“一些专家认为人类正处在一个新的,恶化了的全球气候模式的边缘,而且没有准备好怎么应对… 气候变化是对全世界人的威胁”。– 《纽约时报》
“气候变化将强迫调整世界范围内的经济和社会活动… 气候学家对政治家们是否有能力应对气候变化,哪怕仅仅是减轻其影响,持悲观的态度。” — 《新闻周刊》
你一定误会了。以上这两段话说的不是最近的热门话题“全球变暖”。这两段话发表于1970年代中期,说的是“即将到来的”,全球变冷。
Super Freakonomics 这本书刚刚出版不久,是 Freakonomics (中文译为《魔鬼经济学》)的续集。与第一本相比,此书的大部分内容虽然同样有趣,但并不“新鲜”,说的都是现在的微观经济学家怎么用数字统计的方法发现违反直觉的事实。传统直觉不可靠,数字才可靠。我认为这本新书最大的价值在于最后一章,这一章讲全球变暖。
为了铺垫这一章,书中用了整整一章来说明一个道理:特别复杂的大问题也许存在一个特别简单廉价的解决方案,而且历史一再证明了这一点。比如说只要医生常常洗手,就可以大大降低产妇的死亡率;提高撞车之后的存活率,安全带比安全气囊要廉价得多也有效得多,等等。
然后两位作者在最后一章宣布,全球变暖,也有一个简单而廉价的方案。
他们不是胡说八道。
回到1970年代,那个时候之所以科学家担心全球变冷,是因为二氧化硫污染。二氧化硫可以在大气平流层停留一年,在那里它们跟水蒸气结合形成云,从而遮挡阳光。但此后各国减少了硫排放,变冷问题解决了。
二氧化硫的作用在1991年再一次得到证实。当年,菲律宾的皮纳图博火山爆发,火山灰直上天空22英里,导致两千万吨二氧化硫进入大气平流层并散开。结果是两年之后,全球温度平均降低了 0.5 摄氏度。
所以解决全球变暖的最简单办法是往平流层排放二氧化硫。这个想法并不好听,“排放”,“二氧化硫”,都不是什么好词儿。但提出这个解决方案的不是写书的“魔鬼经济学家”,而是位于西雅图近郊的 Intellectual Ventures (IV)公司的几位科学家。
实际上,往平流层放二氧化硫并不是什么新方案,以前早就有人想当过,只是难度很大,因为你不想大规模的放,否则会污染大气。要点是怎么点穴式的放,直接放到平流层。IV 公司的方案就是这样。
这个方案说,鉴于全球变暖主要影响两极,应该重点往极地上空放二氧化硫。只要每年往北极上空的平流层投放10万吨,就足以解决北半球的变暖问题。这点量是微不足道的,因为每年已经有两亿吨二氧化硫进入地球大气。
关键是怎么直接送到平流层。IV 的方案是 “garden hose to the sky” — 用一根非常长,也就是18英里长,非常轻的管子。这跟管子被一系列气球带动,好像一串珍珠一样,带入平流层。地下这头,只要燃烧硫,把取得的二氧化硫液化,然后靠管子里面一系列的抽水泵把液态二氧化硫抽上去。
这个方案还特别便宜。拯救北极的话,需要两年时间和两千万美元搭建设备,然后每年运行费用是一千万美元。即使是拯救全球,也只需要一亿五千万美元的搭建费用和每年一亿美元的运行费。
二氧化硫法得到了诺贝尔奖得主 Paul Crutzen (1995年,化学奖,获奖研究是臭氧空洞)的支持。二氧化硫会破坏臭氧层,但 Crutzen 2006 年在 Climatic Change 上发表的一篇论文说,向平流层释放二氧化硫,“is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects.” 而他估计这点排放对臭氧层的影响非常小。
所以这的确是一个特别简单的方案。这是一个直接对地球动手的方案,以至于被称之为“地质工程”(Geo engineering) 。也可能因为这个方案太简单,目前显然有很多反对者。实际上,Super Freakonomics 现在已经因为这最后一章而招致很多“全球变暖主义者”的声讨。关于这本书对全球变暖的观点的详细争论情况可见他们自己的博客。
最后我还想补充一点额外事实。全球变暖是一个特别受媒体喜爱的热门话题,但媒体的报道,跟戈尔的纪录片一样,有很多的误导。我们不必看别的,单从最权威的 IPCC 报告来看,第一,全球变暖这个趋势不一定是真的( IPCC 原话是 “very likely”,换算成统计术语,是95%的可能性)。第二,即使这个趋势是真的,仍然存在10%的可能性,全球变暖与人类活动无关。最大的不确定性正是来自于云。科学家对云的认识还不够。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。
就算全球变暖是真的。就算全球变暖完全是人类活动导致的。这不还有别的办法么。
#1 by 探讨 on 12月 16, 2009 - 5:49 下午
Quote
一个面多了加水,水多了加面的办法。
#2 by 百分之一 on 12月 16, 2009 - 6:03 下午
Quote
“全球变暖这个趋势不一定是真的( IPCC 原话是 “very likely”,换算成统计术语,是95%的可能性)。”
————————————————————
1.对于绝大多数的人类成员来说,
我们需要关注的不应该是以几万年、几十万年为单位的地质时间计量的气候变化,什么冰川期是主流、间冰期是支流的说法,对于拷干的骨架没有意义。这就像对最后一个尼安德特人说“再坚持一下,冰川期再过个几百年,顶多上千年就过去了”一样毫无意义
2.一个常识:在冰化成水的过程中,可以吸收大量的热,从而降低环境温度;环境温度再高,冰水混合物的温度始终是0度(撇开盐水溶度、气压等因素)。
现在之所以有一些盲人还能优哉游哉地混淆以decade为单位的气候温度变化趋势,仅仅是因为全球冰川没有全部融化干净而已。是不是要等到冰川全化、温度急彪后才来讨论人类物种生存可能性的问题大家才开心?
#3 by yanzengli on 12月 16, 2009 - 10:25 下午
Quote
梁文道读《暖化?别闹了!》:阻止全球变暖有意义吗?
http://book.ifeng.com/psl/kjbfz/200912/1216_3554_1476667.shtml
#4 by Heax on 12月 17, 2009 - 7:45 下午
Quote
梁文道是个甚么东西。。。。连常识都不懂就想骗人。。。
#5 by max on 12月 16, 2009 - 11:07 下午
Quote
global warming is very likely, 但 climate change 是真的,IPCC和UN的报告里都有提及极端气候会增加的情况。
