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.

249 of 379 comments (clear)

  1. Almost had me by metlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    For a second there, I was under the impression that this was a study on the intelligence of humans.

    *whew*

    1. Re:Almost had me by x0n · · Score: 3, Funny

      Global Dimming is easy to explain:

      ' Globally dim cack.
      Dim cack
      cack = 5

      Sub PrintCack()
      Print cack
      End Sub

      - Oisin

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    2. Re:Almost had me by jo42 · · Score: 1

      It is...

      The total amount of intelligence in the world is a constant.

      The problem is there are more and more people...

    3. Re:Almost had me by Saucepan · · Score: 4, Informative
      For a second there, I was under the impression that this was a study on the intelligence of humans.
      No worries; humans have in fact been getting smarter.
    4. Re:Almost had me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Score: -1 VB Code

    5. Re:Almost had me by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      The total amount of intelligence is increasing. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be directly proportional to population. (At least, to me.)

      Reminds me of SMP and cluster performance wrt processor count.

    6. Re:Almost had me by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being smarter and acting smarter are two different things, however. Maybe humanity HAS been getting smarter, but everyone still acts like an idiot.

    7. Re:Almost had me by sckeener · · Score: 1

      Being smarter and acting smarter are two different things, however. Maybe humanity HAS been getting smarter, but everyone still acts like an idiot.

      Remind me to link back to this in November.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    8. Re:Almost had me by whats_a_zip · · Score: 1

      Well, the world may be getting smarter, but I'm not sure that holds true for Americans. Our TV culture and a whole generation that seems plagued with ADD/ADHD seems to indicate a downhill slide in this corner of the world.

    9. Re:Almost had me by x0n · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that, it's VBScript...

      --

      PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
    10. Re:Almost had me by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Funny

      That first human was a frikken genious then.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    11. Re:Almost had me by caseydk · · Score: 1



      Face it... to power our systems we're going to have to plug into humans.

      sincerely,
      the quad xeon down the hall

    12. Re:Almost had me by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Well, sometimes it's hard to act smart when you're stupid. But it's different the other way around. I'm a pretty intelligent individual, but when it comes to going out with friends and such, I can act like a moron. But everyone knows me for who I really am though, as I do not want people to actually think I am dumb.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
    13. Re:Almost had me by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

      Although the fact that people believe this crap is evidence to your assertion.

    14. Re:Almost had me by norsk_hedensk · · Score: 1

      seems plagued with ADD/ADHD SEEMS is the key word there. we are controlled by the pharmecutical companies, advertising firms (clearchannel...) and a few others we probably dont even know about....the world is run by greed and corruption!

    15. Re:Almost had me by jafuser · · Score: 1

      From the website: "The Flynn effect is the continued year-on-year rise of IQ test scores"
      How can IQ *rise everywhere*, when the system itself is based on relative measurement to the average?

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    16. Re:Almost had me by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Remind me to link back to this in November.

      Hey sckeener. Remember to link back to that in November.

      My job here is done.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  2. Frustrated by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Frustrated by Lando+Griffin · · Score: 1, Informative

      Most people first see the article in the New York Times rather than the Podunk Daily, so it makes sense that their links would point towards the larger site.

    2. Re:Frustrated by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      Finally, does this remind anyone else of the Animatrix, on how the skies were darkened to stop the machines?

      Heh, that remembers me one of the Murphy's law: don't attribute to malice (i.e. darkening the skies to kill sun-dependant machines) what can be explained by stupidity (i.e. letting the smog/contamination/etc steal our sun, kill us, etc)

    3. Re:Frustrated by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Flamebait

      There's an easy way to get the no-reg archive link so why link to a podunk newspaper when it's totally unnecessary?

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    4. Re:Frustrated by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      That was quoted by Heinlein(via Lazarus Long)...But he didn't give a source.

    5. Re:Frustrated by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why, oh why, do people choose to link to a page that requires registration when it's totally unnecessary? "

      Because most of us don't give a flying fuck and just registerred with them. Seeing as how they don't send spam etc, it's a small price to pay for a free service.

      This crusade against NYT is redudant, lame, and very tiring. More embarrasingly, they don't even check to see if you have a valid email. You want to complain about a site? Go glance around IGN.com. Bet you find at least 5 things to bitch about within the first 5 page loads.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:Frustrated by Lux · · Score: 1


      I don't know about any of that hippy "food chain" crap, but I say it's about time someone stuck it to those plants!

    7. Re:Frustrated by drakaan · · Score: 4, Informative
      That's known as Hanlon's Razor

      And you're probably thinking of Finagle's Law [of Dynamic Negatives]..."Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" (sometimes stated with the addition "and as soon as possible").

      Murphy's Law is "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it."

      Sorry for the extra info, but look at my tagling, for cryin out loud :)

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    8. Re:Frustrated by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you. So what about the registration? People should stop complaining about it. I use mozilla and once the page loads it already has the email address and password typed in for me. If people don't want to register, then they can go buy a print copy of the damn paper while I read it for free.

    9. Re:Frustrated by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      thank you

    10. Re:Frustrated by dtolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps because I read it on the front page of my physical New York Times first?

    11. Re:Frustrated by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      By the way, your blog has been spammed a great number of times. It's the first time I see this, it kind of sucks.

    12. Re:Frustrated by pla · · Score: 1

      it's a small price to pay for a free service

      Small != free.

      Now, in the case of the NYT, they have enough in-house content to make it worth registering (though I'll still give fake info as long as it remains possible). But very few localish news sites can make that claim. They post syndicated content and little else.


      Go glance around IGN.com. Bet you find at least 5 things to bitch about within the first 5 page loads.

      Nope. IGN publishes almost entirely original content. They don't require me to register to view that content. And between popup blocking and a decent hosts file, I don't even find their site all that annoying to navigate.

      Note the two key differences here - Mostly original content, and no registration for viewing typical FP content. The ads, well, I consider that another matter entirely, and if you want to call me greedy for blocking them, I can't really defend against that. But for the rest, I would say IGN has more of a reason to require a login than the NYT.


      If you have no problem with providing your personal info, feel free to give it out to any website that asks. Some of us take our privacy more seriously.

      And keep in mind... While the NYT (or any reasonably-legit site) may not currently spam or sell your info, it takes only one hacker, or one policy change, to turn their registration DB into a spam mailing list.

    13. Re:Frustrated by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      That's not my blog, I just use the tool.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    14. Re:Frustrated by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      I must apologize to Murphy[0]. I've always blamed Murphy for computer problems when all along I should have been blaming Finagle.

      So, Mr. Murphy (RIP), my sincerest apologies.

      [0] - or was it Sod?[1]
      [1] - So, who should I really blame? I'm so confused.[2]
      [2] - Ahh, Sod it.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    15. Re:Frustrated by CowBovNeal · · Score: 1, Informative

      True. Parent is so right.

      Almost once in every 2 or 3 days, an article from the nytimes is being posted on slashdot. And some of the most interesting articles are from the nytimes.

      If you don't want to register, don't. But stop offering your stupid no reg links.
      And 2-3 stupid slashdotters get modded up for posting the no reg link and flaming nytimes.
      Mods, get a clue. If the slashdot editors cared, they could do a 2 sec search for the no reg link on google news and post that link instead of the reg req link..they don't care. Registering won't get you molested by martians.
      Use your mod points on something more useful.

