Sentences with phrase «reduce warming now»

Reduce warming now.

Not exact matches

Since, even now, when debates about the fact of global warming is largely over, no nation is considering taking the really drastic actions that might significantly reduce the catastrophes that lie ahead, it seems that we are all too likely to experience judgment for our collective sins.

I mean, what's going to happen now is that we are, you know, getting much cleaner in the way that we combust things and as a result of global dimming is going to reduce, and that's going to give us a little bit more warming.

Now economists are applying this law of demand to policies intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming.

As climate change causes the Barents Sea to grow warmer, for some years now other fish species like capelin and Atlantic cod have moved further northward, creating new competition that could reduce the polar cod population.

The question for environmental advocates now, said Joireman, is to «figure out how to motivate all people to engage in behaviors that reduce global warming.

Until now, they reckoned that aerosols reduced greenhouse warming by perhaps a quarter, cutting increases by 0.2 °C.

Now celebrity chefs and nutritionists are touting not just the savory, warming appeal of bone broth, but also its health benefits: mood - enhancing minerals, digestion - assisting and inflammation - reducing amino acids, and even collagen for healthy skin and hair.

The standard 135bhp Abarth 500 will continue to be sold as the entry - level model, although the price has been reduced by # 500 — so the warm 500 is now available for # 13,975.

There's a hot - stone - inspired energizing massage function, with six massage programs, including two that include warming, and the active seat ventilation system now uses reverse fans to help reduce drafts.

On the contrary, roughly 80 percent of HOT is devoted to on - the - ground reporting that focuses on solutions — not just the relatively well known options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise limiting global warming, but especially the related but much less recognized imperative of preparing our societies for the many significant climate impacts (e.g., stronger storms, deeper droughts, harsher heat waves, etc.,) that, alas, are now unavoidable over the years ahead.

Well maybe not all aspects of global warming, but researchers at UCLA are now reporting that climate change is reducing the Santa Ana winds, which exacerbate fires along the coasts of southern California each year.

The paper appears to conclude that if we wait 20 years to begin reducing GHG emissions, assuming a modest amount of mitigation in the short term, we will have to reduce emissions at a 3 to 7 times greater rate than if we start now in order to keep warming to a 3 degree C increase around 2100.

Cox seems to be straightforward in saying that reduced aerosol effects (cooling) will result in greater warming (from GHGs) and that the cooling effect now is stronger than normally supposed.

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

As if arsenic in chicken, reducing global warming, and associating with sexy men like Prince and Chris Martin weren't enough reason to be a vegetarian, we now have the Veg Out: Vegetarian Dining Guides to prod the more carnivorous souls among us to

In the report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's top scientists warned that global warming is unequivocally man - made and will become irreversible if we do not act now to reduce the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere.

The choices that we make now will influence current and future emissions of heat - trapping gases, and can help to reduce future warming.

According to a new poll released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a majority of voters in six moderate to conservative congressional districts now believe global warming to be the top environmental problem and favor immediate actions to reduce carbon emissions.

July 27, Comments 13, 186 and 213) global warming will not just stop then because nothing will be reducing the 35 %, perhaps now close to 40 %, overload of GHGs already in air.

Now they argue that reduced emissions will prevent climate change / global warming and that the world will experience various alleged dooms if that is not done.

Now that the US has greatly increased sources of oil and natural gas thanks to drilling using new technology (thus obviating the need for depending on the Middle East), renewable energy advocates have fallen back on their claims that fossil fuel use must be reduced to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Of course, Tsonis has now been reduced to pretending that warming ceased in 1998, even when his own graphs contradict him.

Imagine a scenario in which global warming would lead to zero costs between now and the year 2200, at which point global economic growth would be permanently reduced by 0.1 percent — in other words, that economic output starting in 2200 would be 99.9 percent of what it would have been had there been no global warming.

Now imagine if there was already a known mechanism of IR scattering that reduced IR loss to space resulting in a heating effect, and that the particulars of the mechanism were well understood, and that the substances responsible for this mechanism were very well known, and that we were increasing the concentration of this substance quite dramatically, and that we we seeing temperature rises as had had been hypothesized almost a century ago, and that some signs indicative of this particular mechanism for warming had been observed.

Coinciding with cycles of reduced sea ice, glaciers on the island Novaya Zemlya in the Barents Sea, also underwent their greatest retreat around 1920 to 1940.61 After several decades of stability, its tidewater glaciers began retreating again around the year 2000, but at a rate five times slower than the 1930s.47 The recent cycle of intruding warm Atlantic water45 is now waning and if solar flux remains low, we should expect Arctic sea ice in the Barents and Kara seas to begin a recovery and Arctic glaciers to stabilize within the next 15 years.

