To amplify Al's "400,000 Hiroshimas/day" statement below see: http://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387
It's actually 345,600 Hiroshimas/day or 4 bombs/sec, but you get the idea. 90% of the heat is going into the ocean. This would seem a powerful analogy (minus the radionuclides) for what we are doing to the planet and why we need to intervene. Greg >________________________________ > From: Russell Seitz <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: Gene Gordon <[email protected]>; Simon Driscoll ><[email protected]>; Salif KONE <[email protected]>; >[email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:57 AM >Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering > > > >The Cold War and the Apollo Program were not pursued in the expectation of >profiting from software spinoffs, LED lighting,CAT scanners, cell phones and >microwave popcorn. > > >Although the consequences, physical and economic, are global, one sees little >societal complaint about the unregulated outcome of this research , though >many profit from it and more aspire to do likewise. > >On Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:46:23 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: >Al Gore is not opposing geoengineering research because he wants to profit off >of climate change, as suggested by Eugene. >> >> >>Asserting this is as nutty as asserting that people commonly support >>geoengineering research because they hope to profit off of the technologies >>developed. >> >> >>Let's try to be more generous in our attribution of motives. >> >> >> >> >>_______________ >>Ken Caldeira >> >>Carnegie Institution for Science >>Dept of Global Ecology >> >>260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> >>+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@ carnegiescience.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/ >>caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> >>Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snan...@ carnegiescience.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Somewhat confusing and very tough! It is generally believed that the monetary >>investment return (my choice based on your use of the terms portfolio and >>type) of research if there is a return is at least 20 years. I suspect that >>for global warming research the financial investment return delay would be >>much longer. In contrast the return on development is much earlier and more >>certain but it is too early for development. I suspect that few here will >>make a personal financial investment. The personal investment is related to >>career and how large is also personal. Governments seldom make financial >>investments unless politics is part of the equation. >>> >>>>>>________________________________ >>>From: "Simon Driscoll" <[email protected]> >>>To: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected] > >>> >>>Cc: "Salif KONE" <[email protected]>, geoengi...@googlegroups. com >>>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:09:59 PM >>>Subject: RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering >>> >>> >>> >>>"If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of >>>investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research." >>> >>>Agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>>______________________________ __________________ >>> >>>Simon Driscoll >>>Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics >>>Department of Physics >>>University of Oxford >>> >>>Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 >>>Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 >>> >>>http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/ contacts/people/driscoll >>> >>> >>>________________________________ >>> >>>From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Ken Caldeira >>>[[email protected] ] >>>Sent: 24 August 2013 17:09 >>>To: Simon Driscoll >>>Cc: Salif KONE; geoengi...@googlegroups. com >>>Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>There is a pleasing simplicity to answering a question as if it were a >>>binary, but I suppose if you got these people in a room and spoke with them >>>quietly, the question could not be answered with a yes or no, but rather >>>with an expression of what kind and how much. >>> >>> >>>If we take a portfolio view, the question is how large and what type of >>>investment should we be making in solar geoengineering research. I suspect >>>that even Al Gore and Ray Pierrehumbert would favor some climate modeling, >>>strategic analyses, etc. 'Small and limited' is not as catchy 'they're just >>>crazy' as a rhetorical device. Sometimes the will to entertain supercedes >>>the need to make a nuanced point. >>> >>> >>>On Saturday, August 24, 2013, Simon Driscoll wrote: >>> >>>Salif, >>>> >>>>my belief is that he suggests other avenues are far more sensible and that >>>>this avenue isn't one to seek a solution from, hence his: "We shouldn’t >>>>waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but >>>>they’re just crazy." Admittedly, it's quite full on, albeit similar >>>>sentiments have been echoed before by some of the world's most prominent >>>>scientists/policy researchers etc., e.g.: >>>>"In delivering the prestigious Tyndall Lecture at the annual American >>>>Geophysical Union meeting last December, he said the idea of putting >>>>sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere was “barking mad.” Pierrehumbert also >>>>rejects the value of doing field experiments. “The whole idea of >>>>geoengineering is so crazy and would lead to such bad consequences, it >>>>really is pretty pointless. We already know enough about sulfate albedo >>>>engineering to know it would put the world in a really precarious state. >>>>Field experiments are really a dangerous step on the way to deployment, and >>>>I have a lot of doubts what would actually be learned.”" >>>> >>>>It seems that Tim Palmer holds the belief that impressions will change a >>>>lot when models become better (although he doesn't use a comparable tone): >>>>"the nations of the world should come together to fund the sort of >>>>supercomputers that would allow us to simulate the climate of the coming >>>>century with much greater reliability than is currently possible. The >>>>impact that this will have for mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering >>>>policies is likely to be enormous.", and so on. >>>> >>>>Al Gore does discuss other things he think