      --
      Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
    16. Re:Frustrated by josh3736 · · Score: 1
      [...] my physical New York Times

      Oh, he must be talking about that quaint "paper" substance with the opaque chemicals where you can read day-old news.

      The poor man must be from the stone ages or something!

    17. Re:Frustrated by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      The other thing I don't get is that most people who bitch about the NYT free registration have registered for slashdot IDs.

      The only thing I can come up with that makes sense is that the NYT and /. have different policies about what they'll do with your information, such as sell your email to spammers or track your reading habits and send your name to the government if you start reading the wrong stuff.

      And there's also the fact that /.'s registration isn't mandatory. I guess that makes enough of a difference. But really, it's not hard to give the NYT bogus information when you register.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    18. Re:Frustrated by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Finally, does this remind anyone else of the Animatrix, on how the skies were darkened to stop the machines?

      No, but it does remind me of The Matrix, and how the skies were darkened to stop the machines.

      WHAT A BIZARRE COINCIDENCE!

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    19. Re:Frustrated by drakaan · · Score: 1
      You can blame it on Sod or on Finagle (the ficticious god that Larry Niven created...as in "The dread god Finagle and his mad prophet, Murphy"). It was Sod's law before Larry Niven gave it another name.

      By the way... here, is a better starting point (yeah, yeah, geocities, I know...still, it's the best place to go first) than the link you posted above.

      If you want to get *really* confused, get into the dirty details about how Murphy's Law might not have been uttered by Murphy.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  3. I can attest to this. by Power+Everywhere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I can attest to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Humans' eyes' lens are going to become more opaque with age, and I'm sure there's some retina degeneration going on.

    2. Re:I can attest to this. by nocomment · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well duh!

      This science experiment is silly. I could have told them about the global dimming thing. Just compare the Beatles "Abbey Road" with a google search of "london". It's much darker over there now than it was when the Beatles released that album.

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    3. Re:I can attest to this. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of a dichrotic filter?

      Yeah, it'll look orange, but it is indeed blocking all blue frequencies.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:I can attest to this. by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure about the exact figures, but human eyes begin to sense less light after the age of 20. I think everything is around 20% darker every 10 years thereafter. By the age of 60 you would expect on average 45-50% darker vision. Sounds like he's right on schedule.

      The "inconclusive" (according to CNNHN, right now) 10% over 50 years would be well under any human's ability to detect.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
  4. Let's just get this out of the way... by bloggins02 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      But if dust and grime catch the energy instead of the ground, then isn't the radiation more likely to be radiated out into space, cooling the planet? If the energy hits the ground, then in order to bounce back into space it has more layers of air to pass back through, which would grab that energy instead of letting it all go into space.

    2. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by bloggins02 · · Score: 1, Informative

      It was my understanding that the longer wavelengths of heat can pass right through smaller objects such as dust particles, where they eventually strike the ground and warm the Earth's surface.

      These "long waves" are radiated back from the ground, which generates most of the heat we feel.

      However, if the long waves go right through small particles, it doesn't explain why clouds tend to act as thermal blankets.

      Anybody who knows more about this stuff care to help us out?

      (Adding Karma bonus to increase chances of getting an answer)

    3. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Okay, but it's still possible that the two effects tend to balance each other out (somewhat).

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    4. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the pollution tends to let the heat through but then trap it.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Methuseus · · Score: 1, Informative

      When the "long waves" hit the ground they are radiated back as shorter waves, and that's why the stuff lets it through but then traps it.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    6. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong but I believe the very thing that is preventing light from coming through (more ozone) is also insulating the earth to warm it up ... and cause global warming.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    7. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Lockjaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oversimplified...

      The sun's energy output is strongest at visible wavelengths (peak power in the green - coincidence that chlorophyll is chemical of choice for providing energy to plants? I think not...). The earth absorbs a lot of this, but being much cooler than the sun, re-radiates it back out in the IR.

      So, aerosols (including clouds) tend to scatter shorter wavelengths more but let the longer stuff through. Greenhouse gasses absorb the longer wavelengths, but let the shorter stuff through.

    8. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by hak1du · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because it's "dimmer" doesn't mean it isn't getting warmer.

      Actually, it may be getting warmer because it is getting dimmer: if visible light is absorbed by something in the atmosphere, it would end up heating up the atmosphere. Think of a black solar collector used for water heating.

    9. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Sure, it doesn't necessarily follow that dimmer means cooler. On the other hand, once you start saying a noticable portion of the sun's radiation is being abosorbed or deflected before it hits the ground, there are bound to be ramifications on the temperature.

    10. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK. But I have a question. At what point does more "stuff" in the air have a cooling, rather than warming effect? We've talked for years about a "nuclear winter" wherein the dust, soot and smoke kicked up by a nuclear war would block out the sun and cause the Earth to cool.

      IOW, at some point, less light does equal less heat.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    11. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1
      From the article:
      But clearer, sunnier days could mean bad news for global warming. Instead of cloudiness slowing rising temperatures, sunshine would be expected to accelerate the warming.
      Not sure if that's the authors' idea or a scientist's, but it's something to consider.
      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    12. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by E1v!$ · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a word, no.

      What you end up with is scatter from the smaller particles. Light hits them, and is radiated back as heat, in ALL directions. Both the light and heat are then scattered in all directions by other particles in the air. (the degree of reflection/absorption-radiation of the particles has a significant effect on the degree of heat radiated)

      This creates a warmer 'boundary layer' that reduces the amount of heat given up by lower layers of the planet, so even if those lower layers get less energy, they're not as likely to give it up.

      That's how clouds work btw.

    13. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Lockjaw · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is backwards. The sun is at around 6000 K, the earth averages around 300 K. It comes in short and goes out long (why IR absorbers like CO2 are good greenhouse gasses).

    14. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by hak1du · · Score: 4, Informative

      But if dust and grime catch the energy instead of the ground, then isn't the radiation more likely to be radiated out into space, cooling the planet?

      If they "catch" the energy, they reflect a little bit as visible light and convert most of it into heat. Part of that heat gets radiated back into space and part heats up the surrounding air. The overall effect seems to be a significant contribution to global warming.

      Global warming models take this effect into account. However, particulates are not as much of a concern for global warming because, unlike CO2, they disappear from the atmosphere fairly quickly (they are still a huge health concern, however). With CO2, once it's released, we are stuck with the consequences for a century or two. Furthermore, global dimming reduces photosynthesis, further slowing down the removal of CO2 and worsening the problem.

    15. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by praedor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. If the earth's albedo is increasing, and it is high-altitude, then a decrease in sunlight reaching the earth's surface would likely follow along with a decrease in temperature (as sunlight would be reflecting away from earth). I have read nothing about an ever-increasing albedo, and the articles on the subject indicate ABSORPTION of visable light is the cause of dimming at the surface. Absorption WILL produce heat. The energy of the sunlight doesn't disappear upon absorption, it gets converted into heat (and molecular kinetic energy). Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, merely converted into a different form. VISABLE sunlight energy is down-convertedinto infrared energy (heat). It leads to an increase in temperature with increasing dimming.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    16. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by CajunArson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      peak power in the green - coincidence that chlorophyll is chemical of choice for providing energy to plants? I think not...
      The problem with that statement is that something colored green absorbs all the light except for the green frequencies, so the plants would be reflecting away the most powerful frequency and not absorbing it.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    17. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Plants are green because chlorophyll reflects green light. This means that green light isn't important to photosynthesis. See these links.