For example, because the mass balance argument says nothing about absolute numbers or attribution it may be that we are also — for example — destroying carbon - fixing plankton, reducing the breaking of waves and hence mechanical mixing with the upper ocean, releasing methane in the tundra which was previously held by acid rain and which can now be converted to CO2, or it may be we are just seeing a deep current, a tiny bit warmer than usual because of the MWP, heating deep ocean clathrate so that methanophage bacteria can devour it and give off CO2.

More clouds both drastically reduce energy input from the sun and simply slow release of what energy there is trapped in the lower troposphere, but the long term effect would be a fall in average temperature because of the significantly reduced input power but the atmosphere's ability to cool is aided by air current circulation whereby the warmer air rises above those low clouds and that infra - red is more easily re-emitted into space, whereby the low clouds now block that re-emission from hitting the ground again to any significant degree.

So now volcanoes decide... Even if Asia will reduce «anthropogenic influences» of sulfur aerosols, nothing we gain... We can not «hope» that abruptly we have a «volcanic silence» and anthropogenic GHGs «will triumph»... An aerosol «the end» of global warming?

It's very clear (thanks to Steve M, Willis etc) that there are issues with both but given the current hyped claim by the «warmers» that the past effects of man - caused global warming have largely been masked by the warming of the oceans and that unless we reduce CO2 emissions now that we won't be able to mitigate future global warming when this «stored heat» eventually comes back out of the oceans and leads to catastrophic effects, I'm very interested in getting to the punchline of this debate on SSTs.

IRIN has now completed a reporting project — conducted with support from the Open Society Foundations — to outline the challenges that global warming is triggering, and to explore what local communities are doing to adapt and reduce their vulnerability.

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

Polar bears are one of the most sensitive Arctic marine mammals to climate warming because they spend most of their lives on sea ice.35 Declining sea ice in northern Alaska is associated with smaller bears, probably because of less successful hunting of seals, which are themselves ice - dependent and so are projected to decline with diminishing ice and snow cover.36, 37,38,39 Although bears can give birth to cubs on sea ice, increasing numbers of female bears now come ashore in Alaska in the summer and fall40 and den on land.41 In Hudson Bay, Canada, the most studied population in the Arctic, sea ice is now absent for three weeks longer than just a few decades ago, resulting in less body fat, reduced survival of both the youngest and oldest bears, 42 and a population now estimated to be in decline43 and projected to be in jeopardy.44 Similar polar bear population declines are projected for the Beaufort Sea region.45

Fast action to reduce short - lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) could slow the rate of global warming while saving millions of lives over the next several decades from air pollution — which now kills more than 6 million people a year.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released this year a report titled «What We Know» that shows that taking action now reduces both the cost and the risks associated with our warmed world.

Let me put it this way: do you believe there is dangerous man - made global warming happening right now, that we have to alter Western industrial civilization to correct, by reducing CO2 emissions below 350 ppm?

Industrial - scale wind turbines (WTi), a common sight in many European countries, are now actively promoted by federal and state governments in the U.S. as a way to reduce coal - powered electrical generation and global warming.

You may have heard that the planet is committed to further warming and sea level rise, irrespective of what choices we now make to reduce carbon emissions.

At the just - concluded U.N. climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland, Earthjustice attorneys Martin Wagner and Erika Rosenthal advocated for rapid action to reduce emissions of black carbon, now considered one of the most effective strategies to slow near - term global and Arctic warming.

But now researchers are reporting that the incidence of the disease could actually be reduced with warming climate change.

Which is why I keep suggesting that reduced salinity and consequent deep water Arctic ocean warming during the last glacial aren't relevant to what is happening now.

Supporters said the accord puts off for now fierce political debates about how or even whether to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases that collect in the atmosphere and create a greenhouse effect that warms the earth's surface.

Assuming the IPCC's value for climate sensitivity (i.e. disregarding the recent scientific literature) and completely stopping all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. between now and the year 2050 and keeping them at zero, will only reduce the amount of global warming by just over a tenth of a degree (out of a total projected rise of 2.619 °C between 2010 and 2100).

So, now we know that the more active sun warms the planet directly with increased incident radiation and indirectly both by reducing low cloud and likely by elevating the proportion of gaseous water — the most important greenhouse gas.

Following the American example with acid rain, Europe now relies on cap - and - trade to help about 10,000 large industrial plants find the most economical way of reducing their global warming emissions.

Proposals by Copenhagen City Council member Claus Bondam are supposed to up renewable energy use (although plenty of wind turbines can already be seen spinning in the city harbor), reduce cars in the city center (pretty bike - amenable now) and green up district heating systems by tapping into a warm water reservoir 2.5 kilometers beneath the city.

This will then reduce the capability of the warmer object to emit photons, ie., the photons that it now emits will be slightly cooler than the photons that it was emitting prior to the absorption of the cold photons.

The good news, says Paulson: «The most severe risks can still be avoided through early investments in resilience and other immediate actions we can take now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.»

The new report underscores the urgency of the task before policymakers around the world — take potentially expensive actions now to reduce emissions in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming years down the road.

Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4 °C.