You can't blame the Sun #2
Roger Coppock
been to blame the recent increase in global mean temperatures
on a change of the solar constant. They do this to down scale
the importance of the climate change due to anthropogenic
greenhouse gases. When one exposes this view to the light of
data, one finds some very large contradictions, any one of
which easily exonerates increasing solar output as a cause of
the warming over the last 3 decades.
In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
is cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well.
Today, let's look horizontal differences in temperature change.
Please see these facts:
One may make his or her own world warming map automatically
by going to:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/maps/
and put in these parameters to look at all the data,
correcting for any "urban heat island" effect:
GISS 2001 analysis, Hadl/Reyn_v2, trends, Annual (Jan-Dec),
1880, 2003, 1951, 1980, 1200 km.
Please note that the warming occurs first at high latitudes
where the air is dryer and the greenhouse gasses other than
water vapor predominate. If the cause of the observed
warming was a warming sun, one would expect the reverse:
the equator, which 'sees' more direct sunlight,' would warm
fastest.
YOU CAN'T BLAME IT ON THE SUN GUYS!
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)
--
A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that
there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at
high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency
modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and
receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines
moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the
engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the
argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now
understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few
little men in there, aren't there?"
- Douglas Adams, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Roger Coppock
TellTheTruth
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:3E99F9B0...@adnc.com...
> One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
> been to blame the recent increase in global mean temperatures
> on a change of the solar constant.
Has the output of the sun changed?
Then the solar constant isn't constant, is it?
And so the use of the word "constant" constitutes an institutional lie, does
it not?
The bureaucracy always lies.
> They do this to down scale
> the importance of the climate change due to anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases.
GW>AGW>ACC>WR>AWR>OBS
You're half way there!
The bureaucracy always lies.
> When one exposes this view to the light of
> data, one finds some very large contradictions, any one of
> which easily exonerates increasing solar output as a cause of
> the warming over the last 3 decades.
Those are your "friendly contradictions".
How about the others?
Amnd have you not just committed a lie of omission?
The bureaucracy always lies.
> In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
> differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
> is cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
> that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance,
LOL!
OK, we'll just snip you right there.
LOL!
Consumer
> One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
[snip]
Roger, those who live by (bad) software will die by software.
I tried the software simulation you suggested at:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/maps/
to make a world warming map.
I set the time interval to begin: 2003, end: 2003 with a base period of
begin: 1951, end: 1980.
The temperature anomaly map shows 9999.0 C. over the entire face of the
planet. Not very convincing.
Don't even try to suggest to me that begin: 2003, end: 2003 is
inappropriate. It is the job of software to take care of that; it didn't
complain.
This shows very well what is the source of the 'global warming, greenhouse
gas/effect' belief system. It is all about people who put their (religious)
faith in software.
You have public servants who have no demonstrated skills in the subtleties
of statistics, averaging the output of thermometers located at weather
stations, producing graphs and disseminating them, without any consideration
of whether or not that exercise has any validity.
You have other people who create computer climate models which encapsulate
their own particular biases and producing projections which reproduce their
biases.
There is nothing in those computer exercises that warrant any credibility.
Thanks for the weblink. It was a gas!
BTW, is it snowing where you are?
TellTheTruth
"Consumer" <cons...@consumer.com> wrote in message
news:5rnma.118948$vs.12...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
>
> > One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
> [snip]
>
> Roger, those who live by (bad) software will die by software.
> I tried the software simulation you suggested at:
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/maps/
> to make a world warming map.
>
> I set the time interval to begin: 2003, end: 2003 with a base period of
> begin: 1951, end: 1980.
>
> The temperature anomaly map shows 9999.0 C. over the entire face of the
> planet. Not very convincing.
Interesting that when the Computer Model Oracle doesn't know, it presumes
warming.
Try asking it to use "unadjusted" data.
All you get is a blank stare.
> Don't even try to suggest to me that begin: 2003, end: 2003 is
> inappropriate. It is the job of software to take care of that; it didn't
> complain.
>
> This shows very well what is the source of the 'global warming, greenhouse
> gas/effect' belief system. It is all about people who put their
(religious)
> faith in software.
>
> You have public servants who have no demonstrated skills in the subtleties
> of statistics,
When a statistician questions the methods of these government employees,
they are smeared.
When a mathematician questions the methods of these government employees,
they are smeared.
The Church of GW/AGW/ACC/WR/AWR/OBS does not like to be told that their
priests are wearing no clothes.
