[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Thu May 29 14:25:12 CDT 2014

According to NASA

*In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual
winter maximum and set a new record. Sea ice extended over 19.47 million
square kilometers (7.51 million square miles) of the Southern Ocean. The
previous record <http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369>
of 19.44 million square kilometers was set in September 2012.*

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160

So the previous record was set in September 2012, the current record was
set in September 2013, and It would not be surprised if a new record is set
in September 2014 since according to Der Spiegel

*Never before has there been so much ice at this time of year since
measurements began.*

This time in the article refers to April 2014.

I assume that you find NASA data credible.

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

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) <
Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>