Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on More global warming might be good to mitigate the food shocks caused by abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Thanks for the feedback, Harrison!

This post seems to have non-trivial optics problems, not least because of the choice of the first three words in the title.

Do you have any suggestions for a better title? I think the current one describes well what the analysis does. For me, an overly provocative title would be something like, “Is global warming actually good? At the margin, maybe”.

I don’t have the subject-area expertise to judge the quality of the analysis, but it would really not look great if it turns out to be flawed (e.g., it does not fully consider for second- or third-order effects).

Note:

My analysis is not anything close to definite [so it may well be flawed in important ways], but the fact it ignores many factors arguably implies I am underestimating the uncertainty of the matter, in which case the plausible range for the optimal median global warming should be even wider.

I would be happy if people researched this topic, and ended up arriving to a much lower/​higher optimal median global warming. I am not too invested in my best guesses, just in the conclusion that more research is needed.

I haven’t spent that much time analyzing this, but I would probably recommend being more sensitive around the topic of climate change—especially in the title and summary.

I suppose it is possible to make the summary less contentious from the point of view of the status quo, but then it would reflect less accuratly the analysis. Ideas for potential changes are welcome.

[Marcel D]

Do you have any suggestions for a better title?

I’m not sure I have a great suggestion off the top of my head; my initial guess would be something like “Some global warming could decrease the risk from [?]...” (On second review, I’m especially confused as to whether the title is claiming that global warming reduces the risk from climate change??)

For me, an overly provocative title would be something like, “Is global warming actually good? At the margin, maybe”.

I wasn’t claiming your title was overly provocative, just that it can be very easily taken out of context and mocked according to stereotypes of EA (e.g., “wow, look at these EAs and their pseudo-intelligent analyses, now they want to ‘optimize global warming’ because all they care about are their niche risk scenarios rather than the obvious reality and consequences of climate change”). But being better than overly provocative still does not make the title good.

I suppose it is possible to make the summary less contentious from the point of view of the status quo, but then it would reflect less accuratly the analysis. Ideas for potential changes are welcome.

My main suggestion would be to have a bullet early on in the summary that more-directly acknowledges/​emphasizes the potential risks from climate change or increased temperatures (unless you dispute that there are any serious risks, in which case that is a whole new can of worms).

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Thanks!

I’m not sure I have a great suggestion off the top of my head; my initial guess would be something like “Some global warming could decrease the risk from [?]...” (On second review, I’m especially confused as to whether the title is claiming that global warming reduces the risk from climate change??)

I have changed the title to:

Some global warming might be worth it to decrease the risk from abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios

I assume global warming always increases the risk from climate change, I have added some more words to the 2nd bullet of the summary to clarify this:

My best guess is that additional emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are beneficial up to an optimal median global warming in 2100 relative to 1880 of 4.3 ºC, [what I added:] after which the increase in the risk from climate change outweighs the reduction in that from ASRSs.

My main suggestion would be to have a bullet early on in the summary that more-directly acknowledges/​emphasizes the potential risks from climate change or increased temperatures (unless you dispute that there are any serious risks, in which case that is a whole new can of worms).

I have now divided the 1st bullet into 2, where the 1st acknowledges the risks from climate change:

• Global warming increases the risk from climate change. This “has the potential to result in—and to some extent is already resulting in—increased natural disasters, increased water and food insecurity, and widespread species extinction and habitat loss [copy-pasted this from my introduction]”.

• However, I think global warming also decreases the risk from food shocks caused by abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios (ASRSs), which can be a nuclear winter, volcanic winter, or impact winter^[1]. In essence, because low temperature is a major driver for the decrease in crop yields that can lead to widespread starvation (see Xia 2022, and this post from Luisa Rodriguez).

[Marcel D]

To be completely honest I think the new title—mainly the “worth it”—is actually worse: That’s a phrase you would use if you are intentionally choosing to create global warming. (It’s also somewhat flippant.)

I would recommend something simple like “Some global warming can reduce the risk of mass starvation from abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios.”

I think having the split bullet is probably good, though.

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Thanks! I have updated the title to:

More global warming might be good to mitigate the food shocks caused by abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios

I have:

• Replaced “worth it” by “good”, which sounds less flippant to me.

• Added the term “food shocks” to clarify the risk from ASRSs I am referring to.

• Replaced “Some” by “More” to clarify I mean additional global warming may be good (instead of just the level of warming we are heading to).