Sentences with phrase «effect of global warming so»

More on Beer: Buddhist Temple Built from Beer Bottles The Worst Effect of Global Warming So Far... Draught Beer Beats Bottled in Life Cycle Assessment

Via Discovery, New Scientist More Beer & Alcohol Top Green Beer Drinking Tips The Worst Effect of Global Warming So Far... 8 College - Town Breweries Producing Great, Green Beer More on Global Warming Science Global Ocean Temperatures Warmest Since Records Began in 1880 (129 Years Ago!)

:: Center for American Progress via:: CNet More on global warming effects Dangerous effects of global warming on Earth The Worst Effect of Global Warming So Far...:: The Center for American Progress» Top 100 Effects of Global Warming Two Views on the Effects of Global Warming Global Warming Wants to Eat Your Flesh

Not exact matches

It's now commonplace to talk about global warming and carbon footprints, so much so that it's easy to forget that until quite recently few thought it was even possible that the actions of our species could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the Earth's climate.

«The main goal is to get people looking in their backyards so the effects of global warming can become real to them,» he says.

If the student types in «global warming,» then it asks if you would also like results that only focus on «causes of global warming,» «effects of global warming,» and so on.

They vary from minutiae such as how and why snail slime works so well, to broader topics such as global warming, over-fishing, famous divers he has known, and the effect of the moon (did you know that a cruise liner is approximately 7 pounds lighter when the moon is overhead?).

Some effects of human - caused global warm - ing are now unavoidable, but is it inevitable that sea level rise of many meters is locked in, and, if so, on what timescale?

And the situation is far worse than one of «we are beginning to experience the effects of global warming AND peak oil AND fishery colapse, and so on.»

So the mechanism of global warming is an indirect effect of increasing CO2, not the direct effect of warming the atmosphere as is generally believed.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

So fine, one could argue that over population of humans increases the effect of global warming.

But I do it anyway, so that my children are not paying even more, 50 years from now, because of the effects of global warming.

The immediately quantifiable effects of air pollution are so much worse than the feared effects of global warming I don't really see why we would conflate the issues.

If the solar cycle is the result of a Jovian tide, so it is unlikely that the lesser effect of Saturn could account for the global warming that is now occuring.

Algore: So what I was saying is you need to sign the Kyoto Protocol and assert US leadership in resolving the devastating effects of global warming.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

As a disclaimer, I will confess that these changes are not due to the magnanimity of the consumers who want to alleviate the potentially devastating effects of Global Warming, but instead are primarily due to the fact that people don't want to spend so much money on gas (and they use the Global Warming argument as a backup to assuage their conscience)

So in the case of global warming just like many other cases, I would indeed say that if the economic and quasi-economic rules of journalism dictate that a complex story shouldn't be covered, indeed, «global warming» shouldn't be covered because it is one of the very complex systems on Earth influenced by very many complex effects and their relationships.

In this regard, I would observe that at least one important AGW effect, rising sea level, does not depend on a specific regional outcome so much as on global mean T. (At least, I think this is so (because my understanding is that most of the rise comes from lower density of warmer water, not from melting ice sheets — though again, not 100 % sure on this point)-RRB-.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

So, the Alaska climate site statement referring to the 1977 PDO shift as «natural» is misleading in the extreme in that the effect of global warming on the PDO warm phase would be with regard to its persistence and possibly its timing.

So we have Stefan saying: Pam's high intensity and terrible impact on Vanuatu have invariably raised the question of the possible effect of global warming on its characteristics.

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

Considering that the mechanism of the «natural AMO» is so poorly understood, there's no justification for immediately blaming increases in hurricane activity on it while entirely ignoring global warming effects on sea surface temperatures (and atmospheric moisture), for which very clear mechanisms do exist.

So savor your next pint and read more at:: Beverage World and the:: Daily Star More on global warming effects and beer DANGER: Effects of Global Warming Include Death German Biofuels Incentives Drive Up the Price of Beer Microbreweries Hopping Mad Over Biofuels Global Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and Aglobal warming effects and beer DANGER: Effects of Global Warming Include Death German Biofuels Incentives Drive Up the Price of Beer Microbreweries Hopping Mad Over Biofuels Global Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and warming effects and beer DANGER: Effects of Global Warming Include Death German Biofuels Incentives Drive Up the Price of Beer Microbreweries Hopping Mad Over Biofuels Global Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and AGlobal Warming Include Death German Biofuels Incentives Drive Up the Price of Beer Microbreweries Hopping Mad Over Biofuels Global Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and Warming Include Death German Biofuels Incentives Drive Up the Price of Beer Microbreweries Hopping Mad Over Biofuels Global Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and AGlobal Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and Warming Beer: Greenland Brews with Melting Ice Cap Global Warming's Effects on Plants and AGlobal Warming's Effects on Plants and Warming's Effects on Plants and Animals

There are many interesting comments from proponents of human caused climate change (AGW or anthropogenic global warming) and from sceptics which show an astonishing range of differing interpretations and understandings of the so called Greenhouse Effect none of which bear much relation to the actuality.

If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

And so is the enhanced greenhouse effect, alleged to be the cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by Hansen and the IPCC.

In contrast, global warming warms nights faster (although the effect is slight) and winters faster than summer (which effect is not slight) so that modern US annually averaged temperatures are greater than those of the 1930s.

So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

So Arrhenius had a couple of wild guesses at what the warming would be from carbon dioxide after misreading Fourier and without ever having established if such a trace gas could have such great effects of raising global temperatures several degrees C, and its now a «law»?

The science of climate change «attribution» — linking specific extreme weather events to the effects of global warming — is making substantial progress, so it is becoming increasingly possible for scientists to tie particular weather patterns to climate change.

My personal belief, from years of doing my own research about anthropogenic global warming, is that there is an effect but it is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural variation.

Algae absorb the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as they grow, so the net effect on global warming of the fuel is considered to be neutral.

While the Earth seems to be managing the steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide relatively well so far (although the effects of this increase may not be felt for many decades to come), there are concerns that passing the 400 parts per million atmospheric carbon dioxide threshold will bring the Earth's atmosphere closer to a tipping point at which global warming accelerates rapidly with dire consequences for mankind and other creatures on Earth.

Third, whatever the cause of the Hale cycle as a component of HadCRUT3, it's obviously been there for as long as the Sun has had a rotating magnetic field (which accounts for both the Ney effect and the Birkeland current), so why would it contribute to global warming right when humans suddenly pump an incredible amount of CO2 into the atmosphere?

So despite over a century of a CO2 - induced warming effect, these other factors helped mitigate this warming effect from about the 1940s to 1970s, resulting in slight global cooling.

Finally, Independents and Others showed only small and non-significant wording effects: 74.0 % of Independents endorsed 5 or above for «climate change» whereas 69.5 % did so for «global warming» (χ2 (1, n = 514) = 1.27, ns), and 77.1 % of Others endorsed 5 or above for «climate change» whereas 68.3 % did so for «global warming» (χ2 (1, n = 212) = 2.12, ns).

So what's the net effect of these regulations on global warming?

All of these enviro - whackpot prognosticators of a global warming Apocalypse lack the intellectual curiosity to even wonder how there can be so much evidence - backed, statistically significant research showing that all past and historical global warming is completely explained by ENSO effects and other natural activity.

Only 67.7 % did so when it referred to «global warming,» resulting in an overall wording effect of 6.3 percentage points (χ2 (1, N = 2261) = 10.66, p =.001).

Osgood asked: «Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the Sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?

So, for example, the Sun's effects on the recent «global warming» are said to be of no significance, that it's all due to the greenhouse gas increase absorbing and radiating back / holding in blanket, the infrared heat upwelling from the surface.

When it is politically convenient to do so, ENSO is claimed to be an effect of «global warming» — i.e. that «global warming» causes more and larger El Nino and fewer and weaker La Nina episodes.

Somewhere recently I read that Ben Santer singlehandedly edited the scientists» report to IPCC so that, instead of it reading as the scientists wrote it, to the effect that they could NOT be certain of human influence in global warming, it read to the effect that they WERE (at least «reasonably») certain of human influence.

But the effects of melt aren't confined to the Arctic: Ice reflects the sun's rays, so as it disappears, more ocean waters, which absorb those rays, are exposed, intensifying regional and global warming.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century.