This report, from an organisation which, if anything, is often criticised for being too conservative in its projections, paints a very worrying picture.

Basically, we have a 5 year window to make a difference. If we can't change in that time, then it seems certain that limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees, the 'safe' rise, is unlikely to happen.

Are you all really not concerned by this? Do you understand the implications of what is being said here? I'm not trying to be rude with that last question, but I genuinely don't understand how anyone could read it, take it on board, and not be worried, yet amongst those who have (or claim to have) read it here, that seems to be the response.

Does this report not make you question what you're all doing here in the slightest? That it might be, in a very moral sense, wrong?

If you mean me, you are mistaken. I am extremely concerned.

But then, I am equally concerned that junk energy policy borne of anti-science fearmongering by NGOs and green posturing by politicians pushing renewables will guarantee a high emissions future.

That is certainly morally wrong.

Zed,
I'm not disputing that there are some climate scientists who are at the alarmist end of the spectrum, just that that is not where the consensus is.
The IEA report has come out of left field and I think quite a few people, more knowledgeable than you or I, are going to have to take a look and see where they are getting their conclusions from. None of the mainstream stuff that I have seen in recent times (and yes, I do look at places other than Bishop Hill) is suggesting anything as severe as this.
This is what I described as the "10 Days to Save the Planet" stuff which gave us the big (and totally incorrect) scares of the beginning of the century — 40-foot sea level rises, 10 degree temperature increases, death, disease and destruction everywhere; you name it, we were going to get it.
No evidence for any of it when you examine the underlying science, and most of it from unreliable sources (which I am not saying the IEA is) timed to coincide with one or other of the IPCC or other Climate Sunshine Party.
That's not science, it's PR and why be surprised at the cynicism?

Sorry - I should add that a number of commenters here do not accept or fully accept the reality of the greenhouse effect. Those that do actually admit that the physical mechanism exists deny the clear evidence that equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~3C for 550ppmv CO2.

Since neither group actually believes that the climate system will warm as projected, they do not see a moral fault in their position.

BBD

You're virtually the only poster here I'm not referring to.

Solutions - well, I think we're largely in agreement, it's just a matter of extent orf renewables. Bear in mind that Spain hit 60% of generation from wind over the weekend. Had to take part of it offline as it was in danger of overload, but that would be focusing on the bad rather than the good. Really shows the potential.

But to the point in question - it's a scary report. You have to kind of concede that most of it is probably right, before you act upon it, whatever that action is. That first point, is one that virtually everybody who posts on this blog has not yet reached. Many of them never will. They'll simply die before it meets their personal criteria of incontrovertible evidence, or if exceptionally long-lived, will stand there with the water flowing their kitchen saying "this has all hapened before and it's a perfectly natural cycle......."

Mike Jackson

I'm not disputing that there are some climate scientists who are at the alarmist end of the spectrum, just that that is not where the consensus is.

I flatly disagree. Those with the most knowledge in the field are the most concerned. The scientific consensus view is that there is a real and pressing problem.

Who is in this 'not worried' consensus you describe? You need to back this up in detail.

"I'm not disputing that there are some climate scientists who are at the alarmist end of the spectrum, just that that is not where the consensus is."
Nov 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM | Mike Jackson

Yet you're not providing any evidence for this, just conjecture. There is evidence that climate scientists are largely in agreement on what is happening, what the main cause is, and that likely outcomes range from bad to Armageddon.

If you want to suggest that the consensus is not as I have described, something there is evidence for, then you have to provide counter-evidence. You're not doing so, I believe this is because you don't have any to support your claims.

Zed

Spanish wind - that was between 3:00am - 8:30am on Sunday morning. Very low power consumption during the period. And it was a transient that caused load shedding from conventional plant. Yet another example of a large wind tail wagging the national grid dog. You still don't get this, do you?

And it was ~50%, not 60%

Nov 9, 2011 at 3:10 PM | BBD

To use (now out of date I believe) youth parlance, take a chill pill man.

I'm aware of all this. Saying I don't 'get it' is a tad aggressive, and not accurate either. 5 years ago would you have believed that a country the size of Spain could have 60% of it's energy-generation needs met at any time of the day or night from wind? Ten English Pence says you wouldn't have. Yet it has happened. That's a positive thing, and bodes well.

It's still a new(ish) technology, and it's beginning to work. We both agree it's not the sole solution.

Anyway, I shouldn't have mentioned it, or I'm in danger of derailing the thread.

Come on Hilly Billy types - what do you have to say about the IEA report? It would be very interesting to see your responses now before the WUWT disseminators and the oil-science attack dogs get their teeth into it, and come up with some tenuous dismissal for you to parrot as gospel.

Zed

You are (again) misrepresenting and over-hyping the potential of renewables. Given that any increase above ~10% of wind in the energy mix will require an equal capacity of always-emitting spinning reserve - which guarantees a high-emsissions future, can you not see that this is morally wrong?

