The chief economist for the International Energy Agency said Monday that current global energy consumption levels put the Earth on a trajectory to warm by 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, an outcome he called “a catastrophe for all of us.”Fatih Birol spoke as as delegates from nearly 200 countries convened the opening day of annual U.N. climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
He\’s assuming 840 ppm CO2 is he?
Anyone care to explain where this prediction is coming from?
It’s coming from fear of loosing a cushy job
“He’s assuming 840 ppm CO2 is he?
Anyone care to explain where this prediction is coming from?”
The amount of CO2 released by richard murphy and owen tudor sweating , sat side by side in a room, one learning about tax incidence the other about tax avoidance.
He’s an ECONOMIST ffs. He picks figures from the (hot) air.
It’s like most climate numbers. Completely made up. Majicked out of thin air. But whatever the process, you can be sure of two things – it’s worse than we thought, and the science is settled.
The time for debate on climate change is over.
Shut up and give us your money.
The major nations are so convinced that the science is settled that they’re queueing up to reject the Kyoto agreement. COC 17 is talking to itself.
What Pat said.
The argument is extracted from his, um, fundamental orifice. And he’s not even the worst
I see you’ve had the fairies visiting again.
The numbers you quote don’t seem especially implausible, though I couldn’t find anywhere that they gave their CO2 scenarios or assumed sensitivity to 2100.
Do you have some private reason (communication from God, perhaps) that makes 840 so implausible?
Finally, a comparison of the skepticism you’re showing here compared to the headlines at http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/11/25/climate-change-not-as-bad-as-we-thought-it-was-going-to-be/ is amusing.
There’s nothing new about the 6-degree projection from the IEA. See this report from 2008, page 401: http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2008/weo2008.pdf
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations by around the end of the next century are in line with the 660 to 790 ppm CO2 (855 to 1 130 ppm CO2
-eq) ranges assessed from the five scenarios considered (IPCC, 2007). This leads to a temperature rise above pre-industrial levels of
I think “prediction” is not quite the right word.
I feel that bullshit is the one that fits.
I think the report I quoted was talking about a 6-degree rise by 2200 (“end of the next century”) but it’s not entirely clear. The chart on p414 shows about 660ppm energy CO2 in 2100 and 790ppm energy CO2 in 2200 in the reference scenario.
Perhaps you find that discrepancy comforting; I don’t. Or perhaps if you all just put your fingers in your ears and keep saying you don’t believe in it the whole problem will go away.
Tim adds: Paul, I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m the guy who argues about what we do about climate change, not whether it’s happening or whether we should do something about it. I’m the guy who goes around saying we should have a carbon tax now, at Stern’s estimate of the social cost of carbon.
I’m even, in my day job, one of the guys who supplies, and works out how to get new larger and cheaper supplies of, the weird metals required to make renewables work. I’m about to (assuming funding is confirmed) go off to work in Germany for a few months in order to sort out a supply of the new miracle alloy that will make wind turbines more efficient. It was way back in 1995 that I started supplying experimental materials for fuel cells. Shit, I’ve even donated materials for research when the academics were too skint.
It’s too late, Tim. You questioned one of the Authorities. You are now a denier.
Tim, there were at least four comments asserting that the numbers were made up. I was talking to those guys.
William M Connolley in all his demented glory.
Are you still at a loose end or is Wikipedia letting you play with the toys again?
“The chief economist for the International Energy Agency said Monday that current global energy consumption levels put the Earth on a trajectory to warm by 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100”
I am reminded of that great bit of Victorian prediction that stated that London would be neck deep in horse sh1t by 1950………….
I think Mr Connelly is moonlighting from his job making things up for RealClimate, the now unveiled Fenton Media propaganda site specializing in lies and misinformation.
PaulB, please show that the numbers bear any relation to reality, or do you receive wads of cash spouting climate doom and gloom also ? Politicians making scary predictions in order to feather their own nests and gain power, how utterly unexpected.
Maybe the ever-busy Mr Connoley could advise how you get past a 2 degree rise, regardless of how high CO2 goes?
Remember, you are not allowed to use fictitious and unproven feedbacks and forcings. You know, the ones that are invented to make the models work?
Are you expecting full working in this comment box? I suggest you read and seek to understand the WGI contribution to the fourth IPCC report and all the papers it cites.
That’ll be a ‘no’ then.
Surely one doesn’t need to know anything whatever about climate to understand AGW.
Experience tells us politicians lie.
Politicians “…are convinced of the reality of AGW”.
Ergo AGW is a fraud.
It is the simplest explanation.