What is the "the global dimming effect"?

I saw a video by Guy Mcphearson, and he said that if we stop using fossil fuse abruptly it will cause the earth to heat up a lot faster because of "the global dimming effect". It will trap fossil fuel particulates very high up and not allow heat to escape into space.

 

Yet another hypothesis from a doom merchant/

Interestingly enough, he has also studied and written about forest fires.

To me, one of the most interesting factors in all of this is that free oxygen levels on this planet are remarkably constant, despite us depleting the planet of 50% of fossil fuels that have taken millions of years to form over the last 2 centuries. The only logical explanation must be that plant life in the oceans balances the equation. A sudden cut off in the use of these fuels will take a while to readjust, but this will simply happen overnight worldwide.
Oxygen rich air, coupled with additional heat is the recipe for forest fires that in turn produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide.
I have started wondering whether cutting down on the production of carbon dioxide by industry over the last decade in the US, could be the reason that nature is hitting back with the terrible fires.

Lets call it "Wills hypothesis".

 

Nov. 5th, 2036. Wait for it.

 

I just watched a video with McPhearson explaining global dimming. I didn't have it right. The aerosol particulates will fall to the Earth if we stop burning fossil fuels ( especially coal), then the sun is free to heat up the planet faster. Here is an Mp3 of him explaining it.

 

We don’t need conspicous anecdotes to elevate factoids about climate change. Science has provided overwhelming evidence based on real data that global temperatures are rising and human induced rises in carbon dioxide are the cause. Anyone who took high school physics and chemistry should not be suprised. I tought college level climate and meteorolgy for ten years.......and statistical evidence is very strong that the above is indeed true.

If casinos were to bet againist the science the odds would be so bad that they would all be bankrupt before day-shift was over.

 

The IPCC is the primary proponent of dramatic global warming, yet its argument is fundamentally flawed because of the way it selectively uses science and manipulates data to support its views. The particularly concerning areas include:

-the lack of consideration of views apposing its own (true science considers opposing views)
-the nature of IPCC's existence is a conflict of interest
-manipulation of the data
-political funding biases

There is no question about climate change. It changes all the time and has done so naturally all for centuries. This is not, however, reflected in the IPCC's selective use of 'science'. It's manipulation of research data and opinion has fueled an extremely biased view that does not reflect the planet's actual climate.

True science is empirical and replicated--it constantly probes doubts, investigates, examines, and welcomes dissent. Yet the IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided outcome for major reports to review or comment on them. IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No.5 in 2013. For this No.5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus–that global warming is both occurring and man-made–exist, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or minimal natural, warming. Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that's an alarming or 0.3 of 1%). Those that disproved global warming were dismissed. Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK's Science and Public Policy Institute has released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not 97% claimed by the global warming whiners.

The IPCC is a conflicted institution pushing a mandate that lacks true scientific rigor. Moore (2013) says: "by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled."

For about 25 years, the IPCC's climate predictions have been far from accurate. In addition to not welcoming nor considering dissenting opinion, there has been an increasing and continuous legacy of evidence that data has been manipulated.

There are countless examples of the data manipulation (please see Appendix C). The levels of deception stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering with data would see the culprits jailed.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Davison Michael 09053.pdf
_____________________________________________

Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2?

No tangible, physical evidence exists for a cause–and–effect relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature changes over the last 150 years. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused the warming phases observed from 1915 to 1945 and 1977 to 1998. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming, oceans emit more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 600–800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic warming caused CO2 to rise, not vice versa. The present high level of atmospheric CO2 may be the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming is very small.

Global warming of ~0.4° C occurred from about 1910 to 1940 without any significant increase in atmospheric CO2. Global cooling occurred from the mid 1940s to 1977 despite soaring CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 12A,B). Global temperatures and CO2 both increased from 1977 to 1998 but that doesn’t prove that the warming was caused by increased CO2. Although CO2 has risen from 1998 to 2008 no global warming has occurred. In fact, the climate has cooled. Thus, global warming bears almost no correlation with rising atmospheric CO2.

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.pdf

 

If you didn't listen to the mp3 file I added to OP, he basically says...

" When fossil fuels are burned they release CO2 that collects in our atmosphere. It also produces aerosol particulates as well. Those particles create a shield from the rays of the sun, while the planet keeps warming. If we stop using fossil fuels, the shields of aerosol particulate would fall to earth within about 6 weeks. As little as 35% reduction in industrial activity causes 1% Celsius temperature rise."

So we can't stop burning fossil fuels or the "end" will happen sooner.

 

I Just Read This As The "Global Rimming Effect"... ........To Answer Your Question......Yes

I Am A "Sick Puppy".... .....Carry On......



Cheers Glen.

 

Sooo--burning fossil fuels keeps particulates in the air. And how is that done? What about 200 years go? What placed the particulates in the air back then? If there weren't any then--how was the atmosphere affected? Why didn't the sun heat up the earth dangerously because of no particulates back then? Sounds a little specious to me, however I'm not a scientist.

 

Airborne particles are sometimes referred to as 'particulate matter' or 'PM'. They include dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. Some particles are large enough or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke, while others are so small they can only be detected individually with a microscope.

 

I feel like there is a connection between electricity and fossil fuels. If we save electricity, we use less coal or gas or whatever is fueling it. It burns less crap into the atmosphere is what I'm saying. I think that any slowing of that burning process is definitely going to reduce emissions.