Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Saturday, 10 January 2009

Greenhouse gases 'rise to record levels'

26/11/2008 8:17:00 AM.  | AFP
Levels of climate-warming greenhouses gases rose to record highs in 2007, leading to a one per cent increase in the overall warming effect, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) says.

Carbon dioxide rose 0.5 per cent from 2006 to reach 383.1 parts per million, while nitrous oxide levels were up 0.25 per cent, according to latest WMO statistics on Tuesday.

Methane meanwhile increased 0.34 per cent, surpassing the highest level recorded in 2003.

"Using the NOAA Annual greenhouse gas index, the total warming effect of all long-lived greenhouse gases was calculated to have increased by 1.06 per cent from the previous year and by 24.2 per cent since 1990," said the WMO.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen 37 per cent since the 18th century, added the WMO.

COMMENTS

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

There you go you evil sceptics.Read and weep! we are going to hell in a handbasket. Greenhouse gas the highest on record and North america had the coldest winter in 33 years. it snowed in Alabama. Mt Renier Glacier the exceeds the 1973 record snow fall. don't you realise that when the obeservations and data and records for what happens in the globe does not comply with the our computer models and media based hysteria then the globe is wrong. you silly sceptics you....

Posted by: Steve A, sydney

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

To all the global warming alarmists tune into Radio National this Friday at 1.00PM. Professor Ian Plimer will give you all lesson on this load of BS.

Posted by: Chester Draws, somewhere

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

i can give you just as many ''informed'' opinions who disagree with plimer. namely 99% of other scientists.

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Do they also disagree that the Titanic had to divert further south than the usual shipping route because of an unusually hot summer & an unusually mild winter had caused the sea to be uncharacteristically littered with ice bergs? Oh, that’s a minor point; never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Greenland was once "Green", Iceland was once "Ice". The whole thing is cyclical. James Cook recorded similar in his mariner’s diaries; was he wrong too? What caused Global Warming back then???

Posted by: Fair Minded Aussie, Australia

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

David I never knew science was based on consensus...

Posted by: d s, Sydney

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Dip Stick, Sydney. You have your minority of paid to lie scientist. They are well funded but they are not objective, which is more important in science than consensus. Consensus amongst scientists is however the ultimate test of scientific theory. Plimer is not revealing a new theory and fighting to change the consensus, he is one on the dinosaurs still refusing to accept the change that has now been accepted by the vast majority. Climate Change Septics are dying out.

Posted by: Graeme Henderson, Darling Downs

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Hendo ... Is Al Gore paid to lie or tell the truth?

Posted by: d s, Sydney

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

chester, with something like climate change, consensus is all we have,until it becomes a fact. theres a certain amount of 'faith' on both sides of the argument. plimer may be right . but he cannot prove it

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

different people have different opinions Trouble is policy and huge amounts of money is being spent on the basis of "opinion" See Bob Carter interview on you tube Interesting Opinions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU

Posted by: Steve A, sydney

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Here is another Opps from the Gate keepers of the global warming. after they announced that October was the hottest october on record , they found that the figures from Russia were a misprint from the month before so the anouncment was just wrong but it still made world headlines See retaction http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Posted by: Steve A, sydney

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Kevin Rudd, despite the hype about signing Kyoto and having ministers for the Environment and Climate Change, will not and cannot do anything about climate change. They are stuck in the mantra of "economic growth" at all costs. Cutting back is contrary to their aims, and to their interests. Future generations will pay the costs. 2 degrees warmer is too hot!

Posted by: Milly Osborne, Ivanhoe, Vic

Friday, 28 November 2008

As I sit here with a weather forecast of minus 5 tonight I reckon +2 degrees, bring it on !

Posted by: Mike Beggs, Southampton

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Milly Osborne, are you for real, 2 degrees is nothing. Most people like it getting hotter! Also it makes no sense if some places are getting colder winters. You can't explain that with greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere. We shouldn't be polluting and carbonising as much as we are, but let's separate the anti-pollution reasoning from the unproven "science" and "consensus" of climate change warming.

Posted by: Ben Agould, sydney

Friday, 12 December 2008

There are too many reputable and known scientists confirming climate change to argue about its existence and causes. Being a sceptic would be to argue with a rocket scientist about their research! The fact of warming is clear, but facts are open to interpretation as to why, how and exactly where. There is a difference between global warming and weather variations. Global trends and meta changes in our planet are slow, not a daily experience. The patterns of change will be irregular.

