PDA

View Full Version : Global Dimming



Qtec
01-13-2005, 09:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements 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. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, 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," he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight 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 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with 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 1980s. 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 Prof Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world's leading climate scientists. "We are talking about billions of people."

<hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml)

Disturbing,dont you think?

Q

highsea
01-13-2005, 10:03 PM
This should make you happy, Q. Reduced solar energy means a slowdown in global warming. Plus, skin cancer rates should go down. Sounds like a good deal to me... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Chopstick
01-14-2005, 09:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Disturbing,dont you think?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

No. Where'd they find this guy? They've been talking about that for thirty years, only they didn't call it global dimming they called it global cooling. The sun is a really big ball of irridiated gas. It doesn't shine at a constant rate like a light bulb. It has natural fluctuations. Gravity pulls gas toward the core. The sun contracts. The gas heats up, expands and moves away from the core. The sun expands. As it expands it loses heat to space, cools, contracts, and begins the cycle over again.

The sun isn't doing anything it hasn't done for a zillion years. This is just another academic pinhead trying to extend his grant money by writing a paper.

SpiderMan
01-14-2005, 10:15 AM
Have we actually had consistent sensors and standards for measuring solar flux over that time?

SpiderMan

SecaucusFats
01-14-2005, 12:19 PM
In the early 80's the big issue was global cooling, a new 'ice age', and monster glaciers. Now it's global warming, solar fluctuations, and flipping geomagnetic poles. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Gaia is pissed at us. Perhaps we can draw straws and the loser gets offered up as a sacrice to the Earth Mother. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

SF

Qtec
01-14-2005, 12:29 PM
After 9/11 when air traffic was almost nil, the average temp in the US jumped 1 degree. Thats got nothing to do with solar flux.
Check the link, FAQs and the prog. transcript.
I,m sure you will find it interesting.

In the last 30 years, the amount of sunlight that hits the surface of the Earth has dropped, on average by 10%. Europe by 16%. Russia 20%.

Q

highsea
01-14-2005, 01:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>In the last 30 years, the amount of sunlight that hits the surface of the Earth has dropped, on average by 10%. Europe by 16%. Russia 20%.

Q <hr /></blockquote>I just love pseudo-science.

Well, let's see, Q tells us that we are the world's big evil polluters, so the only logical explanation is that the US has been stealing the sunlight from other countries.

Obviously, back in the 50's, a super-secret US project was created at Area 51, using advanced alien spacecraft technology. We probably put up a network of invisible satellites that use giant mirrors to steal the sunlight from Russia and Europe and beam it over to the US.

Dastardly! What gives us the right to steal the sun from other countries? I betcha anything Dubya is behind this!

Hmmm, really makes you think, doesn't it? I'll have to dig through my comic books to see if I can come up with some proof.

Of course, we shouldn't overlook the possibility that the sun just likes us more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
_____________________________________

SpiderMan
01-14-2005, 01:49 PM
If Qtec's numbers are correct, you would tend to believe that the dimming would be greatest near the worst sources of pollution.

SpiderMan

Deeman2
01-14-2005, 02:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> After 9/11 when air traffic was almost nil, the average temp in the US jumped 1 degree. <font color="blue"> I'll cancle that new sweater purchase. </font color> Thats got nothing to do with solar flux.
Check the link, FAQs and the prog. transcript.
I,m sure you will find it interesting.

In the last 30 years, the amount of sunlight that hits the surface of the Earth has dropped, on average by 10%. Europe by 16%. Russia 20%. <font color="blue"> Most of us certainly believe it is getting dimmer in Europe, particularly in Holland. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Deeman
needs more cowbell, maybe less sunlight...thinks Qtek needs a hobby, badly... </font color>

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
01-15-2005, 12:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
NARRATOR: For 15 years Travis had been researching an apparently obscure topic, whether the vapour trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the climate. In the aftermath of 9/11 the entire US fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: It was certainly, you know, one of the tiny positives that may have come out of this, an opportunity to do research that hopefully will never happen again.

