English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The direct radiative effect (DRE) of aerosols, which is the instantaneousradiative impact of all atmospheric particles on the Earth's energy balance,is sometimes confused with the direct radiative forcing (DRF), which is thechange in DRE from pre-industrial to present-day (not including climatefeedbacks). In this study we couple a global chemical transport model(GEOS-Chem) with a radiative transfer model (RRTMG) to contrast theseconcepts. We estimate a global mean all-sky aerosol DRF of −0.36 Wm−2and a DRE of −1.83 Wm−2 for 2010. Therefore, natural sources of aerosol(here including fire) affect the global energy balance over four times morethan do present-day anthropogenic aerosols. If global anthropogenicemissions of aerosols and their precursors continue to decline as projectedin recent scenarios due to effective pollution emission controls, the DRFwill shrink (−0.22 Wm−2 for 2100). Secondary metrics, like DRE, thatquantify temporal changes in both natural and anthropogenic aerosol burdensare therefore needed to quantify the total effect of aerosols on climate

Contrasting the direct radiative effect and direct radiative forcing of aerosols