Global dimming

[JackC 0]

Quote

HAHAHAHAHAHA....

LOL.... You guys are funny!!!!

It says in your profile that you are an atmospheric physicist. Presumably you do not dismiss other peoples research unless you have good reason to, but your tone implies that you consider this work to be laughable. So as a professional physicist, what is it about this research that you do not agree with and what evidence do you have to suggest that their conclusions are wrong? Citations would be appreciated.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

HAHAHAHAHAHA....

LOL.... You guys are funny!!!!

It says in your profile that you are an atmospheric physicist. Presumably you do not dismiss other peoples research unless you have good reason to, but your tone implies that you consider this work to be laughable. So as a professional physicist, what is it about this research that you do not agree with and what evidence do you have to suggest that their conclusions are wrong? Citations would be appreciated.

Nope, I do not dismiss research blindly, however, I look at everything done in the research field with a skeptical eye… Why?
Because when you see day in and day out the amount of politics involved in a lot of this kind of research, one thing you will notice is that there is a lot which is left out.

Just like statistics, any research findings can conclude what you want them to.

The "Funniest" part of all the long term modeling and climate analysis is that the accuracy ratings are below 5%. Who buys this shit? Christ, the eta, gfs, mm5 models are some of the most powerful forecasting models in the world and their success rate beyond 72 hours is 40%. Beyond 120hrs 10%.

There are BILLIONS of dollars spent annually on atmospheric research which is inherently biased. The conclusion is put forth first and the cause is looked for second.

I for one believe in "GW" to a degree (no pun intended), however, one must realize a few things first.
1) We are still coming out of the last ice age… naturally we'd be warming up!
2) Global trends and Solar Max cycle studies are just now being investigated as having
major impacts on Earth Weather. This is something that no one would touch 20 years ago.
3) Ice core samples have a pre-drawn conclusion…. That is that O2, CO2 and N contents of the atmosphere are enough to deduce the average weather at the poles and therefore the entire earth. This is obviously not true as many researchers are beginning to say.

Let's pretend, however, that they were. Why was the warmest period in recent history during the dark ages? What was the cause? The research community certainly doesn't know, but they are trying to make some hypothesis…..

The study of long term trends is small… There really aren't enough data to evaluate the "Whole Picture"

4) Take ice core sample out of the picture due to their flaws and now we are trying to compute global temperature readings using satellites where 20 years ago we used ground sensors (and very few of them)

The entire system is flawed and inaccurate, but it is the best we have…. Until the science improves, the data are meaningless… we ought to just store our data away and not speculate until we know what we are talking about.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[JackC 0]

Quote

Nope, I do not dismiss research blindly, however, I look at everything done in the research field with a skeptical eye… Why?

Presumably because you are a scientist and that's what scientists do.

Quote

Because when you see day in and day out the amount of politics involved in a lot of this kind of research, one thing you will notice is that there is a lot which is left out.

If political types are blocking your publications then that is a problem. If you know of journals or institutions that are politically biased to the point of censoring papers due to their political implications, I'd like to know who they are so I can avoid them. Personally I do not know of anyone who's papers get rejected because they don't tow the party line. Papers usually get dumped because the science is shit. You do understand how the peer review system works?

Quote

Just like statistics, any research findings can conclude what you want them to.

Do you expect me to take this point seriously?

Quote

The "Funniest" part of all the long term modeling and climate analysis is that the accuracy ratings are below 5%. Who buys this shit? Christ, the eta, gfs, mm5 models are some of the most powerful forecasting models in the world and their success rate beyond 72 hours is 40%. Beyond 120hrs 10%.

For forcasting of chaotic systems, this is true. However, a measurement of the pan evaporation rate is not a chaotic system and that has decreased by ~20% in some areas. This should be well within experimental error even if my gran was doing the measuring.

Quote

There are BILLIONS of dollars spent annually on atmospheric research which is inherently biased. The conclusion is put forth first and the cause is looked for second.

Biased how? Are you saying there is some conspiracy to mute research that doesn't fit with someones agenda? Or are you saying that the drive to get publications leads people to falsify the data? Not all scientists are of the same quality as Hendrik Schön. What do you mean "inherently biased"?

Quote

I for one believe in "GW" to a degree (no pun intended), however, one must realize a few things first.
1) We are still coming out of the last ice age… naturally we'd be warming up!
2) Global trends and Solar Max cycle studies are just now being investigated as having
major impacts on Earth Weather. This is something that no one would touch 20 years ago.
3) Ice core samples have a pre-drawn conclusion…. That is that O2, CO2 and N contents of the atmosphere are enough to deduce the average weather at the poles and therefore the entire earth. This is obviously not true as many researchers are beginning to say.

