I watched the Swindle program on the ABC and was dissapointed that
no one asked why the hockey stick graph was deleted from the latest
IPCC publications.

I understand that it was because the climate model used produced the hockey
stick for almost any input and was found to be faulty.

Anyway as I said, it doesn't really matter there is not enough oil
and coal to have any human causal effect.

Bazz,

The so called “hockey stick” was not deleted from the latest IPCC publications – there is no reason to be disappointed.

Your understanding is misinformed, probably based on accepting what the deniers say.

Human activity has had a causal effect, and this can be demonstrated from by any number of studies, the most strident being from Carbon isotope analysis and various attribution studies.

It amazes me that some people (generally the layperson, not the scientists themselves) are willing to deny or criticise the science when they obviously haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.

At the very least, they should read the IPCC’s technical chapters in the AR4

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Unfortunately, they don’t.

The AR4 compiles a dozen reconstructions of the temperature records (and all very consistent with each other) including the original "hockey stick" reconstruction you said was deleted.

ALL the reconstructions show that temperatures are now higher than at any time during the past 1,000 years confirming and strengthening the conclusions drawn in the previous IPCC report of 2001.

Go to the paleoclimate chapter and check out your "hockey sticks"

Figure 6.10 (panel b) on page 467

Hi Everyone,

i have limited knowledge on the scientific data that would be required in order to make any real judgment.

However before this movie was made public i found myself thinking quite regularly about the Global Warming Topic, something did not sit right.

I did watch Al Gores documentary, but i was craving another point of view. My tendency before last night and after remains tilted towards, an against view of Human Activated Global Warming.

Just Simply if co2 increases have preceeded Higher Solar activity thus causing higher temp in the past, but conversly higher Co2 has provoked higher temps also, would it be not safe to say that to stick to one side of this argument would be silly.

We have to be careful this does not become a debate of ego and not of environment, if it isnt already.

I assure you that this debate will continue with no result! However it is entertaining and we love entertainment!

Also

Why are we treated like aliens on our planet like we are seperate from it and trying to destroy it? we are the planet, we are connected to it, if our activities change then the environment around us adapts, if the environment changes then we adapt.

All this topic has done has caused industry to become dynamic and adapt to a real or imaginary threat which in any case is great.

Its the fear associated with the driving force behind the pro Global Warming Debate which is the real danger.

Like Always it will be the significant Global Environmental event we didnt expect that will be the one that occurs! perhaps a meteor!

Davsab,
Thanks for your reply. I went to have a look at the AR4 but
the chapters are so big they would put me over my 400Mbyte limit by
a long way.

However it does not matter as Professor Kjell Aleklett of Uppsalla
University and who is President of ASPO has pointed out there
will not be enough hydrocarbons available to push the world temperature
up to the IPCC projections.

I would have liked to download the projections in AR4 and see if they
made any allowance for peak oil, natural gas and coal.

Xoddam rather than Davsab attempts to explain one of my questions. i.e. "Perhaps you can explain how high carbon dioxide in the past has never prevented subsequent cooling."

Xoddam says "High CO2 levels don't prevent cooling, because temperature doesn't stop CO2 slowly falling again. The circulation of ocean waters will carry CO2 to the depths and allow more to dissolve at the surface. As the biosphere adapts to the new climate, plants are able to bind carbon (eg. wood, peat, coal)."

Sounds somewhat contradictory so my next question then is what exactly do you believe starts the new cooling when you have CO2 at such high levels? Keep in mind that cooler ocean waters tend to absorb CO2 so what exactly begins this new process of cooling? Can CO2 do it? Nope but you may have other ideas. Please explain.

Also I'm far from being a preacherman, Xoddam. You may say I'm guilty of asking many, many questions though and sometimes I make some errors too. Like I'll accept your correction of CO2 being but 0.038% of the atmosphere which is even more minuscule. But I must confess that I love CO2 because it grows better roses, bigger tomatoes, greens the environment and even leads to stronger, healthy people. We just need to get out there and kick the greening on a bit with some good conservation programs.

By the way your understanding of what is called the "Little Ice Age" is wrong and nothing to do with El Nino at all. What started the cooling then? Hint .... you may refer to my question above and perhaps Davsab can offer his scientific explanation too.

Kieran,

Arrhenius pointed out in the 1880s that burning coal adds CO2 to the atmosphere, but this wasn't thought relevant for ages because it was understood that the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, and could dissolve plenty more.

But in the 1950s it was realised that the layers of warm and cold seawater mix surprisingly little:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm

The surface of the ocean now contains more CO2 than the deeper layers, and dissolves correspondingly less than it would if the ocean were homogeneous.

The oceans do circulate over a time-span of several hundred years, rising in the North Sea and the mid-Pacific and sinking in the North Atlantic and Arctic, so (providing CO2 emissions stop and the circulation continues) dissolved CO2 will eventually sink and the oceans will achieve equilibrium with the atmosphere. Just not this century.

Similarly, the biosphere can absorb CO2 indefinitely as long as it is available, but due to land clearing it is actually a net emitter of CO2 today. Warm up the earth fast enough in the next few decades, and accelerated decomposition (especially in the tundra) will make it a net greenhouse gas source even if we halt clearing altogether.

The last major CO2 sink which can operate over geological timespans, but not in the timescale of industry, is the weathering of rocks by rain and the ocean, converting dissolved CO2 (carbonic acid) to carbonate salts.

After enough time has passed, low CO2 levels will certainly result in lower temperatures.

The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age aren't particularly well understood at all, but the leading theory is that they were the result of variations in the North Atlantic currents which bring heat to the Arctic from the tropics, not global events. In any case they would be lost in the noise of temperature variations on geological timescales.

I left "El Niño" in without adequate clarification while trimming the word count under time pressure; my apologies.

If you have a better idea of what may have caused the (very) Little Ice Age, I'd love to know what it is.