4.1 1  IPCC’s definition of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’
The Technical Summary of the IPCC Report (Houghton et al 1996) explains it, in the box What drives changes in climate? on p 14, as follows:
 The Earth absorbs radiation from the Sun, mainly at the surface.  This energy is  then redistributed by the atmosphere and oceanic circulation and radiated to  space at longer (“terrestrial” or “infrared”) wavelengths.  On average, for the  Earth as a whole, the incoming solar energy is balanced by outgoing terrestrial  radiation.

 Any factor which alters the radiation received from the Sun or lost to space, or  which alters the redistribution of energy within the atmosphere, and between the  atmosphere, land and ocean, can affect climate.  A change in the energy available  to the global Earth/atmosphere system is termed here ..... a radiative forcing.

 Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases will reduce the efficiency  with which the Earth cools to space.  More of the outgoing terrestrial radiation  from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted at higher altitudes  and colder temperatures.  This results in a positive radiative forcing which tends  to warm the lower atmosphere and surface.  This is the enhanced greenhouse  effect - an enhancement of an effect which has operated in the Earth’s  atmosphere for billions of years due to the naturally occurring greenhouse gases:  water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane and nitrous oxide.  The amount of  warming depends on the size of the increase in concentration of each greenhouse  gas, the radiative properties of the gases involved, and the concentrations of  other greenhouse gases already present in the atmosphere.

This explanation doesn’t quite hit the spot, in the area crucial to IPCC’s climate-change hypothesis, when it says: “This (ie emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases) results in a positive radiative forcing which tends to warm the lower atmosphere and surface”.

Alert readers will recognise IPCC’s dilemma: human-caused greenhouse emissions cannot directly warm the surface.  Instead, they must cause warming in the lower atmosphere; and surface warming is a consequence of that warming.  But the satellites find little atmospheric warming.  To put the problem in context, the average warming trend in the lower atmosphere is only about 0.05 degrees C/decade for the period from 1979.  In sharp contrast, surface warming is some 0.13 to 0.19 degrees C/decade - say, three times as much!

4.1.2  Explanations by Pearman and Lindzen
More recently (Pearman 2000, in a paper originating at CSIRO, and relying “heavily” on the IPCC Report) a discussion of the science begins with a section headed Climate Processes.  This first describes the role of the atmosphere (including the greenhouse effect, but without referring to it by name), saying:
 These processes include the radiative absorption process that causes energy from  sunlight to be absorbed or trapped in the atmosphere or at the earth’s surface  and that influence the exchanges of thermal long-wave radiation.

Taking this crucial topic a step further, Figure 11 (a) provides an illustration of the natural greenhouse effect.  As implied by Lindzen 9 in his top graph, if average global temperature is to remain unchanged, incoming solar radiation must match outgoing terrestrial radiation.

The middle and lower graphs show relatively free access to the Earth’s surface for incoming short-wavelength solar radiation (in the visible part of the spectrum, some 0.4 to 0.7 microns) from the Sun.  They also show the natural absorption of outgoing radiation at longer ‘terrestrial’ wavelengths (ie in the infra-red range), particularly in the lower atmosphere, and particularly by the dominant greenhouse gas - water vapour.  It is this capture of outgoing radiation in the troposphere which keeps the earth at a habitable temperature.

The Earth radiates in the 3-80 mu m range, with the peak at about 10 mu m.  However, there is a widow in the absorption spectrum of water vapour at 7-8.5 to 11-13 ?m, as shown in the middle graph of Figure 11(a), which is crucial to the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.

Carbon dioxide’s absorption/emission lines are at 9.8, 10.4 and 14.5 to 15 mu m, as indicated on the horizontal axis of the middle graph; and absorption of terrestrial radiation by CO2 (natural or anthropogenic) takes place here.  However, by far the most important absorption frequency for CO2 (at about 15 mu m) is already beyond the frequency range at which water vapour is transparent to radiation.  If the radiation window is already closed at this frequency by water vapour, how then can there be any significant human-caused greenhouse effect from the emission of to the atmosphere?

