Climate Geoengineering Oops: Injecting Sulphates Into the Stratosphere To Reflect Sunlight Would Starve Crops of Sunlight

This is a plume of ash from the Sarychev volcano in the Kuril islands, northeast of Japan. The picture was taken from the International Space Station during the early stage of the volcano’s eruption on June 12, 2009. Credits: NASA

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

I guess we should be grateful that this time someone noticed the problems BEFORE creating another climate policy driven global food shortage.

Dimming sunlight to slow global warming may harm crop yields: study

Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) – Spraying a veil of sun-dimming chemicals high above the Earth to slow global warming could harm crop yields in an unintended side-effect of turning down the heat, U.S. scientists said on Wednesday.

Some researchers say a man-made sunshade, perhaps sulfur dioxide released high in the atmosphere, could limit rising temperatures and the after-effects like the wildfires that have ravaged California and Greece this summer.

But a U.S. scientific team found that big volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 and El Chichon in Mexico in 1982, cut yields of wheat, soy and rice after spewing sun-blocking ash that blew around the world.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-geoengineering/dimming-sunlight-to-slow-global-warming-may-harm-crop-yields-study-idUSKBN1KT26B

The abstract of the study;

Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions

Published: 08 August 2018

Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker

Nature (2018)

Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress, 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.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3

Noticing the problems before causing great harm is a bit of a first for climate activism.

Back in 2008 lavish biofuel incentives caused worldwide food shortages; prices in poor countries spike up to 75%, which led to mass hunger and civil unrest.

Advertisements

139
Leave a Reply

44 Comment threads
95 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
66 Comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bsl

It’s always been obvious that agriculture would suffer if incoming solar radiation was artificially reduced.

Paul Johnson

And as agriculture (and silviculture) suffer, their consumption of CO2 declines. Does this approach actually do more harm than good?

OweninGA

But it does have the “benefit” of decreasing the number of people who can be fed, thus bringing the Mathusian prophecies into being. For the nutters it is a win-win, for everyone else a bloody catastrophe!

Bryan A

And thus goes Civiliculture

Sara

The flip side of that coin is that the people who are most dependent on it are NOT the people who raise the food crops of various kinds. The most dependent are people living in cities, where nothing is raised for consumption. They would be the first to see a decrease in population numbers. And do not think that farmers of any kind would welcome them.

Bryan A

Sure they would…fossil fueled food cultivation/harvesting would also be a thing of the past. Farmers would need the extra hands to bring in the crops in a timely manner an would likely welcome the city slicker pickers

Sara

That’s true, to a certain extent. But at some point, those jobs would fill up. Newcomers would have to know the difference between a hoe and a bush hog, and demonstrate skills such as pulling radishes and green onions without breaking the stems. I think the Warmians would last about an hour and a half at it.

Fon Drees

They would have to shoot em on sight to survive…The lazy, arrogant hordes of Regressive know it alls’, would immediately try to take over and more than likely feel justified in terminating the evil racist Trumpians. Stupidly terminat8ng all of man kind (eventually) in the process.

Maybe the aerosols should be applied over the southern hemisphere during their summer time. There isnt that much agriculture south of 45 degrees south. So maybe its better to have planes loaded with the materials fly from Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina starting in June and ending application in september.

Richard of NZ

Unfortunately with your proposal the gases would become intermixed throughout the atmosphere and affect the northern climes. Also sulfur dioxide is a gas, not an aerosol. Additionally I do not want my summers to become cooler and my winters even cooler as well.

Wallaby Geoff

Said like a true Northern Hemisphere – ite, stick your aerosols where the sun don’t shine.

flow in

Coming from NZ, I have to say: No thank you

DonM

Mebbe since the population, like the agriculture south of 45 degrees south, isn’t as significant as the rest of the world, we should cut out the middleman and instead just eliminate an appropriate portion of the southern hemisphere population so as to achieve the same global curing result.

Mac

Limiting sunlight would cause a reduction in crop yields heh? And they actually had to do a study to confirm that. Wow. The march of climate idiocracy knows no bounds.

Tom Gelsthorpe

Say, I’ve got a swell idea! Let’s reduce the most important input in the entire biosphere. That’s sure to make the earth a healthier place.

flow in

But according to AGW models, the sun is far less important that a vital trace gas. So this makes sense. Oh wait. It can’t. the sun doesn’t even matter.

