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: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Appell
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 2:56 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
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: david.app...@gmail.com<mailto:david.app...@gmail.com>
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:
rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>
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
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@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
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@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.
