[ RadSafe ] Global Warming
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Thu May 29 13:54:25 CDT 2014
Actually, the flooding I was thinking is when the rains are unusually heavy, perhaps combined with ground that is so parched it doesn't take water well, and often with catch basins that don't have the tree cover they used to.
I know the Northern Polar Ice Cap floats. I had shipmates who had done under-ice ops on previous ships, and I know that those ships had to be specially reinforced in order to break through the ice. The last thing I read says that is no longer the case, because the ice is thin and there are openings in the summer. As I understand it, the Antarctic ice situation is more complex and nuanced, with some ice sheets expanding and others decreasing, with an overall net decrease.
I would encourage you to be at least as skeptical of the sources that support your preferred position as you are those that refute it.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:12 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
I was not talking about climate change, or the latest term climate disruption, I was talking about increasing CO2. There have been numerous studies and examples where increasing CO2 in an area has led to more greening of that area. I assume by flooding you mean the melting of the North pole (The ice in the south pole has been increasing.), well the North pole floats on water.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) < Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:
> The evidence, according to the majority of the people who have studied
> this the most, is that climate change doesn't bring an overall
> greening of the whole planet, but disruptions of the weather patterns
> that ecologies and human activities have adapted to. Drought one
> place and flooding another doesn't actually average out to normal
> everywhere. Winter temperatures that don't get as cold as they used
> to may sound good, but if the freeze doesn't kill the plants and
> insects it used to, or doesn't trigger the changes in the seeds needed
> for them to germinate, it is disruptive.
>
> I assure you, I understand the difference between CO and CO2. Any
> facility that released CO in the tonnage a coal burning power plant
> releases CO2 in should be shut down, by artillery if necessary. That
> CO2 is less toxic and less reactive than CO isn't, in my opinion, an
> argument against decreasing CO2 through improved efficiency (I accept
> the argument that improvements in engine design would improve the
> efficiency of the burn, improving efficiency and making catalytic converters unnecessary.
> The first generation of catalytic converters decreased engine
> efficiency mostly as a "you're not the boss of me" statement from the
> US auto industry, which traditionally shows the maturity of a bunch of
> kindergartener thugs.)
>
> As for water vapor: Yes, it is an important greenhouse gas, and yes,
> regulating it would be rather silly. As an argument against
> regulating other greenhouse gasses this is like saying that since many
> forest fires start from lightening it is pointless to have laws
> forbidding throwing cigarettes from cars. Besides, I suspect you will
> find the half-life of water vapor in the air is shorter than that of
> the greenhouse gasses it is suggested we try to control.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:26 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list