"Volcanoes suggest SO2 geoengineering might be a wash" Topic

Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions
Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker

Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures1,2, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown3. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress4, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.

From the Vox's reporting: link

"If we think of geoengineering as an experimental surgery, our findings suggest that the side effects of the treatment are just as bad as the original disease," co-author Jonathan Proctor, a researcher at the University of California Berkeley, told reporters. In other words: When it comes to crops, geoengineering trades one problem (heat-related declines) for another (crop losses due to less light).

Don't worry. The new weather stations will take care of "Global Warming" (oops, "Climate Change") once and for all … and you'll never need to worry again about the glaciers ever melting. You will never need to fear change.

Dan

I'm just wondering how extreme "geoengineering" would have to be.
Releasing SO2 slowly from tanks?
Tsar Bomba at Yellowstone? Hey! I live downstream from that!
I don't trust science fiction writers. I've met a few.

In the 1970s … the scientists got the media (and the school systems) all worked up with predictions of the cooling of the planet.

So, after listening to the alarmist crap over and over again, and the interviews discussed in papers, magazines, radio, tv, school, etc. my Dad finally bought into their predictions (hook, line and sinker) and told us kids that we needed to move South. So, we left everything and everyone we knew and moved to the Gulf of Mexico.

He was definitely a true "Ice Age" believer back then. Needless to say, we are all a lot more cautious about everything we are told these days.

(Then it was all about Global Warming. Now it's "Climate Change", to cover all the bases. Next year who knows?)

Dan

The whole problem with global warming/climate change is that the proponents have crapped on their own table so many times no body believes anything they say anymore. All the papers and charts in the world don't erase the fact that they have manipulated their data so many times it is worthless.

And another recap of the "scientific" claims from The New American:

link

Let's take the infamous John Christy chat. And then add in context…

Once again refusal to admit the use of faux data. Oh well.

As for the ice age cometh myth, it's simply that… a myth. Whilst there were some scientists were predicting an impending ice age in the 1960s and 1970s, they were far from the consensus position of the scientific community.

I would hesitate to lump many of the 60s and 70s era scientists predicting ice ages in the same bucket as David Archibald from that loony denier/conspiracy run by Anthony Watts. Almost nothing in science has a pure‌ vector. In fact, there were many forces showing a cooling effect, from SO2 and other airborne particulates reflecting radiation back to space, to Milancovitch procession (changes in the earth's orbit and inclination that changes the effective radiation absorbed by the earth system. The beauty of the scientific method is that it isn't dogma. Everything is provisional, and sufficient evidence can and will change dominant paradigms of thought. And that's mostly what happened. As for poor ol' David Archibald, this is the change required to happens in global temperatures for the ice age he constantly predicts will happen on that climate denier/conspiracy website run my Anthony Watts. (hat tip to Sue from HotWhopper for the graph. NB. the graph is a few years old, so the peak should be a bit higher and the crash steeper…)

If we had listened to all the Ice Age ravings back in the 70s (and, no, that was no damn myth), and darkened the surface of glaciers to make them melt, they would be looking for ways to was their hands of all involvement in the resulting mess.

I think it more than a bit hypocritical how the alarmist scientific industry ("community") can use weather events to support their claims but that, when skeptics and dissenters use examples of weather events to discredit the hysteria, suddenly the alarmist scientists call them idiots for confusing weather with climate?

The majority of scientists are good at washing their hands of their involvement in panicking the media, just like the media industry are good at washing their hands of their involvement in panicking the public.

From now on I'll only pay attention to those who understand the need to keep a cool head (pun intended) when it comes to the weather, and who understand that their role is not to get the planet worked up every time their conclusions and predictions change.

Dan

Dan,

Exactly. And their documented history of corrupting data and history to support their pet "theories" only renders them more pathetic.

Dave

I'm glad to see that the TMP community has been called upon to settle this controversy.
I would hate to see it in the hands of some irresponsible organizations.

The funniest part is claims that science drove the media into "new ice age" hysteria in the 70's. The hysteria is real enough, but the reasoning is entirely backwards. It was instead a rather typical sensationalization of very limited scientific papers on past cooling and modern parallels. There is a villain that got it wrong here folks, but it is the media looking to sell ads, not the claims of science. The actual data on science from the 70's shows about 10 studies discussing global warming for each one on global cooling. Science had it right even then, dumb ass media stories not withstanding.

The cover of Time trumps all other journals.

What is old is new again… from 2013 link

The cover of Time trumps all other journals.

Absolutely, especially when it supports a confirmation bias.

+1 to gladue, Winston and Martin.

If we had listened to all the Ice Age ravings back in the 70s (and, no, that was no damn myth)……

Sorry Dan, yes it was. In the late 70's I took a course on Arctic Ecology by Prof Kenneth Kershaw at university. He was one of Canada's premier experts on the Arctic. We were not taught about global cooling. In fact he was explaining Arctic permafrost thawing at previously unheard of rates and how these effects would speed up in a positive feedback loop due to CO2 release.

It seems that some were taught otherwise. I feel bad for them and the poor level of education they must have received. See the bottom of this thread from just a while back (June ‘18):

TMP link

Things are repeating themselves here in ever shorter cycles. And that says a lot.

From David Dunning (Of Dunning-Kruger effect fame).

An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that's filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by-product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often, our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to an age when we can procreate. But our genius for creative storytelling, combined with our inability to detect our own ignorance, can sometimes lead to situations that are embarrassing, unfortunate, or downright dangerous—especially in a technologically advanced, complex democratic society that occasionally invests mistaken popular beliefs with immense destructive power (See: crisis, financial; war, Iraq). As the humorist Josh Billings once put it, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." (Ironically, one thing many people "know" about this quote is that it was first uttered by Mark Twain or Will Rogers—which just ain't so.)

Why does it almost always take you guys so many words to utter an insult? And in those cases, always using someone else's words, instead of owning it personally?

By the time you finish, I could have taken two naps.

Or claim that what you observe says a lot, but then say nothing. Surely you don't think every thinking person should see things your way all the time, or do you?

Next thing we'll hear is that those weren't really insults to everyone who sees and feels differently about the data you favor, which would be a big load of crap.

Dan

It really doesn't matter. AGW religious fanatics will just hop into their oversized SUVs, take a private jet to their next do nothing conference and tell me I need to change my lifestyle.

If anyone so much as questions them, you are branded a heretic – sorry – denier.

Back to the more serious issue of rebasing figures for the latest new rule set.

No better example of Dunning-Kruger than right here.