Sentences with phrase «volcanic aerosol in»

Volcanic activity can not explain the difference between DePreSys and NoAssim because both include forcing from volcanic aerosol in the same way.

Besides knowing a lot more about the transport of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere, modern researchers had communications lines and satellites so that news of an eruption could be relayed quickly and the effects noted as they unfolded.

«Volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere absorb infrared radiation, thereby heating up the stratosphere, and changing the wind conditions subsequently,» said Dr. Matthew Toohey, atmospheric scientist at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel.

Depositional phasing of volcanic aerosols in the WAIS Divide ice core over the past 2400 years.

«We found that red - to - green ratios measured in the sunsets of paintings by great masters correlate well with the amount of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere, regardless of the painters and of the school of painting,» Zerefos said.

Of course temperatures in the troposphere is influenced by volcanic aerosols in the troposphere and stratosphere.

Here, the authors use satellite and aircraft data to investigate the radiative impact of volcanic aerosols in the lowermost stratosphere since the year 2000.

As a test of the models» annular sensitivity, the response to volcanic aerosols in the stratosphere is calculated during the winter following five major tropical eruptions.

... our results indicate a greater role for volcanic aerosols in past decade - to - century climate than found in some previous work and a lesser, but still significant, role for solar forcing.»

Not exact matches

The contribution, about 15 percent of aerosols in total, was similar to the «sum of small volcanic eruptions between 2000 and 2015.»

The researchers say that either the increase in snow cover over Eurasia or the escalation in greenhouse gas concentration, volcanic aerosols and solar output are to blame.

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols — floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human - made pollutants.

Recent measurements demonstrate that the «background» stratospheric aerosol layer is persistently variable rather than constant, even in the absence of major volcanic eruptions.

But in 1991, in addition to the high - altitude hole, ozone below 13 kilometres was destroyed by chemical reactions involving the volcanic aerosol.

Alcide di Sarra of La Sapienza University in Rome and colleagues from an Italian - Danish team found that the volcanic aerosol from Mount Pinatubo penetrated the Arctic stratosphere in relatively thin layers, at altitudes below 16 kilometres.

The models, which factor in natural effects such as solar winds and volcanic eruptions, along with anthropogenic forcings like greenhouse gases and aerosols, match these precipitation variations accurately in trend and reasonably well in magnitude.

While measurements of aerosol absorption in ultraviolet do not differentiate between the smoke, dust and ash aerosols, only volcanic clouds contain significant abundances of SO2, so satellite measurements of SO2 are especially valuable for unambiguous identification of volcanic clouds.

Researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, are using already available satellite measurements of sulfur dioxide (SO2), a main components of volcanic emissions, along with the more recent ability to map the location and vertical profiles of volcanic aerosols.

Knowing both the physical location and the altitude distribution of aerosols in the volcanic cloud allow more accurate forecasts in the days, weeks and months after an eruption.

Professor Sybren said: «It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

To the contrary, as there is an inverse correlation between low cloud cover and solar irradiation, and solar / volcanic have influences in the stratosphere, non-excisting for CO2 or human made aerosols.

Geoengineering activities are mimicked in the models by modifying the volcanic aerosol radiative inputs, applied as variations in stratospheric optical depth over four zonal bands bounded by the equator, 30degreesN and 30degreesS.

Here a reaction on the main points about the natural (solar, volcanic) vs. man - made (GHGs, aerosols) sensitivity: — If there was a larger temperature variation in the past millennium, the mathematical evidence is that an increase of one of the terms of the temperature trend equation must go at the cost of one or more other terms of the equation.

Forcing caused by changes in the Sun's brightness, by dust in the atmosphere, or by volcanic aerosols can also be translated into radiative forcing.

And finally, current theories based on greenhouse gas increases, changes in solar, volcanic, ozone, land use and aerosol forcing do a pretty good job of explaining the temperature changes over the 20th Century.

``... While [ozone depleting substance] ODS levels remain high, a large stratospheric sulfuric aerosol enhancement due to a major volcanic eruption or geoengineering activities would result in a substantial chemical depletion of ozone over much of the globe.»

They got 10 pages in Science, which is a lot, but in it they cover radiation balance, 1D and 3D modelling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapour, lapse rate, clouds, ice - and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; the uncertainties of aerosol forcings; and ocean heat uptake.

Spikes in temperature are caused by major volcanic events, which push sulfur dioxide and other aerosols into the lower stratosphere.

In the troposphere, major volcanic events have a strong cooling effect, as stratospheric aerosols reflect away some incoming solar radiation before it enters the troposphere.

