The following was posted by Ken Gregory on the comment thread to Goddard's GISS Shows No Warming Over The Last Decade. Is the analysis referenced something that has been around for qutie some time, or is it something new? If it's been around for awahile, has it been debunked and/or addressed on SKS?

An analysis using a radiation code computer program shows that there has been no significant increase in strength in the greenhouse effect since 1960. Data before 1960 is considered less reliable. The greenhouse effect results in the upward surface radiation being greater than the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The global surface temperatures are directly related to the surface radiation.

The best fit trend of the calculate OLR has increased by 2.4 W/m2 (almost 1%) in 49 years. Man-made CO2 emissions have not suppressed the OLR to space. The best fit line shows that the greenhouse effect (the fractional change of the surface radiation less OLR) linear trend has increased by 0.19% over the 49 years. The temperature change from 1960 attributable to AGW is less than 0.1 oC, which is insignificant.

Extrapolating the greenhouse effect change gives an estimate of climate sensitivity at double CO2 concentration of 0.26 oC.

This is shown in detail in a study published by the Friends of Science, with a link to supporting data here:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=533

Obviously "friendsofscience" are not friends of science.

appears to be the "Skeptical Science" of the Dark Side. Here's its mission statement:

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.

Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.

We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions.

Friends of Science values your input, either on the science or policy of global warming. And, if you’re as concerned as we are about global policy based on weak science, please join us to spark a national and international debate on global warming.

Note - this just came out, this paper and this is a new denier myth. I think it's in response to the increasing profile of Harries et al 2001, which we promote heavily here at SkS and I'm noticing it appearing elsewhere (Richard Alley cites it in this climate workshop).

So I predict that this paper will get picked up and promoted big time as an attempt to counter any time we say "the increased greenhouse effect has been empirically measured". There needs to be a direct rebuttal to the science.

My initial skim of the paper shows they find increased OLR at the band 800 to 950 cm^-1 (eg - 10 to 12 micrometres) but this is outside the main absorption band of CO2 which is around 660 cm^-1 (15 micrometres). With an increased greenhouse effect, we expect less outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in CO2 bands but more OLR at other bands - which is what John Harries finds in Harries et al 2001.

I'd like to email John Harries about this (we've corresponded before) so any other thoughts/questions before I email him?