IEA Estimates Global Average Temperature Rise @ 3.5C By 2035 - CS Monitor

[hatrack]

Global temperatures are projected rise 3.5 degrees C. over the next 25 years, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday, meaning that governments worldwide will have failed in their pledge to hold global temperature at a 2-degree increase.

But there's hope yet, says Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA).

If governments remove subsidies for fossil fuels and increase investments in renewable energy to make them cost competitive, then the Copenhagen Accord can still be upheld. The voice of guarded optimism comes just ahead of a summit starting Nov. 29 in Cancún, Mexico, for another round of climate talks.

“Renewable energies need substantial subsidies from governments,” Dr. Birol said in a telephone interview. “The important task is to decide whether they will support energy renewables in the future. It could be bad news for energy security and climate change if they don’t."

Ed. - emphasis added.

EDIT

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/Global-temperature-to-rise-3.5-degrees-C.-by-2035-International-Energy-Agency

[dipsydoodle]

1. That would mean goodbye to bluebells

:(

[Dead_Parrot]

2. ...and the rest... nt

[joshcryer]

3. We won't have another climate summit for at least 10 years.

By then it'll be far too late to do shit about it. We're not giving a shit, it's simple.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. ...cause if it was in 5 years, we'd sort it!

ahhh, optimism....

:P

[_sunshine_]

5. It is already too late

I can think of a couple agricultural examples that demonstrate quite clearly that 1) university and government scientists know where we stand - you might say the water is already lapping at our feet, 2) the public does not care, 3) entrenched industries, especially agriculture interests, will drive our adaptation response, and 4) the public does not care.

I'm almost convinced some of the public would have to learn "fire hot!" empirically at this point, forget higher order concepts like physics, chemistry, or biology.

[Nederland]

6. Highly unlikely

A 3.5 degrees C. rise over the next 25 years is more than 3 times the rate IPCC computer models predict, and those models have been overestimating warming so far. The El Nino period that drives temperatures up is over, and the La Nina period that drives temperatures down is just beginning and is stronger than it has been in 50 years. For the next three to six years at least we are looking at something between flat trends and mild increases. A 3.5 degree rise in 25 years means an increase of 0.14 a year. If the next five years fail to show anything close to that, people are going to look at the IEA and think they should stuck to energy and left climate science to the climate scientists.

[joshcryer]

7. I think they intend to mean by the end of the century.

If not we're reaching into life ending territory.

[joshcryer]

8. Here's a much earlier article expounding on the science:

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3940

[joshcryer]

9. Here's the New Policy Scenario:

(FYI COP18 was a failure.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I think the IEA press release has been misinterpreted

Here's the release, and the section about 2035:

The central scenario in this year’s Outlook – the New Policies Scenario – takes account of the broad policy commitments and plans that have been announced by countries around the world. “We have taken governments at their word, in assuming that they will actually implement the policies and measures, albeit in a cautious manner, to ensure that the goals they have set are met” said Mr Tanaka. In that scenario, world primary energy demand increases by 36% between 2008 and 2035, or 1.2% per year on average. The assumed policies make a tangible difference to energy trends: demand grew by 2% per year over the previous 27-year period.
...
Globally, fossil fuels remain dominant over the Outlook period in the New Policies Scenario, though their share of the overall energy mix falls in favour of renewable energy sources and nuclear power. Oil nonetheless remains the leading fuel in the energy mix by 2035, followed by coal. Of the three fossil fuels, gas consumption grows most rapidly, its share of total energy use almost reaching that of coal.
...
The energy trends envisioned in the New Policies Scenario imply that national commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, while expected to have some impact, are collectively inadequate to meet the Copenhagen Accord’s overall goal of holding the global temperature increase to below 2°C. Rising demand for fossil fuels would continue to drive up energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions through to 2035, making it all but impossible to achieve the 2°C goal, as the required reductions in emissions after 2020 would be too steep. The New Policy Scenario trends are in line with stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases at over 650 parts per million (ppm) of CO2-equivalent (eq), resulting in a likely temperature rise of more than 3.5°C in the long term.

In order to have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal, the concentration of greenhouse gases would probably need to be stabilised at a level no higher than 450 ppm CO2-eq. The 450 Scenario describes how the energy sector could evolve were this objective to be achieved. It assumes implementation of measures to realise the more ambitious end of target ranges announced under the Copenhagen Accord and more rapid implementation of the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies agreed by the G-20 than assumed in the New Policies Scenario. This action brings about a much faster transformation of the global energy system and a correspondingly faster slowdown in global CO2 emissions. For example, oil demand peaks just before 2020 at 88 mb/d, only 4 mb/d above current levels, and declines to 81 mb/d in 2035. Coal demand peaks before 2020. Demand for gas also reaches a peak before the end of the 2020s. Renewables and nuclear double their current combined share to 38% in 2035.

http://interenerstat.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=402

It look to me like they're analysing what emissions may be up to 2035, and then saying that would produce a later rise of 3.5C or more.

[Nederland]

11. That makes much more sense

A very bad piece of reporting in the OP. Mistakes like this cannot help to inspire confidence in climate science.