1/3. So, Ken, which of the facts that I mentioned in my comment on this blog post was so discomforting that it provoked you to delete the entire comment? https://sealevel.info/attp_2023-10-05_staggering_cmt221443_censored.png… This was my comment:

2/3. [Part 1 of 2] It is refreshing to see you mention reductions in anthropogenic aerosol emissions, because most left/alarmist sources just panic, https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/climate-change-hottest-three-months-on-record/#:~:text=it%20really%20is%20time%20to%20panic… hyperventilate, https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/worlds-oceans-are-charts-warm-worst-yet-come-rcna96665… and say we're burning up. https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1705904288877162710#:~:text=Our%20world%20is%20changing%20out%20of%20all%20recognition… In fact, it is clear that aerosol / particulate air pollution abatement is responsible for some of the recent warming. Here's a paper about it: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/12221/2022/… Quaas et al (2022), Robust evidence for reversal of the trend in aerosol effective climate forcing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 22, 12221–12239. doi:10.5194/acp-2022-295 The significance is obvious: If a higher percentage of observed warming is due to aerosol / particulate air pollution abatement, that means a lower percentage of observed warming is due to GHGs. This is more evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 is generally overestimated. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/our-new-climate-sensitivity-paper-has-been-published/… Here's a http://phys.org article about the paper: https://phys.org/news/2022-09-air-quality-global-decades.html… This is Figure 1 from the paper, showing regional trends from 2000 to 2019: https://sealevel.info/Quaas2022_fig1.png… Note the 2019 end date...

3/3. [Part 2 of 2] ...Note the 2019 end date. Subsequently, the new IMO 2020 international shipping regulations have drastically reduced aerosol emissions from ships. https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/pages/34-IMO-2020-sulphur-limit-.aspx… The widely hyped recent spike in air and ocean temperatures is a predictable consequence. The new regulations resulted in "an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols," and (because ships are a major contributor), a 10% decrease in total global sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Those are very large air pollution reductions for such a short time interval. If you want to learn more about the effects of the new regulations, you can search for articles with titles like these: ● Global reduction in ship-tracks from sulfur regulations for shipping fuel ● NASA Study Finds Evidence That Fuel Regulation Reduced Air Pollution from Shipping ● Low-sulfur shipping rules are affecting global warming It's not a problem, it's good news, because it is evidence that the pollution controls are working. It has nothing to do with carbon emissions, and it doesn't mean people need to scrap their SUVs or freeze in the dark to "save the planet." I do hate it when people use misleading graphs to support their agendas. Now that we finally have another El Niño, plus warming from the aerosol pollution abatement, SkS can, at long last, update this one: https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm… https://sealevel.info/HADCRUT4_1988-2019_woodfortrees18_SkS_spin.png…