Sentences with phrase «aerosols can cause»

All such aerosols can cause respiratory problems in sensitive animals.

The new MSN — your customizable collection of the best in news, sports, entertainment, money, weather, travel, health and lifestyle, combined with Inhaling chemicals from deodorant aerosols can cause skin reactions, aggravate allergies and may trigger fatal heart problems.

Not exact matches

Chemical fresheners can cause eye, skin, and respiratory irritation and aerosol air fresheners are not any better.

Aerosols can penetrate deep into lungs, causing heart or pulmonary disease.

In particular, they propose that cloud changes associated with aerosol particles in the atmosphere could be causing the weekend effect, though other pollution processes can not be ruled out at this time.

Indeed, conventional wisdom held that higher levels of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere should cool the earth's climate because aerosols can increase cloudiness; they not only reduce precipitation, which raises the water content in clouds, but they also increase the size of the individual water droplets, which in turn causes more warming sunlight to be reflected back into space.

Professor Sybren said: «It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza A / H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet («airborne transmission») between humans.

Forcing caused by changes in the Sun's brightness, by dust in the atmosphere, or by volcanic aerosols can also be translated into radiative forcing.

One of the major parameters was the safety of these agents in the respiratory airways and lung parenchyma, since several of these agents are known to cause adverse effects.23 The main adverse effects observed were cough, transient fever and transient decrease in the respiratory functions after the aerosol administration.8, 19, 20 Moreover; it has been observed that excessive deposition of these agents in one site of the respiratory system can induce non-specific side effects in the form of pulmonary edema as observed with many other drugs.16 These side effects were milder when a premedication with bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids were administered.8, 19, 20 Until now no long term trial (> 9 months) has been performed since all patients included in previous studies had stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Paraphrasing the text in the post, aerosols that are input into the atmosphere, due to their spatial heterogeneity, also cause regions of heating or cooling that the atmosphere can respond to by changing its circulation — and that might have further climate effects in places far away from where the aerosols are input.

But other issues like fragrant candles, aerosol spray, smoke, and burning food onto a Teflon pan can cause health problems with pet birds.

While this is indeed very interesting and does suggest that aerosol indirect effects can have important climatic consequences, it is merely the first step to attributing any particular climatic effect (failure of Sahel monsoon) to a particular cause (aerosol indirect effects).

I was thinking instead perhaps more easily controlled polar - orbit satellites might be used, which would rotate with some fixed ratio to their orbital period, casting greater shadows at higher latitudes... or some other arrangment... for a targetted offset polar amplification of AGW especially and in particular perhaps avoiding the reduction in precipitation that can be caused by SW - radiation - based «GE» (although aerosols that actually absorb some SW in the troposphere while shielding the surface would have the worst effect in that way, I'd think)... strategic distribution of solar shading has been suggested with precipitation effects in mind, such as here... sorry, I don't have the link (I'm sure I saved it, just as Steve Fish would suggest — but where?).

Thus, Victor the Troll, to contradict all that you wrote @ 221, «the dissipation of aerosols from any given eruption IS caused by a lack of volcanic activity,» and global temperatures CAN «rise above (the) level» «they would have been had the volcanoes not occurred» because the impact of previous volcanism would have also dissipated in the interval.

In other words, if we are after a cause (or causes) for the temperature increase during the period in question, the presence or absence of aerosols from volcanic eruptions is beside the point, because they can not explain any increase in temperatures that occurred prior to any cooling effect they might have had.

Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling.

Either «something» caused that and, not being man - made GHGs or (obviously) sulphate aerosols, it would be quite safe to call it a natural phenomenon Well, if you insist on looking at individual years and * not * smoothing the data at all, then given that interannual variability can quite easily be.15 oC, we can take.3 oC away as it is meaningless chaos and not indicative of a trend.

There are multilple causes cited in the post above volcanics, aerosols, solar (which by the way the recent minima was only unusual by its longevity not its amplitude) but we can leave Hansen 2011 to rebute your point 1

When Gort first visited in 1951, it spent little effort on climate change issues, focusing on other aspects of our planet instead: Gort returned in 2012 to answer puny human climatologist questions about whether climate change caused particular weather phenomena by making an obvious point: rather than struggle with theoretical analysis, you can simply use your Climate Changeometer to remove all the excess greenhouse gases and aerosols above natural levels and then measure the outcome.

12 * ICE AGES: More elliptical orbit causes less sunlight to reach Earth — results in ice ages (100,000 yr cycles) * VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Release ash and aerosols into the atmosphere Reflects sun rays causing cooler temps * SOLAR ENERGY: Cause short term changes Less solar energy can cause small iceCause short term changes Less solar energy can cause small icecause small ice ages

The reason greenhouse gases can be (and probably are) responsible for more than 100 % of the observed warming is that other factors (mainly human aerosol pollution) have caused cooling at the same time.

