Interesting post Jayb, more on the CFC/HFC impact on climate change. In addition to Jim Haywood, Dr. Andy Jones and Dr. Myhre, we now have Dutch scientist Guus Velders of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency on the HFC trail, as published in the The Sunday Times and reproduced in today’s The Australian by Jonathan Leake.

The green movements greatest triumph was the banning of CFC, chlorofluorocarbon, under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, to be replaced with HFC, hydrofluorocarbon. According to this research, one tonne of HFC 23 (domestic air cons.) is so powerful as a greenhouse gas, it has the same effect as14,800 tonnes of CO2. One tonne of HFC134a (car air conditioners) is equivalent to 1,430 tonnes of CO2.

Research suggests that HFC could account for between 9% and 19% of total CO2 contributions by 2050. Well done the green movement. What is it we say about humans “What we seek to avoid, we create”

We have two choices with research such as this; we could trash all four scientists, (because these heretics dared to agree), then trash their institutions, their research and most of all, their motives, followed of course, by a long list of web sites that present counter claims. (Whoops, I’m too late with my prediction; some of you have already started)

On the other hand we could say that this research is yet another example of why we should let the scientists work it out and not jump to the conclusion that atmospheric carbon is the sole culprit.

These pesky scientists keep popping up with even more science that throws into question the science they gave us last week. How on earth do they expect the unqualified public to make life changing decisions on a solution, when we can’t even keep up with the questions?

Mememine69, you have to wonder what goes on in a head like Sancho’s. “the climate keeps proving science right” ?

“Today’s” BOM weather projection for “yesterday” looks impressive. Stick to your biscuits, Sancho needs something much stronger.

Hi Q&A. As you are back on deck any chance of you replying to Kalin1’s thoughtful questions posted last Monday, 15 June 2009 10:40:13 AM, as you said you would in your post of Monday, 15 June 2009 6:54:41 PM. These questions were (I hope you do not mind Kalin1):

1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level? Clearly there has been some strong and sustained mechanism which has prevented runaway global warming, but my reading and wiki searching has been unable to identify any mechanism strong enough to explain why in previous ages runaway global warming did not occur. Can you shed any light on why?

2) Have read that there appears to be some 'mystery' CO2 sink based on the observation that all measured sources of CO2, less all known CO2 absorbers ought to leave us much higher C02 levels that are currently observed (MUCH higher): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090123.html. Isn't this a clear indication of how poorly understood the CO2 cycle is, particularly in a quantitative sense? Surely in the face of such significant holes in our understanding the environmental movement is jumping the gun in asserting their is no room for debate anymore?

3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?

4) Do you concede there is a real opportunity cost attached discontinuing/reducing the use of fossil fuels and shouldn't the opportunity cost be a fully investigated part of assessing 'what to do' about GW?

*Q&A* Yes, Plimer's on a mining board!

*Runner* I don’t have to be a scientist to link to peer-reviewed scientists, or to recognize conspiracy theory crap.

*MeMe's* tantrum sounds particularly uninformed. Please show us an official IPCC prophecy of doom that has "failed" to materialise over the last 25 years? The reality is alarming climate scenarios are only just STARTING now, ahead of schedule, and will continue to unfold over the next 30 years or so.

*Kalina* asked about the difference this time to the normal pattern over the last million years of Milankovitch cycles.

*Fungo* and *Raredog* could also learn from 1 & 2 below

1. In the past million years of Milankovitch cycles Co2 has not gone above 300ppm. We are now at 385 (despite “mystery sink”). So that is way above norms in a *comparable geological era*. Previous eras HAVE been higher (and hotter), but we're talking about the worlds of saber-tooth tigers and dinosaurs, not a world trying to support 6.5 billion people.

2. Past Co2 variations were natural and slowly adapting with Milankovitch cycles. This change is unnatural and fast, going way ABOVE the highest levels the Milankovitch cycle allowed.

3. Ecosystems could slowly migrate in previous climate transitions. Now we've divided nature with urban sprawl, agriculture, and highways... and ecosystems can't migrate toward the poles as easily. Modern ecosystems are tiny islands stranded in a sea of human landscape, and will not be able to survive by migration. We risk massive biodiversity loss.

4. "there is no reason to believe the atmospheric systems of the earth won't cope. "
What, you're trying to create another straw-man where us greenies are arguing that the atmosphere is going to "break" or vanish or something? First, we DO have evidence that the world's temperatures are going to change in the Physics, Physics, Physics! See the Radiative Forcing Equation and the history of temperature measurements! Second, I’m not sure we’re saying the “atmosphere” won’t cope, but our modern prosperity might not if agriculture takes a severe hit from increased droughts and floods and sea-level rise.

Here's something that's worth a look at. It shows at time line. It's from Monash University.

http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html

David Karoly has one of the better reviews. One professor defies the world's peer review process and dozens of scientific bodies that are all in agreement, quotes everything out of context, does not source his graphs, is INTERNALLY inconsistent, and sells a conspiracy theory to make a best-seller for the gullible and recalcitrant.

David Karoly (my paraphrase from memory).
"If a library wastes money on this book they should at least file it under Science Fiction next to Michael Krighton's "State of Fear". The only difference between "Heaven and Earth" and "State of Fear" is that "State of Fear" contains less scientific errors in it."

Podcast
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

Many scientists believe that global warming is caused by the combination of many factors, such as greater heat produced by the sun or natural climate change of the Earth.
Furthermore, many scientists claim that global warming may not exist at all. We have only collected valid data of the world's climate for the last few decades. This is a completely insignificant length of time in comparison with the age of the planet which is billions of years old. It is because of this that many individuals, including myself, who fall into this category, believe there is no way we can know undisputedly what is happening or if it is indeed unnatural.
In conclusion, you are left to make up your own mind and take your own actions, but please don't claim that every scientist and scientific study agrees. It simply is not true.
Life is good. Its too bad negative pansies like you glowbull whiner cowards don't have the sense to respect our planet instead of using as a tool of needles panic and fear and ignorance. You miserable freaks pray and hope for this misery. Why?
You warmies will be both mocked and cursed soon, so get ahead of the curve and preserve our world, not save it with pointless fear.