Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the growing public awareness and attitudes toward global warming, particularly in the U.S. Participants observe a shift in perception, noting that previously, few events were attributed to global warming, but now many disasters, such as hurricanes and droughts, are increasingly linked to it. There is a recognition that media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion, with commercials aimed at raising awareness about climate change being highlighted as effective yet ultimately failing to spur action.Some express skepticism about the urgency of the global warming narrative, citing the need for reliable, non-political scientific data to motivate action. There are concerns about misinformation and the prevalence of conspiracy theories regarding alternative energy solutions. The conversation also touches on the perceived disconnect between public awareness and individual action, with many feeling overwhelmed or apathetic despite acknowledging the issue.Participants debate the potential consequences of global warming, with some emphasizing the immediate impacts seen in regions like New Orleans post-Katrina, while others question the extent of human influence on climate change.
  • #51
jimmie said:
Please provide the source of the CO2 information you have cited above.

Hey, no problem. 175 million years ago, CO2 reached a peak of 17 times the current concentration (6500 ppmv vs. 381 ppmv). Humans didn't exist.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

- Warren
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Here are a few quotes from a CO2 study, and the source of my information.

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

While we wait for you to provide a link to the source of your CO2 info, chroot, here is a link to the source of my CO2 info.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Hey, no problem. 175 million years ago, CO2 reached a peak of 17 times the current concentration (6500 ppmv vs. 381 ppmv). Humans didn't exist.

Is that the only empirical evidence on CO2 you used to formulate your conclusion on global warming, chroot?
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Hey, that's fine jimmie -- but 650,000 years isn't very long. The Earth has been around in pretty much its present form for at least several thousand times as long as that. CO2 concentrations have dozens of times higher than they are now, for entire geological periods in the past.

The truth is, it seems that CO2 levels are at a local maximum for the past 10,000 years or so -- and this is rather unexceptional, except when unscrupulous people like Mann put it on a graph in an effort to support a foregone conclusion.

- Warren
 
  • #55
jimmie said:
Is that the only empirical evidence on CO2 you used to formulate your conclusion on global warming, chroot?

Nope. It's just a piece of the evidence that I use to support my opinion that today's CO2 levels are insignificant in comparison to CO2 levels, created by non-human processes, that persisted for tens of millions of years in the past.

- Warren
 
  • #56
Pythagorean said:
Once skepticism starts, where does it end? Who do I trust?

I must disclaim that these are not rhetorical arguments, but inquiries.
Who is the skeptic? You must be. Who is the person you trust most? Yourself. Now go out and learn so you can rightfully trust yourself.
 
  • #57
It's just a piece of the evidence that I use to support my opinion that today's CO2 levels are insignificant in comparison to CO2 levels, created by non-human processes, that persisted for tens of millions of years in the past.

Whether or not the CO2 levels of "today" are insignificant in comparison to that of tens of millions of years ago is a moot point.

The CO2 levels of "today" are relevant to "today", and you and I are living "today", not "tens of millions" of years in the past.

Either data is relevant or not, and your data is not relevant to humans, chroot.

However, I would appreciate if you could provide more sources for your information on CO2, so that I may perhaps better understand your argument.
 
  • #58
jimmie said:
Whether or not the CO2 levels of "today" are insignificant in comparison to that of tens of millions of years ago is a moot point.

How is it a moot point? People want to believe that today's CO2 levels are extraordinarily high, and people are the only possible cause. Neither of these assertions have even the faintest ring of truth.

The CO2 levels of "today" are relevant to "today", and you and I are living "today", not "tens of millions" of years in the past.

What kind of retarded "argument" is that? Do you actually have a point?

- Warren
 
  • #59
For any individual to express that a particular phenomenon that they themselves have observed does not exist due to their own lack of knowledge of that particular observed phenomenon is naive, and certainly not scientific.

I already made my point, chroot.

What is your "scientific opinion", chroot, on the data I provided from the EPICA study?
 
  • #60
That's not a point, jimmie. That's an ad hominem.

By rights, it seems I know more about this topic than you do, anyway, so you don't make a very engaging opponent. See you next time.

- Warren
 
  • #61
to support a foregone conclusion.

Clearly, chroot, you too are an individual that makes arguments to support foregone conclusions.