The problem with geoengineering schemes is that they will work… Global cooling is easy to accomplish: Block the Sun…

comment image

commieBob

There WILL be unintended consequences. link Some of those consequences might be irreversible. The precautionary principle dictates that that we don’t apply the precautionary principle as an excuse for geoengineering.

When the “unintended consequences” are so bleeding obvious that even the morons at Earther see them… can they really be called unintended consequences?

https://earther.gizmodo.com/yet-another-reason-geoengineering-wont-save-us-1828194977

Blocking the Sun to fight climate change is like holding my breath to prevent asthma attacks… LOL!

commieBob

As the link I provided points out, the consequences of government regulation are often intended by someone.

Efforts to impose the principle through regulatory policy inevitably accommodate competing concerns or become a Trojan horse for other ideological crusades. When selectively applied to politically disfavored technologies and conduct, the precautionary principle is a barrier to technological development and economic growth.

Ideologues, corporations trying to suppress competition, and rent seekers, all kinds of people and organizations try to promote regulation for purposes that the public would not support if the true purpose of the regulations were understood.

The link, with its many references, is a gold mine.

HotScot

commieBob

From your link:

“The most common articulation of the precautionary principle is the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, a consensus document drafted and adopted by a group of environmental activists and academics in January 1998.” (my emphasis).

That explains everything. Talk about the blind leading the blind, but at least they all agree to walk off the cliff they can’t see, holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

commieBob

… singing Kumbaya.

… which would be fine if they were the only ones bearing the consequences.

John Harmsworth

I’m going to get to work on that cliff right away!

Latitude

they will work…in a sane world this would be called pollution

Alan the Brit

So, lets get this straight. The eco-scientifists who want a pure Earth untainted by Humanity, want to pollute the atmosphere to save Gaia? Sounds reasonable, but have they thought about the teeny weeny possibility that variations in global temperatures may be perfectly natural in origins? Just a thought!

They had to destroy the planet in order to save it… /SARC

steven mosher

they used a model.
dont believe it.

+42

Gary Pearse

No Moshe, you’ve taught us to believe in climateer models to the death. You guys live a simple and virtuous life. No more moldy old antidiluvian empirical work. X-Box climate studies, yeah that’s the ticket. I am an engineer and have no trouble with well-validated models – the empirical work has already been done. But I know no engineers were disturbed in producing this study. Indeed, common sense is a better model in this case. What side of the cost benefit analysis would you guess they placed mass starvation on ?

RyanS

You accept the model if its cooling (“mass starvation”) but for warming… no. Isn’t that confirmtion bias?

tty

No need for modeling. Read up on what happened e. g. 536 or 1783 AD.

MarkW

In the real world, there are many models. Some work. Some don’t.
Accepting one model does not require one to accept all models.
Rejecting one model does not require one to reject all models.

Climate models have been proven to be broken. Over and over again.

That fact neither helps nor hinders other models that have nothing to do with climate.

Intelligent people don’t need to be told things this basic.

Gary Ashe

Jeez you really think you need to model the effects solar deprivation will have on eco systems that thrive on it.

MarkW

Once again, Steve has to lie what others have been saying in order to have something to say.
Are those goal posts still in the same county?

John Harmsworth

It’s pretty telling that they needed a model.

Alasdair

The stupidity they didn’t stop was solar panels. If you want to warm the planet; then plaster it with solar panels. The Stephen-Boltzmann equation confirms that.

Sommer

Yes and in rural Ontario the Green Energy Act ignored the Precautionary Principle and rammed industrial scale wind turbines too close to residents’ homes and barns before they had scientific evidence regarding harm from noise, LFN and infrasound.

steven mosher

But a U.S. scientific team found that big volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 and El Chichon in Mexico in 1982, cut yields of wheat, soy and rice after spewing sun-blocking ash that blew around the world.”

correlation is not causation.
it could have been something else.

they have not proved sun blocking ash is harmful.

ha. luv me some skeptical arguments.

Gary Pearse

An engineer or agronomist could have told these guys this. If you go out in the rain without an umbrella… see comment made on your remarks above.

Eric H

These model runs actually MATCHED what occurred…

None of the AGW model ensembles have matched the observed Satellite temps, so how is this at all comparable?

Models that match observations are useful, models that do not should be thrown out.
Models have previously predicted:
-tornados would increase
-hurricanes would increase in number and intensity
-sea level rise would accelerate
-snow would no longer fall in “normal” amounts
-droughts would increase
-floods would increase
-Greenland would lose ice/snow mass
-Antarctica would lose ice/snow mass
NONE of these models have been proven correct, so what should we do with them?

