BigMal, Whether we export wood or coal - same thing -both actions lead to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. In the case of timber, the loss of CO2 sink (and therefore more CO2 in the atmosphere) occurs in Australia - not the importing country.

So - who should cop the carbon debit? Those who permit the resource extraction or those who are the end user?

If a company sold a product that is injurious to human health (think asbestos for example) the company pays, in this case compensation, not the end-user - or asbestosis sufferer in this case.

So whoever knowingly sells a health-damaging product (in this case a resource that will contribute to climate change and therefore human and non-human health impacts) then following the asbestos example - the resource extractor should bear the cost - in this case a carbon debit.

But I prefer the idea that all who are involved in production and consumption should pay. The true cost - which includes environmental cost - would be represented in the market place.

Ultimately though, it is about reducing consumption of environmentally damaging goods - not about paying to use and pollute. Sadly, making environmentally harmful goods or production more expensive is the most likely way people will change behaviour - not from an understanding that our consumption and waste generation is threatening the health of the ecosystem services we depend on.

Frogmouth.I think your answer confuses several points.
1. On a global scene it is true both carbon sources are supposedly injurious. But the whole ICCP palaver is about countries doing their part to reduce the emmisions of C02, and in order to manage this the ICCP has tried to set up measurement mechanisms whereby countries have to account for their carbon. My point was that these accounting rules are inconsistent in that they treat coal differently to timber/wood chip. Basically it is the user/burner pays, except for wood chip were it is the tree feller who pays (who invariably is not the end user eg wood chip to japan to create paper/carboard)
2. If a country is an exporter of these carbon sources then not only in the method of accounting dopey, but it depends upon which country these carbon source are being sent to, whether or not it will make any difference whatsoever to the global efect of C02. eg selling coal to Japan has a diferent effect than selling it to China. In the case of the former the the Japanese cop a carbon debit for having burnt the coal,whereas for China no such debit in created. This would have been the case even if we had signed up for Kyoto.
3. It appears that the USA has being performing better in reducing its C02 emmissions than many European countries.eg France,Spain and Italy. One reason being given is that the USA has shifted its dirty manufacturing to China where the C02 is not accounted for by anybody.
4.If AGW is real and the effects are as serious as the alarmists have claimed it to be, then the solution is a complete farce.In fact it is yet another indicator of just how incompetent the ICCP has been, and points to its failings in other areas.

i have some questions on global warming and wondered if anyone out there can point me to reputable peer reviewed studies on the following

PV=nrT, if both temperature and n the number of moles (measurement of molecules)are increasing is atmospheric pressure increasing as well?

I presume the volume of the Earth's atmosphere is constant as it is governed by the escape velocity required to break the earth's gravity pull.

Therefore is average pressure is increasing wouldn't we expect less severe storms which are afterall low pressure systems?

Slasher; may I blow in here on your post? Two www gov. sites have heaps of climate info and a google search reveals atmospheric pressure at sea level is 29.92 inches of mercury. But since the world was never a perfect place we need to check the local value of g. That’s how I remember it after building and calibrating manometers in various places.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/

A study of eddy and cell structure in the atmosphere is necessary to understand the heat transport around regions and it should lead to thinking about vortex and differentials across dynamic systems. Extreem weather patterns are covered here-

http://www.earthsci.org/J_Flood04/wea1/wea1.html

In another post I mentioned the power of personal observation relative to science; Three times I have been close enough to see the ground rush before the plasma arc reached down in a lightening storm. Lightening is a most important trigger in any event and it hurts. There are times when the air is full of water. We talk about due points and cloud bursts. Dust storms and fire storms also generate lightening.

The atmosphere is least of all, perfect. In dealing with overlapping areas of applied science we should recall much of it is still not complete.

After five decades I find little satisfaction in say flow theory as applied to rivers and pipelines. We can however use well known industrial models to get a feel for the say thermodynamics of furnaces in practice and likewise vortexes. Vortexes are most interesting heat exchangers. I made my first Hilsch Tube back in the 1960’s after reading an article that involved using compressed air as the energy source for snow flakes and steam in the one device. The scientists are still postulating on how it works but it serves us well in understanding some wild atmospheric events.

The PV=nrT question seems irrelevant here.

Sorry

my question is to see if we can verify global warming by measuring increased atmospheric pressure which should be occurring if the earth's atmosphere is warming

Slasher: It should be possible to measure the mean atmospheric presure change and build a climate model based on that. But consider for a moment the tiny percentage of free CO2 now present and ask yourself how long it would take to see the trend compared to say; watching the loss of ice in the caps or even the rise in mean sea levels around the globe