Global warming

[Boerseun]

That's a good idea in principle, but unfortunately I don't see it happening easily. If there's a market for Burmese Teak, then someone somewhere will cut down the trees illegally and sell them at one hell of a premium. If they still get paid to not cut down the trees, it's a double whammy, and they make more money. Rhinoceros killing is illegal, but some idiot somewhere told the Chinese that the powdered horn of a rhinocerous is a powerful aphrodisiac. So, rhinos are poached left right and center, even in so-called protected areas. I don't think your scheme will work very well. After all, a rhino, when sniffing danger, can still run away. A tree is rather screwed in that department.

 

I think something that might make one heck of a difference is genetic engineering for cash crops. Imagine, if you will, a kind of maize which reaches market just as quickly as any other maize, or even faster. This maize has been genetically engineered to not only deliver better corn, but to grow a stem five times as thick as normal stems. This is done through extracting considerable more atmospheric carbon than normal maize. Okay - there are issues: thicker stems will make harvesting harder. This might be offset by the farmer being able to sell his now carbon surplus on the carbon market, affording the extra diesel to harvest thicker-stemmed corn, and putting a decent profit in his pocket. But with more and more surface area coming under agricultural land, changing agricultural crops to help solve the problem of atmospheric carbon might be a step in the right direction. Also, field grass can conceivably be engineered to grow taller and fatter - yielding not only better feed for open-range cattle and wild animals, but capturing much more carbon. This has complications like hotter and worse field-fires, but it's an interesting paradigm shift, which might yield interesting results if we discuss it objectively.

[freeztar]

You may question the need to "reward" people for *not* cutting down forests: afterall shouldn't it naturally be the case for them to *not* cut down trees? Well actually, no. To farmers and societies living around forests, the forest is not very helpful (the romantic notion of being able to live off the forest alone is, unfortunately, not very true); farming is more useful. To us, the opposite is definitely true, not having to endure the hardships of the farmers.

 

The forest is very helpful to farmers, if used properly (ie Terra Preta).

 

Also, "the romantic notion of being able to live off the forest alone" is not fiction. People are doing it everyday. I've sat with them and ate their food. I've witnessed the beauty and simplicity of what they do. I agree that most prefer to gravitate towards easier and flashier livings, but it does not invalidate those that don't.

 

Thus, consider an interesting paradox to anthropogenic global warming.

As we existed prior to modern life, we lived off of what was around and to be found, or grown. These days we are detached from essential needs and, in accordance with Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, seek higher-level goals. As our technology increases, so does our understanding. This understanding could potentially save the human race the "burden" of building up from the first block of Maslov's Heirarchy, a self-sustaining industry if you will.

This is a frightening paradox as there is no clear path and nature will always have its way with humans(intrinsic eh?), despite the best laid plans.

[Michaelangelica]

where did you get the info about Antarctica from? To the best of my knowledge, Antarctica is losing ice as well, at a heck of a rate, with the Ross Ice Shelf shrinking measurably? Maybe I'm wrong, but, hey - :shrug:

Antarctic ice sheet melting fast

Agençe France-Presse

 

 

Friday, 3 March 2006

 

Antarctic ice

A floating iceberg off the Antarctic Peninsula (Image: CU-Boulder National Snow and Ice Data Center)

Antarctica's mammoth ice sheet is in "significant decline", scientists say, probably due to climate change.

 

US researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder say online in the journal Science today the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 152 cubic kilometres of ice a year.

 

"This is the first study to indicate the total mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet is in significant decline," says Dr Isabella Velicogna, of the university's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

 

The team calculated that the ice sheet lost 152 cubic kilometres a year from April 2002 to August 2005, give or take 80 cubic kilometres.

News in Science - Antarctic ice sheet melting fast - 03/03/2006

Antarctic Glaciers' Sloughing Of Ice Has Scientists at a Loss

 

By Marc Kaufman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A02

 

Some of the largest glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland are moving in unusual ways and are losing increased amounts of ice to the sea, researchers said yesterday.