The lack of common sense between the ears of some academics never ceases to amaze…

honest liberty

When encountering fools incapable of employing logic and reason, responding to them in any fashion other than to have a good laugh at their expense, is an exercise in futility.
You cannot train a cockroach to do simple arithmetic, no matter how great a teacher you may be.

flow in

They are not using models like a real scientist would, trying different ones to see which works. They are using models as ‘proof’ of their beliefs. So they believe that CO2 is the ecological antichrist which they must fight with all their might. In that holy cause, they’ll throw their models, and when they are proved wrong, simply make them more complex and convoluted to try and prove their belief, since they are not able to go back and address their assumptions.
It is clear in all their publications. Each observational refutation is met with ‘excuses’ to explain why the models didn’t work, and these excuses are accepted as fact by other believers. When the next lot of data comes in, disproving the models again, a new set of excuses is applied, and accepted as the ‘explanation’. So we have a huge litany of ‘excuses’ which are treated as ‘fact’ even though they’ve never been verified, and most have been falsified.
GIA is my favourite, since it can turn a sea level fall right around, and turn ice gain into ice loss, and it is utter BS. Considering the gravitational effect of a distant glacier whilst ignoring the gravitational effect of a nearby aquifer is like blaming a heater 4 miles away for the warmth a candle in the same room generates.
This practice, of sneakily introducing new excuses as ‘fact’ during each cycle of observational disproof of model, means that I no longer believe that the AGW crowd is capable of rational thought, and will never admit they are wrong, ever.
The struggle is with the public, then, not the AGW ‘scientists’, and ridicule is the key weapon.

tty

Since the sun blocking isn’t due to ash there is no need to. Come on Steve – you’re not that ignorant, just careless.

MarkW

He’s neither ignorant, nor careless. He’s bitter.
Seeing his life’s work being discredited by reality has driven him over the edge.

MarkW

Being proven wrong so many times has driven mosher insane.

honest liberty

hahahahahahha And I’m LOOOOOVING IT!

pardon, I had to channel my inner Trevor because that is how strongly I feel about it.

John Harmsworth

You’re actually correct, Steven. It could have been a cyclical high in fertilizer prices, simultaneous drought in major wheat growing areas, political/economic issues in Eastern Europe or something else. It’s always good to look a little deeper.
You should try it on AGW!

Paul Penrose

I was kind of thinking the same thing. I wonder of those things were controlled for. OTOH, it is common sense that reducing incoming sunlight is going to have a negative effect on crop yields, and that’s not the only negative I can think of. Spewing actual pollution into the atmosphere is not the solution, assuming you believe a slightly warming planet is a problem.

flow in

Dissolving everyone’s copper, lead and zinc roofs will be cool, though

Sara

Steve Mosher says: ‘…have not proved that sun-blocking ash is harmful’.

It’s harmful if it gets into your lungs, Steve, so how is is NOT harmful in regard to blocking sunlight, when the global mean temperature dropped by a full one degree Centigrade after Pinatubo’s eruption?

You’re entitled to your viewpoint, but sometimes, Steve, you’re just silly.

Try blocking light of any kind from your houseplants and note how long it takes them to deteriorate. Then we’ll discuss whether or not volcanic ash particulates in the atmosphere that block sunlight are harmful to crops.

Okay???

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

I presented an article in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 77 (1995) 113-120 titled “Discussion: Over-emphasis on energy terms in crop yield models” . Variation of relative growth or relative yield with relative radiation stress, relative water stress and relative nutrient stress wherein there is a optimal value beyond which the changes are nearly flat and in lowerside they change steeply. That means any significant change in yield is steeply change upto the optimal value. If the volcanic erruption causes energy go down below the optimal level then there is significant impact on yields and if not no such impact on yield.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Gamecock

Geoengineering shares the same problem as climate science: we simply don’t know enough. Policies and actions ignore our ignorance.

Our ignorance of the atmosphere means geoengineering will kill billions of people.

HotScot

Gamecock

“……….geoengineering will kill billions of people.”

Shhhhhhhhhhh! Don’t give the green wacko’s ideas like that!

RyanS

CAGC? Uh huh. So firmly do you believe it – that humans can alter the atmosphere – you are afraid your politial opponents will use it to their genocidal ends.