As atmospheric physics is not my area of expertise, I will have to look this lot up.

Quote

Let's pretend, however, that they were. Why was the warmest period in recent history during the dark ages? What was the cause? The research community certainly doesn't know, but they are trying to make some hypothesis…..

That would seem to be the idea behind science.

Quote

The study of long term trends is small… There really aren't enough data to evaluate the "Whole Picture"

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Look at the data, come up with a hypothesis, test it and check it aginst new data, then refine or rewrite until you have a theory that works. If new data appears that falsifys the theory, then go back to the drawing board. The usual rules apply here.

Quote

4) Take ice core sample out of the picture due to their flaws and now we are trying to compute global temperature readings using satellites where 20 years ago we used ground sensors (and very few of them)

Sure it would be nice to have ENVISAT and Meteosat data going back a thousand years or more but you have to work with what you've got. Ice core samples are a source of data that we can use to look back over thousands of years, why discount it?

Quote

The entire system is flawed and inaccurate, but it is the best we have…. Until the science improves, the data are meaningless… we ought to just store our data away and not speculate until we know what we are talking about.

Are you research active? If so, do some science, write some papers and get your point across. Bitching about the system on dz.com has to be one of the least productive methods I can think of.

So, do you have any evidence to back up your claims that the system is "inherently biased", "flawed and inaccurate" and politically motivated or are you just blowing hot air? You seem to be saying that the results on the reduction of solar flux are wrong. Where is your evidence?

[storm1977 0]

Quote

If political types are blocking your publications then that is a problem. If you know of journals or institutions that are politically biased to the point of censoring papers due to their political implications, I'd like to know who they are so I can avoid them. Personally I do not know of anyone who's papers get rejected because they don't tow the party line. Papers usually get dumped because the science is shit. You do understand how the peer review system works?

No, that is not what I said... No one is blocking anything, however, you know how the system works.

Group A wants to do research on a subject matter, who pays for it????

Usually you and me ( The Federal Government either Directly or indirectly)

Now, that money doesn't come from no where, it is advocated for and pushed by lobiest in DC most of whom have a political adgenda.

It is not that there is bais against people who are doing research, it is just that there is no one willing to pay for research which may disprove a theory which is beneficial to a political person or group.

Quote

Just like statistics, any research findings can conclude what you want them to.

Do you expect me to take this point seriously?

Yes... I do.


It is unscientific to approach a problem if you know what you WANT the outcome to be. If I want the root cause of GW to be fosile fuel consumption, then I can figure out away through deductive reasoning and isolated experimentation to make that be the reason.

Quote

Are you research active? If so, do some science, write some papers and get your point across. Bitching about the system on dz.com has to be one of the least productive methods I can think of.

So, do you have any evidence to back up your claims that the system is "inherently biased", "flawed and inaccurate" and politically motivated or are you just blowing hot air? You seem to be saying that the results on the reduction of solar flux are wrong. Where is your evidence?

Yes I am research active, and for one of the most presigious institutions in the Nation. (MIT)

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[jumper03 0]

Quote

for one of the most presigious institutions in the Nation. (MIT)

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Careful!!!!

We all know - S.P.A.M.I.T.!!!!!

Scars remind us that the past is real

[JackC 0]

Quote

It is not that there is bais against people who are doing research, it is just that there is no one willing to pay for research which may disprove a theory which is beneficial to a political person or group.

Well I don't know how the research grant system works in the US but if it is so heavily biased by the political winds then something should be done about it. But the US is not the only country producing research. Just about every developed country on the globe is working on this and their research is available to anyone. If you feel that US research is so politically motivated, read some papers by non-US authors. Or are you saying the entire global research effort is politically slanted in the same direction? And can you prove it?

Quote

Quote

Just like statistics, any research findings can conclude what you want them to.

Do you expect me to take this point seriously?

Yes... I do.

It is unscientific to approach a problem if you know what you WANT the outcome to be. If I want the root cause of GW to be fosile fuel consumption, then I can figure out away through deductive reasoning and isolated experimentation to make that be the reason.

Yes it is unscientific, which is why most scientists don't make the data fit the answer. If someones research is so ambiguous that it can be made to fit whatever answer they want, then that research is piss poor quality and should never get past the referees. People who produce fake data to support their theory get found out like the esteemed Dr. Schon.

Good quality research is not ambiguous, does not rely on false data and is reproducable by anyone who wants to try. Hence I do not take "any research findings can conclude what you want them to" to be a serious statement. I hope that your research does not turn out such that you can conclude whatever you want.

