Sentences with phrase «as aerosol cooling»

But look: The predictions for the future would be more dire than before especially as the aerosol cooling would not be expected to keep up.

As aerosols cool the Earth's surface and warm the aerosol layer, the lapse rate will decrease globally and suppress the water vapour feedback (e.g., Feichter et al., 2004).

Not exact matches

While it is still possible that other factors, such as heat storage in other oceans or an increase in aerosols, have led to cooling at the Earth's surface, this research is yet another piece of evidence that strongly points to the Pacific Ocean as the reason behind a slowdown in warming.

The controversial approach, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, is designed to effectively cool the Earth's surface by reflecting some sunlight before it reaches the surface.

Since the 1990s, scientists have been discussing using aircraft to inject aerosols, such as sulfates, into the atmosphere as a form of geoengineering to mimic volcanic eruptions that sometimes cool the planet by casting shades of particulate matter.

Subsequent, unusually large and frequent eruptions of other volcanoes, as well as sea - ice / ocean feedbacks persisting long after the aerosols have been removed from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the cooling through the 1700s.

That leaves a gap as much as 5 km thick in the lower stratosphere where climate - cooling aerosols can persist, yet not show up, in satellite data.

Aerosol particles act as cloud droplets and thus reflect solar radiation back to space cooling down the planet.

Various aerosols also rise up in the atmosphere, but their net effect on global warming or cooling is still uncertain, as some aerosols reflect sunlight away from Earth, and others, in contrast, trap warmth in the atmosphere.

As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

If you set the aerosol forcing to zero you don't get the mid-century interruption of warming, and if the aerosol forcing were allowed to get as big as, say, 10 W / m ** 2 you would get excessive cooling unless you imposed a very low climate sensitivity — which would then make it impossible to reproduce the post-1970's warming.

In the troposphere, major volcanic events have a strong cooling effect, as stratospheric aerosols reflect away some incoming solar radiation before it enters the troposphere.

In the middle of the last century, for example, soot and other particles spewing from factory smokestacks, collectively known as aerosols — cooled the planet for a couple of decades.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

I'm sorry if it's boring — only as boring perhaps as unscientific guesswork about the extent of aerosol - induced cooling post-1940s perhaps, which many are more than happy to indulge in.

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.

Let me try to be more explicit: if you want to assume (or, if you prefer, conclude) that aerosols produced by the increased burning of fossil fuels after WWII had a cooling effect that essentially cancelled out the warming that would be expected as a result of the release of CO2 produced by that burning, then it's only logical to conclude that there exists a certain ratio between the warming and cooling effects produced by that same burning.

1974 Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate; cooling from aerosols is suspected to be as likely as warming; journalists talk of a new ice age.

GHG continue to increase in amounts in the atmosphere and as such, over time more warming inevitably continues though there may be breaks for short periods, and some cooling, as already discussed at great length regarding aerosols.

The changes seen in the MSU 4 data (as even Roy Spencer has pointed out), are mainly due to ozone depletion (cooling) and volcanic eruptions (which warm the stratopshere because the extra aerosols absorb more heat locally).

That is, other feedbacks come into play — vegetation, ice sheets, aerosols, CH4 etc. will all change as a function a warming (or cooling), which are not included in the standard climate sensitivity definition.

Global dimming is old as is cooling, aerosol transfer and black carbon reflective effects.

«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.»

Research by an international team of scientists recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that the cooling effect of aerosols is so large that it has masked as much as half of the warming effect from greenhouse gases.

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.

The bottom line is that uncertainties in the physics of aerosol effects (warming from black carbon, cooling from sulphates and nitrates, indirect effects on clouds, indirect effects on snow and ice albedo) and in the historical distributions, are really large (as acknowledged above).

Among those choices as well as the rest including reducing fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc., one would want to find the cheapest / easiest, but also the most effective (the firmest grasp on that knob) and the safest / least negative side - effects - such as those you'd get from non - spatially / temporally - discrimating solar shades / cooling aerosols (precipitation changes, and?

Getting to understand the effects of aerosols, timescales and complex interactions seems to be, as it should be an active ongoing area of study.There are some very cool papers published in peer review on internal variability to be sure.

