Potential economic benefits of reversing rising temperatures would benefit developing countries greatly, representing a global GDP growth of 200%
University of California – San Diego
New research from the University of California San Diego finds that solar geoengineering–the intentional reflection of sunlight away from the Earth’s surface–may reduce income inequality between countries.
In a study recently published in Nature Communications, researchers examine the impacts of solar geoengineering on global and country-level economic outcomes. Using a state-of-the-art macroeconomic climate impacts assessment approach, the paper is the first to look at the economic impacts of climate projections associated with solar geoengineering.
While de-carbonizing the world’s emissions sources continues to pose a large challenge, solar geoengineering, which is process where incoming sunlight is intentionally reflected to cool rising temperatures, could help avoid the worst consequences of global warming. This analysis is the first to project the response of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to the specific pattern of cooling solar geoengineering produces.
The methodology estimates the historical relationship between climate, represented as mean annual temperature and precipitation, and country-level growth in economic production, measured as GDP per capita. This estimated climate-economy relationship is then applied to project and compare economic outcomes across four different climate scenarios for the next century – if global temperatures stabilize naturally; if temperatures continue to rise; if temperatures were stabilized as a result of geoengineering; and if temperatures were over-cooled from geoengineering efforts.
“While precipitation has little to no effect on GDP growth in our results, there is a relationship for temperatures,” said first author Anthony Harding, a visiting graduate student with UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy from the Georgia Institute of Technology. “Applying these historical relationships for different models, we find that if temperatures cooled there would be gains in GDP per capita. For some models, these gains are up to 1,000 percent over the course of the century and are largest for countries in the tropics, which historically tend to be poorer.”
In an economic model projecting a solar-geoengineered decrease in the average global temperature of around 3.5 degrees Celsius, the cooler climate would increase average incomes in developing tropical countries, such as Niger, Chad and Mali by well over 100 percent over the course of the century, compared to a model where warming continues to occur. For the U.S. and countries in Southern Europe, the same model showed a more moderate increase of about 20 percent. While the effects for each individual country can vary across models, the changes in temperature associated with solar geoengineering consistently translate into a 50 percent reduction of global income inequality.
Similar to previous studies which have explored the relationship between hot weather and low productivity, the findings in Nature do not reveal the mechanisms for why this correlation occurs.
“We find hotter, more populous countries are more sensitive to changes in temperature – whether it is an increase or a decrease,” said Harding. “Those hotter countries are typically also poorer countries. With solar geoengineering, we find that poorer countries benefit more than richer countries from reductions in temperature, reducing inequalities. Together, the overall global economy grows.”
A fundamental step in understanding the potential risks and rewards of solar geoengineering
Harding and corresponding-author Kate Ricke, assistant professor with UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, highlight that there are many unknowns about the impacts solar geoengineering intervention efforts would have on the Earth’s atmosphere, a cause of concern for scientists and policymakers.
However, predicting the economic impacts of solar geoengineering is a fundamental step towards understanding the risk tradeoff associated with the new field of study, which is advancing rapidly. Many emerging technologies have recently been developed to manipulate the environment and partially offset some of the impacts of climate change.
“There is a problem with solar geoengineering science in that there has been a lot of work on the physical aspects of it, however there is a gap in research understanding policy-relevant impacts,” Ricke said. “Our finding of consistent reduction in inter-country inequality can inform discussions of the global distribution of impacts of solar geoengineering, a topic of concern in geoengineering ethics and governance debates.”
While the economic models used in the study do not reveal the impacts solar geoengineering has on income inequality within countries’ borders, the research results on GDP growth provide incentive for additional work on the global governance of solar geoengineering.
The authors write, “Our findings underscore that a robust system of global governance will be necessary to ensure that any future decisions about solar geoengineering deployment are made for collective benefit.”
###
More information can be found in Nature Communications (“Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality.”) The DOI for this paper is 10.1038/s41467-019-13957-x.
