Creationists Glom Onto Climategate

Science • Views: 3,276

I’ve written several times about the striking similarity between the tactics of creationists and climate change deniers, and about the recent efforts by creationists to use the phony controversies over global warming to legitimize their silliness. So this story by Leslie Kaufman in the New York Times comes as no surprise: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets.

It’s a natural convergence of idiocy and dishonesty. They already use the same methods to trick the ignorant and the gullible: selective quote mining, outright lying, recycling old debunked points over and over, accusing opponents of blindly following the “religion of science,” etc. It makes sense for creationists and AGW deniers to join forces in one big anti-science ball of bad craziness.

Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects.

Last year, the Texas Board of Education adopted language requiring that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming.

Oklahoma introduced a bill with similar goals in 2009, although it was not enacted.

The linkage of evolution and global warming is partly a legal strategy: courts have found that singling out evolution for criticism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. By insisting that global warming also be debated, deniers of evolution can argue that they are simply championing academic freedom in general.

Yet they are also capitalizing on rising public resistance in some quarters to accepting the science of global warming, particularly among political conservatives who oppose efforts to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases.

In South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature this week.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

The Sensuous Curmudgeon has also been following this effort by creationists to piggyback on the phony controversies over climate change: Creationism & ClimateGate: Embrace the Madness!

Jump to bottom

131 comments
1 Vambo  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:17:04am
accusing opponents of blindly following the “religion of science,” etc.

en.wikipedia.org

2 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:17:19am

We will not survive as a first-world power if we continue to do this to our educational system and our students.

We already lag behind so much of the world in science education. We need to make it better, not worse.

If you don’t want to do it for the science, do it for the wealth of the nation.

3 windsword  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:17:25am
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”


Good to know our nation’s legislators passed 3rd Grade Science.

4 albusteve  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:21:31am

glomonsters…a marriage made in heaven

5 Vambo  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:21:56am

re: #3 windsword

Good to know our nation’s legislators passed 3rd Grade Science.

They also defended carbon monoxide by saying “what you can’t see can’t hurt you!!”
///

6 Shiplord Kirel  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:22:03am

Don’t forget, a lot of these kooks are also involved in alternate medicine and antivax craziness, further exploiting the “pointy-headed intellectual elitist” meme of antiscience.
We should call this the GUILT—- Grand Unified Idiot Luddite Theory.

7 albusteve  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:22:18am

re: #3 windsword

Good to know our nation’s legislators passed 3rd Grade Science.

overdosing on water can kill you…..beer, not likely

8 Stanley Sea  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:22:25am

re: #2 Obdicut

We will not survive as a first-world power if we continue to do this to our educational system and our students.

We already lag behind so much of the world in science education. We need to make it better, not worse.

If you don’t want to do it for the science, do it for the wealth of the nation.

They’re not thinking “big picture” of course. I hate it when education is fucked with, be it the elitist smear or arguments that go against basic science.

9 boredtechindenver  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:22:51am

Ozone is not a pollutant, but a “protective layer that shields us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays”.

What? It is both good and bad?

10 albusteve  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:23:49am

re: #2 Obdicut

We will not survive as a first-world power if we continue to do this to our educational system and our students.

We already lag behind so much of the world in science education. We need to make it better, not worse.

If you don’t want to do it for the science, do it for the wealth of the nation.

caring about the nation, putting it ahead of your own selfishness is so last century….me me me

11 Hengineer  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:25:29am

Honestly I couldn’t care less about the extremism of the crazies on both sides, both the AGW crowd AND the “world is going to end in 10 years!” crowd. I just want a cleaner place to live. I’m all for cleaning things up as long as they don’t break the bank, don’t destroy our economy in the process.

12 albusteve  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:25:59am

re: #8 Stanley Sea

They’re not thinking “big picture” of course. I hate it when education is fucked with, be it the elitist smear or arguments that go against basic science.

that and rewriting history to fit some paradigm….you simply cannot mess with either, be we are in an age now where it’s commonplace

13 Hengineer  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:27:12am

I know that the earth goes between warming and cooling cycles, but to completely ignore the sheer volume of what our factories put out is sheer idiocy.

14 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:27:45am

re: #9 boredtechindenver

What about bozone?

15 Vambo  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:28:31am

re: #12 albusteve

that and rewriting history to fit some paradigm…you simply cannot mess with either, be we are in an age now where it’s commonplace

rose-colored glasses. I think it’s always been like this.

16 Hengineer  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:28:47am

re: #14 Mad Al-Jaffee

What about bozone?

That’s the problem, I really think that the bozone is breaking apart, and bits and pieces are landing here on the earth and we’re getting the full force of it.

17 recusancy  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:28:58am

re: #12 albusteve

that and rewriting history to fit some paradigm…you simply cannot mess with either, be we are in an age now where it’s commonplace

See: Amity Shlaes.

18 Vambo  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:29:31am

re: #15 Vambo

rose-colored glasses. I think it’s always been like this.

I meant “rosy recollection”.

19 cliffster  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:29:39am

re: #14 Mad Al-Jaffee

What about bozone?

How about the ho-zone layer? Reach up in the sky for the ho-zone layer

Youtube Video

20 boredtechindenver  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:34:18am

re: #14 Mad Al-Jaffee

That’s heaven for “The First Church of Bozo*”


* A completely unconnected subsidiary of “The Church of the Subgenius” headquartered in 1987 San Miguel County, NM.

21 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:36:22am

re: #6 shiplord kirel
what? this sounds dubious. by alternative medicine are you referring to things like TCM?

22 drcordell  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:37:24am

Of course these idiots aren’t concerned about climate change. They think Jesus is going to end the world and drag them all up to heaven. Who cares if the earth is a wasteland at that point?

23 The Curmudgeon  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:38:17am

Gasp — a link from LGF! You like me, you really like me!

24 reine.de.tout  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:39:06am

I saw something a week or so ago where the climate deniers used the same “teach the controversy” “it’s just a theory” sort of verbiage that creationists use. It seemed obvious to me these two groups are sort of made for each other.

25 ausador  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:39:08am

Apparently they were all very big fans of the movie “Idiocracy” and can’t wait to see it become real.

26 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:41:37am
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

Ok then, I’d like to see the writers of this resolution survive in a closed space containing only CO2.

27 ausador  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:42:22am

re: #26 MrSilverDragon

Ok then, I’d like to see the writers of this resolution survive in a closed space containing only CO2.

They would just say that aren’t plants…

28 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:42:43am

re: #26 MrSilverDragon

I’d like to see a plant survive in a closed space containing only CO2.

29 MrSilverDragon  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:42:54am

re: #27 ausador

They would just say that aren’t plants…

Well, they do seem to share the same IQ.

30 iceweasel  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:44:18am

re: #22 drcordell

Of course these idiots aren’t concerned about climate change. They think Jesus is going to end the world and drag them all up to heaven. Who cares if the earth is a wasteland at that point?

