Direct measurement of CO2 effect:

Originally posted by Metal Brain
was based on climate models which I have already shown have not predicted anything accurately.

Yet again, you make an assertion so vague as to be completely meaningless let alone scientific:

Explain to us scientists here Exactly how 'inaccurate' is (according to you ) "not predicted anything accurately"?

And, Obviously, you haven't "already shown" to us scientists here that climate models "have not predicted anything accurately" precisely because you haven't even explained here to us scientists what you would mean by "accurately" in this context and why.

Tell us scientists here How would you define "accurately" and Why? Accurate to within 1%? Accurate to within 50%? If so, to what exactly does that percentage refer to? Relative temperature change? Absolute temperature change? Variability? When each warming or cooling period starts? or what? And why that particular percentage rather than some other arbitrary percentage? And what would be your justification of choosing that criteria for defining "accurately" here rather some other completely arbitrary criteria? .....

Originally posted by humy
Yet again, you make an assertion so vague as to be completely meaningless let alone scientific:

Explain to us scientists here Exactly how 'inaccurate' is (according to you ) "not predicted anything accurately"?

And, Obviously, you haven't "already shown" to us scientists here that climate models "have not predicted anything accurately" precisely [i]beca ...[text shortened]... t criteria for defining "accurately" here rather some other completely arbitrary criteria? .....

I have been over this several times with you and you still refuse to accept the facts. I provided several links that proved the climate models failed to predict the pause and don't agree with each other because none of the climate scientists program the same thing into them because none of them agree on how more clouds affect temps and stuff like that. If you still reject those facts there is nothing left to say. You obviously believe what you want to so keep doing that. I have better things to do with my time.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I have been over this several times with you and you still refuse to accept the facts. I provided several links that proved the climate models failed to predict the pause and don't agree with each other because none of the climate scientists program the same thing into them because none of them agree on how more clouds affect temps and stuff like that. I ...[text shortened]... obviously believe what you want to so keep doing that. I have better things to do with my time.

You still haven't answered my perfectly simple questions presumably because you cannot answer them but:
Here is some information for you about this so-called 'pause' in global warming which you may not be aware of:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
"...there is no "pause" in climate change and that the temporary and short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in average global surface temperatures in the non-polar regions is likely to start accelerating again in the near future...."



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2015/02/26/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/
"Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up,
.."

-and, from that same link, here is a perfectly good scientific explanation of this temporary slow down in the rate of warming which can be incorporated into any climate model:

"...Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.

The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler, driven by large circulations of water across these and the rest of the world’s seas. Warmer and cooler periods can last several decades. The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study.
..."

-thus the temporary slow down in the rate of warming can easily be and has been explained by the climate models simply by making them take into account these natural cycles -all perfectly consistent with man made global warming.
Also note how there being natural causes doesn't in any way exclude man made causes nor indicate that any man made causes are insignificant in its effects.

There, sorted.

Originally posted by humy
You still haven't answered my perfectly simple questions presumably because you cannot answer them but:
Here is some information for you about this so-called 'pause' in global warming which you may not be aware of:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
"...there is no "pause" in ...[text shortened]... causes nor indicate that any man made causes are insignificant in its effects.

There, sorted.

well Metal Brain? No answer for this proof that you are wrong about climate models not being able to explain that temporary slow down in the rate of warming?

Originally posted by humy
You still haven't answered my perfectly simple questions presumably because you cannot answer them but:
Here is some information for you about this so-called 'pause' in global warming which you may not be aware of:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
"...there is no "pause" in ...[text shortened]... causes nor indicate that any man made causes are insignificant in its effects.

There, sorted.

Once again, as long as you use false terms to describe skeptics of man made global warming as "climate deniers" or "climate change deniers" because you are too lazy to use words like "anthropogenic" or "man made" I will continue to be just as lazy and use terms like "the pause".

When you correct your inaccurate terms I will correct mine even though it is not clear the pause is actually a slowdown in warming as you suggest. I don't deny there is a climate and I don't deny the ice ages.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/jim-inhofe-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-just-voted-to-say-climate-change-is-real-20150121

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

Originally posted by humy
well Metal Brain? No answer for this proof that you are wrong about climate models not being able to explain that temporary slow down in the rate of warming?

What proof? You provided no poof at all.

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

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What proof?

So you now you resort to pretending to be completely stupid and fail to comprehend.
I just showed you:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

Your claim was (in effect ) that climate models cannot explain the temporarily slow down in the global warming rate that apparently occurred. Yet the above link shows they can now explain it perfectly well.
Now, are you going to continue to pretend to be completely stupid?

Originally posted by humy
So you now you resort to pretending to be completely stupid and fail to comprehend.
I just showed you:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

Your claim was (in effect ) that climate models cannot explain the temporarily slow down in the global warming rate that apparently occurred. Yet the above link shows they can now explain it perfectly well.
Now, are you going to continue to pretend to be completely stupid?

Climate models failed to predict the slowdown in warming. This fact has NOT changed. You can look back in hindsight and say this or that is perhaps why the slowdown in warming happened but it still does not change the fact that climate models failed to predict it. All of those variables that your link mentioned were all overlooked by the climate models. They can tweek the models to match the past data all they want, but they will still fail to make predictions despite the tweeks. It has happened before and it will happen again.

