Sentences with phrase «sulfate aerosols»

The risks of such a massive undertaking as pumping huge amounts of sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere are huge.

In these simulations, a decrease in anthropogenic sulfate aerosols leads to an increase in tropical storms and vice versa.

One positive effect of burning coal is the formation of sulfate aerosol particles which help in reflecting incoming sunlight away from the earth.

Similarly, cooling from increased sulfate aerosols was a major contributor to mid-century cooling.

The specific proposal was to inject chemicals into the stratosphere that would form sulfate aerosols and hence block sunlight.

«Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,» she said.

Solar radiation management using sulfate aerosols, for example, will alter precipitation and weather patterns.

To the question: were sulfate aerosols really that much higher during the 20th century than before the industrial revolution?

These particles, called sulfate aerosols, reflect sunlight back into space and cool the surface.

The many spikes are volcanic sulfate aerosols, markers of past volcanic eruptions.

You can see this below, where high sulfate aerosol concentrations, show in orange and red, only cover a small percentage of the globe.

Light - colored sulfate aerosols are emitted mainly by dirty burning of coal.

This cooling was from the same root cause as volcanic cooling, namely aerosols (mostly sulfate aerosols) in the atmosphere.

The best - studied proposal, to pump sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight, would cause its own troubles.

There could be other hypotheses involving fluctuations in solar intensity, frequent volcanoes shooting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, or rapid carbon cycle feedbacks.

The reason why sulfate aerosols rather than solid particles are being considered is primarily atmospheric residence time and partly because of the experience with volcanic aerosols.

This includes radiative forcings such as a warming sun, cooling from sulfate aerosols or warming from CO2.

The question is valid: were sulfate aerosols really that much higher during the 20th century than before the industrial revolution?

Menon, S., V.K. Saxena, P. Durkee, B.N. Wenny, and K. Nielsen, 2002: Role of sulfate aerosols in modifying the cloud albedo: A closure experiment.

SPICE, which was set to run a test project this month, aims to reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere from a balloon half a mile in the air.

Additionally, changes in anthropogenic sulfate aerosol forcing have been proposed as the dominant cause of the AMV and the historical multidecadal variations in Atlantic tropical storm frequency, based on some model simulations including aerosol indirect effects.

Volcanoes emit sulfate aerosols which reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the planet.

One proposed technique involves injecting reflective sulfate aerosol particles into Earth's lower stratosphere to cast a small proportion of the inbound sunlight back into space and cool the planet off.

On the one hand it repeats the oft argued claim that the cooling after 1940 was largely due to sulfate aerosols produced by «industrial activities,» but on the other hand, she is honest enough to admit that «the situation is complicated» by factors rarely addressed by cli - change advocates:

The potential risks around sulfate aerosol solar geoengineering include alteration of regional precipitation patterns, its effects on human health, and the potential damage to Earth's ozone layer by increased stratospheric sulfate particles.

The video also explores the relationship of nuclear winter studies to one way to «geoengineer» a cooler climate — lofting sun - blocking sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere.

Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight).

The team used climate models to assess the effect of injecting various quantities of light - scattering sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere in a scenario where atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reach 650 parts per million in the year 2100.

When it burns, coal releases sulfate aerosol particulates into the atmosphere that reflect some of the sun's incoming energy back into space.

Reduction of the amount of atmospheric CH4 and related gases is needed to counterbalance expected forcing from increasing N2O and decreasing sulfate aerosols.

If you «use all of the data» you can't detect any change in trend from forcings known to make a difference (e.g. sulfate aerosols, which peaked in the 1940 - 1970 range from US sources and again later from Chinese).

Yet, it is equally clear that these are only tendencies; some SRM techniques are slow, expensive, and safe (such as painting roads and rooftops white) while some CDR techniques (such as adding base to oceans to combat acidification and aid carbon sequestration) share much in common with the fairly dangerous SRM strategies like sulfate aerosols.

When we pull back to consider the larger picture we see that pollution due to sulfate aerosols continued unabated in the great majority of coal burning plants worldwide, regardless of constraints imposed in the US and Europe.

Furthermore, the Protocol does not mention other factors that affect the climate, such as sulfate aerosols from coal - fired power plants, soot from diesel engines, and smoke from the burning of biomass (mostly in developing countries).