Remember me
▼ Content

"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?



Page 2 of 2<12
25-04-2022 01:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:Most people just probably see a control freak. Just HAS to control the conversation. Severe penalties for those who disobey.
You are describing yourself as well.

He is describing his dreams.
Attached image:

25-04-2022 17:40
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.


LOL the fact is that Greta Thunberg has autism and that she admits to this. You just spout nonsense at every chance.

Here is Greta talking about her own autism which is not as devastating as your schizophrenia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpptVrll-bo

Silly girl, you are so gullible.

LOL you might want to inform Greta that she does not have autism, because she knows that she does. Perhaps she can become a schizzo like you


I don't think you know what autism is or what the symptoms of it are.


Everyone in the room already knows that you do not think.


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
25-04-2022 23:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
Greta Thunberg has Asperger's syndrome a type of autism.

But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Silly turd

You are gullible. What a surprise.


LOL the fact is that Greta Thunberg has autism and that she admits to this. You just spout nonsense at every chance.

Here is Greta talking about her own autism which is not as devastating as your schizophrenia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpptVrll-bo

Silly girl, you are so gullible.

LOL you might want to inform Greta that she does not have autism, because she knows that she does. Perhaps she can become a schizzo like you


I don't think you know what autism is or what the symptoms of it are.


Everyone in the room already knows that you do not think.


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Lame inversion fallacy. You are acting like a little child.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-04-2022 15:37
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
Into the Night wrote:
Frankly, I think it's sad to see this kind of child abuse.

ITN I never thought of it that way and she does have autism so I hope she thinks for herself.


26-04-2022 15:44
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
Swan wrote:
But you go on denying the truth that Thunberg admits too

Swan her message may be 0 but her effort is 100 and that is what I admire in her that she makes an amazing effort even with the problems she faces and maybe she is like me in that she does not know enough about climate change to tell what is true and what is not but she is trying and if others are misleading her then one day she will find out as long as she keeps trying.


26-04-2022 17:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Frankly, I think it's sad to see this kind of child abuse.

ITN I never thought of it that way and she does have autism so I hope she thinks for herself.

Greta doesn't have autism. She is being marketed as "overcoming adversity" to garner even more attention.

Like I said, you are being manipulated.

Have you ever seen a magic act? Perhaps you are aware that magicians engage in misdirection, i.e. they direct your attention to what they want you to see and away from what they don't want you to see.

The political cabal behind the Greta manipulation fabricate claims of autism and other adversity that you cannot verify ... as a means of getting you to focus more heavily on Greta and to open up with ever growing levels of sympathy. Thus you will more readily accept/embrace the scripts that they write for her and you will be even easier to manipulate.

It's all a lie. I would recommend you not fall for it. Greta is not the phony image you have of her. The wonder-story that has given you so much motivation is sheer fabrication, like any movie. It just isn't true; any of it.

I hate to be the guy that is splashing you with cold water, and of course, I'm not going to pretend to tell you what to believe. I am simply recommending that you recognize that the magician is creating an illusion for you and that he is actually performing a trick.
27-04-2022 17:16
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:
I hate to be the guy that is splashing you with cold water, and of course, I'm not going to pretend to tell you what to believe.

No you are not and I like that you help me see another side of climate change that I never heard.

Speaking of magic I had a dream that me and Bible Troll took a space ship in to outer space and we met the tooth fairy and had a party and then seelover was there and did not want to have fun so we put seelover on the moon where he could be with people like him and he was happy and we went to the planet with rings were happy.

Does Bible Troll ever go to outer space?




27-04-2022 19:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
GretaGroupie wrote:Does Bible Troll ever go to outer space?

Yes, but he stays local. The Bible Troll rarely goes beyond the moon.

He holds his annual "Sermon on the Mount" on the lunar surface because it's one of the few places he is assured of getting a permit. I don't mind telling you that LGBTQIA+ keep protesting his services and prevent him from getting permits in NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Victoria, Montreal, New Orleans, Toronto, Vancouver and a host of other places.