Well, some of them also believe either that God won’t allow humans to affect the earth, or that they have a divine mandate to use up the earth quicker so that Jesus can come sooner.

31 ausador  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:45:02am

re: #29 MrSilverDragon

Well, they do seem to share the same IQ.

True, but even with equal stupidity they still have no means of accomplishing photosynthesis.

/

32 Professor Chaos  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:46:16am

re: #25 ausador

Apparently they were all very big fans of the movie “Idiocracy” and can’t wait to see it become real.

Brawndo. It’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes carbon dioxide.

33 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:47:44am

re: #31 ausador

Photosynthesis still requires oxygen to occur. If you put a plant in a pure CO2 environment it’ll die very quickly.

34 RogueOne  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:48:30am

No one else noticed there was only a 13% difference in the poll numbers between evangelicals and non?

35 Mad Al-Jaffee  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:48:39am

re: #32 Girth

Pvt. Joe Bowers: I just need you to tell me how to get to the time machine.

Frito: Oh, that’s easy. You go down by the museum and stuff… It’s like- it’s, like, by the museum… Sorta by… Actually, not really. More like on the street, you go, um… Wait, let me start over. Okay, you know where the time machine is?

36 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:49:22am

re: #26 MrSilverDragon

Ok then, I’d like to see the writers of this resolution survive in a closed space containing only CO2.

Somehow this vaguely reminds me of the trial of Savonarola.

37 Professor Chaos  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:49:25am

re: #35 Mad Al-Jaffee

Pvt. Joe Bowers: I just need you to tell me how to get to the time machine.

Frito: Oh, that’s easy. You go down by the museum and stuff… It’s like- it’s, like, by the museum… Sorta by… Actually, not really. More like on the street, you go, um… Wait, let me start over. Okay, you know where the time machine is?

Eh, it’s a shitty ride anyways…

38 SanFranciscoZionist  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:50:03am

re: #30 iceweasel

Well, some of them also believe either that God won’t allow humans to affect the earth, or that they have a divine mandate to use up the earth quicker so that Jesus can come sooner.

It’s the Theory of the Divine Toddler Gate.

39 Spider Mensch  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:50:09am

re: #30 iceweasel

Well, some of them also believe either that God won’t allow humans to affect the earth, or that they have a divine mandate to use up the earth quicker so that Jesus can come sooner.

hmmm, I didn’t know all Hummer drivers were so religous..I’ll be darned :))

40 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:51:17am

so all AGW skeptics are creationists? is that the point of this thread? it should be obvious to all that this is a big, heated, politicized debate at this point. almost everybody has an opinion on it one way or another.

41 boredtechindenver  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:51:23am

re: #30 iceweasel

So, they are “immanentize the eschaton orgasm?

42 Professor Chaos  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:52:01am

re: #40 karmasherabwangchuk

No. Try reading for comprehension.

43 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:53:49am

re: #42 Girth chippy!

44 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:54:04am

And we see this over and over as well.

The same people who wrote the play books for disputing the science of tobacco are the ones who moved on to supporting the evolution deniers and the AGW deniers.

First there is endless wheedling about this or that semantic point of misunderstood poitnt of science. This puts the scientist on the defensive, having to explain basic principles again and again.

This is always coupled with sinister accusations that the scientist has some evil political or theological agenda and endless smears about the integrity of the science.

Of course the deniers types at the top are precisely in a conspiracy to stop the science in order to protect their own interests. They fling the accusations so easily because it really is projection.

Right, who funds the fight against medicine in the case of tobacco? The tobacco companies, go figure.

For Evolution, the Christian right - go figure.

For AGW, the fossil fuel industry - go figure.

Of course these are monied groups with pet politicians. The politicians get into the act to serve their masters and say all manner of silly things against the science.

The followers of the party buy the party line and disseminate propaganda. Soon there is an endless buzz of distorted talking points that have nothing to do with science.

Eventually though, as the Pope found with Galileo, betting against the data on the basis of dogma is a bad bet.

As the data mounts the cries of the deniers get more and more shrill and their attacks more and more underhanded. Do you really think it was a coincidence that the whole CRU nontroversy - in which deniers illegally hacked data -but the deniers never discuss that - was released right before the Copenhagen summit?

And what of that… For all the careful cherry picking of the mails, it turns out he science was sound all along. So now they have shifted their first complaints to something else while just implying the data was false if cornered.

The whole kerfluffle about cooked books which weren’t - precipitated by an illegal act, is now an inquiry into whether or not the scientist at CRU were properly responsive to invasive outside requests.

Sounds a lot like an investigation about a bad land deal ending up talking about a blow job….

And are we really surprised at the party that has the most bought and paid for politicians in each of these instances (tobacco and right wing Christians and big oil) using the same tactics that worked so well before?

45 lawhawk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 10:57:57am

re: #9 boredtechindenver

Ozone is not a pollutant, but a “protective layer that shields us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays”.

What? It is both good and bad?

It depends on where in the atmosphere it is located. At ground level, it is a pollutant since it causes respiratory distress. In the stratosphere, it is a necessary and beneficial molecule that protects the Earth from UV rays.

46 albusteve  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:03:35am

re: #22 drcordell

Of course these idiots aren’t concerned about climate change. They think Jesus is going to end the world and drag them all up to heaven. Who cares if the earth is a wasteland at that point?

but what about the Bushmen?….they always get screwed

47 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:11:24am

I have a wee bit of a problem with the conspiracy theory:

Creationism is a faith-based religious belief. So long as the belief is honestly held by true believers, there should be no question of dishonesty…stubborness or stupidity perhaps, but not dishonesty per se.

AGW denial, on the other hand, could be several things:
1. A dishonest denial of proven facts of which the denier is well aware;
2. An honest denial of facts of which the denier is ignorant; or,
3. A denial of facts which the denier honestly believes to be false.

Is it really fair to tar the honest Creationist believer with the same brush as the dishonest AGW denier, or even worse, with the honest AGW denier?
In the absence of extremely strong evidence of malicious dishonesty, such a conspiracy should be advanced with extreme caution.

48 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:14:09am

re: #44 LudwigVanQuixote

As the data mounts the cries of the deniers get more and more shrill and their attacks more and more underhanded. Do you really think it was a coincidence that the whole CRU nontroversy - in which deniers illegally hacked data.

who hacked it? I wasn’t aware that identity of the hacker was known.

49 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:14:16am

re: #9 boredtechindenver

Ozone is not a pollutant, but a “protective layer that shields us from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays”.

What? It is both good and bad?

IIRC, it’s a shield way up there. It behaves badly down here close to the ground. three oxygens, like most any threesome, are a highly unstable construct.

50 Charles Johnson  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:14:59am

re: #47 Spare O’Lake

What “conspiracy theory?” This is purely factual. Creationist groups are capitalizing on the anti-AGW hysteria.