The answer appears to be that the water vapour content of the lower atmosphere is not uniform.  In particular, the air in the intensely cold high-pressure cells which form over Siberia and Alaska/Yukon in winter is bone-dry.  Here, increased absorption by CO2 at about 15 mu m would have a warming effect.  Perhaps this explains, at least in part, the quite bizarre way in which global surface warming is distributed (see Figure 6).
 

______________________________________________________________________________________
9.  Richard S. Lindzen is a long-standing critic of IPCC’s greenhouse science.  He has been Alfred Sloan Professor in Meteorology at MIT since 1983; and his particular interest is the dynamics of atmospheric circulation.  He appeared before JSCOT in Canberra on 3 November 2000. 

In his presentation to JSCOT, Lindzen used Figure 11 (b) to illustrate the greenhouse effect mechanism.

Actually, the IPCC explanation talks of “outgoing terrestrial radiation from the surface”, as is also shown in Figure 11 (b).  But Lindzen makes the point verbally that much cooling at the surface is by evaporation, not radiation.  It is not until the water vapour, then escaping from the surface, condenses in the lower atmosphere that the heat thus transported is available to be radiated upward - and also, of course, redistributed downward in various ways.

Lindzen (pers com) also recognises a negative feedback in the lower atmosphere of the equatorial Pacific, which he calls the “Iris Effect”.  This works in opposition to the greenhouse effect.  The lower atmosphere is divided into separate but contiguous cells of moist and dry air; and as the sea-surface heats up, the moist cells contract and the dry cells expand.  Thus the natural (water vapour) greenhouse effect varies in the direction of restricting the rate of warming in the atmosphere above a warming sea-surface.

Geographically non-uniform, and time-variable, water-vapour content of the lower atmosphere might go part-way toward explaining why atmospheric warming is much less than IPCC’s predictions require.

4.1.3  Trying to make it clearer
Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels is the most important GHG) accumulate in the atmosphere.  Because these GHGs are transparent to incoming radiation, they do not reduce the incidence of the sun’s heat at the Earth’s surface.  However, when the Earth radiates back to Space an equivalent quantity of heat at longer wavelengths, an increased proportion is absorbed in the atmosphere - because the additional (anthropogenic) GHGs are not transparent to this returning lower-temperature terrestrial radiation.

Thus, more out-going heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere than previously, because of increasing absorption by anthropogenic GHGs.  The lower atmosphere, as a consequence, becomes warmer.

Some of this extra warmth is then re-radiated to Space, and some is redistributed in a manner which returns it to the Earth’s surface.  The subsequent warming of the Earth’s surface is the ‘greenhouse effect’ - whose amelioration is the sole objective of the Kyoto Protocol.

The most fundamental point to make when discussing the underpinning science of ‘greenhouse’ is that the greenhouse effect is a phenomenon of the atmosphere.  Put another way, if human-caused GHG emissions are not warming the atmosphere, obviously the atmosphere can’t then cause ‘greenhouse’ warming at the surface.  Remember, it is this resultant surface warming which we call the ‘greenhouse effect’.
Irrespective of what IPCC’s ‘consensus of 2500 of the world’s top climate scientists’ might say or do, the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis of global climate change will need ultimately to face Popper’s Law of Empirical Disproof.

 4.2  The atmosphere/surface miss-match
 4.2.1  The NRC study
Without revealing the remarkable extent of the miss-match in trends (as illustrated in Figures 9 and 10) - nor even its sign - the Pearman (2000) paper tells us that the recent satellite debate:
 ..... has had to do with whether satellite measurements in the micro-wavelengths  are showing a different trend from that observed at the surface.

It is an exceedingly relevant debate, both topical and vital.  In fact, the (US) National Research Council released a study (Panel on reconciling temperature observations, 2000)  which attempts to resolve the issue.  It was prepared by a panel of eleven scientists with a variety of skills - and outlooks ranging from greenhouse booster to greenhouse sceptic.

Before reading on, there are several points to remember here:
First, greenhouse is a phenomenon of the atmosphere.  If the lower atmosphere isn’t warming, that warming is not available for redistribution to the surface.
Second, the surface is warming.
Third, if the very warm 1998 El Niño year is excluded, there is no warming trend in the lower atmosphere over the 20 years studied by the NRC Panel.  There are 12 warmer and eight cooler years than 1999 in this history.
Fourth, balloon data is available back to 1958.  For 15 years the balloon-based lower atmosphere temperatures were warmer, and for 27 cooler, than 1999.  However, as mentioned earlier, the balloon record (see Figure 7) contains an as-yet-unexplained step-change of some 0.3 degrees C between 1976 and 1977.

