"The issues of climate and future temperature increases have become part of our everyday life, and central in this debate is carbon dioxide. The fossil fuels we use contain carbon and hydrocarbon compounds, and carbon dioxide is released together with energy when we burn these.
"However, it seems that the amounts of fossil fuels themselves are not perceived as a problem among those debating climate change. Instead, the problem is only ever that we are expected to use too much of them. The idea that the combined volumes of these fuels are insufficient to cause the changes in climate that are currently discussed is nowhere to be heard...
This article entitled 'Severe Climate Change Unlikely Before We Run Out of Fossil Fuel' by Kjell Aleklett and republished yesterday by Australian e-journal On Line Opinion concludes with comment that "the world's greatest future problem is that too many people must share too little energy."
Read the complete article here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933
Anyone actually interested in how the IPCC analyses variables such as future availability of energy resources (they use the IEA) and learning curves on energy extraction, efficiency of end use etc) can have a look at
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4docs/chapters/Ch4_Energy.pdf
and for how they attribute emissions in various scenarios here is some more good stuff.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch10.pdf
Even a token read reveals a well thought out and considered analysis with no attempt to say one scenario is more likely than another.
Ian, not only have you not bothered reading any of this, you have not read any of the other comments on this thread, or you would have realised I am not the only one who thinks your analysis is bogus
The differences between the two paras are quite consistent with a normal clarification. But don't mind me, Anthony, readers of this blog are not stupid. They will not mistake your pathetic little attempts at point scoring as contributive input. Take a bath.
The general expectation of running projections is to base them as close as possible to likely reality to then get an understanding of the sensitivity to key variables.
The IPCC did no such thing. It provided nothing more than an array of bull$hit with a view to limiting the publics understanding of the situation.
lets play spot the difference...
"For even at a very modest 0.5 of 1% annual compound improvement in emissions cleaning, the emissions in 2100 will only be 60.57% of todays rate."
"That is, with a modest 0.5 of 1% annual improvement in cleaning technology, the emissions from a standard tonne of coal in 2100 would only be 60.57% of what they are today from a comparable tonne of coal."
Ian, I thought they modelled this scenario as well?
"Combine improved carbon cleaning with declining hydrocarbon supplies, rising energy prices, increased use of nuclear and other alternatives, improved energy efficiency and development on a less energy intensive model and the EUPCC projections revert to pure bunkum"
wasn't the whole point to compare different scanrios/different assumptions and test the CO2 output? Sometimes it pays to read things before you slag them off.
Now lets play spot the delusional denialist in retreat
"But lets face it, this issue is not about carbon at all. It is nothing more than the continuation of that ancient battle between optimist and pessimist, between the generous and the tightarses. And luckily, the optimists have ignored the pessimists and developed new solutions. Looking back on history, there is not much that has been bequeathed to us from the pessimists."
It seems, Anthony, that your "any monkey" has his head in a paper bag. The IPCC has already factored in the additional power plants but have neglected to factor in any technology improvements in carbon capture. And that means that whatever numbers they have projected for the future are wrong.
At no time did I express or imply that the cleaning technology improvements would be good enough to actually reduce total emissions below 1990 levels. But this is a long term possibility beyond year 2100.
Combine improved carbon cleaning with declining hydrocarbon supplies, rising energy prices, increased use of nuclear and other alternatives, improved energy efficiency and development on a less energy intensive model and the EUPCC projections revert to pure bunkum.
By way of general information:-
http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/
http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/athabasca/