Over last 30 years CO2 emissions have increased dramtically.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm

But over the same time period, the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 contration has been nearly constant.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html

Now, how can emissions skyrocket, while actual CO2 concentration continues to go up at the same rate?

Any explanation for the high levels from central Africa?

James I sen you an email,via the highlighted link it bounced. no "worldcambio.org"
can you supply a legitimate address?

Rafael,
I would suggest that the "new cambrian' Believers, while seemingly drawing on historical evidence from various geopaleontological evidence and therefore have that much credibility, I suggest that the best scientific evidence we have today is quite appropriate as a working model.
I prefer to believe in best case scenarios, ie I have no choice but to remain optomistic.
A logical aproach to the situation is to recognise that an even worse than worst case scenario could eventuate if people lose nerve or faith or belief in their ability to make a difference . On that basis, I dont think postulating beyond that wich can be understood. (there is much of the world we dont understand at all well.)And here lies some powerfull tools, If we can understand and utilise them.

Rafael, I have difficulty interperating the realclimate.org analysis as inconsistent with my earlier post.
Because the realclimate analysis 1: Is dated march 07.
My comment refers to post feb07 data. 2: The RClimate analysis specifically states that the worst case 1M data inputs DO NOT include runaway conditions.(even though here are hints pointing towards this possibility and so is consistant with latest...
The FEB data on which the IPCC report is based predates the realclimate analysis. This suggests to me that the latest prediction while not neccesarily fully accepted yet will become the benchmark for the next while.
It seeems to me you ae sugesting he most optomistic analysis on only some of he advice available in feb-mach. That doesnt apply when we know tat runnaway is real. So Conservatively 1.4M, followed by From the same authors(climate modelling) 7M sounds quite appropriate. I just hope he statistical model will stand still fo a while.
I really dont see any change from (my) head down approach will work any better. We can only do our best and on that level, I have tremendous faith in all our abilities.
I am interperating this 7 M prediction as a done deal. And hope that actions we are asking for will see the slowing and eventual reversal of he trend.
Now the certainty of that I can't say, But I do know that dropping the baby is not an option at any stage.
If I or my kids or theres are going to have a future.

@ Rafael -
==ocean levels are expected to rise, but not nearly as fast or as far as you are suggesting. Realclimate.org quotes the current IPCC estimates of 18-59cm by the last decade of the 21st century, relative to levels at the end of the 20th.==

Actually the current IPCC synthesis report says that:

IPCC: "Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. The projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, therefore the upper values of the ranges are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/18/123840/77

James Hansen goes over why the sea level rise issues are being vastly underrated. (Pretty much, not many researchers want to stick their neck out on the issue)
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen.pdf

Another study by Drew Shindell finds that Tropospheric Ozone may be our prime culprit for glaciers melting.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060314/

@andrew
It's not an article, it's a pamphlet, a rant from someone who also discredits four decades of solid plate tectonics science, on a website named 'the axis of good'...we heard before similar trolls during the reich

Yes, the only reason that contrarians can't come up with peer reviewed evidence is that there's a Hilter conspiracy blocking them from being heard.

Thats the type of argument that you guys are reduced to ;D

Grey Falcon:

It is not about labelling science or scientists, it is about fraudulent interpretation of the science. For particular question of sea level rise there are hundreds of pier-reviewed and published articles which do not confirm catastrophic sea level rise scenario. For one take a look here (reviews are based strictly on published papers):

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/subject_s.jsp

You do not like commentary of Idso? Fine with me. But reference articles and presented data are genuine.

GreyFalcon:

You still continue to label the messengers rather than getting to the point.

Idso is respected scientist with couple of hundreds of scientific publications, and members of his family are renowned scientists at the field too. Their opinion, however polemic it is, could not be dismissed easily.

And you are totally messed-up with global temperatures. Official global temperature record is compiled by Hansen in US and Jones in England from surface weather stations measurements of air temperature at 1.5 meter off surface. It is totally messed-up and massaged to fit the agenda. Satellite global measurements are measurements of air temperatures in lower 5 kilometers of troposphere, made by sensing of radiative heat emissions of oxygen molecules. They are calibrated by test measurements of weather balloons, and while conforming generally to surface temperature data, they do not show extend of lower troposphere warming as surface stations data suggests.

Water vapor does not magnify warming. It moderates temperature swings between night and day, summer and winter, tropics and temperate climatic zones, and serves as heat exchange agent between surface and upper troposphere, and between tropics and polar regions. Plus it is source of clouds, which are totally unaccounted for in doom and gloom climate models.

Have a nice day.

Well CO2 does increase growth.
However there's vastly diminishing returns.