The Panel states at the beginning of the Executive Summary:
 The global-mean temperature at the earth’s surface is estimated to have risen by  0.25 to 0.4 degrees C during the past 20 years.  On the other hand, satellite  measurements of radiances indicate that the temperature of the lower to mid- troposphere (the atmospheric layer extending from the earth’s surface up to  about 8 km) has exhibited a smaller rise of approximately 0.0 to 0.2 degrees C  Estimates  of the temperature trends of the same atmospheric layer based on balloon-borne  observations (i.e., radiosondes) tend to agree with those inferred from the  satellite observations.
and
 The panel was asked to assess whether these apparently conflicting surface and  upper air temperature trends lie within the range of uncertainty inherent in the  measurements and, if they are judged to lie outside that range, to identify the  most probable reason(s) for the differences.

The conclusions in the Executive Summary are:
 ..... the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during  the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and substantially greater than the average  rate of warming during the twentieth century.
and
 The various kinds of evidence examined by the panel suggest that the troposphere  actually may have warmed much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the  late 1990s, due both to natural causes and human activities.  Regardless of  whether the disparity is real, the panel cautions that temperature trends based on  data for such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not  necessarily indicative of the long-term behaviour of the climate system.

The NRC’s Executive Summary doesn’t concede much; but it is better than would be the continuation of a decade of denial by knowledgeable atmospheric scientists!  Happily, the text goes considerably further than does the Summary.  Three points are of particular relevance to an evaluation of the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis of global climate change:
First, on pp 62,3:
 Surface temperature has been increasing at a rate of about 0.1-0.2 degrees C/decade,  whereas tropospheric temperature has changed so little that a different sign for  the trend is obtained, depending on whether or not the final year of the record is  included - a year that was extraordinarily warm in the wake of the exceptionally  strong 1997-98 El Niño.
Second, on p 63:
 Direct comparison of surface and tropospheric temperature changes is feasible  with radiosonde observations, because they include both surface and upper-air  data. ..... Using longer radiosonde data records extending back approximately 40  years, Angell (1999) found less pronounced (but still noticeable) differences  between surface and tropospheric temperature trends than during the satellite  period .....
Third, on p 69:
 ..... it is highly unlikely that a differential trend as large as the one observed  during the past 20 years could be entirely due to the internal variability of the  climate system.

The satellite observations to date certainly don’t hurt my assertion that most of the global surface warming observed over the past half-century is not caused by anthropogenic changes to the composition of the atmosphere 10.
______________________________________________________________________________________
10.  However, it would be difficult to draw this sense from accounts of the NRC Report in the scientific press.  For instance, Nature of 20 January 2000 covered its release (v 403 p 233) in its news section under the headline “Global-warming sceptics left out in the cold”.  The 2000 in context review (v 408 pp 896, 7) repeats the dose, saying:
 Sceptics had pointed previously to discrepancies between temperature measurements made at the  surface and from satellites.  But in January, a report from the US National Academy of Sciences  concluded that the data were now reconciled and that they pointed to a warmer planet.
Science is very political these days.

4.2 2  Explaining or dissembling?
Understandably, damage control is now in full swing.  Santer et al (2000) published a paper in Science explaining the divergence between temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere “by up to 0.14 degrees C per decade”.

They begin by pointing out that the satellites have a global coverage, but the surface observations do not.  That part of the surface for which we have no record (about 30%, particularly the higher latitudes in both hemispheres), might of course be behaving just like the atmosphere.  Who can say otherwise?  Thus we have already reduced the proven divergence, right there, to “a statistically significant residual of roughly 0.1 degrees C/decade”.

Santer et al then find that:
 Natural internal climate variability alone, as simulated in three state-of-the-art  coupled atmosphere-ocean models, cannot completely explain this residual trend  difference.

