Wither Goes CO2 ppm?

One of the responses in The Oil Drum Drumbeat today was from majorian commenting on Tad Patzek's article in which he contends Predictions of Coal, CO2 Production Flawed, Says Latest Research . He/she (majorian) is a frequent commenter at TOD, and has a terse, pointed style with a strong reliance on quoting numbers and calculated results. The following comment illustrates that style.

Patzek calculated the EROI of ethanol wrong and he's doing his phoney prophet shtick again.

But let's assume the PO CC skeptics are correct in their estimates.

There are currently 3000 Gt CO2 in the atmosphere with a level of 392 ppm.
Since 1800 when there was 2000 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere we've added a net of 1000 Gt of CO2.

If we take the Peak Oil FF estimates we come up with;
450 Gt coal(a 75 year supply at current rates) x 2tCO2 per ton=900 Gt CO2
plus
1000 Gb of crude(a 37 year supply at current rates) x .37tCO2/t=370 GtCO2
plus
6600 Tcf of natural gas(a 63 year supply) x .053tCO2/1000cf=350 GtCO2

We will put 1.6 times as much CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 75 years
as we have in the last 200 years of industrial civilization.

Total=1620 Gt CO2 additional within the next 75 years leaving 4620GtCO2 in the atmosphere or 647 ppm; 280 ppm x (2000+1000+1620)/2000

At this level of CO2 the IPCC simulation average gives a year 2100 temperature rise of 2.3 degrees C(4 deg F) over 1990 and a final equalibrium temperature of 4.1 degrees C(7.5 degF) over 1990 in a a couple of centuries(who cares!).

I cannot think that such a simple analysis could not occur to Rutledge and Aleklett, which raises the question 'why are they raising the FALSE notion that we will escape GW because we will run out of fuel?'.

It is fairly obvious to me that our massive world population based on productive temperate zone agriculture cannot survive 4-7.5 degrees hotter ON AVERAGE than we have now.

After the polar ice caps go the next zone most effected will be the temperate zones which rely on a wide flucation of annual temperatures.

Can we please stop this pointless messing about and get down to the hard work of reducing CO2 emissions and increasing energy from renewables?

I think the argument majorian is making fits with my previous post on the limited number of economists who will consider resource depletion in their theories. In other words, most economic theory in use today is seriously flawed.

Sometimes you have to make a decision and act, even though you cannot find consensus amongst all who argue. Since it looks like the CO2ppm will inevitably climb to a level that is untenable for the human race (as it is now composed), we have to find alternative solution(s) rather than continue BAU.

My suggestions: get everyone to work reducing CO2 emissions, and learn to live a sustainable life (but one that fits in a much hotter world). My actions are to promote LED lights and live off the grid when I can. What actions are you taking?

Sam Penny, the Prudent RVer