Sentences with phrase «aerosol emissions so»

Li said the study's findings should further spur countries like China and India to cut aerosol emissions so they reduce pollution and thereby increase their solar electricity generation more rapidly, in addition to the already known health benefits.

Not exact matches

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.

Earlier models had assumed that only 1 to 2 per cent of the iron contained in aerosols, including shipping emissions, is soluble in seawater, so the remaining 98 to 99 percent would sink to the bottom without affecting ocean life.

But the health effects of many aerosols in smog are so great that even in the poor world, they are already cutting emissions.»

The translation is that the little bugs that make methane in swamps get out - competed by other bugs that like acid rain (which is related to sulphate aerosols — mainly from power stations)-- so more industrial pollution, less methane emission (everything else being equal).

«We're not clear yet on what components of these emissions are the biggest contributors to ozone formation or aerosol formation,» says Coggon, «so that's what we'll be trying to figure out.»

The translation is that the little bugs that make methane in swamps get out - competed by other bugs that like acid rain (which is related to sulphate aerosols — mainly from power stations)-- so more industrial pollution, less methane emission (everything else being equal).

But then the world decided that they didn't like choking to death on pea soup fogs (thousands died one winter in London in the 1950s), so slowly but surely they brought in laws restricting aerosol emissions.

So the most visible part of the aerosol emissions may not be the most climatically relevant.

So, I know that CO2 fertilization has been considered in terms of its effects on 20th century trees used in reconstructions — has there been considerations of changes in diffuse light due to aerosol emissions?

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.

So now we have a new (anthropogenic, of course) explanation: «unexpected» Chinese aerosol emissions.

Man - made aerosol emissions don't last nearly so long.

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.

Now, a group of scientists at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) supported by the Aerosol and Particle Technology Laboratory of CPERI / CERTH Greece have built and tested a new solar reactor design that includes storage so it can provide round - the - clock heat like the current fossil - fired method, but without the emissions.

Sulfate aerosols wash out pretty quickly, so their current atmospheric concentration (and the resulting negative forcing) is mainly determined by the current emissions levels.

The situation we have here is that the cooling effect of man - made aerosols has declined appreciably [since 1951] as CO2 emissions and other GHGs have increased, so we would expect even greater warming, which hasn't happened.

Because of the first of these reasons, were we to abruptly halt all emissions now, the sulfate aerosols would rapidly be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation whereas the CO2 concentration would remain elevated, and so there would be a significant further warming influence just as a result of past emissions; this warming would lead to the quite significant global warming that Lindzen mentions.

The other side of the coin is that for long term warming, the cumulative emissions of CO2 are dominant, even if in the short term changes in its emission are relatively ineffectual, even more so because they are often combined with emissions of cooling aerosols.

A recent paper suggested that volcano aerosol emissions were to blame for a lack expected warming over the last decade or so.

They hypothesize that natural emissions of aerosol precursors will increase in a warming climate, causing a negative feedback so as to dampen the warming.

Given that, if one wants freedom of choice and an efficient market, shouldn't one accept a market solution (tax / credit or analogous system based on public costs, applied strategically to minimize paperwork (don't tax residential utility bills — apply upstream instead), applied approximately fairly to both be fair and encourage an efficient market response (don't ignore any significant category, put all sources of the same emission on equal footing; if cap / trade, allow some exchange between CO2 and CH4, etc, based CO2 (eq); include ocean acidification, etc.), allowing some approximation to that standard so as to not get very high costs in dealing with small details and also to address the biggest, most - well understood effects and sources first (put off dealing with the costs and benifits of sulphate aerosols, etc, until later if necessary — but get at high - latitude black carbon right away)?

[Response: For any projection for the future of climate, you obviously need a projection of emissions (greenhouse gases, ozone and aerosol precursors, etc.), land use change and so on.

And according to Emanuel, these newer models have a different treatment of so - called sulfate aerosol emissions, which come from the burning of coal and actually tend to reflect sunlight away from the planet and its oceans, producing a net cooling effect.