<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The ocean carbon sink is saturating]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by hekatonkheire http://www.grist.org/article/big-news/ Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:05:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/big-news/1 On being scary

Mr Romm,

You posted on Climate Progress recently about how scaring the crap out of little kids (and everyone else) is probably counterproductive in the long run.

I would tend to agree. In particular, your tendency to report climate change research as seen through the lens of your apparent operating assumption that, basically, we're all doomed, and with the scary words conveniently highlighted for easy skimming, is really, really relentlessly depressing. I'm all for solving the problem. I just find it hard to do what needs to be done if I have to reconvince myself that there's even any hope left at all after reading one of your articles (which is something I typically do by going and reading your original sources, which are inevitably less pessimistic than your summaries).

James Hansen, by contrast, has a lot of scary things to say, but I'm eternally grateful that his position on all of it - soot in the arctic, the precedent for really rapid sea level rise, all of that - is that, well at least this means that that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it. And that's something to look forward to. Whereas all your articles offer is the prospect of inexorable catastrophe.

Alex Murray.

]]> On being scary

Mr Romm,

You posted on Climate Progress recently about how scaring the crap out of little kids (and everyone else) is probably counterproductive in the long run.

I would tend to agree. In particular, your tendency to report climate change research as seen through the lens of your apparent operating assumption that, basically, we're all doomed, and with the scary words conveniently highlighted for easy skimming, is really, really relentlessly depressing. I'm all for solving the problem. I just find it hard to do what needs to be done if I have to reconvince myself that there's even any hope left at all after reading one of your articles (which is something I typically do by going and reading your original sources, which are inevitably less pessimistic than your summaries).

James Hansen, by contrast, has a lot of scary things to say, but I'm eternally grateful that his position on all of it - soot in the arctic, the precedent for really rapid sea level rise, all of that - is that, well at least this means that that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it. And that's something to look forward to. Whereas all your articles offer is the prospect of inexorable catastrophe.

Alex Murray.

]]> Comment #2 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/big-news/ Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:10:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/big-news/2 Reply to Murray

"James Hansen, by contrast, has a lot of scary things to say, but I'm eternally grateful that his position on all of it - soot in the arctic, the precedent for really rapid sea level rise, all of that - is that, well at least this means that that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it. And that's something to look forward to. Whereas all your articles offer is the prospect of inexorable catastrophe."

Alex Murray.

"really rapid sea level rise"  
Would you please explain how this differs from the "prospect of inexorable catastrophe"?  

How in the hell is hearing the "prospect of inexorable catastrophe" from James Hansen make it any more palatable than hearing it from Joseph Romm?  

Or why does that mean "that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it."  I would really like to know what signs you are seeing out there that this utopian future you hope for is coming that much sooner.  There are obviously some pretty powerful forces we are dealing with that do not see any alarm or are discounting the alarm enough to keep us daudling until the "inexorable catastrophe" is upon us.  

If anything, judging from the priority most people place on global warming in the polls, most people do not clearly perceive the alarm or have shut their eyes and ears to any signs of impending catastrophe.  At least you are listening to James Hansen.  

]]> Reply to Murray

"James Hansen, by contrast, has a lot of scary things to say, but I'm eternally grateful that his position on all of it - soot in the arctic, the precedent for really rapid sea level rise, all of that - is that, well at least this means that that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it. And that's something to look forward to. Whereas all your articles offer is the prospect of inexorable catastrophe."

Alex Murray.

"really rapid sea level rise"  
Would you please explain how this differs from the "prospect of inexorable catastrophe"?  

How in the hell is hearing the "prospect of inexorable catastrophe" from James Hansen make it any more palatable than hearing it from Joseph Romm?  

Or why does that mean "that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it."  I would really like to know what signs you are seeing out there that this utopian future you hope for is coming that much sooner.  There are obviously some pretty powerful forces we are dealing with that do not see any alarm or are discounting the alarm enough to keep us daudling until the "inexorable catastrophe" is upon us.  

If anything, judging from the priority most people place on global warming in the polls, most people do not clearly perceive the alarm or have shut their eyes and ears to any signs of impending catastrophe.  At least you are listening to James Hansen.  

]]> Comment #3 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/big-news/ Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:48:51 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/big-news/3 Explanation please?

Hey Joseph,

I was wondering WHY the ocean is becoming less of a sink for CO2.  I think there's an issue with the word "saturation" also, since oceans can absorb an infinite amount of CO2 as carbonic acid and other forms.  So perhaps some explaining would help me understand what is going on with CO2 and the oceans - last I checked carbonic acid was causing mayhem on coral reefs and was in fact INCREASING due to climate change.

Obviously, ocean pathways of CO2 uptake from the atmosphere would be complex, since oceanic biomass does not have leaves exposed to ambient are - only intertidal seaweed can absorb CO2 directly from the atmosphere and that is probably trivial.  

I'm not being mean here - I just want to know what the heck is going on.  Thanks!  /sam

Onward through the fog

]]> Explanation please?

Hey Joseph,

I was wondering WHY the ocean is becoming less of a sink for CO2.  I think there's an issue with the word "saturation" also, since oceans can absorb an infinite amount of CO2 as carbonic acid and other forms.  So perhaps some explaining would help me understand what is going on with CO2 and the oceans - last I checked carbonic acid was causing mayhem on coral reefs and was in fact INCREASING due to climate change.

Obviously, ocean pathways of CO2 uptake from the atmosphere would be complex, since oceanic biomass does not have leaves exposed to ambient are - only intertidal seaweed can absorb CO2 directly from the atmosphere and that is probably trivial.  

I'm not being mean here - I just want to know what the heck is going on.  Thanks!  /sam

Onward through the fog

]]>