• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Has anyone heard of Global Dimming and if so what are your thoughts on it??

ladypinkington

Rubber Nipple Salesperson
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,126
MBTI Type
INFJ
Here is a link that talks about what I am talking about for anyone who has never heard of it.


NOVA | Dimming the Sun | PBS

If anyone has heard of it, what are your thoughts on it and- have you done any research on it and if so what have you learned?
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
Very interesting. So that explains how scientists weren't crazy when they previously feared global cooling.
 

Dark Razor

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
271
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Basically what it will do is dramatically accelerate global warming once the pollution clears up.

Though there is also increasing particle polution from burning coal, particularly in China, however the effect does not only seem to be global but also local, meaning that the temperature in Europe for example may rise as local pollution there is increasingly clearing up and more sunlight reaches the surface.

It's also not just a matter of warming or cooling, as the particle emissions also alter cloud formation and rainfall patterns, so any change in particle emissions has an effect on agriculture, floods, droughts etc. in certain areas.

The decrease in sunlight that reaches the surface also effects plant growth quite significantly, which in combination with altered rainfal patterns can quite dramatically impact agriculture in some areas, for example in Africa, though I dont exactly remember in which part of it.

I am mostly basing this on the BBC Horizon feature about global dimming and some reading on random sites and Wikipedia.

Here's the transcript of the BBC episode:
BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
That BBC program certainly paints a pretty bad picture, especially when they start talking about the release of methane hydrate. Is that really a possibility?

A few days ago, I remember looking outside and I was just amazed at how the sky looked so deep blue. Usually, the color isn't as deep as it was that day. I wonder if that just weather patterns pushing pollution away for a day.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I'm going to take exception to something the BBC article said. It claimed we could reach a "point of no return", which is what would lead to the release of methane hydrates. At least that's how I interpreted the transcript. After reading up a bit on methane hydrates, it appears there have been massive releases in the past. They're linked to previous mass extinctions.

Maybe this is what they mean by "point of no return", that we're definitely heading to a mass extinction. In my mind, a point of no return would lead to permanent extinction of all life, something akin to Earth's climate becoming more like Venus'. A mass extinction is certainly not desirable, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a point of no return.
 

Dark Razor

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
271
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
I'm going to take exception to something the BBC article said. It claimed we could reach a "point of no return", which is what would lead to the release of methane hydrates. At least that's how I interpreted the transcript. After reading up a bit on methane hydrates, it appears there have been massive releases in the past. They're linked to previous mass extinctions.

Maybe this is what they mean by "point of no return", that we're definitely heading to a mass extinction. In my mind, a point of no return would lead to permanent extinction of all life, something akin to Earth's climate becoming more like Venus'. A mass extinction is certainly not desirable, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a point of no return.

Maybe they should have called it a "tipping point" that'd probably be a more accurate description. From what I know the hydrates on the sea floor will be fairly stable for the time being, as the ocean takes quite some time to heat up, the more immediate danger seems to be thawing permafrost and methan deposits on the arctic shore, like explained in this article:
Methane in the Arctic and its Role in Global Climate Change

The potential consequenses seem to be quite severe, there is also the phenomenon that was talked about in "Inconvennient Truth" (independend of what you think of the movie), where large bodies of ice can completely disintegrate if just their surface starts melting, because the water, which is heavier than ice, sinks through the ice all the way down to the bedrock, forming canals through the ice block and raising it from the rock, which may cause large icemasses, like the Greenland Ice Sheet to suddenly slide into the sea all at once at some point instead of gradually melting. Which means that it is by no means certain that sea level rise will be a slow and gradual process, if a certain amount of thawing happens in Greenland and West Antarctica then a rise of several feet could happen within a very short time actually.