So far you have given me plenty of talk about how biased and politically motivated scientific research is but absolutely nothing about the science itself. The reduction of solar flux seems to be backed up with plenty of evidence but you seem to be saying that this is not to blame for the decline in the pan evaporation rate. If this is the case, then what is the cause? If you have evidence to support your position then lets hear it. If you don't, then you seem to be dismissing other peoples research based solely on your distrust of the system, of which you are an active part. But if you cannot come up with evidence to support your position, why shouldn't I file it along with all the other pseudo-science junk mail I get?

[skygeek 0]

Has any1 here read Michael Crichton's new book? State of Fear
Might shed some light on the subject of global warming. It cramed full of footnotes to the scientific data it is based on. Good read to.

Welcome to the New World Order. Expect no Mercy.

[miked10270 0]

Just a stray thought... Is Bush being re-elected an example of Global Dimming?



Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 2,428]

>It is not that there is bais against people who are doing research, it is
>just that there is no one willing to pay for research which may disprove a
>theory which is beneficial to a political person or group.

Is it really your theory that the 'environmental lobby' has plenty of money to pay for studies that support their theories, but the poor, impoverished oil, gas and coal companies don't?

If you believe that the amount of money available for a given desired conclusion skews the research towards that conclusion, then environmental studies are far, far more biased towards concluding that anthropogenic emissions have no detrimental effect on climate. In simple terms, oil companies have more far money than any other group to "buy" conclusions that benefit them.

>If I want the root cause of GW to be fosile fuel consumption, then I can
>figure out away through deductive reasoning and isolated
>experimentation to make that be the reason.

And if you want there to be no link between a rise in levels of a proven greenhouse gas and climate change, you can do that too.

[billvon 2,428]

> Has any1 here read Michael Crichton's new book?

Yeah, I read it. I think the premise is funny - "wouldn't it be great if the evidence of climate change were hoaxes orchestrated by evil environmentalists?"

The appendix is the most interesting part of the book. I had seen most of the studies he referenced. His point was that you can pick and choose studies that you like and ignore the rest; interestingly, he did exactly the same thing. He references Lombord fairly often, an author who has become something of a god to the anti-environmentalists. Lombord's book ("the skeptical environmentalist") is good reading if you want to see what Crichton is basing his ideas on.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

> Has any1 here read Michael Crichton's new book?

Yeah, I read it. I think the premise is funny - "wouldn't it be great if the evidence of climate change were hoaxes orchestrated by evil environmentalists?"

The appendix is the most interesting part of the book. I had seen most of the studies he referenced. His point was that you can pick and choose studies that you like and ignore the rest; interestingly, he did exactly the same thing. He references Lombord fairly often, an author who has become something of a god to the anti-environmentalists. Lombord's book ("the skeptical environmentalist") is good reading if you want to see what Crichton is basing his ideas on.

I think everyone should realize Michael Crichton's books are fiction.... If they don't..well, there is no helping them.

I am not a conspiracy theorist... And, as far as GW reasearch goes, it is biased. Like it or not. You can say it is my opinion, but, I work in the field, and I work with these people both National and international. There is plenty of research which debunks many of the theories put forth on GW, but they get little attention by media driven left. Hollywood loves to exploit radical theories on GW as well. This helps to dumb down and brain wash the public...

DO you know how many people are convinced the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" could happen in the relative short term?
I had an arguement with my sister on this one... She ain't the brightest person I know, but she was calling me stupid for say for saying this movie was a load of shit.... Even if something like this movie were to happen it wouldn't occur over 3 weeks


The evironmentalists own the media.... A good example is Hydrogen cars.... They pollute as much if not more than a gasoline based car. How? because the current process used to create or extract H2 from H2O (as an example) is done by power plants buring oil and coal!!!
Ironic...

But the general public is blind to these facts. Just as they are to a good deal of research debunking GW theories.

Bill, it would be nice if the oil companies put forth their research, but people like you would just call them capitalistic pigs looking to make a buck, and would also not believe any of the research. You would say it wasn't a credible source yada yada yada.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Well, there is some good news in.... Looks like Drilling will begin in Alaska soon !!!!



BTW - For all those fossile fuel environmentists out there, what impact did the Iraqi oil fields burning after the 91 Gulf war have? I would like to see some research on the tonnage of greenhouse gasses put out by that incident!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,428]

>And, as far as GW reasearch goes, it is biased. Like it or not.

Some is biased in both directions. Most is not; a great deal of it appears in peer-reviewed journals and does not editorialize. Many people make the mistake of reading something in People magazine and thinking it represents research instead of an editorial opinion.

>Hollywood loves to exploit radical theories on GW as well. This
>helps to dumb down and brain wash the public...