51 Aceofwhat?  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:15:32am

re: #45 lawhawk

It depends on where in the atmosphere it is located. At ground level, it is a pollutant since it causes respiratory distress. In the stratosphere, it is a necessary and beneficial molecule that protects the Earth from UV rays.

gmta…dang…but mine was funnier. yes. i clutch straws with the best of them…

52 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:25:55am

re: #50 Charles

What “conspiracy theory?” This is purely factual. Creationist groups are capitalizing on the anti-AGW hysteria.

When you alleged that the two groups have “joined forces” that meant conspiracy to me. Maybe the relationship between the groups was unintentionally mischaracterized?

53 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:26:41am

re: #48 karmasherabwangchuk

As the data mounts the cries of the deniers get more and more shrill and their attacks more and more underhanded. Do you really think it was a coincidence that the whole CRU nontroversy - in which deniers illegally hacked data.

who hacked it? I wasn’t aware that identity of the hacker was known.

Well lets see now, the mails were in the hands of denier groups for months in order to cherry pick the posts that throughly.

Who got the posts? Who spent months looking through it franticly for something, anything to make a false kerfluffle about?

And even if it was just a random hack, the hack is still illegal. But that is not really the point and you know it.

54 Charles Johnson  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:28:35am

re: #52 Spare O’Lake

When you alleged that the two groups have “joined forces” that meant conspiracy to me. Maybe the relationship between the groups was unintentionally mischaracterized?

They joined forces long ago. In fact, one of the main promoters of anti-AGW propaganda, Dr. Roy Spencer, is also a creationist. There’s no conspiracy, because nobody’s trying to hide this.

55 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:39:05am

re: #53 LudwigVanQuixote

my question remains unanswered

56 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:47:52am

re: #55 karmasherabwangchuk

my question remains unanswered

What of course that completely answered you. Even if your hoped for implication is correct and the hackers were not hired by a denier interest, which is unlikely, the denier groups took illegally obtained information and worked for months to sift through them to make a smear campaign. No matter how you cut it, the deniers played a shady game.

That is just reality and you know it.

It is also a side show to the main points of my post.

You know that too. So let’s cut to the chase…

Why are you trying to deflect attention away from the obvious truths of the matter?

57 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:53:29am

re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote

I do not hope for anything in this case. my point is that it is not known who released these files. anything at this point has been conjecture. unless you know something I don’t. but you are certainly willing to hang a lot of conjecture on your assumption.

58 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 11:58:06am

re: #57 karmasherabwangchuk

I do not hope for anything in this case. my point is that it is not known who released these files. anything at this point has been conjecture. unless you know something I don’t. but you are certainly willing to hang a lot of conjecture on your assumption.

NO. No conjecture hung anywhere at all.

The facts are that denier groups had and spent months going over those mails trying to build up their smear and that it was certainly not coincidental that they released all their crap right before the Copenhagen summit.

It is a fact that the hack itself was still illegal even in the off chance that it was not done by a denier interest. It is a fact that the denier propagandists still sifted the illegally obtained private mails for months looking for anything to take out of context and smear the writers. It is a fact that the denier side never mentions that.

It is a fact that the denier groups are well funded by big oil and other fossil fuel interests.

Pretty much everything in that post is a hard fact.

59 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:19:51pm

re: #58 LudwigVanQuixote

NO. No conjecture hung anywhere at all.

The facts are that denier groups had and spent months going over those mails trying to build up their smear and that it was certainly not coincidental that they released all their crap right before the Copenhagen summit.

where have you gotten this info? I am sure if this info is widely available some sympathetic news org lik ethe NYT will do some investigative reporting. till then i remain on the fence.

it is a fact that the hack itself was still illegal even in the off chance that it was not done by a denier interest. It is a fact that the denier propagandists still sifted the illegally obtained private mails for months looking for anything to take out of context and smear the writers. It is a fact that the denier side never mentions that.

this is true at least the first part. although i find myself not caring that much. it was all info that was going to be and should have been released anyway.

It is a fact that the denier groups are well funded by big oil and other fossil fuel interests.

really? then they are wasting their money. what is it you think they are trying to prevent? a switch to an economy based on breeder nuclear reactors? certainly you are not suggesting that they are concerned by a switch to wind, solar, atc as no first world economy will be running on these anytime in the forseeable future.

60 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:20:38pm

re: #59 karmasherabwangchuk

Work on being less completely obvious.

61 Charles Johnson  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:22:09pm

re: #59 karmasherabwangchuk

where have you gotten this info? I am sure if this info is widely available some sympathetic news org lik ethe NYT will do some investigative reporting. till then i remain on the fence.

New Info from CRU Hacking Investigation:

Forensic data analysis reveals that the hacker was in a time zone somewhere in the eastern US or Canada. Rather than a single breach of security, the hacker was also able to access confidential CRU on four different occasions over a six-week period.

The IT-NETWORKS analysis also points out that only a small portion of the emails stolen was actually released. The hacker took the trouble of sifting out all the routine messages about holidays and fire alarms and possibly much more.

What was removed remains unknown but clearly the hacker was trying to discredit legitimate scientists and presumably discarded whatever would not help the contrived scandal of “climategate”.

The hacker also focused specifically on four scientists who had long been the targets of US based climate deniers because their peer-reviewed scientific papers had been used to back the IPCC’s reports on global warming.

Out of dozens of researchers at the CRU, 95% of the 1,073 emails released were sent or received by Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Professor Keith Briffa, who studied tree rings; Tim Osborn, who worked on climate modeling for modern and archaeological data; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

After the final batch of emails was stolen on the eve of the COP 15 conference, the hacker then broke into the Real Climate site, disabled access from the real administrators, and tried to post a fake story that climate change was all a myth.

62 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:29:30pm

re: #59 karmasherabwangchuk

And we have a denier troll!

63 mkelly  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:31:24pm

re: #47 Spare O’Lake

You leave off one other possibility. Someone who denies CO2 caused AGW because the premise is false.

64 Charles Johnson  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:32:53pm

re: #63 mkelly

You leave off one other possibility. Someone who denies CO2 caused AGW because the premise is false.

Only fools or liars deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This fact has been known for more than 100 years.

65 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:33:48pm

re: #63 mkelly

You leave off one other possibility. Someone who denies CO2 caused AGW because the premise is false.

That is left out because the premise is not false.

You know CO2 really does trap IR. The sun puts out a lot of IR. Energy is conserved.

All that?

Really do try to pass physics 1, and I do mean physics 1 before saying such silly things.

And just to head you off, don’t even start with the carbon lags BS. In some cycles - those caused by orbital variations, CO2 can be a feedback.

IN this case it is a forcing.

66 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:41:10pm

Is there any evidence for creationism?

67 SixDegrees  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:44:22pm

re: #66 stevemcg

Is there any evidence for creationism?

Depends what you mean. For creationism as an alternative to biological evolution - no, not a shred.

That anything exists at all, in the first place, however, remains ineffable.

68 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:46:45pm

Just to follow up my previous post, there are only arguments against evolution, but no evidence. From what I remember, there are geometric proofs that are based of postulates, which are things that are intrinsically true, but can’t be proven.

