Another Angle on Global Warning

[Gerry]

Horizon: Global Dimming

Saw this yesterday - interesting and scary (if you believed the conclusions).

Summary: Particulate pollution has led to a phenomenon called global dimming (clouds bounce back more photons than they would normally) that has acted as a braking effect on global warming (due to increased CO2 emittions) over the last 20-30 years. This has led to the effects of global warming being underestimated over the years since the two pollutants have increased hand-in-hand. Now that the level of particulates is dropping due to better pollution constraints, this braking effect is diminished. CO2 levels are not reducing however. Which means...

Or something like that.

 

[Druga Runda]

Horizon: Global Dimming

Saw this yesterday - interesting and scary (if you believed the conclusions).

Summary: Particulate pollution has led to a phenomenon called global dimming (clouds bounce back more photons than they would normally) that has acted as a braking effect on global warming (due to increased CO2 emittions) over the last 20-30 years. This has led to the effects of global warming being underestimated over the years since the two pollutants have increased hand-in-hand. Now that the level of particulates is dropping due to better pollution constraints, this braking effect is diminished. CO2 levels are not reducing however. Which means...

Or something like that.

10C rise by 2100...

UK with the climate of North Africa by than... now that will be catastrophic if true... not for UK, but for the rest of the world...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Well they've been scratching their heads for a while wondering where all the CO2 is going and why we are not getting the same temperature rises the fossil records say we should be getting with this much CO2. They figured out that a lot of places like the Amazon jungle are working as a CO2 sink, but now we also know it's because one sort of pollution has been cancelling out another sort.

The scary thing is that if all the particulates stop and we get the 10 degree temperature rise, we pass outside the ability of the system to regulate itself to the world we've come to know. The tropical jungles die and release massive CO2, the methane hydrates are warmed and release methane (eight times a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2), the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise. The world as we know it is forever changed and it settles into a completely different equlibrium, and it could happen in as short as the next 50-100 years. As they say, it's not a prediction - it's a warning. There's still (just) time to do something about it.

Personally, I think we really need government funded "Manhatten Projects" to develop new ways of generating power (fusion?), and to rush upcoming technologies like room temperature superconductors to change the inneficient ways we use power. If we leave it up to corporations with their short term views focussed soley on making dividends for their investors, we'll never change how we live our lives until it's too late.

 

[Simon F]

10C rise by 2100...

UK with the climate of North Africa by than... now that will be catastrophic if true... not for UK, but for the rest of the world...

Not catastrophic for the UK? The native plants and animals are surely having a tough enough time as it is. The program pointed out that many species would not survive such a rise in temperature + associated climate change.

If you then add the expected increase in sea levels, then the country shrinks by quite a margin.

Frankly, even if conclusions were 1/2 right, it is a frightening prospect. Given that they have proved that particulate pollution was contributing to a 10% (!) reduction in radiation over a portion of the Indian ocean, I think there is a reason to be very concerned.

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

Horizon: Global Dimming

Saw this yesterday - interesting and scary (if you believed the conclusions).

Summary: Particulate pollution has led to a phenomenon called global dimming (clouds bounce back more photons than they would normally) that has acted as a braking effect on global warming (due to increased CO2 emittions) over the last 20-30 years. This has led to the effects of global warming being underestimated over the years since the two pollutants have increased hand-in-hand. Now that the level of particulates is dropping due to better pollution constraints, this braking effect is diminished. CO2 levels are not reducing however. Which means...

Or something like that.

Just to play devils advocate on the whole issue (read Michael Chrictons new book 'State of Fear' the other day). Most of the information we get about global warming and pollution is tailored to show what they want it to show, that is to say that they pick and choose the statistics to show and how to present them. They are talking about currently CO2 levels are increasing by 2ppm a year 2 parts per million i.e. 0.0002%

Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, currently estimated at about 28 billion tonnes annually, represent approximately 5% of the average natural flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through plant and soil respiration and venting from the surface waters of the oceans (a total of about 550 billion tonnes each year).

Just thought I would throw those into the debate

(My actual view is that it is a problem and needs sorting).

CC

 

[Himself]

Just gonna have to keep sending up smoke particles to prevent global warming is all, darken the sky, that way the machines won't be able to take over the world, lol.

 

[AlNom]

Just format.

 

[silence]

maybe its good time to start buying land on Grenland?.....

 

[Humus]

Hmm, I'm thinking that the conclusion also opens up for a discussion about possibilities to overcome the global warming problem through technogical means until the CO2 problem is solved. If there are stuff you can put in the atmosphere that act as coolers, then perhaps there might be an environment friendly kind of particles that could be released.

 

[Guden Oden]

(read Michael Chrictons new book 'State of Fear' the other day).

I'm sure writers of ludicrous novels know a lot more about GW than the scientists actually working with the phenomenon.

Most of the information we get about global warming and pollution is tailored to show what they want it to show

...UNLIKE THE OTHER CAMP, right? Get real will you. If anyone's been lying, twisting and bending the truth over the last 50+ years, it's the oil and petrochemical industry, along with pretty much any other polluting company, including makers of fertilizers, pesticides etc.

When it comes to Planet Earth, our ONE AND ONLY HOME IN TEH UNIVERSE, don't you think it would be more prudent to err on the side of caution?

that is to say that they pick and choose the statistics to show and how to present them. They are talking about currently CO2 levels are increasing by 2ppm a year 2 parts per million i.e. 0.0002%

So that is not a cherry-picked piece of statistics then? Carbon dioxide is not a significant constituent of our atmosphere, yet human activity over the decades has caused the gas to increase to a substantial degree. 2ppm in of itself may be insignificant, but it isn't when seen as a whole. Especially not as our fossile fuel consumption is rising all the time.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, currently estimated at about 28 billion tonnes annually, represent approximately 5% of the average natural flow of carbon dioxide

Utterly useless piece of information. It's nothing but crichton FUD BS.