Again, can you provide additional data to support your argument on CO2? Your "piece of evidence" is questionable, and certainly not sufficient.

Again, do you have a "scientific opinion" on the EPICA data?

Any "scientific opinion" on the data provided by Andre?
 
Last edited:
  • #62
:smile: How is it questionable? Look up Royer's work, and read it yourself. You've got to be kidding me -- it's questionable? Certainly not sufficient? How was your little paragraph about the last 650,000 years not questionable and insufficient?

Ask any climate researcher -- ANY of them -- and they will freely admit that CO2 levels have been upwards of 17 times higher in the past than they are now.

The more you talk, the more obvious is your ignorance.

- Warren
 
  • #63
You include a link to wikipedia, which displays only a graph, based upon data which is not clear, from an associate professor of an obscure university, and you expect people to believe your argument? :smile:

Please explain the methodology of that data; a link, perhaps.

That's not a point, jimmie. That's an ad hominem.

That was a point, chroot. How can any individual make a "scientific opinion" that excludes all possible empirical evidence known or not known?
 
Last edited:
  • #64
I read a book from Asimov where he described how high the CO2 levels are as compared to the past and this was in 1970. Clearly, they are much higher now.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and that was one of the things Asimov described. The only difference is that the environments were different and that the CO2 levels didn't rise this quickly as it is now.

I agree with "chroot". Make your footpring on the environment smaller. It's not that hard.

Do we really need an environmental crisis to change this? Like come on guys. We should be trying to more efficient each day and so far we are getting worse.

Humans will overcome this? Are you kidding me? This attitude make people worry about nothing. Haven't you heard about those who say "I will overcome this heart problem" and died the next day? It's the same attitude. Stay healthy from day one. Common sense guys.

Note: Not a "scientific" post like you are all describing, but you both seem to be arguing for no reason because no one is going to go searching through respected journals for reference for this silly argument.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Mk said:
Who is the skeptic? You must be. Who is the person you trust most? Yourself. Now go out and learn so you can rightfully trust yourself.

I know this is general discussion and all, but let's not rush to any conclusions that I'm not already pursuing a physics education.

Let's also not assume that I really care about pursuing an atmosphere/climatic education.
 
  • #66
JasonRox said:
I read a book from Asimov where he described how high the CO2 levels are as compared to the past and this was in 1970. Clearly, they are much higher now.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and that was one of the things Asimov described. The only difference is that the environments were different and that the CO2 levels didn't rise this quickly as it is now.

I agree with "chroot". Make your footpring on the environment smaller. It's not that hard.

Do we really need an environmental crisis to change this? Like come on guys. We should be trying to more efficient each day and so far we are getting worse.

Humans will overcome this? Are you kidding me? This attitude make people worry about nothing. Haven't you heard about those who say "I will overcome this heart problem" and died the next day? It's the same attitude. Stay healthy from day one. Common sense guys.

Note: Not a "scientific" post like you are all describing, but you both seem to be arguing for no reason because no one is going to go searching through respected journals for reference for this silly argument.

I don't know who you're addressing, but I'm not arguing, I'm discussing, and I actually did look through journals. The Geophysical Research Letters that chroot's wiki article refferenced. (I work at a research library, these things are easy to get my hands on).

The statitistics and atmospheric jargon are above my head, so I wouldn't try an argue right or wrong. I'm here to learn (mostly about scientific method in this case), which doesn't get done by nodding and smiling.
 
  • #67
Pengwuino said:
Not everyone has a swimming pool or can take a 6 hour long shower.I tried... oh boy did i try to take hte biggest shower last night but it didnt work too well.

Here it Edmonton the temperature has reached upwards of 55C in the sun (130F), yet I've been comfortable with no AC simply because I don't insist on wearing a wool sweater and long johns in the peak of summer. Dress for the conditions and you'll be fine. For me that is boot-cut jeans, sandals with no socks, and a button up shirt with the top 2 buttons left open. If you're really hard core you can wear shorts instead of jeans.