Electricity demand is set to rise sharply. This means an increase in baseload and a higher mean level for load-following. Wind can deliver neither, so there will be endless shortfalls.

The answer is nuclear. It always was, and always will be. But first, the dreams of the energy fantasists have to be exposed as nonsense so that policy makers can make the correct decisions.

That way, the Western democracies at least have a chance of decarbonising supply without infrastructural and economic implosion.

As I see it, you are still cleaving to the dark side on this issue. I repeat: you are morally wrong to do so.

You have some thinking to do.

Nov 9, 2011 at 3:24 PM | BBD

Hey - if you want, shall we do this on another thread - I'm really intersted to see what the people here have to say about the IEA report, especially before some pat responses to it come down from on high, and 'doing the renewable' will distract right away from that.

Zed

I set up a thread specifically to discuss your misunderstandings about renewables on April 03 2011. You haven't been near it since the first exchange of comments.

So no, we'll talk about this whenever you start up with misinformation about renewables. You've had your chance.

Wind will mean increased emissions compared to nuclear.

Lobbying for wind = lobbying for a high-emissions future vs nuclear

Emissions = existential threat to a multitude of species and to future human generations

Emissions = immoral

Your behaviour in not speaking out against renewables boosterism = immoral

Yes or no?

I'm not even sure that ZDB understands the term "spinning reserve" or its implications. Wind and solar can only ever be a small <10% contribution to the worlds overall electricity supply until someone comes up with a realistic mechanism for large scale storage/release of electrical energy.

Sorry, but where is this report people are talking about?

BBD - new thread set up for you to talk renewables on - why don't you go to that one if that's the drum you're intent on banging. I'm trying to stay true to the guidelines of this place in setting up a discussion thread on the topic I'd like to discuss, but that won't work very well if you blithely ignore it and keep harping on about the subject of your choice.

I repeat - another thread - especially for you and subject is renewables. Why not move to that one and keep this one free for IEA? Also, I might engage with you on renewables on that thread, I won't on this one.

"Sorry, but where is this report people are talking about?"
Nov 9, 2011 at 4:15 PM | Paul Matthews

Best way to get into it is from here:
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/

Zed/BBD
Since neither of you has the slightest intention of looking at papers that dispute your Armageddon theories or that dispute your interpretation of the likely effect of CO2 — and I have read four in the last three days — forgive me if I don't bother linking to them or following either of you up this particular cul-de-sac.
This is now just one more thread that you have effectively shut down.

Zed

Is this the IEA report you are talking about? Have you read it? Was it worth the 150 euros?

http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/b.aspx?new=10

No Mike, you are attempting to shut it down by refusing to address my question.

I will repeat it for you:

I flatly disagree. Those with the most knowledge in the field are the most concerned. The scientific consensus view is that there is a real and pressing problem.

Who is in this 'not worried' consensus you describe? You need to back this up in detail.

There you go.

And Mike, that is exactly the last time you accuse me of refusing to do the necessary reading.

"Zed/BBD
Since neither of you has the slightest intention of looking at papers that dispute your Armageddon theories or that dispute your interpretation of the likely effect of CO2 — and I have read four in the last three days — forgive me if I don't bother linking to them or following either of you up this particular cul-de-sac.
This is now just one more thread that you have effectively shut down."
Nov 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM | Mike Jackson

Easy Tiger. Can't speak for BBD, but he is normally pretty good at going away and reading the evidence. Quite why you think you're a better judge of my intentions than I am, is beyond me. funny thing is, you've previous for doing it before.

Brushing that aside, I assure you I have every intention of reading these papers you allude to, unless I've already read them, in which case I shall inform you of that.

Are they peer-reviewed by the way, because I've been led down the path of wasting my life looking at total rubbish cited on here as evidence that AGW is not the correct theory? You've also slightly queered yoru pitch on this front, in that when I complained to the poster in question that they had wasted my time by directing me to worthless rubbish, you cheered them on and said "well done" as though tricking me into wasting my time by looking at rubbish, represented some form of victory or achievment.

Anyway, I'm venting against minor sleights from the past, and if I'm not careful, this post will consist of two words only - No Venting.

If you've some evidence that AGW is not the correct theory, then post it up and I'll have a look. but don't bother if it's trash - it's really unfair to send me off to look at something which has no value.

If you have something to say about the IEA report I'd be really, really intersted, although I suspect, as I've said before, we won't be seeing much about that on here until a few trite responses to it have been handed down from on high.

p.s. - Mike Jackson - BBD has a good point.

You claimed you ha evidence contrary to that we have regarding consensus amngst climate scientists.

You've let me get off that point. If you've got evidence, then out with it man! Don't just allude to it, that makes it seem like you're just bluffing.

Nov 9, 2011 at 4:52 PM | Dreadnought

See comment from me 14 minutes before yours for access details.