 

Although the changes in Greenland appear to be related to global warming, it remains unclear what is causing the glaciers of frigid Antarctica and their "ice streams" to lose ice to the ocean in recent years, the researchers said.

Antarctic Glaciers' Sloughing Of Ice Has Scientists at a Loss - washingtonpost.com

 

Plumbing leaks in melting Antarctic contributes to rising sea levels

Contributed by Stan Beer

Friday, 16 February 2007

Antarctica, which holds about 70% of the world's fresh water in its ice, is leaking water into the ocean through a vast

system of lakes and water ways beneath the ice, causing the sea level to rise, according to scientists using data from

NASA satellites.

Scientists have discovered more than 145 subglacial lakes, a smaller number of which composes the "plumbing system" in the Antarctic.

A team of scientists led by research geophysicist Helen Fricker of the

 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, detected for

 

the first time the subtle rise and fall of the surface of fast-moving

 

ice streams as the lakes and channels nearly a half- mile of solid ice

 

below filled and emptied.

 

 

The surface of the ice sheet appears stable to the naked eye, but

 

because the base of an ice stream is warmer, water melts from the basal

 

ice to flow, filling the system's "pipes" and lubricating flow of the

 

overlying ice. This web of waterways acts as a vehicle for water to

 

move and change its influence on the ice movement. Moving back and

 

forth through the system's "pipes" from one lake to another, the water

 

stimulates the speed of the ice stream's flow a few feet per day,

 

contributing to conditions that cause the ice sheet to either grow or

 

decay. Movement in this system can influence sea level and ice melt

 

worldwide.

 

http://www.itwire.com.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=9648

[TheBigDog]

BigDog, Freeztar, good posts, all.

 

Bill:

I think Freeztar answered most of my objections to your post, but what I want to know is where did you get the info about Antarctica from? To the best of my knowledge, Antarctica is losing ice as well, at a heck of a rate, with the Ross Ice Shelf shrinking measurably? Maybe I'm wrong, but, hey - :shrug:

 

I got my information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Summary for Policy Makers).

Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region.

It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM-4). The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are only simulated by models that include anthropogenic forcing. The ability of coupled climate models to simulate the observed temperature evolution on each of six continents provides stronger evidence of human influence on climate than was available in the TAR.

The average temperature on any given spot on the planet is going to show a different trend than other spots. I am looking at the results of an Ice Core, about six inches in diameter, measuring the temperature as indicated by snowfall in that locality. I still don't understand how we make the leap from that locality to global temperature. The temperature in that region of Antarctica could easily be out of sync with the rest of the globe. Since it is only possible to take ice core samples from places close to the poles it must be assumed that those results are indicative of the global temperature, not just local trends.

 

Another thing that comes to mind is that the dating system can be skewed by periodic loss of surface on the glacier. It is conceivable that one exceptionally warm season might melt or evaporate one or more meters from the surface of a glacier. That would erase many years of temperature record where the local temperature was at its warmest. I don't know how such potential phenomena is accounted for in the dating of the cores.

 

Also, please understand, I am not being a critic of the fact that global warming exists, I am trying to examine the science used to establish the historic trends. I am of the opinion that global warming is inevitable, and man's contribution is minimal. No one can yet say with certainty that the global temperature would be significantly different today if the industrial revolution had never taken place. That we contribute to the global temperature is not in question; the amount of our contribution is in question. And the responsibility of man for maintaining a certain status-quo for the earth is also dubious (I started a thread about that once).

 

How much slower would the Titanic have sunk if all the people had gotten safely into life boats in the first 5 minutes? (I am dubious about the use of this metaphor)

 

Bill

[jackson33]

Dog; according to NASA, who has an outpost on Antarctica and a satellite history of the poles. the Southern Pole as gained a very small amount of Ice, over all as the weights are causing some drop offs. they also say; that in the past 30 years this area as decreased in mean temperatures .06 per year.

