Bazz
I have looked at the Uppsala web site, but can not find the paper you refer too.

I am absolutely certain that all the coal that constitute the known economic reserves can be extracted, which is more than enough to blow the CO2 budget, even using the lowest sensitivity of climate to CO2 emissions.

It is important to understand the difference between reserves and resources. A reserve is a deposit that can be economically exploited at current prices. On the other hand a resource is a known deposit of the mineral which may or may not be possible to extract economically. The figure of 981 Giga tonnes of coal are known reserves, which we can exploit and by definition must have a net energy return. The know resources of coal are a great deal higher, some of which will be possible to mine economically. So there is no question that burning all the coal available will blow the carbon budget and that it can be done at a profit.

mhaze, those who try to dispute climate change tend to think in a linear way I believe.
Experimentation has shown that CO2 and infrared light interact as climate scientists have stated (ARM study). Debunk that mhaze.

I'm fully aware that areas of permafrost moves North and South along the fringes. Anton Vaks and an International team studied cave structure in areas with permanent permafrost, areas where it is intermittent, and areas where there was no permafrost. A conclusion the team came too was that when the global temperatures were 1.5C above the Pre Industrial period that permafrost began to thaw. Because of the huge el nino event happening at present it has been predicted that 1C temperature will be recorded for the year.

http://oncirculation.com/2013/04/18/using-stalagmites-to-measure-permafrost-melt/

Permafrost areas contain huge amounts of carbon; it has been stated that there is twice as much CO2 and methane when converted as in the atmosphere at present.

There were huge wildfires in the Arctic Circle area over their last summer; the vast majority caused by lightening strikes. One Alaskan fire burnt 500,000 acres of boreal forest in a 24 hour period. One source has suggested that the fire was made worse through methane being released. It is a plausible explanation.

mhaze, "drunken trees" is a way of showing warming is happening at present; the same as glaciers regressing, something else that has happened in the past. Currently, glacier regression has potentially dire consequences.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/976105/pakistans-climate-change-time-bomb-is-already-ticking/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/data-dashboard-climate-change/

Warmair, it is probably 3 or 4 years since I read it.
Pretty certain I do not have it here.
It was written by Prof Kjell Alklett and others in the energy systems group.
You might try an email. There was graph showing the computed temp rise
for the three IPCC quantities, high medium & low and the trace for
the GESG was well below the lowest IPCC.

Over the years I've come to see a significant degree of Manichean 'thinking' among those who profess to follow the science. This black-v-white attitude leads to the view that,since the sceptics don't buy the whole CAGW package they must have rejected the lot.

Thus we see ant saying "Experimentation has shown that CO2 and infrared light interact as climate scientists have stated (ARM study). Debunk that mhaze" since clearly, if I don't accept his loony notions about permafrost melting then I must reject the whole of established science.

Just for your edification ant, I'd venture that you'd find very very very few sceptcs who don't, as a matter of coarse, accept that CO2, all else equal causes heating. Its just laughable, hilarious even, to think that sceptics reject this. You see ant, I don't reject climate change. I think its been happening for, oh, the last 4 billion years. I even accept that man in the last half century has had some affect on that change. Where I and most sceptics part ways with the perpetually alarmed is that I don't accept as certain that man has had a major effect on the climate since 1950, I don't accept that the warming has been bad for humankind and I most definitely don't accept that the future holds catastrophic warming in its path.

So looking at the term CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming) I accept the 'GW', am ambivalent about 'A' and reject 'C'. And that's where most sceptics sit.

/cont

/cont

I've never been able to quite fathom why alarmists (ant is by no means alone here) are so clueless about the true views of the sceptics, but I think its mainly due to them (the alarmists) not reading what the sceptics have to say because they've been indoctrinated by the leaders of the so-called consensus that the sceptics are all charlatans on the take and should be avoided (there be dragons!) and also because they (the alarmists) are somewhat afraid that they might come across something that will shake their faith.

I make a point of keeping up with the so-called consensus by reading SkS and Real Climate and a few others. I'd recommend that those interested in the search for truth rather than the search for confirmation, read things like WUWT, CliamteAudit or Judith Curry's site.

mhaze, Watts has been caught out in relation to temperature and Arctic ice extent; his views are unreliable.
Watts is not a skeptic he is a denier; he has no official qualifications; whereas, Judith Curry is a skeptic having appropriate qualifications. I have visited the Watts site several times, mhaze. Watts was involved with the so called "climategate" allegations, he has been financed by Heartlands which received its revenue from fossil fuel companies. There were a number of investigations in relation to "climategate" no misbehaviour was found.

The ARM study supports exactly the view that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has the very impact on climate as scientists are saying. The source of CO2 can be identified through the isotopes displayed.

As stated earlier ExxonMobil management sought to debunk the view expressed by their scientists about human created climate change. The chickens may be coming home to roost:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/

Earlier a denier suggested that isoprene was promoted as being a substance that would stop warming; next day in my newsfeed was an article about the author of the paper saying his science was completely misrepresented.

When terming respondents as "warmists" is presents a flag saying denier.

An interesting survey that arrived in my newsfeed last week in relation to the views of scientists who have not specialised in climate science:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/25/yet-another-survey-shows-the-climate-change-debate-is-settled-among-scientists