[ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

Mon Jan 27 11:16:55 CST 2014

Andy:
I 100% agree with you. The whole "climate change" debate should be of interest to all of us. It is nothing to do with being pro- or anti- nuclear. We need to understand on topics like this, not take positions based on false or distorted information (which so many, including policy makers) seem to do...

Let's keep open minds and attempt to uncover the underlying "science"......

BTW, I am not a HP. I work for one of the big companies that profit from the exploitation of oil and gas...... <G>. But I like to be informed and keep an open mind on this whole debate. And fall into the camp of being skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, but still believe that nuclear power is the best solution to our long-term base-line energy source, provided rational requirements are made on placement, design and construction (note: rational!)

Regards
Doug
___________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor, Schlumberger D&M Operations Support
Cell Phone: 713-562-8585
(alternate e-mail: doug.aitken at slb.com )
Mail:
Schlumberger, Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478

-----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 10:42 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

If it was all about job security then every HP would adhere as closely as possible to LNT or to supra-linear models for dose response. We'd also advocate for tighter regulations to make ourselves as indispensible as possible. I suspect that for most of us the question is not so much "how can I have the highest degree of job security and the fattest paycheck" so much as "what does the science tell us." Supporting a course of action that's based on faulty science does not necessarily advance that course of action.

With regards to fossil fuels in particular, there are reasons to cut back on their use that have nothing to do with climate change. 

-First, there is a finite supply and they will run out at some point - it would behoove us to have their replacement in place before they're gone.
-Second, there is evidence that dissolving carbon dioxide into seawater can have a negative effect on marine life (although this is still subject to debate) -Third, hydrocarbons are chemically valuable - for making plastics, fertilizers, and much more. It makes no more sense to use them primarily as fuel than it would to use diamonds for fuel.
-Finally, population radiation dose from coal is higher per unit of energy produced than it is from nuclear; plus there is dose from natural gas and petroleum processing plants as well from radium and progeny nuclides. 

If we hang our hat on climate change and it turns out to be wrong then all of the other reasons for switching from fossil fuels can be junked along with climate change. Yet another good reason to try to get the science right - regardless of the impact on my paycheck.

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 11:26 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

I don't understand why this site continues to receive submissions from those that do not agree that there is a human component to climate change. I would think there is a Blog somewhere that supports the interest of the coal-fired electricity suppliers that would be more interested in that support. For those that make their living in the nuclear industry and believe that "Rad is Safe", it appears that you argue for more coal plants, and the end of the nuclear renaissance.

Pat

-----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 10:32 AM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

Otto - your posting made me curious so I did a little on-line searching and found a paper that might be of interest. Unfortunately you have to pay to download the whole thing, but here's the abstract and citation information. Note that this was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Andy
-------------------------------

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts Energy & Environment Volume 18, Number 7 - 8 / December 2007 Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong

Abstract
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is "no". To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all three are necessary for rational policy making. The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others 

 involved in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references in the 1056-page Report to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods despite the fact these are conveniently available in books, articles, and websites. We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC's WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts' predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any sc

 ientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Otto G. Raabe
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 8:44 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Auer on Global Warming

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr (10 June 1940 - 10 June
2007) was distinguished scientist and
Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years.
After retirement became the Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological t Service of New Zealand.

As a boy growing up in St. Louis, Missouri, Auer was reportedly fascinated by weather.
He studied meteorology at Colorado State University before becoming a Professor at the University of Wyoming.
A land use typing method to classify land as urban or rural is used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

After retirement, Auer moved to New Zealand and became the Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited from 1990 to 1998.
He also presented the weather forecast on TV News for several years, often preferring to use colloquialisms instead of technical jargon.
Auer was frequently quoted in the New Zealand press regarding weather and climate issues.

In a May 2007 interview with The Timaru Herald newspaper, Auer stated that a combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current global warming hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it stating, "It is time to attack the myth of global warming."

According to Auer: " Water vapor is responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which is vital to keep the world warm.
if we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 degrees Centigrade but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 degrees Centigrade, all the time.
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide from man's activities is only 3.2 per cent of that 3.6 per cent, so it is only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total.
Human related methane, nitrogen dioxide, and CFC's etc. make similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.06, 0.047, and 0.046 per cent, respectively.
It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper."

**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************
_______________________________________________
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 _______________________________________________
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