Comment: OP doesn't understand the words he quoted

(See in situ)

OP doesn't understand the words he quoted

"As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up."

This isn't slight of hand. This is saying that there's an inherent problem with looking only at the air temperature. Since most of the heat of the planet is stored in more solid things like water and land, they take longer to show an apparent rise.

This doesn't mean it's not heating up. Quite the contrary. It means it's been sinking the heat for the whole time and effectively hiding lots of the heat the Earth has absorbed. When this mass catches up, it will also mean that the current standard measure of using air temp will rise tremendously faster.

A good analogy is putting a large frozen bowl of water in your oven. Turn the heat on low and wait. You'll see a rapid small temp rise in the air but it will be limited to the point that the ice is sinking what the burner is sourcing. When the ice melts, this balance is shifted by about 80:1 (the heat content of fusion vs. the latent heat while temp is rising). At this point, you'll see the water temp rise much faster but the air temp will almost immediately jump to the oven's setting.

Our ice is melting but it's not all done yet so deniers who still focus on air temps feel this can be ignored.

This whole issue is extremely important and not to be screwed around with because of politics. Sure, some people want to monopolize it for profit and power but that has no relevance to it being true or not. If you need more incentive, just consider that the denier alternative is a world where Exxon, Shell and BP control all the world's energy and thus power and economy. Is that what you really want?