The leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling
effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War II.
Not exact matches
The net
effect of human -
generated aerosols is more complicated and regionally variable — for example, in contrast to the local warming
effect of the Asian Brown Cloud, global shipping produces large amounts
of cooling reflective sulphate
aerosols: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990820022710.htm
If industry -
generated aerosols have a more limited cooling
effect than originally thought, we can clean up and scale down dirty coal plants without worrying too much about consequent sudden jumps in global temperatures
of up to 2 degrees C (if I remember the upper limits
of earlier studies correctly).
The problem arises, I believe, when strong feedbacks, «masking»
effects of aerosols and volcanoes and other uncertain assumptions are fed into computer models to
generate catastrophic scenarios for the near - medium future.
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.
But including
aerosol indirect
effects on radiative forcing has made it easier to
generate a greater variety
of 20th century simulations without affecting other aspects
of the climate simulation as strongly.
Though natural variability (external and internally
generated — including the cooling
effect of naturally produced
aerosols) would affect the final temperature achieved, this would not affect the calculation
of TCR as long as natural variability is accounted for.
Furthermore, estimating the direct and indirect
aerosol effects (29) through 2008 as a residual from the Earth's energy balance (as was done for 1954 — 2000) would
generate results that either support or contradict the increased importance
of anthropogenic sulfur emissions discussed above.
For the «
Aerosol - Cloud Interaction» (ACI): There is a recent paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075280/full which shows that this effect is very small in the real world but models use it «excessive» to generate a big negative aerosol forcing (see fig. 2 of the main ar
Aerosol - Cloud Interaction» (ACI): There is a recent paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075280/full which shows that this
effect is very small in the real world but models use it «excessive» to
generate a big negative
aerosol forcing (see fig. 2 of the main ar
aerosol forcing (see fig. 2
of the main articel).
As
aerosol pollution is predicted to decrease over the next few decades, unmasking
of the greenhouse
effect may lead to accelerated global warming.storms and ocean plankton The human -
generated aerosols are derived from industry, motor vehicles and vegetation burning.
Global Climate Change Another Dire Global Warming
Effect: 10 Times as Many Ocean Dead Zones Global Warming to Blame for 37 %
of Droughts Human -
Generated Aerosols May be Masking the Warming Effects
of Climate Change
Whilst apparently long known to exert a cooling
effect on climate, human -
generated aerosols have partly masked the warming
effect of increasing greenhouse gases.
The direct and indirect
effects of human - related
aerosols on radiation, cloud, precipitation, and so on, might play an important role in
generating the opposite signal in the weekend
effect for different seasons.