I know this is a bit off topic, but I think this is a really good viewpoint from former CIA Director James Woolsey on the problem we in the west face with oil.

http://www.energybulletin.net/31004.html

As a side effect, reducing our dependence on oil would definitely help to curtail the rise of Islam.

Dinners says "I personally don't see how .... how sea levels are supposed to rise to dramatic levels because of ice melting at the poles (ever put ice into a glass, allowed it to melt, and noticed it overflow? Nope? Neither have I)."

Dinners, I suspect you've imbibed far too much of the stuff in your glass if you can't see the problems with your argument. Granted that the Arctic ice sheet and Antarctic ice shelves are floating, but you've forgotten that Greenland and Antarctica are MOST DEFINITELY not floating. Thus the ice covering both (at depths up to 4.5 kms) will increase sea levels if it melts.

Well, I'm just off to add several million cubic kilometres of ice to my scotch. I'm pretty sure it won't overflow the glass.

Kieren:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/latest-trends-in-co2/

Has a good discussion of CO2 concentrations as measured from Mauna Loa in Hawi'i, how they've been changing and how scientists analyse the data.

At present, around 24 billion tonnes of CO2 is released each year from the burning of fossil fuels alone.

Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased from 280ppm to 379ppm since 1850. Wikipedia has some pretty useful and accurate numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere

The proportion of CO2 stuffed into the atmosphere over the last 150 or so years completly dwarfs the contribution from the natural sources. We know this for several reasons.

For one, carefull book keeping of the amount of fossil fuels extracted and burned should give us an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of about 500ppm. However, the oceans are sucking up about half of what we throw up there. 6 independant studies have confirmed that the amount of CO2 in the oceans is increasing.

For specialists, the ratio of Carbon isotopes 14C/12C and 13C/C12 are also a dead give away (smoking gun if you will), but I'm not skilled enough in expressing science clearly to explain this within the word count, so check out:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html

and the ipcc reports

www.ipcc.ch

As for volcanoes, they emit about 250 million tones of CO2 a year according to the US geological survey:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

This is less than 1% of what humans emit in a year.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are measured directly using contrations called infra-red spectrometers. They measure the concentration of CO2 to about a tenth of 1 percent. In the middle atmosphere (about 5km up), we use satellites like NASA's AIRS:

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov//

Just an aside, can people get over ad homs and stick to the issues.

Well DavoP I was refering to John Howards obvious earlier uncertainty
about global warming. That is that where he might have been right.
It should be obvious to all that there is a scientific rethink going
on about the causes of global warming being caused by human activity.

>As to Bazz. Howard right about what? Are you saying there has been no >change?
That's what Howard says. It's just temporary. I guess you could
>say I wrote that above but my temporary is hundreds or thousands of >years. Not just between elections.

>Howard hasn't been right except in his political loyalty in that
>direction, about anything in my memory. How could he be? He lies about
>everything.
>Posted by DavoP, Monday, 25 June 2007 7:18:55 PM

To blythely say that John Howard lies about everything really removes
you from any meaningful discussion on the matter and you should
concentrate on politrical discussions.

In any case it has now become obvious that there is not enough carbon
available in oil, gas and coal to cause the IPCC predictions of
temperature rise to occur. The peak in these energy sources will
occur too soon.

So you are all, including me, wasting our time arguing about CO2.
The real argument is; what are we going to do about energy ?

Alzo

RealClimate is biased towards the science of CC; other sites are biased against the science of CC – c’est la vie. You have looked at the RealClimate site and have made a value judgement. Why don’t you want other people to have the same freedom?

I agree, the AR4 reports should be read more, but most people don’t. It is impossible to have rational and constructive debate with people who can’t be bothered to read or understand the resource material. The AR4 reports are a comprehensive assessment of the 1000’s of peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published on the aspects of climate change.

Keiran

I don’t “feel all humans exhale carbon with original sin believing that nature is but a subset of humanity” – false conclusion based on false premise, therefore inconsequential. You’re not stupid, you know what the CO2 concentration is and where it has come from, and it’s not rocket science. Fallacious argument does not help your cause or the discussion, I would rather engage with you on substance.

Dinners

Ice-berg melt does not significantly contribute to sea level rise, you got that right. Glacier and ice-sheet (cap) disintegration would increase the sea levels significantly. This is why some scientists are concerned; there is more evidence of this happening since the release of the TER in 2001.

JohnJ eloquently covers ice-melt.

Weather patterns over Adelaide don’t constitute global warming.

The CO2 site is ok, albeit a particular family-line runs it, from the chairman of the board to the coffee-boy. RealClimate has flaws too, but members are marginalised and have expertise in various aspects of climate science.

I understand your frustration with the ABC; I think it is a serious problem with ALL media. They have a huge responsibility to the public – no wonder some people get so confused.

I agree with you entirely about the 7th July concerts, so too does Bob Geldof; we know about GW, it would be much better to spend the time, money and effort to actually do something about the problem.

DavoP

Cheers. I have always questioned things, to seek answers. Some people thought I was so stupid for asking the questions (and evidently some still do). But this is how I learned to be a free-thinker.

You are right of course, GW or climate change is “politically hot” – and that is half the problem.

We have a politician like Gore ‘hamming’ it up on stage (bad move methinks, but he did get a message across, probably will get a saint-hood or Nobel if he keeps going!). He has certainly alienated much of the conservative Republican. Then we have Arnold (“the terminator”) doing a very good job in addressing GW, and he is not acting.

Then we look at George dubya and John dubya, my heart cries! We need leaders with a vision; Liberal, Labour or Martian – I don’t care, as long as they look after the environment, all else follows.

Don’t get me wrong, some scientists are frauds; potential for litigation prevents me naming them.

Thanks for the offer of emailing but now that it has been made, you will probably get all sorts of crap and not know whether it’s me or some looney-toon.

Bazz

You are so right – it really is about Peak Hydrocarbons, sustainable use of energy and resources!

However, the IPCC does have a point, and if adapting to CC and mitigating GHG helps to achieve the same objective, why not?

Does anyone have an opinion on a David Rutledge May 11 webcast at this site, talking about climate change and Peak Fossil Fuels:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

Click the video link and scroll to Hubbert’s Peak and Climate Change – an hour long but better than TV