Has anybody considered the possibility that global warming is not caused by CO2 but by a lack of plant and animal life? I'm thinking of trees in particular. Trees don't add or remove water from the system, but they move a lot of water. Some trees have so much water passing through them you can hear it using a stethoscope. Those of you who have lived in a desert or by a lake/ocean would understand how much of a role water plays in regulating air temperature.
It's just something to think about.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/yu-dsa062205.php

The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago

Granted, with the sun getting increasly hotter with about 10% per billion years, the sun was 0,34% fainter 34 million years ago, the milankovitch insolation variation is much bigger, meaning that solar power in the Milankovitch minimums today was less than average then, 34 million years ago. Never mind, the difference is negliglible; yet, climate conditions were not much different then from nowadays. Yet five times more CO2 is around 1500-1800 ppmv whereas nowadays we are discussing 280 ppmv (preindustrual) - 378ppmv now and 500 ppmv projected for the second half of the century.

Now did anybody do some thinking about how those Tera joules of extra warmth did get into the oceans in my last post?

So how do you transfer heat, conduction, convection, radiation. What is the most effective? How about differences in infrared radiation and visible light radiation and penetration depth into water?
 
  • #69
Has the hot thread turned cold?

Anyway, I'd like to ponder a bit about that heat in the ocean, especially the deeper levels.

First of all, the ocean floors are usually around 273K/32F/0C There is very little temperature gradient going up until the last -upper- few hunderd meters. So it appears that geothermal heat and volcanoes are not relevant in heating the oceans. It must come from above. So how about the mechanism to accomplish that?

Conduction? The heat capacity of oceans is formidable. The heat capacity of air is negliglible compared to that. Consequently the role of conduction is mostly the water giving off heat to the atmosphere not the other way around. When we add convection into the equation, we see very little in the oceans with a very stable layering. The convection cells in the atmosphere take the heat up, not down, helping to cool the oceans. And then this effect only counts for the upper layers of water. Exchange of heat further down via conduction is very slow. Hence there is very little water heating going on this way. Also, think about the time it takes to boil water in a hot air convection stove. It's not meant for that.

Consequently a mere 0,6 degrees of air temperature rise in the atmosphere due to whatever factor is not going to change the ocean temperatures that easily. This idea is sustained by the observation that the land atmospheric temperatures have seen a higher rising trend than the oceanic air temperatures.

Apparently we have to go for the radiation to heat the oceans and then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas, whereas the solar radiation is thought to have been much more constant.

So which kind of radiation is most likely to heat the water effectively?

Obviously the outcome of this question could either prove or falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to increased infrared radiation due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
I'm an orthodox Christian who believes that global warming is obvious. I watched a program on the science channel last night about global warming which confirmed the obvious.

I have a question for this forum: Why do many political Christians deny global warming?
 
  • #71
Because the physical truth is not identical to the opinion of anybody, be it evil or good, be the majority or the minority. If you are right, you're right and if you're wrong, you're wrong. Science progresses by finding out why we are wrong all the time. That time has now come for the "anthropogenic" (human caused) part of the global warming
 
  • #72
Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place. :-p

- Warren
 
  • #73
chroot said:
Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place. :-p

- Warren

The Science Channel is actually not too bad (except for the evolutionary bias, though that's way I watch it). I do like DR.Kaku and believe that he is a very true physicist with the motive of discovering something truthful that goes beyond biasness. He is an evolutionist, be if he continues the research he's been doing he'll soon discover the Creator! I do truly admire his passion to seek the answers...that is very rare.
 
  • #74
Origen:

Let me make something clear. Your introduction of religion to this discussion is unwelcome. Any further posts you make that involve religion will be deleted, and you will be warned.

- Warren
 
  • #75
chroot said:
Origen:

Let me make something clear. Your introduction of religion to this discussion is unwelcome. Any further posts you make that involve religion will be deleted, and you will be warned.

- Warren

Origen said:
Ok, let me get this right.
edit:by Evo Origen, you have been warned repeatedly, religious posts are forbidden on this forum. If you want to make religious posts, you are free to find another forum that allows them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
chroot said:
I wasn't aware that there was any consensus among climate scientists that global warming is both real, and anthropogenic. It fact, I thought it was only recently that it became a consesus among climate scientists that global warming was happening at all, without regard to whether or not it's anthropogenic.

I am only repeating what scientists who hold significant research positions are saying when interviewed.

You know I'm not going to take your word for it.

