Aiden, Watts pointed out an error in his reading of the table from which he worked, but did not indicate that it made any difference to the result, which it does not, because it is insignificant.
Your reference to it as a “refuted claim” is nonsense. Your assertion of 30% human contribution is new. Is that another lie you made up or did you dredge it up from a site like the one carrying the “acidification of oceans” lie.
Oceans are alkaline. If carbonic acid affects them it causes the ocean to be slightly less alkaline in the affected area. It does not cause the ocean to become acidic. That is a fraud promoting lie.
You repeat the laboratory science in relation to CO2 and warming, and we know that if it worked in practice, global warming would have continued as asserted by the fraud promoters, and would not have stopped more than 18 years ago. Refer us to the science, Aiden, which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, or stop repeating your boring mantra about the laboratory science which has been shown not to apply in practice, when applied by the fraud promoting scientists, who assert what the IPCC want us to believe, rather than authentic scientific observations.
The fact that no measurable human emissions effect on climate is measurable would indicate that the effect is trivial. What is your suggestion, Aiden?
Thanks, Vox Unius, for your accurate account of the genesis of the climate fraud. It is undiminished by the fact that it answered the flea's irrelevant, idiotic question. You are quite informative on a vital topic.

Leo, the claiim that "the ocean is turning into acid" is w strawman used  by fraudsters to fool the  uneducsted into thinking that ocean acidification isn't a real problem. But those who understand chemistry know that water is amphiprotic (which means it's both an acid and a base). Increasing the pH by 1 makes a solution ten times less acidic. Similarly decreasing the pH by 1 makes it ten times more acidic, whether the pH is below or above 7. The scientists never tried to imply the ocean was getting more acidic than pure water; the problem is it's becoming too acidic to support creatures with aragonite shells.

Your denial of correct definitions other than the ones you favour is like the person who claimed that the economy couldn't be in a depression because economies don't have emotions!  It also reminds me of the  Mitsubishi 4WD they named after the straw cat. They failed to realise that the Spanish word Pajero also mesns "straw carrier" and also something this board incorrectly identifies as profanity.

As  for the rest of your post, you're really grasping at straws. There's no scientific evidence for the claim humans are responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2. Your source  of that figure was a blog post Watts made based on his mistaken assumption that the figure for a single  year's  emissions was the figure for the entire human contribution to atmospheirc CO2. How can that be insignificant? What would it take to refute such a claim in your eyes?

My 30% figure  is a simple calculation: the preindustrial atmospheric  CO2 level of 280ppm is 70% of  the current* figure of  400ppm.

Your claim that global warming "stopped  more than 18 years ago" is a lie. Global warming's still going,  and this year's set to be the hottest year on record.  Temperature  messurements do fluctuate due to  weather, the planet's albedo fluctuates, and the  amount of  heat going into and out of the ocean fluctuates too, but the trend is still clear: the world is warming.

* Although I expect the figure's slightly higher by now.

Leo

Strangely, or maybe not so strange; you did not answer my question:

"Do you deny the existence of the Keeling Research Station at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, that has been researching the levels of CO2 for decades?

What was the level of CO2 in the atmosphere in pre Industrial times, compared to now?
What are the current readings? How big a percentage increase has there been?"

Aidan has provided the answer, around 280 ppm in earlier times and it is now 400 ppm.
Have you ever heard of the Keeling Curve; Leo?

The Attorney General of New York is investigating whether ExxonMobil committed criminal activity in misleading the public, share holders, and investors in relation to funding denier groups to cause doubt in relation to the science. ExxonMobil's own scientists were supportive of the consensus view. Deniers have pushed hard for the paper work of Exxon to be scrutinised; but my guess is not some paper work in relation to 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 which outlines denier groups funded by ExxonMobil.

Alice

In relation to your comments about BOM tampering with temperature figures, nature bats last. In other words, you do not need a thermometer to know temperatures of the globe are going up.

An interesting article about how climate information is presented by some journalists:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/analysis-of-matt-ridley-benny-peiser-your-complete-guide-to-the-climate-debate/

On Saturday, 28 November 2015, on this thread, ant wrote, "The ARM study was highly sophisticated I and have yet to see anything like a critique. Please provide references that show the ARM study is wrong. It has been peer reviewed."

Fortunately, several posts later, ant supplied a link to a review of the study at Science Daily -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

I say fortunately, because I was interested to read about it.

It was an at-length study, over ten years, 2000 to 2010 when CO2 concentrations were about 390 parts per million (ppm). It attempted to measure the effects on surface temps of radiative forcing of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. They got some results and published.

Feldman, one of the scientists said, "Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect."

He went on, "Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade."

What? Read that again - 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade!

Think about it. That's a whole whopping 2 Watts per square metre per century!

If that's what CAGW people are trying to frighten us with, it's no wonder people aren't taking any notice.

The solar constant is generally considered to be a value about 1,361 Watts per square metre. That's the power coming from the Sun, constantly, daily. That's what sets our temperature and weather.

So, unless I've got things mixed up, that means in another hundred years the power input to Earth's surface is going to be (1,361 W from the sun + 2W from CO2) = 1,363 Watts per square metre.

That's 2 Newton metres of radiative forcing from CO2 per century.

You've got to laugh. No wonder the computer models aren't working. Thanks for the link ant.

It kind of supports Leo Lane's statement, "There is no science to show that there is any (measurable) significant human effect on climate."

voxUnius

Some questions:

How much energy was trapped by CO2 in pre Industrial times from radiated infrared?
How much extra trapped energy is a dangerous amount in your view?

Here is a reference putting greenhouse gases in perspective:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VmPA-ISO5sM

Watch the video at the end of the article; scientists from various disciplines make their comments:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Thanks Vox Unius, for your post. I haven’t had such a good laugh in ages, and your expertise in science brought it about. I have to rely on secondary school science, and what I have read since then. My tertiary education is in law, which I practiced for many years and which gave me the ability to recognise and dissect lies and dishonesty.
The most irritating aspect of the flea, I find, is not his lies and dishonesty, but his stupid, pointless questions. He cannot be as stupid as he would have to be, to ask the questions he does. I have made it clear to him that I do not answer stupid questions, from him, or anyone else, so he clearly only asks them to be annoying. He has never answered any question that I have put to him, and I only ask sensible questions.
I notice that the flea has put some stupid questions to you, and will be interested to see how you deal with him. Ignoring him does not work. How do you ignore a flea?