Sentences with phrase «made aerosol cooling»

Not exact matches

The cooling effect of aerosols can partly offset global warming on a short - term basis, but many are made of organic material that comes from sources that scientists don't fully understand, said Joost de Gouw, a research physicist at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., who is unaffiliated with the studies.

If you set the aerosol forcing to zero you don't get the mid-century interruption of warming, and if the aerosol forcing were allowed to get as big as, say, 10 W / m ** 2 you would get excessive cooling unless you imposed a very low climate sensitivity — which would then make it impossible to reproduce the post-1970's warming.

Acccording to RC, the uncertainty in the amount of aerosol cooling makes the twentieth century warming (the blade) a rather dodgy way of estimating the clim.

One suggestion that had been made some years ago — that the cooling may be caused by shading the sun by aerosol pollution — did not show up in the discussion on Saturday.

The NIPCC report makes the * opposite * claim as Lindzen does, namely that «The IPCC dramatically underestimates the total cooling effect of aerosols.»

Note to reporters: a scientist's willingness to make predictions of the future is an indication of the current level of understanding of the science; for example Hansen et al predicted that Pinatubo's eruption in 1991 would produce a significant aerosol cooling effect, and they were right; but would anyone be willing to predict that La Nina (assuming conditions set in) will result in a record hurricane season this fall?

It might make sense to take a small portion of the aerosol that would have been dumped into the troposphere by retired dirty coal plants, and inject that directly into the stratosphere where it will restore the lost cooling effect while (hopefully) doing less harm than the old stuff dumped into the lower atmosphere.

Since aerosols last much longer in the stratosphere than they do in the rainy troposphere, the amount of aerosol - forming substance that would need to be injected into the stratosphere annually is far less than what would be needed to give a similar cooling effect in the troposphere, though so far as the stratospheric aerosol burden goes, it would still be a bit like making the Earth a permanently volcanic planet (think of a Pinatubo or two a year, forever).

For GHGs + aerosols, the low - to - mid latitudes in recent decades are too cold and the 1930 - 1940 period is even cooling further... If a model isn't able to reproduce reality (i.e. not validated), it is inapropriate to make any conclusions from the results... And the researchers clearly underplayed the solar cycles in these matters.

Miskolczi appears to have lost his FORTRAN coding skills — there are no new improvements being made to HARTCODE (it still can't calculate cloud or aerosol radiative effects, nor atmospheric LW cooling rates).

Industrial - produced cooling aerosols, without which most climate models can't be made to fit history, are another example.

Though all available data makes clear that stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) can and does cool large regions temporarily, it comes at the cost of a worsened overall long term warming to the planet.

Aerosols are man - made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth's climate.

That makes it quite doubtfull that the same aerosols would have had much impact in the previous period of temperature standstill / cooling.

To make a long story short, and this is really a WAGNER (wild assed guess, no explanation required) what if the large amounts of SO2 injected into the northern hemisphere atmosphere by WWII and the unrestrained coal burning (see London, smog) produced huge amounts of sulfate aerosol which shadowed and cooled downwind rural measurement sites.

The mantra now is any warmth is Man made and any cooling is aerosols and natural variability, apparently any warming is all now man made, which is the most ludicrous thing ever

Then, after giving a talk to the Bush - Cheney White House, he agonized about whether he should have ignored the cooling effects of aerosols because it gave Cheney an «out,» enabling him and others to make the specious argument that aerosols somehow balance out the trillions of tons of CO2 emitted every year.

If anthropogenic warming factors (mainly GHGs) are balanced out by anthropogenic cooling factors (mainly aerosols) then there should be only a very small.man - made trend.

This is an old story: Rasool and (Steve) Schneider published a paper in Science on that day noting that if human - made aerosols (small particles in the air) increased by a factor of four, other things being equal, they could cause massive global cooling.

With regard to the actual content of the press release quoted, it isn't clear if the process they report on (aerosol particles, particularly organic chemicals, getting smaller over time) makes them better or worse at forming clouds and their other atmosphere cooling functions.

The situation we have here is that the cooling effect of man - made aerosols has declined appreciably [since 1951] as CO2 emissions and other GHGs have increased, so we would expect even greater warming, which hasn't happened.

... http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100922/full/467381a.html To make it clearer that Nature News wasn't misrepresenting them Andrew Revkin solicited their views in email at the same time and printed it on his blog: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/a-sharp-ocean-chill-and-20th-century-climate/ There were other comments at the time from researchers, e.g. Roger Pielke Sr. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/comment-to-andy-revkin-on-the-dot-earth-post-a-sharp-ocean-chill-and-20th-century-climate/ So you are entitled to your views about aerosol cooling but you can't claim there is no controversy or on - going debate.

It certainly makes me uneasy that models required a certain forcing from aerosols, that varies significantly from model to model, to simulate the 20th century climate - if it turns out that the physical reality of the aerosol cooling is challenged.

Don't make the silly mistake made by ICC to try to rationalize away the mid-century cooling cycle by attributing it to «human aerosols» (with reference to the London «killer fogs».

To have a cooling effect of.5 - 1.0 C (which is what they needed, at a minimum, to make their models work running backwards) would imply aerosols were cooling these selected areas of effect by 6 - 12 degrees Celsius, which was totally improbable.

This thinning, which can decrease the ozone concentration by as much as 70 percent, was caused by the rampant use of human - made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), organic compounds that were once widely used in cooling systems and aerosols.

They are referring to a 1971 article written by climatologist Stephen Schneider, in which he did, indeed, make that prediction; however, as he himself now acknowledges, new evidence soon followed its publication that suggested that 1) the cooling impact of aerosols was not nearly as high as originally estimated and 2) there were many other gases in the atmosphere, including methane, CFCs and ozone, that had the same warming effect as carbon dioxide.

Because predictions of a cooling planet made during the 1970s — a number of researchers then believed that increases in the emission of aerosols, such as dust and smog, could put the planet on a path of sustained cooling — turned out to be wrong, climate deniers argue that the current projections could prove to be just as fallacious.

The main implication I draw is that some form of aerosol geoengineering is really really likely; first, just to make up for the global cooling effect lost as polluted cities clean their air, and later to buy time for decarbonization (and, I suspect, air capture).

Depending on their make - up, some aerosols cause warming, while others create a cooling effect.

(By the way, for those of you who already know about global cooling / dimming and aerosols, I will just say for now that these effects can not be making the blue line go down because the IPCC considers these anthropogenic effects, and therefore in the pink band.

Aerosols caused all the cooling around 1900 for example and it is really the balancing factor used to make the hindcast come even close to the actual temperatures recorded.