Remember Hearing About "Global Dimming" A Few Years Back?

This is a re-post from my blog on 12/14/2006. I'm re-posting this because the U.N. is talking in the next few weeks about global dimming.

Could Reducing Global Dimming Mean a Hotter, Dryer World?

April 14, 2006

In research they published last year in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a team led by Beate Liepert at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory reported that they found a measurable decline between 1950 and 1990 in the amount of sun reaching the Earth's surface. The team concluded that solar radiation is being reduced by growing quantities of man-made particles in the atmosphere—in particular those produced by burning fossil fuels. This increase in small particles of ash, soot and sulfates has also caused the cloud cover to thicken in recent decades, further reducing solar irradiance. Only recently have climate models begun to include them in predictions of future global warming.

I know that all of you have heard of Global Warming. It is implied that we humans cause Global Warming, or at the very least make it worse. There are a lot of problems with this belief. The most obvious to me is that fact that the warming and cooling patterns of the world have only been accurately measured for about 45 years. For instance most people don’t know that there was a period of warming known as the Medieval Warm Period 'Wikipedia' around 800-1300 AD. I know it sounds childish, but Greenland was at one point -- mostly green. There also was a period of cooling called The Little Ice Age 'Wikipedia' 1300 to 1900. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze. People actually walked from Manhattan to Staten Island. Now keep in mind this heating and cooling all happened at a time before industrial emissions of greenhouse gases became abundant.

Here comes the good stuff. There are more problems I have found with “man-made global warming.” Most people are familiar with the Greenhouse Effect right? Well for those of you that are not up to speed, here is the jest of it. You can sum it up by this simple definition. The Greenhouse Effect is “warming of the surface and lower atmosphere of a planet (as Earth or Venus) that is caused by conversion of solar radiation into heat in a process involving selective transmission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere, its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to the surface by atmospheric gases.” 'Merriam-Webster Dictionary'

Now lets look at the definition of Global Dimming. 'Wikipedia' Increased pollution, results in more airborne particulates, which cause clouds to consist of a greater number of smaller droplets, which in turn makes them more reflective, therefore bouncing more sunlight back into space. Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect. At night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss.

The problem comes in when you combine the two theories. Clouds are causing heat to leave the earth slower at night (this we know to be true). All over the earth cloud cover is changing constantly. There will be some areas where Global Dimming is going to cause there to be a lesser amount of heat energy reaching the surface of the earth, meaning that there is less heat to get rid of. The heat energy is radiated back out to space. This is where they claim that the cooling effect comes into play. You must keep in mind that the clouds are causing heat to leave the earth slower at night. Now for these effects to be evident there would have to be increased cloud cover during the day or at night everywhere that this phenomenon occurs. The problem is that there is nowhere you can go that there is constant cloud cover, from day to night at all times of the year. Remember for there to be a global change in temperature the effects would have to be prevalent at all times of the year. Otherwise seasonal changes would interfere with the outcome.

The Greenhouse Effect is much different in that there is no sun light (visible light) blocking attributes described in the effect. There are a few aspects that are left out of the equation; for instance every time it rains there is a drastic reduction in the about of pollutants in the air. This decrease includes particulates as well as greenhouse gases. The other thing is that the article starts talking about a “hotter dryer world.” How much hotter are they talking about? Not a lot, maybe 4ºF at the most. Increased heat will make it hotter and drier this will have to happen in places where it is already hot and dry. You have to remember, why is any place primarily dry? Places are dry because there are few moist air masses that cover those areas. In dry places the upper level winds do not come from the ocean areas where they pick up water. Air travels long distances over land, causing dry air masses. The places closer to the equator are going to see an increase in humidity. This will cause more rain, which will remove more of the pollutants from the atmosphere. Even if atmospheric moisture hangs out longer, it can only do it in areas where moisture was already prevalent.

You can see that with the current belief (theory) pollutants are causing two things to happen at the same time. On one hand you have Global Dimming, on the other you have an increase in the Greenhouse Effect. How is it that when you decrease the amount of pollutants you are left with only the Greenhouse Effect? That doesn’t make sense. If humans can cause an increase in pollutants causing both Global Dimming and the Greenhouse Effect, then how come only one effect is lessened by reduced pollution? Sounds a little like junk science to me.

What are we supposed to do? Start polluting again, but pick the "correct" pollutant? So, we should have kept using R-12 refrigerant. I thought CFCs were causing global warming; the greenhouse effect right? Oh, that's right the CFCs were supposed to be creating a hole in the ozone layer, that's right... None of this "science" is coherent. What ever happened to the giant hole in the ozone layer anyway? Hmm... It's funny how taxes are being backed by "science" to save the planet.

Remember what happened in 2005? There was a very active record breaking hurricane season. This was blamed on "Global Warming" in the media. Notice that the mean ocean temperature in the Atlantic was warmer in 2005 than they were the year before. The mean ocean temperature in the Pacific was cooler in 2005 than it was the year before. This year in 2006 there have been absolutely no hurricanes that made it to the east coast of the U.S. or the Gulf of Mexico. If you look at the mean temperatures of the Atlantic and the Pacific you will see that there has been a reversal in the temperatures. The Pacific nations have been hit by many damaging typhoons this year.

The weather patterns that have taken place are known global pattern. These patterns repeat about every 5 years. They are known as El Nino and La Nina. This pattern has been happening since before man walked the earth.

These illustrations show what the difference between the two global weather patterns El Nino, and La Nina. Notice the large differences in ocean temperature. That is why this year, 2006, we have had no hurricanes impacting the U.S. Because the warmer water is in the Pacific. Hurricanes need warm water to strengthen.

Consider this; given the drastic fluctuations in global temperatures in the past (before the industrial age) and the fact that nobody can explain their origins, why are we to believe that we (humans) are causing any fluctuations now? If these changes can exist without man's help, are we to assume that because we are here that we must be causing it? Doesn't that seem a little too simple?

07-21-23 ***************** UPDATE BELOW *****************

In an earlier paragraph I said, "What are we supposed to do? Start polluting again, but pick the "correct" pollutant?

That was a sarcastic comment I made, but it has now been considered as a viable option!?

The White House offered measured support for the idea of studying how to block sunlight from hitting Earth’s surface as a way to limit global warming, in a congressionally mandated report that could help bring efforts once confined to science fiction into the realm of legitimate debate.

The controversial concept known as solar radiation modification is a potentially effective response to fighting climate change, but one that could have unknown side effects stemming from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, some scientists say.

The White House report released late Friday indicates that the Biden administration is open to studying the possibility that altering sunlight might quickly cool the planet. But it added a degree of skepticism by noting that Congress has ordered the review, and the administration said it does not signal any new policy decisions related to a process that is sometimes referred to — or derided as — geoengineering.

“A program of research into the scientific and societal implications of solar radiation modification (SRM) would enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits of SRM as a component of climate policy, alongside the foundational elements of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and adaptation,” the White House report said. “SRM offers the possibility of cooling the planet significantly on a timescale of a few years.”

Still, the White House said in a statement accompanying the report, “there are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.”

I don't have the time to list all of the plans the government has hatched, said they weren't going to implement, but have now implemented. If it's announced that they are interested in it, they've been working on it for years. This is not something new.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.