Sentences with phrase «because aerosol emissions»

Not exact matches

The results imply that the interaction between organic and sulfuric acids promotes efficient formation of organic and sulfate aerosols in the polluted atmosphere because of emissions from burning of fossil fuels, which strongly affect human health and global climate.

From the Physical Science Basis: «Shindell et al. (2009) estimated the impact of reactive species emissions on both gaseous and aerosol forcing species and found that ozone precursors, including methane, had an additional substantial climate effect because they increased or decreased the rate of oxidation of SO2 to sulphate aerosol.

«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.»

Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a «Faustian bargain» because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated GHG in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs.

I agree that targeting 2C rather than nothing is a start — but is it a start in the right direction or will we be confronted with a whole new set of excuses ranging from «we don't have to do anything because of the «current» trend» or «we'll put up an aerosol emission program as soon as 1.9 C have been reached» or «our scientists say we'll never reach the 2C anyway and we don't care what your scientists say» or other ideas like that?

Because aerosols only stay around for a short time (weeks), the concentration goes like the emissions (i.e. double the emissions to double the concentration).

It might well prove to have been impossible to keep temps from rising more than 1.5 C (because they might have risen above that if we stopped all emissions now — e.g. the lack of aerosols alone might be enough to push temps beyond that).

This means that the «pause,» or whatever you want to call it, in the rise of global surface temperatures is even more significant than it is generally taken to be, because whatever is the reason behind it, it is not only acting to slow the rise from greenhouse gas emissions but also the added rise from changes in aerosol emissions.

Christy is correct to note that the model average warming trend (0.23 °C / decade for 1978 - 2011) is a bit higher than observations (0.17 °C / decade over the same timeframe), but that is because over the past decade virtually every natural influence on global temperatures has acted in the cooling direction (i.e. an extended solar minimum, rising aerosols emissions, and increased heat storage in the deep oceans).

Worse, you have to know aerosol emissions as a function of not just time, but of latitude also, because how much sunlight they reflect depends on the angle of sunlight that impacts them.

«Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).»

There is a fairly large degree of uncertainty in these figures, primarily because the magnitude of the cooling effect from human aerosol emissions is not well known.

«About» ought to be in italics because we really don't know how much cooling is caused by other emissions, like particulate aerosols that go up the smokestack along with the carbon dioxide.

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.

This is problematic for the previous estimate because anthropogenic aerosol emissions existed prior to 1750.

Because of the combination of high absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions.

Because predictions of a cooling planet made during the 1970s — a number of researchers then believed that increases in the emission of aerosols, such as dust and smog, could put the planet on a path of sustained cooling — turned out to be wrong, climate deniers argue that the current projections could prove to be just as fallacious.

A bit of digression, but can atmospheric warming have «stalled» because of the enormous emission of reflective aerosols from coal burning in China and India in the last decade or so?p class =» response» > [Response: In principle yes, but the evidence that more heat has gone into the ocean is very strong.

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).

If we add in the warming effects of the other long - lived greenhouse gases, the best estimate rises to 1.22 °C surface warming caused by human emissions (we've only observed ~ 0.8 °C warming because much of that has been offset by human aerosol emissions).