Al Blames Burma Cyclone On.... - Page 26

Bowerbird · 05-12-2008, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjdsr

Didn't realize it was a tabloid, but the info can be found on the NOAA site also.

NCDC: Climate of 2008 - February Global Analysis

I am aware of what is going on in Australia, and I do read the links that Bowerbird provides. While I don't deny or argue that the climate is changing, I have yet to read or hear any convincing evidence that supports the claim that human activity has that great of an impact. What about those who are predicting global cooling?

I am obviously more concerned with the U.S. policies, and what is being proposed because it will directly affect me. But that doesn't mean that I don't care about...or read up on...what is happening in other parts of the world. I have stated before, and I will say it again, that the legislation and solutions being proposed by the U.S. government will do more harm than good.

And on that last part I think I can agree - certainly the ethanol thing has been a disaster - but then the environmentalists never wanted that in the first place.

The irony is that the higher fuel prices are already cutting emissions from cars in America
Fuel prices hit US drivers where it hurts - climate-change - 07 May 2008 - New Scientist Environment

However it is not the cars that are the main issue - it is coal fired electricity plants and deforestation that are the twin real evils here

As to how we know that the climate change is anthropomorphic?

RealClimate

Freedom for All · 05-12-2008, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

As to how we know that the climate change is anthropomorphic?

RealClimate

Quote:

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

That's sweet. The current warming trend started almost two hundred years ago, so the Realclimate article you linked starts out with a gross example of cherry picking data.

Quote:

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios.

Plants have a preference for an isotope that's chemically indistinguishable from another one?

Hmmm?

You buy this nonsense?

And the plants that died to make the coal or fossil fuel didn't have this preference?

Hmmmm? Evolution, or cultural change among the broccoli?