    18. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      The sun's energy output is strongest at visible wavelengths (peak power in the green - coincidence that chlorophyll is chemical of choice for providing energy to plants? I think not...).

      That's contradictory. Green objects absorb all wavelengths except green, which gets reflected. So, if what you say is true, green plants are rejecting the most energetic wavelengths.

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    19. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by M1FCJ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, let's put it this way:

      On Venus, it is around 400C degrees. On Venus, you can't see the sun because of the clouds.

      Now, if we removed the clouds, would Venus get warmer or colder?

    20. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Stevyn · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you. If I put a thin piece of dark cloth a foot over someone's head, things will appear darker, but that cloth will retain some of the heat. When this "cloth" is dust in our atmosphere it holds in heat from the light that would otherwise have been bounced back to space from the ocean. This is global warming because the atmosphere is retaining more heat. Just because the surface may be cooler than if hit by more light, doesn't mean the air is.

    21. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by dspeyer · · Score: 1
      That only works if the dust is lighter in color than the ground.

      Since coal-burning is one of the major dust sources, the dust is likely to be very dark, meaning that the light that hits it is absorbed and warms the atmosphere. If it were chalk dust, it might help cool us down.

    22. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you can't see the sun on Venus because if you were actually standing there, you'd be dead.

    23. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      We've talked for years about a "nuclear winter"

      Yes, but that wasn't scientifically proven any more than global warming has been.

      Oratory isn't the same as evidence, but see Michael's Crichton's speech on the two subjects for a point of view which is usually absent. Which is to say, rigorous science.


    24. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      All right then. Scratch "nuclear winter." Pencil-in "large volcanic eruption." The explosion of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia in 1815 comes to mind. It shot huge amounts of soot and ash in the air. It has been blamed for "the year without a summer" (1816).

      So, it seems that at some point, more "stuff" in the air equates to a cooling effect. My question is, if pollution does not provide a cooling effect, at what point does it start doing so?

      BTW, thanks for posting the link to the Crichton speech. It's very good.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    25. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      It depends on the stuff. Some things can cause a greenhouse effect, by letting the heat in, but not out. Other things keep the heat from ever getting in in the first place.
      If you are inside a glass box, it will let the light in, warming up anything inside, but since glass is a poor thermal conductor, it wont let the heat out.
      If you cover the box with a heavy blanket, it wont let the light in, so it will probably be cooler inside.

    26. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Easy. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas known. Way more powerful than Carbon Dioxide.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    27. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by lubricated · · Score: 1

      yeah, this often puzzles scientists. But yes, plants reflect the most powerfull frequency. It makes no sense.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    28. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unless, ofcourse, the particles are thrown up by nuclear war. Then, of course, we get a winter that kills off all life because all the warmth from the sun is blocked.

      However, if the particles are thrown up by automobiles and industry, we get accelerated global warming because all that dust is trapping heat in the atmosphere like a giant blanket.

      The answer, obviously, then, is to engage in small-scale nuclear wars on a regular basis to produce mini nuclear winters that will balance all the global warming we're causing.

      Tomorrow, environmental scientists will announce that black is really white, except when it is black.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    29. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Radiation of heat is not uniform. A layer of suspended aerosols will radiate most of its energy back into the atmosphere ABOVE the layer and into space, because the temperature ABOVE the deck is lower than below the deck.

      Even with a dark layer, the net effect is a surface cooling.

      It's pretty easy to design an experiment to prove this.

      Get three bulb thermometers and put them in plexiglass containers.

      Leave the first one alone. Cover the bulb of the second in soot. Leave the third bulb uncovered, but fill the container with cigarette smoke (aerolosized soot).

      Shine an incandescent light on all three. See which one's temperature rises the most and the fastest.

      Guess what, it won't be the bulb in the smoke-filled chamber.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    30. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by edremy · · Score: 1
      It doesn't confuse scientists. They expect evolution to come up with suboptimal solutions that work "good enough". Once you've got something difficult working, it becomes very hard to modify it.

      It would confuse creationists if they bothered to look at the evidence. Why would a perfect God botch the design of the single most important chemical on earth? See the vertebrate eye for another example of piss-poor design that works well enough.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    31. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by hak1du · · Score: 1

      Of course, because if that light didn't hit those particles it would simply pass through the fucking Earth.

      No, it would hit the earth's surface, which is probably more reflective on average than, say, particles of soot.

      Thanks for thinking things through instead of just rationalizing new information into your set of prejudices.

      Maybe you should think things through yourself before behaving like a jerk.

      Incidentally, I didn't even claim that these particulates necessarily contribute to global warming, I just gave a mechanism by which they could. Whether the particles responsible for dimming actually do or not depends on what exactly they are.

    32. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by barawn · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, do you know why? I saw one link on the Web once that had it as a homework problem for a class ("Why do plants reflect in the green when the Sun puts out the most power in the blue-green?") but never found an answer anywhere.

      It drives me nuts. I have *no idea* why it happens.

    33. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by Dan+D. · · Score: 1
      With CO2, once it's released, we are stuck with the consequences for a century or two.

      Oh no ... now I gotta hold my breath.

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    34. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      If they "catch" the energy, they reflect a little bit as visible light and convert most of it into heat. Part of that heat gets radiated back into space and part heats up the surrounding air. The overall effect seems to be a significant contribution to global warming.

      Typical short-term chickenlittleism. What happens when the poles reverse magnetism? That is much more worrying.

    35. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1

      Yes the upper ozone is depleted, but in places like LA the smog is essentially an ozone layer .. or so i thought.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
    36. Re:Let's just get this out of the way... by k12linux · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it's the author's idea. Clouds tend to hold in heat that would otherwise be radiated back out. ie: "Greenhouse Effect"

  5. A fix!? by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    We can fix global warming by polluting the atmosphere more? Too good to be true. What's the catch?

    1. Re:A fix!? by pubjames · · Score: 1

      What's the catch?

      If the atmosphere contains more polution, we get less light but the atmosphere actually warms up more. As someone else said, light != heat.

    2. Re:A fix!? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      If the atmosphere contains more polution, we get less light but the atmosphere actually warms up more. As someone else said, light != heat.

      Except that in this case, "light" is measured with a radiometer-- basically a black-painted metal plate with a thermometer-- so radiant heat is very much a part of this equation.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  6. Rehashed by andy666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Looks like we'll all be dead... by Neil+Blender · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...the day after tomorrow. Next time an asteroid movie comes out, expect plenty of articles about about that in the media.

  8. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Future not so bright, shades no longer required.

    1. Re:In other news... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Future not so bright, shades no longer required. "

      My bad, I had my Peril SensitiveTM Sunglasses on. Is there an asteroid or something headed our way?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  9. Matrix loosing power? by Merlinium · · Score: 1

    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?
  10. more information by Melvin+Daniels · · Score: 2, Informative

    more on global dimming here

  11. Less light - more heat? by drizst+'n+drat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Less light - more heat? by aquabat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some of it could be getting reflected back into space, say by increased cloud cover.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    2. Re:Less light - more heat? by rrkap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it safe to assume that the energy is being absorted by pollution and thus heating the planet?

      Not really. The question is one of total energy ballance.