69 MKelly  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:47:56pm

re: #65 LudwigVanQuixote

Why don’t you and I have a debate on the merits of man made CO2 caused global warming? I will not get into a “who can do the fastest link”, but an honest debate. You present your side I will present mine as we both understand or know them to be. Rules can be set up and agreed to along with time and date.

70 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:48:23pm

Evolution doesn’t equal creation. Evolution really only pertains to post-creation history.

71 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:48:48pm

re: #54 Charles

They joined forces long ago. In fact, one of the main promoters of anti-AGW propaganda, Dr. Roy Spencer, is also a creationist. There’s no conspiracy, because nobody’s trying to hide this.

Thanks for the info, and sorry to give you a hard time on this. Conspiracies though are not necessarily secret in the legal sense, which I believe accounts for our difference on this particular issue.
BTW on a lighter note, if a creationist like Roy Spencer also happens to be an AGW denier then he acting alone could not form a conspiracy because you need at least two people to have a conspiracy.

72 SixDegrees  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:52:11pm

re: #70 stevemcg

Evolution doesn’t equal creation. Evolution really only pertains to post-creation history.

Creationists would argue otherwise. They claim that there is no such thing as evolution, that the account given in Genesis is literally true, in the (unsupported) sense that God performed some act which more or less instantly gave rise to all life in it’s present form. Creationism is explicitly presented as a replacement for evolution.

73 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:52:50pm

re: #62 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #60 Obdicut

ha ha. maybe you can hook me up w/ some of those denier greenbacks!

74 SixDegrees  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:53:33pm

re: #71 Spare O’Lake

Thanks for the info, and sorry to give you a hard time on this. Conspiracies though are not necessarily secret in the legal sense, which I believe accounts for our difference on this particular issue.
BTW on a lighter note, if a creationist like Roy Spencer also happens to be an AGW denier then he acting alone could not form a conspiracy because you need at least two people to have a conspiracy.

…and at least six to bring RICO charges.

Something that may lie in Kwame Kilpatrick’s near future, by the way.

75 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:54:19pm

re: #61 Charles

you’ve gotta be kidding w/ this. “Sir David King, the UK’s former chief scientist, concluded the complex theft was the work of US-based climate deniers backed by carbon money or a foreign government.”

what? this is pure speculation?

76 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:55:06pm

re: #61 Charles
a blog post from someone w/ skin in the game? really?

77 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 12:55:37pm

re: #60 Obdicut

Work on being less completely obvious.

this means what? i haven’t got any idea

78 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:05:18pm

re: #75 karmasherabwangchuk

you’ve gotta be kidding w/ this. “Sir David King, the UK’s former chief scientist, concluded the complex theft was the work of US-based climate deniers backed by carbon money or a foreign government.”

what? this is pure speculation?

how am I wrong here? there is nothing in that blog post that establishes this as anything close to fact. it is speculation. it could be correct or incorrect but it is not established in any way, shape or form.

79 Charles Johnson  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:07:55pm

re: #78 karmasherabwangchuk

And meanwhile, you just ignore everything else in that quote, including the part that specifically answers the original question you asked.

80 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:14:40pm

i bid adieu amidst a hail of downdings. i have some errands to run. I have to go the bank to cash my big fat denier paycheck. then off to purchase some rock cocaine and some high class callgirls. I am living large now that i have hooked my caboose to the denial industry. if only. seriously though I would love to sell-out. if only I could find some buyers.

81 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:18:43pm

re: #79 Charles

And meanwhile, you just ignore everything else in that quote, including the part that specifically answers the original question you asked.

when people are willing to overreach that much It puts everything they say in doubt. admittedly I am unable to perform my own forensic data analysis on short notice. in these things one has to make informed guesses. there is no choice. given that this blogger is in the AGW game and included a giant speculation as though it were a fact I remain dubious. i could be wrong but nevertheless I remain dubious.

82 lostlakehiker  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:30:48pm
In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, gravity, electricity, global warming, circulation of blood, the atomic theory of matter, the random-motion theory of heat, and human cloning.

I just had to expand on their theme. Why be so selective in discussing the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories? And why include human cloning, which is not a theory at all?

Atomic bombs are not a theory either. They are things that work because the underlying science is correct. Indeed, they’re designed using the dread “computer models”. Nowadays, with the nuclear test ban, those models are the only assurance we have that our stuff will work. But that seems assurance enough. If our enemies were confident that computer models are trash, they’d just hit us and giggle when our counterstrike fizzled.

How do we know that computer models kick butt? America’s cup mathematics

83 Charles Johnson  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:30:57pm

re: #81 karmasherabwangchuk

when people are willing to overreach that much It puts everything they say in doubt. admittedly I am unable to perform my own forensic data analysis on short notice. in these things one has to make informed guesses. there is no choice. given that this blogger is in the AGW game and included a giant speculation as though it were a fact I remain dubious. i could be wrong but nevertheless I remain dubious.

Right, because you know those tricksy scientists — they just lie all the time. Better not ever trust ‘em. They’re sneaky.

84 lostlakehiker  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:42:20pm

re: #47 Spare O’Lake

I have a wee bit of a problem with the conspiracy theory:

Creationism is a faith-based religious belief. So long as the belief is honestly held by true believers, there should be no question of dishonesty…stubborness or stupidity perhaps, but not dishonesty per se.

AGW denial, on the other hand, could be several things:
1. A dishonest denial of proven facts of which the denier is well aware;
2. An honest denial of facts of which the denier is ignorant; or,
3. A denial of facts which the denier honestly believes to be false.

Is it really fair to tar the honest Creationist believer with the same brush as the dishonest AGW denier, or even worse, with the honest AGW denier?
In the absence of extremely strong evidence of malicious dishonesty, such a conspiracy should be advanced with extreme caution.

One may sincerely believe that evolution is wrong. One may not quote mine and misquote and just plain lie about what scientists themselves say about evolution, in an effort to defend the faith and shore up the doubts of the faithful, and then turn around and claim to be just an honest believer.

AGW denial, and evolution denial, are deeply engaged in just such tactics. It’s all they have, really. An argument that goes:

Well, my faith tells me otherwise, so the discussion is over

seems not to be adequately persuasive, and the practical demands of propagating the faith require propaganda.

(That’s where the word came from, if you like word trivia.)

85 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:44:28pm

re: #69 MKelly

Why don’t you and I have a debate on the merits of man made CO2 caused global warming? I will not get into a “who can do the fastest link”, but an honest debate. You present your side I will present mine as we both understand or know them to be. Rules can be set up and agreed to along with time and date.

Umm dude,

I just did answer you directly.

Let’s take it slowly and from the top.

The sun is a giant thermonuclear fire ball that is held together by gravity. Because of its mass and composition, the sun emits light mostly centered around the visible spectrum but with a great deal of IR.

Solar spectra have been directly measured. This is where the frequency distribution of the energy peaks.