> averaging the output of thermometers located at weather
> stations, producing graphs and disseminating them, without any
consideration
> of whether or not that exercise has any validity.
>
> You have other people who create computer climate models which encapsulate
> their own particular biases and producing projections which reproduce
their
> biases.
OTOH, any computer model that reflects "reality" must be wrong, as certainly
some of the input data will be wrong.
> There is nothing in those computer exercises that warrant any credibility.
>
> Thanks for the weblink. It was a gas!
>
> BTW, is it snowing where you are?
Yea, according to the models, it is snowing ammonia crystals.
At least it isn't 9999.0 C. (5 significant digits, no less!)
James
Roger Coppock
Nope, not at all op-ed. It references real data,
and lets the reader manipulate it. Did you follow
the directions and make the graph, James? Some of
your fellow deniers failed to.
>
> >
> > -.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcop...@adnc.com)
> >
> >
> >
--
Roger Coppock
>
> "Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
>
> > One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
> [snip]
>
> Roger, those who live by (bad) software will die by software.
> I tried the software simulation you suggested at:
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/maps/
> to make a world warming map.
It is not a "software simulation."
The program displays real data.
>
> I set the time interval to begin: 2003, end: 2003 with a base period of
> begin: 1951, end: 1980.
>
> The temperature anomaly map shows 9999.0 C. over the entire face of the
> planet. Not very convincing.
>
> Don't even try to suggest to me that begin: 2003, end: 2003 is
> inappropriate.
Well, I will dare to suggest just that to you.
YOU PUT GARBAGE IN, YOU GET GARBAGE.
(FOCUS, LITTLE GRASSHOPPER, FOCUS
You have the attention span of a week old kitten.
The software is a tool to your enlightenment,
use it as it was intended.)
NOW LET's GET BACK TO MY POINT.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
Roger Coppock
>
> Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> >In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
> >differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
> >is cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
> >that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
> >the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well.
>
> the same effect.
All that I 'discovered' was that you claimed so. You promised,
but you did not deliver any references. My searches didn't find
anything, either.
Please don't alter the distribution lists when you
reply to someone's posts. It is a nuisance.
Titan Point
> One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
> been to blame the recent increase in global mean temperatures
> on a change of the solar constant. They do this to down scale
> the importance of the climate change due to anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases. When one exposes this view to the light of
> data, one finds some very large contradictions, any one of
> which easily exonerates increasing solar output as a cause of
> the warming over the last 3 decades.
>
> In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
> differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
> is cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
> that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
> the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well.
>
When are you going to deal with the output of the sun, and whether it has
changed with time, or is it too tiresome to do so?
Roger Coppock
>
> When are you going to deal with the output of the sun, and whether it has
> changed with time, or is it too tiresome to do so?
Focus, little grasshopper, focus. Today's lesson IS about the
output of the sun. Read on please. Read carefully. You must
crawl before you can fly. Master this lesson first.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
been to blame the recent increase in global mean temperatures
on a change of the solar constant. They do this to down scale
the importance of the climate change due to anthropogenic
greenhouse gases. When one exposes this view to the light of
data, one finds some very large contradictions, any one of
which easily exonerates increasing solar output as a cause of
the warming over the last 3 decades.
In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
is cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well.
Today, let's look horizontal differences in temperature change.
harvest dancer
That's right. The climate and environment NEVER change naturally, so
it has to be the fault of mankind. There were no extinctions before
man came along.
That Iceage before the arrival of the modern version of our species?
It must have ended because the modern version of our species started
global warming! We've been warming for THOUSANDS of years, because
there ARE NO NATURAL CAUSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO CHANGE! Just
listen to people like Roger, and you will find out that is true.
All extinctions are the fault of our species. Even the dinosaurs.
Some species we evolved from must have killed them all. Even when we
were part of nature we were against nature and trying to kill
everything! Wow, what an evil species we are.
Every change that happens in the environment is our fault, even if the
change is due to a volcano erupting. Obviously we angered the earth
enough to make it respond with a volcano eruption. That is because
not only is the earth itself a sapient being, but because there are no
changes to the environment except those caused by man.
I wonder what we did to cause the sun to get warmer?
Jason
Lloyd Parker
harves...@hotmail.com (harvest dancer) wrote:
>Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:<3E99F9B0...@adnc.com>...
>>
>> YOU CAN'T BLAME IT ON THE SUN GUYS!