But warming is just for wackos though, right?

MarkW

We are just taking your spokesmen at their word.
They have said many times how there are too many people on the planet and how that number needs to be reduced.

RyanS

“We”, you mean you and HotScot?

honest liberty

no, in fact many, many more.
Ryan…
What is your purpose for commenting on this site in the fashion you choose? I’m genuinely interested in both your position and what you hope to accomplish.

RyanS

Primarily calling out the bunkum that otherwise might go unchallenged in an echo-chamber like this. Much of that bunkum comes from the cherry-picked posts, rebadged and re-hashed from other echo-chambers.

Some here hate Nick Stokes, but (probably because of) the number of times he’s dismantled some of the tripe that gets bandied around here, he should be applauded. Although I have a science background I don’t have Nick’s expertise in some of these areas but my “hope” is to inject some contrary opinions that at least give some of the lurkers here pause for thought as opposed to confirming their bias.

This site is a lightening rod for bunkum. Obviously there is a spectrum of it. For example there is plenty that you write with which I disagree, but at least your comments are generally thoughtful. There are several ‘nameless’ sychophantic numbskulls who add nothing, but merely parrot the talking points, all the way through to those who seem to be intent on deliberately muddying the water and fostering confusion for idealogical reasons. There is a cohort with ideas that seem plausible to the non-science literate but are rally just wackos. Don’t get me started on the nonsense about the human-hating, green/fascist/totalitarian/socialist progressives and their scheme to run the world.

Honest liberty

Ryan, fair enough. I certainly appreciate someone willing to disrupt an echo chamber, and I should hope most on here would recognize the value of that position.

I can’t be certain whether you ascribe to the notion that CO2 does what the official narrative claims. Do you believe it is the miracle molecule they say it is? Maybe a better question, do you think catastrophic runaway warming is the likely to occur because of adding human combusted natural products that release co2 to the atmosphere?

Also, if you do, what would it take to change your mind? If you don’t, why do you only post (what I would call) snarky and derisive comments?

This, I’m interested in discussing what you meant:
“There is a cohort with ideas that seem plausible to the non-science literate but are rally just wackos. Don’t get me started on the nonsense about the human-hating, green/fascist/totalitarian/socialist progressives and their scheme to run the world.”

It is my interpretation you are implying the notion of the last sentence is not a credible position. I would like you to get started, because unlike the science involved, this is something I can dissect and discuss at length, with what I believe to be a Rock solid foundation supporting that is not only an accurate appraisal, but rather the real danger facing Western society and world, unlike the essential Trace gas nutrient for life.

I’m planning on putting some video work together and want to start communicating with people I disagree, random people, commenters, anyone. I think it would be fun. What do you think?

RyanS

Honest liberty
What do you think?

Probably fun, but I’m going to respectfully decline. She who must be obeyed thinks I spend too much time on this stuff.

Gary Ashe

Your posts like moshe and stokes are mainly horseschit wrapped in w@nker-ism.

Have a day nice son.

honest liberty

ahh Ryan, but that is where life is to be lived! Just on the edge of danger, flirting with the unknown, risking offense to the sensitivities of others, most especially our spouses who by their very nature want to control us.

They will never respect you as they should unless you push back and stand firm. It’s a strange relationship, us men as dominators, and the women who claim they want to tame us, yet ultimately are the most aroused when we refuse to let them.

Paul Penrose

RyanS,
Wrong, sweat sock breath.

MarkW

He finds it hard to believe that the government still allows so many people to disagree with him.

honest liberty

MarkW –
“He finds it hard to believe that the government still allows so many people to disagree with him.”

why that was down voted, I don’t know. I up voted. great comment!

HotScot

RyanS

It was a joke. You do know what a joke is don’t you?

flow in

imaginary effects of CO2 vs blocking sunlight. Gotcha

Tom Gelsthorpe

Billions, schmillions. . . Who cares about people when Mother Earth is at stake?

But, “Oh!” you say. “Mother Earth might be unhappy about reduced sunlight, and the consequent reduction in biological activity.”

These geo-smart alecks will have a riposte for that, too. “Mother Earth is not as brilliant as WE are.”

OweninGA

They really shouldn’t call it GEO-ENGINEERING, as engineers have specific licensure and codes of practice they must maintain. None of the CACA people could possibly pass an engineering certification on any of this nonsense.

