Man-made CO2 is responsible for an overall increase in the moisture content of the atmosphere, and an increase in evaporation. This will not necessarily cause any change in rainfall, since it's an increase in the inherent carrying capacity, but will likely result in an overall increase. However, that increase will not be evenly spread. Areas (and/or times, every reference I make to area can also refer to time) that get more rainfall are likely to see an increase in flooding, while areas that do not get more rainfall will instead see droughts from the increased evaporation.

There is likely to be an increase in snowfall, in some areas, as warmer (but still freezing) air holds more moisture than colder air. There is likely to be a decrease in snowfall in other areas, as temperatures get too warm for snow. This will have a complicated effect on any flooding and/or droughts.

There are lots of things that could disprove AGW, but none of them are, at present, happening. Denialists don't understand how bad things are because they look at tiny snapshots that show them what they want to hear and draw erroneous conclusions from them, instead of looking at the big picture with any real understanding of the actual underlying science.

When facts conflict with climate models, the climate models need to be examined to see where they are getting the underlying forces wrong. However, this is only true of a long-term disagreement, short-term disagreements can simply be the result of "noise", or of specific factors skewing climate systems away from the models, such as unexpected levels of atmospheric aerosols or the like.

I hope I helped.

Man made CO2 is responsible for the (increase) increase/decrease moisture content in the atmosphere. This will cause an (Rainfall is a function of relative humidity and not of the partial pressure of water vapor. Cloud cover is decreasing.

(http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudC...

(Less clouds lead to a decrease) increase/decrease in rainfall and lead to serious (droughts) flooding/droughts throughout the world. This will also cause an (You need a seasonal analysis of clouds) increase/decrease in snowfall, which will only make the (You need a seasonal analysis of clouds) flooding/droughts that much worse.

There is (Anything which would better explain the warming could disprove AGW) nothing/zilch that can disprove CAGW which only proves how real it is. Deniers don't understand how bad things are because they look at real world evidence which is (suits their agenda.) stupid/idiotic. _____ Facts/Reality can not be trusted, only Faux News and denialist blogs.

Be happy that the Planet is hundreds of billions times the size of humans and will handle whatever we throw at it. This all started with the idea of 'getting a grasp on energy policy and security' without having to deal with oil cartels and coal miner's unions who were dictating prices.

Science doesn't have the moisture issue worked out yet, but they sure are trying to tell people that they know better. A 0.012% change in our atmosphere (CO2 change from 280ppm to 400ppm) hasn't had very much effect on the climate. Any claims 'to the contrary' are easily debunked.

>>There is ______ nothing/zilch that can disprove CAGW which only proves how real it is.<<

That is because every known natural explanation has been scientifically tested and eliminated, and because AGW is consistent with everything known about the physics, chemistry, and geology of the planet.

If you know about something that no one else in the world has been able to find (not counting the mumbo-jumbo explanations of Denier Voodoo-science) then why don’t you tell us what it is?

=====

kano --

>>Pegminer. He has a point without empirical evidence AGW is dead in the water, and it's not looking too good now, all the critical and logical thinking wont prove AGW without evidence.<<

AGW theory is the only scientific explanation for the empirical evidence. The scientific "consensus" refers to the concensus of the empirical evidence and scientific analysis. It is Deneirs who are - and who always have been "dead in the water "data-wise" - because they have none. Deniers have no empirical evidence and no scientific basis for their position - which actually makes sense since their position is enitrely political and non-scientiific.

Pegminer. He has a point without empirical evidence AGW is dead in the water, and it's not looking too good now, all the critical and logical thinking wont prove AGW without evidence.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, but it clearly illustrates the simple-minded thinking of people that reject AGW. The statements are at the level of tabloid headlines, with no content behind them.

Until people that reject AGW learn to think critically and logically, they will forever be condemned to parrot talking points of scientifically ignorant talking heads and bloggers.

EDIT for Kano: You apparently mean something else by "empirical evidence" than what scientists do. Perhaps if you stopped reading blogs and started looking at science books, you'd learn what "empirical evidence" is.

How can they fill in the blanks, when, in fact, they are the blanks?

I want to get a better understanding of your main arguments in favour of CAGW.

Man made CO2 is responsible for the _____ increase/decrease moisture content in the atmosphere. This will cause an _____ increase/decrease in rainfall and lead to serious _____ flooding/droughts throughout the world. This will also cause an _____ increase/decrease in snowfall, which will only make the _____ flooding/droughts that much worse.

There is ______ nothing/zilch that can disprove CAGW which only proves how real it is. Deniers don't understand how bad things are because they look at real world evidence which is _____ stupid/idiotic. _____ Facts/Reality can not be trusted, only climate models can be.