BBC Blog Network

User Profile

timjenvey

Listed below are comments made by timjenvey between Tuesday, 17th November 2009 and Monday, 30th November 2009 (22 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

'Climategate' - What next? 05:24am on 30 Nov 2009 Hey BB. From my recollection I think you’re missing the point.

The WHO was administrating DDT procedures with vector controls way before Ms Carson got going. From what I remember the various bodies trying to fight malaria had to fight a huge battle to get the vector use of DDT continued and there were many places, that because of the political pressure, banned DDT all together and yes, millions died unnecessarily. I would not think much of your chances of survival if you had taken this stance to an African village where friends and relatives were dying for the lack of DDT spray in their homes, even if this was a worrying measure.
Sitting in our comfy air conditioned/heated homes with an AE down the road we are too removed from the reality to make such comments.

As for the 2nd law of thermo dynamics being meaningless I think that is a step too far. All laws have boundaries. We just have to define them. There is the coefficient of elasticity that is true until the yield point is past etc. If you take your line of argument you might as well write science off all together. I’m sure this is not what you mean or I have misunderstood.
Afghan decision time 04:59am on 30 Nov 2009 wolfvorkian #9. You say

"Americans never learn."

They are the only ones that try! The rest of the world just gloats on conspiracy theories, the latest media drivel and hides with its head in the sand!!! Stand up and do the job yourselves.

Sheesh. Where did you crawl out from?
Afghan decision time 03:25am on 30 Nov 2009 Obama blames Bush.
Bush blames Clinton.
Clinton blames?? Could it be that we would not be in this situation now if Clinton had acted when he had the opportunity?

I'm sure they all tried in their own way.

This is just the political posturing and will only add to the deepening public disapproval of the president.

Just do what you got to do and take responsibility like a true leader. You will get respect that way.
Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 9:36pm on 28 Nov 2009 Hi Davblo #60. You say:

"You can't impose restrictive quality control procedures on such a process. It's a dynamic evolving process."

So we enter into the business model of a company that does pure research.

I have helped to set up processes in such a business and you put controls in place. You would not get the shenanigans we have seen in 'ClimateGate" in the delivered product. They would be dead in the water. They would not even get there research to the table.

Best
Tim
Copenhagen Countdown: 10 days 8:22pm on 28 Nov 2009 I’ve been an intermittent contributor on this blog for a year or so and have had many an exchange around the subject of the R&D (research and development), primarily the R, and its use in making public policy. (Simon Swede may like to comment)

I’m not surprised at all at the ‘ClimateGate’ revelations. In fact they are what I expected.

I work much of my time as a project/program manager in product development (high tech and pharmaceuticals) and I see this behavior as par for the course. I agree that industry is far ahead of university/institutional R but has the same face. Every aspect of the ‘ClimateGate’ shenanigans is IMO norm for an R community. There are companies that specialize in R (particularly pharmaceuticals) and I can agree here with those posts about R adhering to best practices as their whole business depends on it.

In the real world of business, the R is handed over to engineers who do the design and development. In those phases quality control, compliance and regulatory processes kick in. It’s at this point that folks start to get comfortable and confident about a product.

The travesty here is that this part is missing. Here’s a bunch of university type R’s inputting into public policy. It’s lunacy. That’s why we have got folks like the Steve McIntyre’s (exposed hockey stick) in the real world. We should have a whole department of them doing quality/regulatory/compliance audits.

R’s are by nature creative people and for them to work effectively they need to be free of constraints. R’s need as part of their team some engineers to watch their backs and at that point folks like us can start to have confidence in their output.
Hatfield gets green light from EU 05:03am on 24 Nov 2009 Marcus Garvey #33

You base much of your argument on Leibig for non controlled systems. As I said this did not gel with my simplistic school biology lessons. Just done a Google search and there appear to be proper papers arguing the same drift. Take a look at this one:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121493652/abstract

They say:
"These results question the applicability of the Liebig's law of the minimum at the community level, and the relevance of ecosystem models relying on this principle."

Lots more if you want to look.

As for your comment at #34. Well, it certainly paints your colours loud and clear so not much point in continuing with this thread.
Hatfield gets green light from EU 10:37pm on 22 Nov 2009 Marcus Garvey #22:

Thanks for input. I had to look back to my school books. As I understand it 'Leibigs law of the minimum' cannot be applied to an eco-system. Leibigs work was associated with controlled systems like in agriculture. The only limiting factor in an eco-system is energy from the sun. Without that nothing at all happens.

Adding more CO2 to controlled environments increases growth and health. Market gardens tend to use this method instead of heat as heat is expensive to produce. However, if heat and CO2 are applied together increased nutrients and fertilizer will be required. This is where Leibig comes into the equation.

When earth has warmed up in the past plant life begins to take off. Following that CO2 increases (up to 800yrs I read) and then even more abundant grow takes place. The increased growth dies off in a natural cycle of re-generation and huge quantities of nutrients are released. Water increases as the previous iced over regions melt. Rain also increases as plants abound. We can observe this and recent studies into the effects of bacteria seem to bear this out. Check out “Bioprecipitation”.

Here’s a good website for info: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N46/B2.php
The page I picked is about the greening of the Sahara but take a look around the site.

So trying to control CO2 to 350ppm (or whatever the number is) is just interfering with nature’s natural course. The tiny bit more that we add will only help our fellow life forms.

The earth has seen mind boggling episodes where life has just exploded. Increased warmth, then CO2 and naturally produced nutrients, increased water etc. We can see the results in all that coal that formed when Mother Nature decided to bring one of the last episodes to an abrupt end.

And to BB – Yes I agree: Triffids will eventually rule the day. But I think your comment was meant more to be disingenuous.
Hatfield gets green light from EU 02:09am on 22 Nov 2009 Why do we need to consider sequestration?

Let’s leave aside AGW theory for a moment while I think back to my biology lessons and as holiday worker in a market garden.
I'll speak for the plants here as they do not seem to have a voice. So here’s their input:

“550-1000ppm CO2 is pretty much the optimum environment for us depending on our constitutions. We have evolved over the years to live healthily in environments of between 500-1400ppm. The current environment is a bit low but we have adapted albeit somewhat stunted. Please remember we have not got lungs like you humans and therefore cannot increase our CO2 input when needed. We rely on it being there all the time for our survival. Please continue your initiatives to increase our life-giving supply of CO2. Help us to fully blossom and to reach our full potential. Use whatever means you can to force it up to and above that 550ppm minimum optimum level for which our current depleted life forms hunger for. We will reward you by fulfilling your increasing demands for quality and quantity.”

So again; why carbon “sequestration”? Just let it all go and help our fellow life forms and live together with them in natural harmony.
Hatfield gets green light from EU 3:38pm on 20 Nov 2009 Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600
Off topic here but we talked about Paul being the target of some folks from Realclimate.

Just been reading Richard Black's blog and found this post:

>>> Michael Mann wrote:
>>>> extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC.
>>>> its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat
>>>> at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was
>>>> formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
>>>> We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it
>>>> might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I
>>>> might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

If this is true then our thoughts around folks like Marco, Albatross, Steig etc. could be what Mann is refering to in his post when he says Realclimate will "do something about it".

Well done Paul.
Copenhagen Countdown: 24 days 06:10am on 17 Nov 2009 poitsplace says @70:

"BTW, Kealey...nice post. I agree"

Add me to that the list.

Totally in agreement; everyway, which way and how.

Brills..........

«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

timjenvey