Sentences with phrase «data on aerosol»

They used the NASA King Air aircraft to collect data profiles in the same regions the G - 1 aircraft sampled data on aerosol properties.

The data on aerosols and non-CO2 GHG's are speculative and include some relatively short wavelength variation which confuses the analysis, in my view.

Not exact matches

By analyzing satellite data and other measures, Daniel and his colleagues found that such aerosols have been on the rise in Earth's atmosphere in the past decade, nearly doubling in concentration.

The conclusions are based on observed gas and aerosol composition, humidity and temperature data collected at a site in rural Alabama as part of the Southern Oxidant and Aerosol Study aerosol composition, humidity and temperature data collected at a site in rural Alabama as part of the Southern Oxidant and Aerosol Study Aerosol Study (SOAS).

Yu and his colleagues analyzed dust transport estimates based on data collected by NASA's Cloud - Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite between 2007 and 2013.

This mission is fulfilled by operating atmospheric observatories around the world that collect massive amounts of atmospheric measurements to provide data products that help scientists study the effects and interactions of clouds and aerosols and their impact on the earth's energy balance.

What's next: The team is working to gather additional field data and perform further simulations to accurately address aerosol effects on clouds.

During ISDAC, they collected an unprecedented level of data and detailed observations on Arctic clouds and aerosols, those tiny particles in the atmosphere that act as seeds for cloud droplets and ice crystals.

The ARM data will provide more detailed measurements of both aerosols and clouds to assist the research team in quantifying the impacts of aerosols on precipitation under a variety of atmospheric and pollution conditions.

ICARUS is gathering data on surface radiation, heat fluxes, and vertical profiles of the basic atmospheric state (temperature, humidity, and horizontal wind), as well as turbulence, aerosol properties, and cloud properties.

The upper tail is particularly long in studies using diagnostics based on large - scale mean data because separation of the greenhouse gas response from that to aerosols or climate variability is more difficult with such diagnostics (Andronova and Schlesinger, 2001; Gregory et al., 2002a; Knutti et al., 2002, 2003).

Forster and Gregory (2006) estimate ECS based on radiation budget data from the ERBE combined with surface temperature observations based on a regression approach, using the observation that there was little change in aerosol forcing over that time.

As I said to Andy Revkin (and he published on his blog), the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that's before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and additional forcing from black carbon (the latter being very new, is not included in any calculations AIUI).

As to actual data you may want to search on the recent data regarding the surface accumulation in the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic by NASA and the NOAA US Western coastline aerosol detection stations regarding aerosol precipitation fallout being detected there.

Either «something» caused that and, not being man - made GHGs or (obviously) sulphate aerosols, it would be quite safe to call it a natural phenomenon Well, if you insist on looking at individual years and * not * smoothing the data at all, then given that interannual variability can quite easily be.15 oC, we can take.3 oC away as it is meaningless chaos and not indicative of a trend.

It's certainly a large black box if one must rely on my knowlege of the existing data about the role of aerosols in forcing.

My longstanding concern has centered on the sources of aerosol data.

The meeting included focus sessions on computational methods for modeling and handling large amounts of data, characterizing uncertainty, research on dust and aerosols, soils, urban systems and individual topics that are too numerous to list, from science communication and stellar astrophysics to biogeochemistry.

Given our very short and spotty data on the relative abundance (or importance) of the majority of these aerosols, and given our very poor understanding of the direct, indirect, and side effects of the majority of these aerosols, any numbers that anyone generates about their abundance, importance, or total radiative forcing are going to be a SWAG.

That means: in fairness, at a minimum, you need to give modelers credit for trying to provide true forcasts based on the forcing estimates for aerosols, and those forecasts were tested against data.

In addition to producing full, up - to - date and compelling views of our planet, the images taken by EPIC will provide scientists with valuable atmospheric data on the ozone, plant cover, aerosols and clouds.

If analysis of historical data on GHG rise and net effects of aerosols establishes beta = 0.5, then TCR = 1.2 C. But, beta is uncertain and might be as low as 0.4, in which case TCR = 1.3 C. But, TCR (1 + beta) = 1.8 C and only has uncertainty introduced by uncertainty in the historical GMST and CO2 level rise.

We are more sure, given the total data, of GHE and its dominant influence on GMT when taken with aerosols than we are of the Higgs boson, by far.

The optical thickness for Santa Maria (0.55 times that of Pinatubo) has comparable aerosol amount in both hemispheres based on ice core data.

The emission data on the RCPs were harmonized and downscaled (to a 0.5 × 0.5 grid) for air pollutants, i.e. aerosols and tropospheric ozone precursors.

I may be missing something but, looking at these data, I once again find myself unable to believe that the much more scattered industrial aerosols may have had as strong an effect on the global temperatures as the IPCC claims.

