[...]解决全球变暖的简单方案 « 学而时嘻之[...]…

I simply desired to thank you so much again. I am not sure what I could possibly have sorted out without these pointers shown by you over such a subject. It previously was an absolute daunting crisis for me personally, but being able to see a professio…

夏官 :

不行不行，我这人看不惯虚伪的东西，所以我厌恶谷歌也厌恶哥本哈根。至于生态，这真是不靠谱的科学……现在很少有谁能跑深山老林里蹲个十年看演化和进化了，总是rush to conclusion，经费至上，于是我也厌恶了= =另外我觉得人类的生态问题是个死结，我是比较支持“放养派”的，觉得要恢复一个地域的生态系统最好的方法就是人全部退出去，但是现在这个社会不太可能这样做，所以我还不如眼不见为净了。

同人于野 :

这不对，应该越有争议越参与，呵呵:)

不行不行，我这人看不惯虚伪的东西，所以我厌恶谷歌也厌恶哥本哈根。至于生态，这真是不靠谱的科学……现在很少有谁能跑深山老林里蹲个十年看演化和进化了，总是rush to conclusion，经费至上，于是我也厌恶了= =另外我觉得人类的生态问题是个死结，我是比较支持“放养派”的，觉得要恢复一个地域的生态系统最好的方法就是人全部退出去，但是现在这个社会不太可能这样做，所以我还不如眼不见为净了。

我去查了一下文献，这个说法还真是靠谱的，的确二氧化碳浓度增加的情况下作物对水的消耗减少，原因有植物生长成熟加快，气孔数量减少。我想当然了：（（（不过成熟加快是可能造成减产的。

增加降雨是可能的，但是怕的就是雨都降到喜欢发洪水的地方去了，干旱的地方还是干旱，毕竟很多湿润的地方本身地貌地理方面就是适合降水的，像雨影区水分怎么也过不去。

今天看西西河上面一组讨论，越发觉得现在这个问题被政客炒得偏离实质，所以我毕业以后就要远离这个领域，可不想再掺和了= =

还有一点，我听说过另一个说法，可能是纽约时报之类的文章，说全球变暖会增加海水的蒸发，从而带来更多降雨，也就是说最终会减少干旱。如果这样看的话，温度升高几度的确不是什么特别坏的事情？

–从统计的角度讲，95%的置信度、90%的可能性很高了啊。因此我认为现在人类采取的措施是理性的，少部分人怀疑也是合理的，因为置信度达不到100%。

”其实就算理论100%完美，在实验之前谁也不敢保证自己的预言是绝对正确的。一个可能不完全恰当的比方，标准模型是如此成功的物理理论，它作出的种种计算跟实验对比的精度达到惊人的程度，即使这样，物理学家还是必须做实验。可惜气象学家没法用地球做实验。“

—既然如此，怎么确保施放二氧化硫的方法可靠呢。这种”地质工程“级的方法，不到万不得以不用为妙。

Talking about your first question, vanishing of tropical forest is happening around the world, so is desertification. If all the forests are still there, there might not be so much CO2 in the atmosphere at the first place. Desertification won’t induce tsunami, but the loss of vegetation, farmland, and soil in those areas won’t be cheaper than in tsunami. In human history, loss of farmland led to migration and wars; just like nowadays people fight for food and oil, and will fight for water soon. Don’t blame population for that; it’s ecosystem not being able to sustain the crazy needs of the population, which are the product of unreasonable world political and economical order. Lost Babylon was not a global issue, but today when the existence of amazon forest and boreal forest in Canada is decided by some companies from the US, it’s definitely not regional any more. And this has already become an issue in COP15.

Sorry I found myself a little obsessed with this topic, maybe because it’s my major. The ideas in super freakonomics are so ECONOMIST. They have no concept of ecoSYSTEM (but I can’t attack the book as I haven’t read their references yet). We’ve learned enough lessons from this kind of thinking, such as DDT, invasive species, and biofuel. Many researchers including me still believe the best way for humans to restore the ecosystem is to back off. Sadly we can only do that in very limited areas. We may be able to understand the ecosystem by looking from the other side, but don’t touch it.

总体来说，我比较同意有些人的说法，也就是我们正处在全球气候的一个比较好的时期。历史上，比如明朝末年的小冰河时代比现在要差得多。另外，据 super freakonomics 考证，现在农业之所以能养活这么多人，除了化肥的使用之外，一个重要原因就是二氧化碳比过去多了。从农作物生长角度，现在是有史以来最佳时刻。

第一，我们不知道现在的地球大环境是否比过去，比如说200年以前更差；
We know it’s worse for sure, considering the loss of biodiversity, worse water and air quality, less natural resources, and less ecosystem stability; but air temperature is definitely not a standard.

第二，如果更差了，我们也不知道是人类造成的，还是自然的大尺度气候变化。
We know human activities have contributed to this greatly, but it’s not the only factor. The influence of climate change is much less important as far as I know.

So my point is the importance of global warming is plausible and overemphasized. Their logic seems to be: human activity caused the global warming; global warming caused ecosystem degradation. Like you said, they are misleading the public. I just read some article about carbon politics. I think the EU kinda picked global warming as a leverage to push other countries, because the atmosphere is shared by the globe, and thus it’s such an easy excuse to hold someone responsible. They can’t give China pressure for panda is endangered.
http://business.sohu.com/20090917/n266796055.shtml

我也理解有些气象学家为了争取公众注意而有意过分强调某些事情的做法，实际上我们做物理的有时候也会这么做。但问题是这么做至少有两个害处。第一，现在所有人都在谈论【人造二氧化碳导致全球变暖】，正如你所说，实际上有很多别的环境问题值得担心，把有限的资源投入到减排二氧化碳上去，显然是错误的。第二，一旦二十年之后发现全球没有变暖，现在这些气象学家的言论会给整个气象学界带来报应，公众有可能不再相信这些科学家。

实际上我认为现在这么多怀疑论和反对者的声音出现，就是全球变暖鼓吹者和极端环保主义者的一个报应。某些科学家和媒体夸大事实对数据搞 cherry picking，反过来损害了环保事业的可信性。