I really don't care.

You've already made it rather clear that you're an alarmist on the issue, yet you're not a climate researcher, and presumably have a very weak intellectual grasp of the enormouse body of (often-conflicting) climate data. I don't mean to be offensive, but really, why should anyone believe you? Or Al Gore?

First of all, you completely misrepresent my position on this. I am not an alarmist. I am evaluating the odds based on what leading scientists are reporting. I don't proclaim expertise where I have none, as you frequently do. I repeat what I hear and read from reputable sources who usually are leaders in the field - such as the head of NOAA etc, who for one was recently on Charley Rose.

Now you may see it as reasonable to take your lead from internet sources, and draw conclusions from your own expetise in climatology as an electrical engineer, and rely on papers taken in isolation and probably out of context, but I choose to put my trust in the experts who report to the public the consensus opinion from their point of view. I did not set out to prove anything here.

If you have evidence -- not anecdote, not argument to authority, not bandwagon consensus, not models, not simple-minded study replete with dozens of systematic errors -- then sure, bring it on. To my knowledge, no such empirical evidence exists, and, in my scientific opinion, indicates that the entire phenomenon of global warming is being perceived where it does not exist.

- Warren

I am not about to try to prove anything to you or anyone else. I don't claim to be qualifed, as apparently you believe yourself to be.
 
  • #77
Tell me the name of the person, Ivan, and I can give you the transcripts.
 
  • #78
Origen said:
You have been warned repeatedly, religious posts are forbidden on this forum. If you want to make religious posts, you are free to find another forum that allows them.

This post has been attributed to me...I didn't write it!
I came to this forum with a peaceful heart and good intentions. But like Rambo, you've really pushed me the wrong way. You deleted my post and falsified it out of fear. You have just proven evolution is a lie, because everyone wants to cover up a lie by deleting the opposing view.

I'm open to discussion because I have nothing to hide!
 
  • #79
Exnay on the religionsay.
 
  • #80
Origen said:
This post has been attributed to me...I didn't write it!
I came to this forum with a peaceful heart and good intentions. But like Rambo, you've really pushed me the wrong way. You deleted my post and falsified it out of fear. You have just proven evolution is a lie, because everyone wants to cover up a lie by deleting the opposing view.

I'm open to discussion because I have nothing to hide!
If you had looked at the top it showed I had edited out your off topic religious rant. I have added a note at the bottom to make it clearer.

Since you refuse to accept our guidelines, you have lost your privileges to post here. We gave you quite a few chances to stop.
 
  • #81
Don't you just hate when you miss out on a deletion!
 
  • #82
chroot said:
What kind of retarded "argument" is that? Do you actually have a point?


chroot said:
Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place. :-p

- Warren

:rolleyes: WHAT??!

Warren, what the hell is the matter with you? What kind of a forum 'administrator' makes cheap shot, lowly comments like this? Too sad...
 
  • #83
Tsu said:
:rolleyes: WHAT??!

Warren, what the hell is the matter with you? What kind of a forum 'administrator' makes cheap shot, lowly comments like this? Too sad...

Heh, you have a point.

- Warren
 
  • #84
Yes. I do.
 
  • #85
Tsu said:
Yes. I do.

Yes. You do.

- Warren
 
  • #86
Sick that puppy on him Tsu!
 
  • #87
Pengwuino said:
Sick that puppy on him Tsu!

Well, hey, the second comment that Tsu quoted was a joke anyway... I don't think I deserve a canine attack!

- Warren
 
  • #88
Hey! I'm the 'decider' on this one! Thinking... thinking... hmmm...wonder how chroots ankles taste? Bet I could turn 'em into HAMBURGER! :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #89
Uh oh, Tsu's here...
 
  • #90
:biggrin: :biggrin:
 
  • #91
Andre said:
Apparently we have to go for the radiation to heat the oceans and then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas, whereas the solar radiation is thought to have been much more constant.
You have this backwards. Greenhouse gas is supposed to absorb radiation, meaning less of it would reach the ocean and be able to heat it. The greenhouse effect would heat up the Earth's atmosphere which would then heat up the oceans by convection and conduction. That is of course assuming greenhouse gas is to blame. It could be a bunch of underwater nuclear bomb tests for all I know.
 
