Having listed all the scientific evidence that now contradicts doomsday global warming, I thought I should list everything that supports the theory.
And I searched and I searched and eventually I’ve found something!!
Here it is from the BiasedBroadcastingCompany Friday, 16 March, 2001, 14:17 GMT:
A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real.
Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case.
So comparing a satellite that presumably was in orbit around 1970 they found that it gave different readings from one around 2000. Or as Scientific American put it:
The researchers looked at the infrared spectrum of long-wave radiation from a region over the Pacific Ocean, as well as from the entire globe. The data came from two different spacecraft the NASA’s Nimbus 4 spacecraft, which surveyed the planet with an Infrared Interferometric Spectrometer (IRIS) between April 1970 and January 1971, and the Japanese ADEO satellite, which utilized the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) instrument, starting in 1996. To ensure that the data were reliable and comparable, the team looked only at readings from the same three-month period of the year (April to June) and adjusted them to eliminate the effects of cloud cover.
So, that’s pretty conclusive: after the data has been manipulated to remove the biggest effect on climate (clouds) which are supposedly the key to their positive feedbacks, after measuring for a massive three months using two entirely different instruments flying different orbits measuring over a tiny bit of the globe …. it’s conclusive proof.
Whereas when Roy Spencer produces a paper using a single set of data from 2000 to 2011 covering the whole globe … what is the response from the alarmists it was “too short” a period.
ScottishSceptic 
Not scientific but…
When trying to access Dr Harris’s recearch on this home page, the link is broken so I can’t tell if his team factored in this or not. If you follow the LISIRD link below you can see immediately that the TSI for both the years given are different. I.e. less energy in 1997 than in 1970 (which to me would mean less in, less out in the 1990’s).
Just a thought. Plot it yourself in case I have it wrong (it has happened before :-)).
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
You might want to look at this – http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm
I remember reading critical discussions about the paper years ago. The general conclusion (amongst the critics) was that the CO2 difference was tiny – too tiny, and the only significant drop due to GHG was for methane. The author of my linked article comes to the same conclusion. If you don’t mind visiting the so-called Skeptical Science site there’s a little more there (with obvious spin) – http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=98&&n=144
Yes that was very helpful.
Looking at everyday experience, things tend to radiate more heat the hotter they are. I don’t suppose that the Earth could be radiating less heat because it is actually colder could it? I suppose that would be a little too simplistic.
The answer is yes … but that could be because there is a reduced heat flow from the surface to the “average” place where the heat is radiated. Or it could be because the heat is flowing just fine, but as I think you mean, the surface temperature has dropped.
Surface temperature in the desert drops between 1PM and 5AM by 25⁰C. In that same time, on the same day; on a tropical island drops only by 3-4⁰C. If it was warming by same degrees, but on the island was cooling only by 5⁰C, in the desert by 25⁰C – on that island after one month would have being 700⁰C. But is not. Because: the hotter it gets = the cooling increases. If the temperature regulators OXYGEN +NITOGEN can cool by 20⁰C in 12 hours… cannot cool 2⁰C extra in 100years…? If you want real proofs http://www.stefanmitich.com.au
Warmist will not admit guilt without real proofs; some of those Warmist should end up in jail. Billions have being spent, to prevent the phony GLOBAL warming. People go to jail for $1000 bucks. Bottom line: O+N have thermometer in every atom; to expand when warmed extra – to shrink when cooled extra – INSTANTLY, not in 100y. Q: do they expand and shrink because they have nothing better to do? Or, they are regulating to be same temperature in the troposphere every hour of every month and year of every millennia?!!!!!! The laws of physics don’t tell lies, rely on what is reliable, please join me. The truth always wins on the end. Unfortunately, the longer is delayed – the more irreversible damages are created. On the end, when time for ‘’truth and reconciliation’’ comes; Warmist will turn and say: the active Skeptics were molesting the carbon also… Think about it.
Stefan, I couldn’t understand your point, I tried to follow it up by going to the weblink you supplied but my ISP didn’t recognise it.
And, because a new flat screen is clearer than a 30 year old tube tv means my eyesight is getting better.
Something else I remembered on re-reading some of the blog posts on this paper. The authors picked an area of the Pacific on the equator, possibly to get the advantage of higher radiation levels to maximise the expected differences. Unfortunately such an area has a very high level of water vapour – what you’d expect over a warm ocean. This maximised radiation from the surface, but also provided a high WV absorption, which of course almost entirely masks the main CO2 band.This would appear to explain the small difference observed in CO2 absorption, while most of the difference was for methane, which is masked less by WV in its band centred on 1300 cm-1.
To my mind the paper is inconclusive not least because they got the labelling of the two satellite plots reversed which rather disproves their claim. It’s amazing the paper wasn’t retracted (well,perhaps not, knowing what we know about such matters).