Global dimming & global warming

[MackemX]

anyone in the UK watch Horizon at 9pm about global dimming?. I just had the TV on and was watching it in the background. I soon started taking notice when I realised what the program was about

it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.

This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers.

basically global dimming is all the pollution particles we are putting into the atmosphere. It creates 6 times more water droplets in a cloud than normal and therfore reflects more sunlight back into space

As laws are trying to cut down on particle emissions then it will have an effect on global warming if the amount of particles drop.

the cooling effect of particle pollution has been offsetting the warming from carbon dioxide. If so, then we are in for far faster warming in the future as particle emissions are brought under control while greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

they were saying that in 20 years time, the average temperature could go up by 2 degrees celcius. In 100 years it could be as much as 10 degrees celcius. That obvioulsy means all the ice caps would be melting and obviously sea level would rise. They also mentioned the 10,000 billions of tonnes of methane at the bottom of the sea that could be released due to the increased temperature. This methane gas is another greenhouse type gas effect so it would magnify the problem

DR PETER COX: We will be in danger of destabilising these things called methane hydrates which store a lot of methane at the bottom of the ocean in a kind of frozen form, ten thousand billions tons of this stuff, and they're known to be destabilised by warming.

you can read a little more here about it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

and this makes an interesting read for those bothered about it, it's the transcript
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

and this is a Q&A
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml

it really does make you wonder what it will be like in 100 years time .

does anyone else here think about what is happening to the enviroment?

[Capmaster]

Kinda makes me glad I won't be around then. But my kids will live through a lot of the change

[MackemX]

that's what I thought exactly , it's the future generations that will suffer

if it's not the violence that will destroy most of mankind, it will be the fact that Kevin Costner's 'Waterword' may one day be a reality

[adamthole]

I think that global warming is highly exaggerated. I wouldn't worry about it just too much.

[yoda313]

I think that global warming is highly exaggerated. I wouldn't worry about it just too much.

Hello,

Yep global science is still very new and we don't really have enough firm weather data to create truly reliable forecast models in my opinion.

Kevin

[Craig Tucker]

But it does not take a genius to work out that all the billions of tons of crap we chuck into our atmosphere cannot be a good thing. The techynology is there in its infancy for cleaner forms of energy, if they are ever allowed to emerge and develop properly by the oil companies.

[thecoalman]

if they are ever allowed to emerge and develop properly by the oil companies.

ahem...... What's wrong with using coal.

That brings to mind an interesting example. I saw this on a news show so I'm recalling it from memory. There was a power plant in Florida that served a small rural area, if I remember correctly it was coal poewered but it makes no difference. Anyhow it was getting old and as you know newer facilities or upgraded facilities produce energy more efficiently and cleaner.

The gist of the news story was that the power company wanted to upgrade but only could do so much since they would never be able to reaise the rates enough to cover the costs of upgrading the entire facility without going bankrupt. The upgrades they wanted to implement would have increased ifficiency and decreased emmissions and in the long run reduced rates because of that. Here's the catch, to inplement the upgrades EPA guidelines dictated that they also had to inplement the other much more costlier upgrades also. So what happened is they simply dropped the idea.

No one benefitted from that situation. The consumer lost because there power rates stayed the same, the company lost because they are using an outdated plant that barely making any money and most importantly the enviroment lost because the old plant is chugging along spewing out the same old crap it has been for 30 or 40 years.

BTW Craig, by the time the newest technologies can be implemented it may not matter. Current oil reserves worldwide at the current consumption are estimated to run out within as little as 30 years. Considering that and take into account that a nation such as the U.S produces half it's electricity from coal cleaner technologies for coal should be looked at for the interm until a feasible ecologically sound way of producing energy comes about.

[Ironballs]

it's the future generations that will suffer

Still, what's the next generation ever done for us?

[Capmaster]

it's the future generations that will suffer

Still, what's the next generation ever done for us?

[MackemX]

But it does not take a genius to work out that all the billions of tons of crap we chuck into our atmosphere cannot be a good thing. The techynology is there in its infancy for cleaner forms of energy, if they are ever allowed to emerge and develop properly by the oil companies.

that's what I think . It's pretty obvious that all the pollutants that have physical bodies will be lowering how much sunlight is getting to the surface in one way or another. Basically acting as in the same way as a cloud but not to that extreme though still having an effect somehow.

here is what happened after 9-11 when planes were grounded for 3 days

NARRATOR: September 12th 2001, the aftermath of tragedy. While America mourned, the weather all over the country was unusually fine. Eight hundred miles west of New York, in Madison, Wisconsin a climate scientist called David Travis was on his way to work.

