I realize that this is in stark opposition to the mainstream thinking you like to
cite on the aerosol - cooling link but that's why I'm asking myself.
Not exact matches
The 2006 paper
on SPLAT II is the second most
cited in
Aerosol Science and Technology, the 4th ranked journal in mechanical engineering and the official journal of the American Association for
Aerosol Research.
On the other hand, the alternate scenario — a non-zero «pre-eruption»
aerosol burden — is both logically self - consistent, and in accord with empirical observations, as I showed by
citing the Robock paper.
Even a table of examples might help additionally,
citing particular IPCC issues that deserve scrutiny, such as those
on solar or
aerosol forcing.
Oddly enough, Canavan goes
on to
cite some (presumably publicly funded) research
on aerosols from the Max Planck Institute which he thinks supports his arguments.
«They appear to have adjusted the budget upward based
on the idea that there has been less observed warming than suggested by the climate models, but that is not actually true if you do the comparison properly,» he wrote,
citing the need to measure the warming of the Arctic properly and account for the effect of
aerosols.