#6 by 同人于野 on 12月 18, 2009 - 1:50 上午
Quote
媒体喜欢把戏剧性的灾难气候跟全球变暖联系起来,并且把 global warming 称之为 global climate change。但事实是 IPCC 的报告很少提及除温度上升之外的其他影响,报告提到了冰川融化和海平面上升 (即使是这样,用的词是 likely,而不是 very likely),而对灾难性气候提及很少。
实际上有些科学家认为灾难性气候跟全球变难没什么关系。详见我当初写过的一个文章:http://www.geekonomics10000.com/168
我们有足够的统计表明,灾难性气候并没有什么增加。《physics for future presidents》这本书的最后一章对此有详细的说明。
#7 by 夏官 on 12月 18, 2009 - 4:17 上午
Quote
(Sorry can’t type Chinese in the office.)
I think global climate change is more appropriate. For ecosystem study, we usually just call it global change. Global warming is only the most explicit phenomenon of global change. At subregional or regional level, it could be cooling. For the existence of human race, catastrophic climate or weather events are not so important as the change of ecosystem in the past few centuries. However, scientists have just started to monitor the ecosystem change over large landscapes from the end of 1990s, which means IPCC cannot obtain assessment systematic or accurate enough on this aspect. But for ecologist, we all know the global change, either of natural or human disturbance regime, has largely influenced the function and structure of ecosystems and thereby would feed back the human society. Unfortunately, study of such a complex system is always based on statistics, which mean there’s little “for sure”. The restoration practices in some studies may prove something, but far from enough, not to mention most of the succession procedures cannot be replicated or simulated under affordable cost. Is the relationship between two phenomena causality or just relevance? Hate to say it, but compared with other sciences, many of the ecological conclusions are just a hunch.
IPCC report has always been focusing on the greenhouse gas and climate change which is a small view angle they chose to break through. It might be due to the sudden fame of El Nino in last century. Climatologist really had some good time drawing people’s attention. However the unexpected lag of temperature rising in last decade really embarrassed them. So people may think we’re OK when temperature is not rising so significantly. Is that so? Fossil fuels are still gonna be used up, wildlife habitat is stilled threatened by urban sprawling, forests and rangelands are still being eliminated in stunning speed. Super Freakonomics is sending a wrong message here that “we can handle it”. Carbon is really a small corner of the bigger picture, which can “very likely” be controlled if people pay attention; and when people make progress we “very likely” would be rewarded. Other ecosystem management strategies are even less feasible. Look at COP15, driven by economical and political needs, people are always looking for and can find excuses. No proof is hard enough for those people.
