BBC Blog Network

User Profile

CuckooToo

Listed below are comments made by CuckooToo between Sunday, 30th August 2009 and Tuesday, 3rd November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism' 1:00pm on 03 Nov 2009 @oldgifford #177

Congratulations on having your first paper published.

Remember the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 38mm per annum and consider the effect on the tides and oceans
Kingsnorth - coal gone west? 3:46pm on 09 Oct 2009 of interest in this thread:

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3150655&origin=bldgdailynewsletter

A power plant in Hatfield colliery in Yorkshire looks set to collect £165m in European Commission funding to convert to “clean coal,” according to reports.

The news follows E.ON’s decision to delay plans for a carbon capture and storage (CCS) enabled power station in Kingsnorth, Kent, for three years.

Kingsnorth is disqualified from reaping a £1bn UK government research grant because it will miss the 2014 deadline.

A government spokesman said that E.ON had not officially withdrawn from the competition or been barred from it.
Hu's talking: Who's listening? 08:58am on 27 Sep 2009 @manysummits

I would also be interested in your thoughts (and anybody else for that matter) on the missing met office temperature record and the missing AGW signal.

@Jack_Hughes_NZ

#110

Morning Jack

In fairness to the worm people, readers of this blog will know that I am currently building a soil lab to test CO2, CH4, H20 in soil samples (hence the problem I am having with those "darling" newts!).

Over 20 years ago a survey was carried out across the country to measure the amount of CO2 etc being released from the soil. A similar study was undertaken and to the surprise of the scientists, the soil was releasing CO2 at a much higher rate. The idea of this experiment is to find out what is causing the soil to do this. I believe the original conclusion was, the CO2 release was caused by man made emissions warming up the soil and causing more CO2 release, similar to warming oceans being unable to contain as much CO2 as a cooler ocean.

This is a genuine attempt to try to understand why the soil is giving up it's CO2 and what contribution, if any, this is to AGW - which came first, temperature rise followed by CO2 release or CO2 release followed by temperature rise. If the ice cores are anything to go by, it should be temperature then CO2, but we will see.

Getting back to the worm man, biota has a very important part to play in the release of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere by churning up the soil and their own excretary products, so a field study (pun intended) is very worthwhile, although I am guessing the worm man is using the C word to ensure this study happens. It's just part of the way academics get funding for their projects.
Hu's talking: Who's listening? 09:59am on 26 Sep 2009 it's also interesting that the BBC doesn't find the loss of the temperature record newsworthy

tin foil hoodie anybody?
Hu's talking: Who's listening? 09:47am on 26 Sep 2009 i see the UN Environment Programme have just produced a report, signed off by Ban Ki-Moon, where they have grafted the CO2 record onto the "temperature record". Of course they had to use Manns discredited version of temperature and deny the existence of the Medieval Warming Period.

I didn't read any further.
Hu's talking: Who's listening? 09:33am on 26 Sep 2009 and then davblo2 posted a link!

ok,

3) there is no viable option to fossil fuels except nuclear at the moment. Again "There appear to be no viable alternatives to reducing .....our numbers"

Would this be a final solution? Is your declaration tied in with Sierra Club?

Sorry, manysummits, the only part of your declaration that i agree with is reform of the UN, just not in the way you think. The UN needs reforming because the UN has lost it's way
Hu's talking: Who's listening? 09:25am on 26 Sep 2009 @sensibleoldgrannie

#67

I think the debate rumble on until the alarmists are shown the error of their ways ;)

Good to know somebody else thinks the debate isn't over yet though - I thought it was just me (at least on this forum!)

@manysummits

#67

OK, my disagreements:

1) Your view that CO2 driven climate change is wrong.

2) A continuously growing population is a problem, as i have said here before, but, short of culling, how would you implement this? jr4412's taxation wouldn't work, how do you tax people with no money and is it morally correct to stop people having children. I think Mango's view is a little off, but he is right when he says jr4412 seems to advocating lots of children for the rich and none or one for the poor. I know that is not what he means to say, but that is the implication.

3) Can't remember this one

4) You seem to suggest only your band of merry man are able to understand the problems of the earth and the rest of us will follow your lead once we have been reeducated.

I can't find your declaration, so the above is from memory - apologies

I did notice only jr4412 responded to Mango's story on the temperature record debacle. I'd be interested in your comments, manysummits
Hu's talking: Who's listening? 5:50pm on 25 Sep 2009 @manysummits

I'm sorry manysummits, but I don't have anything to say on your declaration, because it doesn't speak for me and I totally disagree with everything it says.
Sober exit from the ozone party 2:21pm on 19 Sep 2009 @mangochutney

#53

I have "known" manysummits for some time now and, whilst you and I think the same about AGW and I think manysummits is wrong, he is very much a lover of this planet we all share. Please try to steer clear of comments that could be construed as being an attack on him or anybody else on this blog
Africa re(de)fines the climate dialogue 11:13am on 30 Aug 2009 the cost of protecting the population from climate change $150-500b per annum:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8224823.stm

number of deaths per annum directly attributable to AGW - zero

the cost of saving the lives of 1 billion people without access to clean water:

$25 per person ($25b covers their whole life, not just per annum)

http://water.org/billion/

number of people per annum dying from lack of clean water - 3.5 million

(please, lets not argue what constitutes death by AGW - pick any figure you like, it doesn't matter)

«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

CuckooToo