Physics for Future Presidents is the best book I have read on Global Warming. It really analyzes the data and objectively states what we know and don't know. (Compare this to Super Freakonomics, which throws in random pieces of information, usually out of context, to undermine the case for global warming - or at least the case for urgent action - while also admitting that it is real. Read this book and ignore Super Freakonomics.)
This book also has a really good explanation of nuclear technology and radiation, chemical and biological weapons, and space. In this post though I will focus on global warming. Here is some of the relevant information on climate change from the book. I will go so far as to say that what is listed below are facts beyond dispute.
Carbon
- The earth's atmosphere contains 0.038% - or 380 parts per million - carbon dioxide. Nitrogen and Oxygen make up 99% of atmosphere and do not absorb infrared radiation.
- In the late 1800s there was only 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
- There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than anytime in the last 20 million years.
Climate
- The earth has definitely been warming over the last 150 years.
- The hockey stick graph is wrong - it contained poor analysis. Temperatures are not the warmest they have been in the last 1,000 years. But they are the warmest they have been in the last 400 years.
- Temperatures have increased 2F in the last century.
- The earth's temperature over the last 14,000 years has been mostly stable since the last ice age, which was around 12,000 - 10,000 BC. There has historically been an ice age every 10,000 years - some think this is due to a wobble in the earth's axis caused by Jupiter and Venus.
- The 600,000 year CO2 and temperature graph (made famous by Al Gore and a lift truck) is misleading. We do not know which way the causation goes. CO2 may have increased due to the temperature increases. In fact, increase in CO2 seems to lag the temperature increase by 800 years.
Ocean Changes
- Sea level rises can be attributed more to water expanding as the temperature of the ocean increases than to melting ice.
- Antarctic ice is melting. It was originally thought that Antarctic ice would increase, as water vapor increased in the air and more snow fell on Antarctica. Instead, more rain is falling.
- The ocean pH is changing. It is becoming more acidic (actually it is becoming more neutral but the point being that it is moving on the scale to be less basic and more acidic). Increasing acidity interferes with formation of external shells and skeletons for ocean life.
- Permafrost is thawing in some places.
IPCC Conclusions
- The IPCC says there is a 10% chance that humans are not responsible for temperature changes and a 90% chance that we are responsible.
- Temperatures are predicted to rise another 3F - 10F in the next 50 years.
- The predominant reason for the uncertainty is water vapor and cloud cover. There is a chance that temperature increases, which will increase water vapor in the air, might also increase cloud cover, thereby moderating temperature increases.
My Conclusions
- We may not be 100 percent sure that we are causing global warming, but we are sure enough that we should take precautions. It makes no sense to say that we need to wait until there is no doubt before we act. Think of any other example (heart attack) where you were 90 percent sure something bad was going to happen but you refused to act until you were certain.
- Although the models are imperfect, we are confident that temperatures will continue to rise. Again, we need to plan for this and find ways to try to prevent it.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Book Report: Three Cups of Tea
I was skeptical about Three Cups of Tea when I first started hearing about it. In summary, Greg Mortenson, after an unsuccessful bid to climb K2, started building schools in Pakistan and then Afghanistan. And the theme is that schools are a much better weapon against extremism than wars. Knowing that much, I figured I knew it all. I agreed with the message of the book so did I really need to actually read it?
It turns out, after much convincing from my lovely wife, that yes, I needed to read it. The book is well written and moves pretty quickly. And throughout, you learn two major things. One, you learn more about the diversity of Pakistan and of Islam. You learn that many Islamic religious leaders do want children educated in science, math and reading. The problem is not with the religion, but with one sect pushed by the Saudis.
The second thing you learn is how important local knowledge is when providing aid to developing countries. Greg Mortenson was able to succeed because he learned and respected the local customs. And more importantly, he learned to trust the local leaders. At times, they would ask for something that he thought was less important than what he wanted to provide. After giving in, he saw that they did know best, and what they asked for was what they needed.
While at a basic level, this is just a story about a person whose development projects have been amazingly successful. But there are also broader policy implications. A while ago, I decided to read four major books on development (by Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, and Amartya Sen). I was most convinced by both Sen and Easterly. (Acutally, Collier's was pretty convincing as well. Sachs was the only one I found I disagreed with.)
Mortenson's method fits more with Easterly and Sen than it does with Sachs. Easterly says that large development projects do not actually work. Their approach is top-down and rigid. This project is bottom-up, it gets buy-in from the local population, and delivers only what they say they need. According to the authors, this method is far more efficient - Mortenson is able to build a school for a fraction of the cost that the Pakistani government or the UN would have to pay.
It fits with Sen's philosophy because it focuses on delivering a right - education primarily but his project also funds health and other issues - instead of seeking to increase GDP.
The last thing I will say is how the book impacted me. For the last few years, I have felt that I do not do enough to help those in need. After I visited Zambia, I thought I wanted to move into development work. So I assumed that this book would make me want to search for a way to be as productive as Mortenson. Instead, it made me a little more comfortable doing the work I am doing. One of Mortenson's main challenges was raising money. In order for him to be successful, he needs people back in the US to fund his work. I am a little happier knowing that, while I do have a job that allows me to help more people than before, I can also serve the role of funding people like Greg Mortenson.
It turns out, after much convincing from my lovely wife, that yes, I needed to read it. The book is well written and moves pretty quickly. And throughout, you learn two major things. One, you learn more about the diversity of Pakistan and of Islam. You learn that many Islamic religious leaders do want children educated in science, math and reading. The problem is not with the religion, but with one sect pushed by the Saudis.
The second thing you learn is how important local knowledge is when providing aid to developing countries. Greg Mortenson was able to succeed because he learned and respected the local customs. And more importantly, he learned to trust the local leaders. At times, they would ask for something that he thought was less important than what he wanted to provide. After giving in, he saw that they did know best, and what they asked for was what they needed.
While at a basic level, this is just a story about a person whose development projects have been amazingly successful. But there are also broader policy implications. A while ago, I decided to read four major books on development (by Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, and Amartya Sen). I was most convinced by both Sen and Easterly. (Acutally, Collier's was pretty convincing as well. Sachs was the only one I found I disagreed with.)
Mortenson's method fits more with Easterly and Sen than it does with Sachs. Easterly says that large development projects do not actually work. Their approach is top-down and rigid. This project is bottom-up, it gets buy-in from the local population, and delivers only what they say they need. According to the authors, this method is far more efficient - Mortenson is able to build a school for a fraction of the cost that the Pakistani government or the UN would have to pay.
It fits with Sen's philosophy because it focuses on delivering a right - education primarily but his project also funds health and other issues - instead of seeking to increase GDP.
The last thing I will say is how the book impacted me. For the last few years, I have felt that I do not do enough to help those in need. After I visited Zambia, I thought I wanted to move into development work. So I assumed that this book would make me want to search for a way to be as productive as Mortenson. Instead, it made me a little more comfortable doing the work I am doing. One of Mortenson's main challenges was raising money. In order for him to be successful, he needs people back in the US to fund his work. I am a little happier knowing that, while I do have a job that allows me to help more people than before, I can also serve the role of funding people like Greg Mortenson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)