In this case, the vast preponderance of evidence and theory (such as long established basic physics) is on the side of AGW, so there would have to be a serious paradigm shift based on some new physics, a cooling trend (with increasing GHG levels and decreasing aerosol effect), and that they had failed to detect the extreme increase in solar irradiance to dislodge AGW theory.

Except that GHG forcing + cooling aerosol forcing results in less precipitation globally in general than reduced GHG forcing that produces the same global average temperature, as found in «Climate Change Methadone» elsewhere at RC.

I can't tell how they've accounted for natural removal by the oceans, and they do assume other forcings (such as cooling from aerosols) are removed.

There, you have to factor in not only the aerosol cooling but the methane (and possibly black carbon) warming, as well as a few other anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

As most aerosols, especially sulfate aerosols, are emitted in the NH, the cooling effect should be largest there.

The NIPCC report makes the * opposite * claim as Lindzen does, namely that «The IPCC dramatically underestimates the total cooling effect of aerosols.»

The GCM's I know of (and as described by the IPCC 2001) do include a large cooling effect from aerosols.

As already said, there are a lot of indications that GHG influences are overestimated in current models (see discussion # 10 and # 11 of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=22), not at least as the influence of sulphate aerosols are not measurable where the largest cooling according to the models should be seeAs already said, there are a lot of indications that GHG influences are overestimated in current models (see discussion # 10 and # 11 of http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=22), not at least as the influence of sulphate aerosols are not measurable where the largest cooling according to the models should be seeas the influence of sulphate aerosols are not measurable where the largest cooling according to the models should be seen.

As for their Figure 3, all it shows is an estimate of the time required for the cooling aerosols to completely dissipate (and thus return the temperature to its initial state).

Rough calculations show if you drill about a dozen mine shafts as deep as possible into the thing, and plunk megaton nuclear bombs down there, and then fire them off simultaneously, you'll get a repeat of the Long Valley Caldera explosion of about 800,000 years ago — which coated everything east of it with miles of ash and injected a giant aerosol cloud into the stratosphere — the ash layer alone formed a triangle stretching from the caldera to Louisiana to North Dakota, including all of Arizona and most of Idaho and everything in between — I bet that would have a cooling factor of at least -30 W / m ^ 2 — and you could go and do the Yellowstone Plateau at the same time — geoengineering at its finest.

Since aerosols last much longer in the stratosphere than they do in the rainy troposphere, the amount of aerosol - forming substance that would need to be injected into the stratosphere annually is far less than what would be needed to give a similar cooling effect in the troposphere, though so far as the stratospheric aerosol burden goes, it would still be a bit like making the Earth a permanently volcanic planet (think of a Pinatubo or two a year, forever).

The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short - lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65 % as much as CO2, and other short - lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling.

As the weather makers prepare for the coming radical cool - down in the US West, massive aerosol spraying can be seen in the current satellite image shown below, taken on 5/19/2016

The orthodox explanation for that one is that the cooling effect of white aerosols such as sulphates — released from coal and oil burning — was masking the warming effect of greenhouse gases until various clean air acts allowed the anthropogenic warming trend to re-emerge.

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.

Results showed that aerosols from the volcanic eruption blocked sunlight, resulting to cooler seas, which, as Fasullo says, «skewed our impression of acceleration.»

They also discuss some indications of higher aerosol cooling in the last decade, considered as a potential influence (although not dominant) in 21st century temperatures.

Taking the aerosol — or volcanic emanation, it doesn't matter which — as cooling factor, means that CO2 forcing was overestimated during the post 1975, pre-98 period, and overestimated during the post-98 period.

It seems ironic therefore, but plausible all the same, that an episode of cooling through «natural» SRM might be more readily interpreted as an «emergency» and (ab) used to justify human efforts to take control of the climate system through stratospheric aerosol injection than accelerated warming.

Climate models that include these aerosol - cloud interactions fail to include a number of buffering responses, such as rainfall scavenging of the aerosols and compensating dynamical effects (which would reduce the magnitude of the aci cooling effect).

This cooling was from the same root cause as volcanic cooling, namely aerosols (mostly sulfate aerosols) in the atmosphere.

The study focuses on one proposed type of SRM, known as a «stratospheric aerosol injection», which involves sending up substances to the stratosphere that are known to have a cooling effect on the climate.