I guess most of you have not heard that the whole human caused global
warming debate has been thrown wide open again.

It appears the IPCC study and projections assumed that there would be
unrestricted access to oil, gas and coal and also assumed growth
continuing at the present rate.

However these assumptions are incorrect and there will not be anywhere
near enough CO2 generated to match the IPCCs model projections.

So thats it, no point arguing about how we can cut back CO2 as it will
be cut back much faster due to depletion than we can build sequestration
or windmills etc.
However we will need a crash program of alternative energy.

Notice how the pollies are completely silent on this ?
It is just like saying that God is dead, it gets the same reaction.

It never ceases to amaze me why some people take the IPCC reports out of context or selectively cherry-pick without having an understanding of the IPCC process or its procedures, let alone have read them. This lack of understanding borders on paranoia or fundamental denialism, neither of which is going to help in moving into the future.

Bazz says “It appears the IPCC study and projections assumed that there would be unrestricted access to oil, gas and coal and also assumed growth continuing at the present rate. However these assumptions are incorrect and there will not be anywhere near enough CO2 generated to match the IPCCs model projections.”

The IPCC reports on emission scenarios, specifically ‘Special Report on Emission Scenarios’ (SRES). While there are a number of scenarios or storylines described; the A1B, A1F1, A1T, A2, B1 and B2 are most often cited.

The A1 storyline develops into three groups that describe alternative directions in the energy system; fossil fuel intensive, non-fossil fuel intensive or balanced (defined as not relying too heavily on one or another).

Depending on which model is projected, different outcomes are described and reproduced in the different graphs you will see on temperature rise, CO2 concentration or even sea levels.

Bazz does make a valid point though, “we will need a crash program of alternative energy”, not because “the whole human caused global warming debate has been thrown wide open”, but rather … humanity is finally starting to understand that its behaviour is having an adverse impact on the planet, its environment and ecology. We must find a solution to sustainable development

Well Davsab is right there are a number of scenarios or perhaps better
decribed as bets each of many ways.
However why is it the pollies are always taking the worse outcome ?
It now appears that the worse outcomes are out of the question.

I waded through the report when it came out but I think there are a
number of revisions since. Perhaps revisions is too harsh a word perhaps
adjustments would be better. I wonder if they will review it in view
of these later developments.
More to the point will the pollies blythely go ahead and spend our money
as they have promised without adjustment because no one will be game
enough to say that the Emporer has no clothes ?

“However, why is it the pollies are always taking the worse outcome?” A very good question Bazz and presumably fits well with Steven’s apparent cynicism. What you say Steve?

“It now appears that the worse outcomes are out of the question.”

Not sure about this tho’, what actually do you mean? Some say we are in for one big ugly ride and politicians and political ideology have the propensity to stuff up. It’s these power games that Steve and Q&A allude to that is most worrying and gives rise to the cynicism portrayed, and somewhat justified, here.

But, maybe it’s not all doom and gloom … we can see an international willingness (leaders with global vision) of countries, business and communities to really act in a responsible way, particularly when they see kudos in doing the right thing or there is a buck to be had.

BTW Bazz, the IPCC reports have not been revised as such. However, in light of new research findings (that could not be included in the original AR4 reports) there does appear to be more and bigger problems on the horizon. The AR4 synthesis report is about to be released; have a read when it is made public and get back to us with your thoughts.

For me, I am extremely interested in the outcome of the December meeting of the UNFCCC in Bali – will Australia be at the negotiating table? Very much dependent on our election outcome.

Q&A

Iran is a minor player.

I'm sure strategists in India and China have war gamed these scenarios. What may they do? They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They either develop or face civil unrest.

Russia is a special case. It is a vast country with plenty of freshwater reserves. It also has a small and declining population. In fact Russia faces demographic collapse.

My guess.

The Western part of Russia will be taken over by its Muslim South.

The eastern part will be overrun by refugees from China.

In fact there are some indications that Chinese migrants, both formal and informal, have already established a formidable presence in much of Eastern Russia.

I doubt the Chinese migrants in Eastern Russia want the Communist regime in Beijing to follow them.

So Russia could split into a Muslim West and a Chinese East. The next super-power may be Chinese Eastern Russia.

Africa can do nothing.

However I come back to the best guess of what climate change will bring. It is most likely that North America and Europe will "weather" the change best. I don't mean they'll emerge unscathed. But I think they will emerge in much better shape than China, India or Africa.

And if those emerging countries suffer population implosion and collapse North America and Europe will retain their dominance.
.

Davsab

Experience shows that countries do not behave altruistically. They pursue their own interests. ALP may talk a better game but I doubt they'll walk the walk any more than Europe or North America.

Follow this link and tell me whether it looks as if anybody is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/30/energy.oilandpetrol

And another thing…
I was intrigued to hear the recent Californian fires had, according to news reports, produced the same volume of CO2 as ‘nearly half a million cars’ would have done over ‘a twelve month period‘.

I got to thinking , if fires of such relative short duration could have such impact, what of the thousands of fires worldwide, burning 24/7 – perhaps culpability for climate change was more widespread than we’d been lead to believe(?)

I visited my local climate change proselyte & aired my concerns .
He was intransigent, they’d got the ‘right man– he had form !’:
They had previously ‘cornered him over colonisation –conclusively proving he’d caused all the woes of the underdeveloped world‘.
They were ‘concurrently pursuing him, on a charge of profiteering from slavery‘–and ‘exhorting /extorting (cant recall which word he used) reparations‘.
And they were ‘just waiting an apology’ to move into the greenfield prospect of ‘genocide against indigenes, at home‘.

He said ‘they were going to nail him on climate change’ as well – and they didn’t want to hear any ‘hot air about a few inconvenient facts‘.

‘And’ he whispered, ‘after all who with a smidgin of decorum would expect a poor third world farmer with 10 kids and another on the way , eking out a living dynamiting sea reefs and moonlighting arsenic leaching gold reefs, while his wife laboured over a cow dung & forest wood fire preparing bushmeat meals, to pay climate dues.

‘Besides’ he confided ‘one of the damages clauses in the case would provide that the transgressor resettle half the Third World farmers’ children in the First World– and equip them with all the First Worlds consumer goods’