NARRATOR: Travis suspected the grounding might make a small but detectable change to the climate. But what he observed was both immediate and dramatic.

DR DAVID TRAVIS: We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

NARRATOR: One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming. Two years ago most of them had never even heard of it, yet now they believe it may mean all their predictions about the future of our climate could be wrong. The trail that would lead to the discovery of Global Dimming began 40 years ago, in Israel with the work of a young English immigrant called Gerry Stanhill. A trained biologist, Gerry got a job helping to design irrigation schemes. His task was to measure how strongly the sun shone over Israel.

DR GERALD STANHILL (Agricultural Research Organisation, Israel): It was important for this work to measure solar radiation, because that is the factor that basically determines how much water crops require.

NARRATOR: For a year Gerry collected data from a network of light meters; the results were much as expected, and were used to help design the national irrigation system. But twenty years later, in the 1980s, Gerry decided to repeat his measurements to check that they were still valid. What he found, stunned him.

DR GERALD STANHILL: Well I was amazed to find that there was a very serious reduction in sunlight, the amount of sunlight in Israel. In fact, if we compare those very early measurements in the 1950s with the current measurements, there was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me.

NARRATOR: A 22% drop in solar energy was simply massive. If it was true surely Israelis should be freezing. There had to be something wrong. So when Gerry published his results they were ignored. DR GERALD STANHILL: I must say the publications had almost no effect whatsoever on the scientific community.

NARRATOR: But in fact Gerry was not the only scientist who had noticed a fall in sunlight. In Germany a young graduate climatologist called Beate Liepert found that the same thing seemed to be happening over the Bavarian Alps too. DR BEATE LIEPERT (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory): I was the same, I was as sceptical as any other climatologist. But then, um, I, I saw the same results er in Germany, so um I believed him.

NARRATOR: Germany, Israel, what about the rest of the world? Working independently of each other, Liepert and Stanhill began searching through publications, journals and meteorological records from around the world. And they both found the same extraordinary story. Between the 1950s and the early 1990s the level of solar energy reaching the earth's surface had dropped 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, by almost 30% in Russia. And by 16% in parts of the British Isles. This was a truly global phenomenon, and Gerry gave it a suitable name - Global Dimming. But again, the response from other scientists was one of sheer disbelief.

<hr /></blockquote>

Read the program transcript. here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml)

Q

Qtec
01-15-2005, 01:09 AM
Not pseudo, Highsea.
[ QUOTE ]
The INDOEX project involved more than 150 scientists across several disciplines from Austria, France, Germany, India, Maldives, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. The $25 million project, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and funded in part by NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, focused on the Indian Ocean region in a "multiplatform" analysis approach of satellites, aircraft, ships, surface stations, and balloons. The project was designed to assess the nature and magnitude of the chemical pollution over the tropical Indian Ocean and to assess the significance of the region's aerosols.

A wide range of results from the project -- from meteorology to chemistry -- are presented in 25 papers published in a special issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research released Nov. 27.

Early in the project, INDOEX researchers documented a human-produced brownish-gray haze layer of about 10 million square kilometers over the Indian-Asian region. The particles within the haze, the researchers discovered, were causing a three-fold decrease in solar radiation reaching the earth's surface as compared with the top of the atmosphere. The aerosols, typically in the submicrometer to micrometer-size range, were a mixture of sulfates, nitrates, organic particles, fly ash, and mineral dust, formed by fossil fuel combustion and rural biomass burning.
<hr /></blockquote>

Q

Qtec
01-15-2005, 01:13 AM
"I'll cancle that new sweater purchase."
Good idea. Buy yourself a snorkel instead. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q [ some of us believe it cant get any dimmer in Texas /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif]

highsea
01-15-2005, 02:01 AM
It's pseudo science if causes are assigned arbitrarily to a phenomenon that is not understood, with no baseline or "control" to measure against. Even something as obvious as improvement in measuring accuracies has to be factored into the equations. Remember, we are talking about a 30 year study. Technology has not been at a standstill over that timeframe.

