tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3382060516692200627.post3544520034686842458..comments2023-03-31T16:30:26.068-07:00Comments on We Are Not Saved: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Global Warming?Jeremiahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08825248383924164055noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3382060516692200627.post-30382346555313894872017-03-27T06:35:53.286-07:002017-03-27T06:35:53.286-07:00Taleb makes an interesting point in one of his boo...Taleb makes an interesting point in one of his books about pollution. He basically says if you have to pollute try to have some variety. Which sounds flippant, but the point is that if you are going to end up with non-linear responses, it's going to be at the extreme end of things. As I mentioned global warming looks like a smooth, easy to understand condition in the beginning, it's way out on the end, if we get to 1,000 ppm that no one knows what's going to happen. Same with nuclear power and nuclear waste, at low levels it may not be ideal, but it's understandable and manageable. It's when we put all our eggs in one basket that we risk getting into situations that are truly terrifying. So yeah nuclear is another area I wanted to get into and it didn't happen. I'll probably have to do a second post at some point.<br /><br />Thanks for the compliment on the impact of the deniers. I think a lot of it comes back to the idea that advocates have an unrealistic vision of what's possible. Nuclear power has always been one of the best bets for reducing emissions and they've consistently fought it with just as much energy as coal and oil, if not with more energy. As you say it's much easier to point the finger at the few people who bring up valid points about data collection, temperature records and the like then to work towards solutions which actually have a chance of being implemented.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08825248383924164055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3382060516692200627.post-56768307811044803842017-03-26T20:54:18.212-07:002017-03-26T20:54:18.212-07:00I understand what you mean about trying to fit eve...I understand what you mean about trying to fit everything in. I really wanted to bring up the topic of nuclear power in my first comment and then realized it was too big to really cover adequately. I probably still don't have time to delve into it, but I recently read an article that I thought was interesting on molten salt reactors: http://www.businessinsider.com/thorium-molten-salt-reactors-sorensen-lftr-2017-2. I think my key take away from the article is that there is a lot of untapped potential with fission reactors that we should be exploring if we were really serious about global warming. Definitely nuclear power is not without risks, but I wonder how many Chernobyl or Fukushima level events you could have and still be ahead on overall environmental impact/human lives versus the coal industry. My guess is way more than we've had so far. Certainly you still have the waste problem, but again it might be easier to deal with the wast than to try to sequester a gigaton of carbon every year. <br /><br />I forgot to mention that I particularly liked your discussion of what possible impact the so called climate deniers have had on implementing a solution to global warming. I agree with your take on it, they are much more convenient straw men to attack than actual impediment to the implementation of effective solutions (mostly because effective solutions would likely not be popular or easy to implement). I almost wish you could remove the deniers from the equation and then say to those constantly harping about global warming, "Okay, everyone is convinced now what are you going to do." Cap and trade? Okay how far does that get you to the final goal? Certainly you aren't going to cut CO2 emissions in half every decade for the next three decades with a cap and trade approach. Much easier to just continue to point the finger at the few people who question the "consensus".Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038623704795210310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3382060516692200627.post-21989081868665189962017-03-26T19:54:43.709-07:002017-03-26T19:54:43.709-07:00Excellent comment. I confess that I had a hard tim...Excellent comment. I confess that I had a hard time fitting everything in, and I’m not sure that it ended up being as tight as I hoped. So thanks for expanding on things. I agree with everything you said.<br /><br />I was aware of massive methane release being a possible extreme event. And indeed Global Catastrophic Risk, my primary reference for this particular aspect of things mentions several possible amplifications. And yet they still conclude there’s no model that ends up in a non-linear feedback loop. So while I didn’t mention precipitous methane release, it was factored into conclusion I quoted.<br /><br />I also agree that there is way too much certainty. And I liked the way you put it, particularly the idea that it might be more accurate to call it a 500 ppm experiment rather than the two degree experiment. You mentioned peak oil which was one of the things that I didn’t get into either. In the end it’s a big complicated issue, that has been simplified to the point where what most people actually hear bears only the vaguest resemblance to reality.Jeremiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08825248383924164055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3382060516692200627.post-52572543106027284922017-03-26T17:37:59.274-07:002017-03-26T17:37:59.274-07:00I liked your take on global warming. Certainly th...I liked your take on global warming. Certainly the issue is more complicated than people often acknowledge. One thing you didn't mention was the tipping point people most often cite when it comes to global warming: the thawing of tundra and resultant release of large amounts of methane. I don't think even that would lead to extinction level global warming, but I could see someone dismissing your analysis because of that omission. I would also add that part of over-playing their hand is the amount of certainty they attach to everything. Take the Vox article as an example, what if the tipping point isn't 2 deg C? What if they are off in their estimate of how much CO2 equates to a rise of 2 deg C? They never acknowledge any uncertainty in those numbers. On the surface one might think this strengthens their case, but I think psychologically there is something much more frightening about uncertain doom than certain doom. It's sort of like the monster unseen is scarier than the monster we see and understand. I think their case would be stronger if they frankly acknowledged that they simply can't predict what exactly will happen as atmospheric CO2 levels rise. It would also help avoid the problem of giving up because the problem seems so intractable. Maybe the risk increases if all your cars aren't electric by 2030, but you would still be better off if you got it done by 2040 than if you didn't. <br /><br />I think my preferred approach would be more focused on risk management. As you point out any discussion of global warming should begin with the questions of: is the world warming and how much of that is due to human activity? But what if instead we simply acknowledge that the massive amounts of CO2 (and other chemicals) currently being released into the atmosphere represent a risk to the environment and to humanity in general. Certainly global warming would be one part of that risk, but you could also add ocean acidification and the various health affects associated with the burning of fossil fuels. You may also add in the risk of becoming reliant on an energy source that is not sustainable (although predictions of peak oil seem to be more wishful thinking than insightful prognostication at this point). Overall I think it's hard to argue that there is a risk when you artificially increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I'd tweak Bill Gates metaphor slightly and refer to it as the 500 ppm experiment or something similar. I think taking that approach you would focus on what you could do that gives you the most bang for the buck. One thing that I really liked about the Vox article was how much it focused on the technical challenges of doing something about global warming. One of the more depressing aspects of the whole debate is how much global warming activism seems to be focused on symbolical gestures and moral preening versus actually doing the hard work to solve the issues at hand. Certainly putting up some more solar panels or buying a prius isn't going to do much to solve the underlying problem. Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01038623704795210310noreply@blogger.com