  • #92
ShawnD said:
andre said:
then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas,...
You have this backwards. Greenhouse gas is supposed to absorb radiation,

Of course it does, but I think I expressed myself badly by not explaining what happens next.

So how does greenhouse effect work? incoming solar visible light radiation passes the atmosphere unaltered, then it is absorbed in the surface and retransmitted on a broad spectrum, mostly as infra red. Now if this infra red radiation could escape again unaffected in the atmosphere, then where would not be greenhouse effect. However most frequencies of this infrared are adsorbed as you say by greenhouse gas molecules but by law of thermal radiation[/url] the absorbed IR is retransmitted again in random directions. Some of it is directed downwards again and reach the surface, which would not have happened without greenhouse gas effect. This means that the surface actually encounters more infra red radiation, retransmitted, sort of reflected from the atmosphere.

So what happens to the mix of radiation that hits the ocean surfaces? For the visible light it’s rather obvious by observation, Some light is reflected but most enters the water and gets absorbed after certain distance, the optical depth, the red light goes first, after only a few meters, the blue light penetrates deepest to some 100 meter before it gets adsorbed. But in the end we see that most visible light gets absorbed, meaning that it transfers into heat. Consequently, visible light can penetrate and warm the oceans to a certain depth.

How about infra-red? We know that water vapour is the most potent natural greenhouse gas because of it’s molecular structure. The same mechanism also works for fluid water and infrared light is absorbed by the first molecule layers in the water surface. Here it retransmits in all directions but much of that energy is transferred to heat at the water surface directly. Heat is no more than molecular velocity and faster molecules tend to escape from the water surface, taking the energy away from the water and hence not heating it up.

Consequently, it appears that the net effect of infrared on water is stimulating evaporation but not heating it. Of course this can be tested by very simple means. And when the parameterization is correct, this can also be simulated in climate models. No need for a couple of atom bombs.

So concluding from my scattered posts here, the only effective way to heat oceans is by visible light, infrared cannot heat oceans, consequently, the variation in oceanic heat content is most likely variation in visible light not variation in greenhouse gas concentration.

So if oceans are warmer, it’s because of more light and there was more light, because there were less clouds:

[URL][PLAIN]http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/albedo-temp.GIF

Consequently, it’s the sun that causes global warming, not increased greenhouse effect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
BTW an update on the hockeystick graph which has been discussed earlier in this thread here.

Meanwhile, could we find more evidence for what the main cause is of the recent warming trend? Perhaps the warming trends of land, ocean and lower atmosphere (lower trophosphere). If there is difference, it could confirm or refute any of the two warming mechanisms, more sunlight or more greenhouse effect.

So, if it was greenhouse effect, we would expect the increased infrared adsorbtion cause more warming in the lower atmosphere, causing the highest trend, the radiation backwards to the surface would cause a secondary warming trend. Since the sea surface sort of reflects the IR, the air very close above it, would also show the increased warming trend. So in case of greenhouse effect, you would expect the highest warming trend in the lower trophosphere and lower, about comparable warming trends, over land and over sea.

With more visible sunlight it's abit different. The effect sunlight starts at the surface, increasing land temeratures the most. Sea surface temperatures would rise less because most of the radiation continuous down to deeper levels. The lower trophosphere gets heated from the surface and would show a lower trend. So with more sunlight: highest land temperatures trend, slightly lower sea tempeartures trend and lowest trophosphere trend.

So, what do we know about all those trends?

Here they are, against the 1988 prediction of Hansen in fainter color for best-worst scenarios and the reality in red for land stations, black for all, including oceans and dark blue (MSU2LT), giving the satellite readings for the lower trophosphere. So what's the verdict?

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/predict.GIF
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
MeJennifer said:
The reality of "stopping the global warming" will be that the western world will go and attempt to stop car ownership and energy consumption in the developing world.
I don't know about the rest of the west, but America would like nothing more than to sell billions of cheaply made crap cars to all those new middle class Asians.

The irony is that it's illegal to sell American cars in China because they don't meet the People's strict emission standards.

I know it would be very cynical and ironic but it will be justified as some other "manifest destiny".

Perhaps sad but true IMHO.

