eclipse now, q&A, increased atmospheric pressure is used to detect global warming see attached where threefold increase in atmospheric pressure has been detected directly attributable to global warming.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

my point was that there was a mechanism to independantly confirm/refute global warming. i have been surprised by the absence of stats/data of pressure changes in the debate. we have seen debates about the temperature measurement methodology between location, urban heat trap, satellite data etc. if someone was to look at pressure changes it would add a new dimension to the argument. whilst you can argue non-linear system the relationship between pressure and temperature of gas is still direct proportionate relationship, the non-linear aspect relates to changes when dealing with different molecular sizes of the gases, nevertheless the relationship between temperature and pressure is directly proportionate.

Eclipse,

You raise some interesting points. The UNFCCC are quite aware of the alarming (not alarmist) messages emanating from the IPCC and they are trying to address the issues, they are not debating the science. The IPCC on the other hand do 'debate' and correlate the science (they don't conduct it) and the processes involved can 'dilute' the message. That is the politics at play (remember the brouhaha in Bali with the US contingent?). The fact remains, government representatives cannot change or alter the science.

You will have to provide me with a link to where you think I said "Of course some scientists aren't being alarmists - they're not being alarmist enough!" I certainly think there are extremists on both sides and that scientists (through the various science academies) should find a better way to disseminate the findings of their research to the general public. That raises issues unlikely to be adequately addressed here (I wasn't even going to comment in this thread until I saw slasher's remarks, you just confounded
it).

Eclipse, 450 ppm is alarming enough, really. I do think there is room for optimism but you can't set the bar too high - otherwise you will lose the support of the people that you need the most. Am I confident? I would like to be. That confidence is tempered by thoughts about society recognising that rabid consumerism and growth at all costs is the wrong road to travel. Politicians, economists and accountants are going to have a lot to answer for.

As for Barry Brook, I have a lot of time for him. As far as alternative energy sources, geo-engineering, carbon sequestration and the like go, there is much to do.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9298

Hi Q&A, sorry the "not alarmist enough" message was Clownfish.
Also, I appreciate some of Barry's responses to the denialists... I just wish he wasn't proving me wrong on renewables all the time! ;-)

Slasher, you're so funny! So let me guess, OUR atmosphere must increase by 3 times if global warming is real because the same happened on Pluto? Hilarious. How much atmosphere is ON Pluto anyway? What is it like most of Pluto's "year"? How hard IS it for Pluto's atmosphere to multiply 3 times if there is hardly any there to begin with? All these answers, and more, await the diligent enquirer that can take the extremely difficult and challenging academic step of *checking the WIKI for 60 seconds!*

And there we find that Pluto's atmospheric conditions are exactly like those on Earth. No really! (winks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Atmosphere

"Pluto's atmosphere consists of a thin envelope of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, derived from the ices on its surface.[62] As Pluto moves away from the Sun, its atmosphere gradually freezes and falls to the ground. As it edges closer to the Sun, the temperature of Pluto's solid surface increases, causing the ices to sublimate into gas. This creates an anti-greenhouse effect; much like sweat cools the body as it evaporates from the surface of the skin, this sublimation has a cooling effect on the surface of Pluto. Scientists using the Submillimeter Array have recently discovered that Pluto's temperature is about 43 K (−230 °C), 10 K colder than expected.[63]
Pluto was found to have an atmosphere from an occultation observation in 1985; the finding was confirmed and significantly strengthened by extensive observations of another occultation in 1988. When an object with no atmosphere occults a star, the star abruptly disappears; in the case of Pluto, the star dimmed out gradually.[64] From the rate of dimming, the atmospheric pressure was determined to be 0.15 pascal, roughly 1/700,000 that of Earth.[65]"

eclipse now, your arrogance and ignorance is astonishing. I have in earlier posts indicated that the temperature change is directly proportionate. that is if there is a change of 1% in temperature there will be a change in pressure of 1%. I have never indicated that there needs to be a threefold increase in pressure to suggest that global warming is occurring.(the threefold issue comes from the scientific consensus about what is happening on Pluto). the article is used to show how the scientific community uses changes in atmospheric pressure to demonstrate changes in the atmosphere temperature.
Could i suggest you go to a dictionary and look up the words directly proportionate. Further I suggest you read a little wider than wikipedia. The scientific consensus is that Pluto is experiencing global warming not cooling as you suggest by quoting wikipedia.
The relationship between pressure and temperature is not disputed in physics.

Slasher (post limits got me this morning).

Pluto is a different test tube.

There is a very fundamental (scientific) reason why there has been an "absence of stats/data of pressure changes in the debate" (sic). Bugsy alluded to this in his challenge to you - which you have apparently decided to ignore.

I fully understand the linear relationship with respect to the Ideal Gas Law (including the proportionality constant), thanks. It is patently clear you don't understand how this simple linear equation is *compromised* by for example; 'non-plutonian' and/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems (I am not referring to "molecular sizes of gases" btw).

If you want to *play* scientists, do some homework. You are displaying yourself as an ignorant dill to those that have devoted their career to the subject you raise. Otherwise, you are just spreading guff for your personal agenda.

eclipse now, thanks for the moron response that the laws of physics are not the same on each planet. suggest some work on the topic for you. what's next e=mc2 only applies on earth. how about v2=u2+2as only applies on earth. yes there are interrelationship with ocean and atmosphere. but if the temperature of gasses(atmosphere) rises then the pressure will rise.
i have used ideal gas law to demonstrate relationship between temperature and pressure if you want the higher sophisticated formula it is as follows (p+n2a/v2)(v-nb)=nrt nevertheless if temperature goes up and volume is constant then pressure goes up. As other variables not changing again it is a direct proportionate relationship. I have already acceptable additional greenhouse gases would have neglible though measurable impact.
why are you afraid of admitting that there is a basis to either confirm or deny a scientific hypothesis.