Look, I'm pro-choice, but not overly so. If the circumstances were such that having a kid would pose a major detrimental impact to yourself and the child (abusive husband/father, destitution, etc.), then that's reason to bail. But bailing because you are 1-2 years ahead of schedule? Because it would be somewhat inconvenient? To paraphrase another poster, what the fuck?

Take what you are given and run with it. My wife and I initially had trouble getting pregnant; then we had twin boys. Then, a third somewhat unscheduled boy. Now, a fourth on the way.

I was originally adamant about having no more than two kids, but our plans changed. Turns out (now that the pump is primed) we are very fertile, we really dig being parents, and four kids just feels right (I'm going to take decisive action to prevent the possibility of a 5th). And as no one else in my extended family is really pumping out the units, I don't feel too bad about the population impact.

So go ahead and have the kid. If you are ever going to be ready, you are ready now. Just realize that you have no idea what you are getting yourself into (I am still trying to figure that out).

This link worked for me:

http://ej.iop.org/links/rGXtx9kpP/nGMlfcjV2xG6oBB4av5vpA/erl7_1_014002.pdf

As far as I can tell (based on a 3 minute scan), all the authors did is show that increased temperature correlates with reduced yields (though not particularly strongly). They then took these correlations and the temperature trends and figured out what the impact on yield due to temperature would be, all else being equal.

For me, the most interesting result was the contention that:

"Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades, with a small net effect on yields.

This conclusion, while tempered by the substantial uncertainty in yield response to CO2, challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2 benefits will exceed temperature related losses up to ∼2◦ warming"

The data isn't strong enough to make this a smoking gun, but it's an interesting finding. As far as adaptation, what I'd like to know is how total yields will vary as our breadbaskets move toward the poles- e.g. in North America, will Canadian yields increase fast enough to balance decreases in the US Midwest?

You may be right. You can do well as an engineer in a startup, but that's playing the lottery. Engineering careers for the rank and file aren't that great.

I studied engineering (M.S.) but now work as a management consultant. The work is not always fulfilling, but my salary is much higher than it would be if I was working as an engineer. Sad but true. And given the wife, kids, house situation, salary beats interesting, meaningful work.

Andrew, I love your writing, but I think you took a bit of an unwarranted potshot at Vivek Wadhwa, and I was pleased to see his measured response. His closing remark about showing "more respect to investment bankers than scientists" is right on. Of my engineering friends, 1-2 work as engineers. The rest are VCs, bankers, consultants, etc.

The word 'Frontline' was mispelled:

http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Frontline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB117461620851146360.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

Here is a pretty good summary of the solar energy payback question:

http://www.energybulletin.net/17219.html

In short, the energy payback time is surprisingly hard to nail down, but it's 2-8 years (mean 4), conservatively, and dropping fast. Mean life of a panel is much longer than that.

So, while PV energy balance is an issue, it is misinformed to argue that they don't have a positive energy balance.

It doesn't change the story much, but the numbers don't quite tie.

First of all, it's important not to confuse CO2 with all GHGs. When I've seen the 20 ton/head and 3.2/head numbers for US and China, it's been CO2 only. It also doesn't make any sense to add CO2 and methane emissions together on a mass basis, because methane is a much stronger GHG per unit mass.

That said, the math still doesn't work. Let's say the day has arrived where US and Chinese human CO2 emissions are equal. 20 vs. 3.2 is a ratio of 6.25. The ratio of Chinese pop (1.318B at present- pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population) to US pop (302M, same source) is 4.4. The ratios would need to be equal. Which suggests that Chinese per capita emissions have to be more like 4.6 tons/head/year, which is a huge increase in a short period of time.

Again, it doesn't change the basic story (US has been the CO2 leader for a long time, but we have company, but we're richer, China's not nice, what to do?), but let's be careful with the numbers.

BTW to the previous poster- river diversion to address sea level rise? Are you serious? I don't know even where to start. How about you compute annual river influx and divide by the surface area of the ocean? Wikipedia and Google are your friends. I would be willing to bet that the reason this 'solution' is not actively considered is because it would be really ineffectual, be really expensive vs. other options, and have so many side-effects that would be much worse than sea level increase that I don't even know where to begin...