Australia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This was Kevin Rudd’s first official act as the new Australian Prime Minister.
But according to an international law expert, Donald Rothwell, without domestic legislation in place the new government could be in breach of its international legal obligations.
According to the Professor, the normal method for ratifying treaties is not a speedy process but rather involves the preparation of a national impact analysis, then a parliamentary inquiry and enacting new domestic laws.
No national impact analysis had been undertaken on Kyoto – but we have ratified nevertheless.
-----------------------
Thanks to Ian Mott for the story.
Регистрация доменов в зоне RU по 115 рублей за год,
подробности на сайте - http://www.rusureg.ru, icq - 575225
If total atmospheric volume is 5,300,000,000Gt then 1ppm is 5,300Gt and the current 380ppm would mean total CO2 is only 2,000,000Gt, not 3,000,000Gt. But the question raised by Allen is just as valid.
Nuh - they'll just be ignored as a rabble.
So thats it, throw out the law?
"If the temperature went up linearly for the next 20 years you guys would say it's something else."
Not necessarily. Depends if there was another explanation except CO2. If temps do go up linearly, and it's a verifiable rise, and there's no other explanation, then AGW starts to look more likely. Let's see what happens.
"They also need to abandon the "secret society" and "mafiaso" style and become much more open and inclusive. For example CSIRO and BoM invited to each Lavoisier meeting and so on ... but that's not gonna happen is it."
I suppose they could hold a press conference at a big climate Change meeting. Do you think that would work?
Allen - totally disingenous - the reward states they only pay if they like it (= never), no correspondence entered into. Come on now - now really. If the temperature went up linearly for the next 20 years you guys would say it's something else. Anyone can put up something like that. Of more interest is the very few denialists who have accepted a fair bet with James Annan.
As for the "teensy weensy" CO2 argument - utterly non-scientific an simply the old "appeal to ridicule" ruse - indeed there has been a very good experiment to measure the increase in downward longwave flux.
The one thing that is utterly certain is that the contrarians in the above letter have failed miserably over the years to distinguish themselves in this debate. And so their efforts are now simply ignored.
They may wish to consider their communication style if they have something serious to say.
Indeed if they do seriously believe their viewpoint, it is encumbent upon them to detail a non-emotional non-political science based case as to why alternative explanations do work and why current science is wrong.
This is not with hand waving and x-y plots either.
They also need to abandon the "secret society" and "mafiaso" style and become much more open and inclusive. For example CSIRO and BoM invited to each Lavoisier meeting and so on ... but that's not gonna happen is it.
Allen, all I did was explain how gases which by mass are a small fraction of the atmosphere can nonetheless be the conduit for all of the warming. Milloy's award pertains to AGW and the economics of mitigation. If the UN is right then yes, someone should be able to win the prize just by reproducing IPCC arguments, but there are many more steps required which I, at least, cannot yet personally reproduce. The prediction of catastrophic AGW, for example, doesn't just involve the increase in temperature directly arising from having extra CO2, it also includes positive feedbacks whose magnitude is supposed to be at least twice that of the direct increase.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-david-evans-is-wrong-along-with-all.html
And then the economics of it is going to be even more difficult to demonstrate. At least, I don't know of a comparably simple statement of the argument. (Stern's calculation got a lot of press but as it was such a recent development, the economic impact of Kyoto must have been discussed in 1997 or 1992 in some other way.) Nonetheless, I seem to be learning incrementally, and the competition remains open for another year. So, who knows? 🙂
Allen Ford - "Can anybody explain to me how such an insignificant quantity of a gaseous substance can possible heat up the entire column of air?”"
The answer it that it doesn't do it all alone. Water Vapour does the bulk of it and CO2 contributes anywhere from 30% to 10% of the warming along with other greenhouse gases.
Also the CO2 does not heat anything itself. It simply traps some of the enormous amount of energy that is radiated from the Earth after it is heated by the Sun.
Toxicology is relevant because your sole claim, in the calculations you made, is that simply because an element is present in small quantities it cannot be significant. SJT provided an example where an element in tiny quantities has a profound effect. There are many many examples in Nature where small concentrations of one element can leverage another system to provide an out of proportion effect.
Sour grapes!
Allen Ford - "Well, that's it then. Go straight to junkscience.com and claim your just reward."
Have you read the rules of the reward? Any climate scientist could claim it however it is totally at the discretion of JunkScience to accept the explanation therefore the challenge is nothing.