U. of Chi. Professor and "Scientist" Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth

The print edition headline of the New York Times apparently (from a Replica Edition which is part of my subscription) is "Scientist Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth" (link). The online edition's headline was apparently edited to say "Meet the Scientist Who Wants to Alter Earth’s Atmosphere." Both have a line underneath the banner saying "Critics say even researching the idea is dangerous." I wonder if the editing was to make the idea seem less maniacal. I thought about posting this in a "Satire" section.

I had come to Chicago to talk to Keith about this proposed technology, which is known as stratospheric solar geoengineering. While it can seem like the stuff of science fiction, ambitious proposals to alter the planet’s climate are increasingly being taken seriously as the effects of global warming grow more acute.

There are already major efforts underway to suck carbon dioxide out of the air. Experiments to brighten clouds to deflect the sun’s energy are also being carried out.

Keith is a leading intellectual figure in the geoengineering movement.

Apparently, people have become so wrapped up in the religion of climate change that they are willing to basically play with very dangerous forces. The article references his remembering the short term effect of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Did lead to a cooling in 1992. Apparently he wants to replicate this idea.

Even with the more mainstream efforts to deindustrialize people are playing with very dangerous forces. There seems to be little regard for the impact upon the average person while the Elites either want to make heroes of themselves or immiserate the middle class and the lower class. This would appear to almost be in the category of psychological derangement, but some very serious people are involved in this. People should really think about what they are potentially doing By upending a functioning industrial society. An Op Ed in the July 31, 2024 Wall Street Journal, Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions (link), written by Bjorn Lomborg lays out a view to which I adhere. Excerpt (article may be paywalled):City-Data Forum - jbgusa blog

Whatever happened to polar bears? They used to be all climate campaigners could talk about, but now they’re essentially absent from headlines. Over the past 20 years, climate activists have elevated various stories of climate catastrophe, then quietly dropped them without apology when the opposing evidence becomes overwhelming. The only constant is the scare tactics.

About a month ago, the New York Times finally shared what it called “surprising” climate news: Almost all atoll islands are stable or increasing in size. In fact, scientific literature has documented this for more than a decade. While rising sea levels do erode land, additional sand from old coral is washed up on low-lying shores. Extensive studies have long shown this accretion is stronger than climate-caused erosion, meaning the land area of Tuvalu and many other small islands is increasing.

Today, killer heat waves are the new climate horror story. In July President Biden claimed “extreme heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the United States.”

Recently I OP'd Climate Frauds Debunked; 112° in the Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Didn't-whichreferenced the "vanishing islands."

People need to think for themselves!






Climate Frauds Debunked; 112° in the Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Didn't

 

Sadly we're reminded of two basic truths;
Say it long enough and loud enough and no matter how ridiculous a thing is, people will start to believe it.
It is far easier to fool someone than to convince them that they've been fooled.

Over a century of doomsday climate and environmental predictions.
Not one proven accurate.
Not one.

 

I remember back in 10th grade, I think October 17th, 1972 it snowed on unseasonably early. It was one of the earliest snowfalls in Central Park. I was thinking at the time that eventually, musk ox would be pawing the ground in Central Park. Little did I know that it would be what is now the second on snowiest winter in history. That dubious honor would go to the winter of 2022 - 23. Weather events can never be extrapolated endlessly.

 

This is what happened when globaloney warming becomes a religion sanity flies out of the window and reason is considered unholy.

 

Bogus poll. How about « put solar panels on my roof ». How about « Recycle what waste I can ». How about « ride a bike ».

Your dramaticism relegates this poll to the trash heap.

 

I don't have to defend myself but I did have an open posting option.

 

science will have to solve this if it reaches an extreme, the people will not change

the same people that say humans can't affect the climate, will scream that these scientists will destroy the climate

 

People will adapt. Global warming is beneficial. The best and only rational policy is maximizing wealth production which will fund any localized effects.

 

I suspect you’ve heard the Utopian warming argument before. When you start talking about displaced populations, refugees, nationalism, isolation, and other disasters; they never respond. Not their problem - they might be able to grow a few more ears of corn in the Midwest US.

 

Which option for we should seek to warm the earth until all the ice melts?

We can irrigate, farm and habitate hot dry land a lot easier than we can use frozen land. This will free up far more land for human use than will be lost due to sea level rise. Cold kills far more people globally than heat. Plants require less water when there's more C02. Why are we putting so much effort into protecting sea ice and permafrost?

Because carbon is life and the elite control freaks want to control and restrict life itself.

 

Any utopian argument exists only in your mind.

But if you have been led to believe there will be a problem with availability of food because of increased atmospheric CO2 and warming you have been misled.

Let’s have a look at SCIENCE related to global agriculture. First, there is often concern about arid regions. Let’s look at productivity changes in GLOBAL arid regions as temps increase.

