Sentences with phrase «cancelling effects of aerosols»

The authors of the Science journal report provide new calculations on the cancelling effects of aerosols and GHGs on tropical cyclones.

Not exact matches

The warming commitment if we stop all human emissions (GHG and aerosol) is probably very substantial: The cooling effect of the aerosol will very quickly disappear, thereby «unmasking» the greenhouse warming, approximately half of which has been canceled by aerosol cooling up to now.

Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.

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.

If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

V 323: If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

But more generally, something I've wondered is: while in the global annual average, aerosols could be said to partly cancel (net effect) the warming from anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, the circulatory, latitudinal, regional, seasonal, diurnal, and internal variability changes would be some combination of reduced changes from reduced AGW + some other changes related to aerosol forcing.

Let's see... many models show that aerosols could have been artificially keeping the world's average surface temperature cooler by about 3 - 5 degrees C from 1900 - 2000 --(sulfate aerosols certainly have some certifiable cooling effects cancelling out the warming effects of CO2).

... and all by itself... woops... a possible isolated, independent temperature rise of 3 - 5 degrees C average world surface temperatures by 2100, not even including any other positive forcings, because the forcing is already there waiting for the cancelling aerosol cooling effect to be removed...

Furthermore, if aerosols did have such a dramatic cancelling effect at the onset of WWII and during the following decades, is aerosol cooling part of the temperature models?

The effect of both CO2 and aerosols by mass in the atmosphere are not linear and do not follow each other in lock step, hence to claim that aerosols would have a cancelling effect no matter what the rate of fossil fuel combustion would be a false assumption.

If only GHG forcing is used, without aerosols, the surface temperature in the last decade or so is about 0.3 - 0.4 C higher than observations; adding in aerosols has a cooling effect of about 0.3 - 0.4 C (and so cancelling out a portion of the GHG warming), providing a fairly good match between the climate model simulations and the observations.

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.

So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.

As noted earlier, the IPCC's latest report indicates that the current radiative forcing of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and aerosols effectively cancel each other, so that the net effect of all radiative forcing components is currently roughly equal to the effect of carbon dioxide alone.

At the very least, the science indicates that we ought to consider cancelling the «acid rain» controls and take advantage of the cooling effect of the aerosols to buy us some time against greenhouse warming.

The warming commitment if we stop all human emissions (GHG and aerosol) is probably very substantial: The cooling effect of the aerosol will very quickly disappear, thereby «unmasking» the greenhouse warming, approximately half of which has been canceled by aerosol cooling up to now.

So, to cancel out the effect of carbon dioxide by aerosols, even assuming everything else works fine, you have to assume that humanity will stay rich enough and organized enough to put up some new aerosols every year for the next thousand years.

Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.