Moreover,
most aerosol emissions only stay in the atmosphere for a few days.
Not exact matches
Most projections say tighter regulations, cleaner sources of electricity and higher - mileage vehicles will cut industrial
emissions enough by the end of this century that farm
emissions will be starved of the other ingredients necessary to create
aerosols, she said.
A few of the main points of the third assessment report issued in 2001 include: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system;
emissions of greenhouse gases and
aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate; confidence in the ability of models to project future climate has increased; and there is new and stronger evidence that
most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
If «The
most extreme scenario postulated in TAR» is almost solely dependent on GHG
emissions, why would the introduction of
aerosol effects not change the results?
This is a peer reviewed paper by respected scientists who are saying that
aerosol forcing means that the majority of the warming caused by existing co2
emission has effectively been masked thus far, and that as
aerosols remain in the atmosphere for far shorter a duration of time than co2, we will have already
most likely crossed the 2 degree threshold that the G8 politicians have been discussing this week once the cooling effect of
aerosols dissipate.
So the
most visible part of the
aerosol emissions may not be the
most climatically relevant.
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.
Europe has actually lessened its
aerosol emissions the
most in the previous years compared to the rest of the Earth's regions.
Levels of
aerosol emissions have soared since the 1950s, with the
most common sources being power stations and cars.
The
most important factors are anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, land use changes and
emissions of
aerosols.
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.
Consequently, the
most advanced climate models now require, in addition to concentrations or
emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O and halocarbons),
emissions of reactive gases and
aerosol precursor compounds (SO2, NOx, VOC, BC, OC and NH3), to model atmospheric chemistry and interactions with the climate system.6 For
most variables, a sectoral differentiation would improve the quality of the calculations (e.g. from power plants and agricultural burning).
Given that, if one wants freedom of choice and an efficient market, shouldn't one accept a market solution (tax / credit or analogous system based on public costs, applied strategically to minimize paperwork (don't tax residential utility bills — apply upstream instead), applied approximately fairly to both be fair and encourage an efficient market response (don't ignore any significant category, put all sources of the same
emission on equal footing; if cap / trade, allow some exchange between CO2 and CH4, etc, based CO2 (eq); include ocean acidification, etc.), allowing some approximation to that standard so as to not get very high costs in dealing with small details and also to address the biggest,
most - well understood effects and sources first (put off dealing with the costs and benifits of sulphate
aerosols, etc, until later if necessary — but get at high - latitude black carbon right away)?
In a 1998 paper, Caldeira called the
aerosol approach «a promising strategy,» although he argued that
emissions cuts remain «the
most prudent» course of action.