Dec 05, 2017
A new threat? Are we getting more Democrats?
Per usual the LA Times reporter does not tell you the Whole truth..... Here's a computer model that says California will get WETTER not drier: www.upi.com/Climate-scientists-predict-wet-future-for-California/1791499368091/ (University of California, Riverside)
LAT's reporters, editors and bureau chiefs have no intention of presenting a true rounded scientific look at anything regarding the climate, and/or weather related events. It's all about only promoting the agenda.
Hundreds of scientific studies are published each year casting some to much doubt on the theme here, and all are ignored by the entire national media - here, and abroad.
Yes, this does sound serious. I'm sure, based on this solid, reliable, scientific evidence, that there will be some very cheap ocean-front property for sale in Malibu very soon. I'll start to worry when prices on coastal properties down to fire sale levels. When you start seeing the rich, exclusive liberal-owned properties ACTUALLY in threat of the ocean, then you can start to worry. Until then, it's just another bought-and-paid-for "study".
Talk about a massive drought... there are whole preserved trees 200 feet down in Lake Tahoe left from a drought that lowered the level of the lake below that lasted long enough for mature trees to grow. That drought lasted for a couple hundred years. This was a few hundred years ago. Sure, there is climate change. It's always changing. At one time a few million years ago Nevada was mostly a shallow sea in a tropical environment where plesiosaurs (the state fossil) swam. At one time, the central valley of California was a shallow sea which now the S.F. bay is the remaining remnant. Since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, Yosemite was freed from 4000 feet of ice, creating the hanging valley of Bridalveil that we see today. Personally, I very much doubt that the human impact on the planet is the cause of that and other ancient changes. I'm skeptical that humans can make much of an impact on whatever the climate is going to do in the future, either. Sure, we could ban fossil fuels, stop the internal combustion engine, go back to riding horses (which would bring up the problem of manure), stop raising cattle and pigs for food (control the methane?), all of which would radically change how we live. Some people want that and some people want to force other people to live the way they think is best.
You are correct in everything you say. Except for one thing. All those events you reference did indeed happened. The only difference, and this is the killer argument that your side ignores is that the rate of warming is much faster than in other eras.
For example, since 1850, central valley farmers have been keeping meticulous records on temperatures - they have to - their livelihoods and crop production depended on accurate records of past rainfall, heat, etc.
Since 1850, records show an increase of 1.5 degrees F. An increase far faster than previous eras in which that much of an increase took thousands of years for mother nature to "naturally" heat the earth. Hence, the common sense conclusion that something other than nature is responsible for such a fast increase since its NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE in ice core samples, tree rings etc.
So, yes you deniers are correct. We have seen catastrophic and variable climate purely due to the natural forces of the earth's atmosphere.
But the climate change scientists are correct when they point out how this warming period is happening at a rate never seen before.
The fact that this story is captured under a box that says "Politics" instead of "Science" tells me all I need to know.