[ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

Mon Apr 7 15:41:07 CDT 2014

According to the USGS's Hawaiian Volcanic Observatory (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html) global volcanic activity pumps about 200 million tones of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. According to the same web page, fossil fuel combustion is responsible for nearly 27 billion tones of CO2 annually - over 100 times as high.

Perhaps you were thinking of sulfur dioxide? Volcanoes pump out a lot of that, and it has a net cooling effect since it reflects sunlight quite nicely.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:01 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

Hi John

I believe your statement about one volcanic eruption is wrong.  I look at
this a few years ago and I believe man produces much more CO2 than
volcanoes.

It makes sense to me that the chair should be an economist rather than a
scientist because one of the goals of all this climate change stuff is a
redistribution of wealth from the richer countries to the poorer countries.

Since we have had no global warming in the past 18 years, all of the
climate models are wrong.

Many scientist have predicted, based on physical data, that an ice age was
going to start around 2013.  With record amounts of ice in the south pole
the past two years, an increasing volume of ice (volume not surface) in the
North pole, and record cold temperatures in parts of the United States this
year and parts of Europe last year, there might be some truth to the ice
age prediction.

If we are truly headed to an ice age, maybe we should look at ways to
increase CO2 emissions. At the very least, plants will be happy and we can
create a greener looking earth.

There has been talk about reducing the amount of cattle.  What will that do
to the price of beef?

It would be nice if the media would present both sides of the story and not
propaganda to fit a political agenda, but it is never going to happen in my
lifetime.

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH) <
gyf7 at cdc.gov> wrote:

> Hmm. The "global warming/climate change discussion rears its ugly head
> again. I have serious doubts about "science" which advocates a major role
> for man in global climate change. ONE volcanic eruption puts more "climate
> changing gases" into the atmosphere than ALL of mankind's activities
> combined (that includes the Industrial Revolution). Have you all seen what
> our government plans on doing to 'help' this 'problem' here at home? They
> plan on 'regulating' COW emissions (picture' gas' here or some other
> memorable image). You heard that right. How can this be done? Just force
> farmers to produce fewer cows (less supply will dramatically increase the
> price of all related food in our country). I have had enough, but I
> digress...
>
> Please note that the bulk IPCC report, upon which much of the 'concern' of
> man made contributions is based, was CHAIRED not by a scientist, but rather
> by an ECONOMIST. That's right, an economist. Much of the underdeveloped
> world contributes more to this 'problem' than the developed world; yet
> those who authored this ICCP report almost demand that the developed world
> solve the problem. And how do they suggest this be done? The developed
> world must redistribute its wealth! Yes, this 'concern' is all couched in
> money (give US money to corrupt governments in the third world in hopes
> that the 'climate change concern' will magically improve due to emissions
> contributions from the third world. How has that been working out for
> America? Additionally, much of this 'research' is based upon modeling -
> which models depends upon what country is in the front of the line for the
> discussion.
>
> Throughout all of this we must all remember that ALL MODELS ARE WRONG AND
> SOME ARE USEFUL.
>
> My 2 cents worth.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of KARAM, PHILIP
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:02 PM
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming
>
> I can only speak for myself. I post on the topic because the topic of
> global warming has been wrapped up into the topic of nuclear energy - most
> prominently by nuclear energy advocacy groups. As I mentioned earlier,
> there are plenty of good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels, just as
> there are plenty of good reasons to use nuclear energy. If the most
> prominent argument in either the climate change OR the nuclear energy
> debate ends up being based more on politics than on science - and if the
> science turns out to be wrong - then all of the other reasons might fall as
> well, due only to their association with a discredited idea.
>
> To put the last piece in place - a lot of RSTs, HPs, and nuclear engineers
> have an obvious stake in whether or not we build more nuclear reactors or
> just start tearing down those that we have. That alone should make it a
> relevant topic for this list-server.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of McCloskey, Pat
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:28 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming
>
> David,
>
> If I had said I don't know why this site continues to "post" submissions
> rather than "receive"; you would have a point with your censorship
> statement. I questioned the motivation of the submitters. If it were only a
> few climate change submittals, I would welcome the insight, but after so
> many, I question the motivation.
> http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps44.pdf
>
> Pat
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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