Susan

What about the health hazards of those sulphate aerosols?

As long as they are in the stratosphere, there are no health hazards apart from freezing in the dark and starvation… /Sarc

F. Leghorn

You forgot that it would also cut down on the efficiency of all those solar panels.

OweninGA

I think that is covered partially be “freezing in the dark”.

shrnfr

I am reminded ot the solution proposed for the “Oncoming Ice Age” in the 1970s: Sprinkle soot all over the Arctic to decrease the albedo. Well how did that one work out?

MarkW

It was never tried.

honest liberty

thank God. It’s best to stop attempting to play God. Funny how the atheists are always the ones trying to play God by manipulating the Earth and controlling humanity.
Ironic?

R Hall

Asian coal plants have covered the Arctic with soot; lowering the albedo, and increasing the rate of ice melt, thus exposing the tundra.
Both of which increase warming. That is an example of unintended geoengineering.

Tom Abbott

The Ice Age turned into a warming trend.

Gary Pearse

The misanthropes that make up the Gang Green would get a twofor: mass starvation and a few tenths C temporary cooling. Having these monsters making cost benefit estimates is a chilling thought. The starvation part and asthsma epidemic that worried Obama so much would , of course, be accounted on the benifits side. Crimes against humanity arent on the books of past and present тоталiтагуаиs.

mikewaite

Before embarking on a policy of geoengineering which endangers crops of soy , rice and wheat it might be advisable to obtain the approval of China,Brazil , India and Indonesia , all major consumers of those cereals , with a history of famine that none of them wish to see recur. I do not know how the sulphates will be distributed , or whether there is a SO2-SO3 sequence , but we should first stop and consider the missile and satellite killing capability of the Chinese.
If intermediates of acidic sulphur oxides are involved will washout affect the alkalinity of the oceans ?
Will no-one consider the coral reefs?

John

Didn’t we go through the “acid rain” issue back in the 1970’s?

Gary Ashe

Didn’t we go through the “acid rain” issue back in the 1970’s?

No.
We we went through the new ice age scare.

80s were acid rain
90s ozone hole
90s/2018 co2 thermo–Armageddon.

2020/2030 micro-plactic plagues.
The ””Rotting”” plastic’s spastics

Ken

Didn’t I recently read something about “the models” ignoring the effects of solar variability on the climate?

MarkW

We’ve been told that anything that is cyclical in nature can be ignored by the climate models because it will even out in the long run.

The problem is that they have to account for those cycles when they are tuning the models.

Tom Halla

Remember, one should judge the ecoactivists by their intentions, not their results. /sarc

NorwegianSceptic

Where is Judge Dredd when he’s needed……

ResourceGuy

That sounds more like a lobbyist war of influence peddling than science. But then it is political climate science to the core.

RyanS

Isn’t a just a teeny bit hypocritical to ridicule every study based on modeling that predicts warming and even the very possibilty that our emissions might be affecting the climate, but then if a model predicts cooling, well, it’s got to be right, an existential threat and something to be alarmed about. Looking through the comments so far we should be shitting our pants:

“mass starvation”
“WILL be unintended consequences… irreversible.”
“climate idiocracy”
“will kill billions of people”
“monsters”
“Crimes against humanity”

And even the “precautionary principle” gets trotted out. SMH

Elsewhere, the same suspects…

But, but, as if one extra harmless CO2 molecule per 10,000 could make the slightest difference. Or, or, if anything it’ll make things a bit green, and milder nights… blah blah blah. Sick.

Tom Gelsthorpe

How about reducing emissions of humbug? Whaddaya think about that?

Dale S

Where did you get the idea that the model “predicts cooling”? The premise of the model is that cooling occurred from intentional sulfate emissions, and the purpose of the model is to estimate the agricultural effects. Commenters find the model’s finding that reducing sunlight harms agricultural credible NOT because they trust the model, but because it’s blindingly obvious that would happen — it’s about as surprising a result as announcing that a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, considered alone, benefits agriculture.

I don’t think anyone is or should be convinced that the scale of damage projected by the model is good enough for policy work. Frankly, since they think the damage from scattered sunlight is roughly equal to the “benefit” from cooling I rather doubt it is correct. It’s certainly unintuitive that cooling necessarily benefits agriculture and warming necessarily harms agriculture, since that’s contrary to historical accounts. I’m skeptical the minimal amount of “heat stress” increase (since summertime maximums in hot regions are the very thing *least* raised in the modern warming) outweighs the benefits of a longer growing season and increased agricultural range from warming colder regions. In any case non-climatic (and fossil-fueled) effects have *dramatically* increased agricultural productivity so much that any climatic cost/benefit from the mild warming we have experience thus far is a minor player at best.