This sounds like “Alice in Wonderland’s” Mad Queen ordering the gardeners to paint the red roses white ((to increase reflectivity or something) or it’s “Off with their heads!”
Key word is āmayā. That tells it all. I may win the mega lottery this month.
Seriously??
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of time from around 1300 to around 1700. During this time temperatures fell around 1.5C lower than today 1.5C During whish there were famines in Europe (too cold to grow crops)
Swiss Farms being overrun by glaciers,
Enhanced cold related mortality rates from Maine to Virginia
Massive flooding of the Niger River in Africa
And extensive Sea Level Fall along Pacific Islands
This from only 1.5C lowering.
3.5C would lead to a more extensive Glaciation and Ice Sheet Formation like 15,000 years ago.
These people really need to work on their models
I had the same thought, although it’s my impression that the LIA was only 1 C less than now. A drop of 3.5C would wipe out all grain production in Canada, Russia, most of the US, Europe and Asia just before those areas were glaciated. Billions would starve to death, and they wouldn’t go down easy, they’d fight to the death over the last remaining food.
The study is sort of correct in one thing, tropical countries, such as Niger, Chad and Mali would certainly be wealthier than any country in the temperate zone.
So it would certainly take the developed world and place it on par with the poorest African Nations. Perhaps the Model is correct after all.
You are of course quite right, Art. That kind of outcome would be exactly what the radical green movement desires, and it’s the underlying motive* for the existence of the IPCC and the whole climate industry.
* But not necessarily the motive of the army of “useful idiots”** who do the grunt work of churning out the never-ending torrent of “climate” studies.
** Very intelligent, highly educated idiots in universities and government research institutes throughout the western world, but idiots nonetheless, and all the more useful because of their intelligence and education.
Bryan A <<<
Is that all peer reviewed? Huh!? Well!?
It’s in WIKI the great and powerful under their “Little Ice Age” article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Under “Geophysical and social impact by region”
I wouldn’t imagine WIKI the great and powerful allowing non-peer reviewed material to sully it’s pages for very long
And, since most of the Northern and Southern latitudes would be rendered inhospitable, everyone and everything would have to move to the poorer, tropical nations – dominated by the land mass of Africa. So of course their economies would boom!
Salute!
How in the hell can you construct an economic model based on completely unknown factors ? How in the hell can you construct a model without actually comparing input/output based on an actual experiment – maybe in Southern California? ALthough I would prefer Massachussetts or Connecticut.
The GDP and sunshine relationship crapola is pure bazonga! It’s something else that keeps those countries impoverished. It’s the warlords!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYt0khR_ej0
Gums sends…
If these developing countries had access to inexpensive power they could stop deforesting their lands to obtain the only supply of energy available – burning wood.
Simply allowing the ground to naturally cover itself with sunlight absorbing and reflecting surfaces (vegetation) would go a long way to reducing the conversion of sunlight energy directly into thermal with both ground cover and cloud formation.
For many of these “solutions” they propose, there is usually a far easier way to obtain the same result.
When has poverty in Africa ever been due to climate?
Jeff Alberts
When has heat killed tens of thousands of people.
Cold on the other hand:
Winter of 2017/2018 – 50,000 Extra Winter Deaths recorded in the UK, unremarkable winter.
Summer of 2017 – 22 heat related deaths during the ‘Unprecedented’ Indian Heatwave.
Population of the UK – 60m
Population of India – 1.3bn
I could go on, at length. But this climate change crud is a$$ backwards.
How about accepting there will be a natural balance of deaths. Perhaps fewer people die in the colder climes from cold and, whilst a horrible thought, warmer countries accept some of the burden of heat/cold related deaths.
Thanks Mod, once again.
Totally agree, HotScot.
“Jeff Alberts January 14, 2020 at 8:44 am
When has poverty in Africa ever been due to climate?