 

most charts you see with long periods of temperature change, are based on composites of tree rings from around the world (back 1000), ice samples from both poles, ocean cores (as the ice) and written or suggested information going back to the limits of the charts, generally no more than 400k years. they use various methods to judge what conditions were like in addition to growing seasons. certainly they are not as accurate as todays tallies, but with in reasonable limits. both sides of GW use the same charts and cut the periods to meet their objective.

 

if we all quit driving today, worldwide a million plus people would not die this year and many more would not be injured. the GW, issue as suggested man made is routed on political and economic reasoning. right or wrong, few suggest any major differences, over the next 100 years. not likely but even 2-3 or even 5 degree change will mean little. animals will migrate to different areas and man may not choose to live in deserts. we have in the past as did the animals. even if it all goes back to the Dino period (+10F is said), much of life will go on and be waiting for the next ice age. on the other hand to ask 6.3 billion people to change there ways, based on what is surely a cycle and not mans cause, would upset to fastest growing world wide boom in history. everything from standards of living to food availability.

 

Opinion; CO2 degrades, falls back to earth or somehow is not around very long. this .045 of the total atmosphere feeds the entire life cycle on earth. the plants requires this apparent over abundant supply to live, producing our food and the oxygen we breath. we on the other and not near the mass of plant life, have 22% Oxygen in the air already. plants then are vital and in all ways our support on this planet, along with most animal and see life. directly or indirectly....well ill leave the opinion out...

[HydrogenBond]

I think the evidence shows that the planet is in a warming cycle. The debate is what is the major cause of this? As a way of balanced science, it would be useful to list all the possible sources, not just the one's that support one side of a political issue. Greenhouse gases are one important source. The earth itself giving off heat is another. This could explain the doom and gloomconcern over major earthquakes and super volcanos. (mantle material-heat coming to the surface). There is also the sun. Planet Mars is also undergoing global warming. It is probably all of these affects.

 

With respect to greenhouse gases, humans are a major contributer. But so are forest fires. Forest fires have a double affect, decreasing the amount of live bio-mass, thereby causing the absorption of CO2 to decline at the same time more CO2 is putted into the atmosphere. There is also solubility affects in water, with warm water dissolving less CO2 than cold water. As such, any planetary warming will increase atmospheric CO2 levels, independant of cause. There is also acid rain. Much of the soil has limestone or CaCO3, which could conceivably give off CO2 due to the acid rain. That's another one for the human affect.

 

Human affects are more than just autos and factories. Deforestation reduces the absorption of CO2 because of less live bio-mass. All the livestock needed to provide meat generate a lot of CO2. As funny as it sounds, cow farts is about 10% of the total. How about carbonated beverages. Every time you pour a coke on ice, CO2 is released. How about landfills and sewer plants that decompose our waste. See that flame coming out of a capped landfill, they are adding CO2. What about the sunday barbecue using gas, charcoal or wood. All the resturants needed to give us fast food or slow food give off CO2. All that stuff in the grocery stores was trucked in, giving off CO2. Consider how much CO2 is releases to get special bottled water from anywhere not local. All those products that we like that are manufactored, i.e., clothes, computers, cells phones, digital TV's, etc., give off greenhouse gases in many steps in the process, even before they are shipped around the world and then trucked to our local store. If we give up all these fun things that would put a bent in greenhouse gases.

[Michaelangelica]

Jeffrey Severinghaus: Andrew Bolt, a conservative columnist, used my research to argue that CO2 does not cause global warming when in fact my research found nothing of the kind, but what we did find was that the CO2 concentrations do rise slightly after Antarctic temperature at the ends of ice ages.

But that's only about one-fifth of the total warming that's involved there, so all you can really conclude from my research is that CO2 did not cause the first one-fifth of the warming. That's not actually that surprising; there's lots of things besides CO2 that cause climate to change, like distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Science Show - 10 March 2007  - Reporting CO2

[sprunch]

I'm confused as to why people are so skeptical of the IPCC's validity. If someone would like to explain why/what they are concerned about, I would appreciate it. The IPCC does not generate new scientific findings, but instead collaborates all recent scientific publishings into a coherent summary. The end result is actually quite conservative (including estimates), due to the amount of oversight there is on their work. The individual parts are written by scientists and get both government and expert reviews and comments. They must respond to ALL comments or questions raised during the review portion of their work.