>
>That's right. The climate and environment NEVER change naturally, so
>it has to be the fault of mankind. There were no extinctions before
>man came along.
Look up "straw man."
Steve McGee
> Titan Point wrote:
>
>>When are you going to deal with the output of the sun, and whether it has
>>changed with time, or is it too tiresome to do so?
>
>
> Focus, little grasshopper, focus. Today's lesson IS about the
> output of the sun. Read on please. Read carefully. You must
> crawl before you can fly. Master this lesson first.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> One of the frequent mantras of the global warming deniers has
> been to blame the recent increase in global mean temperatures
> on a change of the solar constant. They do this to down scale
> the importance of the climate change due to anthropogenic
> greenhouse gases. When one exposes this view to the light of
> data, one finds some very large contradictions, any one of
> which easily exonerates increasing solar output as a cause of
> the warming over the last 3 decades.
>
> In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
> differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
> is cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
> that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
> the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well.
GHG fail miserably at explaining the warming of the stratosphere over
the last seven years.
>
> Today, let's look horizontal differences in temperature change.
> Please see these facts:
>
> One may make his or her own world warming map automatically
> by going to:
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/maps/
> and put in these parameters to look at all the data,
> correcting for any "urban heat island" effect:
> GISS 2001 analysis, Hadl/Reyn_v2, trends, Annual (Jan-Dec),
> 1880, 2003, 1951, 1980, 1200 km.
>
> Please note that the warming occurs first at high latitudes
> where the air is dryer and the greenhouse gasses other than
> water vapor predominate. If the cause of the observed
> warming was a warming sun, one would expect the reverse:
> the equator, which 'sees' more direct sunlight,' would warm
> fastest.
Unless your pipeline theory is correct.
TSI increases over the last century might only now be showing up if the
ocean storage pipeline is a factor.
David Ball
But, Troll, that's the whole point. Hasn't this been explained
to you often enough. Part of the current warming IS due to changes in
solar output. That's why we cannot "solve" the problem. Solar changes,
however, do not account for all of the observed warming. Only when
both solar AND greenhouse gas forcings are BOTH considered do we get
something close to the observed warming. Even denialists like Soon and
Baliunas agree on this point (at least in their peer-reviewed papers).
When are you going to deal with that?
David Ball
dancer) wrote:
>Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message news:<3E99F9B0...@adnc.com>...
>>
>> YOU CAN'T BLAME IT ON THE SUN GUYS!
>
>That's right. The climate and environment NEVER change naturally, so
>it has to be the fault of mankind. There were no extinctions before
>man came along.
Let me make a minor correction to what Roger is saying: you
can't blame it COMPLETELY on the sun. See the difference?
>
>That Iceage before the arrival of the modern version of our species?
>It must have ended because the modern version of our species started
>global warming! We've been warming for THOUSANDS of years, because
>there ARE NO NATURAL CAUSES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT TO CHANGE! Just
>listen to people like Roger, and you will find out that is true.
How about you stop being so shrill and listen to the basics.
Fact 1: The observed warming cannot be completely accounted
for by solar forcing.
Fact 2: The observed warming cannot be completely accounted
for by greenhouse gas forcing.
Fact 3: Both are required.
Fact 4: It is just plain silly to post the strident nonsense
you did above, because it flat-out isn't true.
Fact 5: One of the bench-marks of the adult human being is
their ability to take responsibility for their actions. While it is
incorrect to blame the entire problem on human activities, it is not
incorrect to point out that a significant portion of the problem can
be laid at our feet.
>
>All extinctions are the fault of our species. Even the dinosaurs.
>Some species we evolved from must have killed them all. Even when we
>were part of nature we were against nature and trying to kill
>everything! Wow, what an evil species we are.
Fact 6: Again, taking responsibility for our actions, some, in
fact an increasing number of them, extinctions can be laid squarely at
our feet.
>
>Every change that happens in the environment is our fault, even if the
>change is due to a volcano erupting. Obviously we angered the earth
>enough to make it respond with a volcano eruption. That is because
>not only is the earth itself a sapient being, but because there are no
>changes to the environment except those caused by man.
Did you stamp your feet and stick out your bottom lip as you
wrote this?
Fact 7: There is no reason to comment on such a petulant
whiney paragraph.
Now, if you'd like, feel free to dispute the facts. I'll be
more than happy to bury you in a sea of articles backing me up.
Josh Halpern
Steve McGee wrote:
> Roger Coppock wrote:
SNIp.....
>
> GHG fail miserably at explaining the warming of the stratosphere over
> the last seven years.
