Sentences with phrase «more aerosols emissions»

Professor Sybren said: «It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

As we measure more and more aerosol emission effects, such as soot - published in January - and check on ever - changing factors such as polar ice reduction, more evidence makes us less likely to get it wrong.

Not exact matches

Many suspect crops in industrialized Western countries have been getting more light since the 1980s thanks to clean air regulations that brought down emissions of aerosols, which scatter and absorb solar radiation.

The study also showed that the effect was much larger on a regional scale, counteracting possibly up to 30 % of warming in more rural, forested areas where anthropogenic emissions of aerosols were much lower in comparison to the natural aerosols.

Li said the study's findings should further spur countries like China and India to cut aerosol emissions so they reduce pollution and thereby increase their solar electricity generation more rapidly, in addition to the already known health benefits.

Researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, are using already available satellite measurements of sulfur dioxide (SO2), a main components of volcanic emissions, along with the more recent ability to map the location and vertical profiles of volcanic aerosols.

The translation is that the little bugs that make methane in swamps get out - competed by other bugs that like acid rain (which is related to sulphate aerosols — mainly from power stations)-- so more industrial pollution, less methane emission (everything else being equal).

Compared to the past decades, the pattern (more emissions in South Asia) and the relative forcings are completely different, with much less relative influence of aerosols than today (due to faster increasing CO2 levels).

The translation is that the little bugs that make methane in swamps get out - competed by other bugs that like acid rain (which is related to sulphate aerosols — mainly from power stations)-- so more industrial pollution, less methane emission (everything else being equal).

And it doesn't change the fundamental fact that human emissions of CO ₂ are almost certainly responsible for more than 100 % of the observed warming, once the effect of aerosols is accounted for.

Now once this ratio (whatever it might be) has been established, I see no reason why more or less the same ratio can not be applied to all cases of fossil fuel burning prior to that period, especially since there were no controls over the emission of such aerosols during either period.

Regarding fine aerosols, as suggested by David, there are huge increases in industrial activity in SE Asia since 1975, but that is a rather linear expansion, where SO2 emissions are in lockstep with more dirtier aerosols.

It might well prove to have been impossible to keep temps from rising more than 1.5 C (because they might have risen above that if we stopped all emissions now — e.g. the lack of aerosols alone might be enough to push temps beyond that).

In fact, it is much more likely that aerosol emissions will decrease in coming years.

Compared to the past decades, the pattern (more emissions in South Asia) and the relative forcings are completely different, with much less relative influence of aerosols than today (due to faster increasing CO2 levels).

It is likely that at least some of this change, particularly over Europe, is due to decreases in pollution; most governments have done more to reduce aerosols released into the atmosphere that help global dimming instead of reducing CO2 emissions.

Coal, on the other hand, seems to be plentiful, it causes more emissions per energy unit generated, and it has some side issues such as soot and other particulates, including aerosols which may actually be cooling the planet.

This means that the «pause,» or whatever you want to call it, in the rise of global surface temperatures is even more significant than it is generally taken to be, because whatever is the reason behind it, it is not only acting to slow the rise from greenhouse gas emissions but also the added rise from changes in aerosol emissions.

While developed countries and regions have long been culprits for Earth's rising greenhouse gas emissions, Cornell researchers — balancing the role of aerosols along with carbons in the equation — now predict a time when developing countries will contribute more to climate change than advanced societies: 2030.

The most basic is that there are more real - world observations, including global emissions of CO2 and aerosols and readings at temperature stations and SST buoys, leading to new values for stats like globally averaged temperature anomaly, and the like.

All of the warming since 1972 has been due to the removal of strongly dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere (more than 30 Megatonnes)

• More than 100 % (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosol cooling) • Between 76 % and 100 % • Between 51 % and 76 % • Between 26 % and 50 % • Between 0 and 25 % • Less than 0 % (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling) • There has been no warming • Unknown due to lack of knowledge • I do not know • Other (please specify)

Additional runs for 2000 with 1850 climate and for 2030 and 2100 (RCP 8.5) with 2000 emissions are designed to separate the effects of climate change on constituents and for isolating aerosol indirect effects more cleanly using the clear - sky / all - sky flux diagnostics.

The other side of the coin is that for long term warming, the cumulative emissions of CO2 are dominant, even if in the short term changes in its emission are relatively ineffectual, even more so because they are often combined with emissions of cooling aerosols.

This was likely an aerosol increase from the increased refining of oil in Texas and more local emissions from cars, whose effect on dimming is enhanced by the humid environment in the SE, and perhaps land - use change -LRB-?).

They come up with all kinds of hypothetical feedback mechanisms involving more natural aerosol emissions in response to global warming: Dimethylsulfide from marine phytoplankton (although a very intriguing possibility, this has never been confirmed to be a significant feedback mechanism, and there is ample evidence to the contrary, which is omitted from the report), biological aerosols (idem), carbonyl sulfide (idem), nitrous oxide (idem), and iodocompounds (idem), about which they write the following: «Iodocompounds — created by marine algae — function as cloud condensation nuclei, which help create new clouds that reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space and thereby cool the planet.»

A bit of digression, but can atmospheric warming have «stalled» because of the enormous emission of reflective aerosols from coal burning in China and India in the last decade or so?p class =» response» > [Response: In principle yes, but the evidence that more heat has gone into the ocean is very strong.

The identification of other, sometimes more powerful, greenhouse gases such as methane, the contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide from other human activities such as deforestation and cement manufacture, better understanding of the temperature - changing properties of atmospheric pollution such as sulphur emissions, aerosols and their importance in the post-1940s northern hemisphere cooling: the knowledge - base was increasing year by year.

Of course you are correct about the SO2, and I guess a sudden stop in CO2 emissions without a concomitant drop in aerosols is even more unlikely than a sudden stop in CO2 emissions.

The study also showed that the effect was much larger on a regional scale, counteracting possibly up to 30 % of warming in more rural, forested areas where anthropogenic emissions of aerosols were much lower in comparison to the natural aerosols.