"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Take a radiation computer model (GCM) and remove each long-wave
absorber (principally the greenhouse gases, but also clouds and
aerosols)
and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed.
This
gives the minimum effect from each component. The complementary
calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the
maximum effect. The table shows the instantaneous change in long-wave
absorption when each component or combination of components is removed
using the radiation code from the GISS GCM. (The source code is
available
for those who have the patience to get it to work). This isn't a perfect
calculation but it's quick and easy and is close enough to the right
answer for our purposes.

The IPCC managed to conceal this in the first three assessment reports.
Let's not let them get away with it in the fourth.

What's to conceal?

Read what I wrote.


Question: I read in one of the posts that the working draft of the fourth
assessment can be requested from the IPCC website by email request. But I
was unable to find it on the IPCC website. Please post a link.

Sorry, it's not on the IPCC web site.

Sorry ain't good enough. It's not like the GW issue just emerged a month
ago. They've had plenty of time to fully explain this procedure.

Besides you haven't studied the TAR
WG1, near as I can tell, so how would you notice any difference in the
draft
document? Do you intend to comment on the document?

Do you?

Maybe you should just
take the time between now and the final release nest year to actually
study
some of the science. It's all been published by now.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------