[ RadSafe ] Climate change
JPreisig at aol.com
JPreisig at aol.com
Tue Feb 26 13:55:53 CST 2013
If there is some CO2 effect and/or effects from other gases, then
grow trees and build new nuclear plants.
These steps might help alleviate some of the CO2 etc. problem.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the USA
is cranking on all cylinders, and burning coal, gasoline, natural gas, and
much of these materials are now
garnered from US sources. Beats buying hydrocarbons from another country.
Hey, we might even pay off some debt if taxes are collected for each
volume of hydrocarbon sold. This will probably go on for 100 years or so, at
least. Coal and nuclear fission will be available for 100's of years. How
Cool. Keep working on fusion also, I guess.
I like the idea of having solar cells, especially higher efficiency
solar cells that are being developed at
Princeton University and elsewhere. These solar cells minimize reflection
losses. Wonder when this PU
professor will issue a public stock offering with this technology.???
There are two armed camps about global warming right now. Many
academics back the global
warming ideas. There are data to support this idea. Hockey stick or
whatever. Another armed camp
doesn't believe in global warming... they have data too. Some rather
serious scientists are in this armed camp also.
With respect to the Earth Wobbles (Annual wobble, Chandler Wobble 1,
Chandler Wobble 2), these
Earth orientation phenomena (beats of Earth orientation frequencies --- sum
and difference frequencies)
are quite real and will affect USA and global weather (with droughts and
serious snowstorms) for the
next 12 years or so. The ice caps will re-solidify (on the average)
during this time period, thus causing less
moisture to be available in Earth non-polar regions (i.e. droughts) and
will cause cold areas (the ice at the
Earth poles) to be available to create good-sized snowstorms. The
severity of the droughts and snowstorms
are not really known to me, based on the limited data I have available to
me at my PC. People like Chopo Ma (Goddard Space Center), Jean Dickey
(JPL), the National Weather Service etc. should be able to make
some pretty good predictions of Earth weather for the next 20 years. With
computer codes like SOLVE and
CALC, Chopo can tell you all the position and orientation of the Earth
(Precession, Orbit, Nutation,
Wobbles, Earth Spin etc.) for the next 20 years as good as almost anyone.
They make VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) estimates of these
parameters every 5 days or so, for the US Government (Army,
Navy, Air Force etc.). Upfront the folks at Goddard will tell this work
is being done to study
earthquakes, the atmosphere etc. However, these data are also rather
tactical nature, and allow us to
do the pinpoint bombing (remember Bunker Buster bombs hitting directly in
the middle of crosshairs???).
The global warming problem will probably be well-solved in the next 10
years --- the data quality for such
studies are getting better every day. I'm sure Al Gore was taught well
about CO2 etc. in his classes at
University. Unfortunately, he wasn't taught everything there. We'll see
Funny many of the guys who believe in global warming are probably
anti-nuclear folks. And nuclear
energy is one of the solutions to this CO2 etc. problem.
Oops, guess we weren't supposed to discuss this on RADSAFE anymore. I
can't let some email posts
Believe what you will. It is probably not a good idea to totally
ignore global warming.
Regards, Joe Preisig
In a message dated 2/26/2013 1:41:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Kjell.Johansen at nexteraenergy.com writes:
With regard to the 4 previously mentioned options regarding climate change
[warmer, colder, no change, or being hit by an asteroid], I am in the camp
that has come to the conclusion that the climate will move to higher
temperatures. [We were discussing this back in the '70s in my meteorology and
oceanography classes at the University of Michigan and those profs were smart
guys.] Any change in the solar output or axis wobble will make some small
changes. Continuing to pump greenhouse gases (methane, CFCs, and carbon
dioxide) into the atmosphere increases the heat containing capacity of the
atmosphere. (Ok, to be technically correct, you are increasing the capacity
of the atmosphere to capture outgoing radiation and radiating back to the
earth as heat. But, in the overall picture, it results in an increase in
the earth's temperature.) By analogy with solar output and axis wobble,
compare the water content of an 8-oz glass to that of a 16-oz glass. No matter
how the rate at
which you fill the glasses, the 16-oz glass will always contain more
water. Therefore, more greenhouse gases, higher temperatures.
Look at the records in the oceanic sediment cores and the ice cores. When
the greenhouse gases CO2 and methane concentrations are high, so are all
of the geochemical markers for increased temperature, ie, the O18/O16
ratios, etc. To deny any link between greenhouse gases and the average earth
temperature is an extreme case of reverse hubris.
Too many people who regularly contribute to RADSAFE tend to dismiss the
data which lead climatologists to be concerned about higher earth
temperatures because it does not fit their already formed conclusions. Being
flippant is not worthy response to scientific concerns.
As always, these words are my own and I do not intend to formulate any
official position for my employer.
Kjell Johansen, PhD
Nuclear Chemistry Analyst
kjell.johansen at NextERAEnergy.com
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
More information about the RadSafe