You with me so far?

Energy is conserved. That means that once energy can change forms but it never “goes away from” the universe. As an immediate consequence, if something takes on energy from another source, it has that energy and manifests it in some way.

You still with me?

CO2, because of its nature absorbs IR radiation very well. This ultimately has to do with quantum mechanics and the nature of its bonds. But it is sufficient to even state that empirically as just a property of the material without going into why. Water turns to ice because of QM ultimately as well, but it is sufficient to note the phenomena without getting side tracked.

Are you still with me?

Now, if matter absorbs light energy several things can happen. The light can be absorbed, at which point the matter has that energy and it causes the molecules of the matter to vibrate and do various mechanical motions. This is what heat is. If you doubt that heating can occur in this way, sit outside on a sunny day and then move to the shade. It is cooler in the shade, because you are not absorbing as much light and warming up.

Another possibility is that the light gets reflected. Energy is still conserved, the thing doing the reflection does not heat as a result of the reflection. The energy comes in and then it goes out.

Still with me?

Another possibility if the bonds of the molecule are just rightly tuned to the frequency of the incident light, as is the case with CO2 and IR, is that the light is absorbed and then re-radiated out some time later in all directions.

That manes that IR that was reflected by the Earth’s surface can get caught by CO2 in the atmosphere and re-radiated back down where it has another shot of getting absorbed and heating something.

This is called the greenhouse effect.

This is a property of the material. If you have more of it, you have more energy trapped in the Earth system and the Earth gets hotter because energy as always, is still conserved.

Past this point, there is NO debate. There is none. if you get this basic science, then you must conclude that adding more CO2 means trapping more IR.

OK, if you think you have a counterpoint, re-read this. This really does cover all possible objections you might have.

To believe that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would not cause warming is like believing that adding three table spoons of salt to your coffee would not alter the taste. These are properties of the materials. They do what they do.

86 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:44:57pm

re: #83 Charles

Right, because you know those tricksy scientists — they just lie all the time. Better not ever trust ‘em. They’re sneaky.

Uhhh, CJ, I just stole your wallet, thought you should know /////

87 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:58:24pm

re: #59 karmasherabwangchuk

OK now on to your loads of crap.

The oil companies know full well that if the general populace really ever thought trough just how awful the consequences of AGW are - as in billions of deaths brought on by global loss of land, war, famine and plague and droughts - that people would be much more amenable to buying less oil.

So of course, they try to squash the science.

88 MKelly  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 1:59:49pm

re: #85 LudwigVanQuixote

The earth is warmed by the sun. The energy in the light of the sun is of greater energy, intensity along with frequency. That light can either be absorbed or reflected by an object. If absorbed and warmed the body will radiate IR to help in cooling. The IR is of less enegy, intensity and frequency. Having less energy,intensity and frequency when the IR is absorbed and re-radiated by a molecule it cannot warm the earth to any degree above what the light of the sun did.

89 Achilles Tang  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:08:04pm

re: #88 MKelly

This is the first post I’m reading here, but I cannot believe that you haven’t been educated better than this, even in the last few minutes here.

Have you no shame regarding your debate arguments?

90 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:11:08pm

re: #88 MKelly

The earth is warmed by the sun. The energy in the light of the sun is of greater energy, intensity along with frequency. That light can either be absorbed or reflected by an object. If absorbed and warmed the body will radiate IR to help in cooling. The IR is of less enegy, intensity and frequency. Having less energy,intensity and frequency when the IR is absorbed and re-radiated by a molecule it cannot warm the earth to any degree above what the light of the sun did.

What? This is so convolutedly wrong I almost do not know where to begin.

OK the Earth is warmed by the sun. Check.

The energy in the light of the sun is of greater energy, intensity along with frequency.

Than the Earth? Energy is not frequency unless you are talking about light though. That is the Einstein relation - but it is hard to make sense of this statement.

That light can either be absorbed or reflected by an object.

But once absorbed different things can happen. But ok sure.

If absorbed and warmed the body will radiate IR to help in cooling.

Yes, a body that emits IR is lowering its energy state. However, heat has to do with motions of the molecules. But yes indeed you can certainly cool by radiation.

The IR is of less enegy, intensity and frequency.

Than what? If the wavelength of the radiated light is longer that means that the incident light heated the object. Energy is conserved. If the light coming out is less energetic than the light going in, the extra energy went somewhere. In other words you just described something getting hotter, not colder.

Having less energy,intensity and frequency when the IR is absorbed and re-radiated by a molecule it cannot warm the earth to any degree above what the light of the sun did.

See above, energy is conserved. If the light coming out is less energetic than the light going in, the difference in energy heated the molecule. What you are describing is how things are warmed by radiation, not cooled,

91 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:12:35pm

re: #89 Naso Tang

This is the first post I’m reading here, but I cannot believe that you haven’t been educated better than this, even in the last few minutes here.

Have you no shame regarding your debate arguments?

It isn’t shame he lacks. From his writing, his understanding of the science is really that off. I no longer am as appalled by his posts as I was. He honestly doesn’t understand energy conservation.

92 Achilles Tang  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:29:37pm

re: #91 LudwigVanQuixote

I don’t buy that. I think I remember this person (memory’s not what it used to be) from some time ago, and in the same vein. Any rational person, even an ignorant one, would have broken out some high (middle?) school physics books by now and filled in the gaps when pointed out to them.

This be a troll.

93 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:35:34pm

re: #92 Naso Tang

I don’t buy that. I think I remember this person (memory’s not what it used to be) from some time ago, and in the same vein. Any rational person, even an ignorant one, would have broken out some high (middle?) school physics books by now and filled in the gaps when pointed out to them.

This be a troll.

Well he certainly has always been a troll in his posts, but challenging me to debate the science and then pulling out something like that can only mean he really doesn’t get it.

He isn’t sly enough to be talking slick denier points that almost sound like physics. This is truly the state of his misunderstanding. People who uses intensity and frequency interchangeably in the hopes of adding as many scientific words as possible to sound clever, know that they are on shaky ground when they try to ‘splain what they mean but they are too ignorant of the science to realize that the words are not interchangeable. I’ve graded many physics exams and I know when the kid who didn’t do his homework is tap dancing for extra credit..

At some point soon he will try to come back with a thermodynamic argument that started out wrong on a denier blog which he will garble even further.

94 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:36:26pm

re: #88 MKelly

Massive physics fail.

95 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:36:48pm

I actually hope that Charles saves this convo as an example of how confused the denier people really are about basic science.

96 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:37:46pm

re: #88 MKelly

In fact, it’s the same kind of failed understanding of the physical world that lets the Truthers lie to themselves about how an airplane can take down a building.

97 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:40:03pm

re: #96 freetoken

In fact, it’s the same kind of failed understanding of the physical world that lets the Truthers lie to themselves about how an airplane can take down a building.

Ohh it is much worse than that.

What is the name of the ignoble prize winning psychological effect where incompetent folks completely misjudge their competence?

