Sentences with phrase «about aerosol»

I'm just wondering what she would have thought about Aerosol hair spray!

That is a nod to the discussion about aerosol - induced cooling in the early 1970s.

But there is quite a lot of discussion in Miller et al about aerosol forcing in Miller et al, which would all be wrong if the AIE had not been included in their All forcings together measure, so Ron Miller seems happy that it was included.

... http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100922/full/467381a.html To make it clearer that Nature News wasn't misrepresenting them Andrew Revkin solicited their views in email at the same time and printed it on his blog: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/a-sharp-ocean-chill-and-20th-century-climate/ There were other comments at the time from researchers, e.g. Roger Pielke Sr. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/comment-to-andy-revkin-on-the-dot-earth-post-a-sharp-ocean-chill-and-20th-century-climate/ So you are entitled to your views about aerosol cooling but you can't claim there is no controversy or on - going debate.

These optical depths can be used in conjunction with assumptions about aerosol radiative properties to calculate the direct forcing.

I am sure that one could be more systematic along the lines of the fingerprinting literature (but much of this literature assumes more about the aerosol forcing time dependence than I would prefer).

Isn't the lack of data about aerosol (essp SO2) the entire «secret sauce» for making CAGW models back fit temperature data?

Finally, there's the intimate connection between the global - warming cult and its patrons in collectivist politics, who view climate change as an indispensable opportunity to seize money and power — a claim in which politicians get to represent the Earth itself against the grubby little people they're not terribly fond of, even when they're not trying to promote a scary story about aerosol deodorant, cow farts, air conditioners, and automobiles unleashing the apocalypse.

But the new evidence about aerosol cooling is not reflected in the computer climate models.

Irrespective of what one thinks about aerosol forcing, it would be hard to argue that the rate of net forcing increase and / or over-all radiative imbalance has actually dropped markedly in recent years, so any change in net heat uptake can only be reasonably attributed to a bit of natural variability or observational uncertainty.

Much of the text I took about the aerosol issue was straight from the IPCC report.

[Here's a link to a book passage about Aerosol Age and Rowland.]

Therefore when you ask about the general effects of cloud feedbacks on climate, you have moved well beyond the scope of a discussion about aerosol second indirect effects.

The most interesting thing about aerosol growth to Eli is the role that SOx plays.

They were not calling about aerosols or hydrocarbons, however, as concerning as those pollutants might be.

Using climate models and data collected about aerosols and meteorology over the past 30 years, the researchers found that air pollution over Asia — much of it coming from China — is impacting global air circulations.

(As an aside, even the NY Times sometimes gets confused about aerosols).

So whenever one talks about aerosols, one needs to put a caveat noting that greenhouse gases also come from fossil fuels and are the dominant effect.

My impression is that his insights about aerosols earlier in his career were later helpful to understanding nuclear winter.

If you want really new and interesting results, look at Bart's recent discussions about aerosols, or Ron talking about dust and hurricanes, but made - up energy transfer theories?

I know about the aerosols and the heat in the deep oceans.

Good description of unknowns about aerosols.

I don't mean it wasn't due to a combination of things — but to focus thoughts about aerosols in the post-war boom, described nicely @ 26.

The linked article says nothing about aerosols.

(As an aside, even the NY Times sometimes gets confused about aerosols).

Yes, at one time they may have known about aerosols... but that may have been two years ago and they moved on to other topics.

Based on what I have read about aerosols, cloud behaviour and solar, in my opinion the real response to 2xCO2 may be at (or even below) the low - end scenario of the IPCC...

It is inconceivable that any understanding of the minor effect of CO2 can be isolated so certainly when so little is known about aerosols.

B.J. Mason, speaking mainly about aerosols and ozone.

I had missed the part about aerosols in Hansen 88... having aerosols in there is curious, because his sensitivity is so low.

Stil, I can say what I think about aerosols.

A sense of how wide the guesses about aerosols are can be seen from the range of model climate sensitivities.

The solar array is putting out 600 W, twice the required 300 W. EPIC is discovering things about aerosols and clouds that were not envisioned before launch such as tracking ships «contrails».

For various reasons Eli has been thinking about aerosols and how the mid-century cooling is attributed to them.

And what exactly would be changed, if the public were educated about aerosols and greenhouse gases and temperature histories and the fact that at least 50 % of the 0.5 - 0.9 C change compared to 200 years ago is with 90 to 99 % likelihood due to the net effect of anthropogenic factors?

However, given that the CAGW position doesn't rest on specific numbers, but is instead an unorganized collection of anecdotal evidence, coupled with heavily - tweaked computer models, unfounded assumptions about positive feedbacks, and a healthy imagination about possible future disasters, a lower warming number for the 20th century will simply be brushed over with claims about aerosols being stronger than previously thought, more warming still waiting in the «pipeline» or similar ad hoc «explanations» that keep the overall story alive.

Putting those two, theoretical, processes together with some shaky assumptions about aerosols, clouds and other atmospheric phenomena, and arriving at an assumption that the theoretical minor warming of CO2 is tripled is what concerns a true skeptic.

WRT mid-century cooling, I don't know why you would say there is no data about aerosols, or why you think it is suspect to come up with an explanation after something happens.

Even the «fingerprint» studies of the cause of global temperature change since 1850 follow a rather similar pattern: leave out half the natural variables, make unproven assumptions about aerosols etc. and you can soon fail to find any other explanation for warming that our old pal of molecular weight 44.

Mikel and Karsten, I now feel like I know less about aerosols than I did before this post.

My impression is that his insights about aerosols earlier in his career were later helpful to understanding nuclear winter.

As is, the huge uncertainty about aerosols means that in principle net human impact on climate could have always netted out to something close to zero with most of the temperature change due to natural trends.

They have good stuff about aerosols too.

About aerosols, one thing to consider is that any natural background concentration of dust etc will not be forcings, by definition, we need to look only at changes.

The point about aerosols Lindzen makes isn't unreasonable.

Two other important records from satellite instruments — one from MODIS and the other from MISR — don't agree well over land, so scientists hope that data from other other sensors like SeaWiFS might help resolve some of the discrepancies and reduce the overall uncertainty about aerosols in climate models.

Here is what the 2007 IPCC Report says about aerosols:

i will not open another discussion about aerosols.

Not exact matches

Not long ago, Kenneth Boulding was asked about the alleged «aerosol - can ozone crisis.»

Besides knowing a lot more about the transport of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere, modern researchers had communications lines and satellites so that news of an eruption could be relayed quickly and the effects noted as they unfolded.