I like how you people can keep saying “selection bias” long after it’s been exposed as a dishonest nonsense explanation, as if repeating it would suddenly make it true. Surely that establishes you as a credible party interested in an honest discussion. If a moderator is reading, I’m curious, are these posts appropriate for flagging yet?
The six-hundredths of a degree bit is new and cute. I assume you got the specific figure of 0.065 C from this conservative blog, or Judith Curry who quotes it; and it is about right in value, but the interpretation they’re giving it is disingenuously reversed.
They’re taking a very large change in energy amounting to a very small change in ocean temperature to pretend it doesn’t matter. But everyone has said the oceans are a buffer; a very small change in averaged ocean temperatures is concerning because it means a very large change in energy in the system. That energy is generated through atmospheric radiation absorption and even a portion of it will go with large changes in temperature at the surface, as we see in all the other charts.
I don’t think anyone capable of working out such values is stupid enough to make an honest mistake about their importance like that, so you are quoting someone who is trying to mislead you. Anyone who isn’t intending to be dishonest should then question how much to trust them in the future.