98 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:44:28pm

re: #97 LudwigVanQuixote

You’re probably thinking of the Kruger-Durning stuff.

However, my statement about Truthers, buildings, and steel stands. At the heart of the misunderstanding is the confusion of “energy” and “temperature”.

99 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:45:56pm

re: #98 freetoken

I guess I got the names inverted… Dunning-Kruger:

Youtube Video

100 Achilles Tang  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 2:46:56pm

re: #97 LudwigVanQuixote

I think there was a post on that here recently. Somewhere recently anyway.

However this is pretty much the same
Do you know how dumb you are?

I’ve lived long enough to have no surprise in that, and also because I learned about the Peter Principle a long long time ago.

101 SixDegrees  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:01:26pm

re: #94 freetoken

Massive physics fail.

With all due respect, massive education attempt fail.

I don’t know who this poster is, but there is definitely a good deal of confusion in his post. There is also the possibility that such confusion can be turned into enlightenment. There’s enough information that’s correct in there to serve as a foothold for an actual explanation.

Not anymore, though. People have this funny tendency to dig in their heels when they’re openly insulted.

Note that there may be a history of post/explanation/refusal to accept explanation that I’m not aware of. If so, exasperation might be in order. I haven’t seen that, though.

102 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:04:52pm

re: #101 SixDegrees

I know you like to argue for the sake of debate, but please look into the history of the particular poster.

103 zephirus  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:12:31pm

re: #88 MKelly

Without an atmosphere, the zeroth order energy balance for a planet is

Total incoming shortwave (solar) energy = Total outgoing terrestrial energy radiated in the IR. In this case the temperature would remain constant. It is easily computed, and is one of the first problems I assign to students.

It is true that E=hv (h=Plank’s constant, v=frequency) for individual photons. Total energy = number of photons x energy per photon. It is the total integrated radiance that is relevant. The energy of an individual photon is not relevant.

With an atmosphere that contains molecular species that absorb in the 1-10 micron range (IR), such as CO2, the outgoing radiation is intercepted and re-radiated back to the surface instead of escaping to space. These chemical constituents do not absorb (much) in the visible region of the spectrum. The energy balance is now

Incoming solar energy = outgoing IR + energy that goes into warming earth’s surface+atmosphere

The second term above —> increase in temperature

Ludwig is largely right …we could also discuss the nature of blackbody radiation, etc. but I don’t want to get too technical here.

Mkelly, continue to explore your ideas, but keep in mind that a little knowledge can be dangerous, and trick you into thinking that you know more than you do. Those who know the most are humble because they realize all that they do not know.

104 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:21:33pm

re: #103 zephirus

Without an atmosphere, the zeroth order energy balance for a planet is

Total incoming shortwave (solar) energy = Total outgoing terrestrial energy radiated in the IR. In this case the temperature would remain constant. It is easily computed, and is one of the first problems I assign to students.

It is true that E=hv (h=Plank’s constant, v=frequency) for individual photons. Total energy = number of photons x energy per photon. It is the total integrated radiance that is relevant. The energy of an individual photon is not relevant.

With an atmosphere that contains molecular species that absorb in the 1-10 micron range (IR), such as CO2, the outgoing radiation is intercepted and re-radiated back to the surface instead of escaping to space. These chemical constituents do not absorb (much) in the visible region of the spectrum. The energy balance is now

Incoming solar energy = outgoing IR + energy that goes into warming earth’s surface+atmosphere

The second term above —> increase in temperature

Ludwig is largely right …we could also discuss the nature of blackbody radiation, etc. but I don’t want to get too technical here.

Mkelly, continue to explore your ideas, but keep in mind that a little knowledge can be dangerous, and trick you into thinking that you know more than you do. Those who know the most are humble because they realize all that they do not know.

Excellent post but I was “largely right”?

;)

Black body radiation is a no go with these folks because they have picked up the meme that misusing words from Quantum Mechanics or particularly Thermodynamics makes them sound almost scientific to their peers.

If you read his post carefully, you will see that it is a misunderstanding of black body radiation that caused him to have such confused ideas. My point to you respectfully is that if they do not get energy conservation don’t bother with more moving parts that are not the dominant effect anyway.

We really do not need to invoke it. For the cognoscenti, it is implied in the discussion that the dominant effect to worry about is re-radiation from CO2 and absorption on the Earth. If you want to talk about thermal radiation - much of it in the IR, it gets reabsorbed and re scattered the more CO2 and water vapor you have.

105 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:42:31pm

re: #104 LudwigVanQuixote

Concur. That was my point with the quite often confusion of “temperature” and “energy”. Until that can be straightened out, even a concept like conservation of energy is a mystery.

106 SixDegrees  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 3:59:12pm

re: #102 freetoken

I know you like to argue for the sake of debate, but please look into the history of the particular poster.

I don’t have time, nor interest. Like I said, there may be a history at work here I’m not aware of, and if that’s the case, perhaps it’s not worth the time. Myself, I don’t know of any such history, and given that, I would have handled things differently.

Even so, the effect of a lot of the posts around here is to drive away those fence sitters and moderates who might otherwise be persuaded over to your view. Without going into specifics, I’ve seen it happen, more than once, myself, that the zealotry, snark and outright hostility has shoved someone into the opposition’s camp simply because that’s a pretty normal reaction when someone is acting like an asshole.

I don’t really care all that much, frankly. Despite the hysteria generated over this (and other) topics, the reach of the Web remains pretty limited, and isn’t weighted very heavily by most.

107 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:06:39pm

re: #83 Charles

hmmm. still it remains a fact that this blogger placed as fact something which is an opinion.

108 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:08:03pm

re: #106 SixDegrees

You’ve actively participated in a lot of the CRU nonsense yourself, man. I don’t think your horse is all that high.

109 zephirus  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:08:39pm

re: #104 LudwigVanQuixote

HA. Oh, just the semantics/technical point on radiation lowering the energy “state” language which is usually used when talking about quantum mechanical transitions b/c you were talking to someone who was confusing things in that respect. Just putting on my professorial hat. Nothing, really!

Agree with your rant about energy vs intensity, where intensity ~ number of photons having nothing to do with single photon energy.

As for energy vs temperature… temperature is proportional to the average (random) translational kinetic energy of molecules, which is one part of the total “internal energy” in thermodynamics. (The other part coming from intermolecular potential energy which is not important for the atmosphere away from phase transitions…).

I appreciate your posts on these issues Ludwig and I have your back when I have extra time to spend here…

110 karmasherabwangchuk  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:10:01pm

re: #87 LudwigVanQuixote

you are aware of course that the current 6 billions of population exist on the back of the fossil fuel infrastructure. are you asserting that a wind, solar, etc based economy can power a first world economy? that it can support the world’s population?

111 zephirus  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:19:26pm

re: #110 karmasherabwangchuk

you are aware of course that the current 6 billions of population exist on the back of the fossil fuel infrastructure. are you asserting that a wind, solar, etc based economy can power a first world economy? that it can support the world’s population?

