[ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
McClung, Danny
Danny.McClung2 at va.gov
Tue Oct 19 10:45:02 CDT 2010
Pete,
If we listen to what Darwin had to say, we will adapt to the changing atmosphere or perish. I doubt that any of us reading this need to be worried. Biological adaptation is not high on my "bucket list" now, or in my perhaps 30 year future.
Dan McClung
Dept of Veterans Affairs
----------------------
Sent using BlackBerry
----- Original Message -----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu <radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tue Oct 19 11:21:26 2010
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
But by looking at Wikipedia you should also notice that the atmosphere of
Venus is +95% Carbon Dioxide and Earth's is 0.038%. The "large" percentage
increase that we have seen is still no where near the amount on Venus.
Pete
Peter Fear
Health Physics Technologist
SUNY Upstate Medical University
Radiation Safety Office
636 UH
750 E. Adams St.
Syracuse, NY 13210
Phone: (315)464-6510
FAX: (315)464-5095
fearp at upstate.edu
>>> Brent Rogers <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au> 10/19/2010 10:41 AM >>>
I lack the competence to debate climate science (other than to note that
they strongly correlate with one's political views) but if you really find
it "completely false" that increased levels of CO2 increases temperature may
I suggest you redirect your wikipedia to the planet of Venus?
Regards
Brent Rogers
Sydney Australia
(currently on vacation in Hot Springs Arkansas, USA)
Sent from my iPad
On 18/10/2010, at 8:46 PM, Emilio Martinez <emiliommartinez at yahoo.com.ar>
wrote:
>
> Here's an extended version of the graph:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
>
> The measurements for the last 150,000 years on CO2, CH4, temperature and
O18 are
> strongly guided by the Earth's Milankovitch cycles (climatic changes
produced by
> changes in the earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, etc) I find it
completely false
> to asume that CO2 increases temperature just because they go hand in hand
in
> some curtailed chart, while its clear that they are both moved by some
much more
> powerful force.
>
> By the way, I support nuclear power, but as someone said before, I'm not
willing
> to use carbon emissions as an argument if I don't belive it to be true.
>
>
> I see in you a group of thinking people, so please if you can prove me
wrong,
> show me my mistake.
>
>
> Emilio Martinez,
> Math Student
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De:Jess Addis <ajess at clemson.edu>
> Para:The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Enviado: lunes, 18 de octubre, 2010 14:36:53
> Asunto: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
mind?
>
> If you have time to read a little and really care for an explanation of
the
> lag time and probable cause for the initiation of the warming cycles
this
> article is one place to start. It's climate science from people who
really
> are climate scientist.
>
>
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-a
> nd-co2/
>
> The letter at the end of the article is also interesting and succinct.
>
> Of course if one's mind is already made and maybe takes for granted that
> hard working ethical scientist are all really just frauds spewing huge
loads
> of BS from universities, government agencies, and scientific bodies
> .....well, it would be a waste of one's time.
>
> And remember, "chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed
to
> hatch from them". Love that one.
>
> Jess Addis, RSO
> Clemson U.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Hardeman
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:22 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
mind?
>
> To all --
>
> All of us, whether climate scientists or not (and I assume that most of
us
> on this list are NOT) should be astute enough scientifically to
recognize
> that correlation does not imply causation. While it may be true that
levels
> of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising, and it may also be true that the
global
> climate is changing (as it has done continually since the formation of
the
> planet) that doesn't mean that one "causes" the other.
>
> I remember a presentation at Georgia Tech several years ago by a climate
> scientist who looked at the available info, including pre-historic info
re:
> carbon levels and global temperatures -- however derived. As I recall,
the
> data appear to support the thought that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
> "follow" rises in global temperature by tens to hundreds of years --
> although if you plot them on time scales of hundreds of thousands of
years,
> the curves appear to be coincident.
>
> Jim Hardeman
>
>>>> <garyi at trinityphysics.com> 10/18/2010 10:22 >>>
> Three words for you, Parthasarathy, "...hide the decline."
>
> That should be enough to make anyone very sceptical, but it is just the
tip
> of the melting iceberg. As far as your comments go, you have commited a
> sin, and a pretty serious one
> too: the fallacy of appealing to authority.
>
> You don't need a climate scientist to evaluate charges of fraud. Again:
the
> question is NOT how much or why temperatures are changing. The question
is
> did Mann et al fake temperatures, suppress conflicting scholarship, and
then
> destroy their data when they could no longer hide what they were doing.
The
> evidence is widely available and overwhelmingly damning.
>
> Not that it should matter, but the Royal Society has just been forced by
its
> membership to
> backtrack:
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-
> new-climate-
> change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html
>
> Here's a snippet from the article:
> 'The Royal Society now also agrees with the GWPF that the warming
trend
> of
> the 1980s and 90s has come to a halt in the last 10 years.
>
> 'In their old guide, the Royal Society demanded that governments
should
> take "urgent
> steps" to cut CO2 emissions "as much and as fast as possible." This
> political activism
> has now been replaced by a more sober assessment of the scientific
> evidence and
> ongoing climate debates.
>
> 'If this voice of moderation had been the Royal Society's position
all
> along, its
> message to Government would have been more restrained and Britain's
> unilateral
> climate policy would not be out of sync with the rest of the world.'
>
> Focus on the evidence of fraud, not on the evidence of warming. If you
find
> the evidence of fraud compelling, as I do, then the inescapable corollary
is
> that a hugh load of BS is spewing from the involved universities,
government
> agencies, and scientific bodies. Talk about an environmental problem!
>
> -Gary Isenhower
>
> On 17 Oct 2010 at 1:37, parthasarathy k s wrote:
>
> [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]
>
> Dear Dr Gary Isenhower,
>
> From the discussions on the climate change issue by a few members of the
> list, I got the impression that most of those who contributed their
views
> were not keeping an open mind. My knowledge of the field is limited. In
such
> instances I tried to look for the views of scholarly bodies. I am aware
of
> the controversies surrounding the IPPC. It appears to me that there is
some
> vested interest in some groups of individuals.
>
> There were comments made on the views of APS. But the National Academy
of
> Sciences seems to support broadly the conclusions of IPPC. The British
Royal
> Society has come out with a summary of its observations on climate
science.
>
>
> It concludes thus:
>
> "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations
due
> to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has
> taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected
to
> continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many
regions.
> Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have
> profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems."
>
> The report ends with the following:
>
> ..........."Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate
> change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the
> remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of
> interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about
such
> choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate
> change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be
> made.
> Climate science - including the substantial body of knowledge that is
> already well established, and the results of future research - is the
> essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be
a
> vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging
> area."....
>
> [Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science .September
2010].
>
> This report is available at
>
> http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
>
>
> I find it extremely difficult to believe that every scholarly body has
> vested interest in the field. I am conscious of the fact that I belong to
a
> minority in the list. I am sure that there are many in the list who
likes
> to remain silent.
>
>
> I personally believe that there is no need for supporting nuclear power
for
> its green-house reducing attributes.
>
>
> regards
> Parthasarathy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu ( http://health.phys.iit.edu/ )
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list