What we really need is conscience, which is so ridiculously idealistic.
#8 by 同人于野 on 12月 18, 2009 - 5:01 上午
Quote
我完全赞同你说的大的环境问题,生态系统的改变,比全球变暖这个具体问题重要得多。你指出现在的研究手段和资料都很有限,无法形成确定的结论,这是非常实在的说法,我很钦佩。我理解,也就是说,目前第一,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;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。
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。
#9 by 夏官 on 12月 18, 2009 - 6:21 上午
Quote
Exactly. I think you must know the CRU email hack happened earlier which brought about violent debate over the last few weeks. Ethic of the whole scientific world is now questioned because CRU held back some raw data. The public would simply ignore the fact that those data won’t really change the CRU result (see RealClimate’s analysis), and they might not even know the (Bush) administration had done worse by holding back or demanding EPA scientists to twist the results which supported global warming theories. It’s also the sin of gushing media. They tend to pick more dramatic conclusions regardless the reliability. Those radical environmental protectionists are just as stupid, like a popular internet slang said: 一个脑残粉等于十个黑.
#10 by 夏官 on 12月 18, 2009 - 7:51 上午
Quote
Oh, and –
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
#11 by 同人于野 on 12月 19, 2009 - 1:51 上午
Quote
从生态环境,比如说热带雨林减少,沙漠化等等,当然是恶化的而且是人为的。但是这种环境改变是否有足够大的全球意义上的影响?比如说外蒙古地区沙漠化可以造成北京沙尘暴,但似乎不太可能导致太平洋海啸的增加。我也知道中国的污染物可以飘到美国上空,但我理解,这些似乎并不是气候变化意义上的严重程度。
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。
#12 by 夏官 on 12月 19, 2009 - 7:24 上午
Quote
I think I read in the comments on the super freakonomics blog, someone mentioned too that trying to cool the planet is a terrible idea. Cooling is actually much much worse than warming in human history. And for residents in Tibet, it’s nothing bad. But I won’t say it’s the best time for agriculture in all areas. Plant growth depends on light, air, water and soil together. Light intensity is usually too abundant; more CO2 is good when all other elements are sufficient; problem is water, not only necessary for photosynthesis but also any other functions. So unless the precipitation in the area also increases, the crop yield will not increase. On the other hand, due to the increase of temperature, the plants need more water to sustain themselves now. Warmer and more humid could give us more biomass, but warmer and drier leads to desertification. CO2 is not the key point here. It makes no sense to evaluate if our global climate is good when the whole ecosystem is in a mess. Climate is only the status of water cycle and some other chemical cycles in the atmosphere, not even half of the entire biogeochemical cycle.
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.
#13 by 同人于野 on 12月 23, 2009 - 4:49 上午
Quote
关于CO2与水的问题,如果 Freakonomics 说的是对的,那么在有更多 CO2 的情况下,植物生长需要更少的水,也就是说增加 CO2 以后可以节省水。这个说法显然跟 mm 你的说法相反,可否确认一下。
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?
#14 by 夏官 on 1月 16, 2010 - 7:36 上午
Quote
(搜狗云输入法真是个好东西)寒假出去玩了,现在才来回复~
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= =
#15 by 同人于野 on 1月 17, 2010 - 5:17 下午
Quote
这不对,应该越有争议越参与,呵呵:)
#16 by 夏官 on 1月 19, 2010 - 1:38 下午
Quote
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。
#17 by 同人于野 on 12月 19, 2009 - 1:52 上午
Quote
强世功这篇文章写得好!多谢指出。
#18 by chengzhi on 12月 17, 2009 - 2:13 上午
Quote
这鬼天气,多冷啊。
#19 by sonic on 12月 17, 2009 - 9:11 下午
Quote
不见棺材不掉泪。我觉得早见棺材也是好事,等个把岛国给淹了,纽约,上海岌岌可危,人类发急了,不管是放硫还是别的,肯定会有解决办法的。大自然不给人类任何机会,这种鬼话我是不会相信的,在事情变得不可逆转之前,一定会有一个渐进的发展过程,现在变暖根本没有任何经济损失,到损失造成了,也不晚!
