower wavelength photon. This is how things heated by visible wavelengths can give off IR.
However, CO2 traps black body radiated IR as well as the IR directly coming in from the sun, but reflected up from the surface. Both of these effects add. This is true. It is also irrelevant to his attempt to deny that CO2 causes warming. In the original post, which was again made to be simple, and to simply state the energy comes in from the sun and then the portion of it that is in the IR gets trapped and causes warming. Since the black body portion has a solar origin, this counts too. I will accept the quibble that in a short and simple post, I did not elaborate on this point, but only hinted at with my discussion of molecular motions.
What is not to be accepted though is his false assertion that this somehow means that the Earth will not warm as a result of GHGs. Again, energy is conserved if you alter the rate of heat in, compared to the rate of heat out, you get warmer. If you doubt this, put on a coat. Alas, poor, deluded Mr. Reisinger repeatedly has difficulties with this concept, even though his second, refined and irrelevant quibble is dependent on it. This is simply because he is a moron and a fraud. Never be afraid to call morons and frauds such to their little faces. Say it clearly. Mr. Reisinger is a moron and a fraud. Don’t pull punches. The fact that he does not understand the most basic physical principles is proof of it. He knows he’s a moron and a fraud. What you need to do is rob him of the chance to convince the gullible that somehow he isn’t.
1) Quote: “…is emitted at a lower IR wavelength…” Quote/
OmG ! This is not about “lower” or “higher” wavelength but about shorter or longer wavelength. This is NOT about frequency !!!
2) Quote: “Since the black body portion has a solar origin, this counts too.” Quote/
This is as if someone would say: a snow man, a glacier and an avalanche are all the same b’cause they are all made of snow. Sorry, but this has nothing to do with science.
Quote from the IPCC report 2007 AR4: “Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance”. Quote/
You recognize the word “altering” ?
3) For the rest see my points 1 and 2 in part I.
Ludwig wrote:
Tactic three: Call the opposing argument a name so as to ignore the point made without admitting it. This is perhaps the most agitating of the denier tactics. You just nailed them to the wall with some bit of utter nonsense that they spewed and they pretend it never happened.
This is actually easy to defend against. Simply call them on their lies.
I had written:
The important thing to get straight is that space is a vacuum. For convection or conduction to work, one must have a medium to transport heat. Now to be sure, the atmosphere has many modes of conduction and convection, however, the only way it- and hence the Earth as a whole can cool is through radiation. Why? Because space is a vacuum and you can’t conduct or convect heat out into space.
This is actually the basic principle behind a thermos, and a supposed chemical engineer doesn’t get it.
And of course, the re-radiation is well modeled. It is after all, only QM.
in response to his writing:
Again, not quite. The point about offering more resistance to the outflow of energy raising the temperature is valid, but it treats the entire atmosphere like a solid glass bubble. In the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere, where the vast majority of the atmosphere resides, there are other “channels” for energy to move through than just this radiation channel. Specifically, heat can move by radiation, conduction, dry convection, and convection with phase change. By a huge margin, the most effective of these modes is the last one; when you evaporate a pound of water from the surface, physically transport that pound of water vapor to the tropopause (or thereabouts), and then condense it, huge amounts of heat are transported. And this will happen no matter how much greenhouse gas you put into the atmosphere. This heat leaks right through the “greenhouse”. This is not one of the things that they’ve been able to model accurately, but one thing is certain: ignoring it will always exaggerate the heating effect.
Now he claims that I made a “straw man argument.” Ohhhh booga boooga.
No sorry, Mr. R. the way that the Earth cools as a whole overall, is through radiation because space is a vacuum. We are going to ignore effects where the upper atmosphere can be bled into space. It is too small to be noticed here.
That is it, he is done. His failure to understand thermodynamics is obvious by the fact that he would even bring convection and conduction up. It is red herring at best, but at worst a sign that Mr. Rensinger does not understand basic Thermodynamics. CO2 and other greenhouse gases slow the rate at which the Earth can radiate heat. Energy is conserved. The heat builds up. There is no way around it.
This man claims to be a chemical engineer. How can he not know this? Again, it is because he is a fraud and a moron.
1) Quote: “Because space is a vacuum and you can’t conduct or convect heat out into space.” Quote/
You say that the second law of thermodynamics works always and ever ?
Sorry, no:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2572-second-law-of-thermodynamics-broken.html
But it is correct to say it works in the macroscopic world
– I would prefer if LvQ would express himself more accurate and professional.
2) For the rest of this part see my points 1 and 2 in part I.
Ludwig wrote:
Tactic four: Switch to incoherent political ramblings in the place of a science discussion.
You know you have them beat when they do this. This is the denier equivalent of screaming “Satan I rebuke you!”
He writes:
And with that, his true tranzi nature reveals itself. Americans are the real problem. Not Russians who question climate alarmism, not Indians who criticize the IPCC, no. Only Americans. They must be liquidated.
In response to:
There is a very serious problem here. We have people falsely claiming to be experts, when in reality they would not pass freshman level physics or chemistry. This does not stop them from shooting their mouths off, but that is not the real problem. The real problem is that Americans – or at least some of them are so proudly ignorant, that they believe this —-.
Now I am not clear where I called for the liquidation of those Americans who are stupid enough to fall for frauds and morons like him. However, it is certainly true that it is a real problem that some, in fact many, Americans, are so proudly ignorant that they do embrace fools like Mr Reisinger.
