Well all WTF has got is "expected more severe cyclones". Probably some clown modeled it with typical lack of real imputes, but readily believed by the useful idiots & the likes of WTF & his Labor activists.

Based on the data in the papers I talk about at the beginning of the post, it is clear that the warming has been overstated by up to 40%. That's not to say that the majority of people don't experience the warming since most people live in urban environments that suffer greater levels of warming due to asphalt, concrete, lack of trees etc. But in terms of actual world wide warming outside the cities, while it continues to occur, it is way less than the headline numbers.

This of course means that the (fictitious) upper acceptable limit of warming of 1.5c is unlikely to occur, net-zero or no net-zero.

All of that is interesting and not unexpected. The great John Daly predicted this city/rural divide back in the 1990s.

But the last paper I liked is what I find most interesting. Here we have a rooly-trooly climate scientist admitting that we are basically not getting the full picture and only approved messages are acceptable to the climate mafia. Translation - we are being lied to.

WTF?

Hasbeen says: " Probably some clown modeled it with typical lack of real imputes...."

Well let me hold your hand through this - ttbn quoted from the Jo Nova website.

Jo Nova sited a research paper to support a particular point of view.

Jo Nova was supporting the idea that ocean warming may reduce the number of cyclones - this was mentioned in the research paper.

What was also mentioned in the research paper was the possibility of more severe cyclones. Severe tropical cyclones are rated as category 3,4 and 5.

So I was simply following the logical steps to find this information from the research paper.

I cannot speak for them but I suggest the researchers might take offence at being called clowns.

ttbn has indicated that he no longer wants to engage in conversation with me.

Are you perhaps "white-knighting" on his behalf?

WTF?

mhaze says: "But in terms of actual world wide warming outside the cities, while it continues to occur, it is way less than the headline numbers."

The suggestion is data from cities causes a bias in data.

But if we take a closer look at the first reference that mhaze provides the following can be found:

"The most notable improvement currently in progress addresses the incomplete coverage in the Arctic, where evidence of climate change is greatest; the lack of full coverage has been shown to underestimate the global warming rate".

So few if any people in the Artic and mhaze's reference is saying that there is an underestimation of the global warming rate.

One thing that mhaze and I do agree on is that warming will continue to occur.

Guess what, I don't give a damn what researchers might take offense at, when they stop making ridiculous claims, like CO2 is making fish left handed, I might stop thinking of them as clowns. I guess pigs will be flying long before that.

Do you think that global boiling could come from anything but a clown?

I have a question of my own and I challenge climate science for the answer.

What percentage of melted polar and glacier ice water is taken up in the atmosphere while not included in sea level rise?