Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2

An increase in effective radiative forcing from human activity is now said to be mostly driven by a decline in aerosol pollution, superseding the effects of CO2 emissions.

The majority of an alleged acceleration in anthropogenic global warming in the 21st century “is driven by changes in the the aerosol [effective radiative forcing] trend, due to aerosol emissions reductions” (Jenkins et al., 2022).

Image Source: Jenkins et al., 2022

This is supported by other studies reporting a direct radiative forcing increase of +1.59 W/m² over the US from 1996-2019 and +2.0 W/m² impact over Europe from 1980-2018 (Augustine and Hodges, 2021, Kejna et al., 2021) due to these countries reducing their sulphate aerosol emissions through policy initiatives.

Image Source: Augustine and Hodges and Kejna et al., 2021

Considering it reportedly takes 10 years and 22 ppm for CO2 to exert a total surface forcing impact of just 0.2 W/m², reducing our aerosol emissions has a much larger impact on Earth’s radiation budget than reducing our CO2 emissions.

So if we want to more efficiently (and with far less cost) reduce global warming, apparently what we need to do is increase our aerosol pollution rates.

The science is now settled. Right?

12 responses to “Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2”

  1. John Hultquist

    In one of his lectures, Richard Feynman told researchers to eliminate all other possibilities of an effect before telling the world of their newest hypothesis.
    This appears to be one of the possibilities that should have been seriously considered before the U. N. and others had their CO2 eureka moment.

  2. RoHa

    So we have to go back to roll-on deodorant?

  3. Explanation for computer slaves

    No clouds – warming, many clouds – cooling. Has anybody been outside?

  4. UN – CO2 Deadlier Than Cancer – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2 […]

  5. Richard Greene

    SO2 emissions were still rising from 1975 to 1980 accompanied by LOBAL WARMING, not global cooling, as the SO2 theory claims.

    SO2 emissions falling since 1980 were accompanied by several periods with NO GLOBAL WARMING. The most recent period is the past 8 years with no change in the UAH global average temperature — a flat trend line.

    Since 1975 there have been far too many periods of five years or more that DO NOT SHOW the expected effect of SO2 emissions. therefore, SO2 emissions must be a minor climate change variable.

  6. Senex

    So, reduced aerosol and particulate emissions from burning of coal and other fossil fuels is now the problem? I’ve been saying for a while that decreased levels of soot and visible smog over Western cities must be allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface, not to mention contributing to reduced cloud formation.

    Just Stop Oil must be tying themselves in knots over this.

  7. Vanessa Crichton

    And so the lies go on !!! When will people read up on the science of our weather and understand what is going on ???

  8. Now It’s Claimed Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Driven By Aerosol Emissions Reductions, Not CO2 - Climate-

    […] […]

  9. Il faut brûler encore plus de charbon et de résidus pétroliers pour sauver le climat ! | jacqueshenry

    […] Billet inspiré d’un article de Pierre Gosselin paru sur son site :… […]

  10. Julian

    Hi Kenneth, I am a fan of your work, really, but i feel very sorry with the perspective of this article.

    Jenkins et al., 2022, like others, are talking about antrophogenic aerosols and aerosol–cloud interactions. If you release from atmosphere the antrophogenic particles that provides artificial cooling, atmosphere temperature increases more.

    What you are defending is a kind of earth geo engineering in order to continue pumping GHGs into the atmosphere. SOx are being removed because cause health condition on people.

    I don’t think its the solution. I think its better working on black carbon, HCFs and CH4, that are easier to reduce than CO2.


By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy