Researchers find cooling effect of aerosols in cumulus and MSC clouds twice as high as thought

January 18, 2019 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

An international team of researchers has found evidence that suggests the cooling effect of aerosols in cumulus and MSC clouds is twice as high as thought. In their paper published in the journal Science, the group describes their analyses of data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) database and what they found.

Global warming is very much in the news of late, as the planet continues to up. But one of the factors at play is very seldom mentioned—the role of clouds in cooling the planet. They do so by reflecting heat from the sun back into space. But how much of the reflecting occurs due to water in the clouds and how much is due to aerosols? This is what the researchers wanted to know, because many modern pollutants actually contribute aerosols to clouds. Many of the gritty elements that make their way into the air from coal-burning plants, for example, find their way into clouds. The researchers wondered if it were possible that such pollutants might actually be helping to cool the planet. To find out, they tapped into MODIS, a database of information from satellites constantly circling the Earth, including, among other things, information on cloud cover. For their study, the researchers looked at data describing the Southern Oceans, from the equator to approximately 40°S—over the summers of 2014 to 2017. The team then developed methodologies for deriving pertinent cloud information, such as versus content, and how much heat they were reflecting.

The researchers found that clouds containing more aerosols reflected more heat than prior estimates had suggested—more than twice as much. More specifically, they found that approximately three-quarters of the amount of heat reflected was due to aerosols. They suggest that such a large percentage shows that the radiative cooling capacity of clouds is much more sensitive to the presence of aerosols than has been thought. They note that this is important because climate change models take into account the amount of heat that clouds reflect back into space. It also shows that the heating effect of greenhouse gases is higher than has been thought because it has been mitigated by the impact of aerosols in .

Explore further: Clouds' response to pollution clarified with new climate analysis

More information: Daniel Rosenfeld et al. Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low level clouds, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.aav0566

Related Stories

NASA study untangles smoke, pollution effects on clouds

September 26, 2018

A new NASA-led study helps answer decades-old questions about the role of smoke and human-caused air pollution on clouds and rainfall. Looking specifically at deep convective clouds—tall clouds like thunderclouds, formed ...

Recommended for you

How our plants have turned into thieves to survive

February 18, 2019

Scientists have discovered that grasses are able to short cut evolution by taking genes from their neighbours. The findings suggest wild grasses are naturally genetically modifying themselves to gain a competitive advantage.

Great white shark genome decoded

February 18, 2019

The great white shark is one of the most recognized marine creatures on Earth, generating widespread public fascination and media attention, including spawning one of the most successful movies in Hollywood history. This ...

Light-based production of drug-discovery molecules

February 18, 2019

Photoelectrochemical (PEC) cells are widely studied for the conversion of solar energy into chemical fuels. They use photocathodes and photoanodes to "split" water into hydrogen and oxygen respectively. PEC cells can work ...

32 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Parsec
4 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2019
I can't wait until some unmitigated idiot comes on this site and claims that these results are scientific proof that climate change is a hoax. Go ahead deniers. Make my day.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2019
Huuum, let's see, temps increased since the 70s when all of the pollution controls were put in place. Thus, if this paper is correct CO2 is not as much of a greenhouse gas as they claim.
BobSage
2 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
Science is never really settled, is it.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
I can't wait until some unmitigated idiot comes on this site and claims that these results are scientific proof that climate change is a hoax. Go ahead deniers. Make my day.

Well, we certainly did not have to wait for the Chicken Little jackass to come along and soil the forum with the shite between its ears.
Perhaps, you can tell us about that time, when humans did not exist and the climate never changed.
Go ahead jackass, keep braying at the heretics.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 18, 2019
This is going to create a lot of work for NOAA and NASA. Now they have to go back into the old data again and "Adjust" the historical temperatures even lower so that the effects of rising CO2 will remain the same.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 18, 2019
@MR lies again to support its delusions.

No, they just have to adjust going forward; backward is what it is.

Maybe people would listen to you if you didn't lie.

Why do deniers always think they won't be caught when they lie? How much are you being paid?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2019
https://realclima...ata-set/

History is no match for NASA! Nasa always wins.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
No, they just have to adjust going forward; backward is what it is.

Da Snot, the "meat" loving, knob gobbler, brays yet again.
Hey jackass, you need to tell your boyfriend to adjust, going forward, his pummelling of your rectum to be harder. There is still a lot of stupid left in you.
LMAO.

BTW: In AGW Cult PATHOLOGICAL "science" clouds don't trap heat back to the ground.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2019
You know, all the insults make you look like a troll.

Are you a troll?
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2019
The death of NASA is terribly sad! Once it was a great agency that landed men on the moon and put the Hubble Telescope in orbit. Now it is just another place for political hacks to steal taxpayers money.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2019
Why do you hate America, @MR?

Are you a troll?
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2019
scientific proof that climate change is a hoax. Go ahead deniers.


No one's saying that, you moron.
greenonions1
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2019
No one's saying that, you moron
Really? https://www.youtu...MECkW3Ak

Other U.S. polls find that 37% of respondents believe that "global warming is a hoax


oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328
snoosebaum
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
moral panic would be the correct term
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
I can't wait until some unmitigated idiot comes on this site and claims that these results are scientific proof that climate change is a hoax. Go ahead deniers. Make my day.

Well, we certainly did not have to wait for the Chicken Little jackass to come along and soil the forum with the shite between its ears.
Perhaps, you can tell us about that time, when humans did not exist and the climate never changed.
Go ahead jackass, keep braying at the heretics.