      Think about it as (mass)*(heat capicity)*(temperature change)=(incoming energy from radiation)-(reflected energy)-(re-emitted energy)

      The atmosphere could be becomming more reflective, too. The mechanism proposed for global warming ignores this in its simplest form. CO2 is pretty transparant to visible light, but likes to absorb heat, meaning that the total emissivity of the earth is assumed to be being reduced at long wavelengths and left the same at short ones. This research says that something is happening at the shorter wavelenghths as well.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
  12. Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Could someone explain how we know that less light is reaching the surface now? What accurate instruments were we using 100 years ago that gave us a solid baseline to compare against? Also, how were we accurately measuring solar output, which can be pretty variable?

    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?
    1. Re:Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

      We know because my grand father who was the coolest person of his era and in his prime constantly wore sunglasses , even at night to show how cool he was, recently put on a pair of raybans and immediately walked into a lamp post. Fortunately the impact was partly absorbed by his zimmerframe. However it proved conclusively that its darker now than when he was a boy because he could not see where he was going.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the story (no reg link):

      The measuring instrument, a radiometer, is simple, a black plate under a glass dome. Like asphalt in summer, the black plate turns hot as it absorbs the sun's energy. Its temperature tells the amount of sunlight that has shone on it.

      Since the 50's, hundreds of radiometers have been installed from the Arctic to Antarctica, dutifully recording sunshine. In the mid-80's, Dr. Atsumu Ohmura of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich sifted through the data to compare levels in different regions. "Suddenly," Dr. Ohmura said, "I realized it's not easy to do that, because the radiation was changing over time."

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by maximilln · · Score: 1, Insightful

      -----
      The measuring instrument, a radiometer, is simple, a black plate under a glass dome. Like asphalt in summer, the black plate turns hot as it absorbs the sun's energy. Its temperature tells the amount of sunlight that has shone on it.
      -----
      It's not really that simple. The nature of the black plate will change how the temperature is affected. Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy. The profile of (vs wavelength) and magnitude of the energy which is absorbed, dispersed, and reemitted will change depending upon the composition of the metal or ceramic of the plate and the nature of the coating material which makes it black.

      Consider several black objects underneath a glass dome: a block of obsidian, a block of slate (as in blackboard slate), a stainless steel plate painted black, a badly tarnished silver plate, a lump of charcoal, or crushed up charcoal suspended in an epoxy resin over a stainless steel plate.

      I can't begin to rank and categorize the profiles of the above objects but to illustrate the principle try the following: on a hot summer day leave a piece of charcoal out in the sun and then pick it up. On the same day place your hand on the black asphalt of a freshly laid blacktop highway. Paint a stainless steel plate in glossy black and in flat black and feel both on the same hot day.

      Even if they are still using the _exact_ same radiometer today that they were using 50 years ago its absorption and reemission profile will have changed unless they've kept the glass dome sealed and either evacuated or filled with some inert gas. Even at that level there could be a change in absorptive and emissive properties from surface phenomenon.

      On top of all of that there's also the cooling rate of the glass dome. On humid days the water in the air will carry kinetic energy away from the glass more quickly and could cause the interior temperature to be lower than on dry days.

      It's all a crapshoot. I don't buy the doom and gloom.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    4. Re:Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by anothy · · Score: 1

      // ...dropped an average of 10% since the 1950's.

      // What accurate instruments were we using 100 years ago...

      1950 wasn't 100 years ago.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    5. Re:Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Say, Have you ever heard of calibration? The article even references it. This is why they know the data is consistent.

    6. Re:Because I'm too lazy to look it up... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Get out from behind that AC curtain and I'll calibrate you! Whether or not its done correctly will be a difference in opinion. You probably won't enjoy it.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  13. I smell oportunity... by Spatula+Sam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quick! Invest in lightbulb manufacturers!

  14. Some else of interest by spuke4000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Some else of interest by italiannavigator · · Score: 1

      Oh, the AC has a conspiracy theory, does he? Climb back under your rock, pusswagon.

      --
      The Italian navigator has reached the New World and the natives are friendly.
    2. Re:Some else of interest by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      So Al-Qaeda goals was sacrifice a relatively small amount of people to show us all the climate damage of airplanes? Putting separate facts together could make people associate things in wrong ways.

      But seriously, if airplanes do such impact on worldwide climate, why not exist a technological race to make them more ecological instead of faster, more personal, to reach higher or things like that? Or some advancements are done in that direction?

    3. Re:Some else of interest by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      An unrelated, but similar phonomenon is that of the effect of jet contrails on temperature. The study used the period after 9/11 when all flights in North America were grounded....

      Oh joy. Green terrorists.

    4. Re:Some else of interest by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      If anything, the panicked exodus of the Saudis goes farther to demonstrate their innocence. Were they involved, they would have known far ahead of time and gotten out a week or a month before it even happened. think! They knew they were safer leaving, and they were right, considering the ignorant racial profiling that took place in the wake of the disaster.

    5. Re:Some else of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because the costs of the damage are paid for indirectly. It is the same reason oil is so "cheap" in America compared almost any other country - our taxes subsidize the true cost of oil (pollution, maintaining the supply, etc). If we received an itemized list of where our tax dollars go, you can bet a lot of priorities wrt to the planet's ecology would suddenly be increased. But since most people don't "see" it, they don't think the problems even exist.

    6. Re:Some else of interest by Luyseyal · · Score: 1
      Cool pic and short writeup of contrails (Earth Observatory) "over the southeastern United States during the morning of January 29, 2004".

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    7. Re:Some else of interest by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Um, America buys oil on the world market at the same price as everyone else.

      If you mean gasoline is cheaper, the answer to that is simple. We don't tax the snot out of it like other nations do, and we have a good infrastructure for getting it to the gas stations.

      Although that is changing rapidly with the constantly changing region-specific formulation requirements, and the environmentalists successfully shutting down every attempt to build new refineries for the past 20 years.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    8. Re:Some else of interest by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

      Say... Ya think maybe jet engines produce heat?

  15. Re:Less light == less sunburns? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

    if UV rays aren't blocked by water clouds very well, why would they be blocked by pollution clouds? not cleaning up the air can never be considered a good thing.

  16. Oh crap. by Elpacoloco · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh crap. by typobox43 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the Earth's rotation in fact tend to distribute pollution toward the poles? (This would explain the large ozone hole over the South Pole...)

    2. Re:Oh crap. by cavemanf16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Really? I didn't know fumes from a smokestack in Denver, Stockholm, or Beijing could be auto-magically multiplied to effectively blanket an entire continent in a swatch of life-choaking pollution. C'mon people, stop believing the FUD! You don't like it when Microsoft does it to your precious Linux, why be any different about our planet??? Volcanoes alone produce more pollution and life killing destruction in one eruption than all the many years of our little tiny cars coughing spent fossil fuels into the air.

    3. Re:Oh crap. by Ensign+Regis · · Score: 1

      And then when there's no food, we'll all DIEEEEEE! The end is coming! Every man for himself!

      Seriously: How likely is it we wouldn't find *some* way of getting food, whether through environmental cleanup or through some other breakthrough?

    4. Re:Oh crap. by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      Well good! If this trend continues, I'll be able to use my 1000 watt grow lamps to make money growing legal plants!

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    5. Re:Oh crap. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      1. The citation talks only about ash, not other pollutants.

      2. There is no comparison given to human output.

      3. The citation is talking about the biggest eruption in recroded history; saying "volcanoes alone produce ... in one eruption ..." as though you were discussing a typical eruption is misleading.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Oh crap. by stephenisu · · Score: 1

      Your IP has been recorded and you will be prosocuted under the PATRIOT act as a terrorist for growing cannabis thereby funding terrorist, because drug money all goes to terrorists.

      And don't try pulling that logic crap in your defense, GWB outlawed logic when applied to the executive branch.

      --
      Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
  17. Good thing? by typobox43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't global dimming a good thing? Sunlight isn't exactly compatible with the nerd life...

  18. Pollution, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    To all those eco-freaks, it's not pollution. It's mood lighting.

  19. Air pollution by DrCode · · Score: 1

    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?

  20. Fairly obvious attempt by oil industry ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny

    to make sure that solar energy will never be cost-effective. Clever, but diabolical.

    1. Re:Fairly obvious attempt by oil industry ... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clever, but diabolical.

      I remember the good ol' days when villans were only monobolical.

    2. Re:Fairly obvious attempt by oil industry ... by DAQ42 · · Score: 1

      Some solar energy uses do not require light. At least not visible light. Infrared or ultra-violet (really just different states of energy) are still coming through quite strong and can be used by certain types of photo-voltaic cells. Just not the el-cheapo ones you find at Radar Hut.

      --
      Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
    3. Re:Fairly obvious attempt by oil industry ... by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

      to make sure that solar energy will never be cost-effective. Clever, but diabolical.

      It sure beats building a big shield to block out the sun.

  21. Particulate matter scatters light, news at 11! by Animaether · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Particulate matter scatters light, news at 11! by Chmcginn · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      Wrong. (Not just because you're too lazy to provide any links. You know, like this or maybe this.)

      No, you're actually wrong because you fail the reading (and understanding) the articles test - it didn't warm the earth up. It increased the temperature range for each day - that is, both the high and the low temperature - just like a clear day versus an overcast one.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    2. Re:Particulate matter scatters light, news at 11! by Animaether · · Score: 1

      Or maybe there's so many articles out there that a search may give a better overview. That has nothing to do with laziness, and even less with being right or not.

      And you are mistaken. 'It' in my post refers to the USA. And yes, the temperature range for each day increased. Which means that at some point (let's assume daytime, shall we?), the temperature raised, meaning it got hotter. And this, they claim, is the result of the lack of many contrails.
      Whether the other end, assumed night-time, offsets this by being colder doesn't matter when only looking at the daytime timeframe.

      I also didn't say that contrails cause greenhouse effects globally, which would relate to an increase in temperature. Some of the scientists involved do, however.

      Just to humor you, a link : one of many search results

  22. When Bored Scientists Attack by Morphy3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Global Cooling
    Acid Rain
    Global Warming
    Global Dimming
    http://www.junkscience.com

    --
    ------
    I have not yet begun to procrastinate!
    1. Re:When Bored Scientists Attack by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Experts may disagree about the extent of global warming and human-induced climate change, but few can dispute that we are changing the planet's atmosphere in measurable ways. There is objectively more carbon dioxide and pollutants in general floating around. One is hard-pressed to claim that these will not have ANY affect on weather. The left/right fights are over what the specific changes are.

      There seems to be a recent up-ward warming trend. If this trend continues, it will cause economic problems such as shoreline movements, droughts, and others. Whether this is caused by SUV's or not, we should understand the causes and be prepared. The warming could be just coincidental with pollution, but to make that the primary candidate is sticking your head in the sand IMO.

    2. Re:When Bored Scientists Attack by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      You think acid rain is junk science? In that case please head up into the appalachains, specifically near Grandfather Mtn and Mount Mitchell and let the thousands of acres of forest which are DEAD due to it know that they should leave off dying right now and start growing again.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:When Bored Scientists Attack by Willis+Wasabi · · Score: 1

      I actually tend to agree that human CO2 release has little to do with global warming (wake me up when we top the high temps of the last two warm periods, Roman and Middle Ages, we still have a way to go). Basing hysteria on the measurement of temperature change over the last century or so strikes me as insanity on a 4.3 billion year old planet.

      However, I went to junkscience.com. Most of the links down the right side of the page were from foxnews.com. Surely, you're joking if you expect us to believe that it's a balanced site.

      --
      All true wisdom can be found in sigs.
    4. Re:When Bored Scientists Attack by newfmike · · Score: 1

      junkscience.com isn't what you think it is about. It's not about debunking bad science rather than fowarding a political agenda. A tell-tale sign to which political agenda is all the Fox news articles appearing in the right column. Take a look at the Skeptical Dictionary entry for more info.

      --
      "Posessing a degree in science does not necessarily make one a scientist"
  23. Pessimistic! by carvalhao · · Score: 2, Funny

    My view of the future just got darker...

  24. Headlines We Should be Wary Of by basking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      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,...

      No, of course not. How could someone have misinterpreted what you wrote in the paragraph above as badmouthing scientists? Sheesh!

    2. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In regards to the oil supply running out, just be aware that even oil industry execs believe in Hubbert's Curve. It's just that they take the short-term view that an decrease in supply with the steady increase in demand will increase their profits over the short term.

      I just read an article that interviewed some oil industry execs in Oil and Gas Journal, in fact, where they said just that.

      It's morally reprehensible, of course. But the wider point is that Hubbert isn't a junk scientist. He worked for Shell. And the world really is running out of oil. (Although it'll become too costly to extract it before it actually completely runs out.)

    3. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by borkus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The headlines seem to be the problem. If you read down just a little ways, it appears that this is being discussed at a convention as an area for further research. Also, there is some healthy skepticism from scientists regarding the issue:
      Not every scientist is convinced that the dimming has been that pronounced. Although radiometers are simple, they do require periodic calibration and care. Dirt on the dome blocks light, leading to erroneous indications. Also, all radiometers have been on land, leaving three-fourths of the earth to supposition.
      From reading the actual quotes and information from the scientists in the article, it appears that dimming is viewed as an area of potential investigation. So actually, the scientists are doing there job - they're doing further investigation into an reasonable hypothesis. It's the journalists who are falling down on the job.
    4. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      I don't trust man. I only trust God.

      Actually, IIRC, the Church decreed that the Earth was flat, and also that it was the center of everything... Remember the bit about all the planets and the sun revolving around the Earth? I'll put my faith in a thinking man over a preaching man any day. Of course, if God wanted to talk to me personally, I'd probably listen to his case as well. ;-)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    5. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by megarich · · Score: 1

      Hehe. Yea the church has done some evil in the past and more so now but its the human in the earth saying this not God. I heard somewhere that the Bile might actually shows evidence to suggest the earth is round but I never actually went to prove it yet so I can't say for sure how accurate that claim was....

    6. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by Zareste · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The study shows the Earth is getting 10% dimmer. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Not much room for a world-wide government/scientist/corporation conspiracy as far as I can tell.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
    7. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by basking2 · · Score: 1

      lol, Mexico recently (yesterday?) released a video of UFOs. :) That was kinda ambiguous, I admit.