These readings are taken by measuring the reflected earthlightlight on the moon. No measurements have been taken over the oceans yet, and measurements over Antarctica show an equal dimming effect. Right away this makes pollution suspect as an explanation. The measured variation (as much as 200%) alone should set off alarm bells regarding the reliability of the measurements.

Furthermore, no measurements of the relative albedos of the continental areas have been taken, so it is not known how increased development in the study timeframe, urban vs. rural areas, etc. affect the reflected light. Obviously Antarctica has a much higher albedo than Russia or Europe, and the ozone hole should amplify the reflected light, not dim it. So how is that discrepency accounted for?

Until better information is gathered, the causes are nothing more than speculation. A single three day anectodal measurement (the post 9/11 measurement) is insufficient to assign any credible causes, since there is no baseline to measure. The effect is within the normal climatological variation. In other words, were normal factors accounted for, like the jetstream, local temperature inversions, weather patterns in the measured areas, etc? The answer is no, because they can't be considered, using the system of measurements in place. Only the broadest measurements can be taken.

And the various "contrail" conspiracies have been raging for years, with absolutely no scientific evidence to support them.

How much does vulcanism effect the study. Is there a camparison of the amount of volcanic activity between the study period and the period preceding the study? There have been several significant eruptions in the last 30 years.

To look at the situation analytically, I would need to see the data from the studies, and review the dissenting scientific opinions if I had the desire to form an opinion on the subject. A popularization from the BBC is worthless as far as scientific data is concerned.

Frankly, the topic doesn't really get me that worked up at this stage to be worth the effort. In fact, I have devoted more time to this reply alone than I think the subject merits. If it finds it's way into mainstream meteorology, I may look into it a bit further.

Qtec
01-15-2005, 03:28 AM
INDOEX= Indian OCEAN Experiment.
[ QUOTE ]
focused on the Indian Ocean region <hr /></blockquote>

Q

Qtec
01-15-2005, 03:34 AM
Have you read any of this.?

[ QUOTE ]
The particles within the haze, the researchers discovered, were causing a three-fold decrease in solar radiation reaching the earth's surface as compared with the top of the atmosphere <hr /></blockquote>ie the difference in how much sunlight hits the Earth and how much actually hits the surface.
Not the moon.
Q [ gotta go. pool comp today. race to 11- 9 ball. oh yeah]

highsea
01-15-2005, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Have you read any of this.?

The particles within the haze, the researchers discovered, were causing a three-fold decrease in solar radiation reaching the earth's surface as compared with the top of the atmosphere <hr /></blockquote>ie the difference in how much sunlight hits the Earth and how much actually hits the surface.
Not the moon.
Q <hr /></blockquote>
You leave me wondering if you have read it. The sentence right before the one you quoted: "Early in the project, INDOEX researchers documented a human-produced brownish-gray haze layer of about 10 million square kilometers over the Indian-Asian region."

Wow! Documented pollution in India and Asia! That's really something new. They would see the same thing if they were to fly into LAX on a commercial airliner. (Assuming they bothered to look out the window)

If you were to actually review the INDOEX experiment, you would see that airborne research over the Indian Ocean is limited to atmospheric sampling by Aircraft and Ballons. These samples are analyzed for particulates, and the data is applied to various computer models that attempt to predict the effect.

The direct observations of solar energy are made by:

1. By measuring the reflected light off the moon, as I previously mentioned. [ QUOTE ]
After a Period of Brightness, Earth Dims, Researchers Say

By KENNETH CHANG (NYT) 868 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 18 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Scientists conclude that sunshine on Earth brightened in 1990's, then dimmed after 2000; they tracked brightness of Earth by looking at its reflection on the Moon; findings, reported in journal Science, add new level of mystery to recent debate about 'global dimming' and its causes. <hr /></blockquote> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F2071FFA3B5A0C7B8EDDAC0894DC4044 82

2. By placing pans of water in various locations and measuring the rate of evaporation. <hr /></blockquote>Sometimes called global dimming, the reduction in solar radiation varies from region to region, and no measurements have yet been made over the world's oceans. It has also been deduced from evaporation rates around the world-the amount of water that evaporates from specially calibrated pans...<hr /></blockquote> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C3AAE-D82A-10F9-975883414B7F0000

So far, what has been proven, is that there is air pollution over populated areas, and this pollution tends to diffuse in the atmposphere. BFD, that's nothing that common sense doesn't tell us anyway.

