Sentences with phrase «aerosol emissions as»

Karsten / Mikel, As far as the mid-century northern hemisphere cooling goes, attributed usually to anthropogenic aerosol emissions as you are saying, I wonder what became of the highly publicised Thompson et al. 2010 Nature article - Thompson, D. W. J., Wallace, J. M., Kennedy, J. J. & Jones, P. D., (2010): «An abrupt drop in Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature around 1970», Nature 467, 444 - 447.

Worse, you have to know aerosol emissions as a function of not just time, but of latitude also, because how much sunlight they reflect depends on the angle of sunlight that impacts them.

Not exact matches

Overall, the new measures would lower global anthropogenic emissions of methane by 50 % and of black carbon aerosols, also known as soot, by 80 %.

The scientists expect further warming in the Arctic as levels of greenhouse gases will continue to increase and aerosol particle emissions will likely decrease to combat air pollution in different parts of the world.

Toxins and nicotine have been measured in that aerosol, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetic acid and other toxins emitted into the air, though at lower levels compared to conventional cigarette emissions.

«Current emission inventories do not account for cultural burning practices in Asia as aerosol sources,» said Chakrabarty, who is originally from the Northeastern region of India.

Photo credit: DRIChakrabarty and colleagues found to their surprise that funeral pyre emissions contain sunlight - absorbing organic carbon aerosols known as brown carbon.

Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.

Simulating natural and humanmade climate drivers, scientists showed that the decline in rainfall is primarily a response to humanmade increases in greenhouse gases as well as a thinning of the ozone caused by humanmade aerosol emissions.

Non-polar glacial ice holds a wealth of information about past changes in climate, the environment and especially atmospheric composition, such as variations in temperature, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and emissions of natural aerosols or human - made pollutants... The glaciers therefore hold the memory of former climates and help to predict future environmental changes.

Scientists have already linked aerosol emissions to increases in lightning over areas of the Amazon prone to forest fires (pdf) as well as regions of China with thick air pollution.

Aerosols are solid or liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere, consisting of (in rough order of abundance): sea salt, mineral dust, inorganic salts such as ammonium sulfate (which has natural as well as anthropogenic sources from e.g. coal burning), and carbonaceous aerosol such as soot, plant emissions, and incompletely combusted fossil fuel.

For sulphate aerosols, current models probably overestimate their influence, as there is no measurable effect of the large (over 60 %) reduction in SO2 emissions in Europe at the places where the largest influence should be visible, according to the models.

When aerosols from human activities such as industrial plant and vehicle emissions are added to the system, the energy budget has to deal with the increase.

Since climate scientists certainly don't have a crystal ball, we generally take a range of scenarios or projections of future emissions of CO2 and other important forcings such as methane and aerosols.

«Our findings,» write the authors, «suggest that anthropogenic aerosol emissions influenced a range of societally important historical climate events such as peaks in hurricane activity and Sahel drought.»

These changes might influence interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere such as the air - sea gas exchange and the emission of sea - spray aerosols that can scatter solar radiation or contribute to the formation of clouds.

If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

V 323: If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

«A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming... because current global warming is offset by global dimming — the 2 - 3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.»

But models are not tuned to the trends in surface temperature, and as Gavin noted before (at least for the GISS model), the aerosol amounts are derived from simulations using emissions data and direct effects determined by changes in concentrations.

However, as I understand it what is currently the mainstream view is that what explains the transition from early 20th century warming to the flat period between is the resumption of industrial production and thus of reflective aerosols (predominantly sulfates), and that likewise, it was the passage in the early seventies of laws requiring cleaner emissions that reduced reflective aerosols.

Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a «Faustian bargain» because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated GHG in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs.

This is a peer reviewed paper by respected scientists who are saying that aerosol forcing means that the majority of the warming caused by existing co2 emission has effectively been masked thus far, and that as aerosols remain in the atmosphere for far shorter a duration of time than co2, we will have already most likely crossed the 2 degree threshold that the G8 politicians have been discussing this week once the cooling effect of aerosols dissipate.

I agree that targeting 2C rather than nothing is a start — but is it a start in the right direction or will we be confronted with a whole new set of excuses ranging from «we don't have to do anything because of the «current» trend» or «we'll put up an aerosol emission program as soon as 1.9 C have been reached» or «our scientists say we'll never reach the 2C anyway and we don't care what your scientists say» or other ideas like that?

The total warming from methane, nitrous oxide and aerosol emissions were each estimated from climate model simulations driven by historical forcing pathways for each gas, and were allocated to individual countries as described in section 2.

