Sentences with phrase «of aerosols produced»

«Estimates of the Climatic Impact of Aerosols Produced by Space Shuttles, SST's, and Other High Flying Aircraft.»

V @ 221 — I am fairly sure you could find a website that would welcome detailed discussions on the finer points of grammatical style if you looked — if there are lots of aerosol producing eruptions there are lots of aerosols.

Not exact matches

Then, in 1949, Robert Abplanalp, a 27 - year - old machine - shop operator from the Bronx, gladdened the hearts of whipped - cream lovers everywhere by inventing a cheap, reliable aerosol - can valve that could be mass - produced.

French haute couture fashion designer Jean Paul Gaultier and CROWN Aerosols & Specialty Packaging Europe, a business unit of Crown Holdings Inc., have collaborated to produce creative new package designs for the brand's «Le Male» and «Classique» fragrances.

They also play a role in the formation of secondary organic aerosols — air pollutants produced when sunlight, organic molecules and airborne chemicals come together and interact.

Experiments Prather and her team conducted in California's Sierra Nevada produced the first conclusive evidence that dust aerosols can change the amount of precipitation produced by clouds.

When Rajan Chakrabarty, Ph.D., an assistant research professor at the Desert Research Institute, began looking into the regional inventories of human - produced sources of carbon aerosol pollution in South Asia, considered to be a climate change hot spot, he knew something was missing.

The produced aerosol is directed over the heated substrate using a stream of nitrogen gas resulting into a polycrystalline thin film grown on the chalcopyrite substrate over time with embedded nanoparticles of platinum.

Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur - rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption.

Droplets from bursting bubbles are the principle means by which aerosols are produced above the open ocean, said first author Luc Deike, a Princeton University assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI).

«This paper is indeed universal, and the conclusions can apply to the sea spray produced in oceans or the aerosols produced above a glass of sparkling wine.»

The researchers created a model for predicting the velocity and height of jet aerosols produced by bubbles from 20 microns to several millimeters in size, and in liquids as viscous as water, or up to ten times more viscous.

Current research methods such as ice - core drilling can produce high - quality records of aerosols and soot going back centuries and even millennia, he says, and «these written accounts provide a good complement» to the data.

Jack added: «Dust is one of the most important aerosols for both the climate and the biology of an environment, and so understanding the amount of dust produced, and the distance and direction it travels is vital to allow us to understand its effect better.»

While a large amount of aerosols that exist in the Earth's atmosphere are naturally occurring — created by processes such as mechanical suspension by wind or sea spray — much is produced as a result of industrialization.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, showed that the production of tar sands and other heavy oil — thick, highly viscous crude oil that is difficult to produce — are a major source of aerosols, a component of fine particle air pollution, which can affect regional weather patterns and increase the risk of lung and heart disease.

The results show for the first time for a number of natural compounds, which together account for around 70 per cent of the biological hydrocarbon emissions, how much each compound produces low - volatility products and how they can possibly affect the climate via producing aerosol particles.

If aerosol quantities are known, they can of course be compared with how much lightning is later produced by the cloud in question.

Now if this was the 1980s they might have had a point, but the fact that aerosols are an important climate forcing, have a net cooling effect on climate and, in part, arise from the same industrial activities that produce greenhouse gases, has been part of mainstream science for 30 years.

The net effect of human - generated aerosols is more complicated and regionally variable — for example, in contrast to the local warming effect of the Asian Brown Cloud, global shipping produces large amounts of cooling reflective sulphate aerosols: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990820022710.htm

The problem is that the regions where aerosols are produced show warming not cooling in recent times, and the 1940 - 1975 cooling trend is seen in many parts of the globe where aerosols were not a factor.

CLOUD shows that organic vapours emitted by trees produce abundant aerosol particles in the atmosphere in the absence of sulphuric acid.

Although the use of e-cigarettes (called vaping) is believed by many experts to be less toxic than cigarette smoking — and could even help some people quit smoking — recent research at Penn State College of Medicine and other institutions indicates that inhaled aerosols produced by vaporizing e-liquids are not harmless.

Secondary organic aerosols, or SOAs, are created when hydrocarbon gases, given off by everything from pine trees to snow blowers, undergo a series of chemical reactions in the atmosphere to produce particles.