Warming?
josh halpern
Troll
> Fact 1: The observed warming cannot be completely accounted
> for by solar forcing.
There is no 'observed warming'. The CRU boys took a collection of
thermometer readings. Over the course of time any thermometer will display a
signal that is a combination of periodic and random components. The CRU boys
added up all the thermometer readings and divided by the number of readings.
The signal that is derived is a combination of periodic and random
components. The CRU boys and others try to fit a straight line to the signal
and proclaim 'global warming'. That is not 'observed warming', that is
infered warming.
Carl Sagan proclaimed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. So far no extraordinary evidence has been presented. There is no
'observed warming'.
BTW, is it still snowing where you are?
David Ball
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> Fact 1: The observed warming cannot be completely accounted
>> for by solar forcing.
>
>There is no 'observed warming'. The CRU boys took a collection of
>thermometer readings. Over the course of time any thermometer will display a
>signal that is a combination of periodic and random components. The CRU boys
>added up all the thermometer readings and divided by the number of readings.
>The signal that is derived is a combination of periodic and random
>components. The CRU boys and others try to fit a straight line to the signal
>and proclaim 'global warming'. That is not 'observed warming', that is
>infered warming.
A bold-faced lie, I'm afraid. I suggest you go back to basics.
>BTW, is it still snowing where you are?
>
LOL. I suggest you learn the difference between weather and
climate.
Roger Coppock
global warming. Please see:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm
This graph shows that the data collections from NCDC, GISS,
and SHI also tracks the results of the CRU scientists.
2) More instruments than just thermometers report the warming:
A) The warming also shows in Radiosonde readings at launch time.
see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
"...the University of East Anglia data of Jones et al. (2001)
indicate a global surface warming of 0.17°C/decade during
1979-2001 compared to the surface warming of 0.15°C/decade
obtained from the 63-station network."
B) Satellite Microsave Sounding Unit data also indicates warming.
Please see:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1
GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT OBSERVED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES.
--
Steve McGee
>
>
> Steve McGee wrote:
>
>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>
>
> SNIp.....
>
>>
>> GHG fail miserably at explaining the warming of the stratosphere over
>> the last seven years.
>
>
> Warming?
Since 1996, yes.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2002/ann/st_global_jan-dec-pg.gif
Roger Coppock
You're very probably looking at too small a number of years to be
statistically significant, Steve.
Roger Coppock
>
> >> Ahem. You also discovered that changes in ozone would also have
> >> the same effect.
>
> >All that I 'discovered' was that you claimed so. You promised,
> >but you did not deliver any references. My searches didn't find
> >anything, either.
>
>
> IPCC TAR: p122: "These large, negative trends are consistent with models
> of the combined effects of ozone depletion and increased concentrations of
> infrared radiating gases..."
>
> Also p712, fig 12.8 (compare (b) and (c)).
(You are going to have to help me here. My only access to
the IPCC documents is online: www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
and that access doesn't use page numbers. It has HTML file
numbers, but these aren't the same as the printed page numbers.
Would you please give me chapter headings for your two references
above?)
>
> Searching with google I find:
>
> "The decrease in ozone levels in
> the stratosphere causes a cooling of the stratosphere, and therefore the temperature gradient between lower stratosphere and upper stratosphere has been
> increasing. "
>
> http://www.met.fsu.edu/Ugrads/scavallo/climatology.html
Yet the same article in the first sentence under "Results and Conclusion" says,
"Greenhouse warming implies that temperatures will increase in the troposphere, and
decrease temperatures in the stratosphere."
So what we have here are two mechanisms to cool the stratosphere,
increasing greenhouse gasses, and decreasing ozone. Just to confuse
everything more, CFCs are greenhouse gasses and they decrease ozone
in the stratosphere. What I have been looking for, and could not
find, was a breakdown of contributions: how much cooling of the
stratosphere is due to greenhouse gasses? how much cooling is due
to ozone depletion?
In addition, to return to the topic of this thread, one must ask,
"Is there any room in the stratospheric heat balance for increasing
heating due to a warming sun?"
>
> Or fig 1 (second panel) of:
>
> http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/climate/previous_issues/vol5/v5n15/cutting1.htm
>
LET'S LIMIT OUR SEARCHES TO CREDITABLE SOURCES ONLY.
Greening Earth Society is creation of the Heartland Institute,
a public relations firm paid by the fossil fuel industry.
