OK. I don't think you know what you are talking about. I answered the poor question anyway. You are so confused. So what? It does influence climate significantly. A human-caused significance that we have the power to ameliorate. What do you imagine is the primary driver of climate?
Deflect You most certainly did NOT answer the question I asked. So how much have we humans changed the climate? After all, CO2 has doubled since 1880. Lots of factors NEVER discussed.... For some reason liberal yahoo's and media point to CO2.
Whatever you want to call it. Man made or cycle weather patterns. They didn't learn from the dust bowl days. Sometimes it doesn't rain or snow for years. This is the cost for living without concern for the weather. I haven't been able to water but once every two weeks here in southern Frisco Texas. Fuck the yard grass and pretty plants. That is over rated. As long as my pool is full of course.
Indeed I did. You just dislike the answer or cannot understand it. Not my problem. Well, duhhhh! Ever heard of something called the Industrial Revolution? Humans began to affect CO2 levels as long as 10,000 years ago when mass deforestation began, but in the 19th and 20th centuries we began pumping huge amounts of coal and oil carbon into the atmosphere. Last year we pumped 38.2 billion tons of it into the air. Of course it has doubled CO2! Then discuss one of them, if you think it is significant. You declined, once again. I won't get into this business where you make wild claims and then refuse to back them up. I have made hundreds of posts on a dozen global warming threads. Go find any of them and challenge me, if you wish. I don't plan to repeat myself endlessly with someone who won't debate the issues.
Moonbeam needs someone to tax. Fracking pays for his liberal giveaways, can't buy votes without free shit. He could care less if your yard dies or you can't wash your car.
But in this instance, "The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change."
Again what BAD THINGS have happened? Another non issue. I made a statement of FACT. YOU even agreed end. Wether or not I get Into your question has Zero to do with my statement. CO2 is not the primary driver yet it's all anyone talks about. The ONLY issue I have debated are the repeated cases in which YOU and the media fail to state two very simple things. A: What bad things are going to happen. B: What's the plan?
Three observations: 1. Seager generally knows his stuff. His science is sound and his conclusions balanced but some of his observations have been taken out of context in the lay media. 2. You did not mention the name of the report that is cited, nor offer a link to it. Seager has written many papers. Thus it is impossible to read his actual comments in context. The quote you cite is not from Seager but from the author of the article. 3. You hit on a key element when you state "in this instance". When considering global phenomenon, regional variations are to be expected. The article notes that climate has been changing toward drought conditions steadily for several decades. Climate change results in the shifting of anticipated regional variations. It will be interesting to see his scientific paper. The suggestion that this ridge is an unanticipated regional variation may actually be supporting global climate change models rather than suggesting that the global models are inaccurate because not all local areas correspond to global models.