Climate debate, continued
03/15/2014 11:03 AM
03/15/2014 1:37 PM
Re "Science of climate change" (Letters, March 15) I do not know letter writer Stephen Stralka's expertise. I doubt it is hydrology, which is mine, or statistics, which is associated with hydrology.
Statistics say there is always something larger as related to hydrology and weather. I have been in Sacramento area since 1960, and have seen the 100-year storm for the American River exceeded four or five times. It will be exceeded again and again as nature takes it's course.
Global warming predicted by computer models has not been able to predict any immediate events. I don't think models will do well for future events either, especially since the warming has not occurred and in fact may be cooling.
He is correct fossil fuels were created by nature in a time past. The indication being that it was much wetter, or warmer?
-- Dale Creasey, federal hydrologist, retired, Fair Oaks
Editor's Choice Videos
Join the Discussion
The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.