[Response: «in the absence of other unknowns» — aerosol forcing, ocean heat uptake, internal variability, underestimates of solar and volcanic forcing... — gavin]

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

In addition, since the global surface temperature records are a measure that responds to albedo changes (volcanic aerosols, cloud cover, land use, snow and ice cover) solar output, and differences in partition of various forcings into the oceans / atmosphere / land / cryosphere, teasing out just the effect of CO2 + water vapor over the short term is difficult to impossiblIn addition, since the global surface temperature records are a measure that responds to albedo changes (volcanic aerosols, cloud cover, land use, snow and ice cover) solar output, and differences in partition of various forcings into the oceans / atmosphere / land / cryosphere, teasing out just the effect of CO2 + water vapor over the short term is difficult to impossiblin partition of various forcings into the oceans / atmosphere / land / cryosphere, teasing out just the effect of CO2 + water vapor over the short term is difficult to impossible.

Volcanic activity is indicated by Stratospheric Aerosol forcing in the link below.

There may be reason to strongly suspect that in any sufficiently complicated dynamical system model (such as climate) with stochastic parameters (e.g., exactly when and where a lightning strike starts a major wildfire or a major submarine earthquake perturbs ocean circulation in a region or a major volcanic eruption introduces stratospheric aerosols), it is almost certain that any given run of the model will have periods of significant deviation from the mean of multiple runs.

Thus the changes in the stratosphere are basically a function of the greenhouse gases, ozone levels and volcanic aerosols there.

The changes seen in the MSU 4 data (as even Roy Spencer has pointed out), are mainly due to ozone depletion (cooling) and volcanic eruptions (which warm the stratopshere because the extra aerosols absorb more heat locally).

They include changes in solar irradiance, greenhouse gases, tropospheric aerosols, and volcanic aerosols.

The stratospheric component of ECHO - G is obviously better than in an EBM but many of the important factors that lead to this being important were not considered in those runs (i.e. the volcanic forcing was input as an equivalent TOA forcing, rather than as absorbing lower stratospheric aerosols, and no stratospheric ozone feedbacks on the solar forcing were included).

-LSB-...] following a major volcanic eruption (emitting sulfate aerosol in the stratosphere).

For instance, simulations were run that only used the changes in volcanic forcing, or in land use or in tropospheric aerosols.

Thus, Victor the Troll, to contradict all that you wrote @ 221, «the dissipation of aerosols from any given eruption IS caused by a lack of volcanic activity,» and global temperatures CAN «rise above (the) level» «they would have been had the volcanoes not occurred» because the impact of previous volcanism would have also dissipated in the interval.

In other words, if we are after a cause (or causes) for the temperature increase during the period in question, the presence or absence of aerosols from volcanic eruptions is beside the point, because they can not explain any increase in temperatures that occurred prior to any cooling effect they might have haIn other words, if we are after a cause (or causes) for the temperature increase during the period in question, the presence or absence of aerosols from volcanic eruptions is beside the point, because they can not explain any increase in temperatures that occurred prior to any cooling effect they might have hain question, the presence or absence of aerosols from volcanic eruptions is beside the point, because they can not explain any increase in temperatures that occurred prior to any cooling effect they might have hain temperatures that occurred prior to any cooling effect they might have had.

Here a reaction on the main points about the natural (solar, volcanic) vs. man - made (GHGs, aerosols) sensitivity: — If there was a larger temperature variation in the past millennium, the mathematical evidence is that an increase of one of the terms of the temperature trend equation must go at the cost of one or more other terms of the equation.

What he really means, of course, is that additional volcanic activity, had it taken place, would have added more aerosols, thus slowing the overall dissipation, which would in turn have enhanced the cooling effect of said aerosols.

Sulphate aerosols from a large volcanic eruption can do so, such as Pinatubo in 1991 - 93.

Given the total irrelevance of volcanic aerosols during the period in question, the only very modest effect of fossil fuel emissions and the many inconsistencies governing the data pertaining to solar irradiance, it seems clear that climate science has no meaningful explanation for the considerable warming trend we see in the earlier part of the 20th century — and if that's the case, then there is no reason to assume that the warming we see in the latter part of that century could not also be due to either some as yet unknown natural force, or perhaps simply random drift.

First of all, any rise in temperature due to volcanic aerosols (an effect I've acknowledged) is the result of the dissipation of the aerosols, NOT any subsequent «lack of volcanic activity.»

The rebound effect in question is due to the dissipation of volcanic aerosols and NOT the lack of volcanic activity.

The rather extreme runup in temperatures during the early 20th century has been explained, in part, as due to a relative lack of volcanic aerosol emissions.

In addition, the later non-warming period also was a period of high volcanic activity adding even more aerosols to the atmosphere.