I agree with Alan's point that the nuclear bomb comparison is too easily contaminated with all the other associations that the bomb evokes. But perhaps we could nominate other energy release comparisons that would make the point that today's forcing is a big deal.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Robock Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering Dear All, I think this is a terrible comparison to make and should not be used. I heard someone this summer who was trained by Al Gore use this and she did not distinguish between all the effects of atomic bombs and the energy equivalent of the atomic explosions. Equating nuclear war and global warming is a false comparison. Nuclear war is a much worse fate for our planet, and is a scare tactic. The number is correct (I did the calculation myself when I first heard of this), but trapping energy has completely different effects from dropping nuclear bombs on people. Using this is distracting, sensational, and easy to refute if the speaker does not carefully explain that it is the energy released by the bombs, with no other effects including radioactivity, fires, and blast. I told John Cook this at the AGU Chapman Conference on Climate Communication this summer, and he said he would consider this recommendation, but I don't know if he plans to continue to feature this idea on Skeptical Science. But see http://thebulletin.org/how-many-hiroshimas-does-it-take-describe-climate-change for another point of view. Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 On 10/1/13 1:22 PM, Greg Rau wrote: 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 -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