Posted by: Milly Osborne, Ivanhoe, Vic

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

News flash for all the doomsayers. The earth's average temperature has not increased for the last eleven years. Man's contribution in the way of gases has no effect whatsoever. Find something else to try to panic the world with. You greenies are so full of crap.

Posted by: Ken Milhinch, Melbourne

 

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Post script, I am aware of the theory that melting ice sheets can "cool" the waters and hence create cooling effects. Although I would hasten to say when then can we know if temperatures will rise or not? We can't make bets in both directions. Science isn't just about "observing and then commenting on the run." If climatologists were honest, they'd come out and say "we've got theories, but NONE of it is certain. Give us, oh a couple of decades and we'll let you know more." Cut pollution!

Posted by: Ben Agould2, sydney

 

Thursday, 27 November 2008

ken, your temp comments can be disputed. your comment about ' mans contribution is your personal opinion not a scientific fact. if there is 1%chance of gw being true we must act

Posted by: trevor crook, wiley pk

 

Thursday, 27 November 2008

Any scientist who doesn't question a theory that consistently disagrees with observation is not worth listening to. The reality is that many scientists do diasgree or at least question the theory that climate change is all driven by human CO2 emissions. These so called sceptics however don't get a grant by the IPCC and so their opinion is not included in the so called "consensus".

Posted by: Craig Scott, Baulkham Hills

 

Sunday, 30 November 2008

the majority of scientists dont get funds from the oil and coal industry either craig. just another conspiracy theory that scientists are willing to sell out for grants. theyd make more from the energy industry if they said climate change was nonsense. if scientists would do anything for money, science would never progress. the fact that it has, is a testimony to their dedication in searching for truth.

Posted by: david green, wiley pk

Sunday, 30 November 2008

I just wish what you have said was 100% correct. I know of 2 university professors in the U.S. that lost their funding because they did not agree with the mainstream. In my view if co2 is contributing it is in a very minor way and much greater forces are at play. The oil companies have no reason to worry as there is no viable alternative......that we know of.

Posted by: Paul Trood, Southport

 

Sunday, 30 November 2008

Great pictures of cooling towers. Looks like steam to me.

Posted by: Chester Draws, hell no

 

Sunday, 30 November 2008

The worst thing about the Climate Septics is that they apply "The Precautionary Principle" to their economy and their desire to profit from destruction, but they refuse to apply "The Precautionary Principle" to life on Earth. When the last tree is felled, the last river polluted and the last fish is dead, then you will find that you can't eat your money.

Posted by: Graeme Henderson, Darling Downs

 

Monday, 01 December 2008

paul, the ones [ if true ] that lost funding would be on the oil payroll by now. again your observations are purely your own personal opinion not scientific fact. there are alternatives to oil, but everyday the oil companies stall the motivation to find them, is another day of profit.and thats all they care about. if cc was a definite fact they would still pursue their profit agenda. they simply dont care of the consequences

Posted by: david green, ily pk

 

Monday, 01 December 2008

Graeme, maybe you should use "The Precautionary Principle" as regards a higher being. That is, there either is a God or there isn't a God. If you live a 'good Christian life' and there isn't a God when you die, nothing is really lost. However if there is a God, then eternal damnation. That makes sense now, doesn't it?

Posted by: Ian S, Casino

 

Tuesday, 02 December 2008

Henderson, wanting to cut pollution and preserve forests etc.. has nothing to do with being a "climate change sceptic". It is possible to campaign for conservation, pollution reduction without swallowing the UN "climate change" rubbish. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is not even the largest "greenhouse gas" (water vapour is). It is vital for life on earth including our precious forests and there is no evidence to link it to "climate change" (whatever that is).

Posted by: Craig Scott, Baulkham Hills

 

Friday, 05 December 2008

It's hard to imagine that there are still climate change sceptics out there still! Focusing on greenhouse gas emissions is far too simplistic and questionable. The real disease of the planet is over population of people. This means that natural resources are being squandered and there is more pollution and unreliable weather and loss of ecological patterns. Global "warming" may be appropriate in some areas, but overall the changes to our ecology are due to stress due to too many demands.

Posted by: Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

 

Friday, 12 December 2008

I'm not a climate change sceptic, I'm a global warming CO2 sceptic. Climate changes all the time. Could you please furnish me with what the climate should be (ie temperature, storm frequencies and intensities, cloud cover percentages and type, water vapour averages) - then we can compare it with historical figures and work out the man-made warming component. Read Craig's post - now that makes sense.

Posted by: Ian S, Casino

 
 

YOUR SAY




 


 

500 characters maximum. 500 characters left.


 

* Required field