There is a mass extinction already underway, actually, which is mostly caused by habitat destruction and pollution because of human activity, though global warming is also playing a role. From what I gather it is estimated that between one fourth and half of all species will likely become extinct durting the next 100 years, which means that this is probably the fastest extinction that has ever taken place on earth, which may cause the collapse of complete eco-systems and therefor also limit the ability of humans to grow food. The Amazon rainforest for example will likely be completely gone by 2100 or even earlier, which will completely alter global weather patterns. Here is some information about the extinction:
Mass Extinction Underway | Biodiversity Crisis | Global Species Loss

Edit: I think they DID talk about the earth heating up like Venus in the documentary, but from what I know it is controversial among scientists if that is even theoretically possible, I have seen it argued that the atmosphere would likely stabilize at 10C warmer than now, which would kill most life though.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
Edit: I think they DID talk about the earth heating up like Venus in the documentary, but from what I know it is controversial among scientists if that is even theoretically possible, I have seen it argued that the atmosphere would likely stabilize at 10C warmer than now, which would kill most life though.
Thanks for the links. I'm going to read those articles when I have a chance.

I don't think it's theoretically possible for the Earth to become like Venus. About a year ago, I was reading up on terraforming and there was talk about how it's impossible to turn Venus into an Earth-like planet. It had to do with the lack of water because Venus' escape velocity is just below the threshold needed to retain it's hydrogen. Earth's escape velocity is just above that threshold. In order to terraform Venus, the article said we'd need to crash some bodies (likely asteroids), preferrably with large amounts of hydrogen, into Venus. It seemed like a logical argument to me.

Anyway, from everything I've read, I agree that the Earth would likely stabilize at a higher temperature. It would still be disasterous, obviously. But there have been many disasters in the past. Life would recover (probably without us).
 

ladypinkington

Rubber Nipple Salesperson
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,126
MBTI Type
INFJ
I just love Earth Sciences, even though studying it can be kind of angering and depressing sometimes! Thanks to you both for your input.

I learned not too long that the humidity in the rain forest is actually made by the trees exhaling moisture to the sky from what they absorb from their roots and that in fact is why it is so rainy and humid. The Rain Forest is the Earth's lungs. Deforestation is a major concern because the more the rainforest is cut down- the less moisture it is able to exhale to the atmosphere= the less rain that will fall down to South America as I understand it. And at a certain point it will not have enough moisture to keep the cycle going needed to maintain its needs. Not to mention disrupting the wildlife relationship to the rainforest and its interdependent life cycle. I just think how that process works is fascinating.

I hope I have explained that somewhat well- I am not very good at explaining myself in good technical ways.
 

Dark Razor

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
271
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
I don't think it's theoretically possible for the Earth to become like Venus. About a year ago, I was reading up on terraforming and there was talk about how it's impossible to turn Venus into an Earth-like planet. It had to do with the lack of water because Venus' escape velocity is just below the threshold needed to retain it's hydrogen. Earth's escape velocity is just above that threshold. In order to terraform Venus, the article said we'd need to crash some bodies (likely asteroids), preferrably with large amounts of hydrogen, into Venus. It seemed like a logical argument to me.
We already had that discussion on INTPc, remember? ;)


I just love Earth Sciences, even though studying it can be kind of angering and depressing sometimes! Thanks to you both for your input.

I learned not too long that the humidity in the rain forest is actually made by the trees exhaling moisture to the sky from what they absorb from their roots and that in fact is why it is so rainy and humid. The Rain Forest is the Earth's lungs. Deforestation is a major concern because the more the rainforest is cut down- the less moisture it is able to exhale to the atmosphere= the less rain that will fall down to South America as I understand it. And at a certain point it will not have enough moisture to keep the cycle going needed to maintain its needs. Not to mention disrupting the wildlife relationship to the rainforest and its interdependent life cycle. I just think how that process works is fascinating.

I hope I have explained that somewhat well- I am not very good at explaining myself in good technical ways.

Yes, you explained that correctly :yes: , cloud formation over the rainforest depends on the water that evaporates from the foilage, so if the forest is thined to much the weather will change to be dryer and the forest will become more prone to burning and and might eventually change into some type of savanna.
 

ladypinkington

Rubber Nipple Salesperson
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,126
MBTI Type
INFJ
You both are really cool :)

You guys/gals? wouldn't also happen to be into Geomagnetic Reversal or The
Shifting Magnetic Pole Alignment of Earth as well would you?

