[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Thu May 29 12:25:42 CDT 2014

Of course I agree with almost everything you wrote.  However, if you want
an earth that looks greener, you probably should increase CO2.  Do not
confuse carbon monoxide, the stuff that catalytic converters get rid of by
turning it to CO2 and water, with carbon dioxide.

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor; therefore, I am surprised there
is not band on water.

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) <
Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:

> Unfortunately, there are many factions that leap from "Climate change
> happens naturally" to "therefor we don't need to stop (x)", where (x) is
> whatever non-environmentally-sound activity they favor.  It remains true,
> however, that most of the things proposed in part as being good in the
> climate change arena are good in their own right.
>
> Not throwing crap into the air is good, because the crap is hard on lungs,
> lakes, and buildings.  Almost all the crap that gets thrown into the air is
> entrained when fossil fuels are burned, with coal being the worst.
>  Therefor decreasing the amount of coal burnt is good, whether you are
> concerned about C02 or not.  Reduction of energy needs by improved
> efficiency and replacement of coal power by other energy sources, including
> new nuclear reactors, is good.
>
> Deforestation is bad, for more economical, ecological, and ethical reasons
> than I care to list (but I can think of about a dozen without working at
> it).  The fact that not deforesting leaves carbon in trees rather than
> releasing it to the air is nice, but not the most important factor, and so
> not worrying about increased atmospheric CO2 should not be connected with
> supporting unsustainable forestry practices.
>
> Waste is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reduced.  Just
> because improving efficiency and decreasing waste can be touted as
> "decreasing carbon footprint" doesn't mean that not believing in climate
> change requires embracing gas guzzlers, leaking water systems, antique
> electrical distribution networks, and a sneering attitude towards recycling
> (all of which I've seen).
>
> If you want to be skeptical that humans are contributing to climate
> change, fine.  I encourage you to be equally skeptical of the agendas of
> those arguing that what humans do doesn't matter.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lorraine Marceau-Day
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 7:02 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List;
> slgawarecki at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>
> Thank you Clayton for your thoughtful comments.
>
> From a historical perspective; the Romans were tenacious about holding on
> to their colony "Briton" now, of course, known as Britain - because it
> produced the best wines in all the Roman Empire.  It has only been 30 years
> or so since the Southern portion of England has again been able to
> establish vineyards.  Further, if you look at the ice core data - we have
> been subjected to even wider temperature fluctuations over the millennia.
>  I am convinced that this too shall pass (again), though perhaps not in our
> lifetime.
>
> Best;
>
> Lorraine
>
> Lorraine Day, PhD
> RSO - Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices day at lsu.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dixon, John E.
> (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:52 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List;
> slgawarecki at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>
> Well stated Clayton!
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bradt, Clayton (HEALTH)
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:16 PM
> To: slgawarecki at gmail.com; RADSAFE
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>
>
> I have spent time with the publications of the IPCC, Susan. I simply don't
> find them that compelling. I do find that the scientific chapters tend to
> be a lot more tentative in their assertions than the summaries for policy
> makers.  The fact that the summaries are always published before the
> scientific chapters makes it pretty clear that there is more going on than
> the honest communication of the results of scientific research.
>
> Now, computer models are central (essential) to support the hypothesis of
> the enhanced greenhouse effect. Without them there are only time series of
> proxy temperature data which show trends, or not, depending on the choice
> of endpoints. The proposed physical mechanism causing the warming can only
> be 'tested' on the computer.  In order to believe the computer models  one
> must believe that the physics of the earth-atmosphere-ocean system are
> thoroughly understood and quantitated correctly in the code. One
> misunderstood or missing relationship between input variables could render
> the programs' output meaningless. And the modelers' efforts to adjust their
> codes to produce results matching the data is fraught with potential bias.
>
> But even if the computer models' predictions are generally correct (i.e.
> most warming in colder-drier regions like Siberia, little warming in
> warm-humid regions like Amazonia), they still only predict one climate
> parameter: temperature.  The models say nothing about precipitation,
> clouds, pressure, winds, etc. Yet this has not stopped the global warming
> enthusiast from predicting that every possible calamity known to humanity:
> drought, floods, hurricanes, plagues, mass extinctions, blah-blah,
> blah-blah, blah-blah, will follow ineluctably from a warmer climate. Nobody
> - NOBODY - predicts anything good happening because of climate change,
> anywhere!  I find that very hard to believe.
>
> Even if we accept that the CO2/warming connection, and I happen to think
> that it is certainly plausible, it doesn't mean that the case for a pending
> climate catastrophe hasn't been way over-sold. I think it has, and I'm not
> amused by that.
>
> Clayton Bradt
> Principal Radiophysicist
> NYS Dept. of Health
> clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov<mailto:clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov>
> ********************************************
>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:48 -0400
>
> From: S L Gawarecki <slgawarecki at gmail.com<mailto:slgawarecki at gmail.com>>
>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming
>
> To: RadSafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:
> radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
>
> Message-ID:
>
>           <
> CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:
> CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com>>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
>
> I continue to be amused by the opinions on climate change by scientists
> who are not climate scientists or even earth scientists.  To understand the
> SCIENCE behind the conclusions about global warming, spend some time with
> the publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at
> http://www.ipcc.ch/ .  The Summary for Policy Makers of the 2013 report
> is a good place to start at
> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf .
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>