Sentences with phrase «mean total aerosol»

When extra forcing of -0.25 or -0.5 W / m ^ 2 is added his prior mean total aerosol forcing is very substantially more negative than -0.7 W / m ^ 2 (the posterior mean without the extra indirect forcing).

This is not the subject but it seems that, in AR5 (sorry it is the leaked version), the mean total aerosol forcing is less (30 %) than this same forcing in AR4.

When extra forcing of -0.25 or -0.5 W / m ^ 2 is added his prior mean total aerosol forcing is very substantially more negative than -0.7 W / m ^ 2 (the posterior mean without the extra indirect forcing).

Not exact matches

Of these, the smallest best estimate I can find is -0.85 W / m ^ 2, which means the reported -0.7 is unlikely to be representative of total aerosol forcing, whatever else it relates to.

The one slightly fortuitous aspect to this is that the forcing from CO2 alone is around 1.5 W / m2, while if you add up all of the forcings, including warming factors (like CO2 and CH4) and cooling factors (like aerosols), you end up with a total around 1.6 W / m2 — i.e. all of the extra stuff we've put in over the years pretty much cancels out in the global mean.

I was interested in the quantitative order of the mean overestimation of the total effective aerosol forcing (ERFaero) of the CMIP5 models.

PS to my 4:48 AM post: The non-linearity of the TCR estimate to aerosol forcing also means that a 0.49 W / m2 total adjustment would bring the TCR estimate down to about 1.4 °C, not 1.26 °C (which was based on a simple scaling of Shindell's sensitivity analysis).

With the posterior mean less negative than the 95 % point of the prior, the observational data must be pointing to an even less negative total aerosol AF estimate than -0.8 W / m ^ 2, with the wing of the prior pulling the posterior to a more negative mean.

Of these, the smallest best estimate I can find is -0.85 W / m ^ 2, which means the reported -0.7 is unlikely to be representative of total aerosol forcing, whatever else it relates to.