Not due to CO2 agreed. However, “poverty” is due to natural climatic changes but mostly war.
Poverty is the natural default human condition, irrespective of climate.
It is fossil-fueled industrialization that has allowed much of the human race to raise itself above the fate of the other beasts that walk the earth and swim the oceans.
Unfortunately, our education system has become so comfortable with itself that we seem unable to teach this obvious fact to a significant fraction of today’s population.
What scares me is- man made solutions carry the baggage of unintended consequences. Anybody that does anything based upon a hypothetical that Man rather than Natural Variability is changeing our climate needs to be taken out and placed in front of a firing squad.
Here is the first intended consequence, “One world governance” and it has been the motivating factor from the creation of this AGW Hobgoblin from the beginning. At least these lying bstrds are finally putting it out there for all to see. “The authors write, āOur findings underscore that a robust system of global governance will be necessary to ensure that any future decisions about solar geoengineering deployment are made for collective benefit.ā
“A robust system of global governance”
Now where did that statement come from one wonders?
According to a 2018 study, any benefits of solar geoengineering would be cancelled by the harm caused to plants by reduced sunlight.
Guessed that without knowing.
Not to mention any change to Hadley Cell circulation caused by less heating in the tropics.
Beyond that, even the IPCC has acknowledged that any place that already has a lot of water in the air (IE the tropics) will see little change in temperature as CO2 increases because the IR bands are already saturated by water vapor.
Geoengineering
One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earthās albedo.
This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth. (ISR – albedo = ASR) & (Q = U A (Tsurf – Ttoa)
More albedo and the earth cools. (Q decreases, dT decrease, Tsurf decreases)
Less albedo and the earth warms. (Ta other way)
No atmosphere (i.e. no contiguous participating media) means no water vapor or clouds, no ice and snow, no vegetation, no oceans and near zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.
These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of greenhouse theory which postulates that the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.
https://sos.noaa.gov/Education/script_docs/SCRIPTWhat-makes-Earth-habitable.pdf
(slide 14)
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
It’s that simple.
It’s all science.
It’s all over.
“One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earthās albedo.”
Yet they’re reducing the Earth’s albedo by installing dark solar panels all over the world. Solar is part of their imaginary problem, not part of their imaginary solution.
I don’t see that. ??
What part?
The article didn’t mention dark panels. Or did I miss that?
No I was saying they want to increase the Earth’s albedo. But greenies are reducing the albedo by covering the planet with dark solar panels. Make more sense?
I know were there happen to be 10,000 mirrors that could be re-tasked to track the sun and reflect energy directly back into space. They’re apparently not useful for anything else except maybe cooking birds on the wing.
You’d probably need 10+ trillion to have any measurable effect.
Mirror mirror, on my roof,
why can’t NOAA tell the truth?
Yes. If you want to warm the Earth then plaster it with solar panels. The stephen- Boltzmann equation says that.
“spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening”
The Salter Latham cloud ship proposal was to spray tiny droplets into the air which would almost instantly dry to become salt aerosol particles. Natural turbulence, lofting these to the boundary layer, would contribute to the density of the cloud cover and increase the albedo — cloud brightening.*
All the fuss about the CO2 warming effect is a panic reaction to the equivalent of a two to three percent reduction in oceanic cloud cover. Without trying I can suggest two or three possible anthropogenic contributors to a reduction of that magnitude, but Willis studiously ignores my suggestions.
JF
(No, it wouldn’t cause salty rain. the particles are minute and breaking waves generate them naturally in unbelievable numbers.)
The first few lines were enough for me to know the remainder of this nonsense is not worth reading. I suppose in some minds it would be great to resolve income inequality by ensuring everyone is starving and has no income. Simply done by fantasizing about using all our resources to control the sun-earth relationship.
āWe find hotter, more populous countries are more sensitive to changes in temperature ā whether it is an increase or a decrease,ā
..and the rest of us find they are 3rd world
Also, “warming” is occurring the least the closer to the equator you get. so the quoted text would seem to be an outright lie.