 

[Mintmaster]

Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, currently estimated at about 28 billion tonnes annually, represent approximately 5% of the average natural flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through plant and soil respiration and venting from the surface waters of the oceans (a total of about 550 billion tonnes each year).

If Chrichton made that comparison, it's just a testament to how much of a fucking dumbass he is.

The adult human heart pumps about 2 million litres of blood per year. Let's add 0.1% of that to someone's blood each year. OOPS. We just injected one tonne of blood into that adult. What the hell does flow have to do with capacity? Not to mention that this is unlikely to be a linear relationship anyway, so %age means jack even if this was a meaningful statistic.

That's what happens when you get a non-scientific mind interpreting data.

 

[pax]

Well we know that a tiny reduction of co2 from the 400 ppm it approx is now to 0 ppm would reduce the planet to an icecube with ice sheets at the equator. So rises of about 2 ppm every year is in fact pretty significant. But we do need to know more about the whole process and we should spend a lot more in r&d here as climate is changing fast and already shown serious fluctuations.

 

[deviantchild]

When it comes to Planet Earth, our ONE AND ONLY HOME IN TEH UNIVERSE, don't you think it would be more prudent to err on the side of caution?

----
what it doesn't say in that article that it did on the actual programme is, when they were looking into the effects of dimming they realised they would probably never get ideal conditions to test their theory out.
then 11th Sept 2001 happened and for three days after that the US grounded most all aircraft; aircraft fuel trails [whatever they're called] being one of the causes of this shielding effect.
the global temperature trend for that period of three days alone showed an increase of 1 degree!

 

[MuFu]

It's on again tonight - BBC2, 8:10pm. Cool.

 

[London Geezer]

10C rise by 2100...

UK with the climate of North Africa by than... now that will be catastrophic if true... not for UK, but for the rest of the world...

NICE ONE!!



Errr i mean... BAD, BAAAD Global Warming!!!

 

[London Geezer]

Just gonna have to keep sending up smoke particles to prevent global warming is all, darken the sky, that way the machines won't be able to take over the world, lol.

Have you been under a rock for the last 5 years or so? They'll just start growing us like plants in immense fields and use us as batteries.

When it comes to Planet Earth, our ONE AND ONLY HOME IN TEH UNIVERSE, don't you think it would be more prudent to err on the side of caution?

One and only home in the Universe? Speak for yourself, earthling.

 

[MuFu]

That was quite an eye-opener.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Global dimming? COOL! 8)

I thought my vision was starting to go.

 

[Captain Chickenpants]

I'm sure writers of ludicrous novels know a lot more about GW than the scientists actually working with the phenomenon.

...
...UNLIKE THE OTHER CAMP, right? Get real will you. If anyone's been lying, twisting and bending the truth over the last 50+ years, it's the oil and petrochemical industry, along with pretty much any other polluting company, including makers of fertilizers, pesticides etc.

....
When it comes to Planet Earth, our ONE AND ONLY HOME IN TEH UNIVERSE, don't you think it would be more prudent to err on the side of caution?

....
So that is not a cherry-picked piece of statistics then? Carbon dioxide is not a significant constituent of our atmosphere, yet human activity over the decades has caused the gas to increase to a substantial degree. 2ppm in of itself may be insignificant, but it isn't when seen as a whole. Especially not as our fossile fuel consumption is rising all the time.

....
Utterly useless piece of information. It's nothing but crichton FUD BS.

Dude, you seem to have taken my post a little more seriously than it was supposed to be. At the very start I said I was playing devils advocate, i.e. putting the alternate angle just to get people to talk about the issues. As I said at the bottom of my post, I personally agree that it is a big issue and needs to be sorted out.

All of your points are spot on, except the last one, the information I got was from a environmentalist site, I simply picked out the facts that made the alternate point of view sound more plausible.

If Chrichton made that comparison, it's just a testament to how much of a fucking dumbass he is.

The adult human heart pumps about 2 million litres of blood per year. Let's add 0.1% of that to someone's blood each year. OOPS. We just injected one tonne of blood into that adult. What the hell does flow have to do with capacity? Not to mention that this is unlikely to be a linear relationship anyway, so %age means jack even if this was a meaningful statistic.

That's what happens when you get a non-scientific mind interpreting data.

Chricton didn't make that comparison, I picked that from an environmental web-site, cherry picking facts to support the alternative viewpoint. For the record Michael Chrichton is a fully qualified doctor, so I think he probably is classed as a scientific mind.


Cheers,
CC

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Chricton didn't make that comparison, I picked that from an environmental web-site, cherry picking facts to support the alternative viewpoint. For the record Michael Chrichton is a fully qualified doctor, so I think he probably is classed as a scientific mind.

Certainly doesn't show in his work. In fact he specializes in throwing common sense out the window in his work, and pandering to the lowest common denominator of anti-science by always casting technology and scientists as evil.

Even the technique in his medical fiction is terriby outdated (according to a medical friend of mine), as it's been such a long time since he's actually been an active medical professional.

What next, are you going to hold Harry Hill up as a "scientific mind" and therefore holding a factually valid opinion outside his field, just because he used to be a (very poor, by his own admission) doctor?