[ RadSafe ] Checking Arithmetic: Keeping an open mind Are we keeping an open mind?
Howard Long
howard.long at comcast.net
Sun Oct 24 12:15:21 CDT 2010
Carbonate rock has so much more CO2 than the atmosphere or oceans, that time for its release must enter your arithmetic, as well as the 100 x greenhouse effect of water vapor as of CO2 (which I have never seen).
I still trust better the history that even Venice was not flooded when Greenland was green 1,000 years ago, more than any hype about avoiding disaster by minimizing carbon burning (wasteful as it is of a valuable chemical).
Access to Energy, Art Robinson (prominent nuclear energy promoter and author of CO2 effect articles) is replacing Congressman DeFazio in Oregon to bring science
to DC. Check out artrobinsonforcongress.com and help oust the carbon taxers!
Howard Long
On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:59 PM, "Kai Kaletsch" <eic at shaw.ca> wrote:
> 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
> Environmental Instruments Canada Inc.
> http://www.eic.nu/
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan W McCarn" <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
> To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> 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-----
>> 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
>>
>>
>> -----
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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