Well, a movie in which nothing happened for two years other than a two inch rise in sea level wouldn't sell very well.

>DO you know how many people are convinced the movie "The Day
> After Tomorrow" could happen in the relative short term?

Probably the same number that believe that the future will be the sort of perfect utopia predicted in other science fiction movies. Recall Logan's Run, Star Trek etc.

>The evironmentalists own the media....

Ha! Corporations own the media. They do what is good for themselves, not environmentalists (or oil companies, for that matter.) If they could make money selling a movie where people predict global warming but it doesn't come true, they'd make it. Heck, if Crichton's book translates to the silver screen well, they'll make a movie about that.

>A good example is Hydrogen cars.... They pollute as much if not
> more than a gasoline based car.

I agree, but that was a Bush initiative, not a press initiative. Most of the recent hoopla over hydrogen happened after his announcement that children of tomorrow would be driving hydrogen cars:

"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car, producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.

Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy."

>Bill, it would be nice if the oil companies put forth their research, but
> people like you would just call them capitalistic pigs looking to make
> a buck, and would also not believe any of the research. You would
> say it wasn't a credible source yada yada yada.

?? Shell has done more real research into solar-PV than any other private concern, with the possible exception of Evergreen Solar. Why? Because they are capitalist pigs trying to make a buck, like we all are. Often that's a good thing. Like the man says, "greed works."

That's a basic problem with ANY corporate funding of research. Corporations fund research that will make them money. That's the name of the game in capitalism. Most universities don't have quite the same motive, and thus are more likely to produce less-biased research.

>BTW - For all those fossile fuel environmentists out there, what
>impact did the Iraqi oil fields burning after the 91 Gulf war have?

About 500 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2* were put in the atmosphere as a result of that war. Sources ranged from burning oil wells to fuel used in vehicles to oxidized explosives. Here in the US we put about 5200 MMT of CO2 into the atmosphere every year**. So if you had 10 gulf wars a year you could almost match what we put into the air each year.

(* note - some sources list total carbon released, some list CO2 released - and they are not the same numbers.)

(** note - that's net, since we re-sequester some through agriculture.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>That's a basic problem with ANY corporate funding of research. Corporations fund research that will make them money. That's the name of the game in capitalism. Most universities don't have quite the same motive, and thus are more likely to produce less-biased research.

Making money requires more capability, more efficiencies, and an actual return on investment - all in a race to beat the other guy to the more profitable solution. It's a good thing to make money.

Universities just have to keep the grant monies coming, so they only have to make the people tied to the money happy - even if they are politicians or PC nutjobs. They don't have to produce anything tangible (unless funded by a capitalism based sponsor). "That's the name of the game" in university research - (BTW - My sister writes research grants for a major university and has one of the highest success rates of any university in the country. I've been exposed to it.)

That's the basic problem of any grant-based research (government or alumni type funding). Since the funding is based on popular trends and the good graces of whoever is in charge of the $$$, there is not always logic driving the targetted conclusions of the research. (there are always targetted conclusions - no such thing as objective research IMO)

I'll take capitalism over the subjectiveness of grant-funded research anyday.

Short version - Universities are much more prone to situations in which to bias their conclusions. At least for corporations we can understand and appreciate bias they are under - science and economics. For universities, the bias could be any stupid thing and totally subjective.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,428]

>Making money requires more capability, more efficiencies, and an actual
>return on investment - all in a race to beat the other guy to the more
>profitable solution. It's a good thing to make money.

I agree! And if a research result that shows that a drug is effective is needed, then research will produce that result, because it's a good thing to make money. Hence the need for governmental controls over the drug industry (and oversight on their research) to prevent fraudulent research.

>I'll take capitalism over the subjectiveness of grant-funded research anyday.

Depends what your goals are. If they are to make money, I would agree 100%. If your goal is to get accurate research done, the university peer-review system is far superior to the corporate accountant-review system. In both cases there may well be outside influcences, but in a peer-review system, the first line of defense against fraud are people in the field who have done their own research and respect their work enough to dedicate their lives to it.

>For universities, the bias could be any stupid thing and totally subjective.

If that bias is reflected in their results, they will not be printed in peer-reviewed journals; thus the more stupid and subjective research is filtered out.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>but in a peer-review system, the first line of defense against fraud are people in the field who have done their own research and respect their work enough to dedicate their lives to it.

"Fraud" is a strong term. There are controls in place everywhere for real fraud, and not just peer pressure, but laws that are enforced.

