Q12 - Fossil-fuel emissions, considered

[noah]

Fossil-fuel emissions contains carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Carbon dioxide makes it hotter, sulfur dioxide makes it cooler. The carbon dioxide is more powerful than the sulfur dioxide - in other words, fossil-fuel emissions make it hotter, even though there are parts of it that make it cooler. So, if we cut these emissions, we'd expect the temperature to drop.

The surprise is that if we stopped having fossil-fuel emissions, we'd see an increase in the temperature for a bit. Why?

(A) explains this because the part of the emissions that makes it hotter - carbon dioxide - stays around - making it hotter, while the cooling part leaves quickly.

(B) is off topic - it's discussing where we can find sulfur pollution. Regardless of where it is, it's part of the emissions we're discussing.

(C) is irrelevant - who cares how long folks knew about this stuff?

(D) is similarly irrelevant - it's simply about where the carbon dioxide comes from.

(E) is irrelevant as well - who cares about acid rain (at least during this question!)
What do you think? Does that make it clear?

[ShuhanM597]

Hello there, I must have missed something, because I don't understand how A explains the stimulus. If the fossil-fuel is cut, where does the extra heat come from? I mean it doesn't matter how long carbon dioxide or sulfate aerosols stays in the atmosphere, they shouldn't make any difference to the global temperature if they didn't exist at all. Do I need to assume the extra heat came from the carbon dioxide before the ban? Thank you so much