      --
      Sam
    8. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right on - the accuracy, utility and soundness of God's word is why we now have television, cellphones, wireless networks, computers, the Internet, the telephone system, automobiles, passenger aircraft, video-conferencing, remotely piloted vehicles on Mars, gastro-enteroscopy, pacemakers, kidney dialysis machines, spectacles, contact lenses, anti-inflammatories, the polio vaccine, etc etc. People built all those things and more thanks to the detailed explanations of how our world works that is laid out in the Bible! Definitely better to not trust scientists, whose painstaking methodologies have not created any benefits or advancements whatsoever in our understanding of the Universe over the last 2000 years.

      Oh, a small hint: read up about what the scientific method is, because you clearly don't even understand it. It's always better to actually understand something before you criticize it.

    9. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by basking2 · · Score: 1

      LOL!!!! :) Ok, ok, but in my defense I bad mouthed all of humanity. I just lumped those scientists in with the rest of us. ;)

      --
      Sam
    10. Re:Headlines We Should be Wary Of by megarich · · Score: 1

      Back to you, why don't you read the Bible. It's always better to undertand something, especially a view point before criticizing it. Since you trust humans so much..go follow are wonderful president that is leading us in the sh*tter, and go believe in all the junk mail you get to better your life, go trust salespeople who will take everydime you have....... I'm not saying all those things aren't great, I'm just don't agree with or believe who global warming will be a terror or some end of the world causing event......and that alot of people on whole are untrustworthy.....

  25. title tilt by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    At first I thought this topic was about world-wide education problems.

  26. Venus! by Trifthen · · Score: 1

    So... global warming and lots of toxic clouds. We're turning into Venus!

    --
    Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
  27. Re:Less light == less sunburns? by Scott+Richter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    if UV rays aren't blocked by water clouds very well, why would they be blocked by pollution clouds? not cleaning up the air can never be considered a good thing.

    First, water clouds DO block UV fairly well - you don't get a sunburn nearly as fast on a cloudy day. Second, pollution may not be absorbing UV - it's more likely scattering it.

  28. Hey! Down at the nuclear plant ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  29. Logan's Run! by lawaetf1 · · Score: 1

    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"
    1. Re:Logan's Run! by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      I, too, like twilight. However, plants don't, and I depend on them for oxygen and food. I can always go inside or wear sunglasses (or both, since the lights at work are too damn bright), but plants need light and lots of it.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Logan's Run! by lawaetf1 · · Score: 1

      Damnit, Blade Runner! I knew that... /hangs head in shame

      --
      CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
  30. Huh. by coopaq · · Score: 1
    Sun seems to be working just fine.
    Got a sunburn yesterday.

    Maybe the earth is trying to protect itself from all the wild fires, etc..

    1. Re:Huh. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sun seems to be working just fine. Got a sunburn yesterday.

      Pollution is still no excuse to get shitface drunk and fall asleep at the beach, dumbass ;-)

  31. Impact on solar power by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    "so this trend might reverse if air pollution clears up."

    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.

  32. Ugh by cavemanf16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Ugh by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "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!"

      I wish I could find that damn butterfly that keeps causing all those unforseen outages.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Ugh by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I wish I could find that damn butterfly that keeps causing all those unforseen outages."

      Try MSN.com!

  33. Night by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
    For a second there, I was under the impression that this was a study on the intelligence of humans.

    No, that would be the Global Blackout study.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Night by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hmmm...

      Less processing power and more errors in humans?

      Global Warming?

      Has anyone checked to see if the Earth's cooling fan is all clogged up and seized by dust bunnies? ;P

  34. Scorched the Sky by beatleadam · · Score: 1

    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
  35. It's more likely due to air traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    > 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

  36. Re:Just 'cuz it hasn't been studied ... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "It's a heck of a lot worse to, say, invade a country on another continent than to attack a neighboring village."

    You're measuring human 'dimness' by the acts of a gov't under motivations we don't have all the facts on?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  37. Worst of both worlds... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So let me get this straight.

    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?

  38. insidious use of passive void by dutky · · Score: 1
    the article submitter, dtolman wrote:
    Scientists are theorizing that this is mainly due to air pollution - so this trend might reverse if air pollution clears up.

    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.
  39. global warming by wastedbrains · · Score: 1

    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
  40. So how long... by Iscariot_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    So how many years before Highlander 2?...

  41. Air pollution is not strictly a recent phenomenon by kjfitz · · Score: 5, Informative
    There is a common misperception that air pollution is a recent thing.

    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.ht ml http://www.accd.edu/sac/english/bailey/evelyn.htm

      "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

  42. So anyway, I had this script running... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...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.
  43. Blame the Matrix trilogy by peter303 · · Score: 1

    They convinced everyone that wearing sunglasses indoors and at night was "cool".

  44. We Need Global Dimming by SoopahMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  45. Warming... by ronchie02 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pollute more! It will prevent global warming! :P

  46. global cooling by Dog135 · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:global cooling by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Loosing head through convection?

      That does explain the correlation between less sex and global warming.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:global cooling by Dog135 · · Score: 1

      [i]I know it's a joke... but "Global Cooling" was the fad/junk science of the 1970's... when the well ran dry for garnering funding into that research, the SAME researchers changed their tune and began sqwacking GLOBAL WARMING![/i]

      Interesting. But yeah, I don't believe a word they say. Many researchers make a big deal out of some made up science so that they can get funding to fund their own personal projects which, although interesting, serves no political or economical purpose.

      --
      "That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
  47. No-registration link to NYTimes story by AngusSF · · Score: 1
    IMHO if you can take the time to whine "Registration required", you can take the time to look for alternate locations of the story. A quick google for the subject of the NYT story turned up this alternate NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED link.

    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)
  48. For those who aren't registered by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    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

  49. "Global trolling" by KnightStalker · · Score: 1

    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."
  50. We need Mario! by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    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!

  51. The AC is right; but who cares? by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1

    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.
  52. Obviously not by BESTouff · · Score: 4, Insightful
    so this trend might reverse if air pollution clears up

    This single utopic sentence should have told you it's only unrealistic babble.

    1. Re:Obviously not by mccrew · · Score: 1
      This single utopic sentence should have told you it's only unrealistic babble

      Not really. Did you know that the air in Los Angeles is actually cleaner than it was 50 years ago?

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    2. Re:Obviously not by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I believe it! So, in order to prevent global warming, we all need to do is create more pollution!

      Thanks, scientists! I'll sell my midsize and buy a second SUV immediately!

    3. Re:Obviously not by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

      It's observably clearer (and hence, possibly, although not necessarily, cleaner) than it was twenty years ago. LA's air is generally pristine now compared to how disgusting it was in 1984. This has been seen in numerous big cities. Ever see pictures of Chicago and New York in the 1930's? YIKES. Now THAT'S pollution.

    4. Re:Obviously not by lavaface · · Score: 2, Informative
      >so this trend might reverse if air pollution clears up



      >>This single utopic sentence should have told you it's only unrealistic babble.

      And this line of thinking certainly won't help at all. Why exactly is it unthinkable that we might reduce air pollution? It's not unrealistic; actually it's downright attainable. Now if they said something like "we're promising Skittles to rain from the sky if everyone would smoke a pack of cigarettes a day" then you'd have a point about unrealistic expectations ; )

  53. Speed of light is slowing down by pw1972 · · Score: 1

    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.

  54. Earth is brighter from space, now? by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1

    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.
  55. Oxygen by phishtrader · · Score: 1

    At least now maybe those pesky plants will quit putting out so much of that troublesome oxygen I keep hearing about.

