The one I suggested you likely got your value from was the reference frame, which mostly talks about physics, but self-described as “from a conservative viewpoint” and has climate as one of its main topics. Its analysis is what I explained above as generally agreeing with NOAA on the value, but entirely dishonest in the way it pretends it’s too small to matter.
Is that not the one you are referring to? Because it sure seems like you have taken its version as a given, and ignored even the rest of the NOAA page you just pointed to as the source of the data, which is rather poor behavior from someone who claims to be interested in facts and to be qualified to discuss them. Is preferring honesty called theology now?
Edit: Since this was written, xgkick has cited his actual source. It is indeed the reference frame, and you don’t actually have to fish out the article, since I had already linked to it before he claimed his data was directly from NOAA and not climate skeptic blogs.
