Global Warming Measurements Don't Account For 'Missing Heat'

@guinganbresil

Because you mentioned similar conversations, I site-searched skepticalscience.com for "guinganbresil" and found a discussion of Gary Thompson's effort, in an "American Thinker" article, to fudge results by only glancing at graphs, eschewing any statistical analysis, directly contradicting the conclusions of the author of Harries 2001.

The same study clearly shows that OLR is not behaving as you have repeatedly asserted here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/American-Thinker-claims-to-have-disproven-global-warming.html
The top curve in Figure 2 is the observed difference between 1970 and 1996 over the central Pacific. This shows strong agreement with the middle curve which is the modelled results. The bottom curve is the observed difference for a near-global area. Observations are consistent with our theoretical expectations of how the greenhouse effect should behave. The close match between observation and simulation lead the paper's authors to conclude "Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate"...

There is much else that can be gleaned from Figure 2. Interestingly, the near-global observations show a greater drop in outgoing longwave radiation at the CO2 wavelengths around 700 cm-1 compared to the change over tropical regions. Does this indicate the change in greenhouse effect is greater at higher latitudes? It's also worth noting that the data doesn't cover the entire longwave spectrum as CO2 absorption below 700 cm-1 is not shown.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost