Slashdot Mirror
More on Global Dimming
dtolman writes "According to the New York Times (registration required) if the world seemed brighter to our grandparents 50 years ago, they were right. While the sun's output hasn't dropped, the amount of sunshine reaching the Earth's surface has dropped an average of 10% since the 1950's. In Hong Kong, the sunlight reaching the surface has decreased even more - 37%! Scientists are theorizing that this is mainly due to air pollution - so this trend might reverse if air pollution clears up." We had a another story on global dimming last year.
For a second there, I was under the impression that this was a study on the intelligence of humans.
*whew*
Here is a copy of the exact same news story that does not require a registration link.
Stories like this are typically SYNDICATED, which means that you can find the exact same thing in 50 or so other newspapers, right?
Why, oh why, do people choose to link to a page that requires registration when it's totally unnecessary?
Finally, does this remind anyone else of the Animatrix, on how the skies were darkened to stop the machines?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
In the area i live alone, my father has remarked several times in the last five years how either his eyes have gotten used to the sun after almost sixty years, or that things are a lot dimmer -- he used to wear Blueblockers religiously but now doesn't even keep a pair around.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
Before anybody asks the question we know you want to ask:
There's heat, and then there's visible light. They ain't the same thing.
Just because it's "dimmer" doesn't mean it isn't getting warmer.
There, I feel better.
We can fix global warming by polluting the atmosphere more? Too good to be true. What's the catch?
Table-ized A.I.
...than Anonymous Coward First Posts.
So does this mean that if we cleaned up the air, we would get more sunlight and more skin cancer because we've already done damage to the ozone?
Every few years this gets brought up. There was an article in the June 94 sci american about it. The topic is a bit of a yawner anyway.
I'm buying as many shares of Duracell and EverReady as I can this afternoon!
...the day after tomorrow. Next time an asteroid movie comes out, expect plenty of articles about about that in the media.
Future not so bright, shades no longer required.
I don't see why this is a problem. The day has been brighter and darker in the past, so it's normal for earth and we shouldn't bother to worry about the pollution causing it.
Maybe the Matrix is just loosing power and the sun is not really there. So in 100 more years we will have a blackout and have to reset the matrix?
If firefighters fight fire and crime fighters fight crime, what do Freedom fighters fight?
more on global dimming here
Ok ... so less light is reaching the surface than did 50 years ago though the energy output has remained relatively the same. Is it safe to assume that the energy is being absorted by pollution and thus heating the planet?
Is the surface of the earth really receiving less light, or are we just better at measuring it?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Maybe old peoples' eyesight is getting worse.
Quick! Invest in lightbulb manufacturers!
Well, this puts the moderators in a little moral dilemna, doesn't it?
An unrelated, but similar phonomenon is that of the effect of jet contrails on temperature. You can read about it here. The study used the period after 9/11 when all flights in North America were grounded for a few days. An interesting read.
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
doesn't mean it ain't true. The only question in my mind is: are humans actually getting dumber, or is technology increasing the consequences of our inanity?
It's a heck of a lot worse to, say, invade a country on another continent than to attack a neighboring village.
Plants get their energy from the sun's light. Insufficient light means no plants. No plants means no food. (Meat isn't plants, but it's powered by plants, so no plants, no meat either.)
One unfortunate thing about polution is that the wind blows it everywhere. A coal factory darkens the skies in antartica no matter if it's location is in Denver, Stockholm, or Bejing.
Isn't global dimming a good thing? Sunlight isn't exactly compatible with the nerd life...
To all those eco-freaks, it's not pollution. It's mood lighting.
In some areas, air quality has improved since the 1950's. When I grew up in Los Angeles, there was a lot more pollution than now. Does that mean the sun should be brighter there than in the past?
to make sure that solar energy will never be cost-effective. Clever, but diabolical.
"I picked a bad day to quit sniffing glue." Sorry...had to be done.
The Italian navigator has reached the New World and the natives are friendly.
