Home

Nova’s Dimming the Sun appeared this week on PBS.  Though Jon Stewart attributes less sunshine over the last several years to Dick Cheney, pollution is actually to blame for up to 22% less sunshine in places all around the world (including the U.S.).  According to the program, the fact that earth has received and continues to receive less light means temperatures are lower than they would be if ray-blocking particle pollution suddenly ended.

Researchers used data gathered on September 11, 2001 and the days that followed when air traffic came to a virtual halt in America.  Findings show that temperatures were dramatically warmer during the day and cooler at night.  Other studies also validate the work, but 911 provided a unique opportunity.

If you get the chance, the program is worth watching.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Pollution Phenomenon Masks Global Warming

  1. Pingback: Pollution Phenomenon Masks Global Warming Video

  2. You don’t want to overlook the point. Greenhouse gases are heating up the planet. Particle pollution cuts out the sun and masks the rate of temperature increase. The temperatures are predicted to keep climbing with and without particle pollution because of the greenhouse gases.

    The scientists in the show say the masking seriously complicates addressing the problem and leaves about a 10 year window to solve it.

  3. The planet has been warming, yes, since the last Ice Age. It is not new, and is natural. It has also been cooling in the last decade, not warming, which I do not remember hearing in the show (was the show produced before this was known?).

    In my opinion, the program was a propaganda piece from the global-warming alarmists, which failed to mention any of the actual scientific findings that contradict the ongoing, insane, rush to judgment that the Earth’s climate is being destroyed by humans. Notice the program began with the post 9-11 lack of air travel and airplane contrails, leading to odd “unnatural” warming for three days.

    Read this article (http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/296592 ) for newer evidence from a Canadian researcher that this was an overstatement about normal climate variability, which was then taken and “ran with” by other scientists, and as this show demonstrated, still is:

    “”A most interesting part is this “Heralded as evidence from a “natural laboratory,” the U.S. findings after 9/11 have been widely quoted as demonstrating short-term human impact on climate, since the birth of jet travel in the 1950s, as opposed to the longer buildup of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels.

    “There’s been a lot of groupthink going on about this,” Wijngaarden said in an interview in New Orleans at the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society.

    The York researcher said he decided to double-check the U.S. findings because the claimed temperature rise was so large, almost equal to the global average temperature increase from greenhouse warming.

    “If it was that big, then I ought to have been able to see it in Canada,” he said.

    But when he examined the spread between day and night temperatures from 112 weather stations across Canada for Sept. 8 to 17 in 2001, there wasn’t a spike during the no-fly period.

    In Canada, commercial flights were grounded entirely for 48 hours after the terrorist attacks and were about a third of normal levels for the next 24 hours.

    Yet the diurnal temperature range for September 2001 across Canada fell well within the long-term average from 1977 to 2005.””

    The absence of any contrail effect held true even for the 34 weather stations in Canada below the 50-degree latitude, where jet flights are normally most intense.

    Instead, Wijngaarden found the temperature range at stations across southern Canada both increased and decreased in the contrail-free days after the post 9-11

    “The American researchers need to look a bit harder at the original data,” Wijngaarden said.

    The lead researcher on the original U.S. study told the Star yesterday that the negative results from Canada don’t necessarily undermine his group’s findings.

    “It’s possible that Canada simply doesn’t have a high enough density of jet traffic for contrails to make any difference,” said David Travis, a geography professor at the University of Wisconsin in Whitewater.

    But Travis said he had not realized Pearson Airport has been ranked 20th busiest airport in the world measured by takeoffs and landings.”

    This could have been a more scientifically based program, had it just mentioned the very good possibility that the Earth’scool, warming, cooling, warming, etc, is the product of natural Solar cycles, and natural climate change (which has ALWAYS been ongoing throughout the Earth’s history) not CO2, humans, or anything we have caused or can control.

    Also, that the UN’s IPCC reports are considered as fact in this program as well, simply ignored the actually true fact that it is now being clearly shown that the IPCC was influenced more by a desire for a pre-determined outcome, than scientific opinion that differed.

    Sorry, but the show was filled with information that can be countered easily by the thousands of scientists that do not believe the standard global-warming (or replacement phrase, “climate change”) disaster hype. Just pick the topics discussed in it one by one, be willing to read countering scientific opinion, and rethink what you watched.

    Only in religion are you forbidden not to consider alternative possibilities, and in the case of global warming, it has become the religion for far to many, including Nova.

  4. MC, what a lengthy crock of shit. Hindus, buddhists, taoists, quakers, and unitarians, leave room for infinite spiritual possibilities. Perhaps you only considered your own religion like you only consider global warming denying. I can’t believe you still exist. Wait, I’ll use your reasoning: MC doesn’t exist.

    Hey, that does feel better.

  5. How does someone go about developing a grudge against clean air? What kind of mind gets behind an argument for pollution? I conjecture it is the kind of person who sees an asthmatic inner city children as collateral damage if that person even has conscience enough to know the kind of suffering perpetuated by pollution.

    The science deniers and the whole anti-intellectual crowd seem to have a grudge against their Maker and the whole of creation while giving slimy lip service to the wonder of the former and latter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s