You have to wonder how people who claim to be intelligent can look at the change in an input and say it can both raise and decrease the thing they are trying to measure. And in many cases do neither I would be willing to bet.
But…But…But…The model says so
I was rolling around laughing at the junk connecting unrelated things. They fail at basic science that correlations can exist without any connection the classical decrease in pirate population is causing climate change …. arrr me hearty.
This is basically where Climate Science has got to they think that just because you have a correlation you can put it in a model and then average everything and what it spits out means something š
“solar geoengineering–the intentional reflection of sunlight away from the Earth’s surface–may reduce income inequality between countries”
Human intervention will save the planet from human intervention?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/13/human-pollution-the-planet-is-doomed/
Maybe “Using a state-of-the-art macroeconomic climate impacts assessment approach” they could study the 6x footprint of retail capacity built in the U.S. (compared to the UK) and its attendant parking lot design requirements imposed by city planners to drive UHI effects 6x faster. While those planners and their professional organizations have now gulped the AGW kool aid, they have not admitted their contribution to UHI and what urban heat islands have contributed to biased surface station arrays and global alarmism.
geoengineering
No, no, and thrice no.
These people are quite insane. They should be in Arkham.
The idea of reflecting sunlight away from the Earth is far from new. link
Large portions of some cities have building roofs painted white. If nothing else, it does reduce air conditioning bills.
Have a lok at Greece
No idea, when they started to colour their house white, but it’s not just these years.
The clouds are doing a very good job of cooling here in the UK at present. It’s that sunny the solar panels say it is night time.
The snow is doing an even better cooling job at my house at the moment.
TL;DNR but was there any estimate of the number of puppies, rainbows and unicorns to be generated?
Well, you know that Unicorns and rainbows don’t fart, but puppies do.
We can’t use unicorns Mosher uses all the output to run his bit coin mining projects.
So that’s why he’s so bit-ter. š
Oh yes I did!
Looks to me like the watermelon theory is right on with these guys:
The authors write, āOur findings underscore that a robust system of global governance will be necessary to ensure that any future decisions about solar geoengineering deployment are made for collective benefit.ā
Nothing like global governance for a little collective benefit, right comrade?
I’m already forming a bread line.
“While the economic models used in the study do not reveal the impacts solar geoengineering has on income inequality within countriesā borders, the research results on GDP growth provide incentive for additional work on the global governance of solar geoengineering.”
Translation: Authors need more money.
“robust global governance”.
In the first part of the 1900s, International Socialists were determined to create the “perfect man”.
National Socialists were determined to have the “perfect” race and land space.
And now today’s equivalent are out to set the temperature of the nearest planet at the “perfect” level.
It is very disturbing that ordinary citizens have allowed this experiment in authoritarian government go so far.
And the definition from physics of an authoritarian system is:
That which is not compulsory is prohibited.
Which applies to ambitious politicians right down to school boards.
Sure. While we are smoking the good stuff.
If we start with geo-engineering, then a mirror in the Lunar L5 would be nice.
It can help smoothing out the El Nino and get a monsoon going in the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic, to make the Sahara green again. Oh, and it will delay the planet slipping into the next glacial.
Wait the sun effects global warming!!?? Does Greta know?
The Nature Communications’ article is pure BS :
Satellite imagery shows that 40 years of warming induced an increase of the vegetation in the sub-Saharan zone and that globally, this warming induced a net decrease of the desert areas equivalent to twice the size of the Sahara …
And the authors of this sharticle (should I say these Malthusian psychopaths ?) propose to reverse this salutary effect by implementing a “solution” that will have hopefully no effect at all apart from having wasted billions ?
This reads like a cleverly composed spoof. But there it is in Nature Communications looking like it belongs there. If only we were less unequal, wouldn’t that be grand? How about encouraging an ample supply of electricity and fuel in the developing countries, no matter where they are located? What might that do to reduce inequality?
