Sentences with phrase «because volcanic aerosols»

Because volcanic aerosols can reach the stratosphere, they hang around much longer than man - made aerosols.

Further, during volcanic eruptions the ocean cools but for another reason: because volcanic aerosols shade the sun and thus the oceans are heated less than normal.

Not exact matches

On the other hand, we are also probably underestimating a negative aerosol forcing, e.g., because we have not included future volcanic 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).

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.

First, for changing just CO2 forcing (or CH4, etc, or for a non-GHE forcing, such as a change in incident solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, etc.), there will be other GHE radiative «forcings» (feedbacks, though in the context of measuring their radiative effect, they can be described as having radiative forcings of x W / m2 per change in surface T), such as water vapor feedback, LW cloud feedback, and also, because GHE depends on the vertical temperature distribution, the lapse rate feedback (this generally refers to the tropospheric lapse rate, though changes in the position of the tropopause and changes in the stratospheric temperature could also be considered lapse - rate feedbacks for forcing at TOA; forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment takes some of that into account; sensitivity to forcing at the tropopause with stratospheric adjustment will generally be different from sensitivity to forcing without stratospheric adjustment and both will generally be different from forcing at TOA before stratospheric adjustment; forcing at TOA after stratospehric adjustment is identical to forcing at the tropopause after stratospheric adjustment).

Because such a struggle is the only reasonable explanation for why you fighting so hard against the idea that a dissipation of aerosols requires an absence of further volcanic activity.

El Nino intensity and frequency increase during solar minima because negative NAO / AO increases, and major stratospheric volcanic aerosol events increase, also increasing El Nino conditions.

Taking out ENSO from a climate regression is different from taking out volcanic aerosols, because we don't know if ENSO is itself a forcing, an endogenous response to forcings, a temporally varying exogenous shift in the response of the climate to forcings, or what.

Regarding your statement, «Perhaps it is known that the natural variations in surface temperature are all due to unforced mechanisms, otherwise it is simply an assertion», I assume by «natural variations» you mean ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc., because obviously natural changes in solar irradiance or volcanic aerosols are recognized as forcing mechanisms.

These forcings considerably outweigh contributions from volcanic eruptions, mainly because the latter are sporadic, and their aerosol contributions are transient.

On the other hand, we are also probably underestimating a negative aerosol forcing, e.g., because we have not included future volcanic aerosols.

However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trends and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

The other is that I've corrected for more than just el Niño; I've adjusted for solar variations and volcanic aerosols too, so my correction removes the 1992 dip which was because of the eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano.

Because of the too - high sensitivity they also over-predict volcanic cooling effects, but the AR5 assumed forcings minimize that problem by halving volcanic aerosol forcing over previously used (and in the case of Pinatubo, observed) values.

Volcanic activity can not explain the difference between DePreSys and NoAssim because both include forcing from volcanic aerosol in the sVolcanic activity can not explain the difference between DePreSys and NoAssim because both include forcing from volcanic aerosol in the svolcanic aerosol in the same way.