So, the moon it is.

.
Attached image:

28-04-2022 15:54
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:
So, the moon it is.


Next time I am in one of those cities I will get Bible Troll a permit so he can preach here too.


07-06-2023 02:22
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
07-06-2023 02:23
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Im a BM wrote:
deliberate emission of aerosols is STUPID.

I've had some time to review sealover's posts.

I noticed at least a DOZEN saying it would be a TERRIBLE IDEA to deliberately spew aerosols to get some more global dimming.

This is a geoengineering scheme that, unfortunately, is being taken seriously.

Ironically, global dimming is actually GOOD for plants.

Full sunlight is just a little TOO bright for maximum productivity.

But any rational discussion of climate change has to include some reality.

Global dimming is a big part of that reality. NOT just a "buzzword".

I imagine that sealover would have answered if there had been an actual question about the science involved.

Then again, some members may have already earned permanent ignore status.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HarveyH55 wrote:
Basically, you are promoting CFC charged aerosol cans, to spray sulfur compounds throughout the atmosphere, to cool the planet. A lot of species aren't liberal, and like a warmer environment. Are the proposed sulfur compounds safe, or will only be a small problem, for a few thousand species.

The planet is doing fine. It's been handling keep us alive, a whole lot longer than liberal alarmist.

Or is this sort of an advanced warning, that your Comrade Vlad is going to cause a nuclear winter soon?
07-06-2023 02:24
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection

What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming?

The answer may surprise you.

Natural aerosols have always existed.

Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation.

Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud.

Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming.

There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming.
07-06-2023 02:25
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Shifting Geography of Global Dimming

There was a time when most of the world's anthropogenic aerosol emissions originated from North America or Europe.

The geography of global dimming was a consequence of its point of origin.

The north Atlantic, for example.

For more than a century, until the late 1970s, aerosol emissions from Europe caused significant dimming over the north Atlantic.

When European countries took measures to significantly reduce aerosol emissions, there was significantly less dimming over the north Atlantic.

Unprecedented drought in Africa has been attributed to this change.

Other places that didn't use to emit so many aerosols are now major emitters.

The newest shift in global dimming geography is over the Indian Ocean.

India finally got to contribute her fair share of pollution to the atmosphere.

At least this will relieve some of the coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

by by

[quote]sealover wrote:
Global Dimming - The Cosmic Ray Connection

What do cosmic rays have to do with global dimming?

The answer may surprise you.

Natural aerosols have always existed.

Aerosols, natural or anthropogenic, have always been able to cause nucleation of cloud droplet formation.

Cosmic rays can interact with the aerosols and droplets to enhance formation of many very small droplets in a more highly reflective cloud.

Periods of history with more cosmic ray activity have included more global dimming.

There was a time when this finding was distorted to claim that cosmic rays, or lack thereof, were responsible for the alleged anthropogenic global warming.
07-06-2023 02:26
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Global Dimming, Albedo, and Evaporative Cooling.

Anthropogenic global dimming is a major counterbalance to anthropogenic global warming.

Not enough to STOP global warming, but enough to SLOW IT WAY DOWN.

Global dimming influences how much of the visible light entering the atmosphere actually reaches the earth's surface.

Fun fact - In tropical countries they don't need greenhouses to keep plants warm enough. But you often see black net mesh structures used to provide a little shade for plant nurseries. Blocking just enough sunlight with the black mesh netting improves the growth of the seedlings, compared to direct sunlight, regardless of whether or not it is a "shade tolerant" species or not. The sun wasn't nearly as bright when photosynthesis first evolved as it is today.

But what happens to the visible sunlight that does NOT get blocked by global dimming when it reaches the surface?

It depends a lot on ALBEDO and EVAPORATIVE COOLING.

Albedo is term used to quantify how much visible light is reflected by a surface.

