Really good critique of this paper from Ant Jones on this thread https://twitter.com/antcjones/status/1027474182681108480?s=19
There's a series of various, severe shortcomings (adaptation deficit, no CO2 fertilisation, no hydro cycle transients, etc.). Pretty surprising to hear this level of criticism on a regular paper, let alone in Nature. Media coverage was an absolute car crash - with UK left wing newspapers Independent and Guardian giving coverage that was pretty much the opposite of the paper's (disputed) findings (no net effect became negative effect). This very much backs up my arguments on pay walls - even I've not seen the full paper. The public has little hope of getting to the truth on this. Andrew Lockley On Thu, 9 Aug 2018, 17:15 Greg Rau, <[email protected]> wrote: > Further discussion: > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/08/08/this-climate-change-hack-would-reflect-more-sunlight-not-such-a-bright-idea-study-says/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ca7f63bc40ba > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 9, 2018 12:44 AM > *Subject:* [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering > using volcanic eruptions > > Poster's note: can't read full paper but I'm interested to see how much > adaptation it assumed > > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3 > > > [image: Nature] <https://www.nature.com/nature> > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#search-menu> > <https://idp.nature.com/authorize/natureuser?client_id=grover&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41586-018-0417-3> > Letter | Published: 08 August 2018 > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#article-info> > Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic > eruptions > > - Jonathan Proctor > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#auth-1>, > - Solomon Hsiang > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#auth-2>, > - […] > - Wolfram Schlenker > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#auth-5> > > *Nature* (2018) | Download Citation > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3.ris> > Abstract > Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for > managing global temperatures1 > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#ref-CR1>,2 > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#ref-CR2>, yet the > economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight > back to space remain largely unknown3 > <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#ref-CR3>. Although > solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress > 4 <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3#ref-CR4>, 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. > Access options > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