may bring about solutions though >>>>- just not involving SRM in any way. >>>> >>>>And anyway, it seems quite obvious that there exists no necessary condition >>>>for a statement involving the pointing out of what an individual considers >>>>to be a major obvious issue/flaw to be coupled with a solution, no? >>>> >>>>Simon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>______________________________ __________________ >>>> >>>>Simon Driscoll >>>>Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics >>>>Department of Physics >>>>University of Oxford >>>> >>>>Office: +44 (0) 1865 272930 >>>>Mobile: +44 (0) 7935314940 >>>> >>>>http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/ contacts/people/driscoll >>>> >>>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> >>>>From: Salif KONE [[email protected]] >>>>Sent: 24 August 2013 15:19 >>>>To: Simon Driscoll; geoengineering@googlegroups. com >>>>Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering >>>> >>>> >>>>I do disagree with this Al Gore' statement " ...We shouldn’t waste a lot of >>>>time talking about them. Some people will anyway, but they’re just crazy.". >>>>He exposes the problems without proposing a solution; Geo-engineering is >>>>trying to find a solutin through techniques as SRM... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>****************************** ********************** >>>>Salif KONE, >>>>M.Sc.Université Joseph Fourier/OSUG Grenoble/ >>>> UniversitéMontpellier II, 2007. >>>>Enseignant à l’Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs >>>> Abderrhamane Baba Touré (ENI-ABT) >>>>Adresse: 410 Av. Van Vollenhoven BP.: 242, Bamako-Mali. >>>>PhD Student(Oct. 2011- present), ISFRA-Bamako. >>>>Tel.:+223 76 39 60 09 / +223 64 59 67 99 >>>>BP.:7048, Bamako-Mali. >>>>Email:[email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>________________________________ >>>> De : Simon Driscoll <[email protected]> >>>>À : "geoengineering@googlegroups. com" <geoengineering@googlegroups. com> >>>>Envoyé le : Vendredi 23 août 2013 21h20 >>>>Objet : [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Al Gore: "Let me deal with the geoengineering part of your question first. >>>>That’s complex because there are some benign geoengineering proposals like >>>>white roofs or efforts to figure out a way to extract CO2 from the >>>>atmosphere , though no one has figured out how to do that yet. But the >>>>geoengineering options most often discussed, like putting sulfur dioxide >>>>into the atmosphere or orbiting tinfoil strips — these are simply nuts. We >>>>shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about them. Some people will anyway, >>>>but they’re just crazy. >>>> >>>> >>>>To the broader part of your question, innovation is already playing a major >>>>role in bringing about new potential solutions to the climate crisis. The >>>>tech world had a bitter experience after the burst of enthusiasm in 2005 >>>>and 2006 because of a perfect storm made up of four elements: First, the >>>>great recession, which had a huge, destructive impact on business >>>>generally. Number two, the Chinese juggernaut, which subsidized the >>>>production of several prominent renewable energy technologies to the point >>>>where their sales price fell below the price of production in the West. >>>>Third, the shale gas boom dropped the retail price of electricity to levels >>>>below what many renewable energy plans needed to be viable. And fourth >>>>there was the policy failure I mentioned earlier in the U.S. Senate and >>>>Copenhagen. And all the while there was this massively funded climate >>>>denier campaign by the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobile and others that hired >>>>tobacco industry veterans to work with them on consumer advertising and lobbying activities. >>>>But that setback was only temporary because reality has a way of >>>>reasserting itself. There has been a 100-fold increase in the number of >>>>extreme, high-temperature events around the world in the distribution >>>>curve. And people have noticed for themselves — the rain storms are bigger, >>>>the droughts are deeper and the fires are more destructive. All of these >>>>things have not escaped notice and people are connecting the dots. The >>>>cumulative amount of energy trapped by manmade global warming pollution >>>>each day in the earth’s atmosphere is now equal to the energy that would be >>>>released by 400,000 Hiroshima bombs going off every 24 hours. It’s a big >>>>planet, but that’s a lot of energy. >>>>The consequences are now hard to escape. Every night on the news, it’s like >>>>a nature hike through the book of revelations. Eleven states today are >>>>fighting 35 major fires! People are noticing this. And simultaneously >>>>they’re noticing the sharp drop in the cost of carbon-free, greenhouse >>>>gas-free energy, and the combination is pushing us over this political >>>>tipping point and the trend is unstoppable." >>>> >>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/21/a >>>>l-gore-explains-why-hes-optimi stic-about-stopping-global-war ming/ >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>"geoengineering" group. >>>>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com. >>>>To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups. com. >>>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering. >>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/ groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>>-- >>>_______________ >>>Ken Caldeira >>> >>>Carnegie Institution for Science >>>Dept of Global Ecology >>> >>>260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>> >>>+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@ carnegiescience.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/ >>>caldeiralab @kencaldeira >>> >>> >>>Assistant: Sharyn Nantuna, snan...@ carnegiescience.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>"geoengineering" group. >>>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>email to geoengineerin...@ googlegroups.com. >>>To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com. >>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering. >>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/ groups/opt_out. >>> >> -- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"geoengineering" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to [email protected]. >To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