RyanS

“it’s about as surprising a result as announcing that a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, considered alone, benefits agriculture.”

Or as surprising a result as announcing that a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, considered alone raises the temperature.

honest liberty

Ryan, where have you found empirical evidence to suggest that? Raw, reproducible, experiments that directly illustrate CO2 alone raises the temperature?

MarkW

Once again, Ryan seeks to destroy his favorite strawman.

Very few people deny that it should be possible for CO2 to increase the temperature of the atmosphere.

However intelligent people are able to figure out that the small amount of warming that CO2 might be capable of is:
1) Smaller than the natural variability of the climate and hence undetectable.
2) Entirely beneficial to both man and the planet.

flow in

I’ll deny that CO2 can increase temperature.

You can show that CO2 enhances heating when you take something cold and blast it with a bit of IR. That’s a non-equilibrium system.

However, CO2 exists in a state of thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere, and is being continuously irradiated with IR. It also experiences a diurnal cycle.

In the real world, imo, CO2 has zero net effect, and quite probably a negative forcing, since the atmosphere is a spherical shell, not flat, and convection.

RyanS

“Very few people”…here…

Thats rubbish. Thank you flow in for your timely intervention.

Dale S

Yes, I would expect that a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, considered alone, should raise the temperature. All else being equal, there’s no doubt that warming would be expected.

But so what? The policy relevant questions are these:
1) How much warming would we get from CO2 doubling?
2) What effects would we get from that much warming?
3) What mitigation strategies should we adopt?

So far, the observational evidence supports “not much” for #1, “probably beneficial” for #2, and “none, adapt if necessary” for #3.

MarkW

Isn’t it a teeny bit hypocritical to set up a strawman and then proceed to beat him up?

Then again, it has never been your goal to make sense.

flow in

“blocking the sun” is patently obviously going to effect eveything that depends on the sun. Plants and solar panels and sun tans.

Don’t need a model to see that.

RyanS

You haven’t really thought this through. What is the difference in “blocking” radiation (short wave solar) descending from above and blocking ascending radiation (long wave IR) from below, one with sulphate aerosols and one with CO2?

John Dilks

You really haven’t thought your statement through. There is a big difference in energy.

DonM

I don’t really know why, but I found it irritating when Trump started doing it.

Now it always seems a bit humorous to me when I see a lefty-anti use a single adjective as a one word summary of their blather.

Whether they like it or not, Trump is rubbing off on them.

JimG1

“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.”

False assumption. What agricultural damage from climate change? More co2 is better and warmer is better for crops. Changes in weather as in rainfall patterns are conjecture as is the entire co2=higher temps.

GlenVon

I like the idea of bulldozing down the Himalayas and using the rocks to fill in the Indian Ocean. Maybe I should file a permit with local authorities today.

tty

“spewing sun-blocking ash that blew around the world.”

Nope. Ash falls/rains out quickly. It is sulfur-dioxide gas that sometimes goes into the stratosphere and forms sulfur aerosols through photochemical action.

ren

Let’s see where the cooling of the eastern North Pacific will take place. Here you can see how important the stratosphere is in forecasting the weather.
comment image

joelobryan

Climate Change is an issue that any rational cost:benefit analysis will argue that nothing should be done to limit CO2 emissions. Any climate problems of burning fossil fuels might cause will be more rhan offset by improving crop yields and reducing heating costs in developed countries while allowing wealth to increase in the developing world to offset poverty and the environmental destruction that brings.

And burning non-renewable fossil fuels is a self-limiting phenomenon by definition. Eventual end of fossil fuels is a problem that human ingenuity and technology will solve on its own.

Philip

Back in the 1960’s, before travel to the moon, and before geosynchronous satellites, the US military had a bright idea about how to improve the reliability of HF communications. They were seriously considering supplementing the ionized layers in atmosphere with a layer of copper needles just outside the atmosphere. A stable reflective layer that would work to bounce signals up into the VHF range.

Had they done so, communication with anything outside that layer would have been really difficult. No satellite TV, no talking to people on the moon, no mars rovers etc.

MarkW

Just paint all cars white.

