BBC Blog Network

User Profile

mattymed

Listed below are comments made by mattymed between Sunday, 5th July 2009 and Tuesday, 3rd November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Orange's 'unlimited' iPhone 8:59pm on 03 Nov 2009 Very disappointing news.

Oh well, I'll just wait a little longer. Or a lot longer, if needs be.

It wouldn't take much to sway me into finally getting an iphone, but neither operator is offering any real new incentives. I have a 3yr old phone with a radio, mp3 player and a reasonable camera- and it's working fine.

I like shiny new things and the extra features on the iphone are a tempting luxury, but I manage fine without them now, and without anything meaningful in the way of price reductions/offers I won't be budging.
Biases, U-turns, and the BBC's climate coverage 7:01pm on 17 Oct 2009 What a thread. So much heat, so little light.

Richard, you must have the patience of a saint.

There's such a job of work to do in terms of educating the public and raising the level of the debate, it's hard to know where to start (and hard to know whose remit it falls under).

I'll have a crack at one red herring that's cropped up here repeatedly, expressed by Economist123 most recently- that 'the logarithmic response of temperature to CO2 levels' somehow invalidates AGW theory.

Of course the response of temperature to CO2 is non-linear. This proves nothing. Tripling or quadrupling CO2 levels will raise global mean temperatures, but of course it won't triple or quadruple them. CO2 levels have been well over 1000 ppm in previous geological ages but that doesn't mean the Earth's temperature at those times was over double what it is now (385 ppm), and it doesn't mean that across the CO2 ranges we're talking about- perhaps the doubling of current levels, for instance- there won't be a rise of a degree or more, which could still have serious repercussions in terms of sea level rises, water scarcity etc. The world won't end, but things could still get uncomfortable for human civilisation.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/04/recent-lower-global-temperatures/
There's a decent description 4 or 5 paragraphs down.

This issue of climate sensitivity has been the subject of endless debate within the climate science community, PhD theses have been written on it and countless hours of research have been devoted to it- yet the idea that scientists have somehow just overlooked the issue of the logarithmic relationship of temp to CO2 is beyond a joke.

I realise that engaging in this kind of debate is like whacking moles, but just couldn't leave that point unanswered...

There is a real discussion that needs to be had around global warming (what, if anything, we can usefully do, and how quickly we need to do it)- but this thread hardly goes near it.
Climate doctors say 'feel the pain'... 11:11pm on 12 Oct 2009 John_from_Hendon

Don't get hung up on the causality thing. Peter Barber is right: CO2 can both lead and lag temperature. In climatology parlance, it can act as both a feedback and a forcing depending on circumstances. Paleoclimate studies indeed suggest that it has lagged increases in temperature from external forcings such as solar irradiance on some occasions in the Earth's geological past (Milankovitch cycles), while leading temperature at others (such as the eruption of flood basalts proposed as mechanism for the End-Permian extinction).

Paleoclimatology is complex and full of uncertainty and, in my opinion, has way too much influence in the climate debate. It's too easy to argue it both ways. And of course, if you're being disingenuous in your arguing you can use the uncertainty to your advantage.

If you accept the basic physics of radiative transfer, understand the characteristics of the CO2 molecule (and the other so-called GHGs), can follow Tyndall's work on atmospheric science (done in C19th before computer climate models and paleoclimate studies of course), can tell the difference between a feedback and a forcing, and have an appreciation of the broad timescales on which the relevant cycles work (carbon cycle, hydrological cycle etc) then that's all you need to see why increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere might cause a rise in temperature. For it *not* to cause a rise in temperature requires some outlandish and unlikely science. Not saying it's impossible of course, just something to be highly sceptical about...
Is it time for a UK space agency? 10:34pm on 20 Jul 2009 I like 'BASA'- British Aeronautical and Space Agency.

The 'aeronautical' bit is important. To get to space, you have to go through the atmosphere. One of the UK's most exciting space projects, for example, is Reaction Engines' Sabre/Skylon programme- a dual air breathing and liquid O2 rocket, and spaceplane design- essentially an aeroplane that can fly into space. You can't even think about 'conquering' space without mastering the atmosphere first.
Who will be first to get vaccine? 12:36pm on 05 Jul 2009 Steady on Fergus.

The vaccine isn't even here yet, so it seems a bit much to expect a detailed priority list until we know exactly when and how much is available. I know it's controversial these days to say something positive about DH planning, but it seems like a very sensible list to me. FWIW, this is my take on how prioritisation might go when we get closer to the time, assuming the swine flu infection rate snowballs as expected.

Healthcare workers will probably rise to the top of the priority list. Without preserving the functioning of the health workforce, all other measures are moot.

Poultry workers will be right up there too- the last thing we want is the unlikely (but potentially disastrous) situation of a new influenza strain emerging from people co-infected with the contagious-but-mild H1N1 swine flu and the dangerous-but-not so contagious H5N1 bird flu. Poultry workers are in the front line of that scenario, so it makes sense that they're highlighted on the list.

Then the high risk groups- those with immune deficiencies, chronic respiratory illnesses and pregnancy for instance.

People over 60 seem to have some immunity to the current virus from previous exposure to pandemic H1N1 in the 1960s, so maybe they won't be as high up the list as you might expect.

I imagine all these issues and more are under active discussion right now. It sounds like there might be a good amount of vaccine ready by the autumn, so if we can slow the progress of the pandemic sufficiently before then, hopefully some of the more difficult prioritisation decisions won't be necessary...

«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

mattymed