"The time for scientific debate has passed: what we need to decide now is whether we are willing to risk a minimal effect on our hip pockets to avoid the risk of the collapse of the Earth's ecosystems."
You're so right! Until the case for the "alarmingly catastrophic collapse of the fragile, delicate ecosystems" is stronger it is definitely worth the risk. The effect to the hip pocket will be much greater than minimal.

That there is some climate change taking place is fairly clear but
whether the earth average is changing is another matter.

Viking 13 comments that wx stations have been moved.
I have seen reference to this previously and there has been considerable
discussion on heat island effects. Also a not insignificant number of
wx stations have closed and more reliance has been given to those in
rural areas. This seems to me to be no more than common sense.

However all this avoids the questions I raised;

Is the CO2 generated by man significant ?
If so, how do we know that ?
As the logarithmic rollover has occured (according to one article
seen) the effect of doubling CO2 to 900 ppm will have next to no effect. So what is the situation in that case ?

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

As I see it this question is fundamental to the whole problem.

Update: Sunspots are still near zero per month.

SILLYFILLY writes on page 2, "Rock under the arctic, what a notion! And here I thought that the arctic was an ice-sheet over water. Well I must be wrong and I'll have to change my mind. Bugger the science, we'll just make it up as we go.

What is the science sillyfilly? Your comment seems to discount the rock of Greenland and other island mass and coast in the Arctic Ocean. These are not islands of just ice and snow. How much ice and snow is there on top of the rock or soil or whatever you confirm it is?

Further, significant melting of Arctic ice has recently shocked some scientists, so when can we expect the ocean to rise due to this significant melt?

Just some polite answers would be appreciated.

Chris Shaw makes a good point about the latent heat of fusion, by which ice absorbs 334 joules per gram upon turning to water, without any temperature change. But there is also the latent heat of vapourisation, by which a gram of water at 0 degrees Celsius absorbs 2500 joules upon vapourising.

Hey Runner, any comment on last night's 4 corners?

check http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2323805.htm if you missed it.

Good old Fester - thanks mate. I'd better make the big effort and catch up on Joules.

Here's the temperature "curve" of vaporisation, which every owner of an evaporative cooler is familiar with, but seldom wonders about. Of course it stops when the water reservoir runs out - but think, the machine becomes ever less effective as the air in the room becomes more humid - as it must. So there is an equilibrium problem which no-one ordinarily thinks about. What does that signify for us on the global scale?

Also, they say that water vapour behaves as another greenhouse gas - so is this a case of positive feedback? If so, at what degree of humidification of the atmosphere does it tend to find a new point of balance?

So much to learn - so little time - so they say.

- I'm up for it -