Anomalies in the volcanic - aerosol induced global radiative heating distribution can force significant changes in atmospheric circulation, for example, perturbing the equator - to - pole heating gradient (Stenchikov et al., 2002; Ramaswamy et al., 2006a; see Section 9.2) and forcing a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation that in turn causes a counterintuitive boreal winter warming at middle and high latitudes over Eurasia and North America (Perlwitz and Graf, 2001; Stenchikov et al., 2002, 2004, 2006; Shindell et al., 2003b, 2004; Perlwitz and Harnik, 2003; Rind et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2006).

Even the «fingerprint» studies of the cause of global temperature change since 1850 follow a rather similar pattern: leave out half the natural variables, make unproven assumptions about aerosols etc. and you can soon fail to find any other explanation for warming that our old pal of molecular weight 44.

Similarly, atmospheric aerosols, generally human - caused, can increase albedo and cool the planet — especially if they also increase cloudiness by providing condensation nuclei for WV.

Aerosols have both natural and human sources, so if we just assume aerosol concentration variation in the atmosphere will continue as it has for the last 165 years, then future AGW can be projected with TCR (1 + beta) where beta is the historical fraction of CO2 radiative forcing caused by all other GHG and aAerosols have both natural and human sources, so if we just assume aerosol concentration variation in the atmosphere will continue as it has for the last 165 years, then future AGW can be projected with TCR (1 + beta) where beta is the historical fraction of CO2 radiative forcing caused by all other GHG and aerosolsaerosols.

Tropospheric aerosols play a crucial role in climate and can cause a climate forcing directly by absorbing and reflecting sunlight, thereby cooling or heating the atmosphere, and indirectly by modifying cloud properties.

It can also strengthen the Asian summer monsoon circulation and cause a local increase in precipitation, despite the global reduction of evaporation that compensates aerosol radiative heating at the surface (Miller et al., 2004b).

Vegetation cover changes caused by land use can alter regional and global climate through both biogeochemical (emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols) and biogeophysical (albedo, evapotranspiration, and surface roughness) feedbacks with the atmosphere, with reverse effects following land abandonment, reforestation, and other vegetation recoveries (107).

Hmmm... don't suppose it occurred to anyone to check the amount of anthropogenic aerosols that were emitted during this time frame 1940 - 1970, or the fact that aerosols have an immediate cooling effect on troposphere temperatures that can mask the underlying warming caused by the CO2 emissions that also accompany the aerosols.

Hence, it is more than a little tiresome to see the same old rants from skeptics who point out this period of rapid aerosol and CO2 rise as «proof» that CO2 can't possibly cause warming since this period saw cooling.

This thinning, which can decrease the ozone concentration by as much as 70 percent, was caused by the rampant use of human - made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), organic compounds that were once widely used in cooling systems and aerosols.

Backing that up, NASA says that 1) sea surface temperature fluctuations (El Niño - La Niña) can cause global temperature deviation of about 0.2 °C; 2) solar maximums and minimums produce variations of only 0.1 °C, warmer or cooler; 3) aerosols from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo for example) have caused average cooling of 0.3 °C, but recent eruptions have had not had significant effect.

Anomalies in the volcanic - aerosol induced global radiative heating distribution can force signifi cant changes in atmospheric circulation, for example, perturbing the equator - to - pole heating gradient (Stenchikov et al., 2002; Ramaswamy et al., 2006a; see Section 9.2) and forcing a positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation that in turn causes a counterintuitive boreal winter warming at middle and high latitudes over Eurasia and North America (Perlwitz and Graf, 2001; Stenchikov et al., 2002,2004, 2006; Shindell et al., 2003b, 2004; Perlwitz and Harnik, 2003; Rind et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2006).

There are multiple causes, giving rise to multiple effects such that the interactions among the various components — like low - level ozone, aerosols (airborne particles) and clouds — can get hideously complicated.

This tells us that over this period all other anthropogenic forcing components (aerosols, other GHGs, land use changes, surface albedo changes, etc.) essentially cancelled one another out, so we can ignore your statement «we suspect that aerosols caused cooling», as this is already compensated for by other anthropogenic warming beside CO2.

Regardless of the cause, which some have attempted to explain as due to industrial aerosol cooling, one can't accuse CO2 emissions of raising global temperatures during a period when there was no such rise.

They are added to the general volume of aerosols and can cause cooling or warming.

I can think of many things that could cause this variability, say aerosol formation over the Atlantic connected to dust storms, sea ice changes due to changing wind patterns.