Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find that doubtful. CA's natural state is a desert. They had to import the water to have their lawns lush and green.
Los Angeles has stolen waters from the Owens Valley, , Mono Lake, the Colorado River, and Nor Cal to satisfy their lust for water in their desert. The north has plenty of water.
I wonder what would happen on an "Earth Like" planet if someone decided to dump several hundred billion tons of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere over a couple of hundred years? Fortunately we an observe the results of a similar experiment right here on Earth.
Major new climate change research that up to half the global warming seen in the 20th century is due to nature, and that the atmosphere may be only half as sensitive to an increase in carbon dioxide than has previously been assumed
So now you are saying the same thing science has been saying all along....50% of warming is caused by human activities...Glad we finally agree.
I've ALWAYS said that man has played a role in the current warming. To what extent is not known. We may never know.....
What I am skeptical of is first the climate models which give ridiculous projections in coming decades, and second, trying attribute every natural weather events in having a human fingerprint.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't support the right-wing claim that man cannot affect the environment because it acknowledges that man does indeed affect the environment. I was looking for something that supports the claims right-wingers make that warming is natural. I should have known better.
I've ALWAYS said that man has played a role in the current warming. To what extent is not known. We may never know.....
What I am skeptical of is first the climate models which give ridiculous projections in coming decades, and second, trying attribute every natural weather events in having a human fingerprint.
So wait-- it's fine to cite a study by none other than Roy Spencer himself, based purely on (probably manipulated) models and published in some obscure journal, as definitive proof that natural forces are mostly responsible for climate change... but all other models are faulty/flawed and you can't believe what they're saying, because you just think it's ridiculous.
You don't like it because it 'seems reasonable'-- you have no basis by which to judge what 'sounds reasonable'. The only thing you have is your need to find whatever confirms what you want to believe about the topic.
The majority of climatologists still believe that AGW is a problem that needs to be solved, because due to AGW we're risking global political and economic stability.
Also, here's a pretty thorough rebuttal to the Spencer article, which again, isn't exactly the most groundbreaking and industry-halting study that you want it to be:
Last edited by Spatula City; 12-09-2014 at 01:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
