Why the Sun Seems to be 'Dimming'--BBC (what next???)

[Gloria]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm


Why the Sun seems to be 'dimming'
By David Sington

Scientists have been studying solar measurements for decades
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.

SNIP

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.

MORE


"My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon ... We are talking about billions of people..."
Professor Veerhabhadran Ramanathan

[Maple]

1. Now check on

'global brightening'....yes, we have that too.

[zeek]

2. Give me a break

This is rediculous. There is a hell of a lot less air pollution now then there was in the 70s. Also air pollution is a localised effect around cities, industrial areas and the areas downwind from them, it is not global problem like CO2 levels or the Ozone hole, and therefore would presumably not effect the overall amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface.

[ConsAreLiars]

3. You say the facts are false because of your personal beliefs?

A strange way to look at things, but not unheard of. At least read the article, which speaks directly to those "arguments."

Thje facts are what they are. How would you explain the dimming? Denying it seems silly.

[zeek]

4. They should have to explain the dimming, not me

They have absolutely no experimental evidence linking this to air pollution and a philosophical approach would indicate the opposite. Here is my rational:

First of all I find it highly suspect that we have 10% less sunlight at the surface in the U.S. now. If that were true we would not have evaporated lakes and warmer winters, we would be having the opposite, despite global warming. We also wouldn't have people getting sunburned with SPF 15 on (I remember wearing SPF 8 all day and beign fine in the 70s).

But even if you do assume this analysis is true, the fact is air quality in the U.S., in absolute terms, has increased dramatically over the past 30 years since measures were implemented to fight pollution. There is less soot, les sulfur, and less NOx in the air over the United states today then there was in the 70s.

You want an alternative hypothesis (assuming the decrease is actually there): How about increased CO2 levels resulting in a higher moisture content in the air. I think that is a lot more plausible then the increased air pollution idea.

[ConsAreLiars]

5. Read the article

It covers all that.

[zeek]

7. I read it twice now

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I don't see where he explains how we continued to have a dimming "1 to 2 percent" as pollution decreased from 1970 to 1990. I also don't see an explanation of why the solar radiation is more intense, and more hazardous now if pollution is effectively blocking solar radiation. Global warming doesn't give you skin cancer, sunlight does! I see no data or analysis at all to support the idea that pollution is causing the dimming.

The global warming stuff, and doomseday predictions are fine and probably accurate (except for the implication that we could slow it). But the air pollution connection made no sense to me the first time or second time I read it.

[CHIMO]

8. What Reference Are You

Using to claim that air pollution is decreasing?

[ConsAreLiars]

9. Your failure to understand the article or the science

is not evidence against it. Just a small thing, but "sunlignt" includes a range of radiation. A portion of the spectrum causes heating and another (UV) is responsible for increasing the odds of skin cancers.

You might want to dig through Scientific American for more info:
http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?QT=Q&SC=Q&Q=global+warming&x=0&y=0

(edit typos)

[dutchdemocrat]

6. Read the article

Before unleashing on it. It helps. I watched the BBC documentary the other night on global dimming and it presented a lot more arguments with solid scientific data from excellent sources than you are.

[DivinBreuvage]

10. Ignore it. This is Jewish Physics.

English and Australian scientists? Please. You might as well ask for the educated opinion of Kaffirs or something. And the English "scientist" was working in Israel, hardly a coincidence I'd say.

Important Note for the Historically and/or Sarcastically Challenged: The term "Jewish Physics" was used by German physicists of the 1930s to discredit new and complicated ideas that they couldn't understand. The persecution of Jewish scientists led to a German brain drain, with the result that when the Germans finally decided to get serious about the atom bomb most of the people who had the intellectual wherewithal to get the job done were now working for countries who were at war with Germany. Oops!

[TyeDye75]

11. A complicated peice of sarcasm there

but I think I got it. Nice one.

I also saw the documentary.. the subject seemed worthy of further reading.

[DivinBreuvage]

12. Thank you. What I was suggesting (because I know some people won't get it)

is that American science is starting to take on the characteristics of Nazi and Soviet science: outside of military applications (and perhaps even then) it's going to become a cesspool of farcical "research" intended to prop up religious and/or corporate points of view. Hence Biblical creationism counts as geology in Kansas, there is no such thing as global warming, tobacco does not cause health problems, Mad Cow Disease does not and never will exist in America, and so on and so forth.