U.N.: Greenhouse gases hit high in 2006

[Blake]

Not sure what the rules are for quoting an online page for news, but I'll just post a link. Intresting reading...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071123/...cFwNgSfjRv24cA

[Harold]

A good read. not looking great for near future?H

[hobbit]

I'd say posting news links is fine IFF it's not a subscription/
signup site, if it doesn't rely on nonstandard browser features
to work, and it's likely to stay put for the indefinite future.
Otherwise it's best to cross-post the text, so everyone can
have it..
.
_H*

[Blake]

GENEVA - Two of the most important Greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere reached a record high in 2006, and measurements show that one — carbon dioxide — is playing an increasingly important role in global warming, the U.N. weather agency said Friday.

The global average concentrations of carbon dioxide, or CO2, and nitrous oxide, or N2O, in the atmosphere were higher than ever in measurements coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization, said Geir Braathen, a climate specialist at the Geneva-based agency.

Methane, the third of the three important greenhouse gases, remained stable between 2005 and 2006, he said.

Braathen said measurements show that CO2 is contributing more to global warming than previously.

CO2 contributed 87 percent to the warming effect over the last decade, but in the last five years alone, its contribution was 91 percent, Braathen said. "This shows that CO2 is gaining importance as a greenhouse gas," Braathen said.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose by about half a percent last year to reach 381.2 parts per million, according to the agency. Nitrous oxide totaled 320.1 parts per billion, which is a quarter percent higher than in 2005.

Braathen said it appears the upward trend will continue at least for a few years.

The World Meteorological Organization's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides widely accepted worldwide data on the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Studies have shown that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions heat the Earth's surface and cause greater water evaporation. That leads to more water vapor in the air, which contributes to higher air temperatures. CO2, methane and N2O are the most common greenhouse gases after water vapor, according to the meteorological organization.

They are produced by natural sources, such as wetlands, and by human activities such as fertilizer use or fuel combustion.

There is 36.1 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was in the late 18th century, primarily because of combustion of fossil fuels, the World Meteorological Organization bulletin said.

A report presented by a U.N. expert panel said last week that average temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, and that 11 of the last 12 years have been among the warmest since 1850. Global Warming also led to a sea level increase by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The panel's report, which said human activity is largely responsible for global warming, noted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far higher than the natural range over the last 650,000 years.

The World Meteorological Organization also concluded that "Greenhouse gases are major drivers of global warming and climate change."

The World Meteorological Organization said it based its findings on readings from 44 countries.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast that by 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.

[ufourya]

The U.N. and its attendant hysteria mongers need to get in touch with the latest science - that is the peer reviewed studies that have recently shown that CO2 is NOT, I repeat NOT, the cause of global warming:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf

Please note that it is a PDF file, but it is short (5 pages) and there are further links to the pertinent studies. The science the IPCC uses ended in 2006; new, more recent studies will no doubt have to fight the uphill battle through the politically converted scientists feeding at the trough of the billions dollar 'climate change' industry. Those grants are hard to give up. But in the end, REAL science always wins these battles. Let's just hope that it takes less time than it took for Galileo to be vindicated.

Thought you should know.

And for a real treat, look at what the Bali U.N. conference attendees have to suffer through:

http://www.instapunk.com/

Look for 'Crashing the Global Warming Jet Set."

It is estimated that the attendees produced the equivalent carbon footprint of 20,000 cars used for a year to arrive at their destination and return! The good news is that it won't matter.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by ufourya

The U.N. and its attendant hysteria mongers need to get in touch with the latest science - that is the peer reviewed studies that have recently shown that CO2 is NOT, I repeat NOT, the cause of global warming:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evan...NotCauseGW.pdf

Please note that it is a PDF file, but it is short (5 pages) and there are further links to the pertinent studies. The science the IPCC uses ended in 2006; new, more recent studies will no doubt have to fight the uphill battle through the politically converted scientists feeding at the trough of the billions dollar 'climate change' industry. Those grants are hard to give up. But in the end, REAL science always wins these battles. Let's just hope that it takes less time than it took for Galileo to be vindicated.

Thought you should know.

And for a real treat, look at what the Bali U.N. conference attendees have to suffer through:

http://www.instapunk.com/

Look for 'Crashing the Global Warming Jet Set."

It is estimated that the attendees produced the equivalent carbon footprint of 20,000 cars used for a year to arrive at their destination and return! The good news is that it won't matter.