With current technology, maybe no. But if we had had a “manhattan project” for non-fossil fuel technologies, smart grids, etc. and had spent a trillion dollars on that instead of the war in Iraq, I imagine we would be much further along in that respect.

112 Achilles Tang  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:23:05pm

re: #105 freetoken

Concur. That was my point with the quite often confusion of “temperature” and “energy”. Until that can be straightened out, even a concept like conservation of energy is a mystery.

I am reading The Black Hole War by Susskind. He talks about this, with very little math and much clarity.

113 zephirus  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:25:09pm

re: #93 LudwigVanQuixote

You are speaking about the incorrect application of the Second Law of thermodynamics, also used by creationists?

114 Achilles Tang  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:26:55pm

re: #110 karmasherabwangchuk

you are aware of course that the current 6 billions of population exist on the back of the fossil fuel infrastructure. are you asserting that a wind, solar, etc based economy can power a first world economy? that it can support the world’s population?

It can, in theory.

We can also, in theory, not pay twice as much per capita for health care as other industrialized nations do, and still remain number 23 out of 30 in terms of average life span.

Much can be done, in theory.

115 freetoken  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:27:29pm

re: #112 Naso Tang

In all the time I spent studying physics, one thing that became abundantly clear is that until one could grasp well the basic ideas tackling more sophisticated/subtle ideas would simply be frustrating.

That is why in the intro physics class one really starts with a falling object. Then you move on to a pendulum. And so forth. You lay the foundation, then build each floor one after the other.

A great deal of the blathering in the wingnut-o-sphere about AGW (and probably many topics) reveals the total lack of appreciation of the physical world and knowledge learnt about it. You will never (or nearly not ever) find any discussion of “energy balance” or “energy budget” because the wingnuts are still hung up on the basic concept of “temperature”.

116 zephirus  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:28:42pm

re: #72 SixDegrees

One wonders why god would violate the basic laws of physics which he himself created. Maybe they were created on the eighth day after all the magic was done?

117 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:31:22pm

re: #113 zephirus

You are speaking about the incorrect application of the Second Law of thermodynamics, also used by creationists?

Amongst many other things.

118 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:32:34pm

re: #109 zephirus

HA. Oh, just the semantics/technical point on radiation lowering the energy “state” language which is usually used when talking about quantum mechanical transitions b/c you were talking to someone who was confusing things in that respect. Just putting on my professorial hat. Nothing, really!

Agree with your rant about energy vs intensity, where intensity ~ number of photons having nothing to do with single photon energy.

As for energy vs temperature… temperature is proportional to the average (random) translational kinetic energy of molecules, which is one part of the total “internal energy” in thermodynamics. (The other part coming from intermolecular potential energy which is not important for the atmosphere away from phase transitions…).

I appreciate your posts on these issues Ludwig and I have your back when I have extra time to spend here…

Oh please no worries, it was obvious from your post that you know your stuff. It gets lonely here as a physicist sometimes.

119 zephirus  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 4:33:49pm

re: #97 LudwigVanQuixote

AKA the “Sarah Palin Principle”. Clueless about their own incompetence.

120 Vambo  Thu, Mar 4, 2010 5:39:47pm

re: #25 ausador

Apparently they were all very big fans of the movie “Idiocracy” and can’t wait to see it become real.

hahaaa, I loved this movie. It’s the reality of the current conservative ideal, whether cons know it or not.

121 mkelly  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 6:18:26am

OK LVQ I was not clear enough so here it is again clearer this time I believe.

Sun heats earth via radiation.
Earth cools principally via conduction, convection and radition.
Atmosphere warms from the conduction, convection and radiation.
There is no phyical mechanism to allow the atmosphere to warm the earth up to or higher than the what the sun did.

Gases under standard contitions are a heat dissipator. You blow on your coffee, the fan in your room, the radiator in your car, the wind chill factor on TV all count on the heat dissipation capibility of gases.

Gases in the atmosphere can be heated via friction as in down sloping, but friction is not AGW.

The only time a gas under standard conditions is of use is thawing the turkey. Placed out at room temperature the turkey will warm. But that demonstrates my point that it gets no hotter.

Please do not say we burn CH4 for heat. That is a seperate issue.

122 karmasherabwangchuk  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 9:30:21am

re: #114 Naso Tang
Don’t know enough about the healthcare to comment ( I however have not really been impressed by anyone I have seen in the debate so far. there has been a singular lack of global clarity, lots of interest mongering, sounbites. etc. in short, politics ) and it just muddies the waters. but i would be willing to bet a large sum of money that renewables are not capable of being more than supplemental in the energy economy for the forseeable future and that if you are betting on this you are naive. furthermore I would be willing to bet that what fossil fuels are there will be accessed and burned by somebody. i read a book by an engineer proposing that the fossil fuel economy be phased out. he felt the only current technology that could take the load would be breeder reactors. and of course there would be have to be a long ( 30-40 yr ) transition. in his estimation wind, solar etc will be hard pressed to fill up even the projected growth in US energy needs in the next 10- 20 yrs or so.
i would also be willing to bet big money ( which I don’t have ) that there is not a bat’s chance in hell that emissions globally will even flatten anytime soon regardless of what happens in the USA. politically this a nonstarter. Pachauri himself has said that India will not have any legally binding limit on its emissions. and I think anyone who thinks China will be reducing or even holding the line on emissions is exceptionally naive.

123 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 9:54:49am

re: #121 mkelly

And what did I predict?

That shortly, you would come back with a garbled thermodynamic argument.
You did not disappoint me.


OK LVQ I was not clear enough so here it is again clearer this time I believe.

I am not saying this to be horrible, but it is clearer how deep your misunderstanding of the science goes.

Sun heats earth via radiation.

Check.

Earth cools principally via conduction, convection and radition.

False. The Earth cools primarily by radiating its heat back out into space. It is true that there are all manner of convective and conductive things that go on, but as a whole, the primary process for which the Earth, as a whole, cools is radiation. That is the whole point of GHGs since they trap that radiation and prevent cooling.

Atmosphere warms from the conduction, convection and radiation.

Check. But the primary driver of all warming as a whole is radiation - that is how energy is put into the system. Conduction and convection are local events in the atmosphere and earth system.

There is no phyical mechanism to allow the atmosphere to warm the earth up to or higher than the what the sun did.

No you are missing the point entirely. The sun outputs a certain amount of energy. You are correct that the Earth itself is not adding to that output, however, the Earth is trapping more of that energy so it gets warmer.

Gases under standard contitions are a heat dissipator.

A gas at STP (standard temperature and pressure) is by definition, at STP. In other words, 0 degrees and one atmosphere. It is neither heating or cooling. I have no idea where you are going with that. If you mean that gasses can dissipate heat through expansion, why yes they can. So what?

You blow on your coffee, the fan in your room, the radiator in your car, the wind chill factor on TV all count on the heat dissipation capibility of gases.

