# [ RadSafe ] Checking Arithmetic: Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?

Kai Kaletsch eic at shaw.ca
Sat Oct 23 22:59:48 CDT 2010

```Hi Dan,

we seem to disagree by 3+ orders of magnitude. Please comment:

6 E9 tonnes CO2 = 6 E 15 g CO2
Ocean surface = 3.61 E14 m2 (from Wikipedia)
That works out to 17 g CO2 /m2, rather than 0.017

Someone else pointed out that it should be 32 E9 tonnes CO2, rather than 6
E9 tonnes. That takes us to 90 g/m2 that the ocean would need to take care
of, in addition to the current 62 g/m2.

Cheers,
Kai

Kai Kaletsch
http://www.eic.nu/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan W McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'"
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?

> 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-----
> [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-----
> [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-----
> [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-----
> [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)
>
>
> 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
>> 636 UH
>> 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)
>>
>>
>> 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:
>
> 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:
>
> 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:
>
> 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:
>
> 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:
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3206 - Release Date: 10/19/10
>

```