I am learning about and am getting into that currently.
I would love to know what your thoughts are on that as well :)
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I'm not really sure what to think about changes with the magnetic poles. There's no conclusive evidence of any mass extinction due either to drifting or flipping. Our recent ancestors lived through several, so I don't see why we shouldn't be able to.

I think it would be cool to be looking at a compass while it happened, though! Maybe I'll start carrying one around with me, just in case! :D
 

ladypinkington

Rubber Nipple Salesperson
Joined
Jul 19, 2007
Messages
1,126
MBTI Type
INFJ
I'm not really sure what to think about changes with the magnetic poles. There's no conclusive evidence of any mass extinction due either to drifting or flipping. Our recent ancestors lived through several, so I don't see why we shouldn't be able to.

I think it would be cool to be looking at a compass while it happened, though! Maybe I'll start carrying one around with me, just in case! :D

Yeah I'm not sure what all would really happen really if and when the poles were to shift- I am just starting to learn about it- I don't think it'll cause any extinction or anything really drastic per sei - it would be interesting to see how the animal's sense of direction are affected though- birds might fly north for the winter,lol.
 

Sahara

New member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
927
MBTI Type
INFP
Ladypinkington thank you so much for this topic, I was hopelessly unaware of this, I thought only global warming was the issue, but this is terrible.

Dark razor thank you for the transcript and the other links, made for some pretty horrifying reading, and lateralus thanks for the link to the documentary, I watched it last night. :)

What are people meant to do to turn this around? if reducing global emissions? is going to expose us to more global warming than we thought, what are we supposed to do? (total infp fact paragraph lol)

What can I do, and what can I start telling people to do?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I was unaware of this until you pointed it out. If my understanding is correct, reducing particle emissions has actually warmed the globe because we aren't doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas? If what they say is true, we may need to temporarily bolster particle emissions to keep things from overheating until we can find a solution to reducing the greenhouse effect.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I was unaware of this until you pointed it out. If my understanding is correct, reducing particle emissions has actually warmed the globe because we aren't doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas? If what they say is true, we may need to temporarily bolster particle emissions to keep things from overheating until we can find a solution to reducing the greenhouse effect.


That would seem reasonable if warming were the only issue. Light and not heat is what causes evaporation of water. This consequently has an effect on rainfall. So reduction in light could cause draughts in various places. Also I have a personal preference for breathing clean air. ;)

So we're in a catch-22 situation until we can reduce both greenhouse emissions and particle emissions.
 

Dark Razor

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
271
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Yes, thx for the link as well, had not seen it in a while :) .

What are people meant to do to turn this around? if reducing global emissions? is going to expose us to more global warming than we thought, what are we supposed to do? (total infp fact paragraph lol)

What can I do, and what can I start telling people to do?

I am not sure anything can be really done about it, reducing emissions drastically would certainly help, but it would have to happen yesterday and be coordinated worldwide to have any effect, we are talking about a complete restructuring of the world economy within one or two decades, which would have to start now. Most importantly fossile fuels would have to be mostly replaced and energy consumption would have to be drastically reduced.

None of this will happen though, if we look past the political retoric and at what is actually being done in the world then we see that practically nothing is happening and that profit considerations are given priority over measures to mitigate climate change.

Now if we had enough time, like a few centuries, or optimistically a few decades, then individual action might actually achieve something, but as it is now action is required so quickly that it would have to be imposed from above and strictly enforced, which will not happen though because the economic and political system would have to kind of change itself, as there is no one standing above the system who could change the global economic workings in such a way that they used resources in a sustainable way.

