Global Dimming

[have_blue]

What they didn't emphacize enough on Nova is that the earth is self regulating.

If the climate warms more than usual, thick clouds develop. The clouds are bright white seen from above, and a great reflector for sunlight.

If the climate gets too cold, there is less cloud cover, allowing more warm sunlight to reach the earth.

So,,, we will always see warming and cooling cycles, but they will be mild and self limiting. By "mild", I mean the earth won't go up in flames or turn into a big ice ball. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[_RaT_]

Earth, harder to destroy then we think.

I do agree Deerefan, while it may be impossible to destroy it, we can make it less enjoyable to live on via our actions.

 

[TOMLESCOEQUIP]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Driving home from work today, listening to NPR, they had a real short segment on somone (perhaps a future interview??) who was proposing creating/building in outer space, sort of "curtains" to sheild the earth from the sun.

Seems his idea that he admitted, could cost millions, billions or trillions (no idea but I know it's more than I got /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) and take some kind of material, hoist it wayyyyyyyy out in space and literally, build a wall between the sun and us.

That is just about all I heard about it. No idea if his intent is to block the entire earth, poles, oceans or mean spirited continents.

Strikes me as something that would be as costly as it is ambitious. Probably has about the same chances as that proverbial snowball in a hot place. )</font>Why don't we all just go to wally world & buy a 55 gallon drum of coppertone factor 45 & just spray it on everything ? Cheaper that a space curtain, & we get some great lookin' tan lines !!

 

[LBrown59]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Global Dimming?

I guess I'm in the dark on this one. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>
At least that way you won't notice it
lol

 

[BlueRidge]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Global Dimming?

I guess I'm in the dark on this one. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif )</font>


Let me see if I can help you with this:

This is where the very same idiots that were screaming "ICE AGE COMING!! THE END OF THE WORLD! IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF POLLUTION!!!" back in the 70s are now screaming "GLOBAL WARMING! FLOODS COMING!! THE END OF THE WORLD! IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF POLLUTION!!!"

The <font color="blue">dimming</font> part comes in because we have done such a poor job of teaching basic science that most of America has become <font color="blue">dim</font> enough to believe these idiots.

(HINT: Natural cycles are many orders of magnitude more powerful than man's pollution.)

 

[LMTC]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( (HINT: )</font>

Ditto on the hint. Doesn't it seem incredibly egotistical to assume that the body of knowledge that we have is sufficient to explain, let alone predict, the course of physical events for the entire planet? I love the articles about weather patterns, when our actual instrument-detected and recorded information on specific weather patterns is at best several hundred years old. History may record information about general patterns further back than that, but general is the operative word. We have no idea if the average temp through summer in a given spot is 3* higher today than in 1206.

And I completely agree on the double entendre of the word "dimming". Science, math, ECONOMICS (there are way too many people who believe that GOVERNMENT---which is not supposed to be an entity but rather a mechanism---has it's own supply of money, rather than understanding that what GOVERNMENT has it takes from the people) I am convinced that the average college grad today knows no more than a HS grad of 50 years ago.

 

[EddieWalker]

Last month I read in the news that for the last 8 years, the average temps on the planet have droped. It is an insignificant amount, but for the last 8 years anyway, the planet did NOT get warmer!!!!!!

What was really intresting is that this story was in every news website from Yahoo, to Drudge to CNN for about a day, then it disapeared. I didn't see it on TV or hear it on the radio.

Eddie

 

[jmc]

Personally, I prefer the "Just a natural cycle" explanation over the grim explanation most scientists believe. That means I can go about my business as usual with no sacrifice in lifestyle. And if I'm wrong, then my kids will just have to eat bark.

I also believe that if we just educate hormone drenched teenagers about the evils of sex, they won't do it.

The politics of wishful thinking...

John

 

[turnkey4099]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Personally, I prefer the "Just a natural cycle" explanation over the grim explanation most scientists believe. That means I can go about my business as usual with no sacrifice in lifestyle. And if I'm wrong, then my kids will just have to eat bark.

I also believe that if we just educate hormone drenched teenagers about the evils of sex, they won't do it.

The politics of wishful thinking...

John

)</font>

I am on the "Don't know" side. That global warming is occurring cannot be denied. All it takes is to notice the retreating glaciers and shrinking icecaps worldwide.

Now just -what- is causing it is open for investigation. There is entirelyh too much

"tis not" "tis too"

for rational debate. Those on the side of 'man made' refuse to consider 'natural cycle' and vice versa. I think it is a mix of the two.

Harry K

 

[BlueRidge]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Personally, I prefer the "Just a natural cycle" explanation over the grim explanation most scientists believe. )</font>

The "most scientists" part is a good illustration of the dimming. This is known as "argument from authority". There was a time when most scientists believed that the earth was flat, too. Or that life could be created from "spontaneous generation". Or that heavier than air flight was impossible. And the list goes on.

What matters is what the evidence says, and the evidence for man-made global warming is, uh, less than credible.

Oh, the dirty little secret about "most scientists" is that there are MANY qualified scientists who do NOT believe the popular line, but since the chicken little story suits the leftists, that bit doesn't get into the mainstream media.


Do some homework.