However, they concede that “.....the effects of natural climate variability ..... may make substantial contributions to the observed trend difference”, invoking:
 ..... a recent model result that suggests that the observed warming of the surface  relative to the lower troposphere may be a response to combined forcing by well- mixed greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, stratospheric ozone, and the effects of  the Pinatubo eruption in June 1991.

Thus, Santer et al claim to demonstrate an anthropogenic contribution to the atmospheric temperature signal which, when combined with volcanic aerosol cooling, confirms that models predicting substantial greenhouse warming at the Earth’s surface are consistent with a lack of similar observed warming in the lower atmosphere.

I smell a rat here.  Without including the (cooling) impact of the Mt Pinatubo eruption, the later years of the atmospheric record would indeed have been warmer.  But, if the earlier and lesser El Chichón eruption (1982) is also included, the early and late cooling impacts would partly cancel each other in terms of their influence on the trend.

Furthermore, these authors’ reliance on anthropogenic ‘sulfate aerosols’ to help fix their problem could be just as insupportable scientifically as is their selective treatment of volcanoes - as discussed later.

4.2 3  A further and better analysis
But enough of smoke and mirrors.  Michaels and Knappenberger (2000) have prepared a comprehensive analysis in rebuttal of Santer et al.

Because we are dealing here with an issue crucial to the theme of this paper, I will quote at some length from Michaels and Knappenberger.

They begin:
 Since 1979, atmospheric temperatures have been measured by satellite-borne  microwave sounding units (MSUs).  The temperature retrieval for the lower  troposphere (2LT), which is highly correlated with mean 850-300 mb column  temperatures measured by weather balloons, shows that during the past 21 years,  the satellite-sensed temperatures in that layer have risen at a rate of 0.055  degrees C/decade.  During the same period, measurements taken at the earth’s surface  show a rise of 0.17 degrees C/decade - nearly three times the value observed by both  satellites and radiosondes.

In graph 1 of Figure 12, the monthly MSU 2LT (satellite-derived) temperatures are compared with 12-month running averages of the combined temperature impact of the multivariate ENSO index (MEI) and stratospheric optical depth (AOD) data.  MEI and AOD represent El Niño/La Niña events and volcanic eruptions, respectively - as detailed in their graph 2. Michaels and Knappenberger find that, while these two natural influences explain 63.5% of the variance in the satellite temperature data, they contribute a warming trend of only 0.014 degrees C/decade “which is not significantly different from zero”.

Graph 3 shows the same run of MSU temperatures after the influence of El Niño/La Niña and El Chichón/Pinatubo has been removed.  The source of the remaining 36.5% of the observed variance, and of the residual warming trend of 0.041 degrees C/decade, in the atmospheric record must lie elsewhere.
The authors opine:
 Other influences ..... could include solar variability, large-scale land use  changes, the increasing buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases, measurement  errors, imperfect quantifications of the ENSO and/or volcanic signals, and  random variations.
and
 Even if the trend in the residuals were due to the increase in greenhouse gases, it  would be occurring at a rate that is many times less than general circulation  models (GCMs) predict that it should be.

Graph 4 of Figure 12 contains the same residual MSU data as graph 3, but with an expanded vertical scale.  Superimposed is the impact of the 11-year variation in the sunspot cycle.  Solar output is obviously one factor in the remaining variability.

In the Discussion section of their paper, Michaels and Knappenberger begin by saying:
 Santer et al claim ..... that within the lower troposphere, the discrepancy between  the temperature trends from satellite-based MSUs and GCMs can be reconciled  by the inclusion of the effect of the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.  When that is  done, the difference in the trend from their GCM (0.149 degrees C/decade) and the MSU  data they used from 1979 to 1998 (0.104 degrees C/decade) is so low (0.045 degrees C/decade)  that it effectively “refutes recent claims [made by the senior author of this paper]  that modelled and observed tropospheric trends are fundamentally inconsistent”.
and
 But, Santer et al are able to arrive at this conclusion only by failing to account  for other processes, such as ENSO and the eruption of El Chichón, which we  have shown to have had a large impact on the observed MSU temperatures.   When these forcings are correctly handled, the difference between modelled and  observed trends more than triples.

