Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Not the quote dipstick. The pages. You must read the pages. Too bad that you can't add 2+2 or think in cause and effect systems, or even rationally for that matter. I feel sorry for you.
You are looking for something so simple that even you can understand. Such a thing does not exist. One has to use some systemic thinking and comprehension of scientific principles and how they interact. You are incapable of doing so. I can't help that.
The Weather Channel knows something about models and weather. This is what they say...
It is known that burning of fossil fuels injects additional carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This in turn increases the naturally occurring "greenhouse effect," a process in which our atmosphere keeps the earth's surface much warmer than it would otherwise be.
More than a century's worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists.
http://www.weather.com/encyclopedia/global/
...and this is coming from an individual that has admitted that he does not read any of the sources demonstrating the raw climate data. That he has NEVER charted temperature information himself. In fact, he has demonstrated to be cognitively impaired and only capable of chanting the climate change mantra over and over - despite mounds of evidence that AGW does not exist.
I feel sorry for you. "Too bad that you can't add 2+2 or think in cause and effect systems, or even rationally for that matter." I am sure there is a madrasa in Pakistan for people with your level of intellect. You can read the Koran and chant just as well as chanting the global warming bible from Al Gore. After all AGW is a religious movement not a science based one.
Yeah OK. Get help.
I know why GWB "thinks" the way he does....
I would need some science showing the net warming or cooling of greenhouse gases... It may be difficult to show because the system is complex.
That is why I am comfortable telling fc he is lying his ass off every time he says he produced the science.
He can not produce it because it does not exist at the moment.
NASA says it is just doing some of the studies now.
I showed you NASA stated, "The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:"
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
Another way science could go about showing man made co2 causes warming... might be to create truly complex dynamic models which not only predict weather in the short run but climate in the long run. When science can do that... they will probably know the net warming or cooling effect of clouds and aerosols and co2.
Right now... scientifically speaking science most definitely does not know the net warming or cooling effect of green house gases.
For instance... the biggest greenhouse gas...water vapor / clouds...from NASA
Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?
Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gasâwater vaporâor in the form of a liquidâclouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.
Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.
Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.
How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
That is why I am comfortable telling fc he is lying his ass off every time he says he produced the science.
He can not produce it because it does not exist at the moment.
NASA says it is just doing some of the studies now.
I showed you NASA stated, "The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:"
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
Another way science could go about showing man made co2 causes warming... might be to create truly complex dynamic models which not only predict weather in the short run but climate in the long run. When science can do that... they will probably know the net warming or cooling effect of clouds and aerosols and co2.
Right now... scientifically speaking science most definitely does not know the net warming or cooling effect of green house gases.
For instance... the biggest greenhouse gas...water vapor / clouds...from NASA
Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?
Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gasâwater vaporâor in the form of a liquidâclouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.
Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.
Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.
How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/
You lied about the science being on that page...
now you want me to go somewhere else.
We already know you have no science showing man made co2 has a net warming effect on the environment...
If you had that science you would win a Nobel prize. You would be al Gore's best friend and the media would make you bigger than Bono.
You are just and ignorant lying troll and I emphasize lying because you do that in just about every post.
now you want me to go somewhere else.
We already know you have no science showing man made co2 has a net warming effect on the environment...
If you had that science you would win a Nobel prize. You would be al Gore's best friend and the media would make you bigger than Bono.
You are just and ignorant lying troll and I emphasize lying because you do that in just about every post.
FC - we found your future picture...