John Harmsworth

For the sake of many, many millions, keep the idiot AGW hands off the controls!

Ulric Lyons

Solar dimming would promote El Nino conditions and increase regional drought.

Peta of Newark

Here’s a scary idea: What about applying that sulphur to the dirt instead of the sky?

Vital plant nutrient in nearly as short (limiting) supply as water-soluble nitrogen.
The extra greenery (not easy to burn) will absorb solar energy and turn the demon CO2 into glucose, starch, cellulose and lignin which will, when the living plant dies (and is replaced by a new one) absorb water within the top 2 feet of dirt – adding thermal inertia to the landscape thus limiting weather extremes and hence moderating ‘climate’

Not possible is it.
A tractor and a basic lime-spreader type machine is not shiny & new, is not Hi Tech, does not pull the birds or enhance sexual prowess and does not require ‘further research’

There goes another Modern Conundrum:
If we really are all so very intelligent & highly educated (subsequently gobsmackingly rich) why is all this extra research actually needed?

PRDJ

If the greens weren’t so rigid on calling coal fired power plant ash (both bottom ash and fly ash) hazardous waste, then the FGD scrubber solids would be ideal for accomplishing this very thing.

Much of what comes from the scrubber is either calcium sulfate or calcium sulfite. There are insignificant amounts of heavy metals in most waste streams. I say this because in most applications it is well below the background concentration of land it could be applied to as a soil amendment.

TomRude

The CBC Mortillaro managed to twist the results of this geo-engineering oops:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/geoengineering-climate-change-1.4776244
“Blocking sunlight to cool Earth may not save crops from climate change”

DonM

I think they learn that in journalism school. She must have gotten an ‘A’ in ‘HeadlineHype 302’

PRDJ

First. This would be easy to test. Increase the exhaust temperature of coal fired power plants and stop using the FGD’s (Flue Gas Desulfurization). That was essentially what we had before the 1970’s and ’80’s. It was during this period that FGD’s became retrofitted or part of new gen-sets.

Secondly, WHAT IF this geo-engineering is done and we get a “big one” eruption that is not just exceptional on the VEI scale, but exceptional in the content of SO2 injected into the upper atmospheric layers in addition to the purposefully injected sulfates?

MarkW

The exhaust gases from power plants can’t get to the stratosphere.

David L. Hagen

Remember the #YearWithoutSummer caused by #volcanoes Mt. #Tambora and Mt. #Krakatoa.
The proposed aersol #geoengineering that will reduce #sunlight, #agriculture, #PlantProductivity, and increase #poverty and #starvation. https://wapo.st/2KFcqsp https://bit.ly/2vwoWpl

Bruce Cobb

Oh, the ironing. Spraying an actual pollutant, at great cost of course, into the atmosphere in order to “combat” the effects of a fake pollutant, CO2. And this is big news to them, that this is actually a bad idea?
The stupid, it burns.

Chino780

File this in the “No Shit” bin.

Mihaly Malzenicky

The use of geoengineering is a necessity which is inevitable in the near future. We should think about what we can do realistically to reduce side effects. One option is drastic reduction and organization of contraceptive costs.

Bruce Cobb

What color is the sky on your planet?

MarkW

What makes you think he can tell?

MarkW

Geoengineering to counteract a few tenths of a degree of entirely beneficial warming?
Why?

Paul Penrose

You want to reduce the world population? Lead by example; be a volunteer. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

Tom Abbott

First, there should be a problem to fix.

R Hall

Another troll. He cannot really mean what he writes?
Julian Simon proved that human beings are the ultimate form of capital. There is no net downside in a capitalistic society due to population.

ColA

JoEvery time I hear climate & engineering & geo I think of the old adage-
Doctors mistakes kill one at time,
Engineers mistakes can kill thousands at a time,
Geoengineers really frighten the shitzer out of me! and I would not trust them EVER, their ego and Oedipus complex are right off the Richter Scale!!in the discussion…

John Dilks

Idiot. We are not intelligent enough to play with our planet on that scale.

Sara

Have these pinchees’ been snooping in my manuscripts without telling me?

Let’s look at the real stuff for a minute.

The planet has been around for about 4.5 billion years, and essentially habitable by various classes/genus/species, etc. of life forms including plants and animals – a very wide spectrum of biota – for about 3.5 billion.

