![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, a few weeks ago, I mentioned that "Facts Matter" and quoted a review of the new book SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
that suggested the book's global warming chapter was badly in error.
Having read the book, I have to at least partially retract that blog post. See, here's the thing - Ray Pierre at RealClimate (who I quoted) wrote that the Superfreakonomics people had badly overestimated the waste heat effect of solar cells. He (and I) implied that it invalidated the whole chapter. This is not so. First, the solar-waste heat thing is a single sentence, and looks like a paraphrase of a quote from one of their sources. Second, the source appears to be arguing that all effects from a carbon-to-solar conversion, including making the cells, doesn't yield the kind of reductions needed in any reasonable time frame.
Now, it's true that the "climate engineering will save us all" chapter is a bit breezily done. It's also true that one of the magic bullets, injecting sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, assumes that adding more SO2 won't have any major environmental costs. That's an assumption provided without a hint of calculation. But on the other hand, the chapter is not nearly as fact-free as I was led to believe. Thus my egg-y face.
Moving on to my analysis of the book as a whole, I enjoyed it, and recommend it as interesting reading. They had a section on the safety of walking vs. driving drunk, and came to the "surprising" conclusion that driving is safer. This is not really surprising, since:
1) Many instances where walking vs. driving is a reasonable choice are in urban areas, hence more risk of vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents.
2) In vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents, the pedestrian loses, while in vehicle vs. vehicle, the occupants of the vehicles have more of a sporting chance.
In general, the authors of Superfreakonomics point out that people are selfish, and do things that benefit themselves. They argue that any public policy decision that doesn't factor that in will probably fail.
that suggested the book's global warming chapter was badly in error.Having read the book, I have to at least partially retract that blog post. See, here's the thing - Ray Pierre at RealClimate (who I quoted) wrote that the Superfreakonomics people had badly overestimated the waste heat effect of solar cells. He (and I) implied that it invalidated the whole chapter. This is not so. First, the solar-waste heat thing is a single sentence, and looks like a paraphrase of a quote from one of their sources. Second, the source appears to be arguing that all effects from a carbon-to-solar conversion, including making the cells, doesn't yield the kind of reductions needed in any reasonable time frame.
Now, it's true that the "climate engineering will save us all" chapter is a bit breezily done. It's also true that one of the magic bullets, injecting sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, assumes that adding more SO2 won't have any major environmental costs. That's an assumption provided without a hint of calculation. But on the other hand, the chapter is not nearly as fact-free as I was led to believe. Thus my egg-y face.
Moving on to my analysis of the book as a whole, I enjoyed it, and recommend it as interesting reading. They had a section on the safety of walking vs. driving drunk, and came to the "surprising" conclusion that driving is safer. This is not really surprising, since:
1) Many instances where walking vs. driving is a reasonable choice are in urban areas, hence more risk of vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents.
2) In vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents, the pedestrian loses, while in vehicle vs. vehicle, the occupants of the vehicles have more of a sporting chance.
In general, the authors of Superfreakonomics point out that people are selfish, and do things that benefit themselves. They argue that any public policy decision that doesn't factor that in will probably fail.
