Rojo

You are correct. My error was a result of writing in haste, from memory and not checking notes - certainly not from "dramatics."

Correction: The Marine Conservation Biology Institute (US) predicts that by the end of the century, with the current volume of CO2 emissions, the ocean acidity will be 2.5 times greater than before the Industrial Revolution.

They also claim that the PH has dropped by 0.025 units in the last 15 years. You would agree that the change has been rapid, given as you state, a total drop of 0.1 units has occurred since the IR.

Authors on the MCBI website advise that PH levels were stable between 1000 and 1800, however they predict that by 2100, levels could drop by 0.3 units.

While predictions vary, I shall continue to adhere to the Precautionary Principle - certainly not the "Do nothing - get over it" principle.

The author asks: "How is the weather?"

Lousy, thank you and the climate change in my area, influences my assessments on GW and the need for caution.

My village has experienced about 12 straight days of over 40 degrees - a couple have reached 45 and 46 degrees. Plenty of red and industrial dust , no rain and the garden, which has survived beautifully for some thirty years, in an arid region, has all but died!

And current, official, pollutant emissions' reports, reveal that industrial CO2, in my community has, unbelievably, increased.

Now, that should keep the sceptics happy!

Michael G, by burning coal we are only returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it was taken by the vegetation that subsequently became coal, no different to your analysis of burning trees.

The fact is that we still dont understand the cycles of nature properly. I mean, if we cant accurately predict weather even a week out, how on earth are we supposed to be able to model thousands of years of data.

I am not trying to say that humans dont have an impact on the environment, but I would be more concerned about the effects of more harmful pollutants, than of a gas that is a part of the natural cycle anyway.

TNT writes:
--The 0.7C temp rise in 150 years? That's more feeble than... --

Did you think New Orleans was a 'feeble' effort? They've hardly begun cleaning up the damage. Hurricanes are driven by warm oceans. 0.7C is only a global average. More events like that are 'very likely'. That rise is only the beginning of an accelerating process. The feedback mechanisms of melting Arctic ice and tundra are just two of the feedback loops driving it. Don't forget we know sea levels have risen 6-7 metres in the past. New Orleans is NOTHING compared to the genie we are letting out of the bottle.

TNT writes:
-- maybe the proponents have a responsibility to EXPLAIN & JUSTIFY their stance better. --

See Time Magazine April 2006. It's all fact-checked. It's easy to read. They quote people like NASA's chief climate scientist (hardly a leftie nutter like me!). Here's a URL if you really want it served up on a platter: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

TNT writes:
-- proponents need to bring the report to us, so to speak, by making its findings fool-proof persuasive before they ask taxpayers to spend trillions. --

We are not asking you to spend trillions. A solar thermal power station that would power Sydney costs no more than a nuclear station or the 'clean coal' stations our government is fantasising about. Additionally, the solar thermal station can be running in three years AND absorb the employment lost to the coal industry. That's why California is building one right now. Here's a URL on a platter again: http://www.chrisharris.org.au/?p=125

(Employment related: in 1989 Aust made as many solar panels as Japan. Now Japan supplies 50% of the worls market, we supply 1%. So don't give me the employment fallacy please. It also may be possible to EXPORT solar thermal power via DC lines from sunny countries like ours to hazy ones like Indonesia, or Portugal to northern Europe, instead of exporting more coal). Where's the downside?

Michael G, cheers. I shall check them out and post again. I am sceptical, but I will read.

Just a thought.A lot of the gases from our cars is carbon monoxide ie incomplete combustion of carbon.Has there been a separate study done on carbon monoxide as opposed to carbon dioxide,or am I barking up the same tree?

We are dealing with an extremely complex system and there are many fronts upon which man is impacting upon environment.I have little doubt that we are changing our climate.We have to get it right without being alarmist.

The really big question is;when will these changes achieve their own momentum and thus reach a point that we will have no control of outcomes?If so,how much time do we have to turn things around before we reach the point of no return?

Many consider nuclear energy as being the solution,but our largest nuclear reactor is our own sun and we have only just begun to find ways of harvesting it's bountiful energy.Can the oil companies move beyond simplistic notions of drilling holes in the ground and invest in R&D.

Arjay

Atmospheric carbon monoxide elevates methane and ozone before converting to carbon dioxide. I believe all carbon based chemicals, when burnt finally convert to CO2.

The federal government encourages industry to burn un-tested unregulated waste oil as fuel. They call it "recycling" which could not be further from the truth. Waste oil in all other developed countries (including the edicts of the UN)is categorised as a hazardous waste, and must be regulated, but not in Australia.

When shabbily operated and poorly combusted industrial plants burn this dangerous compound with its unknown substances, it releases massive amounts of CO and suspected and proven carcinogenic hydrocarbons.

The transport industry, as you say, is one of the largest polluters -then you have the metal ore industry, coal and the uranium industries, to name a few.

No, I am not an advocate for shutting down our industries, but rather to see governments act responsibly, regulate and cap these emissions and to cease polluting the environment and communities and their adept practices at cover-ups.

Unfortunately, everyone currently refers to CO2 only. I am advised that CO2 is simply the end fate of the following (to name a few):

Polycyclic hydrocarbons which include napthalene, fluorene, benzo (b)and (K) fluoranthene, dibenzo anthracene pyrene etc etc, (volatile organic compounds (about 250), aliphatic hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarcarbons. The list is endless.

When chlorine is hanging around, the potential for the formation of dioxins and PCBs (yes still around) occurs when burning takes place.

Then of course, in certain industries such as gold and nickel, you have massive releases of mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium (3 & 6) and particulates coated with all of the above.

To report that our governments are advanced in giving us renewable energies is a joke. The industrial emissions of CO2 are increasing and the cover-ups continue, denied by many for vested interests and a reluctance to properly investigate the unethical actions of governmental environment agencies and their senior bureaucrats.