Sentences with phrase «aerosol cooling part»

Furthermore, if aerosols did have such a dramatic cancelling effect at the onset of WWII and during the following decades, is aerosol cooling part of the temperature models?

Not exact matches

«When biogenic VOCs are oxidized, they give rise to aerosol particles that cool the climate by reflecting part of the Sun's radiation back into space,» Artaxo said.

The observed amount of warming thus far has been less than this, because part of the excess energy is stored in the oceans (amounting to ~ 0.5 °C), and the remainder (~ 1.3 °C) has been masked by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols.

Now if this was the 1980s they might have had a point, but the fact that aerosols are an important climate forcing, have a net cooling effect on climate and, in part, arise from the same industrial activities that produce greenhouse gases, has been part of mainstream science for 30 years.

The problem is that the regions where aerosols are produced show warming not cooling in recent times, and the 1940 - 1975 cooling trend is seen in many parts of the globe where aerosols were not a factor.

You can, of course, argue that other factors were at work in the early 20th century warming phase, but if you want to argue that the mid-century cooling was largely due to the neutralizing effect of industrial aerosol pollutants, then you can not, as did Rodgers, claim that any part of that earlier warmup was due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Of the forcings leading to a warming in the early part of the records, solar, decreasing volcanism and GHGs all play a part (and with a role for cooling due to land use change and aerosol increases).

One, the major global cooling in the Southern Hemisphere during the period 1940 - 1960 takes place in the early part of the period before the aerosol build up, which according to the theory, mostly affected the industrialized Northern Hemisphere.

If we would pump aerosols in the stratosphere to artificially cool the Earth and thereby compensate (part of) the current climate warming, we would be permanently living under a slight sunshade.

(PS — I don't remember my entire comment, but part of it had to do with the fact that in dividing up attribution for the forcings responsible for post-1950 warming, uncertainties regarding anthropogenic sulfate aerosols are not particularly important, because their net cooling effect wouldn't influence the percentage apportionment among the warming factors)

They get > 100 % because they argue that the anthropogenic warming effects have to overcome the aerosol cooling (and therefore give the same net warming as the total warming since 1950), though most people count aerosols as part of the anthropogenic effect, which causes the confusion.

Thus, for example, the climate sensitivity (1.7 — 2.6 °C for 2 × CO2) estimated by Schmittner et al. [94] is due largely to their assumed approximately 3 °C cooling in the LGM, and in lesser part to the fact that they defined some aerosol changes (dust) to be a climate forcing.

2) A considerable part of that effect (apparently larger than thought before, according to the SOD) is produced by the direct effect; aerosols scatter sunlight and cool the surface.

While the US, Europe and Russia were heavily affected from cooling sulfate aerosols between the 1950s - 80s, those very same regions have brightened thereafter (less pronounced in many parts of Eastern Europe).

So the cooling back then wasn't only down to increased industrial aerosol pollution blocking / scattering some of the incoming sunlight, the IPO also played a part.

The resulting simulations show the cooling contribution of aerosols offset the ongoing warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases over the mid-twentieth century in that part of the Arctic.

Their model found that the unprecedented increase in monsoon activity over the past 30 years is «due possibly in part to» the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, but they said the result could be an overestimate because the authors didn't consider the impacts of aerosols, which cool the atmosphere.

The idea that the small cooling from the 1940s to 1970s is due to natural variability still can not be ruled out, although more likely this is a smaller part of the explanation and the cooling is primarily due to the «dust» neglected by Broecker, i.e. due to the rise of anthropogenic aerosol pollution (Taylor and Penner, 1994).

Based on discussions with my colleagues Rong Zhang and Mike Winton, this seems to be a consequence of an AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) which builds in strength when the aerosol cooling is strong, trying to balance a part of the cooling at the surface with warm waters advected in from the tropics, but also — by a process that is not particularly straightforward — cools the subsurface waters.