  56. Sunshine state by freaksta · · Score: 1

    Well I live in florida, where the sun is ALWAYS shining. Keep the polution coming!

    --


    Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.
  57. possible reversion to previous earth state by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    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
  58. Well good by pickapeppa · · Score: 1

    I've seen everything I feel like I needed to see anyways.

  59. the sun still shines? by gemtech · · Score: 1

    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
  60. Re:That IS better by AoT · · Score: 1

    "Cheaper is better. If you get the same thing for a lot less money, it s much better deal."

    that was the point of the second half of the tagline. Its cheaper because everything is cheaper there.

  61. Sounds romantic by saddino · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Sounds romantic by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Nah, just check the earth population graph, and you'll se we don't even need barry white...

  62. Coal - effects on light by guacamolefoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Coal - effects on light by UrQUan3 · · Score: 1

      True, my parents discribe Birmingham of the 50s and 60s (US, not UK) as being a dark sploch as seen from the air. I'd hazard a guess that light reaching the surface has gone up, not down, since then. I'm sure other steel cities have seen the same since pollution laws took effect.

    2. Re:Coal - effects on light by Scorchio · · Score: 2, Funny

      long working hours out of the sun

      I'm a software engineer... when will my rickets set in??

    3. Re:Coal - effects on light by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a software engineer... when will my rickets set in??

      Funny, but unlikely. Vitamin D is added to many things, including milk. Anyone in the US, including goth-like only come out at night wanna-be vampires is unlikely to suffer the softening of the bones associated with rickets because of dietary additives.

      GF.

  63. Everybody knows geeks never see the sun... by DingoBueno · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...so why is this on slashdot anyway? :P

    --
    ascii art
  64. Re:Air pollution is not strictly a recent phenomen by anothy · · Score: 1

    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.
  65. Here's one reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Here's It's because of what are called "persistant contrails", which are man made artificial clouds, in a long running government black ops, using the technique outlined in this patent.


    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 ..what? Guess the word, go look, you win.

    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.

    1. Re:Here's one reason by NightEyez · · Score: 1, Funny

      I bet they are using the Aluminum Oxide to make alumuninum foil hats to give to all the goverment employees so the aliens don't read their minds and get our secrets...

  66. Its the opposite by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1
    Scientists say that due to increase in atmospheric dust the effects of global warming have been somewhat reversed. If there was no dimming due to suspended particulate matter earth would be hotter.

    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
  67. Downward Spiral by polyp2000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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
  68. Just go out at night then by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    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.

  69. Could have severe biological impact by nysus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  70. Great! by theendlessnow · · Score: 1
    Makes my LCD screen easier to read!

    Sincerely,

    Dim Sun Geeks

  71. I'm going to pick on Indians again by Electric+Eye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).

  72. Re:Air pollution is not strictly a recent phenomen by megarich · · Score: 1

    "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.

  73. Taps head.. thinking, thinking... by UrgleHoth · · Score: 1

    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."
  74. Easiest way to make the world a brighter place... by ezzewezza · · Score: 1

    ...wake up with a hang over and be required to drive somewhere.

  75. not the same thing by hak1du · · Score: 1

    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.

  76. I might be wrong by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

    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."

  77. Yay, darkness! by penginkun · · Score: 1

    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?

  78. fun fact by kisak · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 ---

  79. Re:I can attest to this. (global glaring) by Lispy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I had the same experience after a 2day bender when I got home in the morning. Couldn't stand daylight without glasses...

  80. "Junk science" indeed by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  81. New kind of sunscreen anyone? by guardia · · Score: 1

    The kind that converts UV rays to visible light!

  82. Reduced Crop Yields Mean Higher Pizza Prices by meehawl · · Score: 1
    Of course global dimming will lead to reduced global crop yields. Couple this with soil exhaustion, desertification, declining aquifers, and increasing cost of natural gas (and hence scarcer, more expensive fertilizer production) we see why global crop yields have been falling for several years now, despite advances in biotech and irrigation technologies.

    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:
    Chameides, W.L., H. Yu, S.C. Liu, M. Bergin, X. Zhou, L. Mearns, G. Wang, C.S. Kiang, R.D. Saylor, C. Lio, Y. Huang, A. Steiner, and F. Giorgi, Case study of the effects of atmospheric aerosols and regional haze on agriculture: An opportunity to enhance crop yields in China through emission controls? Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, 96:13626-13633, 1999.
    --

    Da Blog
  83. Wonder how this affects weather? by Banner · · Score: 1

    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.

  84. Read the article? by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
    From the article
    The measuring instrument, a radiometer, is simple, a black plate under a glass dome. Like asphalt in summer, the black plate turns hot as it absorbs the sun's energy. Its temperature tells the amount of sunlight that has shone on it.
    They're measuring heat, not visible light.
  85. We need less Ozone layer! by nlindstrom · · Score: 1
    Since airborne pollution blocks sunlight, while destroying the Ozone layer permits more in, then we must be careful to maintain a balance between the amount of pollution being released into the atmosphere and the amount of Ozone we destroy.

    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?

  86. Bile evidence by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

    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

  87. Registration Not Required by corsican · · Score: 1
    For all these sites that "require" registration before you can view their content, there's BugMeNot.com! They'll give you a "login" that will allow you to access a given site without having to enter your e-mail address into the site's spam machine. They also have a simple java code string that you can use create a link button in your browser: (single line)

    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.
  88. Check The Science by meehawl · · Score: 3, Informative
    its absorption and reemission profile will have changed unless they've kept the glass dome sealed and either evacuated or filled with some inert gas. Even at that level there could be a change in absorptive and emissive properties from surface phenomenon.

    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:
    Chameides, W.L., H. Yu, S.C. Liu, M. Bergin, X. Zhou, L. Mearns, G. Wang, C.S. Kiang, R.D. Saylor, C. Lio, Y. Huang, A. Steiner, and F. Giorgi, Case study of the effects of atmospheric aerosols and regional haze on agriculture: An opportunity to enhance crop yields in China through emission controls? Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, 96:13626-13633, 1999.
    The so-called "direct effect" of regional haze results in an approximately 5-30% reduction in the solar irradiance reaching some of China's most productive agricultural regions. Crop-response model simulations suggest an approximately 1:1 relationship between a percentage increase (decrease) in total surface solar irradiance and a percentage increase (decrease) in the yields of rice and wheat. Collectively, these calculations suggest that regional haze in China is currently depressing optimal yields of approximately 70% of the crops grown in China by at least 5-30%.
    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Check The Science by maximilln · · Score: 1

      You post two links to give yourself credit as if they were two separate citations? They're both the same you nimwit. Additionally, the researchers in this citation don't use a black plate under a glass dome but are actually recording magnitudes at particular wavelengths.

      As long as you're on a high horse, though, allow me to bring you down:

      First, searching the article for the character string "assum" returned 20 hits from "assume" "assumed" and "assumption". There were 22 hits for "estim"ate/d. I don't really need to say any more but I will.

      From the article which you reference:

      -----
      The model-estimated optical depths are significantly smaller than those derived from observations, perhaps because of errors in one or both sets of optical depths or because the data from the meteorological stations has been affected by local pollution.
      -----
      Uh-huh. Otherwise stated as,"The data which we've collected doesn't quite fit our doom and gloom model but this is probably because the doom and gloom model has affected the data which we collected." That's a great way to start out.

      -----
      Collectively, these calculations suggest that regional haze in China is currently depressing optimal yields of Ö70% of the crops grown in China by at least 5C30%
      -----
      Do we have any real production numbers to back this up or are they just talking out their backsides? There's no reference number on this.

      -----
      Values for ta are usually reported for ¦Ë = 550 nm. Extrapolation of this value to other wavelengths is often made by using an empirically derived parameter, a, referred to as the Angstrom exponent
      -----
      They measure at ONE WAVELENGTH and then extrapolate that model for the entire spectrum? That's good? I'm suspicious that 550 nm is a wavelength which is absorbed and reemitted through an intersystem crossing and phosphorescence mechanism. That'll maximize the doom and gloom.

      -----
      Total Ozone Measurement Satellite (TOMS) Version 7. Zhou et al. (23) reported tas for a wavelength of 750 nm. In Fig. 2, we have scaled these values to a wavelength of 550 nm (which is a more conventional wavelength for reporting ta), assuming an Angstrom exponent of 1
      -----
      Someone else reports data at 750 nm. You don't like that data so you SCALE it to 550 nm based upon some model where you can arbitrarily feed in one of the significant values in order to massage the data. Does that really sound scientific? It sounds more like stock market and political fraud.

      -----
      The solar spectrum from 200 nm to 4 ¦Ìm (i.e., the wavelengths that encompass Ö99% of the total solar irradiance reaching the top of the atmosphere) was divided into 15 bands
      -----
      Too bad it's under the heading "Calculations of Is Over China. To estimate the direct effect of the aerosol loadings discussed above on solar radiation, a broad-band, one-dimensional radiative transfer model (49) was used to calculate..."

      -----
      The calculations were made by using July-averaged tas and July 15 solar zenith angles appropriate for each location
      -----
      More calculation...

      -----
      We have chosen summertime conditions because, although not shown here, the discrepancies between model-estimated and measurement-based tas tended to be smallest during July
      -----
      Seemingly the model only works when the signal strength is at its highest. At any other point in the year the model doesn't jack when inferring the total solar irradiance.

      So tell me again how this has any real scientific merit when held under a close eye of scrutiny? Data? Yes. Calculations? Yes. Models? Yes. Good work? Yes. Nice presentation? Yes. Worthy of further _academic_ research funding? Sure.

      Worth any more than an amusing chuckle over a cup of coffee? No.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
    2. Re:Check The Science by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Your articles adapt many of their models based upon a measured intensity at 750 nm (which is then scaled to 550 nm).

      According to UW-Madison O2 has a significant absorption band conveniently located right around 750 nm.

      Since the absorption band at 750, scaled to 550, and then extapolated to universally be respective of the entire spectrum, is saturated by oxygen absorption it's much easier to let arbitrarily assigned values in the equation (such as the Angstrom coefficient) to have a much greater impact in overstating the results.

      I'll continue to google, and you can continue to live in your pompous world.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  89. Also Impacts Crop Yields by meehawl · · Score: 1
    --

    Da Blog
  90. At least if we pave the earth... by notchcode · · Score: 1

    ...then the reflected heat might cancel out the loss in solar radiation hitting the surface, eh?

  91. Less photosynthesis = less food by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    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.

  92. Since when does Troll have a +1 Karma modifier? by Ahaldra · · Score: 1
    OK, I'll bite...
    " 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. "
    I understand your reservations on clueless journalists that blow scientific findings out of proportion to produce eye-catching (and often scientific wrong) headlines.
    But to use these misrepresentations to discredit the scientists that actually do the work is just stupid.

    " they lie, steal, cheat and grab for headlines as reagularly as any normal person would. "
    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 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 "
    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.
    1. Re:Since when does Troll have a +1 Karma modifier? by basking2 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Tell me one, just one, "lie" that has entered any reputable schoolbook.

      Please re-read my post a bit more critically if you are interested in what I said. You read quite a bit of hostility into it and I don't care to banter meaning on my time. I will draw your attention to the fact that I say that scientists share the faults we all have and are not elevated above some plane of biases by some great purpose and training.

      I've also known lots of folks that don't worship but verify, by their own account. :\ I'm suspicious of your claimed objectivity.

      So, on to your question; Here is a quick list...

      1. Embryonic recapitulation (this theory fantasy... really bad.)
      2. There is a Scientific Method that Scientists Use (Some sciences have no notion of an "experiment" and real scientists follow hunches and are quite creative )
      3. Clouds are made of water vapor (it's dust that water condences around)
      4. Sound travels "better" through solids and liquids.
      5. Planes fly by the wing being "sucked" up because of the air foil effect. (Not totally wrong, but not correct.)
      6. The space ship is heated on renetry by friction. (pressure causes this)
      7. The Fox Terier (URL mentioned above)
      8. The moth that evolved to a black colour during the industrial revolution. (Never happend; later confessions shows the photo was a fake by the publisher)

      Consider this:

      "There are children playing in the street who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago." - Robert Oppenheimer

      Now, you who lashed out at this post and those who tagged it as "flame bait," consider how much objective checking you did before defending science with your mild vitrial. In a sense, you're an example to the very problem I warned against.

      --
      Sam
  93. Light dimming on Earth?!!??? Yeah, right.... by GuestFox · · Score: 1
    Oh the sky is falling!!!! The light is dimming!!!! Oh raise the alarm the world is ending...

    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=-

  94. 10% less sunshine now? by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

    Yeah, maybe, but on the other hand back then everything was just black and white!

  95. Same old story by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    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
  96. In the year 2550... by 2bot_or_not_2bot · · Score: 1

    ...brightness will be negative.

  97. Re:Light dimming on Earth?!!??? Yeah, right.... by nomadic · · Score: 1

    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!

  98. YOUR STAR BURNS! I DEMAND FROZEN TREATS! by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    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!
  99. clarifying energetic versus intense by pwarf · · Score: 1

    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.

  100. It's happening in Minnesota by mevo · · Score: 1

    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%.

  101. Re:No no, thank you by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    You're welcome. Wouldn't want to take food from your kids' mouths, or those of all the other people employed to refine and ship your product.

  102. Ad Hominem by meehawl · · Score: 1

    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
    1. Re:Ad Hominem by maximilln · · Score: 1

      Ignoring a legitimate rebuttal because your feathers have been ruffled is, while common in the world, the cause of 99% of the bad science in the world.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  103. Good question by Saucepan · · Score: 1
    How can IQ *rise everywhere*, when the system itself is based on relative measurement to the average?
    Good question. It turns out that the constant renormalization of the tests is what helped the Flynn effect remain unrecognized for so long. Flynn had found groups of people who had been given multiple versions of the same test, and wondered why they invariably performed significantly better on the older versions of the test. This had been noticed before by IQ researchers, but they tended dismiss the effect as an uninteresting artifact of the renormalization process. Flynn, however, was not an IQ researcher but a Marxist-egalitarian political scientist deeply skeptical of IQ testing, and so had no motivation to leave such discrepencies unexamined.

    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.

  104. Re:Don't worry be happy by Malc · · Score: 1

    Tell me, what personal information did I give away? My IP address? Whoopee-doo. Of course, I share the login with other people, so it's not much good to them. If anything, they will glean from my information that I don't reside in the US and perhaps it will mean they will make their content more international-friendly. I doubt it though. As you can guess, I only use tin-foil on the BBQ, not my head.