*doublepromote someone else finally noticing global dimming as a significant factor in global warming.

Global dimming from excess sulfur dioxide may be responsible for cutting the current excess anthropogenic heat in the system by between 15% to 50% depending on the study.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html
What this means is, if we stop polluting tomorrow, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases will continue to warm us at the same rate for decades to centuries, but the sulfur dioxide that has blocked between .25 to 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise will be gone almost immediately, and a significant sudden rise in temp will be the result kicking off or feeding more feedback loops.

While it may seem he’s onto some global warming solution…just put more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere…that ignores the lower growth rates and lost solar production it causes by deflecting a significant percentage of sunlight, both adding to net CO2 added to the system.
The incredibly scary part is the whitehouse and other international governments are actively researching ways to inject sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere despite knowing it has so many issues.

There’s no easy fix.

Crap. I wanted to like this video.
Unfortunately this starts with bad information and gets worse...claiming Yellowstone is the largest super volcano....but Yellowstone's biggest eruption was 2,800 km3 almost 9000000 years ago.... Toba in Sumatra erupted 13,200 km3 only 75000 years ago. The most recent Yellowstone eruption was around 640000 years ago and only 1000km3.
Even Taupo ejected 1170km3 in that last super eruption, far more than Yellowstone's most recent.

Where did they get the idea that an ash cloud would spread in every direction evenly?! It's just wrong. The ash cloud would be blown East by upper atmospheric winds...eventually circling the globe but not expanding to the West very far....just like previous eruptions did.

They mention America going abroad to get food in such an event, then go on to mention global dimming, temperature drops, and sulfur contamination damaging crops...but don't put the two together. In such an event, no country on earth could feed it's own population, much less have a surplus to sell to the worst hit area, America. In 1815, the year without a summer caused world wide famine, epidemics, and a halt to shipping because winter ice packs remained through the summer in many places, and crop failures and epidemics continued for years afterwards. That eruption was only 160–213km3 and there were under 1 billion people to feed on the planet.
A large Yellowstone eruption would be 4-10 times that size, with effects being worse and lasting longer, and there are around 8 times as many mouths to feed.
The largest eruption we know of was nearly 100 times the size of Tambora in 1815....and wasn't Yellowstone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Edit: let's not forget the disruption to airlines for possibly years and interference with satellite signals like we've never experienced....and what does that sulphur do to an already acidic ocean?

I want to know his sources, because they don't jibe with historical records.

Your video, Global Dimming Paradox: Are We Facing An Abrupt Temp Spike?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I want to know what effect global dimming has had. It's a no brainer to think less light=less nutrient uptake.
Temperature also helps regulate growth rates, and it's changed.
Interesting about co2 making each plant larger with no addition of nutrients. Reminds me of growing redwoods in New Zealand....they grow astonishingly fast there, but the wood is useless because it's so soft.
*quality

But....we already do that.
Pollution; soot, sulfur, etc, already cause global dimming, which is exactly what you're describing, blocking 10% or more of sunlight and mitigating as much as 5%, but averaging 2-3% of warming already. I have said repeatedly that instantly switching to real clean energy would actually accelerate global warming exponentially because of this little known effect. That makes most plans to do something actually worse than doing nothing in the short term, and now in the long term too because that rapid temperature rise would absolutely accelerate methane releases (among other cycles) which starts feedback loops, possibly turning us into Venus.
Sadly, because of the size of the areas where the methane is escaping, there's no way possible to capture it. You would have to cover about 1/5 of earth with a sealed plastic sheet or something. It's not possible to tap the deposits and siphon them off, they are not centralized gas pockets for the most part.

What's hilariously terrible is, the 'dirty smoke' that coal use produces is the only mitigating factor of coals environmental destruction. The sulfur dioxide it produces goes into the upper atmosphere and reflects sunlight, actually COOLING the atmosphere. IF they ever actually perfected "clean coal" technology, it would be more damaging to the planet than "dirty coal" is, because at least dirty coal produces global dimming effects that have mitigated as much as 1/2 of the temperature rise due to excess CO2. Without that dimming, we'll suddenly see a HUGE rise in temperatures worldwide, and all the associated damage.