Given the total irrelevance of volcanic aerosols during the period in question, the only very modest effect of fossil fuel emissions and the many inconsistencies governing the data pertaining to solar irradiance, it seems clear that climate science has no meaningful explanation for the considerable warming trend we see in the earlier part of the 20th century — and if that's the case, then there is no reason to assume that the warming we see in the latter part of that century could not also be due to either some as yet unknown natural force, or perhaps simply random drift.

Regarding fine aerosols, as suggested by David, there are huge increases in industrial activity in SE Asia since 1975, but that is a rather linear expansion, where SO2 emissions are in lockstep with more dirtier aerosols.

The rather extreme runup in temperatures during the early 20th century has been explained, in part, as due to a relative lack of volcanic aerosol emissions.

Coal, on the other hand, seems to be plentiful, it causes more emissions per energy unit generated, and it has some side issues such as soot and other particulates, including aerosols which may actually be cooling the planet.

Some question remains as to how much of the temporary slowdown in surface warming is due to human aerosol emissions, how much due to ENSO, how much due to heat being transferred to the deep oceans, and so forth.

Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years.

Choices regarding emissions of other warming agents, such as methane, black carbon on ice / snow, and aerosols, can affect global warming over coming decades but have little effect on longer - term warming of the Earth over centuries and millennia.

Scientists found that emissions of tiny air particles from human - made sources — known as anthropogenic aerosols — were the cause.

Natural aerosols such as dust and sea salt also play an important role in climate and their emissions and interactions differed significantly among the models, with consequences to the role of short - lived pollutants.

So Nielsen - Gammon is correct to note that some of the slowed surface temperature warming over the past decade can be attributed to La Niña, although there have been other influences at play as well, such as human aerosol emissions.

While SO2 emissions may have had some small role in that period, they can't have a role in the current standstill, as the increase of emissions in SE Asia is compensated by the decrease in emissions in the Western world, thus there is hardly any increase in cooling aerosols while CO2 levels are going up at record speed and temperatures are stalled.

This relationship between cumulative emissions and warming is not perfect, as it will change based on what happens to non-CO2 greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, as well as how quickly climate - cooling aerosols are reduced.

As the emission of aerosols in the 1940s onwards tended to be into a cleaner atmosphere they may have had a larger effect.

Primary emphasis is placed on investigation of climate sensitivity — globally and regionally, including the climate system's response to diverse forcings such as solar variability, volcanoes, anthropogenic and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, paleo - climate changes, etc..

As an example, anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions totaled 131 Megatonnes in 1975, and by 2011 they had dropped to 101 Megatonnes, a drop of 30 Megatonnes..

It will be invaluable to have these tools in the public sphere as China's economic slowdown and air pollution reduction programs continue to impact Aerosol emissions.

As a check, the Climate Sensitivity factor for the reduction in tropospheric aerosol emissions was also calculated: Global totals of SO2 emissions in 1975 were 131 Megatonnes.

«since the mid 1980s a significant increase in visibility has been noted in western Europe (e.g. Doyle and Dorling, 2002), and there are strong indications that a reduction in aerosol load from anthropogenic emissions (in other words, air pollution) has been the dominant contributor to this effect, which is also referred to as «brightening».»

Real Climate defines «aerosols» as ``... solid or liquid particles suspended in the atmosphere, consisting of (in rough order of abundance): sea salt, mineral dust, inorganic salts such as ammonium sulfate (which has natural as well as anthropogenic sources from e.g. coal burning), and carbonaceous aerosol such as soot, plant emissions, and incompletely combusted fossil fuel.»

Increased biomass can lead to increased emissions of biogases such as dimethyl sulfide and isoprene, which when oxidized in the atmospheric form sulphate and organic aerosols that can nucleate clouds, increasing cloud cover and planetary albedo — the CLAW Hypothesis.

I'm not sure, therefore, what is the basis for your description of a «permanent cloud of aerosols», particularly as it relates to sulfur emissions.

They concluded that with a bit of help from changes in solar output and natural climatic cycles such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the growth in the volume of aerosols being pumped up power station chimneys was probably enough to block the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas emissions over the period 1998 - 2008.

My question woiuld be: What happens when human related forcing such as aerosols, sulfur emission, etc. act in opposition to other human related forcing such as greenhouse gas emissions?

These NCA emissions directly affect particle concentrations and human exposure to nanosized aerosol in urban areas, and potentially may act as nanosized condensation nuclei for the condensation of atmospheric low - volatile organic compounds.