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater): Around the twelfth, later on in the day, when I was driving to work, and I noticed how bright blue and clear the sky was. And at first I didn't think about it, then I realised the sky was unusually clear.

NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

NARRATOR: One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming. Two years ago most of them had never even heard of it, yet now they believe it may mean all their predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong.

so in effect one pollution problem is cancelling the other out. Take away the global dimming then it doesn't take rocket science to realise it will get warmer. I don't think this is just another wannabe famous scientist making daft claims but more like it's reality

[thecoalman]

DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

Ahhh come on..... Maybe it was just warmer. How can you take the average of 3 days and of weather and compare it to other weather?

It was 50 degrees here a week ago now it's 20, the ice age is coming

As I pointed out in another thread the trouble with these studies is that they always seem to support whatever side of the fence the author is sitting on.

[MackemX]

it's partly to do with the contrails that planes make, which sometimes form artificial cirrus clouds (thin and wispy). No planes flying through those 3 days after 9-11 meant no contrails, which meant a bluer sky letting more sunlight through making it warmer

basically it's aviation smog as you can see HERE and here is an example picture

In just a few hours a contrail that begins life only a few meters in width can spread to cover more than 20,000 square kilometers.—Pat Minnis, NASA Langley Cloud And Radiation Research Center

as I said before, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that when it's hazy, it's cooler

[yoda313]

Hello,

As I pointed out in another thread the trouble with these studies is that they always seem to support whatever side of the fence the author is sitting on.

DITTO

Besides we ARE in a warmer weather pattern. For the last 10,000 years!!! It's called emerging from an ICE AGE :P :P :P :P

We really don't have enough info to know for sure when the turn around downward spin starts after warming up from a previous ice age. So who knows how warm we're supposed to get before we dip down again. It's all part of huge cycle that goes on for eons......

Kevin

[VCDHunter]

I saw it and it was ******* scary.

[AlecWest]

I'm a fence-sitter on global warming/dimming theories. The only thing that is certain is the basic law of physics ... that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ... be it caused by man or nature itself. And nature can do a heckuva lot more in a short space of time than man can ... as evidenced by the recent earthquake and tsunami that devastated parts of Asia.

I remember once that a group of government people insisted that the wolf population in a given area had reached such proportions that it was wiping out rabbit populations ... and that human intervention was required to "fix" things. That argument didn't fly after someone produced population statistics showing population histories among wolves and rabbits. During times when wolf population was low, the rabbit population was high ... triggering an increase in wolf population to consume the rabbits ... and on and on, just like a swinging pendulum.

Nature took care of itself then and I think nature will take care of itself now, regardless of what man does.

Here's a scary thought. There's a lot of people out there convinced that the next generation will see a decrease in gasoline consumption due to increased popularity of hydrogen as a fuel source. Maybe so. But, by removing current pollutants from our atmosphere and replacing them with tonage upon tonage of water vapor, how will it affect climatology? Right now on some days, it's hard to see a clear sky in Los Angeles due to the pollution in the air. But if we switched to hydrogen powered autos, the air might be cleaner ... but we'd STILL not be able to see a clear sky because it would be filled with clouds (grin) ... possibly turning the LA area into a tropical rain-forest.

As Roseanne Rosannadanna once said, "It's always somethin'."

[pacmania_2001]

If the Pentagon report on global climate change is to be believed Australia remains relatively unscathed compared to the northern hemisphere so it doesn't bother me.

[VCDHunter]

If the Pentagon report on global climate change is to be believed Australia remains relatively unscathed compared to the northern hemisphere so it doesn't bother me.

It will do when the Northern Hemisphere moves into your neighbourhood

[MackemX]

wow, has it been 2 years since I saw this program?

it's on UKTV History now and I thought I'd seen it before

[yoda313]

Ha it's going to be around 10 farenheit for a HIGH all weekend here in lower Michigan! COLD!!!!!!!!!

[MackemX]

Ha it's going to be around 10 farenheit for a HIGH all weekend here in lower Michigan! COLD!!!!!!!!!

I was sunbathing last Saturday morning with the patio doors open at my mates as it was that warm and sunny . In the news yesterday it was saying that it's been the 2nd warmest January since records began 350 years ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6318231.stm