[jackson33]

spruch; the short answer is skepticism, motivation and opposition.

 

many of us have lived through scientific pending catastrophes, government projections of major problems and in fact much of what many call natural cycles. these things seem to get overblown for reasons other than the original or intended purpose. some things the proverbial wolf called; global cooling, we were all going to freeze as the planet became covered in ice. as i recall this was to happen about 2000. overpopulation; i recall in School my professor laid out a very believable essay on how the world would never handle populations over 4 billion. the outline included food, housing, water treatments and the works. well of course were at 6 heading for 7 billion and things look pretty good to me. ozone hole; if we didn't quit doing all kinds of things and change as many more we would all have cancer in 10 or so years.

well, it turned out before we could accomplish anything the hole was filling back in, understanding of ozone and solar activity has turned on the sun for the problem and i do not think we can alter this effect. natural gas; along with estimates of oil availability, gas was called a lost cause and nothing could be done. we were just going to run out. gas companies quit taking on new customers, people and business change energy sources, hundreds of small companies went out of business and tens of thousands lost jobs, home and even their future. some one then called *April Fools*, and all that was changed or lost gone with never a shortage in the first place. there are many such examples and now its GW...

 

there are groups, in the US and in particular around the world that oppose everything from Capitalism to just being free. government, politician,certain groups, even religious clergy cannot just start condemning people for being wealthy, a successfully business venture, or a nation built on any form of system where every one can benefit. to attack would be self destructive, so via another issue, its at least possible. though the underling reasons for using GW, is rarely mentioned, it generally is the purpose for an attack on something else.

 

meteorologist, the folks that give you weather reports each night on TV or keep track of Hurricanes or maintain Accue weather are in general opposed to the GW theory in general. additionally most other fields where cycles are important to their study, know these things have happened before and regardless of mans efforts will happen again.

[sprunch]

ozone hole; if we didn't quit doing all kinds of things and change as many more we would all have cancer in 10 or so years.

well, it turned out before we could accomplish anything the hole was filling back in, understanding of ozone and solar activity has turned on the sun for the problem and i do not think we can alter this effect.

 

While I understand the point you are trying to make, that the ozone layer did not, in fact, fill itself back in. The cause of the growing hole was CFCs (chloroflourocarbons) in things such as aerosol cans. The ozone layer's depletion stopped for a number of reasons: because we found a replacement for CFCs, there was global consensus that it was an eminent threat, and the U.S. and Western European government took a strong hand in forcing things to happen. There were no active disinformation campaigns intentionally made to confuse the public. Also, it only cost 1 billion to eradicate CFCs globally, making it a much easier target to pinpoint than global warming. We could, hopefully, mitigate the damage done with global warming if the U.S. and the E.U. can unite and take charge of the situation.

 

 

Additionally, in regards to your statement on the oil crisis, I can only guess that you are talking about the scare in the 70s with OPEC, and that was caused by OPEC only putting out a limited amount of oil to artificially hike prices. Maybe I am wrong about what you are referring to, but I cannot think of another time in history where that happened. We are on a path to being out of petroleum right now, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

 

I respect your skepticism, but I think that it would be better for everyone to be more educated on what they are skeptical about so that when trying to defend why you do not believe in something it is more coherent. Personally, I do not think that global warming is caused by people who are trying to destroy capitalism. Originally when we began polluting obscenely (in the Industrial Revolution), we did not know what we were doing wrong an we cannot blame ourselves for the damage done initially. In contrast, we do now, and we ought to take charge and reverse our course of action, because what we are doing now is irresponsible and will have a lasting impact on our environment and how long the earth can sustain our lifestyles.

[Zythryn]

Sprunch, you will half to forgive Jackson. His information comes from Rush Limbaugh, and when shown that some of it is incorrect, he simply repeats it.

 

Skepticism is a good thing. But not unthinking skepticism. Logical skepticism that leads to research which supports, or disproves the theory.