So wait...the agreement is to 'limit' temperature rise to 3.6F, the exact temperature rise they have said is the point at which feedback loops become engaged and make CO2 the least of our problems? Then...at some future point...they agree to limit CO2 production to levels that natural processes can absorb, with no time limit for that, and until then we'll continue to add to the already out of balance levels of CO2, adding to the already unsolvable problem? How on earth can they expect to do the former without first going well beyond the latter? There's no way to limit temperature rise from CO2 without lowering the amount in the atmosphere...and this plan NEVER goes that far, it only agrees to, at some point, balance the amount we add with the amount being removed...that keeps the levels at above current levels, it does not lower them. That keeps the temperature rise in effect, only lowering the speed at which it's rise accelerates, not lowering the speed it rises.
From what I can grasp of this 'agreement', it's beyond worthless and does nothing to solve the problem, only agrees to limit the speed at which we make it worse. It seemingly ignores the fact that what we do today takes 50-100 years to effect the climate and pretends that slowing (not stopping) the RISE in CO2 production is in any way meaningful. If we stopped ALL human CO2 production tomorrow, we still will see the 3.6F rise, the acidification of the ocean, and the myriad of issues that come from those and other disrupted natural cycles.

Also, if we stopped all CO2 production tomorrow, that would mean shutting down coal power plants, and that (while necessary) brings with it the problem of stopping global dimming. Global dimming occurs when aerosols block sunlight in the upper atmosphere, and has directly counteracted some effects of global warming. If we stop putting the pollution up there, we get a few more degrees of temperature rise from that alone.
Unexpected feedbacks like this make solving the problem an issue that requires thorough knowledge of all the processes involved, a near impossibility, meaning anyone who's not a professional climatologist who's offering solutions or opinions is really just spouting hot air....kind of like I just did.

Yes, you did say all that, but you also said none of that is a problem, at least not one to be really worried about. To me, that sounds a lot like climate change denial 3.0, where 1.0 was 'it's not happening at all, don't panic', 2.0 was 'it's happening, but it's natural and normal, don't panic' and 3.0 is 'it's human caused, but no problem, don't panic'. All of those are arguments designed to stall, not to be correct. If I'm reading you wrong, I apologize, but I've heard that argument before from those definitely in that camp.

If the IPCC says it won't be disastrous, yes, we would disagree, because I say it already is, and so have they in their summaries of their last few reports. Just abnormal drought alone is disastrous in many places worldwide already, as is increased flooding in some areas. I did not read the entire PDF's, only what you quoted because they were only linked as downloads/files, and I don't download files from sites I don't recognize.

I linked the first google search pages that came up with water/glacial data, not the other dozen that said the same, or near the same thing, not the NOVA on glacial retreat that said the same thing, not the movie on the same topic with photographic proof of the retreats-Chasing Ice. You ignored that they did list their source for the 2/3 of Chinese cities low on water and the 50% loss of glacial mass per decade as the Chinese military and claimed they were source less so easily dismissed.
As for the diatoms and shellfish, I've seen numerous studies on them, and again just grabbed the first one that came up in a search with data. You seemed to dismiss it as well, but it's not alone. In one snail study I saw, the woman said the last few years it had become nearly impossible to get measurements because the snail shells literally turn to paste in her fingers and weighed nearly nothing! I'm glad to read now that you don't disagree that it's an issue, you only think it's not severe?

I'm not holding my breath on fusion or fission, we've heard the 'we're only 5 years away from fission/fusion' line before about as often as 'Iran is only 2 years away from having a nuclear bomb', but we can agree on wind and solar, except I say it is great for base load, you just need to pair it with micro hydro storage (pump water uphill with surplus solar/wind, then run micro hydro at night). Small solar/wind also decentralizes production, safeguarding from terrorism, and is quite cost effective. Mine paid for itself in well under 10 years.

My issue with your position is that what we do today just with CO2 production reduction won't really effect the atmosphere for 20-200 years (the accepted lifespan of 65-85% of atmospheric CO2, the remaining 15-35% takes thousands of years to be trapped) and that's only IF the ocean CO2 sink continues functioning, so we're already well past the point of avoiding moderate climate change. Without quick action, feedback loops like methane and/or ice sheets melting make the problem exponentially larger and difficult/impossible to manage at all. It may already be too late even if we cut to zero CO2 tomorrow, but it's certainly too late to avoid more, massive, unsolvable global issues if we don't even mitigate them before 2050.