On a more serious note, try a search for '"september 11" contrails' on a search engine. It was established that due to the absence of contrails in the air, more sunlight reached the USA, and it even warmed up a little as a result over the 3-4 days.
Could still be a fluke, but the chances of that are phenomenally low.
Global Cooling
Acid Rain
Global Warming
Global Dimming
http://www.junkscience.com
------
I have not yet begun to procrastinate!
I did a google search for info on Global Dimming and found this but the site seems down.
I can not find any other info
Is this for real? Or is it like Global Warming - it is happening, but _NOT_ because of humans?
My view of the future just got darker...
So, after the ice age coming back, global warming destroying us, acid rain eating us and the oil supply being exhausted by 2010 I take science headlines with a grain of salt. The fact that this is from the NY Times just furthers my suspicion. That paper has destroyed its reputation over the years.
One thing that folks have to realize is that scientists are people. They get happy and sad, they are humble and proud, and they lie, steal, cheat and grab for headlines as reagularly as any normal person would.
This is not to discredit the publishers of this work, but to remind us all that headlines like this pop up often amount to a new natural trend or in the very rare case, us acctually damaging the environment in a way that it isn't designed to cope with.
I mention this because our geek culture has a way of worshiping the words of scientists and as a result some amusing lies have drifted in and out of school text books and around our little digital communities. Trust no one. The truth is out there. Now will I get sued by Fox or the aliens over Mexico??? Hmmm...
Sam
At first I thought this topic was about world-wide education problems.
Table-ized A.I.
So... global warming and lots of toxic clouds. We're turning into Venus!
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
No one loves you. How does it feel?
things are still shining bright. The workers are, at least, and that's good enough for me. AND, I wear my sun glasses at night, so I can, so I can, see you even when I close my eyes.
Personally I don't like sunlight, plants, or flowers, so look forward to a perpetually twilight world. What's the poem the android recites at the end when he's dying after trying to kill Logan? Something about tears and rain.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
Got a sunburn yesterday.
Maybe the earth is trying to protect itself from all the wild fires, etc..
Ultimately all of our energy comes from the sun, and solar power (wind included) contributes the least pollution to the atmosphere. It's like the fossil fuels are directly hurting the competition. Cutting the output of solar cells 10% is like setting them back years. Strange.
It's gotta be the Greys, dude.
The Italian navigator has reached the New World and the natives are friendly.
Ok, so scientists are pissed off about the following things:
1) Global warming: It's getting hotter!
2) Global dimming: It's getting darker!
3) Global light pollution: It's too bright at night!
4) Global noise pollution: It's too noisy!
Why don't we all stop bemoaning all the crap that's supposed to have killed us within 10 years over the past 50 years and just get back to doing something useful with our time. Measuring fractions of changes on a global scale is like stating that my Linux server crashed because of the price of tea in China yesterday! Sheesh.
Google link here
7680 MB Disk,192 GB Transfer,
No, that would be the Global Blackout study.
--- Ban humanity.
This just seemed to have even more relevance than ever before...
"The prolonged barrage engulfed Zero-One in the glow of a thousand suns. But unlike their former masters with their delicate flesh, the machines had little to fear of the bombs' radiation and heat. Thus did Zero-One's troops advance outwards in every direction. And one after another, mankind surrendered its territories. So the leaders of men conceived of their most desperate strategy yet. A final solution: the destruction of the sky"
The Animatrix
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson
> Scientists are theorizing that this is mainly due to air pollution...
Well, since air pollution has been reduing over the last 50 years (due to scrubbers in coal plants, cleaner cars, etc.), that's probably not the case.
More likely the cause is the growth of jet air traffic, the contrails of which have already been shown to affect the weather.
See: 9/11 study: Air traffic affects climate
I thought were were doing seti on the universe to find intelligence, since there obviously was none here?
wake up and hold your nose
Cheaper is better. If you get the same thing for a lot less money, it s much better deal.
"Maybe when you graduate from school and have to work for a living, you'll get it."
Yes. Maybe then I will be filled with a racist jealousy of those who work better than myself.
Off Topic, .head!
