Debunked: Global Dimming vs. Global Brightening, as evidence for Geoengineering or Chemtrails

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Mick, I can't seem to open the posting guidelines, actually almost nothing seems to open. I did manage to get the "whats new' button to work and as it just so happens I've had the following article on my desk top for a bit awaiting an opportunity to go over it more thoroughly. Great article from Gavin Schmidt over on realclimate about global dimming. Gavin was one of the authors of the IPCC who started a great blog if your interested.

See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/global-dimming/

Yes, Schmidt did write that piece about the BBC documentary on global dimming back in January of 2005. At the time, research showed that some dimming had taken place between the 1960's and 1990, fifteen years before.

But things change.

By May of 2005, realclimate had reviewed other research recently published which showed that global brightening had turned the dimming trend around during the preceding decade.

Global Dimming may have a brighter future
Filed under:
— william @ 15 May 2005 - ( )
A while ago, we wrote about Global Dimming – a reduction in downward solar radiation of about 4% or about 7W/m2 from 1961 to 1990 was found at stations worldwide. We said at the time that there were hints of a recovery underway post-1990; now research has been published showing this. From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth’s Surface by Martin Wild et al. (Science 6 May 2005; 308: 847-850; subscription required for link) uses surface measurements; Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation? by Pinker et al., Science 2005 308: 850-854 uses satellites; both find a recovery of surface downward radiation since about 1990.

So, both ground stations worldwide and satellite measurements had been found to show a brightening after decades of dimming.

Further research has shown that there is a "persistent variability" but an increase in both atmospheric transmission of solar output to the surface and a decrease in
aerosol optical density. The latest figures (2012) show this:





mauna loa3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
well its 90 in florida and our skies looked the same Jay ? Not exactly as cold as Denmark ? and if he seeing ice doesnt that mean there is something that the ice has formed around ? Like particles or condensation nuclei ?
As far as I know, Denmark is surrounded by the sea just like Florida. The main source of cloud condensation nuclei on earth is the sea:
aerpsp;s.jpg

No need for "dirty fuel" or anything else. mother earth provides.
 
J

Joe

Guest
So you think there's a massive covert operation which has been going on for years with the sole intent of possibly warming the planet a little bit?
IMO yes . or cooling which could explain the 15 years of cooling despite the rise in co2 ?
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
IMO yes . or cooling which could explain the 15 years of cooling despite the rise in co2 ?

As I understand it the current thinking is the net effect of persistent contrails is a small amount of warming. Seems like an awful lot of effort for little effect.
 
J

Joe

Guest
As I understand it the current thinking is the net effect of persistent contrails is a small amount of warming. Seems like an awful lot of effort for little effect.
Thats what I was told cooling during the day by shading and a blanket at night to hold in the heat .
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
thanks I forgot about that post , I dont think I can convince anyone here or they convince me otherwise .


I find that curious. Have you re-read that thread? if not, you should. You have been exposed to very compelling arguments combined with very compelling evidence that persistent contrails are not a deliberate attempt at Geo-engineering...and yet still you cling to that myth.

Why? Are you immune or opposed to amending your opinions or beliefs...just immutable dogma?
 

TomC

Member
Really did you know the lower picture is a persistent contrail ? Not exactly a normal cloud . But thanks for the pdf Ill look it over and use it .

Most people would describe contrails as normal, and aren't suspicious or afraid of them. They are a perfectly normal consequence of our universe's laws of physics and burning fuel in the upper atmosphere. They have been known about since planes began flying at high enough altitude and actively researched for over 60 years.

They are included in the link I gave you, page 166 (168 in the electronic file) note the dates the photographs were taken.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Most people would describe contrails as normal, and aren't suspicious or afraid of them. They are a perfectly normal consequence of our universe's laws of physics and burning fuel in the upper atmosphere. They have been known about since planes began flying at high enough altitude and actively researched for over 60 years.

