Sentences with phrase «aerosol changes only»

We also use five - member ensembles of simulations with greenhouse gas changes only (GHG), volcanic and solar irradiance changes only (NAT), and aerosol changes only (AER) over the period 1850 — 2010.»

Not exact matches

This method tries to maximize using pure observations to find the temperature change and the forcing (you might need a model to constrain some of the forcings, but there's a lot of uncertainty about how the surface and atmospheric albedo changed during glacial times... a lot of studies only look at dust and not other aerosols, there is a lot of uncertainty about vegetation change, etc).

The cloud responses differ from those to scattering - only aerosols and can include both increases or decreases in cloud cover and changes in precipitation susceptibility.

For instance, simulations were run that only used the changes in volcanic forcing, or in land use or in tropospheric aerosols.

Given that we know there are multiple drivers of climate operating (the sun for sure, but also volcanoes, aerosols, greenhouse gas changes, land use change, etc.) the only way to do attribution properly is calculate the physical fingerprints of each of these drivers across multiple variables and see which combinations provide the best fits.

the only thing that scares me with those climate forcing charts is if policy makers look at the negative effect from particulates and aerosols... will this make some want to release more aerosols to abate the changes?

This means that the «pause,» or whatever you want to call it, in the rise of global surface temperatures is even more significant than it is generally taken to be, because whatever is the reason behind it, it is not only acting to slow the rise from greenhouse gas emissions but also the added rise from changes in aerosol emissions.

He chose a figure which represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.

Generally, research considers only how greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, but this study examined the role of released aerosols — that dusty, smoky, hard - to - see - through particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere.

Only if there was a significant chance of the anthropogenic aerosols actually having a net warming effect would this change the conclusion and evidence for this is sorely lacking.

Finally onto point # 2 from above, not only can one adapt to a change similar to 1920's - > 1930's natural change over a ten year time span, we can also succesfully hold down temperatures with aerosols (if you're skeptical of this, you can't blame the current flat line on China's coal then, because we can surely do aerosols better when they are a deliberate end, rather than as an unintended by - product.)

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.

Needed measurements include not only the conventional climatic variables (temperature and precipitation), but also the time - varying, three - dimensional spatial fields of ozone, water vapor, clouds, and aerosols, all of which have the potential to cause surface and lower to mid-tropospheric temperatures to change relative to one another.

Only in this way is the energy balance determined empirically and the multitude of changes — cloud height and extent, water vapour, ozone, surface temperature, ice and snow, biology, aerosols — integrated in a comprehensible measure.

The creative destruction of capitalism is the only way to transform energy systems — but it is only a third of the solution for emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and land use change.

I may as well say «Yes lets ignore climate changes in the past and what we can learn from them and only go with the tremendously uncertain aerosol forcing, and also lets forget that feedbacks aren't necessarily constant in time.»

Model simulations of the Asian monsoon project that the sulphate aerosols» direct effect reduces the magnitude of precipitation change compared with the case of only greenhouse gas increases (Emori et al., 1999; Roeckner et al., 1999; Lal and Singh, 2001).

Global temps vary for many reasons beyond CO2 levels including but not limited to: planetary motion, changes in albedo, stratospheric aerosols, and solar variability to name a few, but the only area of genuine study by the IPCC has been rising CO2 levels.

The result is that the aerosols are the only thing affecting radiative fluxes, including the changes they induce in clouds, etc..

Aerosol changes between those climate states are appropriately included as a fast feedback, not only because aerosols respond rapidly to changing climate but also because there are multiple aerosol compositions, they have complex radiative properties and they affect clouds in several ways, thus making accurate knowledge of their glacial — interglacial changes inacceAerosol changes between those climate states are appropriately included as a fast feedback, not only because aerosols respond rapidly to changing climate but also because there are multiple aerosol compositions, they have complex radiative properties and they affect clouds in several ways, thus making accurate knowledge of their glacial — interglacial changes inacceaerosol compositions, they have complex radiative properties and they affect clouds in several ways, thus making accurate knowledge of their glacial — interglacial changes inaccessible.

The only direct real - world inputs to these models, in a climate change simulation context, are changes in atmospheric chemistry and composition (such as increasing greenhouse gases, or changing volcanic aerosols) and changes in solar radiation.

The GCMs appear to be wrong not only because they assume too much aerosol cooling, but also because, a) most of them arrive at a too - high temperature change between the 1880 - 1890 and 2000 - 2010 time frames, and b) because they generally predict too much ocean heat uptake, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.

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.

As geo - engineering proponents acknowledge, schemes like sulfur aerosol address only the symptoms, not the source, of global climate change.

The bicentennial trend lines clearly diverge from the past 30 or 50 or hundred years, and the most closely fitting explanation for this behavior is anthropogenic causes shifting the trends leaving only a shadow of natural variability superimposed on the sharp centennial scale rise, at about an order of magnitude smaller amplitude than the changes associated with GHGs and dampened by man - made aerosols.

The space - time structure of natural climate variability needed to determine the optimal fingerprint pattern and the resultant signal - to - noise ratio of the detection variable is estimated from several multi-century control simulations with different CGCMs and from instrumental data over the last 136 y. Applying the combined greenhouse gas - plus - aerosol fingerprint in the same way as the greenhouse gas only fingerprint in a previous work, the recent 30 - y trends (1966 — 1995) of annual mean near surface temperature are again found to represent a significant climate change at the 97.5 % confidence level.