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

Some studies on agriculture production are flawed in that they do not account for adaption by producers. Here’s a glimpse of what scientists predict GLOBAL scope of agriculture going forward. From scientists that understand agricultural producers always adapt. That we have been adapting since the dawn of agriculture and we won’t stop. When growing seasons lengthen we plant genetics that yield more in longer growing seasons. When precipitation increases we plant genetics that are targeted to benefit from more precipitation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34411-5

Let’s look at what scientists say about Australian wheat yields increasing with climate change. Typically scientists that have specialties in agronomy know more about agriculture than politicians.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096321000292

Improving yields of Australian wheat with warming climate has a long history. This study was published in 1997 and looked at climate impacts on Australian wheat yields since the 1950’s.

https://www.nature.com/articles/387484a0#:~:text=Climate trends appear to be,temperatures being the dominant influence.

We can look at the UK as well. Wheat is one of the most important food crops on the planet.

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1377/2022/

Back to South East US.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21454-3

Rice production China.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafa55

Back to the US corn belt.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1808035115

A GLOBAL study of wheat yields showing a net increase in yield of 3% when all effects of CO2 increase are examined.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11423-1

Ya’ll have been fed a one sided narrative that is essentially a lie of omission. You are never educated on the positive effects of climate change and increased atmospheric CO2.

I prefer evidence obtained by application of the scientific method to what journalists say. If the evidence isn’t founded on peer reviewed published research I’m not particularly interested in it. Climate science should involve science, not just unsubstantiated opinions of journalists. Or random posters on the internet. It should involve full disclosure, like the fact climate change over the last decades has increased agricultural production all over the planet, not just where I live. And will continue to do so.



This isn’t complicated. Look what happened during the little ice age. Look at the temperature of the most lush areas of the planet. Look at the temperatures of the most desolate areas. Is the Amazon warmer than northern Yukon? What’s the agricultural potential of the Amazon vs. the Yukon? Where are humans killing trees to plant food crops? The Yukon or the Amazon? Look at the information I provided from the IPCC showing increased growth GLOBALLY in even warm arid regions due to climate change.

Look at data from NASA. NASA observations show this increase in plant productivity during the growing seasons between 2000 and 2018. Does that look like changing climate is negatively impacting global ability to turn solar energy into food?



Now, any climate nutter is encouraged to provide EVIDENCE these experts (including the IPCC participating experts cited) are incorrect. All climate nutters are encouraged to provide evidence produced through application of the scientific method that the IPCC report and other peer reviewed research cited above is in error. I’m not interested in your OPINIONS. Only EVIDENCE the above evidence is in error.

Let’s go climate nutters. Show the errors of these studies published in peer reviewed journals of science and cited by the IPCC. Here is your chance to show your so far unsubstantiated opinions are more valuable than evidence produced through application of the scientific method. Show us that you REALLY know more about climate change and food production than global experts published in peer reviewed journals and NASA. Go….

 

Global warming is net beneficial. Added atmospheric CO2 is also beneficial. Those are factual statements based on hard data which have been presented multiple times in these threads. Model output (which all engineers should know) is not data.

 

the earth will survive either way, humans, they may not fair as well

 

Humans that are gullible enough to believe more food, less temperature related mortality, decreased economic cost of natural disasters as percentage of GDP, historically low global death rates from natural disasters, and increased global coastal land area are BAD may earn the Darwin Award.

Those with the intellectual capacity to understand more food, less temp related deaths, lower cost of natural disasters, historically low global death rates from natural disasters, and increased global coastal land area are good things will continue to thrive.

 

So if the Utopian warming (UW) theory turns out to be an experimental disaster, what’s the. backup plan?

Will the US elect a future president like Trump who will be happy to accommodate displaced populations and refugees?

Regarding all the promised new Utopian agriculture - what if that turns out to be an experimental failure? What’s the backup plan? What if the weather becomes so harsh, that drought, hail, tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes become so commonplace that most agriculture cannot sustain itself? What’s the backup plan?

I challenge any Utopian Warmer to give good, concise answers to the above questions. There are many more ???s, but let’s start here. It would be nice if the UWs stop copying and pasting their mental masturbation, and actually address these questions.

 

so you believe in global warming...

 

So global warming and overpopulation are a good thing?

 

Best advice I can give

 

Yes and no

try farming central Australia


It got plenty of warmth there. Why is it not a paradise?

 

Is global warming real? Absolutely. There is overwhelming evidence that AGW is occurring.

 

The is no Utopian warming theory. There is factual information which do not support your claims for recklessly applying the precautionary principle.

Adaptation is the only rational policy. And maximizing the rate of increased economic prosperity increases the ability to adapt. Green energy policies do none of these.

 

The current warming period started ~ 150 years ago. There have been nine previous warming and cooling cycles in the Holocene.

 

Define overpopulation. Do you want less people?

Is more food good? Is less deaths from exposure to suboptimal temperatures a good thing? Is lower costs of climate related natural disasters a good thing? Is less deaths from natural disasters a good thing? You may not like these things. I think less human death, less hunger, and less cost from natural disasters is good.

Can you explain why you think more food globally is bad? Or why you prefer more deaths from temperature exposure to less?

I’m interested in your thought process.

 

There is very little rain there. The Imperial Valley in California is also very hot. But it is very productive.