Because of pollution, not only are more X-rays and UV getting through, increasing the rates of skin cancer and other problems, but we've also reduced the actual amount of visible light reaching the earth???
Wow... why screw up only one thing, when you can screw up two at no extra cost?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If only air pollution would just clear up by itself, then we'd all be happy. Heaven forbid that anyone should have to actually do anything to clear up pollution. That might actually require thought, effort and sacrifice.
So this doesn't impact global warming? It seems to me that this would have a serious impact on weather and heat across the globe?
Dan Mayer: my blog, essays, art, etc
So how many years before Highlander 2?...
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
This from Environmental History Timeline:
1661 -- John Evelyn writes "Fumifugium, or the Inconvenience of the Aer and Smoake of London Dissipated" to propose remedies for London's air pollution problem. These include large public parks and lots of flowers. http://users.synflux.com.au/~ant/Evelyn/fumifug.h
"The immoderate use of, and indulgence to, sea-coale in the city of London exposes it to one of the fowlest inconveniences and reproaches that can possibly befall so noble and otherwise incomparable City... Whilst they are belching it forth their sooty jaws, the City of London resembles the face rather of Mount Aetna, the Court of Vulcan... or the suburbs of Hell [rather] than an assembly of rational creatures..."
In his diary, Evelyn writes in 1684 that smoke was so severe "hardly could one see across the street, and this filling the lungs with its gross particles exceedingly obstructed the breast, so as one would scarce breathe."
And this from Air Pollution:
In the Middle Ages London air was so polluted by smoke from coal fires that in 1273 Edward I passed a law banning coal burning in an attempt to curb smoke emissions. In 1306 a Londoner was tried and executed for breaking this law. Despite this, pollution was not checked, and on one occasion in 1578 Elizabeth I refused to enter London because there was so much smoke in the air. Smoke killed vegetation and ruined clothes, and the acid in it corroded buildings.
I always wondered if this early pollution may have contributed to Europe's mini-ice age
I'm certain it can get even darker.
...every hour to monitor my stocks and commodities. It would download the latest prices every hour. But they suddenly changed the format that the data was represented in and they occasionally added extra significant digits to the prices. Most commodities went through fine but when it reached Chinese tea the extra digit caused a buffer overrun in my code and it went into an infinite loop. The problem is, my cron job was expecting to see a return code, and when it didn't get one, due to a bug in my script it kept spawning new copies of the process in an attempt to get one. Basically I had a fork bomb and it brought my Linux server to a crashing halt...
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
They convinced everyone that wearing sunglasses indoors and at night was "cool".
You can add the word "global" to any phrase and people will start panicking.... Try it some time..
That previous story on Slashdot included Dimming's relation to Warming - in particular, scientists suspect Mars lost its water in a disastrous event called a "Hot Spot," where one point in the ocean reaches so high a temperature that it begins evaporating so fast it actually magnifies the sun's heating effect at that surface point - causing nearly all the ocean to leave the planet through that spot.
Dimming was suggested as the reason this has not occurred - that although heat is up, average sun exposure to the surface is down, and so, evaporation is down too. The net effect is a constant level of evaporation despite rising temps.
So - is Dimming the buffer that keeps the Earth alive during times of Global Warming? Or is it possible to lose Dimming and keep Warming, rendering us as waterless as Mars? Or, is the Hot Spot theory just hot air in the first place?
Also, according to this site, phyto-plankton basically use sun as their food source, like plants, and act as food sources for the other sea animals... This could impact whole ecosystems!!
You're supposed to mod the post at hand regardless of other posts the author has posted.
... I thought everything was in monochrome.
Pollute more! It will prevent global warming! :P
Proof of global cooling! Those plates are loosing head though convection. Since the sun doesn't vary greatly in radiation output, the only explanation for this is global cooling.
I propose they give me millions of dollors for research into how we can heat our planet back up.
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
Lots of other locations are carrying a related story, Is 'global dimming' under way? By Robert S. Boyd.
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
you can sign up for an Indie-Mail (link in sig) account without an existing e-mail account and without giving any private information.
