[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel

On the issue of the number of people weighing in on both side of CC discussions, there are significant numbers on both sides.  People seem to have a very strong need to believe.... in something.  Consensus is not science, as you know.  The good scientist keeps an open mind and will continue to gather data, propose models, do fits, and so on.  The problem is when we have to make a decision on an action path.  The same situation comes up often in an engineering project.  One might be asked, for instance, how high a velocity can we tolerate in a piping system.  I can give a best estimate but in the drive for maximum profit, efficiency or whatever, we might decide to say 55 ft/s when we would really be more comfortable with 45 ft/s.  It is not so much a question of absolute right or wrong, it is more of deciding what to do in the face of a significant uncertainty.  I see a lot of unhealthy hype at the moment.  I would hope that the hype will pass soon and emotions will calm down so that saner minds will reflect on the relative risks and benefits of attempting to lower GHG emissions significantly vs setting up mitigating systems vs addressing other world problems. 

Bill

At 01:27 PM 22/03/2007, Zigin, Marek wrote:
Jeremy:
 
You are right, I missed that it is relative to all sources. Anyway, I still can't believe it.
 
From what they saying, the greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming by only about 4.7%, remaining 95% is due to water vapour. Out of this 4.7%, the CO2 is about 72% (that would be 186 billion tons), and from that only 6 billion tons is due to human activities. And since the effectiveness of CO2 to trap the heat is relatively small comparing to other sources, overally, it contributes to global warming only by about 3.6%. If this is truth, I can't believe that 1500 scientist have gather together at IPCC conference, and came up with a report saying that rise of greenhouse gasses is largely responsible for global warming.
 
- Marek
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [ mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Whitlock, Jeremy
Sent: March 22, 2007 11:08 AM
To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the inconsistency Marek:
 
The pie chart (Figure 2) refers to the human contribution relative to all causes, while the "fun fact" refers only to the human contribution to annual CO2 input.  So apparently our 3.2% contribution to annual CO2 input accounts for 0.1% of the total effect.
 
Jeremy Whitlock
 
P.S. For those interested another source of information challenging the Global Warming meme is www.friendsofscience.org .  (Interestingly, someone has used the "parallel URL" strategy to present the opposing view at www.friendsofscience.ca ) 
-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [ mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Zigin, Marek
Sent: March 22, 2007 9:46 AM
To: 'George Stanford'; Randal Leavitt
Cc: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and Nuclea r Energy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel
George:
 
I doubt the credibility of this source, because of the inconsistency!
 
The mentioned pie chart says that human contribution to "greenhouse gases" is about 0.28% (0.117% due to CO2 and 0.163% due to other gasses). Few lines below in section "funny facts about carbon dioxide" it says: "Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity" . Well, 6 billion tons out of 186 billion tons is something over 3.2%, which is over ten times more comparing to bar chart. It also says, "approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in oceans and 90 billion tons from volcanoes and decaying land plants". This is again very inconsistent with the pie chart, which shows 95% and 4.7%.
 
I'm not a climate expert, so I can't say what is correct. Nevertheless, this whole source looks to me a poorly prepared document, trying to advocate burning of fossil fuels.
 
-Marek
 
-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [ mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of George Stanford
Sent: March 21, 2007 2:52 AM
To: Randal Leavitt
Cc: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] RE: [Rad_Sci_Health] Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: A View from MIT's Kerry Emanuel
Randall:

    I can relate to what you say, and I share your confusion.  Please take a look at Figure 2 ("Sources of Greenhouse Gases," halfway into the document), in the heavily referenced  paper at
< http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html>
(this is a link that Brian Reily sent to Radsafe the other day).

    The point of that pie chart seems to be that the total human contribution to atmospheric greenhouse effect is a mere 0.28%, with less than half of that due to CO2.  I wonder if I'm interpreting it correctly, because if so, and if the underlying data are reasonably correct, it's a mystery to me how anyone could think for a moment that anything we humans could do by way of CO2 mitigation would have a meaningful effect on the global temperature.  (That probably means either that the figure is wrong or  I'm misinterpreting it or that I'm missing some other crucial considerations.)

    I would love to be able to use global warming as an honest argument for expanding nuclear power (along with all the other compelling reasons), but, taken at face value, that figure alone would seem to cast doubt on the practical relevance of the whole CO2 controversy.  Since climatology is not my field, I'll be grateful to anyone who can enlighten me as to whether that pie chart is correct, and, if it is, whether there is a valid technical reason to think that diddling around at the tenth-of-a-percent level could make a significant difference..

         Cheers,

                 George

George Stanford
Reactor Physicist, Retired
Argonne National Laboratory

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


At 12:25 AM 3/21/2007, Randal Leavitt wrote:
Ruth Sponsler wrote:
The communication problem stems from the extreme
positions taken on the two sides and the implications
of those extremes. 

I notice very little room nor patience for positions
in the middle of the extremes.



If I may, I'd like to point out that I find this discussion difficult. 
I hold the opinion that climate change is happening rapidly, that it is caused by humans, and that I don't have enough hard data to convince someone else about this.  Therefore, I find it very helpful to hear positions stated about climate change not being caused by humans.  It gives me something to push against and helps me to understand the whole area better.  I value reading such comments on this list.

There are many dimensions in this discussion.  The anti and pro technology is one way of organizing it.  However, I tend to see it differently.  I am often caught up by the ethical problems associated with energy.  I think humans treat animals badly, and the use of nuclear power will reduce this bad behaviour.  This argument appeals to me in a large way.  I have not met anyone else who agrees with me in seeing this as the main reason for liking nuclear power.  Oh well, I still think I am right, and I value hearing from others who think I am wrong.

I may even change my mind in some of these areas based on hearing counter arguments, and that will make me better as a human seeking the truth.  So I don't seek out discussions where conformity is valued above data and logic and new information.

I have also developed a cynical streak that makes me dislike things that everyone else likes.  If everyone is for it, I am against it.  This feeling is causing me problems with the human caused climate change issue.  Even if we accept that humans are causing climate change, how can we be so sure about what we have to do to mitigate it?  Will reducing our carbon dioxide emissions really make things better?  I propose that creating white clouds will be more effective, and will allow developing nations a better chance to modernize.  In fact, I worry that reducing carbon dioxide may be taken too far if it does work at all, and cause deep freezing.  How do we know?  The global dimming paradox seems all too possible to me.

And even though I am a proponent of nuclear power, I really don't like today's version of it.  The new plants that we are about to construct in Ontario are so much less than they could be.  I want to have fast reactors, air cooled, underground, and in the middle of cities.  So I am opposed to what we are doing today, and even what we are going to do tomorrow, while wanting this technology to be the base for our future. 
What dimension does this leave me on?

--
Randal Leavitt - another Ubuntu user
http://positiveenergy.blogspot.com/
http://www.simpy.com/user/randalleavitt/links
http://tinyurl.com/hgvmg

_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
_______________________________________________ cdn-nucl-l mailing list cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l




CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. 

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
divulgat! io! n, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.




CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. 

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
divulgatio! n, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.




CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited. 

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.

Bill Garland, Executive Director of UNENE and Professor, Dept. of Engineering Physics, Bldg. NRB 117, McMaster University,  Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA L8S 4L7, Tel: (905)525-9140 x24925 Fax: (905)528-4339 Email: garlandw@mcmaster.ca
Web:< www.nuceng.ca> < http://canteach.candu.org> <www.unene.ca>