The IPCC interim report, Tar III, in 1999, estimated CO2 levels rising at a rate 2.5 to 5 times times what the actual history in the interval since 1999 reveals. Using Wigley's figures from 1999 is like estimating from a a stacked deck.

Why didn't they use IPCC's AR IV updated figures from 2006-7? Because they wouldn't look as dire and threatening. Even so the "impossible" requirements for 94 mpge in 2050, will be met easily, long before then.

The Electrification of Ground TrRansport is coming. The Volt is estimated to have a 321 mpge, and will reach production in 2010. Any PHEV will easily exceed 100 mpge, and also thus exceed the "impossible" 94 mpge of which they speak. Long before 2050 these will be common and universal.

Wigley in 1999, assumed that CO2 was resident for hundreds or even more exagerated, thousands of years. Or once put into the atmosphere it is "always" there, and just builds up. This is not the case.

The IPCC itself, said in it's updated 2007 AR IV, that it is returning to residency times of 5.7 years in its IPCC AR V report, due in 2011. Because all these wild claims of exagerated CO2 residency times, have not been supported by a single scientific experiment published in the peer reviewed literature. It is all just pure conjecture.

On the other hand, Henry's Law of Solubility, gets corroboration of its calculation of 5.7 years residency, virtually every year by several science teams publishing their experimental results, affirming the correctness of Henry's Law of Solubility and its 5.7 year residency time for atmospheric CO2. So CO2 constantly washes out of the air, even as more is added.

Furthermore, there is no assumption about CO2 reduction in electric generation in Wigley's figures. Unless Mr. Obama's erstwhile true believers, (Browner, Chu and Holdren) somehow stop the Nuclear Renaissance begun under Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, some 35 new, larger, safer, nuclear powerplants will be on-line before 2018 raising non-carbon electric generation to over 40% of US electric production. By 2040 clean, inexahaustible, Fusion will be adding electricity to the Grid. Meanwhile, almost all of the present existing, smaller, nuclear facilities have been extended in their operational lifetimes to 60 years, by the NRC. This means none will be retired before the 2045-2060 timeframe. All the new plants will raise US nuclear electric generation from 19% to about 30-35% of all electricity produced by 2018, with more to follow.

Or for that matter, merely replacing older, worn out, coal plants with newer models reduces CO2 emissions by 20%, even without resort to Carbon Sequestration, merely due to improved thermal efficiency. It also significantly reduces large amounts of "grand-fathered in" genuine, toxic, emissions.

In short, there have been a series of impossible "studies" issued recently, of which this is one, that talk of impending doom, no matter what we do, even though the foundations on which they are based has been proven by historical results to be farcical. None of these are genuine reports of experiment. Instead, the "studies" take the results of already proven wrong model output; and then estimate some presumed future harm as if the incorrect model output were true and factual.

There is an apparent urgency to impose a Carbon Tax regime, and world-wide Carbon Trading system in place before the whole AGW GHG "Science" falls completely apart and is discredited by everyone, politicians, and the general populace. Today, most of the current scientific community is rapidly becoming disillusioned and skeptics; and that will spread to the populace, and is doing so even now.

Warmists like Mr. Gore, need that system to contribute to their financial fortunes. Mr. Gore went from a net worth of under $10 million, inherited from his Father's political Oil investments, to a net worth of $300 million from selling "Carbon Credits", Speeches, and Movies, harping on Global Warming. These "credits" consist mostly of official promises to plant a Tree, a Shrub or a Bush.

Notably, an acorn falling from an existing tree in a forest and growing of its own accord, into a new tree, does not "Officially" exist. It hasn't filled out the proper IPCC accounting paperwork, unlike Mr. Gore's companies. Even though N. A. Forests are now 30% larger than in the 1970s, due the to natural re-forestation and CO2 fertilization effects, and Mr.Gore and his associates have planted a miniscule amount of those new trees.

Never mind that North America is already a net carbon negative sink. NA sequesters all it makes by nature and man combined; and then some more, from the rest of the World.

This farcical "study" and others like it are all GIGO.

About EV carbon footprint.

