The hockey stick graph still troubles me John, as far as I can tell it has never been properly reviewed and in its original formed based upon Bristle Cone Pine data it strikes me as a little absurd if not downright comical. I know this makes me a prime subject for being dubbed a heretic and potential 'measure of linear mass density of a mono-filament'... a Denier if you are wondering. Sorry but the misuse of the word is one of my pet hates.
On the subject of CO2 I am still wondering why the levels were so much higher in the distant past, including some of the major ice ages, than they are even today after a century of industrialisation and yet appear to have had little effect on the climate?
The sedimentary record seems to suggest that over geological time the oceans must have absorbed a quite significant amount of CO2 otherwise shells and corals would not be so abundant and I presume that this process still has to go on even today?
For all our efforts to curb energy consumption and CO2 output have we had any effect on the rate at which the level is increasing? And if not then what hope do we have to curb it to such an extent that we will stave off global catastrophe? Will we be forced to return to the Dark Ages to survive? Given that the UK will have a 40% power deficit in he next ten years and no hope of replacing it with wind power I find myself more concerned about people freezing to death than dying from heat exhaustion.
I am currently working through some of my concerns on this and other climate subjects and I find myself greatly troubled by some of the thermodynamic concepts surrounding the greenhouse effect. Given that so much of the Earth is covered by water, which absorbs solar radiation without reflecting the infra red energy needed to propagate the greenhouse effect, and the land which does and which is not covered in reflective ice constitutes a very small (less than 25%) of the planets surface, I am left wondering how such a small amount of energy can warm the planet so very much?
It takes some 333.5 joules of energy (or 79 calories about equal to one Digestive biscuit) per gram to convert ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C the heat energy being used to break the bonds that hold ice together. To convert water at 0 degrees C into vapour requires a further 2500 joules (or about 8 biscuits) per gram so converting thousands of tonnes of ice into water vapour requires a quite staggering amount of energy.
I also note that the oceans are on average all warmer than the corresponding atmosphere which means that the atmosphere cannot be transferring heat to the oceans otherwise the law of thermodynamics is broken.
it is also evident that no-one as yet has a full and proper understanding of the mechanics of global climate or the ocean currents which makes me wonder how anyone can claim anything for certain.