 

Just as with the cigarette industries hiring doctors and paying PR firms huge amounts to 'spin' cancer causing cigarettes, some of the same hired scientist and marketing firms have been put into action now.

 

We need to study the issue of GW more, not close our eyes and pretend it isn't there.

 

Jackson does raise an excellent point about the fact that people have heard about potential disasters before which have not come to pass. However, much of this is due to the media, not science.

Also, when would you (Jackson) have a scientist who is aware of a small chance of a disaster occuring, alert people? What if the disaster will wipe out 2 Million people. When the chance is 1%? How about 10%, or 20%? What if it is only a .01% chance?

 

Now, what will the media do with it when they get a hold of the story? They sensationalize it.

 

This is no reason to not listen to scientists, but it is reason to be wary of anything the media (by the way, Rush Limbaugh is a part of the media;)) tells you and follow up with the references.

[jackson33]

i mentioned Mr. Limbaugh as a referance to Al Gore, some time back but frankly even then for lack of desire to give a source. there were plenty and as i said then any one professing some of this GW trash, should already know the arguments opposed.

 

the Gas shortage (Natural Gas) was in the late sixties. my interest was in the effects, not so much what was to create the issue. the 70's and the resulting gas lines etc., were a different problem and yes much as stated above.

 

i try to listen to all GW theory for the political reasons. trying to figure from which angle the real idea comes from. Al Gore was easy in that he lost all credibility and his efforts to justify his loss as contrived lost ground, rerouted his attacks as he did in the early 90's, then successfully. in my opinion and currently, most are political or anti-government with a touch of isolationism.

 

since i am concerned first; in economic health, second; in less government involvement in all life's activity, third; world economic growth, which i feel will solve many of societies problems and last; honesty in comment that can cause problems for the first three.

 

time after time i hear or read in some forum, that GW is the most important thing that has ever happened and its all our fault. school kids are REQUIRED to see this Al Gore production, listening to his personal life story and in some places i understand parents are required to attend a view of effect their child's grade (think in Florida). this to me is pure non sense, bordering on communistic tactics to incite a public into distrust for the very government it has elected.

 

Spruch; i do NOT oppose, change in activity. i feel we can reduce dependency, create new industry and in many ways over all improve living standards here and the world. i follow solar energy with great interest. also i feel battery or some form of storage, for domestic purposes are likely in short order. this where energy you are using at any one time was already stored. as you use this its replaced and no more surge, brown outs or failures in supply can effect daily life. many other things as well in all forms of alternative energy or the ways they are used. i just don't think we need to bring in hypothetical situations to give cause for major potential disruption in life...

[Buffy]

Even Newt Gingrich is for doing something "urgently" about Global Warming!

 

From a debate today he had with John Kerry on this and other subjects (via CNN & ThinkProgress):

KERRY: I’m excited to hear you talk about the urgency — I really am. And given that — albeit you still sort of have a different approach — what would you say to Sen. Inhofe and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science? What’s your message to them here today?

 

GINGRICH: My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon-loading of the atmosphere.

 

KERRY: And to it urgently — and now…

 

GINGRICH: And do it urgently. Yes.

 

If I can, let me explain partly why this is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative. For most of the last 30 years, the environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. And therefore, if you’re a conservative, the minute you start hearing these arguments, you know what’s coming next: which is bigger government and higher taxes.

 

So even though it may be the right thing to do, you end up fighting it because you don’t want big government and higher taxes. And so you end up in these kinds of cycles. And part of the reason I was delighted to accept this invitation and I’m delighted to be here with Sen. Kerry is I think there has to be a if you will a “green conservatism” — there has to be a willingness to stand up and say alright here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our value system.

 

So hold your nose if you have to, but lets *work together* on doing what makes sense about Global Warming...and urgently!

 

Not everything is a partisan issue,

Buffy

[freeztar]

Good post B!

 

If a Newt can do it...

[Zythryn]

It was a very interesting debate. Very refreshing too. Not a debate over 'Is it happening' but of 'how do we combat it'.

