Sentences with phrase «aerosol forcing highly»

Not exact matches

Radiative forcing, especially that due to aerosols, is highly uncertain for the period 1750 - 1850 as there is little modeling and even less data to constrain those models.

For the sake of interpreting on - going and future climate change it is highly desirable to obtain precise monitoring of the global aerosol forcing [73].

In General without details, your suspicion seems correct that there is reversing tendency in direct aerosol forcing in highly industrialized areas.

For instance, CO2 forcing can be calculated from highly accurate line - by - line codes and is implemented in GCMs with less than 10 % error (it can't be «adjusted» in any signficant way) However, aerosol forcings are highly uncertain — our best guesses for those could well be significantly off — the same for solar.

Forcing agents such as aerosols, ozone and land albedo changes are highly heterogeneous spatially and temporally.

All the rest of the 1.5 - 4.5 degr.C increase is based on models and assumed feedbacks like clouds and forcings like aerosols, which are highly uncertain.

Comparing total forcing and warming is the only sensible approach, but the contribution from aerosols is highly uncertain.

The ocean oscillations (so - called) are highly correlated with solar and aerosol forcings, so I am skeptical of those being any separate phenomenon, however poorly explained they are.

In short, Lindzen's argument is that the radiative forcing from aerosols is highly uncertain with large error bars, and that they have both cooling (mainly by scattering sunlight and seeding clouds) and warming (mainly by black carbon darkening the Earth's surface and reducing its reflectivity) effects.

Furthermore, conceptual work on the potentially chaotic nature of the ISM (70) has been developed (V. Petoukhov, K. Zickfeld, and H.J.S., unpublished work) to suggest that under some plausible decadal - scale scenarios of land use and greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing, switches occur between two highly nonlinear metastable regimes of the chaotic oscillations corresponding to the «active» and «weak» monsoon phases, on the intraseasonal and interannual timescales.

The situation as I see it is opposite: Mainstream science acknowledges there is a large uncertainty in the net aerosol forcing, whereas Lindzen picks onevalue at the outer edge of the probability distribution function and builds his entire argument on that (rather improbable) value as if it's highly certain: His argument is implicitly built on high confidence / certainty that aerosol forcing is very low.

On one hand, the reduction in global SO2 emissions reduces the role of sulfate aerosols in determining future climate toward the end of the 21st century and therefore reduces one aspect of uncertainty about future climate change (because the precise forcing effect of sulfate aerosols is highly uncertain).

However the great uncertainties that affect the simulated trend (e.g., climate sensitivity, rate of heat uptake by the deep - ocean, and aerosol forcing strength) make this a highly dubious statement.