And yes America would be a better place if the average American were well enough educated to simply spot abject idiots, frauds and charlatans like Mr Reisinger from a mile away.
I will confess however as far as any “liquidation” is concerned, I do profoundly hope that Mr. R. is still a virgin. Given his history of misogynistic writings, it is likely that he still is, and therefore we can have hope that the mix of genetics that made him so stupid will die with him.
So, what Quack Quack is essentially saying in his characteristic hysterical way, is that he couldn’t get permission to post here.
@ bluebird on May 24, 2010 on 8:41 pm
No
He doesn’t want the stalkers to have his IP number.
Charles doesn’t have a problem with us posting elsewhere on the net, his issue was with two-faced backstabbers like you.
Charles is an intellectual coward who hides behind his blog. Why doesn’t he debate anyone. I’ve seen him get his ass handed on LGF and he bans them.
Typical Totalitarian tactics. People like you love Castro and Chavez.
I’m glad Pinochet killed your boy Allende. You Leftists still dread Pinochet’s name!
I’m fed up, not a single professional argument.
Btw.: I can only speak for myself but I would prefer to argue with LvQ himself and not with his ahh…don’t know what you are….
Shouldn’t Ludwig van Quackquack be out there n a ledge somewhere?
LOL! Anger management classes indeed! Or xanax.
This one could benefit from medicinal hemp…
Ludwig is a Fascist and he can’t debate.
Rodan, coming from a loser like you that’s quite ironic.
.
.
.
.
Did you know that Eric Odom finally pulled the plug on your old stalker blog Think Progress Watch and made it disappear. It’s a good thing some individuals had the foresight to copy all that lunacy and have filled it away for future use.
What does that have to do with the fact you support Totalitarian movements?
Rodan, coming from a loser like you that’s quite ironic.
Do you have a blog? Nope all you do is watch us and come to defend your cowardly friends. The ultimate loser is you!
Rodan:
Sober up , leave your online fantasy life and spend some time in the real world.
You don’t know anything about me or the life I live. There is more to life than this make believe universe you inhabit on the internet.
Don’t you realize that you’re tainted forever by some of the insidious crap you’ve posted online, not to mention the fact that you foolishly bragged about your trolling activities while you were a contributor at two of Eric Odom’s blogs.
You should never have allowed your real world identity to be associated with your online activities, you let your hunger for attention lead to your downfall.
Ford Prefect, Reggie and Lawrence are fictional characters and in no way can they ever be associated with anything more than troll busting.
BTW, you still haven’t answered my question.
Were you driving under the influence the night your girlfriend was killed?
You haven’t done jack shit! My real world life is good. You are the miserable troll who can’t debate and engages in Alinsky tactics.
Hey so how does it feel to know you are a supporting of Totalitarianism?
How many girls you molested as a convicted Pedophile?
Rodan:
Now you are completely detached from reality.
You know nothing about me and you’re making up the pedophile stuff. I do want to thank you for having the decency to make the make believe victims girls.
I do know about the accident in NYC that killed your girlfriend. Are you going to man up and admit you were drunk when she was killed?
Did you really think that we wouldn’t have someone look into that tragic event?
Is the guilt from being responsible for her death the main reason you drink so much?
I stopped reading when I hit the part about not being able to conduct heat into space. Allow me to point out R/B shifts, that is all.
I am assuming you are talking about red shift and blue shift phenomenons?
Red shifts and blue shifts are caused by objects flying away/coming at us from us at fractions of the speed of light. This has nothing to do with heat. What you are experiencing is the compression or stretching out of light waves, forcing it to take on the appropriate tint (blue for compression, red for stretching).
You can observe a similar phenomenon with the Doppler effect, where a train blowing its horn coming at you has it sound waves compressed, thus the pitch is higher, and as it passes, the pitch drops because the sound waves are now be stretched out.
Not trying to be combative here but just trying to clarify that red/blue shifts have nothing to do with heat.
Nope. Not the red/blue shift of distances, but of heat bleed from bodies. r/b shifts occur as a body moves in space and bleeds heat from it’s atmosphere, this is highly noticeable when there is little to no atmosphere. But different beast altogether.
hey ludwitch go burn some buffalo chips. Then sniff them.
S/he lost me at “obfuscate”. Is that still a popular put-down over there?
Him science-fella makes good ju-ju like witch-doctor: stomping around shaking a stethoscope and seed-pods, yelling out the magic curse words which will scare the demon skeptic away: THERMODYNAMICS booga-booga QUANTUM MECHANICS booga wooga.
He also has hope and change snake-oil, garlic, silver bullets, whips and manacles, imprecations, prayers, patent remedies, panaceas, brass shingles, certifications and glowing testimonials.
LVQ the ju-ju man.
LVQ likes to believe that nincompoops cannot understand CO2/IR absorption, because his alarmism requires that IR absorption is the be-all and end-all of the physics he will allow to play on the atmosphere. Two degrees up? CO2/IR – the little engine that could.
Anyone who follows the arguments on climate sites will recognize LVQ’s posture – and have seen the rebuttals from physicists who are not ashamed to reveal their identities. LVQ should not be afraid to dazzle us with his science. His talking down to us at the basic level he thinks we will understand is risible. But if he were to put up the math, it might dawn on him that there is no dramatic scare story. No billions of deaths etc. And he would look like the plonker he is.
He could take Swat through the statistics arguments against Mann’s hockey-stick and demonstrate why they are wrong – instead of just claiming they have been rebutted by Everyone.