2860m to be exact.
It’s a fair point. 2860 is higher then Donner Summit.
But I’m kind of enamoured of the low pressure/relative humidity theory because it fits so well with Antarctic cooling.
So I figured I’d find a city or town at or above 2860 then check out it’s barometric pressure.
Telluride Colorado elevation 9078 feet at the airport. http://www.wunderground.com/US/CO/Telluride.html

And guess what. It’s BP is 29.83 inches, which equals 1010.5 millibars.
And as much as I liked that result, because it tended to prove my point, I couldn’t help noticing that this is near the same as our barometric pressure here in Sacramento.

Somethings not right. I’ll get back to you.

The gradual trend to lower temps in Antarctica could be independent confirmation of Paltridge.

“Hunter:
Hmmm, that’s a good point. It does make me look like a retard, doesn’t it?”
Will, was that you?

You mean like walking from North Carolina (because using a car causes co2) through a snow storm, to Washington DC, to hold up a sign, which you have to study up to find out if the cause is called the war on “global warming”, “climate change”, “extreme weather”, or “weather weirdness” this week, and stand out in the freezing snow, to picket a coal plant that burns natural gas?
You mean that kind of mental?

Of course it is! And saying so doesn’t make you look mental. Not at all.

satellites are launched from as near the equator as possible to gain the most rotational momentum and allow for greater payloads. as this momentum goes with the earth’s spin, that is the easy orbit for a satellite. achieving an orbit across the poles is very difficult and requires much more energy and a great deal of orbital maneuvering.

i took “proof” in that sentence as being used in the colloquial sense as a synonym to “evidence” rather than in the strict logical sense of “proven”.

by your read, i can see your point, and you are certainly correct about the behavior of our troll, but it still seemed to me that no one was making the claim that all of AGW theory was (or could be) invalidated by this result.

now, for a really interesting result that could well totally invalidate all the existing GCM’s, i would recommend having a look at this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/05/negative-feedback-in-climate-empirical-or-emotional/#more-6036

if water vapor is providing a long term NEGATIVE feedback, then the GCM’s all have the worng sign on their largest feedback component.

i have no idea what the quality of this radiosonde data is (and there seems to be some debate), but the guys calling it “iffy” have some of the “iffiest” data around and i have not yet seen a concrete reason for their opinion, so likely worthy of investigation.

True, a carbon tax would cause problems and the public would never go for it (unless they were truly convinced of the magnitude of the problem, which the public isn’t).

The problem is, they’ll implement cap & trade trade which will hide the cost from the consumer (and add layers of bureauratic inefficiencies and corruption). Consumers won’t see it coming.