The positive indicator for progress here is the welcome idea that Anthropogenic global warming is nowhere to be found in this summary. Bravo.

Just because NASA don't specifically describe this as an Agw issue is not evidence of its disappearance as an issue.
The acceptance or recognition of Agw isn't evidence that sunspots or barycenter, PDO, elnino are no longer a factor.

That would be very simplistic one dimensional and generally people aren't.

The people I recognise as taking the environment seriously don't just read Vouge magazine or House and Garden.

They understand that the biosphere is a complex interconnected system in a context and physical setting where certain aspects are not within the inhabitants sphere of influence.

AGW has different meaning to different people.Fossil fuels are seen as a strong influence on the climate through the ability of CO2 to increase the amount of radiation absorbed by the Earth.

There are other warming influences in which mankind is functionary.
Deforestation for example.

It is observed that while deforestation may on first sight be seen to decrease albedo and so increase temp, in fact the energy falling on the dark leaves of a forest drives various hydrological cycles that absorb energy and convert atmospheric carbon to to lignin and cellulose. These reactions require energy and utilise CO2. So trees remove net energy from the climate system in various ways. It is also possible to increase to near extended time frames this energy and greenhouse gas seqestration.

Natural systems ( coal oil gas or fossil fuels) are an example of the removal and long term storage of these heating elements.

When people interfere by removing vegetation or mining fossil fuels and releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases, we cause AGW.
However this occurs, from poor land or water management or unbalancing the atmosphere on extended time frames, we need to recognise when the predominant reason for interruption is anthropological.

When we understand the geological influences both man made and not, and how these changes influence the climate and the amenity it provides to us all, (aware or not) It is quite natural to be interested and desire to be more informed.

NASA may have the ability to put man on the moon and indeed measure and study earth systems, but to not mention AGW in the context of the current climate change is not proof of it's non existence.

I only use the psyops pablum angle as an example of ho not to communicate in response to the examples of the same in that post.Much prefer the reasoned informative approach (in words of few syllables if necessary).

I found these statements interesting.

:Climate modelers have long speculated that the frequency and intensity of severe storms may or may not increase with global warming.

:The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth’s tropics—the type associated with severe storms and rainfall—is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

I didn't find anywhere a reference to support that
"Anthropogenic global warming is nowhere to be found"

And seasons greetings to all.

Thanks for a good read, arnold. What a mess of data! Particular gibberish: "The interaction between the daytime warming of the sea surface under clear-sky conditions and increases in the formation of low clouds, high clouds and, ultimately, rain is very complicated." Your prosaic image of the process of carbon sequestration over aeons by plants was moving. Best wishes for the coming revolution (about the sun). J-R

IF the AGWs will not accept their extraordinary stumble on CO2 - they could try a new tack with human activity potentially affecting climate. Like deforestation. Not as dramatic as 20 meter sea level rise "in the near future" - but hey, maybe we've learned a lesson from Al...

Screen your front man with a hypocrisy test.