oh nice
now that ****head dawlish is trashing other newsgroups.

Dawlish wrote:

On May 2, 8:11 pm, Meteorologist wrote:
Dawlish's explanation of flaws in
Lindzen and Choi's work

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....1ffc74113?hl=e...

-----

Relationships between tropical sea surface
temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation

Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo,
Chris O’Dell, and Takmeng Wong

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Staff/Fa...010etalGRL.pdf

-----

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
by RS Lindzen, YS Choihttp://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

-----

I will comment more later...

I ask for reaction from uk.sci.weather and
plenty of it...

-----

David Christainsen

I'll look forward to your comments, Crunchy. See if you can come up
with anything to defend Lindzen and Choi. Please be specific about his
use of only 40% of the earth's surface in his 2009 paper, won't you?
And his cherry picking of time periods from *within* the last 30
years' data, won't you? And do talk about Kirchoff's law and his
flagrant disregard for it and its corollory that emissivity is equal
in all directions, won't you? If I were you I'd comment now, as this
is a meteorology newsgroup, with a few people who have an interest in
climatology and only a few with an interest in physics. All have an
interest in meteorology, however and that's a subject you very seldom
seem to mention, "Meteorologist".