Sentences with phrase «as global dimming»

As an aside, the radiative forcing by aerosols (in both long wave and solar radiation at the tropopause) is not the same as global dimming (which is a solar radiation effect at the surface) though they are related.

Not exact matches

And as England has rose and then dimmed as a global superpower, so too has cod seen ups and downs.

I mean, what's going to happen now is that we are, you know, getting much cleaner in the way that we combust things and as a result of global dimming is going to reduce, and that's going to give us a little bit more warming.

There have been articles as far back as the 70s concerning global dimming but it's only very recently, apparently, that all of the probable causes (e.g. the microscopic particles causing smaller water droplets in clouds, enhancing the mirror effect, as well as contrails) have been understood.

As we decarbonise so we take away the aerosol effect aka global dimming.

As Raj Nair, Ford group vice president of Global Product Development said, pieces on the Mustang that didn't make the car go faster were tossed, like the rear - view camera, auto - dimming mirror and, a la the 1965 GT350, the rear seat and air conditioning as welAs Raj Nair, Ford group vice president of Global Product Development said, pieces on the Mustang that didn't make the car go faster were tossed, like the rear - view camera, auto - dimming mirror and, a la the 1965 GT350, the rear seat and air conditioning as welas well.

Thus that more sunlight is reflected due to (sulphate) aerosols, as the theory behind global dimming says, is proven false.

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.»

This switch from a «global dimming» trend to a «brightening» trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.

There have been articles as far back as the 70s concerning global dimming but it's only very recently, apparently, that all of the probable causes (e.g. the microscopic particles causing smaller water droplets in clouds, enhancing the mirror effect, as well as contrails) have been understood.

Absent this further study (which we expect is ongoing as part of the assessments related to the IPCC 4th Assessment report), it is horribly premature to declare «global dimming» the cause of this event.

First, the transcript uses the following comment from you as the lead - in to the comments by Peter Cox predicting major effects from the decline of global dimming over the next century: «We lived in a global warming plus a Global Dimming world, and now we are taking out Global Diglobal dimming over the next century: «We lived in a global warming plus a Global Dimming world, and now we are taking out Global Ddimming over the next century: «We lived in a global warming plus a Global Dimming world, and now we are taking out Global Diglobal warming plus a Global Dimming world, and now we are taking out Global DiGlobal Dimming world, and now we are taking out Global DDimming world, and now we are taking out Global DiGlobal DimmingDimming.

3) Global dimming largely is attributed to more reflection from clouds and longer lifetime of clouds as result of mainly sulphate aerosols.

As the cycle spins back up with the waning of global dimming, will that generally mean an increase in storm activity and extremes?

And we could even allow more sulphate aerosol into the atmosphere, as this has proven successful at global dimming — taking care about not to release «pollution» near centres of population where it could damage health.

Aviation - cirrus (aviation - smog, really) is still generally being underestimated as a contributor to both global / regional warming and global / regional dimming, to more rain and more drought.

«Global Dimming» is increasing in magnitude all over the globe as the ongoing aerosol assault continues.

The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming - induced drought and global dimming.

As governments begin to take global warming (and global dimming and ocean acidification) seriously, coal will become scarcer and more expensive.

There is evidence for both local and regional causes (e.g. drought stress) as well as global scale causes (e.g. global dimming).

Bob; I'm glad you linked to McIntyre's discussion of the «Bucket» case; this has always intriqued me because the AGW crew have been furious with the 40's dip in temp as it contradicts the effect of the linear increase in CO2 and its monotonic connotations for temp; to overcome the mid-century decline the global dimming hilarity was espoused; the Bucket case added a further dimension of hilarity to this because if the temps actually hadn't dropped as per the Bucket case then global dimming was rubbish; such is the illogic of the orthodoxy.

As with volcanos, the removal of the dimming SO2 aerosols caused the climate to warm up, the expected physical response — and the sole cause of global climate change.

Climate engineering also creates a phenomenon known as «global dimming.»

Looks like another cover - up, false - flag story to get the public to enthusiastically accept the concept of Global Dimming from particle pollution as Global Cooling Chemtrails does nothing to decrease CO2, but they do most - massively increase the production of dead vegetation CO2, therefore increasing Global Warming

The fade of global dimming in the 1980s had major consequences for climate change, as it enabled the greenhouse effect to become finally visible at its full dimension (Wild et al. 2007).

Addendum: The opposing effect of cooling from airborne pollutants is often referred to as «Global Dimming ``, and Real Climate has a couple of articles on it:

We have recently discussed several papers which have found substantial global dimming as a result of increased human aerosol emissions from 1950 to 1980 and 2000 to 2010.

As L&S admit, this global dimming due to aerosols «no doubt [has] a cooling effect», yet it doesn't show up in their model.

In some regions, such as Europe, global dimming no longer occurs, thanks to clean air regulations.

The models do reproduce the 20th century, and even the last 1000 years globally averaged reasonably well, observational data of forcing factors permitting, and they do this with the same physics that produce 2xCO2 sensitivity as 2.9 oC There is another essential factor in looking at current T rise vs CO2 forcing and that is the global dimming phenomenon.

The aerosol hypothesis is that sulfate aerosols and black carbon are the main cause of global dimming, as they tend to act to cool the Earth by reflecting and scattering sunlight before it reaches the ground.

In addition to Adrian Burd's recommendation, Al should read the comprehensive review by Wild: «Global dimming and brightening: A review» http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf «Recent brightening can not supersede the greenhouse effect as the main cause of global warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would haGlobal dimming and brightening: A review» http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf «Recent brightening can not supersede the greenhouse effect as the main cause of global warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would haglobal warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would have it.