Aaah Dumbty.. still pupeteering your own socks ? Endless echoes of monkey chatter in the hollowness between the ears scaring you, again... ? Don't worry it's just your own socks scaring you, you'll still be able to swing those trees tomorrow ;)
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
No, they just have to adjust going forward; backward is what it is.

Da Snot, the "meat" loving, knob gobbler, brays yet again.
Hey jackass, you need to tell your boyfriend to adjust, going forward, his pummelling of your rectum to be harder. There is still a lot of stupid left in you.
LMAO.

BTW: In AGW Cult PATHOLOGICAL "science" clouds don't trap heat back to the ground.

A a aaaa... monkey don't get any bananas when loud chattering noises come out of his mouth, got to keep swinging the trees, its the only way to get rewarded with bananas ;)
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2019
No one's saying that, you moron
Really? https://www.youtu...MECkW3Ak

Other U.S. polls find that 37% of respondents believe that "global warming is a hoax


oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328

lol... grandpa fell down the stairs... again ? ? :D
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2019
Unaccomplished dopes, you know who you are.
greengnome
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2019
Who...Those falling down stairs ? :D :D ;)
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2019
Old Code
Unaccomplished dopes
Random insults - with no support. Par for the course - when facts are against you - but you just can't help yourself - and have to keep running the mouth.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2019
If it's the hottest on record why are there Woolly Mammoths still frozen in Siberia?
checksinthemail
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2019
This news is over a decade old -

https://www.pbs.o...ova/sun/
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2019
This news is over a decade old
No - really - it's not. It is actually pretty recent research - published in 'Science' - January 17th. Research often takes a subject that we know a lot about - and refine it. Kind of how science works.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2019
If it's the hottest on record why are there Woolly Mammoths still frozen in Siberia?

Maybe cuz actual records only go back less than 200 years - https://en.wikipe...e_record
And woolly mammoths have been extinct for 3,600 years - https://io9.gizmo...-5896262
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2019
Temp records go back 800,000.
Temperatures 110,000 years ago were hotter than today.
Again why are Woolly Mammoths still frozen in Siberia if it's the hottest on record?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2019
Temp records go back 800,000.
No they don't. When we make the statement "the hottest year on record" - we are talking about the last couple of hundred years - for which records have actually been kept. Anything before that - is considered proxy data. Take a look at some proxy data - and you would see that it makes no sense to say "warmest year on record." - unless you are talking about fairly recent geological history. Amazing you don't know this stuff - but still need to try to look informed! https://en.wikipe...ange.png

But if you did look at the past 10,000 years (covering the Woolly Mammoth period) - you would see that the earth has been cooling since the Woolly mammoths were around. So that explains why they are still frozen. Today's warming is now melting the ice. https://cdn.theat...B-CD.jpg
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2019
https://www.mercu...pg?w=810

Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

You can not make any statistical prediction with 100 years of (NOAA) proxy data.
2,000 years of tree ring data is helpful but still not perfect.
800,000 of ice core data is what is needed.
Woolly Mammoths are still frozen proving warmer in the past, about 35,000 years ago.
35,000 years ago Siberia was obviously warmer than today.
Denial anyone?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2019
35,000 years ago Siberia was obviously warmer than today
And why don't you support that with any kind of science. Or is it just your opinion? Plucked out of thin air?
Again why are Woolly Mammoths still frozen in Siberia if it's the hottest on record?
FFS - it is like trying to have a conversation with a 5 year old. When we say "it is the warmest on record." - we are talking about the actual records - recorded over the past 200 years or so. No one is claiming that the earth has never been hotter in all of geological history. Your childish misunderstanding of the topic is pathetic.
Now why do you insist that the existence of frozen woolly mammoths proves it was warmer 35,000 years ago? Support your assertions. Here is a temp reconstruction covering that period - https://squashpra...stok.jpg
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2019
https://www.mercu...pg?w=810

What ocean weather station existed 100 years ago or even 50 years ago, none.
The NOAA data going back over 50 years showing ocean data over fifty years old is made up.
The ocean buoys in those locations did not exist.

Estimated 150m Wolly Mammoths frozen in permafrost would be strong evidence of a much "Warmer" time than today.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2019
Estimated 150m Woolly Mammoths frozen in permafrost would be strong evidence of a much "Warmer" time than today
Not necessarily - and of course as usual - you provide no science to support your assertion. Woolly Mammoths were on the earth from about 400,000 years ago, to about 3,600 years ago. https://en.wikipe..._mammoth
Have you studied all of these periods? Again - why not supply some scientific references for your assertions?
The ocean buoys in those locations did not exist
But they collected data from ships. Are you an expert on the collection of sea water by mariners? Have you studied this topic? Can you supply scientific references that refute the temperature record?
unrealone1
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2019
The ocean buoys in those locations did not exist.
There is no published peer-reviewed data of ocean buoys going back 100 years.
100 years of NOAA temp data going back 100 years across the "Entire" globe just like the NOAA animation shows?
FAITH based science.
greenonions1
not rated yet Jan 24, 2019
The ocean buoys in those locations did not exist
We know. So what? Scientists do have ways of looking at past ocean temps - before modern day Argo systems. https://www.lives...ars.html Who cares if you disagree with the science? Write a paper - get published - show us all how smart you are. You're not smart enough to know that when we say a recent year was the warmest on record - we are not talking about all of geological history. We know there have been many periods of warmer temps. You seem to know nothing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.