It’s great that you will put no more rubbish here.

It is a known fact, confirmed by Carl Mears of RSS, that satellite measurements are less reliable than surface measurements. Spencer, Christy and Braswell have acknowledged some of the problems:

“If we had satellite instruments that (1) had rock-stable calibration, (2) lasted for many decades without any channel failures, and (3) were carried on satellites whose orbits did not change over time, then the satellite data could be processed without adjustment. But none of these things are true. Since 1979 we have had 15 satellites that lasted various lengths of time, having slightly different calibration (requiring intercalibration between satellites), some of which drifted in their calibration, slightly different channel frequencies (and thus weighting functions), and generally on satellite platforms whose orbits drift and thus observe at somewhat different local times of day in different years. All data adjustments required to correct for these changes involve decisions regarding methodology, and different methodologies will lead to somewhat different results. This is the unavoidable situation when dealing with less than perfect data.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

Re. reliability:

“He [Ben Santer] and other researchers contacted for this column noted that there have been several instances when Christy and Spencer have had to correct their datasets for factors such as changes in satellite orbits over time, and with each correction the data has come into better alignment with surface warming and model projections.
For this reason and others, Andrew Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M University, says he is skeptical of the satellite data’s reliability…’Measuring temperature from a satellite is actually an incredibly difficult problem. That’s why, every few years, another big problem in the UAH temperature calculation is discovered. And, when these problems are fixed, the trend always goes up.’
‘It’s also worth noting that there have not been any similar revisions to the surface temperature data, despite the fact that people have looked at it very, very carefully.’ ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/the-satellite-temperature-record-questioning-shaky-claims-after-33-years/2011/12/20/gIQAd8KE7O_blog.html

Regarding your reference to the Lancet article, it’s nice that you for once referred to a source. What isn’t so nice, is that you’re incapable of specifying the source. If it’s the article I think it is, a further problem is that you don’t understand what you read. Here’s some help:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/21/the-risk-of-hot-and-cold-weather/
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/05/death-from-cold-and-heat-its-different.html

The latter post has some enlightening graphs. I very much doubt that you’ll understand them, as you haven’t already. Had you shown evidence of genuine curiosity and comprehension, I would also have recommended An adaptability limit to climate change due to heat stress
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552.full.pdf
and this
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/…/20111110_NewClimateDice.pdf
and this
http://climatesight.org/2012/04/03/climate-change-and-heat-waves/
and this
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2833.html
and this
http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/…/9901f6614a2cac7b2b888f55b4dff9cc.pdf ,

but seeing as you don’t get your science from scientists, but from sciolists with scientific pretensions, I won’t bother.

The low estimates “sceptics” prefer derive from simplified methodology that produces low estimates because it does not incorporate nonlinear feedbacks. This is accessibly described (as in, I can follow it 🙂 ) in Knutti & Rugenstein (2015) Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models.

Indeed, if we know “S” to high confidence, then we know “T” for the target of +2.0c (given current rate of increased CO2).

This is a vexed question. Personally I have no doubt that ECS / 2 x CO2 falls fairly close to 3C. This is based on 65Ma of climate behaviour (Rohling et al. 2012) and the LGM / Holocene transition (Hansen & Sato 2012).

The insistence of “sceptics” on the uncertainty in the range of estimates ignores the fact that a best estimate exists and that it is compatible with palaeoclimate behaviour. This is in contrast to the low estimates for S which are not.

I’m not sure what the link limit per comment is here, so I’ll post the third link separately.

BBD: “?T = 3ln(560/280)/ln(2) = 3C”

Indeed, if we know “S” to high confidence, then we know “T” for the target of +2.0c (given current rate of increased CO2). If “S” is 2.9 to 3.1, and the yearly average CO2 increase is 2.10 ppmv, we have from 18 years to 23 years to stop burning fossil fuels. Heh! that will not happen, so…. we’re fucked, and not in a good way.

Thermal equilibrium between Earth and Sun will take another 120 to 180 years (if mid Atlantic conveyor belt goes back to normal), with an additional 0.6c to 0.8c already “locked in.” I would love to see how “JM” here reconciles his “it’s not a problem” dismissal of the facts, when observed (i.e., measured) reality shows +2c is already unavoidable.

The storm theory was the first prediction made that even made it into early IPCC reports. Debunked. There is NO increase in storms.

Please substantiate this claim. Provide a reference (quote and link to primary source) to the IPCC report(s) where it is claimed that storms (presumably tropical cyclones?) will increase (in what? frequency? intensity? both?) that will be detectable now.