Let's not get into the quagmire of global dimming from sulfur in coal actually mitigating a large part of expected global warming by reflecting sunlight. I've yet to hear a plan or study involving that variable.

I'm there with you partially, but if we must wait 50-100 years for the tech to START solving this problem, humanity as we know it has no chance.
I say that because 1. We're still rising the rate at which we add CO2, not lowering it 2. Even if it dropped to 0 tomorrow, we still see 3-5 degree temperature rise in the 100 years before even the extra CO2 already in the atmosphere is absorbed (and that's if the natural processes that absorb CO2 don't completely fail before then, the ocean system is, forests are disappearing, I'm not sure what's left to do the job nature has done for all history) 3. Assuming we do see even just that minimal rise, and not a catastrophic cycle that releases methane causing it to be more like 10 degrees minimum, the disruption of commerce, production (food and other), the loss of natural food sources, useable water, etc. could easily make solving the problem exponentially more difficult to solve in the even near future, and impossible 50 years farther down this road, and 4.Unexpected side effects of solving this problem could easily make things worse...for instance, if we just shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we could easily see a rapid 3+ degree C rise in temperature globally because we would stop adding the particulates that cause 'global dimming' (which is assumed to be causing approximately 3 degrees of cooling today).

(wow, that might be the longest run on sentence I've ever written!)

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

You gave a few examples, I did not ever disagree that it happens, I disagreed that it's happening today in Africa (or worldwide) at a level that's worse than the lack of water on a global scale. I will concede that, in certain areas, it is, but worldwide, even continent wide, it's less of an issue than useable water by far.
You give up pretty easily.
Historically, there have not been 'men with guns'. Guns are a fairly new construct. If it were historical fact that men with 'overwhelming force' (so forget the guns quip) drive farmers out of farming, why are we still here farming?

Yes, the two statements about technology are not mutually exclusive...your point? You 'give up' a lot.

Yes, and I clearly stated I believe they ignored some factors to get their numbers, as most 'predictions' I've seen in the last 20 years have done. I also clearly stated that even their lower range numbers were disastrous and unsurvivable and their high numbers even more so, I just went on to say my educated guess is that they are likely also on the low side because they don't account for everything AND they assume we'll stop rushing to make things worse at some point. I just think that's wishful thinking, based on my estimations of human behavior.

I do listen to fact, reason, data, hypothesis, innuendo, lies, insanity, and more (proven by the fact that I'm still here discussing this, and it's funny that you now wish to no longer 'listen' to facts or reason yourself because you 'give up'), then do my best with my degree in science and scientific mind to work out what hypothesis is closest to the data, and see if I can determine where it's imperfect and why. You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors (they can't, we don't know all factors involved yet to program them into the models) and because they all expect humans to stop adding to the problem at some point in their equations, which I say from experience is wishful thinking and bad science/math, and I think it's nearly always added to actual science lately for political reasons on one side or the other.
EDIT: For instance, I've never seen a model that includes 'global dimming', but it's a factor that has kept up to 3 degrees C of warming from happening. it happens when particulates in the upper atmosphere deflect sunlight, stopping it from entering the system as light or heat. It has also added to a decline in global food production, but I've yet to see a climate study that includes it in their model. If we shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we would see a rapid spike in temperature as a result, another thing no one ever mentions.

I note you aren't defending your 'facts' about Texas producing more food than California, were you as certain of that as you are about these 'facts'? If so, perhaps more research could be warranted?

Oh, never mind, I forgot you decided to stop listening to facts and hypothesis and give up. I think your children would be disappointed you care so little about their future....I have none, so I have no dog in the fight. Nothing done today will effect things either way in my lifetime. As I see it, that means I'm one of the few with no agenda either way, I'm only interested in reality, and the data I have seen has consistently been worse than the worst predictions when everything is considered in totality (not cherry picked).

