While it might appear that global dimming may ameliorate warming from cloud and aerosol effects, there is also a feedback within climate dynamics that is not in phase with other low frequency oscillations explained from ENSOR variability and the like. In addition is global dimming likely to significantly affect ocean and coastal gross and or net primary productivity, given that not all systems are ligh limiters at the annual scale?
Please can you explain what your question means, specifically
"a on sequence" should it read "a consequence"?
I can reply on your subquestion
Global dimming is the effect of the COOLING by aerosol and clouds; so also this part I do not follow
Sorry Harry the ipad word corrector got the better of me it is consequence
John happened to me too just a day ago
But then global dimming is a consequence of man producing aerosols that reflect light. Aerosols also serve as the nuclei on which clouds form. due to manmade aerosols clouds are denser and reflect more light. These two phenomena together produce global dimming: a cooling effect.
why did you think aerosol is warming? please look at the "IPCC" reports for clarification
They are on the website of IPCC and easily accessed. you also find global dimming there
Yes I get what appears to be potentially independent in that pollution while man made made be ameliorated through policy while maintaining the burning of fossil fuels- but what about evidence from indirect feedback s from possible increased primary production of marine algae, assuming carbon dioxide limitation, in the formation of DMS and other halogenated products leading to formation of natural aerosols? Or the formation of clouds from increased evaporation? Or increased wind both strength and event extremes leading to lower atmosphere increase in sulphate aerosols and so on . The literature doesn't appear to bring possibilities together ( I think) but only leaves enough to form possible or better still plausible hypotheses to be tested. The problem is I don't have sufficient working knowledge to suggest plausibility. The question arises from a chapter I trying to write on th effects o climate change on blue carbon stocks by first defining the expressions fof climate change as opposed to other independent ( not functionally linked though at present may be covarient) anthropogenically driven effects on the coastal marine ecosystems and their carbon storage n sequestration.
Indeed ther are other possibilities as opposed to probabilities other the the usual effects, such as the global mid water fall in oxygen concentrations, which imay o may not affect shallower coastal shelf areas in the anoxic sediments maybe become mor common or may lead to loss of nitrous oxide though denitrification etc etc. .although the latter is too early to start considering feedbacks at the global scale as at lest mildly axiomatic for a review
Thanks for listening
John
IPCC provides the most updated view on processes and specifically global dimming. DMS seems to be a minor player in dimming
J.G.: "Is global dimming a consequence of climate change? "
which climate change?
Climate change that is asoociated with recent anthropogenic perturbation of the global ocean atmospheric circulation dynamics, the result of fossil fuel emissions and their associated functionally coupled feedbacks on the dynamics. In this way, the effects of the change in physical dynamics on the ecology and carbon storage capacity that may feedback onto the external emmsions e.g. production DMS (throgh not important see Harry above) warming of the tundra (methane emmisions) possible loss of nitous oxide emmsions shoiuld near anoxia leading to possible increase in denitrification from the global mid water and surface deoxygenation event (increased straiifcation, tempe increased respirartion?). However, that would not include stimulation of primary productivity from the use of fossil fuels (very high C/N ratio around 250) or increased UV from CFC ozone loss, although there is some debate wether increased intensity of storms from global warming can push water vapour into ozone layer and reduce its concentration. Then there is the possible indirect ecological effects of long term sequestration e.g. fall in productivity can lead to increase in primary productivity assemblage C/N of the medium term (i.e not mellenium on which Redfiled ratios works on ) as less carbon is diverted to trophic level, pH etc etc.
Of course the above perturbations are not sufficient to predict future effects on the ecoystem or sequestration rates but isolate from other independent made made perturbations (land use, fishing pressure CFCs etc) as well as natural external fluctuations (solar uv intensity on ozone and possible feedabcks to warming ?? still being investigated), possible role of cosmic rate variability on cloud formation (being relooked at) etc etc.
Barry
My comment is that you have to consider the remark "which climate change?" in the context of many of these You can easily trace these by going to his page and see all his answers on the page contributions in the column at the right.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change