[ RadSafe ] Global Warming
Theo Richel
theo at richel.org
Thu May 29 13:44:36 CDT 2014
'The evidence, according to the majority of the people who studied this
the most'........you haven't got a better source?
I do: at www.co2science.org is a collection of certainly hundreds and
probably a lot more more articles that show the benefits of extra CO2.
With regard to this trace gas and plants one could say: more is better.
I remember a piece that showed that a doubling of CO2 would increase
India's rice production with 30%. It makes plants more resilient to
drought, the fruits are better. IIf you object that the makers of this
site are climate skeptics, then you are right, any sensible man who
reads this literature becomes a skeptic.
Here
http://www.thegwpf.org/rising-co2-level-greening-planet-earth-study/ you
can read about the Australian science agency CSIRO report concluding
that increased levels of CO2 have helped boost green foliage across the
world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2
fertilisation. Earlier I read - but haven't checked now - that in the
past decades satellites have shown that the world has become 6% greener.
Also recommended is Matt Ridleys report for the Global Warming Policy
organization 'How fossil fuels have greened the planet'
(http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-fossil-fuels-greened-planet/ ).
Apart from your bizarre claim that deforestation is bad - I live in
Holland, which is a product of deforestation, and we are a healthy and
wealthy folk - the Food And Agriculture Organisation doesn't ring any
alarmbells wrt the state of the World Forests. Locally (Malaysia,
Indonesia mainly) deforestation is happening on a large scale, but for
the rest of the world the situation is as said not alarming. Fear for
deforestation has been manifest for many decades and as a result Brazil
has taken measures (compared to the 1950's still 80% of it is still
intact - is that not enough?). China has planted a huge area of new
forests (that will quickly transform into the so 'valuable' forests, the
demise of the Soviet Union suddenly allowed to include statistics about
their forests, and that changed things somewhat and, as the New York
Times reported based on the FAO: a phenomenon that is very often
overlooked is the fact that in the third world many people leave their
poor farms to try their luck in the city. They leave their farms and
their land and on these apparently vast - often tropical - areas forests
are rapidly claiming their space back.
You might also check the publications of Jess Aussubel, professor at
Rockefeller U. Please do, because from what I read from him he may have
an 'agenda' similar to yours, although I'd wish you would be more
interested in facts than in motivation.
Theo Richel
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: donderdag 29 mei 2014 7:58
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
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<mailt
o:
> 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
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list