Key out takes from week 1 of the conference: â€¢ Most delegates have confirmed that we are experiencing a period where climate change is more rapid than background evidence would suggest for a given subject time period. â€¢ It is agreed (funnily enough) that there is still an inability to separate natural (or background) emissions from potential anthropogenic sources. â€¢ Many new theories have been tabled (at each end of the debate spectrum) which range from new mechanisms on how CO2 causes a temperature amplification effect to how the current change in magnetic pole shift is driving this change. â€¢ Global temperatures have stabilised over the last 10 years and have some very short term data showing a fall. However there is a debate as to the trigger. Some are arguing that la NiÃ±a is a masking effect while others are tabling effects of a natural cycle peak. Either way this still questions significantly the anthropogenic contribution vs. natural. â€¢ Interestingly enough it appears from the last 6 months of data that CO2 levels are actually starting to fall. Now this may be some short term effect that will smooth out but starts to enter into the debate that climate cyclic nuance may be the cause. If this is the case then the anthropogenic cause of CO2 increases vs. natural sources of emissions is increasingly questionable. â€¢ Modelling is still inconsistent and poor in understanding the medium to long term effects the ocean and upper atmosphere has as a driving mechanism in regional climatic zones (no change here from several years ago, just more of it). â€¢ IPCC has reviewed several modelling points and predictions which will cause downplay in the anthropogenic effects of CO2. But still does goes as far as to doubt is position or findings. However expect some significant updates to the next IPCC release in re-evaluating their estimates (due 2010). â€¢ Key theory has been changed as to realise why there is stable troposphere temperature behaviour vs. increasing ground temperature. This has been the stake in the IPCCâ€™s heart when claiming their models are accurate. â€¢ IPCC has introduced two new models to their inventory. Now they have eight models with different inputs and non-contiguous outputs that are drawn together inn giving their predictions. â€¢ Peak oil as a driver for new technologies and distribution of energy sources has been dismissed (thank god for that!). Leading the topic was one of my mentors in petroleum geology who gave a great summarisation on the topic. - Basically original peak oil theory claimed the world had a â€˜recoverableâ€™ volume of â€˜useableâ€™ crude oil in the order of 3.8 trillion barrels. To date we have used about 1.1 trillion. - However, The goal posts for â€˜recoverableâ€™ and â€˜useableâ€™ have shifted continuously as technology and resources have continued to make headway. - It is now estimated for 2030, we will have the equivalent of 12.5 trillion barrels of â€˜recoverableâ€™ volume of â€˜useableâ€™ crude oil, at which point 2.1 (2030) trillion will have been consumed. â€¢ Economic models for future â€˜ecoâ€™ solutions do not take into consideration the whole of life impact on the supply of these technologies or ongoing costs to society or governments. In short, what does this all mean? It means that the science behind climate change is still very much theory and conjecture, either for the pro-man made camp and the natural cycle camp. All in all we are seeing much in-consistent data and modelling that can be used to interpret findings one way or the other. However, one thing that has been noted (without acceptance of course) is that we are seeing trends in the environment which are inconsistent with a straight line effect of human presence. More to followâ€¦..