Sentences with phrase «effects of aerosols which»

This is because the net warming it reports includes the cooling effects of aerosols which partly masks the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

The data has been massaged to make them fit the models, but then the new figure are completely incompatible with the effects of aerosols which it is purported are causing global dimming.

The data has been massaged to make them fit the models, but then the new figure are completely incompatible with the effects of aerosols which it is purported are causing global dimming.

Not exact matches

Aerosol particles have different sizes, as well as chemical and physical properties, all of which determine their climate effects.

Besides SSCE, scientists have also been investigating stratospheric sulfur injections — firing sun - reflecting aerosols into the air, similar to the cooling effect after a volcanic eruption — and cirrus cloud thinning, where you thin the top level of clouds, which have a warming effect on the planet.

Mission leaders were relieved and eager to begin their studies of cloud and haze effects, which «constitute the largest uncertainties in our models of future climate — that's no exaggeration,» says Jens Redemann, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, and the principal investigator for ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their IntEractionS (ORACLES).

Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur - rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption.

Sulfate aerosols appear to take several years to settle out of the atmosphere, which is one of the reasons their effects are so widespread and long lasting.

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.

Spanish and Portuguese researchers have analysed the composition and radiative effect of desert aerosols during two episodes which simultaneously affected Badajoz (Spain) and Évora (Portugal) in August 2012.

What's more, according to Tim Bates of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), «there's a very wide range of sizes [for aerosol particles], and the effect that the particle is going to have on climate is going to be very dependent on its size, which makes it trickier.»

Some also argued that the effects of aerosols and pollutants, which block sunlight and facilitate cloud formation, would enhance this cooling trend.

Scientists have long known of the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions, which spew large amounts of light - scattering aerosols into the stratosphere.

The latter type of sensors, Robock notes, could directly measure the size distribution of aerosols, which could help researchers better model their effects on climate.

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.

Aldrin et al produce a number of (explicitly Bayesian) estimates, their «main» one with a range of 1.2 ºC to 3.5 ºC (mean 2.0 ºC) which assumes exactly zero indirect aerosol effects, and possibly a more realistic sensitivity test including a small Aerosol Indirect Effect of 1.2 - 4.8 ºC (mean 2aerosol effects, and possibly a more realistic sensitivity test including a small Aerosol Indirect Effect of 1.2 - 4.8 ºC (mean 2Aerosol Indirect Effect of 1.2 - 4.8 ºC (mean 2.5 ºC).

The total of -0.7 W / m ^ 2 is the same as the best observational (satellite) total aerosol adjusted forcing estimate given in the leaked Second Order Draft of AR5 WG1, which includes cloud lifetime (2nd indirect) and other effects.

Furthermore, APS would have a wider specular range, which would have improved the ability to differentiate aerosols from the effects of ground reflectance.

Much work is being done on improving the realism of such effects — particularly through ozone chemistry (which enhances the signal), and aerosol pathways (which don't appear to have much of a global effect i.e. Dunne et al. (2016)-RRB-.

With the cosmic ray effect we have ~ 0.3 C of solar warming combined with ~ 0.2 of CO2 warming, which is then offset by human - produced aerosols to yield ~ 0.3 of waring.

Similarly, we have not been able to tell how much of the aerosol is capable of interacting with liquid or ice clouds (which depends on the different aerosols» affinity for water), and that impacts our assessment of the aerosol indirect effect.

While there is good data over the last century, there were many different changes to planet's radiation balance (greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar forcing, volcanoes, land use changes etc.), some of which are difficult to quantify (for instance the indirect aerosol effects) and whose history is not well known.

If Dr Schmidt had actually seen the film (which I doubt) he would realize that this is part of a short bridging sequence which acts as a «trailer» of material which will be treated more fully later in the film (the immediately following sequence explains the «indirect aerosol effect», in fact).

I was thinking instead perhaps more easily controlled polar - orbit satellites might be used, which would rotate with some fixed ratio to their orbital period, casting greater shadows at higher latitudes... or some other arrangment... for a targetted offset polar amplification of AGW especially and in particular perhaps avoiding the reduction in precipitation that can be caused by SW - radiation - based «GE» (although aerosols that actually absorb some SW in the troposphere while shielding the surface would have the worst effect in that way, I'd think)... strategic distribution of solar shading has been suggested with precipitation effects in mind, such as here... sorry, I don't have the link (I'm sure I saved it, just as Steve Fish would suggest — but where?).

