Having been in Chicago at the Gore leadership training session and so having heard him use the Hiroshima example (and quickly trying to do a check to see if it was close), I would point out that he was not the one who originated using this as a way of expressing how much heat was trapped. He indicated that he had picked up on this relationship from its use by Jim Hansen in a TED talk. So, yes, he did help to spread it around, but the original mention and calculation was apparently from Jim. Problematic as it is, its wider mention does suggest that his audience was listening and that analogy caught their attention.
Mike MacCracken On 10/1/13 4:38 PM, "David Hawkins" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Gore¹s > 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 ³the sky is falling² ³experts² is to render geo-engineering > dangerous rather than a potential fall back in case of a near-term ³tipping > point². > > 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 world¹s 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 Don¹t 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 Marty¹s vision. The result is to provide > another ³rationale² 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 ³contribute² 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]] > On Behalf Of David Appell > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:56 PM > To: [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 -- 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.