What information you give the NY Times is up to you.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Damn, you're right.
Global slacking off is imminent!
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
We need Mario! That's what we need! He can go around cleaning up glop, and collecting Shines, thus increasing the output of our sun!
Shine Get!
According to Snopes, the Anonymous Coward parent is correct. Maybe. But, who cares?
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
This single utopic sentence should have told you it's only unrealistic babble.
is this why they sent those solar-powered rovers to mars instead of earth?
Physicists have theorized that the speed of light is slowing down.
I wonder how much of an effect that would have on the amount of light reaching the earth.
I know I do for sure.
:)
Maybe it's just my very light blue eyes, maybe it's the fact that I've worn shades anytime I'm outside for the last 3 years, maybe I did waaaaaay too many sheets of LSD in my youth.
Who knows...
I DO know that I don't go outside without shades or else I experience physical pain in my eyes.
The fact that an article is posted saying the light I see is (on average) 10% dimmer than
what my ancestors saw is not encouraging to me for some reason.
UV-blocking Shades should have been invented sooner
Some of the light bounces off soot particles in the air and back into outer space.
I, for one, welcome the arrival of our extraterrestrial overlords, now that they can see us more easily.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
At least now maybe those pesky plants will quit putting out so much of that troublesome oxygen I keep hearing about.
Well I live in florida, where the sun is ALWAYS shining. Keep the polution coming!
Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.
Is it safe to assume that the energy is being absorted by pollution and thus heating the planet?
Safe if you want to make an ass out of yourself. Is the pollution absorbing the solar energy? Or causing more of it to be reflected back into space, thereby cooling the planet?
It's not safe to assume either case; get cold hard facts!
"Teens4Christ is not a trolling group, but all will come to know our name none the less."
There is already enough porn on the web as it is so no thanks.
I wonder if this is a precusor to seeing the "water canopy" return, in addition to "global warming". It'd be nice to have an overall mediterranean climate with less glaring light. Granted, that would likely result in the US not being the world's 'bread basket' but for more universal food production capabilities...
:)
Also, along that note: has anyone noticed that the sun burns significantly more now than it did several years ago? Or is it just me and my hyper-sensitive skin, as influenced by prolonged lack of sunlight?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I've seen everything I feel like I needed to see anyways.
By the time that I get out of work, I never get to see it. Plus bright sunshine hurts my eyes.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
First "global warming and now "global dimming."
We're getting cozy, dimming the lights...all we need is "global barry white" and -- BAM -- human population explosion at your service.
Actually the Mini Ice age in Europe was caused by a large Volcanic eruption in the south pacific. There is sedement and recent volcanic rock in the pacific to prove it as well.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The folks in Pittsburgh during industrialization are familiar with the loss of sunlight. So were those in London and Manchester in England during industrialization there. The "English Disease", or rickets, resulted from low levels of vitamin D production due to a lack of sunlight attributable in part to (1) long working hours out of the sun and (2) particulate pollution from burning coal.
An interesting book that deals, in part, with that is Coal: A Human History. Also available here or from your local library.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Global Dimming is obviously a plot by the oil companies to make sure that solar power is never a viable option.
...so why is this on slashdot anyway? :P
ascii art
The idea of global dimming runs counter to my experience. If I spend more than 5 minutes outside I must have my sunglasses. Without them my eyes become irritated and fatigued. This gives me the impression that the world is getting brighter. Perhaps there is more UV getting past the ozone and irritating my eyes while the "bright sunshine" is being deflected by the polution. So maybe the world is getting dimmer while at the same time being cooked by more and harmful UV rays.
And London's pretty much the same as it ever was. ;-)
this sort of air pollution, however, was isolated in scope. there's other cities that have had pollution problems (more commonly water, dumping sewage into the river), but the phenomenon of people producing so much pollution that it impacts the climate on a global scale is a comparatively new thing.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
I'm busy, posting AC because I don't have time, nor the inclination, to deal with government shills and disinfo agents, or luddite ridiculous trolls who never go outside, and who have no long term memory of what it used to look like some years ago in the sky.