Dark surfaces have low albedo. White or light colored surfaces have high albedo. It is no secret that a black tee shirt gets hotter than a white one when you are out in the sun.

Human activity has changed the albedo of the earth's surface in many places.

Snow and ice used to be the most reflective surfaces on earth.

Dark soot from human activity has darkened the ice and snow, causing it to absorb more visible light, transform it into heat, and melt the ice more rapidly.

Humans have cleared much of the earth's natural forest cover for agriculture.

The albedo of barren soil, especially after drying, is much higher than the albedo of a green leaf. That land now absorbs more visible light to transform into heat.

The deforested site now reflects back more visible light.

Did that make it COOLER? NO. Just the opposite.

It was ten or twenty degrees cooler before they cleared the forest.

How does higher albedo result in higher temperature? It doesn't.

The difference is evaporative cooling.

The leaves of the forest were transpiring a lot of water before the forest was cleared. The dark, low albedo leaves were absorbing the visible light and transforming it into heat. But most of the heat was consumed by the evaporation of water as the leaves transpired it.

A standing body of water does the same thing, but not nearly as well.

Sunlight hits the water, visible light is transformed into heat, and there is cooling.

But that cooling is limited by how much surface area of water contacts the atmosphere.

Within the leaves of a tree shading 100 square meters of soil surface, there are orders of magnitude more surface area than 100 square meters of standing water. Much more evaporative cooling from trees than from standing water.

What happens to the heat that is removed from the earth's surface by evaporative cooling?

That heat is released somewhere else later, when the water vapor condenses back to liquid water. This heat is typically released far from the earths surface, and much of it radiates back out to space.

Without evaporative cooling, the surface would be a LOT warmer.

As the sun's increasing luminosity caused more and more of the water on Venus to evaporate, warmer water vapor was lost to outer space, little by little.

Venus was already steam sauna while there was still water on the surface.

Once the last of the water was lost to outer space, there was no more evaporative cooling on Venus. No more clouds of water to block incoming light either. That's when the steam sauna became an oven.
07-06-2023 02:30
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
[quote]sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion
RE: The counterbalance to global warming01-05-2024 17:10
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.


---------------------------------------------------

This past year was an odd one for the tug-of-war between global warming and global dimming, and it was a lose-lose.

Global warming got an unexpected boost from a massive plume of water vapor from an undersea volcano, some of which shot all the way into outer space.

Water vapor is the weakest of greenhouse gases, but enough of it can make a big difference with a big enough increase in its concentration, however temporary.

Global dimming got an unexpected reduction as what began as a devastating fire season got dampened before it reached its peak.

All that extra water vapor (from the undersea volcano) caused more rain at a time when wildfires would have been at their worst.

So, the models seriously underestimated how quickly the temperature would rise.

This put global warming ahead of schedule.

One more point about global dimming.

On 9-11, Nearly all airline flights over the US were cancelled for a day.

With less dimming from the jet exhaust plumes, temperatures increased by about 1 degree.
01-05-2024 23:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
sealover wrote: This past year was an odd one for the tug-of-war between global warming and global dimming, and it was a lose-lose.

There was no tug-o-war between any two undefined things.

sealover wrote: Global warming got an unexpected boost from a massive plume of water vapor from an undersea volcano, some of which shot all the way into outer space.

No such event happened.

sealover wrote: Water vapor is the weakest of greenhouse gases,

There is no such thing as greenhouse effect, and thus there is no such thing as greenhouse gas. The idea that you are somehow a scientist is absurd.

sealover wrote: but enough [undefined buzzword] can make a big [undefined] difference

I totally get it.

sealover wrote: Global dimming got an unexpected reduction as what began as a devastating fire season got dampened before it reached its peak.

It wasn't devastating. Fire seasons happen every fire season. The one to which you are referring was particularly smokey. That does not make it "devastating."

sealover wrote: All that extra water vapor (from the undersea volcano) caused more rain at a time when wildfires would have been at their worst.

