Global Dimming

Now I know why global warming isn';t really showing it affects.

Read:

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

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssu...obaldimming.asp

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/...2/keen-dimming/

someone watched that special on it on saturday/friday night...

It is a serious concern though, i've been looking up lately and for the past 2 days the only clouds in the sky were purely caused by vaportrails.

strange this should come up now...

the BBC have been supporting a Distributed Computing project (http://www.climateprediction.net). which recently found flaws in it's programing, when users finally started to submit finished models (they thought it would take at least twice as long ).

anyway, cut a long story short, some dumb ass had cut down one of the files to make it easier to download, neglecting the fact that it was a vital part of the global dimming side of the simulation, thus causing the entire batch of simulations completed to warm up far more than reality has shown (the project was simulating from 1920 to 2080 btw, so a lot of the time it could be compared to history for accuracy purposes).

i just find it humorous that such a vital part would have been cut .

Dang there are a lot of those distributed computing things out there.

Yeah, that's because distributed computing really works. FAH, if nothing else, has shown that much.

And if global dimming is present, then I guess that we just got lucky. Keep on heating people! I don't want to live through another ice age (even being from Canada )

it's not sustainable. and it certainly isn't good for the planet.

it's the reason we're not seeing the full effects of global warming, but that doesn't make either go away. the high sulphur in the atmosphere isn't good for the ecosystem. and the high carbon isn't good either. and if CO2 keeps rising, one day the balance will tip. that was the original point of ClimatePrediction, to estimate how long we've got left and how bad it's going to get. unfortunately they messed up and got a stat of what it would have been like (but they say it's not that bad a cock-up as they can use those results later on).

the whole big issue is that global dimming is masking the effects of global warming. Developed nations such as the US are cutting down on the amount of visable pollution, which would lower the global dimming effect while the amount of CO2 still rises speeding up global warming. This will cause the temps to shoot up killing lots of animals and plants in the world while also melting the ice caps causing the ocean levels to rise up drowing all costal areas, some entire countries and states such as florida. Also the melting of the ice caps would disrupt the jet stream and el nino, potentially causing them to stop, which would cause much of the world to freeze kicking off a new ice age in which most humans would not survive.

pretty much sums it up.

The way I see it, we only have 30 some odd years of fuel reserves left anyways, so once that's gone, effects will begin to dissipate. We won't stop polluting until we have no choice. And you can hold me on that one, too.

Furthermore, plants love CO2. As a matter of fact, its required for photosynthesis, since they take in CO2 and use energy from the sun to keep the carbon and expel the oxygen. Plants should be pretty happy right about now.

Face it, we have lost the global warming war, and it will only end when fuel is depleted. It's unfortunate that we are too cowlike to stop being complete consumers, but what can we really do?

actually we're more likely to begin to notice shortages over the next 10 years, leading up to a complete absence. it's not like one day we will have the same supply, and the next it will all run out. oil producing countries will gradually be producing less and less. meaning oil consuming countries will be receiving less and less.

and what exactly do we do for every once everything is gone? we will have no power to run computers to work things out, no machinery to manufacture more machines to make power. no real way of producing the power we use now.

if it's stormy and you know the power is going to go out any minute, you get a candle ready. we have no "candles" as it were to replace our dependence on oil. we will not be able to function as we are, or be able to create an alternate source.

Yeah, "experts" think that it's going to look just about like this . And we are already noticing shortages. Slight changes in production capacity have been shooting prices to the sky.

And the primary source of electricity is not even close to fossil fuels. Most comes from nuclear power. In Eastean Canada we get most of our power from water. Nuclear is the way to go, and that's what's being done. Burning fossil fuels to produce electricity is EXTREMELY innefecient and very expensive, even before our little "oil crisis".

The only real alternative that I see to power vehicles, however, is hydrogen, and that's very expensive and very dangerous. Sure, it's the simplest and most abundant element in the universe, but it's not easy to make, since it requires so much power to get it out of water through electrolosys. Not only that, but it's very volatile as a gas, and the pressures under which it must be stored to be dense are not exacly safe for use in road-going vehicles. Somebody will have to sort that one out sometime.

And then there is Brazil who has their "flex-power" vehicles. They are completely self-sufficient in terms of fuel, as their cars run on crops that they grow themselves. It took them twenty years to get to this point, but I think that it's worth it if you can become independant of the middle-east and expensive oil imports.

We will always have power, it's just that it might get expensive. There are always alternatives to explore, and the next form that we use will be renewable, of that I am certain. The environment will be fine before the end of our lives and fossil fuels will be a thing of the past. That's what I predict of the future. It sounds great, but it is realistic if you ask me. The road to get there is what's going to be tough, but the not so near future is bright.

unfortunately the UK is not near that. we get roughly 30% from nuclear power . a massive amount from coal, and natural gas, and a tiny fraction from renewable sources (although they are working on massive off-shore wind farms ).

nuclear power is great, you just need to find a way to dispose of the waste. And if a meltdown occurs that area is useless for pretty much forever as far as humans on earth are concerned. No new nuclear plant has been built in the US since 3 mile island(which was for those of you that don't know, a stuck valve + human error that almosted = meltdown), the first was supposed to be Shoram here on Long Island, but they fought that, so it's basically a nuclear power plant just sitting there, all ready to go, just waiting for the jump to get it going. I think that solar power is also an important alternative, especially with the sun's rays getting stronger. I know someone that lives in a house off the grid, on solar panels only, they run a few computers, 1 tv, very basic, but other then their car, if oil runs dry, they're ok in terms of power.

Well, at least they are installing a huge nuclear plant in the south of France. You guys probably heard about it. The one that is supposed to produce as much power as a small star and is an international effort. Supposed to be complete in about 30 years and power the majority of Europe. Guess that the UK will just have to sit tight for awhile

they already get most of their power from nukes!

and it brings us back to fusion. if they can get that safely contained and perpetuating then most of our worries will be over. and we could use the energy to separate hydrogen for fuel cells (that's one of the major problems with fuel cells).

but alas, it would still rely on heat expanding gas turning turbines .