BBC Blog Network

User Profile

peadar1987

Listed below are comments made by peadar1987 between Thursday, 19th March 2009 and Friday, 27th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

China completes the climate circle 4:01pm on 27 Nov 2009 @Kamboshigh (#174)

Happy to oblige: Peer reviewed papers.

"Recent variations of sea ice and air temperature in high latitudes"
Chapman and Walsh (1994)

"A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic"
Comiso (2002)

"Historical whaling records reveal major regional retreat of Antarctic sea ice"
Cotté and Guinet (2007)

"C chronology for ice retreat and inception of Champlain Sea in the St. Lawrence Lowlands, Canada"
Richard and Ochietti (2005)

"Spatial and temporal variability of sea ice in the Laptev Sea: Analyses and review of satellite passive-microwave data and model results, 1979 to 2002"
Bareiss and Gorgen, 2005
China completes the climate circle 3:48pm on 27 Nov 2009 @colonelAgentEnigma

The last IPCC report specifically says that it is not known whether a rise in global temperatures will result in an increase in hurricane activity, but that it has to be considered as a possibility.

I don't see how you could get any more reasonable and measured than that.
China completes the climate circle 3:15pm on 27 Nov 2009 @LarryKealey (#98)

All the factors you list are human factors. If you attribute climate change to them, it's still anthropogenic.

And it's not as if people have just seen temperatures rising, looked for some random variable that roughly correlates to it. There is a well-known mechanism by which CO2 has an insulating effect on planets. When we discovered the ozone hole, correlating with areas of high atmospheric CFC concentrations, when CFC's were known to break down ozone, people didn't tie themselves in knots blaming the effect on solar winds and astrology.

@PAWB46

Criticise the data all you want, but you have to show me proof that NASA's empirical measurements have been doctored, and preferably show me your own "clean" data. Also, please explain why sea ice and glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate worldwide, if the temperature is not increasing.

And I haven't read the book in question, but even without the problem of anthropogenic climate change, we have about 70 years of oil left, 50 years of fissile uranium, 50 years of natural gas, and maybe 100 years of coal, if we're lucky. And they're all going to be getting more expensive as supply drops and demand continues to increase.

Our options are:
-Thorium and U-238 based nuclear breeder reactors, which produce some pretty nasty radioactive by-products, and have safety and public opinion concerns.

-Cross our fingers and hope for nuclear fusion to become technologically and financially viable within the next 30 years.

-Invest in currently-available, rapidly developing (and cheapening) sources of renewable energy, such as solar thermal, solar PV, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and algal biomass, which could easily cover our energy needs, to many times over the population the earth can support before we are limited by the supply of other resources.
China completes the climate circle 11:48pm on 26 Nov 2009 @poitsplace, #60

Would you not say that if the theory of anthropogenic climate change could be dismissed by simple physics such as that you have postulated, that we wouldn't even be talking about it today. There are several thousand scientists in the IPCC, do you really think that none of them would have noticed this?

The exact mechanism by which CO2 traps heat close to the earth's surface is by absorbing light at infra-red wavelengths after it has been emitted from the earth's surface. It then re-emits this in all directions, meaning a smaller proportion of the heat is radiated into space. This is the scientifically proven fact to which I was referring.

It is true that perhaps this will result in less radiant infra red from reaching the tropopause, possibly reducing it's temperature. This could damp the effect of global warming in the way you describe, but are you really suggesting that you know enough to suggest that these rebound effects will completely cancel out the extra heat trapped by carbon dioxide?

And as for your last question, nobody alive can answer that.

@PAWB46 #65

I was referring to climate in a global sense. I know you're intelligent enough to realise that, so could we please stick to debating the science as opposed to petty one-upmanship with snide one-liners?

And if you look at any graph of average global temperature over the last century, the trend is for a sharp and accelerating rise, in line with CO2 emissions, and bearing no strong relation to solar output, volcanic events, or planetary alignment of any description.

This graph here is from NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

The trend is clearly one of increasing temperature. Starting a line in the anomalously hot year of 1998, and saying that you have proved temperatures are decreasing is simply bad science.

And yes, I was born in 1987. And in response to your ad hominem attack,

UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
STUDYING A MASTERS DEGREE IN SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
China completes the climate circle 6:37pm on 26 Nov 2009 @Mango (#31)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1111311227&_sort=r&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=78fcab11db6d768112726b4e7a905721

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=carbon+dioxide+warming+mechanism&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Took me about 10 seconds to find.
China completes the climate circle 4:46pm on 26 Nov 2009 Some facts, people:

-Carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. This has been conclusively proven. No trends, no extrapolated data, just cold, hard, incontrovertible science.

-Global temperatures are rising. Forget about the fact that 1998 was the warmest year on record (and it was surpassed by 2005 anyway), just look at the trend.

-The only major change in conditions that the earth has experienced over the last twenty years has been elevated CO2 levels. No cataclysmic volcanic events, etc.

-We are experiencing a solar minimum at the moment. I'm not denying that the sun has a major effect on the earth's climate, but for those who say it is the primary driver of the temperature, this data seems to disprove you

-If nothing is done, feedback loops will kick in, causing CO2 to be emitted in vast quantities from the oceans and the ice caps, causing the added disadvantage of reduced planetary albedo (the amount of solar energy reflected back into space).

And the thing is, we do have many credible alternatives.

-I'm opposed to large-scale development of nuclear power due to waste and safety concerns, but there is definitely a place for thorium and depleted uranium-based breeder reactors in the future energy mix.

-Renewables are becoming cheaper almost by the day, as economies of scale kick in, and technology advances. It won't be long before costs are comparable to fossil fuels anyway, as prices are driven up due to scarcity.

-In the UK alone, almost 30% of the energy used could be saved by increased efficiency in domestic heating. That is a staggering figure. That's just installing ground source heat pumps and underfloor heating. No mention of combined heat and power systems, which would drive consumption down further. And this makes great financial sense on both a governmental and domestic scale, climate change or no climate change.

The thing is, it's not difficult or expensive to reduce our emissions. One of the main things stopping us at present is simply ignorance of the options, or simple laziness.
From prodigy to superstar 1:50pm on 27 May 2009 Messi against Ronaldo is a pointless debate, they're completely different players, you might as well ask who was better between Ronaldo and Ferdinand, or Moore and Hurst.
My alternative review of the season 11:50pm on 15 May 2009 Don't mind the critics Jacqui, I enjoyed the blog, and that's all that matters!

And I agree with comment 123 ;)
One of the lucky ones 7:41pm on 14 May 2009 "Gavin, one question, have you ever heard of a none player, even someone who has never had any real connection to football, take a coaching badge.

For example, Jose Mourinho was never a player."

I'm sure Gavin has heard of Jose Mourinho! ;)

I think in football you really need to have at least some playing career to be successful, people don't just want a good coach, they want a big name, so you either have to be an ex-pro who played at the highest level, or to have built your way up from the bottom, doing a sports science course and starting as coach at a small club.
It's all in the mind 11:05pm on 19 Mar 2009 British AND IRISH Lions, please Gavin!

I love the blog, it's one of the highlights of my week. You're keeping me sane through my final year of college.

Was it always assumed you were going to follow in your old man's footsteps and become a professional, or did the footballing life have a bit of competition from other options? Do you have any idea where you would have ended up had you say, had a serious injury at a young age?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

peadar1987