You can also find out the government buys mega boat loads of aluminum oxide, and a lot of it disappears into a black hole. I spent weeks before every evening tracking this, it's REAL.
Some is used for abrasives, some in munitions, but a lot of it just slides into "you can't go there" government websites. It's used to spray with, using this technique, from tankers. some are reserve air force tankers, some are apaprently government contractors. One private name, that is really a front company, is easy to get to. If a tree isn't deciduous it's
Air samples have been taken all over the nation. The stuff is there, in huge quantities. And it's frequently sprayed directly in front of the cool weather side of approaching fronts. Look then and there, you might see it happening.
Note, I am NOT saying every single contrail you see is purposeful spraying,I want to be clear on that, but you can see when it happens, its quite different, and the persistance is usually a good give away. These sorts of persistant trails were extrmeley rare years ago, they were so rare you hardly saw them. Now, that isn't true.
Merely LOOKING in some government servers gets you noticed by various intel agencies when you are trying to research this. They become quite interested in getting inside your box. It's pretty useless now, they went on an extensive web clean up project to memory hole any easily found evidence. The bulk of the online official type smoking gun evidence has been moved or pulled, mostly by 99, because it really leaked hard in 98. Remnants remain, this being just one of them.
Anyone can just deal with it, it's real, it's been going on for several years now, the evidence is overwhelming. Normal contrails don't exist at low altitude, low humdity, high heat, and they certainly don't last for hours and hours. So no trolls with atmospheric contrails 101, we all know about that, this is quite different.
Energy facts shows more info.
From the Article:Very small particles of dust, called aerosols, are released into the atmosphere by natural processes such as volcanoes, as well as human activities such as the combustion of wood or coal. These small particles reflect incoming solar radiation, thus having a cooling effect on the earth's temperature. The cold weather experienced over much of North America in the summer of 1992 was blamed on the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which released a great amount of dust into the atmosphere.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
so this trend might reverse if air pollution clears up.
Well, lets see there is less light, and probably heat too. That isnt going to really help matters, people will just use more electricity to compensate. That translates to more pollution.
Oh dear it looks like we are all doomed.
nick..
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Well, the sunlight may be dimming but we are more than making up for it with the amount of light that we are putting out at night.
Take a look at some of the satellite images here.
Seems to me that one of the largest concerns is that plant life will be receiving less light which would obviously decrease the amount photosyntesis that occurs. That would mean less oxygen and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And where is the tipping point be between less photosynthesis and a massive dying off of plants and trees? Scary to think about.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Sincerely,
Dim Sun Geeks
When I went to India 6 years ago, we went to a place called Mount Abu in the northwestern part of the country in the Gujarat state. When you get up there, you CAN'T see the valley surrounding it. It's sickening. It looks like you are on an island surrounded by an ocean. Then again, the entire SE Asian continent is under a consistent smog. One of my flights was also delayed a half hour because of pollution. Yeah, so it wasn't so bright there. And it took my lungs more than a month to recover after I got back (and kissed the ground).
"Europe enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far to the north. Rainfall may have been 10 to 15 percent greater than now. Not only was the country less subject to severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days, sunnier." Ok we in the present have trouble predicting the weather accurately for tomorrow, how the "f**K does this guy know there were less severe thunder storms and what not? Not to mention accurate weather records only go back to a little over a hundred years. Sounds like a bunch of crock to me.
Who cares that you are giving away personal information to gain access to free information? After all the NYT went to the enormous effort of putting this info on their web page.
Don't worry about face recognition systems in airports or national ID cards; the authorities in conjunction with MultiHumongoConglomerated Corp have your best interests in mind. Just be happy knowing that everything will be a lot easier if you just give up all your personal info at the drop of a hat.
Maxwell anyone? Remembering some of my physics:
If it is generating heat and not light then as I understand it, it is black body radiation.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
...wake up with a hang over and be required to drive somewhere.
Yes, that's what trolls do. Build up their karma by posting obvious semi-sensible posts and troll like crazy. Just like this guy has.