Add geoengineering to the list of qualifying uses of revenue from local, state, federal, and UN carbon taxes.
Many people believe that we can decide how to deal with global warming. In reality, we are in a position like a man in the window of a burning house. If you jump out, you have some chance of survival.
Why on earth would anyone believe that a few tenths of a degree of warming is going to be life threatening?
Ice Age anyone? I hear they’re great fun, for Polar bears & Penguins, Arctic Foxes, & the like!
Let’s stop Humans interfering with the Earth & its Climate, & start doing some real interfering with its Climate by Human interference!!!! Makes sense to we scientists!
Signed:- D. Duck, M. Mouse, G. Oofy! Expert Scientists in everything there is to know about everything!!!
“In an economic model projecting a solar-geoengineered decrease in the average global temperature of around 3.5 degrees Celsius, the cooler climate would increase average incomes in developing tropical countries, such as Niger, Chad and Mali by well over 100 percent over the course of the century, compared to a model where warming continues to occur. For the U.S. and countries in Southern Europe, the same model showed a more moderate increase of about 20 percent.”
That seems rather optimistic since it would be the end of all farming in the Upper Midwest and Canada (no to mention northern Europe and most of Russia). It would mean that Duluth would have a colder climate than Anchorage has today. And Moscow would be colder than Archangelsk.
The russians would probably prefer a nuclear war to this variety of “robust global governance”.
These people are utterly insane.
Anyone who assumes that the only reason why poor countries are poor, is because many of them are also hot, isn’t playing with a full deck.
Glad I wasn’t the only one who eye rolled at that.
There are much better correlations they could have plotted for each country … level of corruption, poor education, poor police and justice system. Pretty sure you would have got a much stronger match to those countries the author is trying to save. Until you address those things you are just throwing money into a bottomless pit. If you need proof just ask any country that has tried just sending money into 3rd world nations in the hope of fixing them.
The authors can’t hear you. They’re out at the beach geoengineering some sand castles against rising seas.
On the other hand, if no geoengineering is attempted, AND dire predictions of +3.4C average temperature were to occur, vast areas of Northern North America and Asia would open up to an agricultural boom the likes of which have never been seen. If the dire predictions do not occur, well, we’re in the status quo.
I vote for doing no geoengineering.
If 3.4C of warming did occur, all that would happen would be the earth would return to the average temperature over the last 10,000 years.
Oh no,lets go for it,geo-engineering a geosynchronous mirror reflecting sunlight onto Hudson Bay 24/7.
The increase in “bio diversity to the area would be a huge bonus.
Shades of “Fallen Angels” by Pournelle.
Are we sure this is not an April Fools item,gone astray?
I personally go for the geo-stationary magnifier glass that we can focus on these sorts of idiots as a death ray … the stupid it burns š
” … may reduce income inequality between countries.”
Frittering away wealth on counterproductive geoengineering efforts in an ignorant attempt to reduce ‘income inequalty’ is like removing the inequality of being blind by making everyone who can see wear an eye mask.
Bringing down the top to boost the bottom will never work. Trickle down works in both directions.
Two things are required to reduce income inequality. One is education and the other is an inexpensive and reliable source of energy. Geoengineering addresses neither, except in a negative way.
Good comment. I agree.
The idea there’s a link between GDP and temperature is absurd, particularly in developing countries. The least ambiguous and most obvious link is between GDP and government policies – the more left-wing, the lower GDP growth.
This can be shown quite simply. In the 1950s, GDP per capita was lower in south Korea than a number of African countries such as Malawi. South Korea followed a reasonably capitalist, free market route, Malawi and others followed a more or less socialist path. South Korea is now very rich, the African countries are not.
Or compare East and West Germany.
There is no meaningful correlation betwen GDP and small changes in climate.
Solar geo-engineering will reduce income inequality after the developed world shuts down all of its hydro, hydro-carbon, and nuclear-based sources of energy. Everyone will then be equally poor.
This is about as idiotic and non scientific as a study can get. The most egregious error from the start is the statistics 101 error of confusing correlation with causation. There is no linkage mechanism identified between GDP and weather.
Form of government and economic policies are far and away the biggest drivers of standard of living. First world economies share the common characteristics of a democratic form of government, rule of law, free market economies, and free people. These conditions do not exist in Africa, regardless of the weather or climate.
The best example of the contrast may be North Korea vs South Korea, where the weather is similar and the people originated from the same racial or ethnic backgrounds. The main difference between the two is that North Korea is a totalitarian slave state and South Korea is a mostly free market democracy.
GDP per capital in South Korea is $37,600 vs GDP per capita in NK of $1,700. As another example, GDP per capita of Hong Kong, which sits on a rock, is $61,500 vs mainland China of $16,700.
The obvious point, completely disregarded in this waste of resources study, is that the main driver of economic well being around the world is form of government and free market vs socialist economic system. The climate of one place vs another or the change in climate in any particular location plays a very minor role in standards of living.
I would suspect that the average temperature of South Korea would be higher than the average temperature of North Korea.
“As the Canadian economy collapses and millions of farmers file a class action suit against BigAcademy (#USCDknew), President Maduro was observed scratching his head and wondering perplexedly, ‘Why haven’t things improved? I should be rolling in billions by now.’
“News at 11:00.”
(Photo footnote: Why does Mali need this giant greenhouse if it’s already too hot?”
I wondered about the “greenhouse” photo myself. I am guessing that this is probably more like a sun screen. You see it in gardens planted by first-generation Italians in NJ where they hang cheese-cloth or similar fabric on poles to shade the tomato plants. The vegetables mentioned in the caption are temperate zone produce and may not do well under a relentless equatorial sun.
It appears they do use greenhouses.
https://www.investmali.com/en/projects/installation-and-operation-10-greenhouses-production-market-garden-crops
So the country is clearly not hot enough yet.
Probably to keep the added CO2 contained where the plants can make use of it and grow better
Not sure that’s a real greenhouse, I don’t see any extra CO2 source.
Adopting solar geo-engineering will reduce income inequality after the developed world shuts down all of its hydro, hydrocarbon-based, and nuclear sources of energy. Then everyone will be equally poor.
“…research from the University of California San Diego finds that solar geoengineering…”
Didn’t bother reading the rest of it, geoengineering is entirely without merit.
It isn’t really research anyway but computer-game playing.
They seem to be assuming that the reason why countries are poor, is because those countries are hot and if they cool them down, absent any other changes, those countries will become wealthier.
I’ve heard it said that there are some ideas that our so outlandishly stupid, that only an academic could believe them. Well these “academics” have proven that case.
Construct and lent white parasols to everyone, good income, light increase in albedo, perfect š
The more expensives with built solar driven ventilator. š
All it takes is some elected idiot like AOC to try it.
I can’t even imagine the unintended consequences of this ##$*%&$!
These people will not be happy until the climate has returned to what it was 200 to 300 years ago.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ice+fairs+on+the+thames&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi83cfP0YPnAhXQQkEAHYMtAREQ_AUIBigB&biw=601&bih=794
“These people will not be happy until the climate has returned to what it was 200 to 300 years ago.”
No, they won’t be happy until the only jobs are government jobs and they run the government. When that occurs, climate will cease to be an issue.
Yet these numskulls fail to realise or just don’t care, that guvments have NO money, it’s taxpayers money, & if the only workers are taxpayer-funded then there’s gonna be an awful lot of brown smelly stuff flung through the air!!!! I recall in the strike-torn UK in the 1970s & 80s how trade union reps & especially state workers, would stand on a platform shouting that they aren’t asking for much, just parity with the private sector! The reality of course is that is the very last thing they wanted, 8 weeks fully paid holiday per year minimum, generous sick pay, all sorts of other benefits to go along with it all, flexi-time for many state employees, etc! Theydo pretty well out of it, but the rhetoric goes before them as usual!
Gee, what could POSSIBLY go wrong…?
AGW theory predicts greater warming at the poles. Surely reducing temperatures near the equator by 3.5 deg C would amplify polar cooling. I assume thay expect mile high ice here in the UK. There be madness around.
I believe that most poor people in darkest Africa are farmers. It is hard for me to understand why reducing both sunlight and carbon dioxide will help them grow more food
No most of the poorest in darkest Africa are dodging bullets and trying not stay off the radar of the latest despot ruler, warlord or gangs in the country.
Well, if the world is ready for this, it’s certainly ready for my latest invention, Albedo Hats! Each one purchased reduces African inequality, so buy at least two. Just send me $15:00 and proof of IQ and I’ll send you a square of cardboard covered in foil. Oops, I mean your smart new Albedo Hat!
Good one, Shark! That made me laugh!
But I think I would remove that requirement for proof of IQ if I were you, because that will cut seriously into your sales.
A better idea than geoengineering would be to supply those people in the tropics with air conditioners and electricity to run them and then instead of cooling the whole planet, they can just cool the rooms where the people live. Much more doable than lowering the global temperatures.
They’ll just publish anything in those scientific journals anymore, won’t they. Giving credence to craziness. What a world we live in!
I dunno.. I figure I would still get enough money to make a considerable amount of cash. My target markets are extinction rebellion, earth first etc. That’s why the maximum IQ requirement.
You forgot the reflective pet coat market because half these inner city dropkicks have fur babies that they spend ridiculous amounts of money on. If you could do something in the latte market then you could really triple down on fleecing them.
It’s hotter in Saudi Arabia than in a host of 3rd World poor countries. Why are they rich? They developed their resources without NGOs on safari blocking development projects.
āOur findings underscore that a robust system of global governance will be necessary to ensure that any future decisions about solar geoengineering deployment are made for collective benefit.ā
Hmmm… I was going to go on about the linear thinker geoengineer tinkers and their obliviousness to the le ChĆ¢telier Principle that would be invoked by such a dumbo project and a word or two about unreliable Economic Models being coupled with Climate Models that, even with massive shifts in goalposts and creation of fake data, still run hot. But no. The quoted passage above was the point. Good old robust global gov for “Collective benefit”.
Oil in that statement … HOW DARE YOU.
We are the “Collective benefit”, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
All I needed was that last paragraph:
āGlobal governance.ā
Yeah no thanks. Everyone whoās tried that has not only made their citizens destitute, they had to force millions of them to take permanent dirt naps.
āWhile precipitation has little to no effect on GDP growth in our results, there is a relationship for temperatures,ā said first author Anthony Harding…He is welcome to come out to Australia to look at the devastation of Primary production under the present drought.
This idiotic solar reflection temperature reduction idea is best compared to the Mad Queen in “Alice in Wonderland” ordering the gardeners to paint the red roses white. The “climate Deniers” are then dealt with by the Queen ordering āOff with their heads!ā.
The sole aim of these hair-brained Global Ideas is not to improve the climate but to bring about “World Government” with the “Climateers” in charge, and jobs only existing under government control. At that point climate will magically cease to be an issue.
I read through the comments hoping at least one person would state the obvious but sadly it wasnāt there. I have always been humbled by the intelligence in this room but apparently not a single one of you realizes theyāve been geoengineering for well over 20 years now. You havenāt seen the sprayed grids in the sky?
So help me God if you say those are normal airplane contrails Iām gonna slide through the cable wire and smack you for stupidity.
