Sentences with phrase «does global dimming»

Does global dimming indicate that we will be required to take CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to stabilize Earth's climate?

Gavin, you criticised Tim Flannery and wrote «Does global dimming indicate that we will be required to take CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to stabilize Earth's climate?

Not exact matches

What causes the global dimming and how does that affect the numbers?

Fischetti: Let me ask you just about the global dimming, because that's something that I think people don't understand, and it's an interesting factor.

As Raj Nair, Ford group vice president of Global Product Development said, pieces on the Mustang that didn't make the car go faster were tossed, like the rear - view camera, auto - dimming mirror and, a la the 1965 GT350, the rear seat and air conditioning as well.

Did any scientists say «don't worry about the global dimming alarmists, the CO2 we are pumping will take care of the problem»?

Dr Rotstayn says that «what our model is suggesting is that these droughts in the Sahel in the 1970s and the 1980s may have been caused by pollution from Europe and North America» and the commentary goes on to say «if his model is correct...» So the science is certainly not presented without caveats, and nowhere do we simply state that global dimming is unquestionably the cause of the Sahel drought.

If you refer to the global dimming by aerosols, I don't think it was entirely «unrecognized» beforehand.

It is likely that at least some of this change, particularly over Europe, is due to decreases in pollution; most governments have done more to reduce aerosols released into the atmosphere that help global dimming instead of reducing CO2 emissions.

Regarding the divergence problem, could there have been an anthropomorphic effect that affects tree - rings over the last fifty years, the «global - dimming», so that the tree - rings don't grow properly due to a lack of light?

Looks like another cover - up, false - flag story to get the public to enthusiastically accept the concept of Global Dimming from particle pollution as Global Cooling Chemtrails does nothing to decrease CO2, but they do most - massively increase the production of dead vegetation CO2, therefore increasing Global Warming

do they not see & understand that the jets spray are CAUSING the global dimming?

So if we could shed light on the fact, «Global Dimming» really isn't a good idea, that it isn't helping, in fact it is doing the opposite.

It says pollution is the cause of global dimming and it doesn't mention geoengineering so it's misinformation in my opinion.

Existing climate models with a positive feedback from H2O are plain wrong, since they don't allow the heated water vapour to rise, forming clouds that contribute to global dimming, offsetting CO2 effects on temperature.

As L&S admit, this global dimming due to aerosols «no doubt [has] a cooling effect», yet it doesn't show up in their model.

Anyway 1 C per doubling falls short by a significant margin that they don't account for, and they have to ignore global dimming too.

Horizon's mawkish treatment of the idea of global dimming did nothing to inform the public; its intention was to provoke sensation — not understanding — at the hight of climate change alarmism.

Actually, if we do take it seriously and say — cut down or stop burning fossil fuels — we jump up.5 to 3 degrees C. (due to the reduction of our sulfate caused global dimming).

I don't think global dimming is very well understood or at least well quantified.

The models do reproduce the 20th century, and even the last 1000 years globally averaged reasonably well, observational data of forcing factors permitting, and they do this with the same physics that produce 2xCO2 sensitivity as 2.9 oC There is another essential factor in looking at current T rise vs CO2 forcing and that is the global dimming phenomenon.

One theory that probably does not explain this differential is global dimming.

In addition to Adrian Burd's recommendation, Al should read the comprehensive review by Wild: «Global dimming and brightening: A review» http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf «Recent brightening can not supersede the greenhouse effect as the main cause of global warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would haGlobal dimming and brightening: A review» http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf «Recent brightening can not supersede the greenhouse effect as the main cause of global warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would haglobal warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would have it.