So of course, one should look at the posting history before modding someone up/down. Only that way we can stop the stupid trolling.
It depends on the nature of the particles and where exactly in the atmosphere they are located. It also depends on what you measure the temperature of. So, yes, you can get either effect from particulates, clouds, etc.
That's why I said it may be getting warmer because...; I did not claim that they necessarily and always lead to warming.
but didnt a whole group of scientists prove that there is actually LESS pollution in the air than at the start of the 20th century... if thats so then how could they relate the dimming to pollution if studys show the airs cleaner?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Speaking as one whose eyes are VERY sensitive to bright light (such as that found here in SoCal) I am all for global dimming.
The only problem I have with the theory is this: If it's getting darker, why do I still squint while driving my way to work under cloudless, pristine blue skies? Shouldn't Los Angeles, that allegedly smog-clogged city be darker rather than lighter? Would t'were so. Every day I arrive at work with a blazing headache, my eyes feeling like they're going to pop from the pressure.
It's makes me a doubter. I am not a scientist, but I can see with my eyes that things are getting brighter, not dimmer, and I don't need a degree for that. Does anyone ever do any actual fact-checking, or does ever wild theory that sounds good get posted?
The US contains 4 % of the total world population and is behind 25 % of the world's total green house gases production.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Yeah, I had the same experience after a 2day bender when I got home in the morning. Couldn't stand daylight without glasses...
What a whacked-out site. You, sir or madam, have been sucked in. And what do all these things have in common? Proposed solutions or mitigation measures could have an impact upon those who put profit above all other considerations.
The way we live now is unsustainable. Sorry if you can't adapt, but things are going to change - voluntarily and gradually, or more quickly and catastrophically. Ideological ostriches disguising themselves as rational voices of scientific dissent aren't helping matters.
Acid rain as junk science... please. Look into Dave Schindler's research some time - there's a reason he was just awarded a million-dollar prize for contributions to the good of humanity.
Posts like yours leave me lost somewhere between pity for the dupes, anger at those who should know better, disgust for the politicians who let it happen, and sadness at our long-term prospects. I normally close with "cheers!", but I can't bring myself to add it here.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
The kind that converts UV rays to visible light!
The reduction in crop yields is especially severe in China, which is now importing an ever-larger share of the world's wheat and grain exports. This is driving inflationary pressures in foodstuffs, with follow-through pressures on crop-derived foods, such as grain-fed animals. In short (and coupled with increasing oil costs, partly driven also by China's voracious appetite), this is why pizza cheese prices are skyrocketing, with important implications for late-night open-source development
Longer term, this might be an ideal time to lock in some wheat and pork-belly futures at low prices...
The interested reader is directed here:
Da Blog
Think about it, more heat in the atmosphere in the summer, warmer summers.
Less light in the winter, colder winters.
Be interesting to see if that held true, or any other reasonable affect could be shown be the increase of light scattering or absorbing material in the atmosphere.
I also wonder if the increase is in scattering particles, absorbing particles, or a mix of the two. (And how those ratios affect the weather!)
I see a pretty good Phd thesis here if one hasn't been done already.
Mr Burns- "for years, man has yurned to rid this world of its greatest enemy, I call this enemy, the Sun".
We're clearly erring on the side of more pollution, and I think it is high time we step up Ozone-depleting emissions. Otherwise, we will continue to receive less and less sunlight.
In other words, the solution to pollution is the increased usage of CFCs. Q. E. D.
Note for the humor-impaired: the above is satire. You know, tongue-in-cheek, haw-haw, funny?
That's qbasic if ever I saw it.
I agree. Every time I accidentally leave my sunglasses at a friend's house or something, I feel like a fucking vampire when I go outside and can't stand the bright light. And this is in southern California, where air pollution is a way of life.
the phenomenon of people producing so much pollution that it impacts the climate on a global scale is a comparatively new thing
It's so new, it hasn't even happened yet!