Heartland patterned "Greening Earth," the 'Cee-Oh-Too is Good
for U' society, after their very successful "Tobacco is good
for you" campaign. Baliunas and Soon have an equally bad
track record.
> Or http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/gccsg/6-8-2-2.html
(The site this page came from is a good general reference.)
>
> "All equilibrium model simulations show a warming in the mid-troposphere and cooling in
> the stratosphere. It has been suggested that this contrast in trends between the
> troposphere and stratosphere might prove a useful detection fingerprint (Karoly, 1987,
> 1989). In addition, high signal-to-noise ratios have been obtained (Barnett &
> Schlesinger, 1987) for free tropospheric temperatures. However, stratospheric cooling
> may not solely be attributed to greenhouse forcing, and can arise due to volcanic
> pollution injections and ozone depletion."
>
This statement, based on 14-year-old and older research,
calls for further study. My unanswered questions still
remain:
-- How much cooling of the stratosphere is due to greenhouse gasses?
-- How much cooling is due to ozone depletion?
-- "Is there any room in the stratospheric heat balance for increasing
heating due to a warming sun?"
(One can eliminate "Volcanic Pollution,"
because it is a short term effect.)
> If your searches found nothing, you weren't looking very hard. Try
> ozone stratosphere cooling in google.
I didn't find any answers to the three questions but there are some
interesting perspectives on the issue:
This page:
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/web_page/milestones/FY02Q3/ramaswamy/ozone.htm
says,
"Both ozone and the well-mixed greenhouse gases contribute
in an important manner to the cooling of the stratosphere
(Figure B). Ozone effects are dominant in the lower
stratosphere (around 20 km.); well-mixed gases are more
important in the middle stratosphere (around 35 km), while
all gases contribute importantly in the upper stratosphere
(around 45 km). As ozone depletion is linked to the halocarbons,
the global stratospheric cooling is attributable in the main to
anthropogenic emissions. Another important implication of the
trace-gas induced cooling trend in the stratosphere is its likely
association with the initiation of ozone depletion in the Arctic
and the sustained appearance of 'ozone holes' there during
winter / spring."
(Just what we need, another vertical boundary in the atmosphere:
lower troposphere, middle troposphere, high troposphere, tropopause,
. . . ;-) )
GIVEN THIS NEW VERTICAL BOUNDARY IN THE ATMOSPHERE, WHY DON'T
I REVISE MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT:
"In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the Stratosphere
cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well."
TO READ:
In the first of this series, I focused the discussion on vertical
differences temperature change. I asked, 'Why is the [Middle] Stratosphere
cooling while the Earth's surface is warming.' We discovered
that the answer could not be increasing solar irradiance, but that
the greenhouse gas model explained both these facts quite well.
Lloyd Parker
"Troll" <Tr...@Troll.com> wrote:
>"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> Fact 1: The observed warming cannot be completely accounted
>> for by solar forcing.
>
>There is no 'observed warming'.
Well, I guess you'd better tell NASA, NOAA, EPA, etc. Because they've
observed it.
>The CRU boys took a collection of
>thermometer readings. Over the course of time any thermometer will display a
>signal that is a combination of periodic and random components. The CRU boys
>added up all the thermometer readings and divided by the number of readings.
>The signal that is derived is a combination of periodic and random
>components. The CRU boys and others try to fit a straight line to the signal
>and proclaim 'global warming'. That is not 'observed warming', that is
>infered warming.
>
>Carl Sagan proclaimed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>evidence. So far no extraordinary evidence has been presented. There is no
>'observed warming'.
I'll trust NASA and NOAA over idiots.
Psalm 110
>>
> (You are going to have to help me here. My only access to
> the IPCC documents is online: www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
> and that access doesn't use page numbers. It has HTML file
> numbers, but these aren't the same as the printed page numbers.
> Would you please give me chapter headings for your two references
> above?)
>
Most browsers have a "find" function, which can take a phrase pasted
into the target box and match it to the location in the body of the
text. Often it is faster than manual scan.
Joshua Halpern
> > Josh Halpern wrote:
> > > Steve McGee wrote:
> > >> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > > SNIp.....
> > >> GHG fail miserably at explaining the warming of the
> > >> stratosphere over the last seven years.
> > > Warming?
> > Since 1996, yes. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2002/ann/st_global_jan-dec-pg.gif
> You're very probably looking at too small a number of
> years to be statistically significant, Steve.
Perhaps Steve might also point us at the models which
failed miserably? and validations of the data?
josh halpern