Both methods of direct observation leave a lot to be desired. The first, for reasons I have already mentioned in my previous post. The second, because evaporation rates are determined by temperature and pressure, so what is really being measured is tempurature and pressure, not solar radiation.

So go ahead and worry, it means nothing to me. I will wait until a better understanding of the situation is reached before I get all worked up.

Wally_in_Cincy
01-15-2005, 11:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
...So go ahead and worry, it means nothing to me. I will wait until a better understanding of the situation is reached before I get all worked up. <hr /></blockquote>

I think Q sees a boogey-man around every corner.

Qtec
01-16-2005, 03:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q [ gotta go. pool comp today. race to 11- 9 ball. oh yeah] <hr /></blockquote>

Update. won both matches 11-10! Heading off now for round 2!

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
01-16-2005, 03:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The second, because evaporation rates are determined by temperature and pressure, so what is really being measured is tempurature and pressure, not solar radiation <hr /></blockquote>

Thats where you are wrong!Although temps are rising, pan- evaporation figures are not rising. It turns out that the main factures in evaporation are wind and direct sunlight. ie photons.
what amazes me is that YOU see a threat to the US from EVERYWHERE based on suspicion, but a threat to the Planet based on hard evidence you dismiss out of hand.
And you call ME paranoid!
Q

highsea
01-16-2005, 09:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Thats where you are wrong!Although temps are rising, pan- evaporation figures are not rising. It turns out that the main factures in evaporation are wind and direct sunlight. ie photons.
what amazes me is that YOU see a threat to the US from EVERYWHERE based on suspicion, but a threat to the Planet based on hard evidence you dismiss out of hand.
And you call ME paranoid!
Q <hr /></blockquote>As to the second part of your assertion, blah, blah. means nothing. Try to stick to the topic if you can, after all, you started it.

As to the first part, you demonstrate a grade school understanding of the process.

It's not about photons or wind, those are just two of the factors that effect temperature and pressure, which in turn effect relative humidity, which in turn effects the rate of evaporation. Reference Boyles Law, Bournelli Effect, and PV=nRT (Natural Gas Equation)

Evaporation can be defined as the process by which liquid water is converted into a gaseous state. Evaporation can only occur when water is available. It also requires that the humidity of the atmosphere be less than the evaporating surface (at 100 % relative humidity there is no more evaporation). The evaporation process requires energy. For example, the evaporation of one gram of water at a temperature of 100 Celsius requires 540 calories of heat energy (600 calories at 0 Celsius).

Relative humidity is the ratio between the actual amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere compared to the amount required for saturation. Relative humidity is influenced by temperature and atmospheric pressure.

Since these factors have a direct effect on the osmotic pressure of the dissolved gases in the liquid, and the surface tension (and thus evaporation), the experiment is really only measuring temperature and pressure.

Note also that energy will be transfered (gained or lost) by the pan and whatever it is sitting on, which will alter the rate of evaporation. Also, the starting temperature will affect the rate of transfer of energy, as will the color and materials of the pan, and pressure will be affected by altitude, wind, and even adjacent weather patterns.

Go for a walk in Charleston, South Carolina in August. Even though it's 100 degrees (F) out, the sweat does not evaporate from your skin. That's due to the 100% humidity.

Sloppy experiments give sloppy results. Attempting to draw any conclusions about global dimming based on pans of water is, shall I say, extremely questionable from a scientific perspective.