We puny humans have been here for about 14 million years, starting as various hominids and ending up as who we are today, which started about 1++ million years ago, unless you want to include Lucy as a very, very distant ancestor. Still not sure (because of the partial skeletal remains) if Lucy was fully erect or a latent knuckle dragger – no offense meant to Lucy and her relatives, or any of my knuckle-dragging friends in uniform.

So while we were busy breeding out Homo Neanderthalis (competing with those guys for breeding rights must have been interesting) we Homo Sapiens types started traveling a lot, spreading genes all over the place, and we, as a species, have had a great place to evolve into who we are today.

And that includes the nitwits and control freaks who want to mess with what Mother Nature gave us: a prime planet that supports us and keeps us going.

Well, there used to be ads on TV for margarine versus butter with someone playing Mother Nature and when Ma Nature found out that the fake butter was created by human meddling, thunder boomed, lightning flashed and the message was “DON’T TRY TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE!!!”

I’ll repeat that with a little update: DON’T MESS WITH WHAT MOTHER NATURE GAVE YOU!!

The problem with these so-called “experts” and control freak nitwits is that they never think about the short or long term consequences of their meddling. They never have and never will.

Whether they want to admit it or not, we are heading into a cooler period, have been since the 18-month-long 2006-2008 solar minimum, when the Sun did not swap its magnetic poles right away after it restarted. We have had – how many now? – several solar minimum periods since then, the global weather system is in more flux than usual, and as a friend of mine pointed out, Hudson’s Bay still had ice in mid-July and the snow levels in South America were already quite deep in June. Kangaroos are freezing to death in Australia. I didn’t check the snowpack in New Zealand, but I can.

Now, what part of these naturally-occurring events do those meddling so-called experts not understand???

We don’t NEED to “fix” anything. This planet can take quite good care of itself.

Mess with a system that works quite well and has done so for 3.5 billion years, and you WILL pay for it.

DO NOT MESS WITH WHAT MOTHER NATURE GAVE YOU!!! She’s getting cranky!

flow in

The inconsistency. Their models assume the sun has no effect on temperatures, yet they control temperatures by blocking the sun. I want to beat them repeatedly about the head until they wake up to this abysmal shit that is their models.

roger

And what about rickets -think of the poor grandchildren deprived of sunlight and vitamin D.
I was just reading somewhere today that wearing the burka was a prime cause of vitamin D deficiency in some ME countries, so a world wide filter as described would have a similar effect.

ColA

Every time I hear climate & engineering & geo I think of the old adage-
Doctors mistakes kill one at time,
Engineers mistakes can kill thousands at a time,
Geoengineers really frighten the shitzer out of me! and I would not trust them EVER, their ego and Oedipus complex are right off the Richter Scale!!

DonM

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly;

I don’t know why she swallowed a fly – perhaps she’ll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a spider;
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her!

She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don’t know why she swallowed a fly – Perhaps she’ll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;
How absurd to swallow a bird!

She swallowed the bird to catch the spider;
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her!
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don’t know why she swallowed a fly – Perhaps she’ll die!
There was an old lady who swallowed a cat;
Imagine that! She swallowed a cat!

She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider;
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her!
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don’t know why she swallowed a fly – Perhaps she’ll die!

….

Previously posted on wattsup:

The Nino34 Area Sea Surface Temperature (the blue line in the following plot), adjusted by the Sato Global Mean Optical Depth Index (for major volcanoes – the yellow line), correlates quite well with the Global UAH LT temperature four months later (the red line).

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1527601687317388&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

[end of excerpt]

It is clear from the divergence of the red line (Global UAH LT temperature) below the blue line that (Nino34 SST) that El Chichon and Pinatubo caused about 0.5-0.6C of global cooling that took about 5 years to fully dissipate in each case.

SO MY QUESTION IS:
Was it primarily the curtailment of sunlight that caused the reduced crop yields (as alleged), or was it primarily the lower global temperatures?
Although both factors have an effect on crops, which factor was more important in causing reduced crop yields in this case ?

Damon C. Poole, II

Duh!

Rhoda R

That’s scary – idiots trying to manipulate the climate when they haven’t a clue as to what causes the weather in the first place.

Roscoe Pilsner

This stuff didn’t work out very well when they used it to fight Sky Net.

Bob Sullivan
Alan Miller

I sure Hope I never live to see the day these self proclaimed geniuses actually get to try to manipulate nature! Bad enough growing corn for gas, imagine the disaster when they realize they didn’t think it through.