What is happening right now is that isolated aspects of those workings are reformed, for example we now have hybrid cars and generally more fuel efficient cars, however that is not really accomplishing much, instead it would be necessary to phase out cars completely and construct a public transportation system that runs on a non-fossile fuel base energy source. Additionally cities and towns should be restructured in such a way that motorized transport can be minimized. So instead of reforming the pollution factor car and basically continue buisness as usuall, we completely eliminate it and create something that fullfils the same purpose, providing transportation for the masses minus the negative effects on the enviroment.
In conjuntion with a more efficient city layout one could also completely revise how buildings are constructed to minimize energy for heating and cooling through insulation, window placement, angle of the building towards the sun etc.

Which wont happen though because it is not "profitable".


This same pattern repeats itself across the whole economy actually, so for example instead of trying to build cleaner industries, but continuesly expanding the number of them, we should rather develop cleaner industries and at the same time shut down all production that is non-essential, and redistribute property to minimize necessary production. For example, say someone is really rich and owns six cars, he can still only use one car at a time and the others are just standing around and are therefor useless to anyone. So if we would only allow him to own one car then we needed to produce five cars less. Of course, this is neither compatible with current societal standards (it would requiere overall direction as opposed to "individual freedom") nor with an infinte growth economy.

Sorry for straying so far "out there" but it is necessary to show that one can not really talk about the enviroment without talking about the economy because the economy (and society in general) does not allow for us to actually reduce production, but requires us to continuesly expand it (which includes the "service industry", unless it is solely constituted by human labour.).

We also remain dependent on fossile fuels for practically all of our energy production (including combustion engines etc.) and there is currently NO technology that could replace those fossile fuels within any reasonable amount of time. There are neither vehicles available nor is there any infrastructure, which would take decades to develop (and ethanol is not an alternative because it needs lots of oil to be produced in the first place.)
For this reason I believe that burning fossile fuels will continue until there are no more economically exploitable deposits, so we will likely burn almost all the oil and coal that exist on the earth no matter the consequenses.

Basically I do not believe that the framework presented by the economy and and the societal structures are sufficiently flexible to adapt to the rapid change of it's very basis, the enviroment, and will therefor fail which means that advanced human civilization will fail with it.


If what they say is true, we may need to temporarily bolster particle emissions to keep things from overheating until we can find a solution to reducing the greenhouse effect.

Hm, that would probably not be such a good idea, as this has many other negative effects, though I think that the particle emisions will probably remain high for the nearer future because when oil supplies become scarcer many nations will resort to increasing use of coal...

I'd think that the lense or whatever it is that could block the sunlight from space would be a better idea, but that wont happen either because the people who could allocate resources to such a project are much more likely to spend the money on things like the Iraq War instead.

Which raises interesting questions about authority to tamper with the environment.

Indeed, it does.
Superficially it comes down to the question if individuals distinct from the collective public should be allowed to utilize the enviroment as a resource for their own gain/profit if that use has a detrimental effect on someone other than them (they should not).
However, even if an overall coordination according to the best available scientific data about human impact on the enviroment would always be implemented, as opposed to individuals acting contrary to those findings out of ignorance or indifference and thereby causing unnecessary harm to themselves and everyone else, then the actual data that action is based on could still be faulty or incomplete. In that case the enviroment, and therefor the basis for survival of the population that depends on it, could still be destroyed even if everyone acts in accordance with the best availabe knowledge about how to minimize damage.

Which means that human civilization will likely fail if it gains the means to manipulate the environment in a potentially catastrophic way before it posesses complete understanding of the mechanisms on which the stability of that environment actually depends.

Which is exactly what is currently happening, we are manipulating nature in many different ways each of which could potentially have catastrophic consequences without actually understanding in detail what effects this will have, it's like driving full speed over the highway in a car with no windows.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I don't think there is anything we can do. The world is run by Ss. Most Ss refuse to believe this issue is real. They'll continue to deny it until they're literally roasting. So my plan of action? Maybe I'll start looking for land near the Hudson bay or northern Alaska.

Has anyone staked claim to Antarctica?

Here's something to think about. Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric half life of ~50-100 years. Even if we stopped pumping out greenhouse gases today, we're still stuck with what we've already done for a long, long time. Thankfully, methane's atmospheric half life is only around 12 years.
 
Top