In short, if you want to measure photons, use a photon detector.

end of lesson.
____________________________________________

Qtec
01-16-2005, 02:54 PM
Highsea, I,m not a scientist. You know as well as I that many factures are involved in the process of evaporation. I think the scientists who made this report were aware of that to.
Whatever way you want to look at it, this data suggests that Less sunlight is reaching the surface of the Earth, but the temperature is still rising. not a small jump, but as far as we can tell, an unprecedented jump in temp in the history of the Earth!
The critics on global warming have always underestimated the effects of pumping s$#t into the atmosphere without any kind of repercussion claiming 'after all the billlions of tons of polution, the temp has only risen 0.6 cen.
The GDmg theory explains why.

Q

Chopstick
01-16-2005, 04:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Highsea, I,m not a scientist.
<font color="blue">Well highsea is not a scientist either. Although his truly incredible knowledge base, on a variety of subjects may indicate that he is. I realize that this is merely what is required of an individual who catches really big fish.</font color>

You know as well as I that many factures(<font color="blue">that would be factors)</font color> are involved in the process of evaporation. I think the scientists who made this report were aware of that to.<font color="blue">I have worked with these guys as well as a number of MDs. You would be surprised.</font color>

Whatever way you want to look at it, that Less sunlight is reaching the surface of the Earth, but the temperature is still rising. not a small jump, but as far as we can tell, an unprecedented jump in temp in the history of the Earth!
The critics on global warming have always underestimated the effects of pumping s$#t into the atmosphere without any kind of repercussion claiming 'after all the billlions of tons of polution, the temp has only risen 0.6 cen.

The GDmg theory explains why.

<font color="blue">Well not exactly. Volcanic activity is the number one contributor of particulate matter in the atmosphere, far exceeding the efforts of mere humans.

Let me back up a second. The phrase "this data suggests". Somehow in today's society all it takes is for someone of reasonable reputation to point to a computer printout and say that's the fact Jack and we all accept it as real. The fact is that the computers and the software simulations they go by are nowhere good enough to predict even the simplest interactions in the atmosphere.</font color>

<font color="green">Lemme change color here so you'll see my point. I think you are right to be concerned but not because of what of these guys are saying. It's because something is going on and no one has any idea what the outcome will be.

The computers and the software that would be required to make these predictions credible simply do not exist at this time. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">So, go get a girlfriend, make some balls, and don't worry about it. We got it. </font color>

highsea
01-16-2005, 05:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Highsea, I,m not a scientist. You know as well as I that many factures are involved in the process of evaporation.
Q<hr /></blockquote>Q, I am not a scientist either. However, I was a Chemistry major in college, and I have studied pretty much every subject that ends with -ology. Since my college years I have tried to stay current with the mainstream thinking in Physics and Cosmology, Chaos theory, etc. As a mariner and a pilot I am required to have a certain understanding of meteorology also. Without bragging, I think I can safely say I have a healthy respect for the scientific method.

There are about a thousand things wrong with using evaporation studies to measure global dimming. The pan has to be perfectly cylindrical so that the surface area remains constant throughout the measuring period. You need a precipitation gauge adjacent to the pan to adjust for rainfall. This gauge cannot be subject to the evaporation conditions that the pan is subject to, or the results are skewed. If the pan overflows just once, or dries out just once during the measuring period, the experiment is ruined.

You must protect the pan from biotic interference. Not just the stray animal that is thirsty, but insects and algae also. Once you have accomplished all these things, and accounted for them in a rigorous fashion, you have an experiment that still only tells you relative trends in temperature and pressure. (Or to put it more accurately, relative trends in the combination of temperature and pressure)

Let me give you a simple example of a photon detector that is not subject to these factors. A photoreactive plate can be devised and calibrated under laboratory conditions. This plate can be placed in a suitable enclosure that has an aperture to let in light. The plate can be calibrated for any time period required, so that less accessable locations can have longer change-out intervals. You could replace the plates on a regular interval, in the manner of an old time box camera. You would need to incorporate a temperature recording device so that ambient temperature fluctuations could be accounted for in the photoreaction.

These plates could be analyzed under laboratory conditions, and a reasonable measurement of the sunlight in the test area could be made.

The devices could be placed on offshore oil rigs, ships transiting the oceans, etc, so the sampling would not be restricted to areas where you can place a pan of water.