The US electrical grid produces just about 600gCO2 per kWh generated. The Volt claims a 40 mile range on 8kWh from its battery pack, so 200 Wh (from the battery) per mile. With 15% conversion losses and 7% T&D losses that means 253 Wh must be generated per mile driven. That electricity generation produces (in the US grid mix) [600*.253] 152 gCO2/mile.

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces about 9000gCO2, so when in EV mode, the Volt has the carbon footprint of [9000/152] 59mpg.

In "Charge Sustaining Mode" the Volt probably gets 50-60 mpg. I don't know how you can claim 321mpge unless you're not counting the electricity at all. That would be worse than only counting the gasoline you burn if you drive on E85, and so multiplying your mileage by 6.67.

The only vehicle I know that honestly exceeds 100mpge is the Aptera (and some 50cc scooters), designed from the start to be hyper-efficient.

"The US electrical grid produces just about 600gCO2 per kWh generated."

Then it'll need to get it act together!
Honetly though, the US grid will be the biggest diapointment if it can't better that!
The potential to charge (real and useful) batteries from wind and solar energy component already exist.

Lets not throw in the towel everytime half a braincell is called.
The real challenge - for 2050 is to see rollout in the second and third worlds.
It never cease to amaze how people - and govts wish to arrive 'fahionably late.'

Those that can should (have) do (ne) more than their share knowing that the task and resources required become depleting at an increasing rate.
Dreams and 'gonna' don't cut it.

While there are many promising innovations around, only real (installed) accomplishment will count and the oil sands and 'burn the lot' mentality is still a going concern (despite the dead weight sycophant folowings) as evidenced on earlier comments.

I don't doubt your figures for present carbon output per KWH; but you are completely wrong if you think that will be the same in 10 or 50 years. And although so-called renewables like Wind and Solar are very polluting, even if that information is strangely never mentioned, they will contribute some few percent to the future mix.

But Nuclear and even modern coal will come, and will reduce CO2 output, as if that mattered any. You have to recognize that there is an anomaly that can't continue in the profile of US electric generation. There were a great many antiquated coal plants with no actual toxic controls, that were schedueled to be scrapped in the 1970s and 1980s by the Utilities. They were overaged and decrepid even then. But the anti-Nuke efforts cancelled many of their planned replacements. Those terrible "old smokers" are still runnng today in 2009. They distort the carbon use figures. They weren't modernized or even extensively maintained much, thanks to Carter Administration unanticipated consequences of their foolish emission "improvements".

Yet they had to soldier on as there was no alternative. That can't go on much longer; they will be scrapped, or simply fall apart.

Dr. Chu's call for research on "clean coal" that he hates is baloney. Clean coal technology already exists. An IGCC coal plant that you can order from GE today, examples of which are producing electricity across the country, produces substantially less, some 20% less CO2, from it thermal efficiency alone, never mind that it generated a lot less toxic emmisions, by 90% or more.

Sidenote: I do like Dr. Chu's advocacy of research into Actinide Burning and Uranium reprocessing. Together they solve the Waste disposal problem of fission-based nuclear energy use.

Ai_vin,

Single point pollution from Solar? Don't you wish. The AGW doom that they are all so worked up about involves changes in temperature of a half to 1 degree, in a century. Albedo alteratiosn works from a mauch larger base, like 31% of the TSI. Or several humndred degrees of temperature difference. Solar pollutes, and it doesn't matter whether its a centralized solar farms; or thousands of decentralized, rooftop solar panels. It is the total cumulative Area of Albedo alteration that counts. A solar cell is approaching ZERO albedo versus the planetary albedo average of 31%. Every solar panel installed makes the planet absorb more Heat from the sun, than it otherwise would. It is potentially much, much worse than AGW.

But the un-scientists in the Green movement have zero brainpower, or have ulterior motives, like the Carol Browner Watermelons, and Solar is currently their "Deus ex machina".

Wind has other pollution effects. It is better to discuss those in depth, elewhere. Delaying temperature equalization, and potentially creating increasingly severe weather conditions to force that equalization. But once again the doofuses in the green movement look at that as their precious "Deus ex machina" and can't, or refuse to see, the detrimental consequences. But more of it is being installed than solar, and the warts are beginning to show themselves to all.