Burning fossil
fuels increases aerosol concentrations in the atmosphere.
Not exact matches
Black carbon
aerosols — particles of carbon that rise into the atmosphere when biomass, agricultural waste, and fossil
fuels are burned in an incomplete way — are important for understanding climate change, as they absorb sunlight, leading to higher atmospheric temperatures, and can also coat Arctic snow with a darker layer, reducing its reflectivity and leading to
increased melting.
But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not
aerosols would so
increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil
fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the
aerosol problem).
Let me try to be more explicit: if you want to assume (or, if you prefer, conclude) that
aerosols produced by the
increased burning of fossil
fuels after WWII had a cooling effect that essentially cancelled out the warming that would be expected as a result of the release of CO2 produced by that burning, then it's only logical to conclude that there exists a certain ratio between the warming and cooling effects produced by that same burning.
But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not
aerosols would so
increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil
fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the
aerosol problem).
Such factors include
increased greenhouse gas concentrations associated with fossil
fuel burning, sulphate
aerosols produced as an industrial by - product, human - induced changes in land surface properties among other things.
Perhaps you are unaware of the progress that has been made in attribution during these periods to a combination of lower volcanism,
increased insolation and
increased greenhouse warming in the former period and to
increased aerosols from fossil
fuel burning in the latter.
During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as
increases in
aerosols from fossil
fuels and other sources cooled the planet.
Some amount (though certainly not all) of the flattening of temperatures over the past decade has certainly been caused by the rapid
increase in industrial activity in Asia,
fueled greatly by the burning of coal and a measured
increase in anthropogenic
aerosols.
I am guessing that this would include
increases in other associated GHGs (+ ve feedback) and
increases in
aerosols from
fuel burning -LRB-- ve feedback).
Why hasn't the massive
increase in
aerosols and dust in India and China had any similar effect on global warming — given that China is now burning more fossil
fuel that the US?