If you want to prove something wait until the prediction comes true or not next time. Until then you have no business saying they are reliable.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Climate models failed to predict the slowdown in warming. This fact has NOT changed. You can look back in hindsight and say this or that is perhaps why the slowdown in warming happened but it still does not change the fact that climate models failed to predict it. All of those variables that your link mentioned were all overlooked by the climate models. ...[text shortened]... rediction comes true or not next time. Until then you have no business saying they are reliable.

Climate models failed to predict the slowdown in warming.

This is past tense. I do not claim they did (note the past tense of "did" ) predict that but they are improving all the time and NOW they can.

This fact has NOT changed.

right, history doesn't change. What about NOW? NOW climate models CAN explain it perfectly well thus rendering your rhetoric now irrelevant that "the models are unreliable because they cannot" (words of that effect ).

You can look back in hindsight and ...

What you dismiss as “hindsight” is “insight” based on new evidence/reasoning and science makes progress on new evidence/reasoning because that is just the way science works.
So now you admit that climate models CAN NOW explain it? NOW we are making progress!

Originally posted by humy

Climate models fail[b]ed to predict the slowdown in warming.

This is past tense. I do not claim they did (note the past tense of "did" ) predict that but they are improving all the time and NOW they can.

This fact has NOT changed.

right, history doesn't change. What about NOW? NOW climate models CAN explain it ...[text shortened]... ce works.
So now you admit that climate models CAN NOW explain it? NOW we are making progress![/b]

"This is past tense. I do not claim they did (note the past tense of "did" ) predict that but they are improving all the time and NOW they can."

Now they can??? How do you know? You don't! This is just more bullcrap from you. Prove it if you are so certain. What is your source of information?

"right, history doesn't change. What about NOW? NOW climate models CAN explain it perfectly well thus rendering your rhetoric now irrelevant that "the models are unreliable because they cannot" (words of that effect )."

Climate models can't explain it. What part of the word "prediction" don't you understand? Tweeking climate models to match past mistakes doesn't solve anything. They did that before and still failed to predict the pause. Your faith that they got it right this time is amusing. Are you a betting man? If we didn't live on different continents I'd take your money.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"
Now they can??? How do you know? You don't! ..... What is your source of information?


.

Again, you resort to pretending to be completely stupid. Obviously, it is plain for all to see I have just answered those questions by giving my source of info twice now. But here is my source of into yet again for the third time so you can yet again pretend to be completely stupid and not see it:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

Will a forth and fifth time be required?

The link proves that climite models can now explain it just perfectly fine.

Originally posted by humy
Again, you resort to pretending to be completely stupid. Obviously, it is plain for all to see I have just answered those questions by giving my source of info twice now. But here is my source of into yet again for the third time so you can yet again pretend to be completely stupid and not see it:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm ...[text shortened]... time be required?

The link proves that climite models can now explain it just perfectly fine.

Look up the word "prediction" in the dictionary. Now, show me that your link says anything about climate models predicting the future climate at some point and actually getting it right.

Nobody cares why the climate models failed after they have failed miserably. Your link doesn't do anything to show climate model prediction reliability. Tweeking the climate models to match past data does not prove they can make a better prediction at all. Get it through your thick skull!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Look up the word "prediction" in the dictionary. Now, show me that your link says anything about climate models predicting the future climate at some point and actually getting it right.

Nobody cares why the climate models failed after they have failed miserably. Your link doesn't do anything to show climate model prediction reliability. Tweeking the ...[text shortened]... t data does not prove they can make a better prediction at all. Get it through your thick skull!

Unfortunately, with my excessive fast copied and past, I copied and pasted the wrong link there and it should have been the third link, not the first link I already gave you. This is what I am actually talking about:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2015/02/26/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/
"Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up,
.."

-and, from that same link, here is a perfectly good scientific explanation of this temporary slow down in the rate of warming which can be incorporated into any climate model:

"...Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.

The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler, driven by large circulations of water across these and the rest of the world’s seas. Warmer and cooler periods can last several decades. The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study.
..."

-thus the temporary slow down in the rate of warming can easily be and has been explained by the climate models simply by making them take into account these natural cycles -all perfectly consistent with man made global warming.

Also note how there being natural causes doesn't in any way exclude man made causes nor indicate that any man made causes are insignificant in its effects.

Originally posted by humy
Unfortunately, with my excessive fast copied and past, I copied and pasted the wrong link there and it should have been the third link, not the first link I already gave you. This is what I am actually talking about:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2015/02/26/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/
"Let’s be clear: The planet is ...[text shortened]... exclude man made causes nor indicate that any man made causes are insignificant in its effects.

From your link:

"And even if the pause persists for longer than expected, the world would cross the line in 2046."

We will find out if climate models are worth a crap in 2046. Until then relax and enjoy time at the beach this summer.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
From your link:

"And even if the pause persists for longer than expected, the world would cross the line in 2046."

We will find out if climate models are worth a crap in 2046. Until then relax and enjoy time at the beach this summer.

That climate model is already proved it can correctly predict by correctly predicting the past event.