A debate sparked by British politician Richard Tice’s claims about pollution and climate change has drawn attention to legitimate scientific questions about whether Earth’s climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases may be higher than expected.
The core issue involves two types of pollution from fossil fuel combustion: carbon dioxide, which traps heat and warms the planet, and sulphur dioxide, which forms particles that reflect sunlight and cool the climate. Over the past several decades, clean-air policies in Europe, North America, China, and shipping industries have substantially reduced sulphur emissions. However, carbon dioxide levels remain near record highs. As sulphur pollution declines, its cooling effect diminishes almost immediately since these particles persist in the atmosphere for only days or weeks, while carbon dioxide remains for centuries.
Researchers at institutions including ETH Zurich and the University of Leeds have found evidence that the underlying rate of global warming has accelerated in recent years. According to climate physics professor Reto Knutti and others, declining aerosol pollution may be contributing approximately 0.05 to 0.1 degrees Celsius of additional warming per decade. In western-central Europe alone, one study estimates the effect has added roughly half a degree to summer warming since 1980.
However, scientists emphasize that while the aerosol effect is significant, it accounts for only part of the recent acceleration. Greenhouse gases remain the dominant driver, currently adding approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius of warming per decade globally. The reduction in sulphur pollution is essentially removing a “mask” that had previously hidden some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.
The Met Office has indicated that 2027 is “very likely” to replace 2024 as the warmest year on record. This convergence of accelerating warming trends and the aerosol masking effect has prompted scientists to investigate whether Earth’s overall energy imbalance—the difference between solar energy absorbed and heat lost to space—may be larger than previously calculated.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI