View Single Post
Old 20th February 2010, 04:03 AM   #160
Carefulplease
Thinker
 
Carefulplease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by mythstifieD View Post
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/Pu..._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.
Carefulplease is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top