ClimateGate - A great new Website

[mhaze]

Any chance that you'll either authenticate or repudiate the Houghton quote?
How is anyone supposed to trust what you say when you won't even acknowledge when you've made a mistake?

Do you deny that the links I provided fully articulate this matter?

• If not, then your repetition of the same question is disingenous and trolling
• If so, it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Do you deny that the links I provided fully articulate this matter?

I do, in fact, deny that the links you provided fully articulate this matter.
I'm asking a very simple question: do you continue to claim that Sir Houghton said what you quoted him as saying?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Do you deny that the links I provided fully articulate this matter?

• If not, then your repetition of the same question is disingenous and trolling
• If so, it is intellectually dishonest.

Nice move there. Make up a quote out of whole cloth, get caught red-handed doing it, get called out publicly for it, and then claim the person calling you out is dishonest.

Classic

ETA: I didn't think it was possible, but I do believe that Mhaze's credibility is entering the previously-unexplored negative territory.

 

[mhaze]

Nice move there. Make up a quote out of whole cloth, get caught red-handed doing it, get called out publicly for it, and then claim the person calling you out is dishonest.

Classic

ETA: I didn't think it was possible, but I do believe that Mhaze's credibility is entering the previously-unexplored negative territory.

Do you deny that the links I provided fully articulate this matter?

• If not, then your repetition of the same question is disingenous and trolling
• If so, it is intellectually dishonest.

PS: Think carefully before answering. Last time you and me got into a little discussion about the book that took you all summer to read and understand, you went off crying to the mods.

Wahhh!

WAHHHH! WAHHH!

 

[MattusMaximus]

The evidence shown on this thread clearly illustrates that you used a manufactured quote. Are you going to admit that the quote you provided originally was inaccurate?

That's the simple question you keep running from...

 

[AvalonXQ]

I didn't think it was possible, but I do believe that Mhaze's credibility is entering the previously-unexplored negative territory.

An interesting concept. I think negative credibility would imply that mhaze claiming it actually makes it less likely to be true than before.

 

[Megalodon]

PS: Think carefully before answering. Last time you and me got into a little discussion about the book that took you all summer to read and understand, you went off crying to the mods.

If that's your recollection, it's safe to assume MM wiped the floor with you

 

[mhaze]

The evidence shown on this thread clearly illustrates that you used a manufactured quote. Are you going to admit that the quote you provided originally was inaccurate?

That's the simple question you keep running from...

The "evidence shown on this thread" includes my comments and the links therein. Therefore please answer the question:

Do you deny that the links I provided fully articulate this matter?

• If not, then your repetition of the same question is disingenous and trolling
• If so, it is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Megalodon]

We got it mhaze... you lied about the quote, and your links showed that you were grasping at straws to validate it, so you lied about that too.

Now that you've cornered yourself, you went into toddler mode.

Used to be fun... now it's just sad.

 

[Cynic]

An interesting concept. I think negative credibility would imply that mhaze claiming it actually makes it less likely to be true than before.

It's not unusual for me to re-evaluate the truth of a fact I had previously taken for granted in light of someone with credibility problems stating it. Kneejerk distrust isn't exactly "skepticism" but some people manage to bring it out in me.

 

[BenBurch]

Sneaky. So, not content to merely cherry-pick two sentences, he chopped them up and glued them together. He couldn't even find one suspicious sentence. He had to build one a la carte.

That can't possibly be an attempt to destroy the original meaning.

Critic: "This movie is the best we have ever seen from director George Spelvin. Sadly, this is not good enough - it barely rates one star in our ratings system!"

Movie Poster: "This movie is the best ... ever ... !" - Critic

 

[AvalonXQ]

The "evidence shown on this thread" includes my comments and the links therein. Therefore please answer the question:

Do you deny that the links I provided fully articulate this matter?

• If not, then your repetition of the same question is disingenous and trolling
• If so, it is intellectually dishonest.

I'm asking a very simple question: do you continue to claim that Sir Houghton said what you quoted him as saying?
A yes or no will suffice, but you may certainly provide an explanation if you feel the question is unfair or unclear.

 

[mythstifieD]

Ok i'll give this one more shot, then I'm done with this thread.

I do find it interesting that the experts in each paper are advocating AGW based on their results, yet this blogger seems to flip it on its head and say that if you look at the results of all three in combination, it speaks the opposite. *IF* there was a conspiracy, I can see some merit in them hiding the results with rhetoric, but I'm not convinced.

More specifically, is his hypothesis sound?

So what type of experiment could be performed to test this AGW hypothesis? If there were satellites in orbit monitoring the emission of OLR over time at the same location, then OLR could be measured in a very controlled manner. If, over time, the emission of OLR in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs decreases over time, then that would prove the AGW hypothesis (i.e., that OLR is being absorbed by CO2 and heating the planet instead of being emitted from the atmosphere). But what if, over time (say, over thirty years), the emissions of OLR wavelengths that CO2 absorb remained constant? That would disprove the hypothesis and put the AGW argument to bed.