Ahah, so you are saying that the blowing winds of the Earth will cool it? What if the winds are hot though? What happens when I blow on something with a hair dryer?

Gases in the atmosphere can be heated via friction as in down sloping, but friction is not AGW.

OK literally true, but proof of how much tap dancing you are doing.

The only time a gas under standard conditions is of use is thawing the turkey. Placed out at room temperature the turkey will warm. But that demonstrates my point that it gets no hotter.

No no no, not at all. That is something different entirely. The turkey is cold and when put into a warm room it will eventually equilibrate to room temperature. However, if your room is continually heating, the turkey equilibrates to a higher temperature.

If you trap more heat, you have more heat.

Let me ask you this, if you put on a blanket, you lose less heat so you stay warm. Are you with me? So if you put on a blanket in summer and go outside, what happens? CO2 is in essence a blanket.

Please do not say we burn CH4 for heat. That is a seperate issue.

Actually burning methane is a bad idea in terms of reducing CO2, but that is not the issue. You are correct about that in terms of this conversation. What is the issue is that you have serious gaps in your understanding. Now I am not trying to be overly harsh. I actually (and sincerely) applaud you for honestly and legitimately trying to engage this topic on the basis of the science and not simply shouting memes and talking points. You are honestly trying to think through the science.

As long as you wish to do so, I will be available for you.

124 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:04:46am

PIMF

No no no, not at all. That is something different entirely. The turkey is cold and when put into a warm room it will eventually equilibrate to room temperature. However, if your room is continually heating, the turkey tries equilibrate, but to a constantly higher temperature.

125 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:26:42am

re: #123 LudwigVanQuixote

Favorited that post. I think it’s a nice one to shove in your detractor’s faces.

126 MKelly  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 11:58:32am

re: #123 LudwigVanQuixote

I realize and understand that at the top of the atmosphere all gases whether CO2 or O2 will radiate into space and that is the ultimate cooling. But I don’t live there. I live where conduction, convection and radiation takes place. And ultimately it is also where the discussion of whether CO2 is heating the earth takes place.

And of course if you continually add heat the turkey will warm to the new temperature. But again once at room temperature it stays there until heat is added to the room. The air cannot heat the turkey until more heat is added to the room.

It is not possible to trap heat as you say. That is a physical impossibility.

“Let me ask you this, if you put on a blanket, you lose less heat so you stay warm.” I believe this question is put together incorrectly, but I think I get the point.

I have never disagreed that the atmosphere is a blanket and delays cooling. It also stops us from frying. But the atmosphere contains a number of different gases and they all delay the cooling. N2, or O2 when warmed will evenually have to give up that heat by radiating it out to space. All the gases do the same thing. Why not blame O2 instead of CO2?

The IR range is roughly 4 micro to 60 micro. CO2 at 15 micro +/-1 for saturation takes up roughly 5.4% of that range. (100/56 x 3) If all the CO2 in the atmosphere worked as hard as it could, 94.6% of the IR still leaves uneffected. Of that 5.4% human input of CO2 is approximately 3%. So 3% of 5.4% is 0.0016. So humans are responsible for a very small fraction of the IR being delayed. You could get a different number depending on range selection etc, but the point is the same. Human influence is very small.

127 mkelly  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 12:14:11pm

Work day is done. Going home.

128 freetoken  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 12:57:57pm

re: #126 MKelly

I realize and understand that at the top of the atmosphere all gases whether CO2 or O2 will radiate into space and that is the ultimate cooling. But I don’t live there.

As I mentioned before, until one gets the basics down it is not of much use to get to concepts such Conservation of Energy. Yet we must.

Unlike in computers, where into the mythical “bit bucket” any data can go, Energy just doesn’t magically disappear on the Earth. The Energy contained in the movement and vibrations of the gases at all points in the atmosphere has to go somewhere. Now, the Earth does lose a tiny bit of gas continually, so in a very small sense the Earth does lose a bit of Energy via the atmosphere due to this “evaporation”, but it is small. Other forms of Energy transfer to and from the Earth as a whole, via gravitational fields, happens too… but those are not part of the “heat” transfer normally associated with the surface of the Earth.

So, indeed, what happens at the top of the atmosphere is important to you and me. Same atmosphere in which you live. If a molecule in the upper atmosphere cools itself by emitting a photon, that photon can go in any direction. Likewise, if a molecule in the upper atmosphere transfers kinetic energy by bumping into another molecule, that collision can send one of the molecules relatively downward.

If you had taken a basic physics course you would know these things (inelastic collisions, for example, is taught near the beginning of a classical physics course.)



I live where conduction, convection and radiation takes place. And ultimately it is also where the discussion of whether CO2 is heating the earth takes place.

No, it isn’t. If you had actually studied AGW you would not have made that statement in bold.

MKelly - you keep coming on here, over and over, but all you are accomplishing is demonstrating how little you know. You are also telling us, by not going out and studying the topic, that you don’t really care.

129 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Mar 5, 2010 1:14:29pm

re: #126 MKelly

It is not possible to trap heat as you say. That is a physical impossibility.

What? Have you ever heard of a thermos? What does a blanket of a warm coat do for you? Are you insane?

“Let me ask you this, if you put on a blanket, you lose less heat so you stay warm.” I believe this question is put together incorrectly, but I think I get the point.

If you get that, then you get that heat can be trapped. Think about it.

I have never disagreed that the atmosphere is a blanket and delays cooling.

Then if that colling is more delayed, but heating still comes in at the same rate you get hotter right? Seriously, just stop a second and think about what you are saying.

130 mkelly  Sat, Mar 6, 2010 7:23:50am

re: #129 LudwigVanQuixote

A thermos over time will cool and a blanket only delays heat escape. I say again you cannot trap heat you can at best only delay its exit.

If it were truly possible to trap heat my heating bill in the winter would be lots smaller.

Freetoken you missed the point. A molecule of O2 cannot cool at the top of the atmosphere by conduction as there are no (very very little) other molecules to transfer energy to so it radiates it out. Convection does carry heat aloft but again convection cannot transport heat to space any molecule carried up by convection must radiate. Only at or near the surface do all three have effect on me. And I say again gases are a heat dissipator they cool rather than heat.

LVQ your remark about the hair dyer is yes it will cool if it is blowing on a red hot bar of steel. Also I did not use the trem STP I said standard conditions. As I was in aviation for a while I used it to denote a standard condition of 1 atmosphere of pressure and 59 deg F. I should have stated that to avoid confusion. In the future I will state the temperature and always use 1 atmosphere of pressure.

Obidcut your comment is at best childish. I have no intent or reason to try an “shove” anything in someones face. You remind of the little dog bouncing around the big dog Spike in the cartoons. And no LVQ I was not referring to you as a dog.

A discussion can be done with civility and without rancor.

131 iceweasel  Sat, Mar 6, 2010 10:46:10am

Tell me more about invisible stuff, trollcat.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 112 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 272 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1