Contrails have reduced average temperatures over the last 20 years? I didn’t know that. Or are they geoengineering something other than temperature. You didn’t specify. I guess they could be geoengineering for lower IQ in the population. There is some evidence for that. š
āWe find hotter, more populous countries are more sensitive to changes in temperature ā whether it is an increase or a decrease,ā said Harding.
Here’s the problem. “Changes in temperature” and “average temperature” are completely different things. Even if you could lower average temperatures by 3.5 degrees, the daily temperature would still vary. You would still have heat waves and cool waves. Once the population got used to the lower average temperature, they would still be sensitive to temperatures that varied from what they were used to. So you would not see a tremendous increase in average income just by reducing the average temperature by 3.5 degrees.
Did this study prove its point by comparing third-world countries with average temperatures that differed by 3.5 degrees? If so, did the countries that were 3.5 degrees lower have an average income 100% greater than the warmer countries? I seriously doubt it.
“The authors write, āOur findings underscore that a robust system of global governance will be necessary to ensure that any future decisions about solar geoengineering deployment are made for collective benefit.ā
This sounds like something out of the UN playbook. So I wondered ” Who funded this study?” Going to the paper on the study in Nature Communications I find it this: “K.R. and A.H. [the two main authors, Katharine Ricke and Anthony Harding] thank the Deep Decarbonization Initiative for support of this research.”
And what, I asked, is the “Deep Decarbonization Initiative?” (DDI) It turns out is a creature of the Univ. of Calif. San Diego (UCSD). These types of “initiatives” are generally a person whose job it is to generate multi-discipline grant requests that can be assembled from various departments in the university, or alternately where grants can come to be distributed to the various departments. Where the DDI gets its funds is not readily discernable.
There is also this sentence in the Acknowledgements: “The authors thank Sikina Jinnah and David Victor for helpful input on the global governance implications of this paper.” Dr. Jinnah is an Associate Professor of Politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC). Dr. Victor is a professor at UCSD who received his PhD in political science from MIT. When you search the UCSD website for “Deep Decarbonization Initiative” Dr. Victor is face that comes up. Apparently he is coordinator of the DDI.
So.ā¦ because the models for Climate Change(tm) show a ‘problem’, they have modelled some geo engineering solutions that, according to the economic models, will make the world better.
Wow.
And to think the only place you used to see this many models were catwalks and hobby stores.
What could possibly go wrong?
Just posting this without comment as I really, really do not know what to say. Horrific. Full article at link.
āEDUCATIONā continues its slide into indoctrination and brainwashing. The Cultural Marxistās ālong march through the institutionsā is now substantially complete.
https://climatism.blog/2020/01/14/children-of-the-ignorant-new-zealand-schools-to-terrify-children-about-the-climate-crisis/
It seems odd to me to declare that millions of hectares of solar panels are going to save the world, and then say you’re going to deflect their energy source. Or is it that they’re already looking for new ways to spend our money?
Am I missing something? Part from the fact that leftist scientists have gone stake raving bonkers!
*sigh* I wish my greengrocer was like her…
Isolated ignorant model dependent researchers…
Where their statement ignores the lack of temperature increase in the tropics.
Their conclusions fail to acknowledge the imbedded pyramid scheme. Where the researchers programmed into the model that renewable energy produces consistent reliable abundant cheap energy which immediately increases local employment and wages… All without GDP producing jobs, businesses or products.
These people fail to understand just how massive, complex and resilient the earth’s atmosphere is. Geo engineering is like throwing a grain of sand at a beach.
May I give it back?
It isn’t the sun, stupid!
Prosperity is how you mitigate income inequality — Free enterprise, free markets, property right and other individual rights, the rule of law, constitutionally limited government are necessary.
Noble prize winner Stephen Chu, Obama’s Secretary of Energy and Climate Guru said can fight global warming if we simply paint our roofs and roads white. (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/obamas-climate-guru-paint-your-roof-white-1691209.html)
If the goal is really to combat climate change, why not focus on the climate. Alas, the goal is to create a new Marxist world order.