The log normal distribution represents a counting of the number concentrations
of aerosol particles of various sizes.
This was our lab's first attempt to incorporate the indirect effects of
aerosols in a climate model.
This was due to a combination of factors: a less active sun, higher levels of cooling
aerosols from volcanoes and Asian factories, and increased heat uptake by the oceans.
The indirect effects of
aerosols on clouds are poorly done.
One positive effect of burning coal is the formation of sulfate
aerosol particles which help in reflecting incoming sunlight away from the earth.
Another candidate is climate forcings other than CO2 such as
aerosol cooling being smaller than expected.
Topics have included sensitivity analysis, calibration, and optimization for cloud and convection systems as well
as aerosol processes.
Many are now finally beginning to look up and take notice of the ongoing atmospheric
aerosol spraying that is occurring in skies all over the globe.
We have recently discussed several papers which have found substantial global dimming as a result of increased human
aerosol emissions from 1950 to 1980 and 2000 to 2010.
In particular, they propose that cloud changes associated
with aerosol particles in the atmosphere could be causing the weekend effect, though other pollution processes can not be ruled out at this time.
He described a recently failed project for spraying
aerosols into the atmosphere to mitigate climate change.
In summary, an increase in
atmospheric aerosol load decreases air quality and reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.
New information from dedicated recent and future field campaigns is expected to shed light on
organic aerosol formation processes and how they are altered in the presence of anthropogenic pollution.
For example, there are conflicting reports regarding the impact of reduced
aerosol pollution on heat island intensity.
They used computer - based climate models to quantify the impact of
increasing aerosol emissions and greenhouse gases over the same period.
So, the climate scam has for 50 years been based on a fundamental mistake in
aerosol optical physics.
The next generation of
aerosol models will include improved representation of mixing between BC and other chemical components and better handle the enhanced BC absorption from mixing.
The ash and
aerosol clouds from large volcanic eruptions spread quickly through the atmosphere.
These optical depths can be used in conjunction with assumptions
about aerosol radiative properties to calculate the direct forcing.
You can see this below, where high sulfate
aerosol concentrations, show in orange and red, only cover a small percentage of the globe.
The method of
aerosol impact on the stratosphere is much cheaper, hundreds of times faster, and, if need be, can be easily stopped.
I agree with your overall assessment of
aerosols over the last 200 years, and it was illuminating to me as I hadn't considered it that way.
Scientists believe that the combination of growing quantities of man -
made aerosol particles in the atmosphere and more moisture have caused the cloud cover to thicken.
I've already expressed my disappointment with
natural aerosol increases which don't appear to play in the models.
The 1940 - 1970 (not 1980) cooling was primary due to
aerosols produced by industry in that time frame.
There's a large amount of uncertainty about
how aerosols affect climate, especially through the indirect effects on clouds.
Two problems with that: warming is not occurring, and they can't determine the effect of the volcanic dust
called aerosols.
In suggesting climate shifts as the cause, the authors offer no physical explanation as to why the warming sun and cooling
aerosols didn't have their expected effect?
However, this doesn't translate to a satellite - based estimate of
total aerosol forcing because many of these studies only cover indirect effects.