While the nuclear bomb analogy is off-base, the discussion is a reasonable one. Part of the problem with understanding both the problem of climate change and the logistics of potential solutions is the scale of both the problem and the solution. Finding ways to help people have a better sense of what the big numbers mean is a useful enterprise.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher Green, Prof. Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:47 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering Not only is Alan Robock right but this discussion defies all reason. Comparing heat without considering damage is nonsensical. Comparing the time dimension of a nuclear weapon in which there is no time to adapt with long term impact of climate change in which some adaptation is possible defies any logic or sense of scientific thinking. There is no way to justify Al Gore's statement (I was unaware he had made it) which is beyond the pale. Although I voted for him , Al Gore has proving to be a fool.) If this discussion does anything so far as I am concerned it is to make me very wary of geo-engineers. To put geo-engineering in the hands of hysterical, chicken little "the sky is falling" "experts" is to render geo-engineering dangerous rather than a potential fall back in case of a near-term "tipping point". So far as the IPCC and budgets are concerned CO2 emissions may be bad but in the current state of technology they are unavoidable. The world as a whole needs growing amounts of energy. Many years ago, Marty Hoffert put together a team to make the case that climate could not be stabilized without a thorough-going energy technology revolution---one that would require numerous breakthroughs. What happened? The IPCC more or less denied breakthroughs were needed. It has overtly promoted non-hydro renewables which in their current state cannot begin to meet the world's need for dependable, concentrated energy. What we have seen instead is renewables growing at the expense of nuclear energy, but failing to put a dent in the global share (of energy) contributed by carbon (fossil) fuels. Meanwhile, CCS faces many more technological challenges than its proponents acknowledged. Greens seem happy to undermine nuclear at every point. So Don't blame the fossil fuel industry for the lack of progress on low carbon-emitting energies. The IPCC and the greens have done enormous damage to Marty's vision. The result is to provide another "rationale" for geo-engineering: to (partially as it does not prevent emissions from growing) make up for failure to advance on the low carbon energy technology front. Sorry for the rant. I rarely "contribute" anything to the discussion, even though I have been part of the google group (almost) since its inception. But enough is enough!!! Chris Green From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Appell Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:56 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] Al Gore on geoengineering Alan, I see your point.... Do you (or does anyone) have a more appropriate analogy for such large amounts of heat? The tempting thing about the "Hiro" is it's just the right amount (63 terajoules) for many global climate numbers.... I have sometimes used "Civ," the power production of all of human civilization (~15 terawatts), but it's not as intuitive or readily imagined. David -- e: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> w: http://www.davidappell.com t: @davidappell b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com On 10/1/2013 11:30 AM, Alan Robock wrote: 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://envsci.rutgers.edu/%7Erobock> 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]<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]<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.