Whoa... you need to cheer up! :smile:

Before something like that would ever happen, we'd much rather try to make a couple billion off them by exporting nanosolar panels or something.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Jeff Reid said:
Well if global warming becomes a big issue, they could set off a few hydrogen bombs in the oceans to create a mini nuclear winter.
It's not the bombs that bring about a nuclear winter, its the smoke and soot from the things that are set aflame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Go for the smaller cities.
 
  • #96
Just think of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day and it will all go away.
 
  • #97
Mattara said:
Just think of Margaret Thatcher naked on a cold day and it will all go away.
:bugeye: thanks:wink: :smile: thinking of Margeret Thatcher clothed on any day makes me shudder, speaking as an ex conservative, she did my political direction no end of good.

Something I found whilst playing around in the other parts of the WWW. Counterarguments, anyone think this is a good anti global warming argument:wink:

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel.

Cloud changes

Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Dr Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation.

"There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me." Intrigued, he searched records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked.

Sunlight was falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles.

Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to one to two per cent globally every decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Dr Stanhill called it "global dimming", but his research, published in 2001, met a sceptical response from other scientists.

It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution.

Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide - the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming - but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds.

Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds.

Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall.

There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 80s.

There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population.

"My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Professor Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at the University of California, San Diego. "We are talking about billions of people."

Alarming energy

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect.

They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide we have placed there.

What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6 degree Celsius.

This has led many scientists to conclude that the present-day climate is less sensitive to the effects of carbon dioxide than it was, say, during the ice age, when a similar rise in CO2 led to a temperature rise of six degrees Celsius.

But it now appears the warming from greenhouse gases has been offset by a strong cooling effect from dimming - in effect two of our pollutants have been cancelling each other out.

This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than previously thought.

If so, then this is bad news, according to Dr Peter Cox, one of the world's leading climate modellers.

As things stand, CO2 levels are projected to rise strongly over coming decades, whereas there are encouraging signs that particle pollution is at last being brought under control.

"We're going to be in a situation unless we act where the cooling pollutant is dropping off while the warming pollutant is going up.

"That means we'll get reducing cooling and increased heating at the same time and that's a problem for us," says Dr Cox.

Even the most pessimistic forecasts of global warming may now have to be drastically revised upwards.

BTW I think I stand on the action side of the issue as a Brit:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Concerning this.

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun, according to scientists who have been looking at five decades of sunlight measurements.

They have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling.

Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.

I'm sorry to say but it's really a little refuted. We have discussed the problems with that point of view here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37706
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18883

Nice to stand on the action side but so did Don Quixhote, forgive me the comparison but fighting climate is fighting windmills. Better put the action where it makes the difference.
 
  • #99
Andre said:
Concerning this.



I'm sorry to say but it's really a little refuted. We have discussed the problems with that point of view here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37706
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=18883

Nice to stand on the action side but so did Don Quixhote, forgive me the comparison but fighting climate is fighting windmills. Better put the action where it makes the difference.



Not at all I appreciate the description, by fighting I of course mean a good defense, ie recycling, reducing CO2 emmisions, using less energy.


Andre your European I would guess, not sure? I worked out my bio footprint the other day and was delighted to find out that it was half the national average. around 2.2, uk is 5.4 the US average was 8, but many big city residents, had around 20+ in the US. Which is because in no small part because of the large distances and over reliance on cars, lack of recycling and high energy needs in general. You guys are bad at that sort of stuff, very bad :smile:
 
  • #100
Yes I'm very European, being Dutch and living in Germany, My sisters live in France and my daughter is going to work in London this month and I just reduced my bio footprint by exchanging my old 1 liter / 12 km gaz car for a new 1 liter / 23 km diesel (55 mpg US) and looking mildly interested at the feasibility of home brewed bio diesel. But that has more to do with economizing, anticipating sky high fuel prizes, than climate.

There are many very good reasons for minimizing energy dependability and reduction of fossil fuel 'addiction' but climate is not one of them. Hence all kind of crash actions to reduce emission tomorrow and save the world, may backfire severely. Windturbines may work fine at the lonely Pondarosa ranch but these produce just about negative energy in high populated areas for instance.

Better to convert gradually and thoughtfully towards really efficient sources, which would include un-scaremongering of nuclear means.
 
Back
Top