Forster's chapter also reports on another important uncertainty:
the cooling effect of smoke and other aerosols, which some argued almost negated the warming effect of greenhouse gases in the short term.
Not exact matches
In a recent study, for instance, well - respected climate models were shown to have completely opposing estimates for the overall
effect of the clouds and
smoke in the southeast Atlantic: Some found net warming, whereas others found
cooling.
Smoke and particle
effects are top notch, blood splatters from kill shots are sickeningly gooey, and moving in and out
of stealth mode's translucency has a
cool predator like
effect.
It also helps explain the initial
cooling after the Industrial Revolution began (the
smoke effect overwhelmed the relatively weak warming
effect back then), the increase
of global temperture during WW2 (shut down
of industries) and decrease after WW2 (re-industrialization) and acceleration in the 1970's after the passage
of the Clean Air Act.
Basically, they are shit - scared that this «CO2 fertilization»
effect (mentioned with scarcely concealed fear and loathing in the IPCC Group 1 2007 report — not that you sceptical lot would have noticed) is the «
smoking gun»
of the last decade which has started delivering a flat lining in warming and more recently even
cooling.
There, he co-authored an article for Science arguing that the warming
effect caused by rising amounts
of carbon - dioxide in the atmosphere would be swamped by the
cooling effect caused by aerosol pollution like dust and
smoke.