Re: Nuclear Power Des NOT Need Global Warming Hoax!

[Raymond A Hoover <ray2hoover@YAHOO.COM>]

As soon as the models start taking into account such factors as variation in sunspot activity (effects the sun's brightness), variations in Earth's albedo, and effects of the circulation of ocean waters (some models have started to attempt to address this one), as well as coming up with a means of accurately re-calibrating the temperature data (to take into account the effects of the growth of towns around the location of a weather station), and decide which of three sets of temperature data (all of which are being debated and none of which have been taken for a long enough period of time) we can start believing the models.  By the way, last time I looked, none of the computer models did a very good job of recreating historical patterns of weather or temperatures, so why should we believe predictions based on those same models?



"Johansen, Kjell" <Kjell.Johansen@nmcco.com> wrote:Radsafers,

Having rad professionals give definitive answers to the global warming problem is like asking a proctologist to do the work of a brain surgeon, or, substitute Bjorn Lomborg, an economist, writing a book on global warming. ( And we all know how an exact science economics is - sorry Fritz, I agree with you on most of your postings but not on this one.) As radiation professionals, we may know science but we are out of our areas of expertise. But, that said, I'll weigh in anyway (given that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) because back in my oceanography grad school days in 1971 I had to take a course in meteorology and global warming was one of the topics of discussion. 



1. We know that higher CO2 concentrations increase the amountof heat trapped in the atmosphere because less radiates into space. You may argue that there is a whole lot more water vapor in the atmosphere, which also transports heat around the globe, but without CO2, the water vapor, if I remember correctly, would not be as plentiful.



2. As average temperature increases in the northern latitudes, the zones in which various crops and trees optimally grow also moves northward. Depending upon the rate of warming, the natural habitat of the N American hardwoods may not be able to migrate northward fast enough to remain in their preferred growing ecosystem. 



3. An increase in CO2 favors the growth of C4 photosynthetic plants such as millet, sorghum etc which are lower in B vitamins than C3 photosynthetic plants such as wheat, barley, and a variety of plants from which we now get most of our food. C3 plants also require more water that C4 photosynthetic pathway plants. Therefore, climate change may shift the areas, such as the corn belt and wheat belt to other areas causing further dislocations in family farms and food supplies. 



4. Increased warming will melt the polar icecaps. A large intrusion of freshwater, as oceanographers already are seeing in the N Atlantic, can change the thermohaline driven currents which distribute heat around the globe and could put northern Europe in a deep freeze. Dr. Wallace Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Institute at Columbia has been concerned and conducting research on this possibility for decades. 



5. Forget about the models. Look at the historical evidence. Over the last 150,000 years or so, fluctuations in global temperature are in sync with fluctuations in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as measured in ice cores and deep-sea sediment cores. They rise and fall in sync to the scale at which we can measure these things. So, if we release in 150 years the amount of carbon that it took 150 million years to sequester, what does that to biogeochemical reaction rates? I don't know, but I would guess that it pushes the reactions in a direction we may not like.



6. I'll side for the climatologists and oceanographers who see global climate change as a concern before I'll say global warming is a hoax to generate research funds or that global climate change is no problem. If you consider that in 150 years or so we have released the amount of carbon that probably took a 150 million years to sequester, it seems to me foolish not to think that we are changing the way the climate system operates. It is not hubris to believe we can cause an effect on the global biogeochemical cycles. I believe it was Edwin Suess (circa 1958), who had a grad student sit on a mountain top in Hawaii to measure the annual fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 level, who said that we are engaged in a long-term experiment in global climate change for which we do not know the outcome. If we wait for 99% confidence before taking action on global climate change, it may be too late. So, who needs nuclear power? We all do. 



I now yield the soap box to anyone else who wants to weigh in.



Kjell Johansen, PhD

Whitefish Bay, WI

kajohans@powercom.net

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

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/





		

---------------------------------

Do you Yahoo!?

Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger