Sentences with phrase «c warming of the planet»

We calculated it could give you 0.6 C warming of the planet in five years.

Not exact matches

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 C every decade — a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now.

Already, the planet's average temperature has warmed by 0.7 degree C, which is «very likely» (greater than 90 percent certain) to be a result of the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifiec) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifieC is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

That's why a growing number of scientists, including Nobel Prize winners and Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, have pushed for intensified study of ways to artificially nudge the planet's thermostat downward — at the very least as a «Plan C» should warming kick into high gear.

By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifiec) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifieC is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified

Collin notes that using them is one of our 25 Ways to Save the Planet, and they can save you some cash since they operate at a fraction of central and window air - conditioning units (and they can work great in tandem with your A / C if global warming has you sweating it out).

[28] I fear the irrational policies of extreme environmentalists far more that a warmer climate on this relatively cold planet (14.5 C global average temperature today compared with 25C during the Greenhouse Ages.

The average global temperature now is only some 9 C warmer than during the depths of the last ice age, and the planet took some two millennia to emerge from that.

it's same as if Tony was showing a mouse eating a cup of grain from the bushel — as proof that: the WHOLE planet is cooler by 0,12 C, because of it — or looking at a bucket of water, and declaring that: the temp of all the seven seas are warmer by 0,03 C. I always had binoculars and a telescope, not big one, but understand what can be seen and what can not.

Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1880s, the planet has warmed by about 0.8 degrees C.

When I rephrased my question and gave some background to my reason for asking it, you went way outside your area of expertise and turned to stating your opinions (based on you ideological beliefs) about how much your tool says the planet will warm by 2100 (4.4 C you said based on 3.2 C equilibrium climate sensitivity).

(By this I mean could one show a perceptible impact on our planet's future climate at a reasonable cost per degree C global warming averted a) at an estimated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C or b) at a CS of 1C?)

Even 1 degree C may make the planet warmer than it has been for millions of years.

Analysts say the planet is still on course to heat beyond the 2C danger zone by 2100, although around 0.9 C of warming will have been avoided thanks to the new plans.

Scientists generally agree that in the last century, humans have warmed the planet about.7 degrees C by pumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.

Scientists generally agree that in the last century, humans have warmed the planet about.7 degrees C (about 1.3 degrees F) by pumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.

An average temperature increase of 1 C will be a benefit to the planet, as every past warming has been in human history.

If the planet's atmosphere, according to many skeptics, is warming from «natural processes», how could it be beneficial to continue to release greenhouse gases (let's say we double C in x number of years) on a planet that's warming?

A) c02 is a ghg B) humans are putting c02 into the air C) if we increase c02 the planet will warm, D) we have uncertain estimates for the amount of warming E) we take the under bet.

By showing that (a) there are no c ommon physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifiedc ommon physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifiedc) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsifiedC a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

The Australian writes: «The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12 C.»

Back then [AR4], it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2 C every decade....

To my wonder, I found that for an ECS of three degrees C, our planet would cross the dangerous warming threshold of two degrees C in 2036, only 22 years from now.

The basic idea seems to be that the strong Arctic warming trend of 1.5 C / decade by comparison with a global trend of 0.2 C / decade indicates that there's some regional effect which makes the difference from the rest of the planet.

For around 60 % of the past 540 million years (most of the period animal life has existed, and thrived), the planet was at least 5 C warmer than now (up to 13 C warmer).