There was the normal amount of rain.

sealover wrote: So, the models seriously underestimated how quickly the temperature would rise.

There are no "the models."

sealover wrote: This put global warming ahead of schedule.

Not only is there no schedule, there doesn't seem to be any global warming.

sealover wrote: One more point about global dimming.

You haven't made any points thus far; you can't somehow make one more.

sealover wrote: On 9-11, Nearly all airline flights over the US were cancelled for a day. With less dimming from the jet exhaust plumes, temperatures increased by about 1 degree.

Why should any rational adult believe this obvious crap?
11-05-2024 00:44
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down this page.

The "wildfire" thread discussion of the "cooling effect" of smoke from wildfires inspired this newest barrage in the spam attack.




"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
11-05-2024 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No. An old buzzword.
sealover wrote:
No discussion about the science of climate change

There is no 'science of climate change'. Climate cannot change. The Church of Global Warming denies and discards science.
sealover wrote:
would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
The data makes no sense without it.

There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

It's an old buzzword.
sealover wrote:
I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

You deny and discard science.
sealover wrote:
"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

You cannot destroy energy into nothing. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
Then it went back to rising temperatures.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
sealover wrote:
But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Not necessary for cloud formation.
sealover wrote:
Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

Not necessary for cloud formation.
sealover wrote:
In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

No difference.
sealover wrote:
These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again and quantum mechanics.
sealover wrote:
Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.

Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-05-2024 19:07
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning half way down this page.

The "wildfire" thread discussion of the "cooling effect" of smoke from wildfires inspired this newest barrage in the spam attack.

"You cannot destroy energy into nothing." - Into the Night

No, I cannot. I don't think ANYONE can.

However, SHADE can prevent light from from reaching the surface.

Without "destroying" any energy into "nothing", shade can result in lower temperature at the surface.



"Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?

No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

The data makes no sense without it.

Global dimming is NOT a brand new "buzzword".

I'm getting pretty old, and I remember it well as a young science student.

"Nuclear winter".

Past mass extinction events.

The written historic record.

Crop failures in China pinpoint the year of the big volcanic eruption that ended the Minoan civilization.

The sky grew so dark for a year that crops froze in China.

By the time people invented thermometers they had more proof.

Krakatoa (probably not spelled right), east of Java.

When that volcano blew, there were cold-induced crop failures far and wide.

And there was temperature data showing that it really got COLDER that year.

More recently, temperatures were rising fast at the end of the 80s, early 90s.

Then Mt Pinatubo blew its top. It got COLDER that year world wide.

Then it went back to rising temperatures.

But those 1990s temperatures would have risen even FASTER without the enhanced GLOBAL DIMMING caused by rising emissions from China.

Some of global dimming is caused by the sun blocking effect of the anthropogenic emissions themselves.

Dark soot. Light absorbing sulfur compounds, etc.

But much of global dimming is caused by the effect of anthropogenic aerosols on cloud formation.

Aerosol particles provide a nucleus for droplet formation, as water droplets condense and form clouds.

In the presence of aerosols, clouds are comprised of much smaller droplets, in much larger numbers, than natural clouds.

These clouds are far more reflective, but not so great for providing rain.

Global dimming is such an important piece of the puzzle that it needs its own thread for a focused discussion.
13-05-2024 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
However, SHADE can prevent light from from reaching the surface.

There is no global shade. The Earth is more than the surface.
sealover wrote:
Without "destroying" any energy into "nothing", shade can result in lower temperature at the surface.

There is no global shade of the Earth.
sealover wrote:
No discussion about the science of climate change would be complete without global dimming being incorporated.

There is no science of 'climate change'. Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
The data makes no sense without it.

There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate "Global Dimming" - A Brand New "Buzzword"?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Rebirth Of Soviet Union Under A Better Version Brand Will Lead To World Peace524-01-2022 04:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact