Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate scientists are frustrated that nobody is attempting large scale geo-engineering experiments, despite admitting that a successful attempt to geo-engineer the global climate could trigger a nuclear war.
Saviour or scientific hubris? Geoengineering the planet to counter climate change
The eruption of Mt Pinatubo changed everything.
As the top of the mountain disintegrated, a dense plume of ash and gas surged 35 kilometres into the air.
The resulting cloud of sulphur-dioxide and muck covered the Philippines and soon began spreading.
It was 1991, and by some estimates more than five cubic kilometres of volcanic material was pumped into the stratosphere, including around 10 billion tonnes of sulphur.
Local weather patterns were temporarily altered, and the temperature of the planet dipped by 0.5 degrees Celsius over the next two years.
By 2010 a large number of “geoengineering” experiments were under consideration — but now major experimentation appears to have stalled.
Climatologist Alan Robock of Rutgers University says people started asking ‘What’s the worst thing that could happen?‘
“The answer was global nuclear war,” he tells ABC RN’s Future Tense.
“Because if one country did something that they thought would help them and it was harmful to another country, they might be quite upset.”
While climate scientists were busy getting excited by the impact Mount Pinatubo had on global temperature, other scientists noticed another, far more sinister impact of the eruption.
Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions
Published: 08 August 2018
Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker
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.
Turns out plants need sunlight. Reflecting sunlight back into space instead of letting it reach the leaves of plants is bad for plant growth.
via Watts Up With That?
August 27, 2020 at 04:16PM
Walter E. Williams explains in his article Back To College, Back To Academic Brainwashing Excerpts in italics with my bolds. H/T IceCap
Parents, legislators, taxpayers, and others footing the bill for college education might be interested in just what is in store for the upcoming academic year.
Since many college classes will be online, there is a chance to witness professors indoctrinating their students in real time. So, there’s a chance that some college faculty might change their behavior. To see recent examples of campus nonsense and indoctrination, visit the Campus Reform and College Fix websites.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, warned congressional lawmakers “that Antifa is ‘winning’ and that much of academia, whether wittingly or unwittingly, is complicit in its success,” reported Campus Reform.
In his testimony before Congress Turley said:
To Antifa, people like me are the personification of the classical liberal view of free speech that perpetuates a system of oppression and abuse. I wish I could say that my view remains strongly implanted in our higher educational institutions. However, you are more likely to find public supporters for restricting free speech than you are to find defenders of free speech principles on many campuses.
The leftist bias at our colleges and universities has many harmful effects. A mathematics professor at University of California, Davis, faced considerable backlash over her opposition to the requirement for “diversity statements” from potential faculty.
Those seeking employment at the University of California, San Diego, are required to admit that “barriers” prevent women and minorities from full participation in campus life.
At American University, a history professor wrote a book calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. A Rutgers University professor said: “Watching the Iowa Caucus is a sickening display of the overrepresentation of whiteness.”
A Williams College professor has advocated the inclusion of social justice in math textbooks. Students at Wayne State University are no longer required to take a single math course to graduate; however, they may soon be required to take a diversity course.
Maybe some students will be forced into sharing the vision of Laurie Rubel, a math education professor at Brooklyn College. She says the idea of cultural neutrality in math is a “myth,” and that asking whether 2 plus 2 equals 4 “reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”
Rubel tweeted: “Y’all must know that the idea that math is objective or neutral IS A MYTH.”
Math professors and academics at other universities, including Harvard and the University of Illinois, discussed the “Eurocentric” roots of American mathematics. As for me, I would like to see the proof, in any culture, that 2 plus 2 is something other than 4.
Rutgers University’s English department chairwoman, Rebecca Walkowitz, announced changes to the department’s graduate writing program emphasizing “social justice” and “critical grammar.”
Leonydus Johnson, a speech-language pathologist and libertarian activist, says Walkowitz’s changes make the assumption that minorities cannot understand traditional and grammatically correct English speech and writing, which is “insulting, patronizing, and in itself, extremely racist.”
Then there is the nonsense taught on college campuses about white privilege. The idea of white privilege doesn’t explain why several historically marginalized groups outperform whites today.
For example, Japanese Americans suffered under the Alien Land Law of 1913 and other racist, exclusionary laws legally preventing them from owning land and property in more than a dozen American states until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
During World War II, more than 120,000 Japanese Americans were interned. However, by 1959, the income disparity between Japanese Americans and white Americans had almost disappeared.
Today, Japanese Americans outperform white Americans by large margins in income statistics, education outcomes, and test scores, and have much lower incarceration rates.
According to Rav Arora, writing for the New York Post, several black immigrant groups such as Nigerians, Trinidadians, Tobagonians, Barbadians, and Ghanaians all “have a median household income well above the American average.”
We are left with the question whether the people handing out “white privilege” made a mistake. The other alternative is that Japanese Americans, Nigerians, Barbadians, Ghanaians, Trinidadians, and Tobagonians are really white Americans.
The bottom line is that more Americans need to pay attention to the miseducation of our youth and that miseducation is not limited to higher education.
Walter E. Williams, a columnist for The Daily Signal, is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
JimBob weighs in on “progressive” education.
And a final word from Dilbert:
via Science Matters
August 27, 2020 at 02:35PM
By Paul Homewood
The price of flour and bread is set to rise after what could be the worst UK wheat harvest in 40 years, the industry is warning.
Farmers say that the extreme weather over the last year is likely to mean wheat yields are down by up to 40%.
As a result, some millers have already increased the price of flour by 10% and they warn a no-deal Brexit could push up prices even further.
And we’re likely to see more of the same weather in future, experts say.
The UK Met Office told BBC News that the extremes of wet and hot conditions that have marked this year are likely to become more common as our climate continues to change.
Wheat farmers have been hit with a triple-whammy of severe weather, according to the National Farmers’ Union (NFU).
First off, unusually heavy rain in the autumn meant many farmers could not plant as much wheat as they usually would. What they did plant did not thrive in the waterlogged soil.
That was followed by the wettest February on record.
Storms Ciara and Dennis battered much of the UK in the early and middle of the month, causing widespread flooding. They were followed by Storm Jorge at the end of February.
Then we had the very hot and dry spring which caused droughts in many areas of the UK, making it hard for the crop to take up nutrients from the soil.
Finally, the heavy rain this August meant many farmers have had to delay harvesting their crops.
A spokesperson for the Met Office explained: “UK climate projections show a trend towards hotter and drier summers and warmer, wetter winters.”
In fact, the major reason for the lower harvest this year is that farmers opted to plant less wheat last autumn, and instead concentrate on spring barley instead:
Sharp year-on-year drops in wheat production are not uncommon in the UK, and usually for similar reasons as this year:
And ironically last year, which the Met Office ludicrously described as extreme, cereal yields jumped to near record highs:
But what about the weather this time around?
Well, last autumn was wetter than average, but nowhere near the wettest on record:
And neither was the winter:
And this spring was not the driest either:
As for this month, preliminary data suggests it will be drier than average. Looking at the long term trend, wet Augusts were much more of a problem in past decades:
In short, the weather has been far from ideal in the last 12 months as far as farming is concerned, but there is not the slightest evidence that this is part of a longer term trend.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
August 27, 2020 at 01:12PM