Leo, I suggest you have another look at the page you hyperlinked to: its author has admitted he got it totally wrong. He had mistaken the annual antropogenic CO2 emissions for the total human contribution to atmospheric CO2.

There are hundreds (probably thousands) of websites that say the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen to 400ppm from its preindustrial level of 280ppm. If you're really too lazy to google it yourself, I suggest you start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere which not only explains it but has links to plenty of other websites on the topic.

And ocean acidification is still a serious problem, even though the oceans are (and always will be) less acidic than pure water. Just because you're too arrogant and stupid* to accept that your rudimentary understanding of chemistry is insufficient to comprehend the meaning of "acidification" doesn't mean anything that contradicts it is "misinformation".

* By which I don't mean of low cognitive ability; I mean you're deliberatly stupid: you keep yourself ignorant because you can't bear to discover you're wrong. You carefully avoid information unles it emanates from fraud promoters, and then you falsely accuse me of doing so.

Leo
You have no idea do you, about the significance of the quote from Watts ... he is involved in undermining science due to his political views.

It is amusing that you came up with me not sticking to debating rules; proven hypotheses are not debated ( CO2 and long wave radiated infrared reaction).
But, in debate I would imagine that abuse does not conform to rules.
Abuse is a huge flag saying whoever uses it has no points to make.

Methane is another trace gas that takes up even less volume than CO2; during pre Industrial times the amount in the atmosphere was around 780 ppb, it is now over 1,800 ppb and has spiked up to 2,500 ppb. Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas.

Would you willingly go into a small space for a number of hours where the percentage of methane is 3%? After all, there is already methane in the atmosphere and so should not cause any problem? Which then leads to the question, is there an unsafe level of CO2 that is dangerous to flora and fauna? You have set yourself up as an expert on CO2 Leo, so should be able to answer. Abusive comments about silly questions will not suffice.

You complain about continually being asked silly questions; Leo, it is through questioning we learn. A strange comment when discussing science; science is all about continually asking questions. It is not political ideology as characterised by Watts's comment.

Your hubris is showing when you claim to know better that the ARM research which was conducted over 11 years in the natural environment at two locations ( quotes and references previously provided).

ALL I WANT FOR XMAS

Instead of more and more dodgy ex post facto 'anthropogenic attribution' statements, perhaps one day climate scientists might give the public some genuine predictions capable of empirical verification in our lifetime.

Did climate models predict a thickening of Antarctic sea-ice over the past couple of decades? Or the abnormal warming of the North Pacific? Etc

"It is widely accepted that the warmth observed in 2014 – 2015 and probably in 2016 is not due to a sudden increase in anthropogenic global warming but due to short-term natural effects such as the El Nino and the so-called “Pacific blob.” Without these natural effects (also known as weather) those years would be statistically indistinguishable from all the other years of the past fifteen years or so – instead of being a little above them. El Nino years are warmer than others but they are followed by cooler years, as was the case after the El Nino years of 2003, 2006, 2010 and it will probably be the case for 2015. Typically La Nina years have sea surface temperatures about 1.5 °C lower with some regions being 3-5°c lower than El Nino years. All things considered it’s likely that we will see a global cooling after the El Nino. The “hiatus” in global temperature has not gone away, it is being modulated by El Ninos." --David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 9 November 2015

Are in-the-long-run-we will-all-be dead assertions genuine 'predictions'? In a year's time, summer will begin on planet Earth at this precisely time is a prediction. But what about: 'there will be more extreme weather events' somewhere at some time in the future?

Professor Pitman (UWA, 2013): “the demands coming from the impact and adaptation communities to give them the information they need, puts immense pressure on the climate scientists to do what they have been doing much, much better and cleverer in the future”.

No wonder they find themselves under ‘immense pressure’.

Alice
Enough is known about climate change to act.

It is not possible to predict what the weather is going to be like in 3 weeks time through natural variation. In the same way it is not possible to predict all eventualities which impact on climate; who could foretell the drought and fires in the Amazon Basin in 2015, or the terrible fires in Indonesia. Who could have foretold that a rainforest in Washington State which has precipitation over 1 metre generally would have a wild fire go through. We are not able to predict volcanoes becoming active. Who could have foretold the almost 500,000 acres burnt in June 2015 in Alaska? The Iditarod dog sled race has been a feature in Alaska, but the lack of snow and ice have been an issue since the beginning of the 21 century 3 times.

Modelling over long periods tends to smooth out these anomalies.
ExxonMobil scientists modelled the break down of Arctic sea ice in 1984 which is happening at present.

The IPCC hardly mentioned the release of methane from the Arctic; since, there has been much effort put into studying methane impacts and the breakdown of permafrost.
It is not looking good. Pingo explosions, and the Greenland ice sheet melting on top and melt water disappearing down moulins undermining the ice sheet from underneath .

The "blob" was a feature for some time prior to this years el nino event. There had been warm waters from Mexico to Alaska, a very unusual Pacific Decadal Oscillation; something like 1998, but the warm waters were extending further North in 2015. Like the 1998 el nino, this year's el nino has been termed a godzilla event, much more powerful than the vast majority of el ninos prior in recorded history.

Continued

Continued:

The recent cyclone in Yemen was completely unexpected. A most unusual amount of warmth by a huge factor has been registered off Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean in early November 2015

Your expectations are too high in relation to predictions about the future.

There are factors which are very obvious; CO2 levels are trending upwards, as are temperatures, and levels of methane voiding. Glaciers are in the main are regressing

Yes, flea, manipulating material again to mislead readers. You attempt to mislead as to Watts’ words which are in the context of human CO2 being trivial, and there being no science to support the assertion of human caused global warming.
Watts quite reasonably, says:” They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society."
Of course we do not want fraud promoters introducing policy, as we had when Juliar introduced the carbon tax, ignoring the advice of scientists. Australians, other than fraud supporters like yourself, flea, would wholeheartedly endorse Watts’ words.