[erich]

Yes.......Now with the recent Court finding that the EPA has a duty to regulate CO2, the main debate now is Cap & Trade VS. a Carbon Tax.

 

 

Please excuse my REPUBLICAN prefacing, but I got to say things in a way that these people can hear. "Creation Care" what a hoot, but I don't care what the evangelical Christians call it , a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

 

Here is my latest post to Rep. Bob Goodlatte (House Agriculture committee) after speaking to him at his Agriculture Conference in Staunton VA on 3/19/07, concerning issues for the up coming Farm bill.

I also got to button hole Bruce Knight,USDA under secretary for marketing and regulation, Arlen Landcaster, Chief of The National Resource & Conservation Service (USDA), and John Bricker, Virginia State Conservationist

 

 

"Dear Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Bricker and Mr. Goldberg,

 

Thanks for hearing my concerns about regulations to support validation of Carbon Credits for the Sequestration of Charcoal in the soils at your Agriculture Conference Monday.

 

This soil technology could be the perfect Republican environmental plank. A truly conservative position to take on the stewardship of the planet , a real form of "Creation Care".

 

 

After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology

can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.

 

Below is my review of these efforts in the Academic and private sectors, please forward this to all the experts you know, if you think it merits their time and support.

 

Sen. Byrd and Sen. Rockefeller of W VA and Rep. Udall had very positive responses to Terra Preta soils technology proposals presented to them.

 

Thanks for your attention

 

Erich J. Knight

Shenandoah Gardens

E-mail: shengar at aol.com

(540) 289-9750

 

 

 

Could you please consider looking for a champion for this orphaned Terra Preta(TP) Carbon Soil Technology.

 

The main hurtle now is to change the current perspective held by the IPCC that the soil carbon cycle is a wash, to one in which soil can be used as a massive and ubiquitous Carbon sink via Charcoal. Below are the first concrete steps in that direction;

 

Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.

Potential Carbon Emissions Reductions from Biomass by 2030

by Ralph P. Overend, Ph.D. and Anelia Milbrandt

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

http://www.ases.org/climatechange/toc/07_biomass.pdf

 

 

The organization 25x25 (see 25x'25 - Home) released it's (first-ever, 55-page )"Action Plan" ; see http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/d...ActionPlan.pdf

On page 31, as one of four foci for recommended RD&D, the plan lists: "The development of biochar, animal agriculture residues and other non-fossil fuel based fertilizers, toward the end of integrating energy production with enhanced soil quality and carbon sequestration."

and on p 32, recommended as part of an expanded database aspect of infrastructure: "Information on the application of carbon as fertilizer and existing carbon credit trading systems."

 

I feel 25x25 is now the premier US advocacy organization for all forms of renewable energy, but way out in front on biomass topics.

 

 

There are 24 billion tons of carbon controlled by man in his agriculture , I forgot the % that is waste, but when you add all the other cellulose waste which is now dumped to rot or digested or combusted and ultimately returned to the atmosphere as GHG, the balanced number is around 24 Billion tons. So we have plenty of bio-mass.

 

Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.

 

 

 

If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP website I've been drafted to administer. Terra Preta | Intentional use of charcoal in soil

It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of G. I. T. , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.

[freeztar]

Here's something hot off the press:

 

Environmentalists fear that a key climate report to be published this week is using outdated science, and will lead to dangerous climate change.

 

Campaigners say the IPCC's economics report has based its recommendations on the safe limit of atmospheric CO2 being 550 parts per million (ppm).

 

But more recent scientific studies now put that figure at 450ppm, they argue.

 

Attempts by the report's authors to amend the findings to reflect the new data have been resisted by the Chinese.

 

The row threatens to undermine the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting, which is being held in Bangkok, Thailand.

More here..

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | CO2 row threatens climate report

 

Unfortunately they don't mention which scientific studies, conducted by who. It must be pretty convincing though if it has China on edge. Personally, I think we should dig our heels in the ground where we are at and study it more before making policies that can potentially make or break us. One hundred ppm is a pretty big discrepancy imo!