So far we're almost at a point where it plateaus out.

And as mentioned, CO2 is rarely the limiting factor in growth.

What is the limiting factor is usually nitrogen,
But even more important is water availibility.

There's almost a direct 1 to 1 correlation with water versus plant growth.

And global warming will most likely change weather patterns, increase evaporation, and cause heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires.

All in all, not that good news for plant growth.

_

Now the other problem with all that, is that it makes those saying "We'll plant trees to stop global warming", kind of dumb.

So there's naivity on both sides.

Aerial carbon fertilization (by atmospheric CO2) is the most guarded ‘secret’ of AGW activists, especially enviroextremist crowd which use AGW scare to realize their long-time dream: starve to death half of global population and place another part in reservations. It is, luckily, only small part of AGW movement, often called environazis or greenshirts; other entities use catastrophic AGW theory for other purposes. IPCC, for example, use it just to enhance their life enjoyment:

“…the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.”

http://www.balidiscovery.com/messages/message.asp?Id=4112

But hey, as popular saying goes, AGW theory has utility of one-size-fit-all condom: it allows for substantial inflation, halts production, destroys the chances of the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks and gives you a strong sense of security while you are actually being f…d.
But returning for carbon fertilization. Plants developed photosynthesis mechanism more than billion years ago, when CO2 concentration in atmosphere was 5-10 times higher than today. And such high CO2 concentrations in atmosphere were mostly the rule, not exception, for most of the history of Earth. Photosynthesis in plants halts completely when CO2 concentrations in the air drops below 140 ppm, but plant’s life can barely survive at concentrations less than 200 ppm. As of last couple of millions of years, Earth plant kingdom is suffering and starving from unusually low CO2 in the air. Animal kingdom, as dependent on plants to survive, suffers correspondingly. Some plants mutated to cheat this problem: C4 plants developed mechanism to concentrate atmospheric CO2 in their leaves, and such plants have vastly improved biomass growth rate. C4 plants represent only about 5% of Earth plant biomass, among them are such plants as sugarcane, maize (corn), sorgum, switchgrass, amaranth, mallet. Sounds the bell? Biofuels and energy crops, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
The most pronounced effect increased atmospheric CO2 has on plants water use efficiency. Mechanics is very simple: plants adsorb CO2 by tiny openings in leaves and needles, called stomata. Such openings work two ways: they adsorb CO2, but unavoidably water from plants body evaporates through stomata openings. Water loss through stomata is many times bigger than water flow necessary to carry nutrients from the roots to the leaves. As CO2 in the air increases, most plants close stomata openings, reducing unproductive water loss. There is excellent article in Wiki, look “stomata”.
There are close to thousand published scientific papers from decades ago to today, which prove by open field experiments that carbon fertilization is major factor enhancing plants growth. Carbon fertilization improves nitrogen use efficiency, improves plants resistance to parasites and pests, improves survivability after physical damage and extreme cold and hot, and generally shifts optimum biomass yield temperature couple of degrees to the warmer side. For plants stressed by lack of moisture and fertilizers, increase of atmospheric CO2 from “preindustrial 280 ppm” to current 380 ppm already resulted in increase of yield for wheat by 11%, oranges 37%, young pine trees whopping 72%. Carbon fertilization effect is proven to be linear up to 1000 ppm CO2 to most plants, and saturation point of carbon fertilization lays at about 1500 ppm for moisture stressed (and most plants are) plants (averaged from 279 published experiments). Field experiments proved that doubling of CO2 in the air to 600 ppm will result in increase of dry wheat yield by 38%, oranges by 130%, young pine trees by 248%. Practically all greenhouses artificially increase indoor CO2 concentration to about 1000 ppm (it is usual concentration of CO2 in offices and homes, totally harmless to humans and animals) to optimize harvest. Just Google “greenhouse tomato carbon dioxide” for references.
Such effects are common to almost all of about 500 researched plant species. Detailed results are presented here:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/plant_growth/photo/photo_subject.jsp
Summary of results are presented here:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gwreview_oism150.pdf
And do not be surprised that persons, web sites, scientists, and institutions revealing the truth about carbon fertilization are the most hated enemies of AGW extremists.
End of weekend rant.

GreyFalcon:

I know that word and personal opinion of single unknown poster on the web blog does not count much, but the information presented in my references was cross-proved by literally hundreds of scientific papers I’ve read on the subject in last two years.

The issue of AGW is twisted by advocacy groups so much, that I would not recommend to believe the word of anyone, however reputable, without due diligence and cross-examination (examination of facts, not ad hom allegations by another advocacy web sites). Luckily, internet and Google make such searches quite easy to everyone.