Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???

[Derek]

Well spotted SST.

Does cement a friend's post provide a possible missing link between Brego's post I highlighted on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-655.html
and my comment on the same thread that,
" MLO use a dry air sample to measure CO2.
This apparently agrees with outside CO2 measurements and spectra.

How can this be, MLO has no (liquid) water in it's sample measured, the atmosphere always does.
There should be a massive and varying discrepancy between MLO and atmospheric spectra / CO2 levels,
because a lot of the atmospheric spectra is not CO2 but liquid water - clouds, mist, etc that has not been allowed for / realised... ".

In short, and not explained properly..
MLO measures samples dry.
Atmospheric plots are "wet".
If Brego is correct (liquid {and gaseous} water response confused with CO2 response) these two types of plot should not match.
Cement a friend's post gives a possible link showing how the atmospheric plots have interpretted water as CO2,
giving CO2 a larger response than it should have.
So explaining how the plots (MLO compared to Atmospheric) match, when they should not.