Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Global Dimming


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
but if CC is warmer and fuzzier than GW, and the main thrust of, for instance, the environmental movement, is to convince people that there is something to worry seriously about, why do they in the main use CC?

It justs seems to be playing into the skeptics' hands who point out the coincidence that the terms changed roundabout the time that the warming stopped/slowed down.

The IPCC itself was formed in 1988.

Does Luntz pre-date that?

No, Luntz is a current US pollster who has done a lot of work for the Republicans over the last eight years.

When I said remember 1984, I meant Orwell's book. Sorry for any confusion.

Edited by 1929crash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
but if CC is warmer and fuzzier than GW, and the main thrust of, for instance, the environmental movement, is to convince people that there is something to worry seriously about, why do they in the main use CC?

It justs seems to be playing into the skeptics' hands who point out the coincidence that the terms changed roundabout the time that the warming stopped/slowed down.

The IPCC itself was formed in 1988.

Does Luntz pre-date that?

Climate Change is a more comprehensive term.

(1) The atmosphere's overall temperature has risen and is expected to continue doing so.

(2) Consequently other facets of the atmosphere throughout the planet are expected to change too, including precipitation patterns, wind patterns, cloud formation, evaporation rates, pressure, humidity and the like.

(3) Despite temperatures increasing as a global average, some locations are, thanks to (2), actually expected to experience temperature falls.

The picture is complex.

Climate Change encapsulates (1), (2) and (3).

Edited by Dave Spart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

You've only got to watch Jeremy Kyle and other touchpoints of western culture (or lack thereof) to understand that westerners, are least, are getting dimmer and dimmer. That seems more likely to destroy us or set us back a thousand years, before the lack of sunlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446
Anyone tried to correlate that graph with house prices?

Vague attempt at staying on topic ;)

somewhere on the web there is a chart plotting economic growth and sunspot activity - both go in 9yr cycles.

the theory is something to do with agricultural production being higher with more sunspots..

the 9yr thing is due to the orbits of jupiter and saturn (no kidding!). causes tidal forces on the sun blah blah

sunspots make the sun brighter (slightly), so could link to human optimism .. might be better to look at birthrates for a better correlation me thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448
Climate Change is a more comprehensive term.

(1) The atmosphere's overall temperature has risen and is expected to continue doing so.

(2) Consequently other facets of the atmosphere throughout the planet are expected to change too, including precipitation patterns, wind patterns, cloud formation, evaporation rates, pressure, humidity and the like.

(3) Despite temperatures increasing as a global average, some locations are, thanks to (2), actually expected to experience temperature falls.

The picture is complex.

Climate Change encapsulates (1), (2) and (3).

Yep it is bloody complicated. That complicated that nobody on earth understands it, including you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
9
HOLA4410
It's repetition of the language used in politics. Luntz was successful. Remember 1984.

I use global warming in discussion. Climate change is an airy fairy term IMO.

Climate change is when the world has problems with its menopause and starts getting hot flushes and forgetting where it is supposed to be in the cycle.

Onlyme, aged 9 3/4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411
That doesn't sound right to me.

The earth is either in balance or on its way to being in balance (in terms of heat in and heat out).

If the primary source of heat reduces in output, then the balanced temperature is going to be lower, isn't it?

Take the extreme scenario of the sun going out completely.

Over time the heat will leak into space and we will become cold and desolate. No amount of CO2 is going to prevent that.

Now, you can argue that the higher CO2 content will mean that the earth will heat up quicker once the sun recovers, but that is not what you said (or at least my interpretation of what you said).

I think it's becasue the CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for so long - its effect is quite quick but long lasting because CO2 is long lasting.

So once solar activitiy resumes, the increased CO2 levels by then will have a fairly immediate heating effect. It's the effect that is long lasting, not the actual heat kept in long term.

That is my understanding.

Currently the cooling is less than we'd expect - sunspot activity is very low but temps are still quite high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412
That doesn't sound right to me.

The earth is either in balance or on its way to being in balance (in terms of heat in and heat out).

If the primary source of heat reduces in output, then the balanced temperature is going to be lower, isn't it?

Take the extreme scenario of the sun going out completely.

Over time the heat will leak into space and we will become cold and desolate. No amount of CO2 is going to prevent that.

Now, you can argue that the higher CO2 content will mean that the earth will heat up quicker once the sun recovers, but that is not what you said (or at least my interpretation of what you said).

I think it's because the CO2 sticks around in the atmosphere for so long - its effect is quite quick but long lasting because CO2 is long lasting.

So once solar activitiy resumes, the increased CO2 levels by then will have a fairly immediate heating effect. It's the effect that is long lasting, not the actual heat kept in long term.

That is my understanding.

Currently the cooling is less than we'd expect - sunspot activity is very low but temps are still quite high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
thats a nice link http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/upl...ice-4-21-09.jpg

shows more sea ice in april for 8 years.. so much for drowning polar bears!!

no tv channel would dare publish that stuff thou.

Gosh, one tiny point higher than 8 whole years.

You do know that this is about decadal changes, don't you? And where are your error bars? What was the level 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
Gosh, one tiny point higher than 8 whole years.

