There’s NO Climate Threat to Coffee, Chocolate, or Wine

WUWT-

The Independent’s recent article, “Engineering climate may not be enough to save coffee, chocolate and wine,” warns that even extreme geoengineering might not preserve “luxury crops” in a warming world. It is a false story citing an unrealistic projection based on computer models, not real-world evidence. Agricultural data shows the crops listed as threatened are actually thriving in today’s slightly warmer world.

The study behind the article relied on simulations of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a highly controversial technique that would spray reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight, cooling the Earth. SAI is increasingly promoted as a last-ditch tool to “fix” global warming, but the science and potential side effects make it a profoundly bad idea. more here

14 Comments on There’s NO Climate Threat to Coffee, Chocolate, or Wine

  1. The only “climate threat” I see is to bureaucrats, academics, NGOs, and Al Gore as the USAID firehose is turned off and President Trump’s policies emasculate their power and influence. And those are good things.

    13
  2. richard
    Climate change is real, look at history.
    The Medieval Warm period, followed by the mini Ice Age, for two examples.
    What is NOT real is Anthropogenic (i.e., man made) Global Warming.
    The rest of your statement is spot on.

    3
  3. “All models are wrong, but some models are useful”
    -George E.P. Box

    “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
    – Some Islamic Communist

    “Lies, damn lies, and statistics”
    – Benjamin Disraeli

    3
  4. @Sippin’ Covfefe:

    All models are wrong, but some models are useful

    –George E.P. Box

    Whenever I see this quotation I always think of the comment John von Neumann’s made to Enrico Fermi and/or Freeman Dyson that with four parameters, one can fit a model to an elephant, and with five, one can make it wiggle its trunk.

    Click here to see it actually done.

  5. What’s the timeline to establish effectiveness of SAI?
    If ‘they’ were to do this and it didn’t result in intended results, nay, resulted in harm, would they then say, hold on it hasn’t been enough time?

    Because I’m thinking anyone who does take part in this, at whatsoever level of involvement, are responsible to the entire planet. That a tremendous beat down is in their immediate future. Except they would say, in their own defense, give it more time.

    Usually any science project has a predetermine limit of time in which to measure effectiveness. Meaning there is a hard deadline.

    Myself, I think there should be a beating before they even commence.

    1

Comments are closed.