I read this at the bottom of one of the sites referenced!

“However, August 2008 was still 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above August 2007, despite the record-breaking rate of decline over the past month. Why would this be? The best explanation for this is that this summer did not experience the “perfect storm” of atmospheric conditions seen throughout the summer of 2007.”

The goal of “sustainable energy production” is totally admirable and I advocate this wholeheartedly.

Please keep an open mind and read alternative perspectives.. Keep differing perspectives on the table and observe events as they occur objectively.

One further response relating to the term “Climate Change”. First we had the term “Greenhouse effect”, which has now been replaced by the far more vague term “Climate Change”, which can used to embrace almost any climatic variation, including warming, cooling and more or less wind, rain etc.

Instead of having somthing measurable (such as temperature increase - relating to the greenhouse effect), we have a term that is immeasurable and cannot be refuted (called Climate Change). This term has been chosen by those behind the peusdoscience, so they can have it “all ways” (temperatures increasing and decreasing, more or less storms etc. ) and so continue to mislead us…

Go back to the science, and read the papers yourself….

When the article used the words “greenhouse gas emissions from the use of nitrogen fertiliser” I didn’t realise it was referring to “total greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils”.

I had made the mistake of thinking that in the article you were referring to nitrogen fertiliser added to the soil by farmers. I hope other readers did not make the same mistake.

Thanks again.

While I should respect others right to have different ideas, I find yours hard to grasp. Surely a goal of sustainable energy production is important even if you don’t believe in climate change? Remember fossil fuels are a finite source!

To try and a link global warming conspiracy to people wanting to build nuclear power generation is quite comical. I’d say the majority of people that are concerned about the environment are well aware of the damaging consequences of using nuclear power generation.

Michael

N2O emissions from agricultural soils (direct + indirect): 5,124 Gg CO2-e.
Road transport: 12,795.7 Gg CO2-e.

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/nir-jul07/html/

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/nir-jul07/nir-jul07.pdf

Take a look at this re the ice melt
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/090408.html

As for your theories on climate change - for starters you are confusing global warming with climate change.

‘Global warming’ is a general increase in warming of the earth’s atmosphere caused largely our greenhouse gas emissions (co2, methane etc) that results in climate change. Climate change manifests in many ways including warmer weather, colder weather, wetter weather, more extreme storms, dryer weather - all depending on which part of the glob you’re in.

As for your theory about the sun I’m afraid you’ve been misled by crackpot climate sceptics.

Have a look at this

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

A pixel-by-pixel comparison of photos taken between Aug 2007 and Aug 2008 of the arctic region show a 30% increase in arctic ice. We are experiencing cooling across the globle, and this is due to a sharp reduction in sunspots for 2008. Sydney has just experienced its coldest August in 60 years, in New Zealand we have had a very cold winter with near record snow falls and in Britain the summer temperatures have barely got over 16 C.

The climate change we have been experiencing has been a solar system wide phenomenon due to the natural cycle of the sun, and is not related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In particular it is worth noting that there is a lag of 200-800 years between temperature increase and CO2 in the atmosphere - thus indicating CO2 is a consequence of warming (due to CO2 ocean solubility) and not a cause. There are many scientific papers that support this differing view and I invite you to read the, please visit (http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm).

Why has there been a phony campaign to relate CO2 to earth warming? The goal has been to change the economics of energy production away from fossil fuels, and also to make Nuclear power its most viable alternative.

These carbon markets and international treaties will be used (along with shortages of supply) to price fossil fuels to higher and higher levels… waiting in the wings is the most environmentally dangerous form of energy to man - Nuclear power, which has been rebranded to us as “environmentally safe”.

There are already many new reactors on their way in Britain, Europe and the US, and more are about to follow in other parts of the world which will pose a huge challenge to the environment for hundreds if not thousands of years to come.

So lets not pat ourselves on the back over this one!