210 Responses to “Irreversible no significa imparable”

1. 201
   Kevin McKinney says:

   10 February 2009 at 10:41

   Here’s a small but cheerful straw in the wind–so to speak:

   http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/10/ont-coal.html

   “Ontario’s energy mix could be virtually 100 per cent coal-free by next year, especially if the government boosted conservation by residents and acted boldly with its upcoming green energy act, suggests a new report.”

   Of course, more of the replacement megawatts are coming from gas than wind, but still. . .
2. 202
   Kevin McKinney says:

   10 February 2009 at 11:54

   On a related topic, here is a study on siting and generation consistency, based on Ontario’s wind capacity last year:

   http://www.amherstislandwindinfo.com/harrisoncorrelationpaper.pdf

   (Ontario has the advantage of geographical extent in this regard, compared to most American states–1,076,395 km2, versus 696,241 km² for Texas.)
3. 203
   James Cyr says:

   16 February 2009 at 15:43

   The terms “irreversible” and “unstoppable” are two sides of the same coin. Taken within the context of climate change, they both mean the same thing, i.e. a process that is continually evolving independent of man-made influences. The climate is changing, and it will continue to change. It is a process that can not be stopped, and to tinker with it is to invite disaster. The answer to the anthropogenic component is to reduce or eliminate sources of pollution; persue the development of alternate energy sources and minimize all forms of wastage.
4. 204
   Hank Roberts says:

   16 February 2009 at 16:11

   Are you the James Cyr from Canada who’s so active online opposing the militant soc-ia-lists there? thinks CO2 isn’t pollution? thinks burning fossil fuels isn’t tinkering with climate, but limiting use of them would be? Just curious if there’s any relation, or if you’re someone with similar misconceptions but interested in learning.
5. 205
   John Bartlett says:

   25 February 2009 at 20:05

   I like the suggetion that climate models be provided over the internet for people to play with. My only thought is that that strategy is a good one for those of us who are suffuciently educated in Maths and science to be able to appreciate the implications of playing with the models and indeed with the concept of modelling in this way. The vast majority of people are not so well informed. These people are only going to learn their information from the TV News and maybe newspapers, particularly the lower quality ones. What can we do to help them?
6. 206
   Mark says:

   26 February 2009 at 4:59

   205: there is one. One that can be run on a desktop PC.

   I can’t remember the linky, but someone here will do.

   And its existence hasn’t apparently helped (apparent may be more true than reality, since all that’s happened is that instead of wavering and not saying anything, they decided and aren’t saying anything).
7. 207
   Tim Curtin says:

   9 March 2009 at 0:14

   I am amused by the above discussion. Nobody seems to have noticed that Fig 1. and Fig 2. in Solomon et al equate growth of CO2 emissions (over 3% pa until early 2008, already falling fast) with growth of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the same rate, although the actual growth of the latter has been only 0.4% p.a. over the whole period since 1958, and was slightly below that from Jan 08 to Jan 09. What has been happening since 1958 is that global biospheric absorption of CO2 emissions has grown roughly pro rata with emissions, resulting in the relatively slow growth of [CO2]. In physical terms, the absorption or uptake of emissions was 1.8 GtC in 1958-59, 5.29 GtC in 2006-07, and prelim est. 5.8-6.0 in 2007-2008. I do not know why Solomon et al chose to ignore this data (taken from the GCP which Schneider helped to set up). Any suggestions?

   [Response: Try reading the paper? If they had concentrations growing at 2% a year, then by 2100 they'd have 2300 ppmv. They don't, therefore growth rates of concentrations are less, exactly as you would expect if you use the Bern CC model. Oh look! That's what they say they did. Please note that we are singularly uninterested in your 'amusing' attempts to make stuff up. - gavin]
8. 208
   Hank Roberts says:

   9 March 2009 at 10:39

   You want amusing, recollect this is the Tim Curtin who thinks that for CO2 to increase some other gas has to decrease by the same amount, because it’s “parts per million” — he’s never retracted that claim:

   Starting here:
   http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h.php#comment-113173

   Digging himself deeper:
   http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h.php#comment-114141

   The low point:
   http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h.php#comment-118036 where you’ll see:

   Posted by: Tim Curtin | June 24, 2006 9:00 AM. #48. Ian Gould: what do you understand by “parts per million”? Lesser earthlings like me think it means that …

   This is Curtin’s interpretation of Gresham’s Law as though it could be applied to atmospheres: bad molecules drive good molecules out of circulation. He’s said to be an economic adviser.
9. 209
   Bernard J. says:

   11 March 2009 at 9:50

   Tim Curtin has more ‘alternative’ takes on science than even Hank’s links at #208 suggest. Amongst these notions are his claim that increased CO2 emissions are universally beneficial to the biosphere, and that if humans cease to emit carbon dioxide, the living world faces an imminent crisis of existence. He also believes that climatology and ecology are peopled by liars, frauds and incompetents.

   This thread on Deltoid is a long and painful case history of Curtin’s ideas, and his refusal to provide any scientific basis for his claims:

   http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php

   Curtin has lately had an enormous bee in his bonnet about this paper of Solomon’s, about Chris Field, and about NAS and PNAS in general. In fact, he is so disturbed by these people, and by a number of other scientists (including Gavin) and by scientific journals, that he has been extremely free with what are surely libellous comments. If anyone is curious about the slander that he has produced, and doesn’t want to waste the time wading through the entire thread to find them, a sample is gathered at:

   http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/windschuttle_hoaxed.php#comment-1458144

   According to Curtin, he stands by his disparagements, and is happy to confront lawyers. If it wasn’t for the fact that Curtin is an economics emeritus at the Australian National University, and that he fancies himself as a publishing author in ’sceptical’ climatology and climatological economics, it would all just be tragically comic…
10. 210
    Jim Eager says:

    14 March 2009 at 17:43

    Oh, come on, Gavin, if they can’t make stuff up then what would they have left to post?