.....


Another piece of trash reporting trying to discount the human cause of global warming. I'll be glad when the people who are pushing an agenda to discredit gobal warming scientist find something else to spew out lies and false reports about.

I hate to bring it to this, but 98% of every website that is anti human caused global warming is backed by religous funds. I'm not trying to say that religon has a reason to say humans are not to cause for it... I just find it very curious that most of them are a spinoff of a religous group.

[GrendelKhan]

Here's some "hysteria mongering" to think about from the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

No summer ice in the Arctic by 2013-ish.

-Gren

[Blake]

And what if they are correct? Personally it goes back to this... http://view.break.com/311805

An unargueable plan on global warming. I'm tired of debating wether its happening or not. Its happening people, wake up.

Also, this post is NOT intended to be directed at any one person, just in general to the skeptics, which frankly I'm amazed to find here.

[ufourya]

Gren - The link you provided leads once again to projections based on MODELLING. There are skeptics among climate scientists who produce peer-reviewed papers that counter the politically driven agenda of the U.N. and Al Gore, in my opinion. Also, while ice is melting in the northern regions, it is increasing in the southern. Really, we can't reliably predict local weather much beyond a week, yet we are being asked to bet world-wide economic progress on some very tenuous projections a century into the future. I certainly hope some reason finds its way into the debate.

And, Blake, I hope your knee didn't injure you.

You obviously have your mind made up and are not open to any other viewpoint than the one you believe in. I don't think you followed the first link or read the material. That is not what science is all about. I hate to break it to you, but 'consensus' doesn't make it so. REAL science deals in provable, repeatable data, not wild conjecture based on complex models. Now that there is substantial evidence that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, you are going on about religion. I can understand that since that is what the climate change hysterics are - religious zealots. No HERETICS ALLOWED - BURN THE SKEPTICS! By the way, skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming are funded about 1000% less than the high priests of the true believers.

The U.N./IPCC/Gore adherents are politically entrenched, unfortunately, and are willing to sell the poor countries who will be damaged by their schemes to hell in a hand-basket.

I know you didn't direct your comment toward me individually, since you said so, but this skeptic comes here because he's interested in automobiles, alternate energy and saving money with hypermiling techniques. I'm also interested in the truth and will continue to be so.

No one really doubts that we are experiencing some global warming. The crux of the matter and what is definitely not settled science is the claim that humans are MOSTLY responsible for it. We may be, but it's not through producing CO2 and its greenhouse effect.

I realize this will have zero effect on you - just sayin'.

PS. I confess that I haven't viewed your linked-to video - I'm a poor guy still on a dial-up modem and it hasn't downloaded yet.

[GrendelKhan]

Agreed. Back a few years, I think it was somewhat acceptable for the average person to hear the information vs disinformation campaign and not come to the obvious conclusions about the risks. Even choosing to stay partially-misinformed blissfully ignorant because the "news" told us they were giving a "fair and balanced" report. First it was,
"there is no global warming",
then it was
"ok, there is 'climate change', but it's not as bad as they say it is",
then it was
"ok, it's bad, but it's because of the methane in cow and termite farts",
then it was the sun, then it wasn't,
now it's "but it's not caused by carbon dioxide".

Next it will be
"ok, it's caused by carbon dioxide, but not from oil".

But it is.

And now? No Arctic summer sea ice in 6 years? What else will be that much worse than the models predict? How much worse?

Just how much worse must it get before people wake up? It's WAY past time to do something.

Sure, it's fun to find a piece of propaganda and tell everyone that they're all wrong... Or to hang on desperately to some weakness in the models. But to ignore the risks? I don't care what side of the so-called "debate" anyone is on, anyone who is ignoring the risks at this point has their head up their butt. Sure, go on hoping for the best, but prepare for the worst a little bit, eh? What might we be leaving the kids?

We're supposed to believe that a report with comments like:
"(Gratuitous advice for those whose jobs depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming: Find another job to pay your mortgage and feed your kids!)"
is "peer reviewed"? Give me a break. Which peers? Sounds like salesmanship to me.

No Arctic summer sea ice in 6 years? This is a problem, yes. But it indicates a really really big problem. With enormous risks.

If it makes any of you feel better, I really think it's too late to do anything about it now. But maybe best to lie to the kids.

-Gren

Originally Posted by Blake

I'm tired of debating wether its happening or not. Its happening people, wake up.