This is just a simple, off-the-top-of-my-head idea, but it would be a hell of a lot more reliable than any evaporation studies.

Maybe I'll apply for a federal grant...
_____________________________________________

eg8r
01-17-2005, 06:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Highsea, I,m not a scientist. You know as well as I <font color="blue"> (Correction, it is quite apparent he knows more than you.) </font color> that many factures are involved in the process of evaporation. I think the scientists who made this report were aware of that to.
Whatever way you want to look at it, this data suggests that Less sunlight is reaching the surface of the Earth, but the temperature is still rising. <hr /></blockquote> Whatever way he wants to look at it? Every time you mentioned something he shot you down with an intellingent reply, and you were unable to counter it. You even tried your tried-and-true "change the subject" routine, he shot that down also. The data may "suggest" what you have blindly believed, highsea is just showing you how the data is being misinterpreted.

eg8r

Qtec
01-17-2005, 08:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There are about a thousand things wrong with using evaporation studies to measure global dimming <hr /></blockquote>
I agree. The evaporation studies measure evaporation.
The question that stumped the scientists was this, " If global temp is rising one would assume that evaporation rates would rise also, but they are not! In fact they are falling! Why?"
What you have is 3 facts.
1. Global warming.
2. Less sunlight.
3. evaporation rates are falling.

Here is an article I found which doesnt use the term 'Global Dimming'.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_727003.htm
A recent one.
web page (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1108853,00.html)
Q

Qtec
01-17-2005, 09:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, go get a girlfriend, <font color="red"> One is enough /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color> make some balls, <font color="red"> played Sat and Sun team comp. Won 3 lost 1. in totall, 76 racks of 9ball. </font color> and don't worry about it. <font color="red"> I wont. </font color> We got it. <font color="red"> WE? Is this the Royal We. Do WE have to call you 'King chopstick now? Or do you mean, you and your dog? Or do you suffer from Split Personality syndrome? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Or maybe I missed something and you were elected spokesperson for the whole CCB? Or do you mean just everybody at the Sun Valley resting home? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Q</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
01-17-2005, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
So, go get a girlfriend, <font color="red"> One is enough /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<font color="blue"> Not for a DOM like me. </font color>/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

</font color> make some balls, <font color="red"> played Sat and Sun team comp. Won 3 lost 1. in totall, 76 racks of 9ball. </font color> <font color="blue">Good shooting. Keep it up. </font color>

and don't worry about it. <font color="red"> I wont. </font color><font color="blue"> Me neither.</font color>

We got it. <font color="red"> WE? Is this the Royal We. Do WE have to call you 'King chopstick now? <font color="blue"> Prince will be fine. </font color>

Or do you mean, you and your dog? Or do you suffer from Split Personality syndrome? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <font color="blue">Well, we lost our other Euro Nut Job, so that just leaves you to pick on. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or maybe I missed something and you were elected spokesperson for the whole CCB? <font color="blue"> I stole the election, of haven't you heard, that's how we do it here. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or do you mean just everybody at the Sun Valley resting home? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif<font color="blue"> That's Sun City and it's 90 miles south of here. You are more likely to find me in jail than a rest home. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

</font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> It's we as in those of us who have a clue. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Qtec
01-17-2005, 11:25 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It's we as in those of us who have a clue.
<hr /></blockquote>
Ouch!!! That hurt. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

Qtec
01-17-2005, 11:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The computers and the software that would be required to make these predictions credible simply do not exist at this time.
<hr /></blockquote>


http://www.time.com/time/2002/inventions/rob_earth.html

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Chopstick
01-17-2005, 12:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The computers and the software that would be required to make these predictions credible simply do not exist at this time.
<hr /></blockquote>


http://www.time.com/time/2002/inventions/rob_earth.html

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">That old thing. This is just a larger version of the climate simulators they have been running on the Crays for years. Which, by the way, is where the Global Warming craze got started in the first place. All this means is that it will give you a BS answer in a week instead of two months. Number crunching is not the answer. Here's why. Check out this guy. </font color>

Edward Lorenz (http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~ldb/seminar/butterfly.html)