Re: FW: - Climate Change Hearings and the roll(?) of nuclear power

[Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu>]

Howard,



My comment was about a mature forest. As long as the forest is accumulating

biomass, there is a short term sink for the carbon. These are really short

term cycles. If agriculture becomes more profitable or if the land is needed

for solar power or.... the carbon from the trees will be released again.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that has been stored for millions of

years. To compensate for that you need a carbon sink that will lock the

carbon away for millions of years.



I certainly agree that scientists should work for truth and I am sure that

the global warming issue has attracted its fair share of opportunists who

are acting in an unscientific manner, perhaps even unethical manner. You

can't blame the idea for the actions of the people who support the idea, or

who make their living from it.



Here are my 2 cents worth:



If the USA is currently a CO2 sink or source is not relevant. Next forest

fire, the numbers might change. This is a long term global issue. (I think

it is quite possible that the US is a CO2 sink, because it is a net grain

exporter.)



That some plants grow better in a high CO2 environment is to be expected but

it is not relevant. Climate change may result in too much or too little

water and the plants may die.



If the climate change has a net positive or negative effect on the globe is

not relevant. Today, people don't live on the globe. They live in petty

little countries. The fact that you can grow better oranges in one country

is no consolation to someone whose country is under water or is a desert and

no other country will take them.



CO2 has certain physical properties. If you increase the amount of CO2 in

the atmosphere, you will change the climate. Whether we currently have

models to predict the change or if we have tools to measure the change,

tells us about the sophistication of our models and tools, not about the

properties of CO2.



Just because something hasn't experimentally been proven to be harmful,

doesn't mean it is safe and one should err on the side of caution. (We

should have erred on the side of caution in the early years of radiation

too.)



The global warming issue is quite different than the radiation issue. On the

radiation issue, no one is advocating that workers or the public be exposed

to levels of radiation where we have no data. On the global warming issue,

we are changing CO2 levels to levels where we have no data. More

importantly, we are applying a rate of change in CO2 levels for which we

have no data.



Best Regards,

Kai









----- Original Message -----

From: <hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net>

To: "Kai Kaletsch" <info@eic.nu>

Cc: "RadSafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 5:10 AM

Subject: Re: FW: - Climate Change Hearings and the roll(?) of nuclear power





> Kai,

> The reference for the USA having net DECREASE of CO2 was given me again at

the

> Doctorsd for Disaster Preparedness meeting by Dr Sally Balliunas, Harvard

> astrophysicist, as Fan, Science mag, 1999. She says I'll find it on line.

>

> As I understand it, the CO2 goes into wood, of which we have 50% more than

50

> years ago.

>

> Sally's fourth presentation, Willie Soon's second and Art Robinson's,

(leader of

> the Petition Project, at OISM.org) and others should have relieved your

"peeve".

> I hope you will attend next year in Phoenix, where Balling ("The Heated

Debate")

> and his son grow better sour orange trees with more CO2. We'll visit them

again

> next summer.

>

> Radsafe pertinence is that the global warming discrepancies seems to be

the only

> subject with more presentations at DDP in 20 years than the LNT

discrepancies.

> Scientists should work for truth, not specialty boost by stepping on

others,

> wouldn't you agree?

>

> Howard Long

>

> Kai Kaletsch wrote:

>

> > Absolutely nothing to do with radiation, but one of my pet peeves:

> >

> > > Less CO2 leaves the USA on our east coast than enters on west because

our

> > > forests absorb more than our cars produce.

> >

> > Most mature forests do NOT absorb CO2. (Where is the carbon supposed to

go?)

> > There are a few swampy places where the forests are making peat, but a

> > forest in equilibrium cannot absorb CO2. CO2 is absorbed by wheat

fields.

> > The O2 is released and C is shipped off in the wheat. (Of course the C

gets

> > released when someone eats the wheat)

> >

> > Kai

> >

> > PS: Just to make it relevant to the list: Wheat fields also release a

lot of

> > radon. That's why more radon leaves the USA than enters it.

> >

> > ************************************************************************

> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe,

> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text

"unsubscribe

> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject

line.

> > You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/