[ RadSafe ] Numbers --Re: Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?

Tue Oct 19 15:52:57 CDT 2010

Hi all,

Just to correct one numeric error:
Carbon releases into the atmosphere are generally reported in gigatons of C to help in evaluating the carbon budget and the role of various pathways.

The number cited in the preceding post of 6 gigatons of C0-2 per year released to the air is very much lower than today's actual level of CO-2 release from fossil fuel burning.

Namely, in 2008, 8.7 gigatons of carbon were contained
 in 31.8 gigatons  ( 31.8E9 tons ) of CO2 which was released from fossil fuel combustion --- or 5.3 times more CO-2 than mentioned in the post below.  1 g of carbon upon burning creates 3.67 g CO-2  [ 44/12 as the ratio of atomic weight of CO-2 divided by C]

CO-2 releases to air from fossil fuels worldwide was about 6.14 gigatons in 1990, so the total CO-2 released by mankind has increased by 41% in only 20 or so years. Even just slowing down the increase of C0-2 released from humanity's burning of fossil fuels is going to be tough [as in don't bet on it].  I get a chuckle from some individuals and activist groups who
 maintain they can lower and even reverse the annual CO-2 release rate from today's rate of release in 15 or 20  with large renewable energy investments and conservation. These claims by some are merely a shell game.

If you want to read a very well written article just published yesterday about how government subsidies gone wild for solar electric development [and hybrid cars] in Spain have essentially bankrupted the country, and scared off foreign investors, see:

<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/spanish-solar-projects-on-brink-of-bankruptcy-as-subsidy-policies-founder.html>

I found the article above fascinating concerning the fiasco created by a government offering huge subsidies for solar electric developments where the
 guaranteed cost per kWe to developers from solar electric panels was 10 times or more the cost of generation from a coal [or nuclear ] power plant. Most of the solar panels came from outside Spain [largely China] and created very few of the jobs promised for the Spanish economy.

A similar problem with government subsidies for wind farms causing major problems for Spain was reported a few month's ago.

Stewart Farber, MSPH 

Farber Medical Solutions, LLC

Bridgeport, CT 06604

[203] 441-8433 [office]

website: http://www.farber-medical.com
=======================

--- On Tue, 10/19/10, Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Date: Tuesday, October 19, 2010, 3:42 PM

Hi Folks:

To place such a large number into perspective... 6 billion Tonnes CO2 /
year, this would mean that if the oceans (alone) were required to deal with
uptake, then 0.017 g CO2 / m2 Ocean per year would be the additional load.

Normal annual oceanic sedimentation is about 62 g/m2 material mostly
consisting of fluvial sediment but also
 aeolian and dissolved material which
is
 precipitated.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:28
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
 mind?

Putting 6 billion tons of CO2/yr into the atmosphere would all depend on
exactly what the effects are.  Higher atmospheric CO2 is good for plants
so crops thrive and there is more food available which is going to help
reduce famine. Higher temp is also good for expanding the growing areas
and the Greenlanders get their Greenland back.  The forests we've
devastated can recover...etc.  You're presuming its bad based on what?
Maybe it's a good thing.  Maybe 12 Billion tons would be optimal maybe
none is.  If an ice age is coming (as some predict) it may not be
enough...I just don't know and neither does anyone else.

On the other hand if the chicken-little hysterics are correct and the
feedback mechanism ramps everything out of control and we're doomed I
guess that's bad although some may disagree with that.

In either event you don't know what you don't know. But what we do
 know
is the Principle of Uniformitarianism, that the laws of nature haven't
changed through time and earth has been through heating and cooling in
the past and will continue to do so in the future with or without us.

What I have seen from the East Angelia emails, the political nonsense
from the IPPC, as well as the power elite (UN and the like) looking for
control and money I'm very skeptical this has been based on good science
and it has been more of an effort of using unfounded hysteria get to an
agenda.  

When you can't even reconstruct your own data base and reconcile
differences in opinion in a scientific arena I guess it's time to start
over rather than legislating "fixes" based on hysteria.

Dudley Emer
Geophysicist
National Security Technologies
Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nv
702-295-7808 office
702-794-5824 pager
702-521-8577 cell

-----Original
 Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bourquin,
Marty
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:28 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
mind?

Temporarily ignoring whether or not the rise in temperature is part of
the natural cycle or is being caused by man made factors - is there
anyone on this list that truly believes that putting over 6.2 billion
(with a B) net tonnes per year of CO2 into the atmosphere will not, in
the long term, have deleterious effects? (heating , cooling, turning the
air pink,
 whatever)  Do we all also believe that prohibiting the
discharging of CFCs into the atmosphere was a scam designed to make
money for one group or another?

Sorry, but I have children and grandchildren who have to live on this
rock - how can I, in good conscience, not oppose polluting the ground,
water and air?

Marty

Martin W. Bourquin 
Manager - EHS, RSO 
W.R. Grace & Co 
Chattanooga, TN  37406 
423-697-8216 

423-309-1547(m)

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Emer, Dudley
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:06 PM
To: The
 International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
mind?

Considering that Venus is the second closest planet to the sun at 67
Mega miles compared to earth's 93 Mega miles and the solar irradiance is
twice earth's at 2600 W/cm^2.  I guess one could expect a bit of heating
with any atmosphere that is 90 times as dense as earth's.  But comparing
it to earth's global warming is a bit of a stretch. 

Although I bet if you went for a research grant on that theory the IPPC
money would roll in.

Dudley Emer
Geophysicist
National Security Technologies
Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nv
702-295-7808 office
702-794-5824 pager
702-521-8577 cell

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu]
 On Behalf Of Brent Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:54 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open
mind?

True that.  But the average surface temperature is between 450 - 500C,
therefore high CO2 does indeed result in higher temps.  

> Regards
> Brent Rogers
> Sydney Australia
> (currently on vacation in Hot Springs Arkansas, USA)

Sent from my iPad

On 19/10/2010, at 10:21 AM, "Peter Fear" <FEARP at upstate.edu> wrote:

> 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:
>> 
_______________________________________________
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