http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091109121117.htm

This Article speaks of the contradictory nature of AWG.

It postulates that when as the ice shelves in Antarctica melt they open up a larger area of water that is a *potential* new carbon sink.
Clearly, the issue then become what it the impact of all that melted ice water?

NB. the scientist also says that while it is potentially 'new' sink it isn't that huge in term s of capacity.

Does this show help show why we haven't yet 'seen' the effect of AWG on our weather (as opposed to climate)?

The clear take away message is that we are rapidly filling up available carbon sinks. The question therefore is what happens once they are 'full' (i.e. the ability of the environment 'as we know it' to resist catastrophic change for us)?

Mean while this post http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/is-pine-island-glacier-the-weak-underbelly-of-the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet/ suggests that the ice in Antarctic has serious issues thinning and if the ice sheets melt in front of glaciers (currently holding them back)the warmer waters will melt quicker. This article seems to indicate that the glaciers are currently moving faster.
While not a 'dramatic' example of the linking between slight water temperature increase it is non the less clear that it is happening.

Both articles shows that the simplistic A=B scenario presented by the media is misleading. What is undeniable is that changes are happening.

Are we suffering from 'new science'? If AGW is being driven by carbon dioxide, is it the same carbon dioxide that my science teacher taugh in 1950? If it has changed will someone please tell me?
Am I confused? Yes. Cool now equals 'good'. Hot has changed and several other words have altered their meaning.
If CO2 is still the plant food of my youth, it promotes strong plant growth. It is an essential life giving gas. It's the fizz in the fizzy drink; its great!
Unless someone such as Rudd, Turnbull, W(r)omg, Hunt, Macfarlaneand garrett has changed its meaning and not told me.
Google Rhodes Fairbridge.

Phoenix

It's isn't CO2 per se it is TOO much of it that is the problem. A bit like a good wine a glass a day is arguably OK but 4 bottles per day is a problem. A dozen a day is fatal. We're about the equivalent of 8 bottles a day.
As it is impossible to say 'which' bottle of wine gave the patient the sclerosis of the liver etc it is the same of climate change.

The precise measurement and process for S of L isn't fully understood we can still see it on a cat scan and know the various stages.

likewise we can tell that water acidity etc is changing and with it we see problems if we continue sclerosis of the environment is inevitable as is collapse if we ignore it.

"So that's where the CO2 is going?"

Here!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/11/10/airborne-fraction-of-human-co2-emissions-constant-over-time/#more-393

And Here!
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

And Here!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/#more-12294

And Here!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/04/video-of-lindzens-recent-presentation/#more-12459

Now stop perpetuating the lies told to you by that doomsdayer KRUD and his anal mate Gore. It's not helping anyone, thanks!

Beware the elephant in the cupboard. Recent evidence suggests that people who take proton pump inhibitors - Losec, Somac, Zoton, Nexium, Pariet, make and excrete more methane that those who don't - perhaps they will have to pay a carbon tax surcharge. My husband is currently researching the development of a PHARTOMETER to measure carbon excretion levels

RawMustard, many thanks for the links, I’ve been looking to see if any scientists had done work in this area.

Following some “well meaning amateur” research by me on the cdiac web site in April this year I posted the question << why has a 1,280% increase in total Fossil Fuel Combusted only resulted in a 30% increase in the residual ACC?>>

Whilst I did cop some abuse for this very silly question, I didn’t get any answers. It’s reassuring that at least my question appears to be valid.

Thanks.