 

[Carefulplease]

Ok i'll give this one more shot, then I'm done with this thread.

I do find it interesting that the experts in each paper are advocating AGW based on their results, yet this blogger seems to flip it on its head and say that if you look at the results of all three in combination, it speaks the opposite. *IF* there was a conspiracy, I can see some merit in them hiding the results with rhetoric, but I'm not convinced.

More specifically, is his hypothesis sound?

I addressed this already in message #134. If the Earth just warmed, as it did, then you ought to expect to see *more* outgoing long-wave radiation even in the CO2 band. But we don't see much more. Why?

On the other hand we see more radiation in the CO2 band coming back from the atmosphere to the surface both during the day and at night. More studies also demonstrate this. (Your author doesn't seem to be aware of them.) So, this is why there isn't much more outgoing radiation in the CO2 band. More is being reflected back. Why? Simply, because CO2 concentration increased, which also answers the question in my first paragraph.

 

[mythstifieD]

I addressed this already in message #134. If the Earth just warmed, as it did, then you ought to expect to see *more* outgoing long-wave radiation even in the CO2 band. But we don't see much more. Why?

On the other hand we see more radiation in the CO2 band coming back from the atmosphere to the surface both during the day and at night. More studies also demonstrate this. (Your author doesn't seem to be aware of them.) So, this is why there isn't much more outgoing radiation in the CO2 band. More is being reflected back. Why? Simply, because CO2 concentration increased, which also answers the question in my first paragraph.

My apologies, your response was drowned in waves of further offtopic banter. Thank you.

I guess how I understand it, is that CO2 will only absorb a certain wavelength of light, and despite an increase of CO2, the OLR has remained constant. This seems to imply that CO2's effect is already at a maximum and won't cause a feedback loop. However, if I understand what you're saying, the increase of CO2 is actually keeping the OLR in balance, since it will trap the heat even moreso, not letting it escape. As far as I know, wavelengths are constantly degrading, so I would think that this would only happen on one (maybe two?) bounces, and then the wavelength would be smaller and able to escape the CO2 barrier. Is this completely off the wall? lol

 

[mhaze]

2x

 

[mhaze]

I addressed this already in message #134. If the Earth just warmed, as it did, then you ought to expect to see *more* outgoing long-wave radiation even in the CO2 band. But we don't see much more. Why?

On the other hand we see more radiation in the CO2 band coming back from the atmosphere to the surface both during the day and at night. More studies also demonstrate this. (Your author doesn't seem to be aware of them.) So, this is why there isn't much more outgoing radiation in the CO2 band. More is being reflected back. Why? Simply, because CO2 concentration increased, which also answers the question in my first paragraph.

It's been noted that all of the ability of co2 to absorb heat is used up in the first hundred meters of atmosphere, and above that water vapor would predominate. So it's entirely plausible that in the mid latitudes one would see an increase in these radiative bands from the ground, but not from space. This varies at the poles where and when the air temperature does not allow water vapor.

Postscript: The above paragraph refers to the absorption of infrared radiation from the surface of the planet. Some incoming infrared is absorbed by the atmosphere and re emitted.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's been noted that all of the ability of co2 to absorb heat is used up in the first hundred meters of atmosphere, and above that water vapor would predominate. So it's entirely plausible that in the mid latitudes one would see an increase in these radiative bands from the ground, but not from space. This varies at the poles where and when the air temperature does not allow water vapor.

Do you continue to claim that Sir Houghton said what you quoted him as saying?
A yes or no will suffice, but you may certainly provide an explanation if you feel the question is unfair or unclear.

 

[Meed]

Oy

 

[Carefulplease]

I can't believe I just read 4 pages on a thread that was COMPLETELY off topic from the OP, and mostly consisted of "You deniers were tricked into believing some false quotes, therefore all of AGW-Skepticism is ridiculous!"...

How about you guys talk about this article that was recently posted to the website mentioned in the OP?

The AGW Smoking Gun

Forgive me if I sound like a 'creationist', or a 'crop circle believer', or a 'holocaust denier'* as I'm very new to the topic, but this does seem compelling to me. It can't be this simple?


*name calling is the worst argument

I had a closer look at the three papers this author extracted his "Smoking Gun" from. His argument depends on badly misrepresenting the data displayed in the papers. For instance, he says:

"All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again...) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise -- these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2."

But this is just plain false. For instance, look at figure 3 in the third paper:

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/P...nts/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

The black line is the difference between the observed spectra. Models aren't used at all in plotting this line. This clearly shows a sharp increase in the absorption in the CO2 band that simply matches the prediction of the models (red line). But he ignores the data laid out in figure 3 and rather pretends that the black lines in the first two figures are identical. But the vertical axis resolution in those two figures just is too coarse to tell. This is why the authors provided the third figure with finer resolution to display the difference.

His misrepresentation of the data in the other two papers is just as bad.