However, under a climate mitigation scenario for the twenty - first century in which sulphate aerosols decline before atmospheric CO2 is stabilized, this «diffuse - radiation» fertilization effect declines rapidly to near zero by the end of the twenty - first century.»

What he really means, of course, is that additional volcanic activity, had it taken place, would have added more aerosols, thus slowing the overall dissipation, which would in turn have enhanced the cooling effect of said aerosols.

You've got him saying that «more aerosols» will have «slowed the cooling effect of said aerosols» which is plain bonkers.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

From sheer thermal inertia of the oceans, but also because if you close down all coal power stations etc., aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, which has a sizeable cooling effect, will go way down, while CO2 stays high.

I'm pretty sure you can get the grey version of that into a strat - cooling / trop - warming situation if you pick the strat absorbers right, but Andy is certainly right that non-grey effects play a crucial role in explaining quantitatively what is going on in the real atmosphere (that's connected with the non-grey explanation for the anomalously cold tropopause which I have in Chapter 4, and also with the reason that aerosols do not produce stratospheric cooling, and everything depends a lot on what level you are looking at).

In addition there is still clear evidence in my view for aerosols having played a significant role in holding back that warming, which acts on top of the effects of internal variability which play an important role in fluctuations about the forced changes.

Multi-signal detection and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from aerosol and other forcings.

He chose a figure which represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.

If he means from latitude 70N (he doesn't say) at 6 % of Earth surface that would be +0.20 w / m ** 2 of aerosol forcing which I would have thought deserved its own line because of its contrary effect to aerosols elsewhere.

Climate models that include these aerosol - cloud interactions fail to include a number of buffering responses, such as rainfall scavenging of the aerosols and compensating dynamical effects (which would reduce the magnitude of the aci cooling effect).

The study focuses on one proposed type of SRM, known as a «stratospheric aerosol injection», which involves sending up substances to the stratosphere that are known to have a cooling effect on the climate.

Note, OA stands for Other Anthropogenic factors, primarilly the aerosol direct and indirect effects and Land Use Change, all of which are negative forcings.

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.

Associated with human greenhouse gas production is the release of fine particle known as aerosols which have a temporary cooling effect (they last in the atmosphere less than a week).

However, I am not a «warmista» by any means — we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet — and all models in the ensemble used by the «warmistas» are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us.

I added several comments e.g. about the (minor) impact of human aerosols on temperature, which implies that the effect of GHGs is also less than incorporated in climate models.

One positive effect of burning coal is the formation of sulfate aerosol particles which help in reflecting incoming sunlight away from the earth.

I consider it as very likely that the 20 year trends will still be statistically significant also in three, five or ten years from now, unless there is some strong volcanic explosion that blows a lot of reflecting aerosols in the stratosphere causing a temporary temperature dip, or some other cause the effect of which is explainable within the framework of current knowledge about the climate system, but as event not really predictable.

One hears of dire predictions of sea - level rises which don't seem to be eventuating, of stasis in global temperatures that weren't predicted, of claimed ad - hoc appeals to aerosol effects, etc., and that's without going into the general atmosphere of hostility to people like me who genuinely think the case for harmful AGW effects looks shaky.

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.

One is the influence of aerosols, which models show have about twice the effect of GHGs on a tropical cyclone's potential intensity.

The experiments were performed with ModelE2, a new version of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS) coupled general circulation model that includes three different versions for the atmospheric composition components: a noninteractive version (NINT) with prescribed composition and a tuned aerosol indirect effect (AIE), the TCAD version with fully interactive aerosols, whole - atmosphere chemistry, and the tuned AIE, and the TCADI version which further includes a parameterized first indirect aerosol effect on clouds.

The climate system is highly non-linear8 and relatively little is known about the effect on temperature changes resulting from human contributions to the changing three - dimensional distributions of ozone and aerosols, either or both of which may have been partially responsible for the observed discrepancy between surface and lower to mid-tropospheric temperature changes.

PA, even a conservative average of 3 ppm per year gets us to 650 ppm by 2100, and then you add the 20 - 30 % net effect of other GHGs and aerosols which brings it up to the 800 - 900 ppm CO2 - equivalent range, where you are now talking about the RCP6 scenario.

Thirdly anthropogenic global warming [ANT] is still put at greater than 100 %, ie 110 %, after taking off the supposed negative aerosol effect [OA], which is so unknown that the error bars are bigger than the guesstimate.This is where Gavin obtains his 110 % likely range of Anthropogenic warming that he attributes to the IPCC.