They are included in the link I gave you, page 166 (168 in the electronic file) note the dates the photographs were taken.
Im not afraid of them because I know they are just artificial clouds . Ill look it over later after work :)
 
J

Joe

Guest
I find that curious. Have you re-read that thread? if not, you should. You have been exposed to very compelling arguments combined with very compelling evidence that persistent contrails are not a deliberate attempt at Geo-engineering...and yet still you cling to that myth.

Why? Are you immune or opposed to amending your opinions or beliefs...just immutable dogma?
Call me stubborn
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
No actually its not hotter in the summer and been cooler than most . it averages 90 in the peak of summer it just last longer plus the cost of living is much lower and less crowded at least than Smithtown and Hauppage . I haven't been back to the Island since 1998 and wouldnt care if I ever returned . Maybe just Montauk :)

I hear ya, that's why I live on the North Fork. :)
Smithtown and Hauppauge are like Queens to me!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hmmmm . . . I have often thought that persistent contrails are an excellent tool to use the troposphere as a real time laboratory . . . allow unrestricted proliferation of contrails, contrail induced cirrus clouds and cloud bank blooms and do the appropriate data collection and analysis . . . good stuff!!
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Full deployment appears to have occured around 2009/2010 era, this only gives to 2010.

I've lived in Florida since 2004. I work an outdoor job and I paddle my kayak or surfski on the river or ocean nearly every day or about 6000km per year. I'm outside a lot and pay close attention to the weather for safety reasons and as a hobby. I have not seen a change in the sky.

I grew up in Virginia. Skies there now do not look different from when I was a living up there.

I think it is on you to find data that supports your claim.
 

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
I am not an expert on this by any means, just looking for some advice on this statement made to me today:


"Alternatively conduit 200 may be used to provide gasses and particulate into the atmosphere in an attempt to influence global warming or global cooling. It has been shown that certain gasses and/or particulate in the air may reflect incoming sunlight thereby reducing the amount of heat absorbed by the earth. Also, it has been shown that certain other gasses and/or particulate in the air may tend to trap heat close to the Earth's surface, thereby increasing the amount of heat absorbed by the Earth. By controlling the amount and type of gasses and/or particulate placed into the atmosphere, it may be possible to control to some extent the heating of the Earth."

I researched Conduit 200, and it didn't bring up anything, your thoughts?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I am not an expert on this by any means, just looking for some advice on this statement made to me today:


"Alternatively conduit 200 may be used to provide gasses and particulate into the atmosphere in an attempt to influence global warming or global cooling. It has been shown that certain gasses and/or particulate in the air may reflect incoming sunlight thereby reducing the amount of heat absorbed by the earth. Also, it has been shown that certain other gasses and/or particulate in the air may tend to trap heat close to the Earth's surface, thereby increasing the amount of heat absorbed by the Earth. By controlling the amount and type of gasses and/or particulate placed into the atmosphere, it may be possible to control to some extent the heating of the Earth."

I researched Conduit 200, and it didn't bring up anything, your thoughts?
It's a quote from patent US20080257977, describing a structure (like a huge tower or standing pipe) that would introduce materials into the atmosphere at high altitude, for various purposes.
 

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
It's a quote from patent US20080257977, describing a structure (like a huge tower or standing pipe) that would introduce materials into the atmosphere at high altitude, for various purposes.


Ah thanks, so not related to chemtrails, it looks like a patent for a device to combat global warming.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Ah thanks, so not related to chemtrails, it looks like a patent for a device to combat global warming.
Does anyone know if the super chimney ever made it out of application status? I can't find anything showing "granted" status.
 

cmnit

Member
<snip>

Further research has shown that there is a "persistent variability" but an increase in both atmospheric transmission of solar output to the surface and a decrease in
aerosol optical density. The latest figures (2012) show this:

<snip>

Jay, could you please specify the article source with those very interesting graphs in 2012? Thanks!
 
Top