Sentences with phrase «by aerosols largely»

Here luck was on Broecker's side: the warming by other greenhouse gases and the cooling by aerosols largely cancel today, so considering only CO2 leads to almost the same radiative forcing as considering all anthropogenic effects on climate (see IPCC AR4, Fig.

Not exact matches

V: The logic behind the claim that lowered temperatures mid-century were due largely to the emission of industrial aerosols from the unconstrained burning of fossil fuels depends on the assumption that the warming to be expected from the release of CO2 was somehow neutralized by the release of those aerosols.

On the one hand it repeats the oft argued claim that the cooling after 1940 was largely due to sulfate aerosols produced by «industrial activities,» but on the other hand, she is honest enough to admit that «the situation is complicated» by factors rarely addressed by cli - change advocates:

The slight downward trend in temperature from about 1945 until about 1975 is due to the increase in Sulfate Aerosols (SO4), largely produced by burning coal that contains sulfur.

Over the last century, tiny airborne particles called aerosols, which cool the climate by absorbing and reflecting sunlight, have largely cancelled out the effects of GHG emissions on tropical storm intensity, according to a new scientific review paper published in Science journal.

The second and more interesting (to me) observation is that the simulated temperature changes are punctuated by multiple short term peaks and dips, differing from one model run to another, although the climate variables mentioned above were omitted from the simulations — there were no changes in model input in solar or aerosol forcing, and ENSO was largely eliminated by smoothing.

Thus, for example, the climate sensitivity (1.7 — 2.6 °C for 2 × CO2) estimated by Schmittner et al. [94] is due largely to their assumed approximately 3 °C cooling in the LGM, and in lesser part to the fact that they defined some aerosol changes (dust) to be a climate forcing.

The difference between 0.5 to 0.6 and 0.84 may be largely due to GCMs often exhibiting too strong a response to volcanic aerosols and / or a tendency for volcanic eruptions to be closely followed by El Nino events.

As explained in Chapter Two, this was largely a result of dust and aerosols sent by humans (and volcanoes) into the atmosphere, which temporarily overwhelmed the already well - understood warming effect from greenhouse gases.

Since positive historical non-CO2 RF has been largely offset by negative aerosol forcing, I assume the current WHO analysis includes CO2 fertilization.