Investigating the quality of modelled aerosol profiles based on combined lidar and sunphotometer data

Siomos, N., Balis, D. S., Poupkou, A., Liora, N., Dimopoulos, S., Melas, D., Giannakaki, E., Filioglou, M., Basart, S., and Chaikovsky, A.: Investigating the quality of modeled aerosol profiles based on combined lidar and sunphotometer data, Atmos.

The 2014 Biogenic Aerosols — Effects on Clouds and Climate (BAECC) field campaign in Finland has provided rich data on processes related to aerosol, cloud, and snow formation.

One of the persistent problems with the models is that the aerosol forcing history is not only made up based on flimsy evidence (just take a look at it in the IPCC reports — does that look like data to you?)

Data on non-sulphur aerosols are sparse and highly speculative, but in terms of global sulphur emissions, these appear to have declined from a range of 75 ± 10 MtS in 1990 to 55 — 62 MtS in 2000.

lindaserena said «Isn't the Aldrin paper based on AR4 aerosol forcing data and wouldn't their sensitivity estimate require a further reduction for the new data?

lindaserena «Isn't the Aldrin paper based on AR4 aerosol forcing data and wouldn't their sensitivity estimate require a further reduction for the new data?

Given bounds on volcanic / aerosols, solar, and GHG concentrations, some completely unknown cause is needed for the MWP to have been as warm as now... That is, at least by eyeball, the higher edges of M&W's MWP uncertainty ranges either require throwing out a lot of data or maybe bending conservation of energy.

Isn't the Aldrin paper based on AR4 aerosol forcing data and wouldn't their sensitivity estimate require a further reduction for the new data?

-- the behaviour of large influences on temperature has to be guessed (e.g. clouds)-- historical data are inadequate to estimate the size of other influences (aerosols)-- we don't know if we have even identified all the factors (forcings) involved, and of those already identified, not all are included in the models.

1) There is insufficient information available on things like ocean heat uptake in 1950 and data on the actual aerosol offsets at that time to make a reliable estimate of the attribution to CO2.

The net impact on temperature attributed to each different forcing, solar, ghg (co2, methane), volcanic, aerosol, albedo whatever are based on historical temp data and checked for accuracy against models yes?

This mission is fulfilled by operating atmospheric observatories around the world that collect massive amounts of atmospheric measurements to provide data products that help scientists study the effects and interactions of clouds and aerosols and their impact on the earth's energy balance.

In the article «Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements,» sciencemag.org, 49 authors concluded «Atmospheric aerosol nucleation has been studied for over 20 years, but the difficulty of performing laboratory nucleation - rate measurements close to atmospheric conditions means that global model simulations have not been directly based on experimental data.....

The added value of this scenario is the continuation of the aerosol data record, with the ability to lunar - calibrate APS on the free flyer.

three are based on global - mean only data (with two of them assuming an ECS of 3 °C when estimating aerosol forcing).

Novakov, T., S. Menon, T.W. Kirchstetter, D. Koch, and J.E. Hansen, 2007: Reply to comment by R.L. Tanner and D.J. Eatough on «Aerosol organic carbon to black carbon ratios: Analysis of published data and implications for climate forcing».

«When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short - term temperature variations (El Nino / southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.»

Ken, I agree your slope trends apart from Anthro aerosol, where I think you may have made some mistake, based on regressing on annual 1900 - 2005 data.

In addition to the data from the radiometers, the Berkeley Lab scientists will get supplemental data by taking advantage of a separate, in - depth DOE climate study at the same location, which is using additional instruments and a balloon - borne sounding system to get information on temperature, cloud cover, the density and types of aerosols or pollution particles, heat fluxes and other climate variables like precipitation.

If you see such claims followed up by similar aerosol - based claims on hurricanes and SSTs in a science express paper, using apparently out - of - date methods and models and data, you have to wonder why — and why didn't the reviewers raise these questions?

The climate feedbacks involved with these changes, which are key in understanding the climate system as a whole, include: + the importance of aerosol absorption on climate + the impact of aerosol deposition which affects biology and, hence, emissions of aerosols and aerosol precursors via organic nitrogen, organic phosphorus and iron fertilization + the importance of land use and land use changes on natural and anthropogenic aerosol sources + the SOA sources and impact on climate, with special attention on the impact human activities have on natural SOA formation In order to quantitatively answer such questions I perform simulations of the past, present and future atmospheres, and make comparisons with measurements and remote sensing data, all of which help understand, evaluate and improve the model's parameterizations and performance, and our understanding of the Earth system.

Global data on anthropogenic aerosols is poor to non-existent, but I would content that reductions in aerosols were a significant driver of low level cloud decreases over the 1975 to 2000 period, and hence atmospheric temperatures.

Now there were two papers put out by a Swiss team (you should know who) on consideration of European warming where they argued that natural effects could be ruled out; the first paper argued for strong water vapour feedback causing the 1980 to 1998 temperature rise and the later paper, using exactly the same data, argued for a reduction in aerosols causing a recovery in temperatures over the same period.