Aldrin et al produce a number of (explicitly Bayesian) estimates, their «main» one with a range of 1.2 ºC to 3.5 ºC (mean 2.0 ºC) which assumes exactly zero indirect aerosol effects, and possibly a more realistic sensitivity test including a small Aerosol Indirect Effect of 1.2 - 4.8 ºC (mean 2aerosol effects, and possibly a more realistic sensitivity test including a small Aerosol Indirect Effect of 1.2 - 4.8 ºC (mean 2Aerosol Indirect Effect of 1.2 - 4.8 ºC (mean 2.5 ºC).

Airborne particles in the form of naturally occurring dusts and human - produced aerosols can serve as ice nuclei, sites around which water vapor condenses into clouds.

The organic aerosol particles that coat the toxic hitchhikers are wafted into the atmosphere through emissions from trees (like those that produce the smell of pine trees), and burning biomass and fossil fuel to form a semi-solid sap - like casing surrounding and protecting the particle's payload from breaking down in the atmosphere.

The effects of aerosol injections are at least somewhat known, since volcanic eruptions produce aerosols naturally and have produced cooling in the past.

Phytoplankton — the tiny, green algae at the surface of the ocean — produce airborne gases and organic matter that form marine aerosols.

Luedeckens believes it was the lack of control that caught the imagination of artists like David Smith and John Latham, who were among the first to produce aerosol - painted series.

This prompted him to both produce and direct a two hour documentary film on the global impact of aerosol culture called Get The Message.

Our proposed mechanism could produce quite a lot of aerosol but only future studies can show the precise impact.

Your Grand Theory seems to rest on the idea that FF - use produces CO2, a GHG which is warming the planet but that, in some bizarre balance, a commensurate quantity of SO2 aerosols must also be produced cooling the planet.

Let me try to be more explicit: if you want to assume (or, if you prefer, conclude) that aerosols produced by the increased burning of fossil fuels after WWII had a cooling effect that essentially cancelled out the warming that would be expected as a result of the release of CO2 produced by that burning, then it's only logical to conclude that there exists a certain ratio between the warming and cooling effects produced by that same burning.

And the sort of FF burned during the first half of the 20th century was produced by the fuel most likely to generate sulfate aerosols: coal.

But at that time we were producing a lot of sulphates and other aerosols that helped cool the planet but that is also complimented by natural variability.

If you want to assume that aerosols resulting from pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels were responsible for the cooling evident from 1940 through the late 70's, then you have no reason to claim ANY degree of warming due to CO2 forcing during any earlier period.

With the cosmic ray effect we have ~ 0.3 C of solar warming combined with ~ 0.2 of CO2 warming, which is then offset by human - produced aerosols to yield ~ 0.3 of waring.

We must remember that are a number of aerosol sources that produce particles of this size (about 100 nm or 0.1 micron), including anthropogenic ones.

[Response: Aerosol forcings in the GISS model are derived from externally produced emission inventories, combined with online calculations of transport, deposition, settling etc..

See e.g. Stother (2000) the abstract of which reads Somewhere in the tropics, a volcano exploded violently during the year 1258, producing a massive stratospheric aerosol veil that eventually blanketed the globe.

What's in question is not any rise in temperature produced by the dissipation of aerosols.

And for those of you who want to insist that aerosols produced by the uncontrolled burning of coal neutralized the effects of AGW from 1940 to 1979, please explain how the same argument could not be made for the effects of coal - induced aerosols during this earlier period, when no constraints on the polluting effects of coal combustion were present at all.

Unfortunately poor Victor has yet to notice the implications of his words — «What's in question is not any rise in temperature produced by the dissipation 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?

I'm pretty sure you can get the grey version of that into a strat - cooling / trop - warming situation if you pick the strat absorbers right, but Andy is certainly right that non-grey effects play a crucial role in explaining quantitatively what is going on in the real atmosphere (that's connected with the non-grey explanation for the anomalously cold tropopause which I have in Chapter 4, and also with the reason that aerosols do not produce stratospheric cooling, and everything depends a lot on what level you are looking at).

Please excuse the ignorance of my question but it popped into my head: wouldn't injecting sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere produce sulfuric acid rain?

Not it is not similar because one event injected sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere where they stayed for years and affected the globe while the other («human particulates and aerosol pollution») were produced in the troposphere and have a residency time in the atmosphere of about 4 days and had only a regional effect.

Next, regions that today produce massive amounts of aerosols don't show cooling at all.

Hansen's group estimates that aerosols probably counteract about half of the warming produced by man - made greenhouse gases, but he cautions that better measurements of these elusive particles are needed.