[ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change and Radiation Scientists
howard.long at comcast.net
Mon Mar 11 18:58:30 CDT 2013
Your study of the Petition Project data and comments (below) are the most sincere and uknowledgable İ have seen supporting CO2 increase from humans as endangering humans.
So İ am asking that others (cc above respond better than can İ.
On Mar 10, 2013, at 9:15 PM, S L Gawarecki <slgawarecki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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:
> 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
> 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 .
> **Susan Gawarecki*
> ph: 865-494-0102
> cell: 865-604-3724
> SLGawarecki at gmail.com
> Howard Long wrote:
> Dozens of the Petitioners are CLIMATE scientosts.
> Have you yet critically studied for an hour the DATA in 12 pages of graphs
> 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
> 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
> Room rate is $84/night from July 11-16 ".
> Teller is mentioned because 1, familiar to radsafers and 2, originator of
> 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.
> Howard Long
> 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