The only evidence my Bile shows me is that I shouldn't have eaten that.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
At least i don't have to get "global drunk" or buy a "global drink". Think of the bar tab.
javascript:void(window.open('http://bugmenot.com/v iew.php?mode=bookmarklet&url='+escape(location),'B ugMeNot','location=no,status=yes,menubar=no,scroll bars=yes,resizable=yes,width=385,height=450'))
For some reason, /. rendered part of it as 'B ugMeNot' so remove that space between the B and the u after pasting. Or just get the code from BugMeNot.com.
When you arrive at a site like NYT, simply click the button you created. This will pop up a window with a login for the site you are currently at, if they have one listed for that site. If not, you will be encouraged to create one (just use a throw-away hotmail account if the site generates and sends the password; if you get to create your own password, then don't bother with the hotmail account).
Viva anarchy!
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
Yes, other people have looked at the problem of aerosolized pollution reducing crop yields. The interested reader is directed here:
Da Blog
Instead of getting your "facts" from Fox Lies, why not check out some real science concerning the issue?
The interested reader is directed here: Earlier here.
Da Blog
You don't think atmospheric scientists studying the effects of aerosolized pollution are fully aware of the limitations of their instruments and have incorporated some fudge factors and compensatory effects into the deductions? Why not check out some real science concerning the issue, look at how they correct for and acknowledge measuring instrument deficiencies, and how they reach their conclusions?
The interested reader is directed here:
Da Blog
*adds another reason to the "imaginary" board of why we will all die*
I have like 20 reasons now.
Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
And reducing the direct radiation to the surface also produces measurable effects on crop yields, which can and have been analyzed. This provides a seperate, falisifiable experimental concordance.
The interested reader is directed here:
Da Blog
Damn straight! The interested reader is directed here:
Da Blog
...then the reflected heat might cancel out the loss in solar radiation hitting the surface, eh?
Lower solar input getting to plants means slowed plant growth, and that means it's now an average of 10% harder to grow food (naturally and outdoors) than it used to be. Ouch. I bet the solar input issue alone is slowly preventing some plants from growing in regions where they used to. There's other factors, sure, but this is just one more.
Thanks, scientists! I'll sell my midsize and buy a second SUV immediately!
As a Kuwaiti Sheik I thank you for using lots more oil than necessary. Please, continue to drive 50 miles to work alone in your SUV, use as much double plastic bags when shopping and plastic utensils from takeout food places as you can, and take lots of cross-country flights so you can get a free flight to Hawaii from your frequent-flyer miles. I thank you, my heirs thank you, and my entire country thanks you.
But to use these misrepresentations to discredit the scientists that actually do the work is just stupid. I think you are mixing personal life with scientific work.
One may cheat on her significant other while doing "overtime lab hours", but that does not automatically invalidate her scientific findings.
And as the other poster pointed out your wording is rather questionable. It could easily misinterpreted as accusing scientists in general of lying, stealing and cheating as part of their work. I do not worship. I verify.
I find your unfounded generalisations offensive.
Tell me one, just one, "lie" that has entered any reputable schoolbook.
Code is Speech. No to Censorship.
Mod me as a troll if you want but is this really science or more junk science? I say it's all bunk. "Still, the dimming trend -- noticed by a handful of scientists two decades ago, but dismissed at the time as unbelievable -- is now attracting wide attention." How can they prove this, a bunch of sensors and about 50 years of collecting data? Most "scientists" don't take the time to account for natural events and/or disasters such as forest fires, volcanoes, etc. Nope I don't believe this "dimming" crap one bit. All some "scientists" want is recognition for bull crap junk science that doesn't mean anything.
While I'm at it...let's not forget the enviro-terrorists that claim the theory of "Global Warming" is true. One thing I've noticed is that people talking about the environment tend to make things up as they go. If environmentalists were really looking after the environment they wouldn't....Use/buy computers, TVs, cars, clothes, food, burn or use any sort of fuel, etc. Nope, can't use solar cells or windmills, dams, etc. Environmentalists shouldn't build fires unless there's a natural one burning already...and so on...
Anyway...I still say it's all bull crap and junk science.
