Sentences with phrase «much about aerosol»

Not exact matches

Data gathered at a site near Tsukuba, Japan, show that about a third of stratospheric aerosols — much of them from small volcanoes — sit below 15 kilometers.

Using climate models and data collected about aerosols and meteorology over the past 30 years, the researchers found that air pollution over Asia — much of it coming from China — is impacting global air circulations.

That said, in a trivial and largely irrelevant way, your assertions about how much impact a reduction in aerosol concentrations can have have some truth to them.

If industry - generated aerosols have a more limited cooling effect than originally thought, we can clean up and scale down dirty coal plants without worrying too much about consequent sudden jumps in global temperatures of up to 2 degrees C (if I remember the upper limits of earlier studies correctly).

It strikes me that the Arctic data also reflects the northern hemisphere accumulation of aerosols, while the Antarctic data is much less affected by aerosols, which we know affected NH temperatures from about 1940 - 1975.

Much of the text I took about the aerosol issue was straight from the IPCC report.

I'd be curious if anyone knows how much they thought about the question of volcanic («natural») vs anthropic aerosols.

Sadly, I don't know much about this debate over the duration of volcanic aerosol effects.

I suspect that the effect of doubling CO2 will be less than 2C and that much more will be learned about clouds, other aerosols, and the sun in the next 20 years.

«About» ought to be in italics because we really don't know how much cooling is caused by other emissions, like particulate aerosols that go up the smokestack along with the carbon dioxide.

I am sure that one could be more systematic along the lines of the fingerprinting literature (but much of this literature assumes more about the aerosol forcing time dependence than I would prefer).

The total CO2 equivalent (CO2 - eq) concentration of all long - lived GHGs is currently estimated to be about 455 ppm CO2 - eq, although the effect of aerosols, other air pollutants and land - use change reduces the net effect to levels ranging from 311 to 435 ppm CO2 - eq (high agreement, much evidence).

In fact, I don't think I have much to argue about your initial post but it does relate directly to the famous issue of the 40s - 70s global cooling, and the alleged aerosols explanation.

I don't know much about OHU but I happen to live in the vicinity of a city with very frequent pollution episodes associated to winter thermal inversions so I do have a feeling for the direct aerosols / temperature relationship.

There remains some uncertainty about how much decadal variability of GMST that is attributed to AMO in some studies is actually related to forcing, notably from aerosols.

The annual average is about 0.25 of the peak — but you expect as well that the reflected SW would not vary as much as you suggest albedo of oceans being influenced by «solar zenith angle, wind speed, transmission by atmospheric cloud / aerosol, and ocean chlorophyll concentration.»

In about ten years both ocean heat accumulation and atmospheric aerosol effects should be much better defined (assuming that the Glory Mission finally launches successfully).

Answer: The forcing of greenhouse gases is counteracted by about 1 Watt / m2 of aerosols, leaving us with 1.5 W / m2 or thereabouts, or less than half that of a doubling of CO2 (3.7 W / m2), and thermal inertia cuts that by half again for the high end sensitivities, and not much of a cut is required for the low end sensitivites (1.5 C times fraction of forcing 1.5 / 3.7 giving about 0.6 C).