I really think this paper needs a rebuttal. I'm happy to work on it, even if that's just (uncredited) coordination. It's a disastrously bad situation when this kind of sloppy science achieves global prominence.
A On Fri, 10 Aug 2018, 13:28 Douglas MacMartin, <dgm...@cornell.edu> wrote: > And to add to Anthony, > > - Data is too limited to do what they want (really only one major > volcanic eruption, which is confounded by an El Nino, which they try to > subtract off of the signal by assuming that every El Nino has an identical > effect) > > - The solar dimming and many precipitation changes from an > eruption are fast, but the temperature effect is not, so a sustained > aerosol layer will have different effects > > > > I and many other people told the authors about these challenges before > they even wrote the paper, and suggested that they be more cautious in > their description. > > > > Reading the paper won’t help, because they don’t really tell the reader > all of the problems with the approach; the problems aren’t in the > methodology per se, they are in the interpretation of the results. > > > > doug > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2018 5:44 PM > *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> > *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Estimating global agricultural effects of > geoengineering using volcanic eruptions > > > > 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, <gh...@sbcglobal.net> 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 <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *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> > > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