You do know that this is about decadal changes, don't you? And where are your error bars? What was the level 10, 20 and 30 years ago?

its not my chart, i've got better things to do than measure ice.

if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again.

what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots, and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415
its not my chart, i've got better things to do than measure ice.

if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again.

what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots, and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air.

I'lll see you skating down the Thames :) I'm really looking forwards to the powers that be explaining what happened to global warming:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
Correct. I worked on a paper that studied the effects of Global Dimming after 911 as all air craft was ground globally, used pan evaporation and tree ring data to correlate with other historical events like volcanic eruptions etc. When I was trying to obtain data from NOAA I spoke with one of their top gurus who suggested I was wasting my time on Global Dimming ie it didnt exist. The subsequent data suggested otherwise.

According to the latest Wikipedia entry the global dimming trend has, since about 1990, reversed and we have entered into a period of global brightening. This is actually even worse news. It means even more of the sun's energy is reaching the surface and hence being trapped inside the atmosphere amplifying climate change.

Interestingly this year's winner of the FT Climate Change Challenge was the Kyoto Box, a solar cooking box designed to replace the highly polluting smokey barbecue cookers found everywhere in poorer sunny countries. The aim of the Kyoto Box was, among other things, to cut particulate emissions from the hundreds of millions of street cookers that are left to burn all day everyday throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia. The extent of its adoption in these countries will depend to some extent on its marketing.

My own invention, which I have alluded to several times in the past here, uses the the same principles of extreme simplicity and low cost but exploits the use of international global brands and their distribution networks to ensure its commercial appeal and widespread distribution.

Edited by Dave Spart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418
its not my chart, i've got better things to do than measure ice.

if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again.

what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots, and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air.

What everyone else needs to know is that you're simply making things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
What everyone else needs to know is that you're simply making things up.

if the sunspots dont start up again the ice will come down as far as scotland, and it could be 50years before they start up again.

what you also need to know that 2007 was a massive year for sunspots(this is true), and the amount of extra energy hitting each square meter of the earth would add more to warming than the insulation given from an extra 0.005% CO2 in the air.

normally the sun delivers something like 1200watts/sq meter of energy (i.e heat) to the earth.

comparing with the suns activity in 1900-1950, the past decade recieved an extra 15watts/sqm.

the contentious bit is obviously comparing heating of 15watts with insulation with CO2. this is the first link I found...

* Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter.

* Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter.

* Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter.

* Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter.

* Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter.

http://www.am.ub.es/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect3.html

i.e. sunspots are waywayway more important than global warming. BUT assuming the sunspots come back (and we might not be at the top of the cycle, so more energy from the sun maybe...) then earth is gonna get very hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19
HOLA4420
The whole MMGW movement is a politically motivated scam IMO

Sorry, that's just wrong. The science of global warming hasn't changed much at all in over 20 years. Critically it PRE-DATES any political interest. As it pre-dates political motives its scientific conclusions can't be politically motivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
shows more sea ice in april for 8 years.. so much for drowning polar bears!!

no tv channel would dare publish that stuff thou.

Is that sea ice coverage or sea ice volume? I believe the ice thinning leaves us with a record low amount of ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422
Sorry, that's just wrong. The science of global warming hasn't changed much at all in over 20 years. Critically it PRE-DATES any political interest. As it pre-dates political motives its scientific conclusions can't be politically motivated.

How can it pre-date any political interest if it's only 20 years old. Creating a spurious reason for taxation has been around for longer than 20 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
Is that sea ice coverage or sea ice volume? I believe the ice thinning leaves us with a record low amount of ice.

wtf is it today with ice?

" ice thinning" coined on HPC by clv101.

its a whole new world of reasearch grants, bbc panoramas, and ponzi potitics.

ice & a slice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
" ice thinning" coined on HPC by clv101.

Hardly.

Thinning Arctic sea ice alarms experts

Volume of Arctic sea ice last summer may have been lowest on record – and possibly worst in 8,000 years

The total volume of sea ice in the Arctic is likely to have reached a record low last summer, despite previous reports that the area of ice recovered slightly from the previous year's dramatic decline, leading experts have warned.

...

The latest volume estimates come from the NSIDC, at the University of Colorado, and are based on a study mapping the age of different ice flows in the Arctic ocean. These show a dramatic loss of the thicker "multi-year" ice in recent years, particularly after the summer of 2007, when the sea ice lost an area the size of Alaska in a single season.

In 2008, the NSIDC reported that summer sea ice area recovered by 9% but was still the second lowest recorded. However, based on the latest data about the much greater area of thin first-year ice and losses of multi-year ice, especially that of five years or more, they believe that in volume terms last summer was the lowest since records began in the 1930s – and probably for at least 700 years and possibly up to 8,000 years, said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the Boulder-based centre. "Our estimate is that it was probably the lowest volume on record," Meier told the Guardian. "Certainly 2007 and 2008 [were] the two lowest [years for] volume and extent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...sea-ice-warning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425
Hardly.

well done. you earn a £20k research cheque.

now go & do something useful.

"probably for at least 700 years and possibly up to 8,000 years,"

btw... ever wonder where those bodies of 1000year old people that come from glaciers.. you see.. 700 years ago it was much hotter than now...

and FYI this year is gonna be cold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

que linky http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information