-=GuestFox=-
Don't insult my penis ex^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSUV or I'll drive over you and turn you into road kill y'all.
I have a paper that says different. Both model-based and measurement-based analysis yield similar, comparitive results and effects stemming from the radiation diffusive properties of aerosolized particulates in the atmosphere - including SO2, H20, etc. Read this, then get back to me. Summary:
Da Blog
Yes, you're right.
Summary:
Da Blog
Moderators! Double u, tee, ehf. Seriously. I couldn't believe I was reading this. +5 Interesting? Honestly. Has the readership denounced itself to 8 year olds. I know there happens to be poor comments every now and again, but at least they obfuscate the poor use of logic. This is like the most obvious thing in the world. If you look around people get older, they are dying, slowly. Their organs are breaking down. Many lose their license because their vision is not proper for it. I really didn't realize the readership here not only never left their rooms, but also never had a grandparent!
Looking at a monitor all day causes problems with the muscles of the iris. It's a constant light level, so the muscles just sit there at the same dilation and their range of pain-free motion is reduced.
Yeah, maybe, but on the other hand back then everything was just black and white!
OK, what you say is true, but that shows the lame logic that is too common with global warming advocates. Any time there is evidence for global warming, they take it as proof. Any time there is evidence against it, they dismiss it as meaningless.
When there are record high temperatures, it is proof of global warming. When there are record low temperatures, it is an aberration.
Global warming could be a problem, but you have to assess the situation rationally.
Qxe4
...brightness will be negative.
Maybe the reason isn't so much air pollution as it is spacial pollution, perhaps it is more likely that the Earth's "surface" is covered by man made things(buildings, mainly) 10% more than fifty years ago? It sounds stupid but I think my math is off. Please correct me.
Anyway...I still say it's all bull crap and junk science.
So it's basically you, an anonymous internet crank, on one side, and reputable scientists on the other. Man, it's going to be TOUGH to decide who's more credible on this issue!
I don't care if the Sun gets dimmer. I mean, the fucking thing is a ball of FIRE. Why do I want a ball of FIRE hanging right up there, burning my skin?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
You're right, the poster you quoted was mistaking reflected and absorbed light. However, since there has already been a good deal of confusion in this series of posts, I should point out that using the phrase, "most energetic" will probably confuse many people.
The peak of the intensity (numbers of photons per unit area) versus wavelength curve is at the green wavelengths (around 500nm), but the energy per photon is h*(speed of light/wavelength).
The graph of intensity vs. wavelength here is useful. (Graph is halfway down the page. Divide by 10 to change from Angstroms to nanometers. Visible light is ~400 to 700 nm, with very blue at 400nm and very red at 700nm.) However, intensity is number of photons, not total energy, so the power vs. wavelength peak (energy contribution) is shifted to the left because shorter-wavelength photons have more energy (blue photons are more energetic than red).
Further info on photosynthesis is here.
Note that there is a blue absorption peak and a red absorption peak. For some reason, green is not absorbed, but looking at the energy versus wavelength graph instead of the intensity versus wavelength peak shows this isn't as bad as it sounds.
Previous posters have said this is a sign of a suboptimal solution, but ignores the fact that there are other factors involved in the optimization of plant leaf design besides light-gathering efficiency.
All this time we were worried about global warming. Its global cooling we should worry about.
Not sure exactly how much, but did confirm it has decreased over the last 50 years. And I know year to year can vary as much as 15%.
The earliest instance of environmental legislation
I am aware of was in York during the reign of
Mathilda, again regarding coal burning.
They're both the same you nimwit.
Nope, one is a rather large and slow PDF, the other a rather quick and precise HTML summary. Hence the attribution. You lost me at "nitwit" - I don't respond seriously to such rudeness.
Da Blog
It has long been assumed that the reason elderly people do more poorly at IQ tests is because IQ falls gradually as one ages, but Flynn showed that this isn't what is happening at all -- instead, the normalized tests have been getting harder! If given an old test, older people score just as well as younger people given a newer test.