I feel like most if not all of these are rhetorical, and you don't really want answers to your queries, but I'll offer some anyway....
I'm not attacking you, but will attack your position that AGW is a fraud.
I have done the MOST impactful thing one can do to minimize one's footprint, I didn't have children. I also grow most of my own food (but I do still eat meat, mostly chickens), I have solar power and water, and I drive far less than 5K miles per year. All that said, I am still probably contributing to the CO2 rise when all the math is done, but far less than most first worlders, and not at all when I'm gone.
You can't really be asking for a physics class here in the comment section, can you? Put simply, CO2 reflects more heat back towards the earth, trapping it in our 'system', making it hotter. It's not the only gas that does this, but it seems to be the most prevalent. The models prove to be imperfect because most of them don't take everything into account, for instance global dimming is rarely included in the math. While CO2 fluctuates naturally, the amount and rate of change due to human production is faster and greater than seen in nature, exponentially so. That means there's no time to adapt to the new environment and greater rate of species failure than in a natural extinction event.
I'll just point out that these articles still try to claim that warmer temperatures will create better growing conditions for crops, a claim that has already been proven wrong, as the problems with extreme weather and drought far outweigh the minimal benefits. That's enough right there for me to discount them, as is the fact that they come from sites dedicated to 'denying'. I didn't need to read any farther.
I, for one, do read the data and interpret it myself...and I come to the conclusion that most climate scientists are minimizing the issues, not exaggerating them, and that 'deniers' consistently ignore any data that doesn't fit their pre-conceived self-serving result.
It seems odd to me that the same people that want to rely on the slippery slope argument when dealing with social issues can't understand how far we've gone down that slope with our climate and deny there's a slope at all, no matter what the evidence shows.

That global "dimming" is what the scares the holy fuck outta me...

You'd have a much better time figuring it out by posting to Sift Talk. I, unfortunately, just amn't familiar with YouTube's playlist, etc. so I can't really offer any knowledge on the subject.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Nope. I just replaced the embed code on this video:
http://videosift.com/video/Horizon-Global-Dimming

I ran the video on YouTube as part of my playlist--then got the embed code and fixed the Vs post.

This is the playlist that the vid is part of:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL854408FFE7149199

I don't know what length to put on the new video--and I don't know if I just screwed up someone's post.

Thanks for your help, and patience with a HTML noob. :

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
We need a video ID to create our YouTube embeds, so a playlist ID doesn't work. I believe that when you submit the video ID from a playlist, YouTube knows that it's part of a playlist, so it automatically makes the other videos accessible within it.

To be honest, I don't know exactly how all that works. I've never submitted a YT playlist myself, just seen lots of other members do so.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I see what you're saying, but how is the video (first vid only) differentiated from the playlist (vid 1 then 2) then?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
The issue is that you have to embed the code for the first video in the playlist, not the actual playlist itself. Give that a shot and it should work.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Hi,

In fixing dead videos I've tried to embed playlist codes from YouTube--but I always get the "code appears to be invalid" error.

Is this because I'm only Bronze? I've seen the playlists used elsewhere.

Here's the code I just tried.
"<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/p/854408FFE7149199?version=3&hl=en_US" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>"

Any help will be--as always--appreciated.

Thanks [oh--and I run firefox 6.0]

Nope. I just replaced the embed code on this video:
http://videosift.com/video/Horizon-Global-Dimming

I ran the video on YouTube as part of my playlist--then got the embed code and fixed the Vs post.

This is the playlist that the vid is part of:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL854408FFE7149199

I don't know what length to put on the new video--and I don't know if I just screwed up someone's post.

Thanks for your help, and patience with a HTML noob.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
We need a video ID to create our YouTube embeds, so a playlist ID doesn't work. I believe that when you submit the video ID from a playlist, YouTube knows that it's part of a playlist, so it automatically makes the other videos accessible within it.

To be honest, I don't know exactly how all that works. I've never submitted a YT playlist myself, just seen lots of other members do so.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
I see what you're saying, but how is the video (first vid only) differentiated from the playlist (vid 1 then 2) then?

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
The issue is that you have to embed the code for the first video in the playlist, not the actual playlist itself. Give that a shot and it should work.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
Hi,

In fixing dead videos I've tried to embed playlist codes from YouTube--but I always get the "code appears to be invalid" error.

Is this because I'm only Bronze? I've seen the playlists used elsewhere.

Here's the code I just tried.
"<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/p/854408FFE7149199?version=3&hl=en_US" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>"

Any help will be--as always--appreciated.

Thanks [oh--and I run firefox 6.0]