Shintaro,
Your response to spindoc was a bit weak.
Have you heard the saying "One swallow does not make a summer" ?

Anyway we are arguing here over amounts of CO2 that won't be achieved.
Until the IPCC rerun their models with real world data of fossil fuel
quantities no one will know what they are arguing about.

Really that is the crux of the matter, all previous calculations,
legislation, expenditure on global warming has been undertaken on
quantities of fossil fuel that do not exist. Well at least that is
what the Upsalla University Energy group maintains.

It should theoretically only mean that expenditure etc should be put
on hold for as long as it takes to do the computer modelling with
a fourth set of data.

How many swallows make a summer then?

Rhetorical nonsensical dribble. Swallows....WTF has that got to do with anything? I'll wait for the rerun of the climate model, but while we all waiting for that, human impact, over-population, pollution, will still have to be addressed, hence for the taxes that will in turn, pay for the damages our human foot-prints, is overly obvious and abundant.... with evidences plied higher than the hemisphere its self.

:"The point is that here on OLO we have constantly asked two questions of AGW, they are; what makes some people skeptical and what makes some people advocates?"

Simple global observation.

NEXT.

BLUE

Spindoc, you accuse me of having an ego, of being emotive, and of shooting the messenger.

1. Yes, I have an ego – just like you.

2. Actually, Malcolm Roberts is the emotive one >> In recent years, as well as learning more about climate I have been learning more about true forgiveness ... Associated with the power of forgiveness, the work of Marshall Rosenberg and my own personal experience shows that knowing one's needs and identifying another person's needs enables both to find ways to fulfill their real needs ... After understanding your needs I'm confident I will be able to assist you in meeting your needs. <<

3. Malcolm Roberts is quite capable of shooting himself, methinks.

Most people (seeking irrefutable evidence, pelican) understand that:

. The more energy you put into a system, the more the system will heat up.

. The more the system heats up, the more water is evaporated.

. The more water vapour, the more rain and snow.

Where do you think this extra energy has been coming from?

Spindoc, it seems you have trouble understanding this simplified concept.

No worries, you assure me you have a clue, are perfectly capable of making sense, and will definitely understand. Ok, try this more complex explanation of why and how the Earth is warming:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

The radiative transfer budget of the Earth is well accounted for spindoc – we know how much energy is coming in, we know how much energy is going out, and we know how much energy we are producing and consuming.

Bazz, good point. But this must be seen in the context of total hydrocarbons, from all sources, current and future technologies.

Blue said,
Rhetorical nonsensical dribble. Swallows....WTF has that got to do with anything?

It is just a way of pointing out that one or two cyclones and a seven
year drought are not something to do more with than put them into the
whole mix of evidence. On their own they are not evidence and should
not be used as such.

Bonmot said;
Bazz, good point. But this must be seen in the context of total
hydrocarbons, from all sources, current and future technologies.

Well from my reading of their paper that is what they did. They took
into account matters such as the declining energy content of coal.
From what they said, the IPCC has used the business as usual figures
of production based on demand, not actual possible production.

This is a similar error to that made by the International Energy
Authority in their yearly projections for 2007, 2008 & 2009.
That trend was abandoned in the 2010 projection when they acknowledged
that peak crude oil occurred in 2006.

I am no scientist but their reasoning and figures look pretty sound to me.
I have just tried to find the article again on their web site
but there are so many titles with what could be similar words that it
is hard to locate it.
This is Prof Aleklett's blog url. The link to the paper is somewhere there.
aleklett.wordpress.com/

Bazz
I could not see where they factored oil derived from shale, or tar sands, or wherever else they can get oil when 'cheap oil' is not so cheap. From what I can understand, AR5 will take into account the discrepancies from the SRES. A report is given at the IPCC website.