[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change and Radiation Scientists

[S L Gawarecki]

Hi Howard,

I've taken the time to examine the data, especially the article at the
petitioners' website.  I think they have misrepresented or misunderstood
some of the cause and effect.  I'll touch on a few of their arguments, but
I'm not going to take on the entire work on the Radsafe list.

Regarding the observation that CO2 follows global temperature increases and
therefore is not a cause--this is a false line of reasoning.  Temperature
increases in interglacial periods are not thought to be caused by increases
in CO2; they are likely caused by eccentricity and precessional changes in
the earth's orbit.  CO2 in those cases is likely released from the ocean,
although this release could provide a positive feedback loop once a major
warming incident begins.  See also
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve

The conclusions of the paper state clearly "There are no EXPERIMENTAL
[emphasis mine] data to support the hypothesis that increases in human
hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global
temperatures, weather, or landscape."

I wonder how such an experiment would be conducted?  We do know
experimentally that CO2 preferentially absorbs infrared wavelengths.  The
model is that IR radiated from warming of the earth's surface is absorbed
by CO2 in the atmosphere, and that this heat is then re-radiated, causing
atmospheric warming and ultimately additional surface warming as the CO2
concentration rises (and there is good evidence of the industrial
revolution's contribution to increasing atmospheric CO2).  There is no
question about the basic physics.  There is good scientific explanation of
this at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

I have to take issue with the assertion in the conclusions that states "We
also need not worry about environmental calamities even if
the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been
much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects."  How
do we know?  We've seen civilizations disappear over the course of a few
decades in the archaeological record with no apparent reason such as
warfare.  Were these due to catastrophic droughts or other environmental
calamities?

Is sea level rise not considered an "environmental calamity" considering
the degree of development of our shorelines (not to mention the rest of the
world)?  Sea level will rise from both warming of the ocean, causing it to
physically expand, as well as from melting of glaciers and of continental
(not floating) ice sheets.  The documented effect of sea level rise is
transgression, which is the migration of coastal features (back bays,
barrier islands, beaches, shoreline) landward.  Maybe this isn't much of an
issue in the next few decades, but what about the next hundred years?
There will be extraordinary costs associated with property damage,
population dislocations, and engineering remedies.

Probably the strongest evidence for acceptance of global warming is the
work being done by insurance companies, defense and national security
analysts, and petroleum companies about how global warming is likely to
affect their interests.  The latter two groups are especially focused on
the diminishing Arctic sea ice that will change the balance of power
between the Russians and the North Americans by opening up Arctic deepwater
ports and exposing additional continental shelf for petroleum extraction.
Have a look at the map--Russia has much more to gain than Canada and US.

And as for quizzing climate scientists, I'd probably go to a American
Meteorology Association meeting (such as that recently held in Austin in
January, see https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/start.html )
rather than a DDP conference, which has already developed an anti-climate
change position on the issue.

You might also find the position statement published by the Geological
Society of America informative.  Geoscientists provide much of the
empirical data from ice and ocean cores and observational records.  See:
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm .

Regards,*
**Susan Gawarecki*

ph: 865-494-0102
cell:  865-604-3724
SLGawarecki at gmail.com

Howard Long wrote:

Susan,
Dozens of the Petitioners are CLIMATE scientosts.
Have you yet critically studied for an hour the DATA in 12 pages of graphs
at
www.petitionproject.org that they reviewed before signing, including that
on glaciers?
I vouch for the extreme objectivity of data presenters: Robinsons and Soon.
They "try to prove themselves wrong" (the null hypothesis).

CO2 increase COULD NOT cause Global T increase because it follows!

I have personally quized many CL?MATE SC?ENT?STS at DDP meetings for 20
years,
following their 1 hour specialized presentations.
You come quiz them, the TOP climate scientists. See www.ddponline.org
"The 2013 DDP Annual Meeting will be July 12-15 in Houston, TX.
Meeting hotel is the Houston Marriott South at Hobby Airport, 9100 Gulf
Pkwy.
Room rate is $84/night from July 11-16 ".

Teller is mentioned because 1, familiar to radsafers and 2, originator of
DDP,
and 3,front signer of the Petition to stop this global tax hoax,
also exposed in footnotes of Dr Michael Chrichton's State of Fear.

Respectfully,

Howard Long