Direct measurement of CO2 effect:

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, they are not known to be unreliable.

This will not become true simply because you keep falsely asserting it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, they are not known to be unreliable.

This will not become true simply because you keep falsely asserting it.

Climate models will not become reliable because you keep falsely asserting it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/

You owe me an apology.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Singer has been wrong about many things."

What is your source of information?

I just told you some sources:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

http://rootsafrikiko.com/m/articles/view/Climate-scientists-rebuff-skeptics-arguments-against-2014-warmest-year-claim

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

and before you say different, none of these websites deny that CO2 lags behind the initialization of each warming trend -CO2 is a warming amplifier to warming trends.

Any other stupid questions?

P.S. None of the above is my actual original source but rather are websites that merely state what I generally already knew. My actual original source is what I learned from the physics courses I did at university. Basic physics that even a moron can understand says CO2 should cause global warming + science has the statistics of how much man fossil fuels man has burned and thus how much CO2 man has put into the atmosphere so far + the data that shows a significant ( = harmful ) amount of the observed warming cannot be explained by natural causes and therefore a significant amount must be man made.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Climate models will not become reliable because you keep falsely asserting it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/

You owe me an apology.

Not a climate scientisit and he's lying through his teeth.

I owe you nothing.

Neither of your two links a from valid sources and both are fundementally flawed and wrong.

That you think the daily mail is anything but a cesspit of lies shows you ignorence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not a climate scientisit and he's lying through his teeth.

I owe you nothing.

Neither of your two links a from valid sources and both are fundementally flawed and wrong.

That you think the daily mail is anything but a cesspit of lies shows you ignorence.

The forbes link is accurate. Your allegation that he is lying is in fact the real lie.

I challenge you to prove he is lying. You cannot do it and you know it. You are the real liar here.

Originally posted by humy
I just told you some sources:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

http://rootsafrikiko.com/m/articles/view/Climate-scientists-rebuff-skeptics-arguments-against-2014-warmest-year-claim

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts

http: ...[text shortened]... rming cannot be explained by natural causes and therefore a significant amount must be man made.

The link below proves the skeptical science links to be misleading junk. Despite googlefudge's false claim that Forbes is not a credible source Fred Singer lists his sources of information for all of you to look up and see for yourself he is being honest in his statements.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

Singer knows what he is talking about and John Nielsen-Gammon never accused him of being a liar like you did. Unlike you he knows better than to embarrass himself. After all, he is a climate scientist. He knows better than you.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The link below proves the skeptical science links to be misleading junk. Despite googlefudge's false claim that Forbes is not a credible source Fred Singer lists his sources of information for all of you to look up and see for yourself he is being honest in his statements.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978- ...[text shortened]... etter than to embarrass himself. After all, he is a climate scientist. He knows better than you.

Your link says:

"...One good way is to look just at ocean surface temperature trends. That’s 70% of the Earth’s surface, with no urban heat islands! According to the Hadley Centre, this increased warming amounts to +0.2 F/decade. So yes, it’s still rising, but not as much. (as land ) ...

... ...
Sure, there are corners of the Earth that have gotten colder, and some that haven’t changed much. There are also some places that have warmed much more than the global average. Overall, though, all lines of evidence point in the same direction: warming...."

So the earth climate IS global warming according to your link. Your link doesn't deny this. your link only argues irrelevantly about the how sure we can be (according to the data ) of how much warming and exactly where, NOT that there IS warming. So How does your link debunk any of my links? answer, it doesn't. Nobody CLAIMS there is no uncertainty in data -that doesn't equate with the data being "unreliable".

So, to sum up: you first ask for my source of information. Then I give some sources. You then respond my claiming your link shows one of mine to be wrong. I then show it doesn't (see extract above ). So my sources of information still stands as perfectly valid. Now back to you...

After all, he is a climate scientist. He knows better than you.

Most climate scientists disagree with him; they know better than you and it is extremely arrogant of you to think otherwise.
I have relevant university physics qualifications; what are your physics credentials? None? Well, I also know better than you.

Originally posted by humy
Your link says:

"...One good way is to look just at ocean surface temperature trends. That’s 70% of the Earth’s surface, with no urban heat islands! According to the Hadley Centre, this increased warming amounts to +0.2 F/decade. So yes, it’s still rising, but not as much. (as land ) ...

... ...
Sure, there are corners of the Earth that have gotten cold ...[text shortened]... sics qualifications; what are your physics credentials? None? Well, I also know better than you.

So you can't prove Singer wrong. I thought so. Fail!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
So you can't prove Singer wrong. I thought so. Fail!

What mushrooms have you been eating? They seemingly are affecting your brain. The reddish color means poitionus. If not mushrooms then grass. If not that then other chemical. I call it chemical X.

Originally posted by bikingviking
What mushrooms have you been eating? They seemingly are affecting your brain. The reddish color means poitionus. If not mushrooms then grass. If not that then other chemical. I call it chemical X.

Can you prove Singer made any false statements? If it is so easy to do why does nobody do it?

Perhaps you have not been following this thread. First I proved climate models are unreliable and since all predictions of doom by GW alarmists rely on climate models those predictions of doom lack credibility.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers

Warren Meyer did a good job shedding light on the models and how they are set up. You are not going to call him a liar just because you don't like what he is saying are you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Can you prove Singer made any false statements? If it is so easy to do why does nobody do it?

Perhaps you have not been following this thread. First I proved climate models are unreliable and since all predictions of doom by GW alarmists rely on climate models those predictions of doom lack credibility.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011 ...[text shortened]... up. You are not going to call him a liar just because you don't like what he is saying are you?

So you still haven't even acknowledged whether you ever looked at the national geographic link I posted.

Do you deny Alaskan villages by the ocean are forced inland because of rising waters, for instance?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you still haven't even acknowledged whether you ever looked at the national geographic link I posted.

Do you deny Alaskan villages by the ocean are forced inland because of rising waters, for instance?

I told you I looked and didn't see any national geographic link. Maybe you have this thread confused with another one. Give me the link and I'll look at it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I told you I looked and didn't see any national geographic link. Maybe you have this thread confused with another one. Give me the link and I'll look at it.

It's clear you have no desire to actually learn from people who actually study the situation deeply: I found this googling it for about 2 minutes:

An interactive map of what is going on around the world in terms of global warming.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive/

Originally posted by sonhouse
It's clear you have no desire to actually learn from people who actually study the situation deeply: I found this googling it for about 2 minutes:

An interactive map of what is going on around the world in terms of global warming.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-impacts-interactive/

As if I know what specific link you are talking about. I still don't know. Which of the 3 has the Alaskan village you were referring to? It is not apparent. Can't you post a link that has the specific information? Do you even know what you are doing? You try my patience.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/03/climate_change_is_already_affecting_alaska_s_weather.html

Baked Alaska
If the Last Frontier is the canary in the climate coal mine, we’re in trouble.

Earlier this winter, Monica Zappa packed up her crew of Alaskan sled dogs and headed south, in search of snow. “We haven’t been able to train where we live for two months,” she told me.

Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula, which Zappa calls home, has been practically tropical this winter. Rick Thoman, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Alaska, has been dumbfounded. “Homer, Alaska, keeps setting record after record, and I keep looking at the data like, Has the temperature sensor gone out or something?“

Something does seem to be going on in Alaska. Last fall, a skipjack tuna, which is more likely to be found in the Galápagos than near a glacier, was caught about 150 miles southeast of Anchorage, not far from the Kenai. This past weekend, race organizers had to truck in snow to the ceremonial Iditarod start line in Anchorage. .....