They end their Discussion section as follows:
 We ...... conclude that if the GCM had correctly incorporated the observed ENSO  variations, as well as the 1982 eruption of El Chichón, the disparity between the  observed trend in the satellite record reported by Santer et al (0.104 degrees C/decade)  and the adjusted trend of lower tropospheric temperatures predicted by their  GCM (0.266 degrees C/decade) is 0.162 degrees C/decade.  This is 360% greater than the value  of 0.045 degrees C/decade reported by Santer et al.
and finally
 A disparity of such magnitude (0.162 degrees C/decade) serves only to strengthen our  original statement that current GCMs, when forced with observed changes to  greenhouse gases and aerosols, do not accurately portray the observed  temperature history of the lower troposphere during the past two decades.

 4.3  The Greenhouse Effect hypothesis: hanging by a thread
  4.3.1  The forty-year wait
As discussed above, Santer et al (2000) tell us that the observed disparity between the surface and atmospheric warming trends over the past two decades is not as bad as it seems, once the influence of the Mt Pinatubo eruption is taken into account.  Indeed, they close the gap to the point where the two records can no longer be described as ”fundamentally inconsistent”.

Later, their paper is comprehensively rebutted by Michaels and Knappenberger (2000). The latter authors adjust the predicted atmospheric warming over the 21-year period as calculated by the general circulation model (GCM) on which Santer et al largely rely.  When the effect of the El Chichón eruption is also included in the GCM prediction, along with the El Niño/La Niña events during the period, the difference between the observed and predicted lower troposphere warming trends increases from a very modest 0.045 degrees C per decade to a hard-to-ignore 0 162 degrees C/decade.  It more than triples!

However, the question of the plausibility of the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis of global climate change is not yet resolved in the negative - or not to the satisfaction of the panel.

The NRC Panel urges that, to ensure the observed (and still unexplained) differential between surface and atmospheric trends is statistically robust, we wait until we have 40 years of global coverage for temperatures in the lower atmosphere.
(Although, I should point out, the Panel has confidence to spare when discussing the pronounced surface warming during the second half of the 20th century - which only began with the jump in 1977, as shown in Figure 1.  After 32 years of cooling 1945-76, the 77-98 period of virtually-uninterrupted warming is not 40, but 22 years.  One law for the rich, and another .....)

But, have we not already served our time?  Including 2000, we now have radiosonde balloon coverage for 43 years, and the correspondence of balloon and satellite-derived temperatures in their period of overlap is accepted by all.

The Angell (1999) finding (see Section 4.2.1, ‘p 63’ quote above) that the radiosonde data from pre-satellite days reveals a less pronounced, but still noticeable, difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends is just as we would expect.  Figure 7 shows no trend in radiosonde measurements of atmospheric temperature prior to the jump in 1976/77; likewise, Figure 1 shows little variation at the surface in those years.

Popper’s Law of Empirical Disproof - 22 years or 40 - is already weaving its magic spell.  Survival of the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis of global climate change hangs by a single thread - the observed 1976/77 step-jump of 0.3 0C in average temperature of the lower atmosphere.

  4.3.2  Evidence from expert witnesses
The evidence that Jenkins 11 from the UK Met Office gave to the Senate Inquiry 12 in March 2000 is highly relevant in two regards.

First, he provides general acknowledgement of the largest climate-change event in the 20th century (which occurred in 1976/77, see Figures 1 and 7), although he sees its cause as anthropogenic, not natural:
 If we do it just with the natural activity alone, for example the way in which  volcanic activity has been quite high over the past two or three decades, and the  way that solar changes may have risen to a certain extent but have not been as  great as this: we find that [HadCM3, the new Hadley Centre coupled ocean- atmosphere climate model] cannot give the sort of signal of quite rapid  temperature change that has occurred particularly since about 1975. ..... But  when we include the effect of the human activities increasing greenhouse gases,  despite increases in aerosol, we do find we are able to simulate reasonably well  the temperature change on a global average basis that has occurred over that  period.

______________________________________________________________________________________
11.  Dr Geoff Jenkins is “Director, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, The Met Office, United Kingdom”.  He presented evidence on 9 March 2000, and the quotes are from Hansard.
12.  The Inquiry into Australia’s Response to Global Warming, by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee was chaired by Senator Lyn Allison.  Its report “The heat is on: Australia’s greenhouse future” (508 p) was published in 11/2000.

