rationalskepticism.org

Sure GeoPhysical Letters is entirely discredited

American Geophysical Union
Nonprofit organization
Image result for what is AGU
The American Geophysical Union is a 501 nonprofit organization of geophysicists, consisting of over 62,000 members from 144 countries. AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. Wikipedia

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... l/19448007

and that article was from 18 months ago.
I guess some are in more denial than others.

You are hanging your hat on HadCrut4 which effectively ignores the places where AGW id accelerating fastest.

Climate scientists debate a flaw in the Paris climate agreement | Dana ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../climate ... mate-agr...
Mar 29, 2018 - But HadCRUT4 has some significant flaws. First, it only covers 84% of Earth's surface. There are large gaps in its coverage, mainly in the Arctic, Antarctica, and ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -agreement

Another complication is that most estimates of how far we’ve come are based on the global temperature from the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K. It’s a fine choice but possibly not the best, because by omitting the Arctic (the fastest-warming region on earth) it may underestimate the total temperature increase.

It's far closer than the pablum being dished out .....will we avoid 1.5C??

Gavin Schmidt’s response
Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate says of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C that responding to climate change is far more like a marathon than a sprint. He addresses directly the question Can we avoid going through 1.5°C?:

So my answer is… no.

http://www.climateplus.info/2018/10/12/ ... e-up-call/

However, David Spratt cites research by Benjamin Henley
and Andrew King showing that the 1.5°C target could be reached by between 2026 and 2031 depending on the phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).

The difference here is that the IPCC follows the pack, whereas Spratt cites quality recent research. There is a risk that the new research is right. However, policy makers will blithely ignore it until it is incorporated perhaps in the next IPCC report years down the track.

http://www.climateplus.info/2018/10/12/ ... e-up-call/

But of course no credibility there .... ...according to you ...

Even this analysis of the recent IPCC 1.5C report puts the 1.5C date at 2034 in the interactive graph.



https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-wh ... bon-budget