[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Thu May 29 18:30:42 CDT 2014

Mike, you wrote

Does that mean it is OK to burn as much coal as the people selling coal
want burned, or that improving our electrical grid so it is more efficient
are bad things?

WHAT??????????

brief summary:

I wrote, “Of course I agree with almost everything you wrote.  However, if
you want an earth that looks greener, you probably should increase CO2.”

To which Theo Richel was kind enough to give you the references to support
my claim.

Then you go on a tangent speaking about climate change and flooding.  By
flooding I thought you meant the melting of the North pole or  both poles,
which I hear all the time.  I have read many times and heard politicians
say that the melting of the North pole will flood the US coast line and New
York city will be under x number of feet of water by year 20xx.  My
response to that assumption was that the North Pole is floating ice and the
ice in South Pole is increasing.

To which you replied that the ice in the South Pole is decreasing and wrote
that I should, “be at least as skeptical of the sources that support your
preferred position as you are those that refute it.”

I wasted too much time on this.  Thank you Theo for doing the research that
I had no intention of providing.

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Doug Aitken <JAitken at slb.com> wrote:

> There is lots of opinions out there regarding Antarctic ice. And one of
> these is the worry that the connection between the ice shelf and land (at
> the shelf/sea bottom) is retreating in some parts, leading to a greatly
> increased likelihood of massive losses.
> And yesterday, this:
> http://manoa.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=6546
>
> so, I am not going to get into a discussion of "more ice or less ice",
>  Arctic vs Antarctic" ,  "global warming vs. climate change",
> "anthropogenic vs. natural", etc.  (none of which, BTW,  have much to do
> with radiation safety.....), but it seems to me that there are plenty of
> serious (and not so serious) people out there looking at the issue. And, as
> usual, many conflicting opinions.
>
> Only one fact I can hold on to. I just bought a home in winter Haven, Fl.
> The mean elevation above sea level is 44 meters.
> I should be OK <G>
>
> Regards
> Doug
>
> Doug Aitken
> QHSE Advisor, D&M Operations Support
> Schlumberger Technology Corporation
>
>
>
> -----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: Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:24 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>
> 1.  While I didn't dig into the actual papers of either the scientist
> cited by NASA or the one who said "an overall net decrease" it is entirely
> possible that researchers can, without intending to deceive, use different
> metrics and come up with different answers.  Maximum winter coverage,
> maximum summer coverage, some type of weighted average, something that
> incorporates thickness, or something that includes a factor for ice on the
> continent are all likely to be useful measurements, depending on what you
> are looking at.  I do think it is clear from this quote, however, that the
> scientists that NASA thought were worth quoting on their web site are not
> discounting climate change.
>
> 2.  I personally find reports about droughts and other changes in weather
> patterns to be of more interest than polar ice.  Indeed, I find changes in
> glaciers in the temperate zones to be more interesting than polar ice.
>
> 3.  But let's say you are right, and Antarctic ice is increasing.  Does
> that mean it is OK to burn as much coal as the people selling coal want
> burned, or that improving our electrical grid so it is more efficient are
> bad things?  What activities that you would agree are justified if the ice
> was shrinking do you feel are not justified if the ice is growing?
>
> -----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 2:47 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
>
> What you wrote does not address your statement that there is "an overall
> net decrease" in ice.
>
> Show me a credible report that proves NASA  data for 2012 and 2013 is
> wrong.
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) <
> Mike.Brennan at doh.wa.gov> wrote:
>
> > Just a quick response: I will try to respond more, later.
> >
> > From the NASA page you cite:
> >
> > According to a recent study by sea ice scientists Claire Parkinson and
> > Donald Cavalieri of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Antarctic sea
> > ice increased by roughly 17,100 square kilometers per year from 1979 to
> 2010.
> > Much of the increase, they note, occurred in the Ross Sea, with
> > smaller increases in Weddell Sea and Indian Ocean. At the same time,
> > the Bellinghausen and Amundsen Seas have lost ice. "The strong pattern
> > of decreasing ice coverage in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Seas region
> > and increasing ice coverage in the Ross Sea region is suggestive of
> > changes in atmospheric circulation," they noted.
> >
> > "The year 2012 continues a long-term contrast between the two
> > hemispheres, with decreasing sea ice coverage in the Arctic and
> > increasing sea ice coverage in the Antarctic," Parkinson added. "Both
> > hemispheres have considerable inter-annual variability, so that in
> > either hemisphere, next year could have either more or less sea ice
> > than this year. Still, the long-term trends are clear, but not equal:
> > the magnitude of the ice losses in the Arctic considerably exceed the
> > magnitude of the ice gains in the Antarctic."
> >
> > On their Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis blog, scientists from the
> > University of Colorado wrote: "Comparing winter and summer sea ice
> > trends for the two poles is problematic since different processes are in
> effect.
> > During summer, surface melt and ice-albedo feedbacks are in effect;
> > winter processes include snowfall on the sea ice, and wind. Small
> > changes in winter extent may be a more mixed signal than the loss of
> > summer sea ice extent. An expansion of winter Antarctic ice could be
> > due to cooling, winds, or snowfall, whereas Arctic summer sea ice
> > decline is more closely linked to decadal climate warming."
> >
> > Also, bear in mind that climate change is not the same as universal
> > global warming.
> >
> > -----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 12:25 PM
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> > List
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>