Second, he notes the disparity between satellite and surface measurements, but finds re-assurance in the longer run of data from balloon-borne thermometers:
 We have also looked at observations in the atmosphere.  You may be aware that  particularly in America there has been some controversy as to the extent to which  changes in global warming at the surface disagree with measurements of  warming made by satellites higher in the atmosphere at a height of maybe three  or five kilometres.  What we have done is to not use satellite measurements but  measurements from weather balloons and look at the trends in temperature that  have occurred since about 1960 to the present day in the atmosphere.  That has  shown us that the overall trends in temperature in the atmosphere have not been  very much different from those at the surface which sees quite a clear warming in  the atmosphere reasonably similar to the surface overall over that period.
and
 What we however see is that there are differences between the atmosphere  warming and the surface warming in periods of a few years or a decade long  which we do not understand.  The atmosphere does not warm as quickly as the  surface does in those periods.  We do not fully understand the reasons for that.  ..... There is an issue there that still has to be resolved, but it does not negate the  fact that the warming at the surface is very robust and that we believe the  warming of the atmosphere is quite robust as well.

Hadley Centre is the engine room for IPCC’s climate-change science. It is hard to accept, I know, but Jenkins’ astonishing message is that the Centre has decided “to not use” the only temperature series with a global coverage (the data-set derived from satellite-borne MSUs) because it doesn’t fit Hadley’s pre-conception of what the atmosphere should be doing, ie warming.

Enough of principle.  In practice, Hadley has staked everything on the radiosonde (weather balloon) record from 1958.  We all know that the atmospheric ‘warming trend’ on which they so completely rely comprises a step-jump of about 0.3 0C at 1976/77, and a relatively trend-less record before and since.  But is that 1976/77 jump human-caused, as Hadley needs to believe - or is it yet another manifestation of natural variability?

IPCC’s Watson 13 also gave evidence to the Senate Committee.  He is as convinced as is Jenkins of the crucial  anthropogenic role in observed 20th century climate-change:
 What we have ..... observed, and there is no doubt about this whatsoever, is that  the earth’s temperature is warming.  Over the last 100 years the temperature has  gone up between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees centigrade - that is an average of 0.6.  That  is averaged over both the land and the oceans.  The land has warmed more than  the ocean and the Northern Hemisphere has warmed more than the Southern  Hemisphere.  In the last decade the global mean surface temperature of the earth  has actually been going up about 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade.
______________________________________________________________________________________
13.  Dr Robert Watson is “Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations”.  He gave evidence to the Senate Inquiry on 9 March 2000.  The quotes are from Hansard.   

This authoritative-sounding evidence, from two of the principal custodians of IPCC’s Greenhouse Effect hypothesis, belies the fact that we are dealing with a dominant paradigm which is under siege.

In particular, I discuss later in the submission the reasons for the prominent step in temperature of the lower atmosphere at 1976/77, which contrasts sharply with little or no warming trend back to 1958, or onward to 2000.  To say: “ there are lots of similarities to suggest that the observed changes in climate have the right fingerprint of human induced activities, not natural phenomena” belies the known facts - as we shall see.

 4.4  Conclusions on ‘Greenhouse Effect’ warming
Let’s look at first principles.  The rate of heat transfer depends on the difference in temperature, and the direction of transfer is from hotter to colder.  How then can the lower atmosphere cause warming of the surface to a greater degree than the atmosphere itself is warming?

There is only one plausible conclusion:
 The rate of warming observed at the surface in excess of that in the lower  atmosphere cannot be attributed to the greenhouse effect.

There is another view, however; and it still remains the dominant view.  According to greenhouse news (see Footnote 6), Zilman said in his National Press Club Address that:
 ..... there is now clear evidence that the earth had warmed (through) the twentieth  century by a little over half a degree, and that this was related to increases in  greenhouse gases.
 

You read it first here

© 2001  Bob Foster  Posted   9, April, 2001
www.globalwarming-news.com
Back to "Duel of the Hypotheses"  contents page
Back to Guests Page
Back to Front Page