For the more subtle bias of just leaning towards one likely conclusion vs another in a study,,,,,

To not sell corporate employees short in terms of ethics and professionality, I would submit that peer reviews and professionalism is in for-profit businesses too and not just academia (i.e., people are people everywhere). But in the for-profit businesses you get a wider cross section of political and social belief systems than you would in academia or strictly government/gov contract businesses leading to less of the little biases - That is my experience in working for both government and private industry. Both also have 'good old boy' clubs and associations and these are the real problems in both structures.

The basis is that: 1 - a typical distribution of professionalism is basic in all people regardless of where they work. 2 - In business, you earn your money. 3 - In academia, you are -awarded- your money. ("Award" This is in terms of the grant awards sytems, not the other way for those who like to get offended easy)

I trust the guys the organization that earns it to be more direct about real results - thus less bias. This is my only distinction. Frankly, I see little to really differentiate the two areas other than that - when comparing two structures that contain people and goals, all you can really look at is the demographics of the participants and I find much less diversity in academia than in the so-called 'real world'.

Lastly, being published is really a very small aspect of private business compared to academia. So I'd say that would add bias in academia, rather than reduce it. Published = popularity = bias to kiss up to those in charge of the journals.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

Yep, global warming is such a problem... which is why just a couple years ago, ALL of the Great Lakes froze over for the first time in a lot of years....

.... I guess that's also why the news are reporting -54F in Minnesota.

You're making a mistake that many do...on both sides of the issue. The heat wave in France last year is no more significant that the cold snap in the US this winter.

If you eat a 3-lb steak for dinner and thus gain 3 lbs in less than an hour, does it mean you'll weigh 700 lbs by the end of the week?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[storm1977 0]

Bill I thought of an old conversation when I saw this articl on CNN.

Here is a bit of it. The whole article link is below.



Global warming 'alarmists'?

Scientists were not always so convinced.

As early as 1979, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reported with "high confidence" that a 1.5 to 4.5 degree Celsius temperature increase was likely if carbon dioxide levels doubled. It was greeted by a chorus of skepticism.

However, the past two decades have also seen the retreat of once noisy critics. BP, a major energy company, says it is now taking "precautionary action" against climate change by cutting greenhouse emissions and investing in mitigation of greenhouse gases.

Nonetheless, a minority of scientists reject what they call "alarmist" global warming on scientific grounds. They raise three major objections, which most researchers agree remain troublesome.

# Natural climate variability is not well understood and may be greater than once thought.

# Computer models are oversimplifications that cannot simulate the complexities of the real climate.

# Temperature extrapolations of the past are not precise enough to make dire conclusions about "normal" warming.

Richard Lindzen, a respected meteorologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says in light of these uncertainties, pronouncements about climate change are both self-serving and unscientific.

"Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements. Advocates and media translate statements into alarmist declarations. Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money," said Lindzen at a scientific conference this January. He added that the accepted evidence is "entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all."

This sentiment is in the extreme minority of the scientific community, said Richard Sommerville, meteorologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who drew a parallel with proposing that HIV does not cause AIDS.

"[Lindzen] is taken seriously because he's capable of excellent science," Sommerville said. "[But] most of the scientific community thinks he's mistaken... People are given a fair hearing and then we move on."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[billvon 2,428]

>Richard Lindzen, a respected meteorologist from the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology, says in light of these uncertainties,
> pronouncements about climate change are both self-serving and
> unscientific.

Funny you should mention this. It turns out that one of the leaders in the climate change denier movement, David Bellamy, recently published a letter in New Scientist claiming that 555 of the 625 glaciers in the world are growing in size rather than receding. A few scientists were suprised at this, and dug into it.

Turns out he was a little off. Not only is there no such data, the only data that comes close is from an unemployed architecht's website that claims 55% of the world's glaciers are growing. The World Glacier Monitoring Service, which perhaps might be a bit more credible than an unemployed architecht, reports that most of the world's glaciers are indeed retreating. (check out http://www.wgms.ch/fog/fog7.pdf for the data.)

So where did he get that 555 out of 625? Looks like a typo. 55% comes out 555 if you miss the shift key. That's the sort of "data" that climate change deniers are using nowadays.

George Monbiot offers a good summary of this:
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

[dorbie 0]

You end up with a mountain of evidence vs a crumb when you censor one side of the debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

Moreover when journals grossly misrepresent the body of work that's already out there in a one sided survey and then refuse to publish any counterpoint because the view has been posted on an obscure website they're guilty of unabashed manipulation, politically correct pandering and rank dishonesty.

On the original topic it has even been suggested that global dimming may counter warming through increased albedo but that's just one model. Years ago the physicist Freeman Dyson has actually proposed seeding the atmosphere with reflective particulates effectively forcing global dimming and mitigating the greenhouse effect.