[ RadSafe ] Climate change
victor.anderson at frontier.com
Tue Feb 26 14:07:26 CST 2013
Good Morning All,
Interesting discussion. What about the fact that about 70 million years ago
CO2 levels were about 6,000 ppm. Life and the earth is still around.
According to a recent history channel program, O2 level were about 40%. Not
good for people. The fact is that the popular notion that CO2 is the cause
of global warning and will cause life on earth to cease is just so much
bunk. We are at about 400 ppm. Now to get things back on topic. How will
the expected climate changes affect background radiation? If the atmosphere
gets more dense, then rad levels should go down. But will it?
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Howard Long
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:46 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Climate change
Ask presently snowed-in Americans whether they would LIKE the slight
average temperature increase due in the next century (about 1/100 of the
daily variation, giving 6" rise in ocean level
according to ICCA).
Seven times as many deaths (700% mortality) are from cold-induced disease as
heat-induced disease in all 9 countries studied by Howard Maccabee.
Pray for global warming and CO2 levels of 600 ppm plus.
On Feb 26, 2013, at 10:40 AM, "Johansen, Kjell"
<Kjell.Johansen at nexteraenergy.com> wrote:
> 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 a
> 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
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:
More information about the RadSafe