Wayne Stollings wrote:
Which ignores the point completely. The cause is moot, but the leaping to the conclusion the warming has stopped and there is no longer a concern would be wrong.
I didn't say that there is no concern. Quite frankly, I've been saying the opposite, saying the human influence should be kept to a minimum, so that if there are any 'tipping points,' they will not be reached.
Why? There is a lot of time between now and the end of the century and the increased slope seen in the past could more than offset a more shallow slope now. You focus more on the weather than the climate view.
Again, you can't compare this current hiatus to past hiatus periods in the past, because this latest hiatus period is where we supposedly have accumulated the most energy from the radiative forcing from CO2, making it VERY unusual, and was NOT predicted by any of the Pro-AGW organizations/studies. Climate Models predicted that a significant energy imbalance should be occuring, making this hiatus period VERY unusual.
May have been increasing? Why is it you are skeptical of the lack of data, or the lack of quality data in some cases and not others? It seems that a personal view dictates which is acceptable to you regardless of the level of support that can realistically be given to the hypothesis.
The ACRIM and PMOD datasets are some of the most prominent TSI monitoring organizations. I am saying "may" because ACRIM shows TSI increasing over the last 30 years. PMOD does not. Given this uncertainty, I'm using the word "may."
If most of the level is natural the human induced addition would not be a problem for you? The human addition to a natural situation can cause an unhappy ending and that is a problem.
See my first point.