#20 by titan on 12月 18, 2009 - 4:54 上午
Quote
有没有棺材我还在怀疑..要是没见到棺材却处处掉泪岂不是很丢面子?
#21 by wohoho on 12月 18, 2009 - 10:08 上午
Quote
总是看到博主你的书评,不知道博主看的是电子书还是实体书?上次讲的the talent code看起来很有趣,可是我在网上一直找不到呀!!
#22 by 同人于野 on 12月 19, 2009 - 1:54 上午
Quote
这本是听的 audio book,这种流行读物 gigapedia 上一般都有。The talent code 我是看的实体书。
#23 by linecong on 12月 19, 2009 - 5:47 下午
Quote
”第一,全球变暖这个趋势不一定是真的( IPCC 原话是 “very likely”,换算成统计术语,是95%的可能性)。第二,即使这个趋势是真的,仍然存在10%的可能性,全球变暖与人类活动无关。“
–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。
#24 by titan on 12月 20, 2009 - 3:30 下午
Quote
IPCC并不是一个科学机构;它甚至不是一个独立的政治机构。它下的报告是要与气候大会的领导合拍的,根本没有什么中立性,甚至为了它本身的存在也会试图改它的报告。
#25 by 左岸读书 on 1月 6, 2010 - 7:14 下午
Quote
说“全球变暖”的目的可能是为了让人们注意环保吧!
#26 by 同人于野 on 1月 21, 2010 - 5:36 上午
Quote
你这么一说,我感到生态很像是经济学,基本上是经验主义的,而没有一套可供演算推导的理论体系。但经济学至少可以做些控制试验,而生态实验也许变量更多,而费时更长。不过归根结底科学家在改善人类生态方面能做的很有限,政府和经济发展才是左右生态环境的最大因素。人们都是拿科学说事儿,而不是说科学的事儿。
#27 by feiqu on 1月 24, 2010 - 11:27 下午
Quote
好像历史上就曾经有过类似的事件,当人类还处在煤炭经济时,有人测算过全球的煤炭储量和煤炭用量,悲观的认为煤炭用完的那一天就是世界末日。现在看来像是个笑话,但我不这么认为,为了人类的后代,居安思危甚至杞人忧天都是应该的,这应该是我们的DNA所决定的。
但是当所有人都在喊着全球变暖和减排时,有个不同的声音也是弥足珍贵的。
最不应该的是把这样一件关系到所有人以及子孙后代的大事拖入政治博弈的泥潭,因为这会对这个问题的科学研究造成严重的干扰,最终可能造成很严重的后果。
Trackback: Bubblespot
#28 by 利涉大川 on 12月 23, 2011 - 12:17 上午
Quote
气候不懂,门外汉做个猜想,也许解决了眼前的问题但是衍生出来的东西可能也会需要更多的解决方案,类似抗生素。到时候把地球玩废了就没得玩了。
Trackback: how much water should i drink to lose weight
#29 by juice extractor on 11月 25, 2012 - 9:09 下午
Quote
I’m not sure where you are getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this info for my mission.
#30 by go back on 7月 10, 2013 - 8:57 下午
Quote
You can perform just as much as you prefer without jeopardizing your dollars.
Wagner, who has changed more effective preserves with 10 options, hopes to get to be able to
shut for personnel _ web Pedro Martinez (5-0, 2. 72 ERA).
#31 by Jasa SEO on 7月 21, 2013 - 2:50 下午
Quote
I’ve read some just right stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much attempt you place to make the sort of great informative website.
#32 by Carma on 10月 31, 2013 - 6:53 下午
Quote
wonderful issues altogether, you just won a logo new reader.
What would you suggest in regards to your publish that you made some days ago?
Any sure?
#33 by www.golddigster.com on 11月 9, 2013 - 8:29 上午
Quote
Terrific work! That is the type of information that are supposed to be shared
around the internet. Disgrace on Google for now not positioning this post upper!
Come on over and consult with my website . Thank you =)
#34 by Speaking of on 1月 17, 2014 - 1:53 下午
Quote
Cool blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it
from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make
my blog shine. Please let me know where you got your design.
Many thanks
#35 by Tidung Murah on 1月 28, 2014 - 12:52 下午
Quote
Have you ever thought about including a little bit more than just your articles?
I mean, what you say is valuable and all. However think of if you
added some great pictures or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”!
Your content is excellent but with images and videos, this blog could undeniably be one of the best in its
field. Good blog!