Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

So what? Science does not know what? You are just flailing now. Just because you don't know shit about AGW science, it doesn't mean the scientists don't.

This is what NASA says......

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes

 

I don't need to read them. That article, and others, summarizes the findings for us. And I have a hard time believing that you read all 74 pages.

This is what The Weather Channel says about it.


"Odds are now leaning toward increased frequency and intensity of heat waves in the warm season and warm spells in the cold season in parts of the world, as well as reduced frequency of low temperature extremes.

There is evidence in recent years of a direct linkage between the larger-scale warming and short-term weather events such as heat waves.
In some regions there has been a tendency for an increase in precipitation extremes, both wet (including floods) and dry (droughts). These observations over the past several decades are consistent with what theory and global climate models would suggest.

The jury is out on exactly what effect(s) global warming is having or will have in the future upon tropical cyclones.

The bottom line is that with the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increasing, a significant warming trend is expected to also continue. This warming will manifest itself in a variety of ways, and shifts in climate could occur quickly, so while society needs to continue to wrestle with the difficult issues involved with mitigation of the causes of global warming, an increased focus should be placed on adaptation to the effects of global warming given the sensitivity of civilizations and ecosystems to rapid climate change.

Potential outcomes range from moderate and manageable to extreme and catastrophic, depending on a number of factors including location and type of effect, and amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Not every location and its inhabitants will be affected equally, but the more the planet warms, the fewer "winners" and the more "losers" there will be as a result of the changes in climate. The potential exists for the climate to reach a "tipping point," if it hasn't already done so, beyond which radical and irreversible changes occur."

http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/

 

you science denying troll.

..

Nasa says

a. co2 is a thermostat
b. science does not know if more aerosols warm or cool.
c. does not know if adding water vapor (clouds) net warms or cools.

So what you say?

You really are an ignorant troll if you do not understand that greenhouse gases act to keep warmth in and warmth out.

and NASA does not know the net effect.

 

So once again you are unwilling to READ THE SOURCE REPORT and yet you make assertions that are the direct opposite of what the report actually says.

This is truly the definition of cognitively impaired.

Here is a hint: If you say one thing and the actual data says the exact opposite than you are WRONG.

 

Yet again the weather experts missed today's forecast high in N. GA. by six degrees, on the low side.

 

Yet again you post something stupid.

 

They can't come with six degrees of forecasting today's high, but they can model what will happen a decade from now?

 

Federal Solar Auction Gets No Bidders

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...-no-bidders-ap-just-local-story-and-politico-

Green energy is supposedly the future. Why, solar energy will break out and become a major energy source any year now, or any decade now. Or maybe never. It has been the subject of national attention ever since President Obama made it a cornerstone of his 2008 presidential campaign. Of course, what Obama claims is in energy policy has worked out to be more a of a growth-constraining, government money-wasting endeavor than anything else.

The Denver Post carried the original story on Thursday of how the federal government's first attempt at a solar auction went. The headline was accurate: "1st auction of solar rights on public lands in Colorado draws no bids." That's right. Zero. Post reporter Mark Jaffe's first sentence was charitable but acceptable: "The plan to auction rights to federal land across the West for solar-power plants got off to a rocky start Thursday when no bidders showed up for the first auction in Colorado." Too bad that two establishment press outlets which were in a position to communicate this news to the nation failed to adequately do so.

From all appearances, the Associated Press failed completely, treating the the matter as a local story. Searches on "solar auction" and "solar Colorado" (each not in quotes) at the APs national site returned no results and no results, respectively, even though those those words are in that locally carried story:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...-just-local-story-and-politico-#ixzz2iy9Ju2Iu

 

"jem......you ignorant slut"



a. NASA does NOT say CO2 acts as thermostat. ONE NASA scientist erroneously used the term. He used the term wrongly and the thermosphere - what he was talking about - has essentially nothing to do with AGW. That you do not understand this or refuse to acknowledge it is troubling and suggests that you may be either in denial or purposefully lying.

b. Science knows aerosols in the stratosphere cool the earth. Aerosols in the lower atmosphere have less net effect. The use of high altitude aerosols has been suggested as a way to cool the earth. At any rate, it again has little to do with CO2/AGW and it's current warming of the lower atmosphere.

c. " The scientific majority believes that clouds will most likely have a neutral effect or will even amplify the warming, perhaps strongly, but the lack of unambiguous proof has left room for dissent.

“Clouds really are the biggest uncertainty,” said Andrew E. Dessler, a climate researcher at Texas A&M. “If you listen to the credible climate skeptics, they’ve really pushed all their chips onto clouds.”

Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the leading proponent of the view that clouds will save the day. His stature in the field — he has been making seminal contributions to climate science since the 1960s — has amplified his influence.

His idea has drawn withering criticism from other scientists, who cite errors in his papers and say proof is lacking. Enough evidence is already in hand, they say, to rule out the powerful cooling effect from clouds that would be needed to offset the increase of greenhouse gases."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Here's what NASA says about clouds...

"Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly. Some observations of clouds support model predictions, but direct observational evidence is still limited. Clouds remain the biggest source of uncertainty (apart from human decisions to control greenhouse gas emissions) in predicting how much global temperatures will change."

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=44250


Jem, you're doing a good job of misdirection, obfuscation, inflation, misrepresentation and deception. Right from the playbook.

I think that the American Geophysical Union might know about this stuff, and they say the following...


"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5