Sentences with phrase «reducing warming enough»

Reducing warming enough to preserve the Antarctic ice thus would greatly reduce risk to New York City.

Not exact matches

They warm tobacco sticks to a temperature that's high enough to release an aerosol but not enough to cause combustion.They may significantly reduce risk while satisfying users» nicotine cravings.

If the countries of the world reduced their greenhouse gas emissions today enough to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius, when would they be able to tell that these efforts had succeeded?

The planet is warming at an unprecedented rate and reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses alone is not enough to remove the risk.

As part of its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming from exceeding 2 °C (3.6 °F), the Obama administration unveiled a plan in September to build wind farms off of nearly every U.S. coastline by 2050 — enough turbines to generate zero - carbon electricity for more than 23 million homes.

Always start with hot shower and after about 3 — 5 minutes when your body is warm enough take a 3 — 5 min cold shower slowly reducing the temperature until it is really cold.

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

(57j) For surface + tropospheric warming in general, there is (given a cold enough start) positive surface albedo feedback, that is concentrated at higher latitudes and in some seasons (though the temperature response to reduced summer sea ice cover tends to be realized more in winter when there is more heat that must be released before ice forms).

IF cool deep sea water were mixed relentlessly with surface water by some engineering method --(e.g. lots of wave operated pumps and 800m pipes) could that enouromous cool reservoir of water a) mitigate the thermal expansion of the oceans because of the differential in thermal expansion of cold and warm water, and b) cool the atmosphere enough to reduce the other wise expected effects of global warming?

If only enough problems can be found, global warming will go away «David Stockwell: if removing the contaminated stations reduced the 20th century increase to the point there was no increase in temperature, how could that possibly improve model fit, when the models show an increase of 0.5 deg?»

There are enough health - damaging pollutants in the air today such that, if they (tropospheric ozone, its principal precursor methane, black soot, and some other trace gases that contribute to the global warming) were reduced by feasible amounts, the planet's energy balance could be restored, or nearly so.

The New York Times» Andy Revkin has been one of the few reporters writing on global warming to point out what every serious energy expert in the U.S. has long known: new regulations alone won't do nearly enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When we have enough and then some of energy from this source, and if it starts to warm dramatically, then and only then look at reducing CO2.

LONDON, 29 September, 2017 — The news is quite enough to send any addict reaching for a double espresso: global warming could be about to reduce the area suitable for coffee - growing in Latin America by up to 88 %.

As if that wasn't enough to warm my heart, the EPA announced new actions to reduce the negative impacts of Obama administration's methane emission rules.

I would guess that the answer to your question «are ancillary benefits of global warming important enough to include in the cost / benefit calculations» is «yes» - e.g. reduced travel times through ice - free Arctic is probably non-trivial to world trade, changing patterns of agricultural production are net wins for some populations.

For policy - makers, the speed of climate change over the coming decades matters as much as the total long - term change, since this rate of change will determine whether human societies and natural ecosystems will be able to adapt fast enough to survive.New results indicate a warming rate of about 2.5 C per century over the coming decades (assuming no attempt is made to reduce GHG emissions).

Renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen, argues the Waxman - Markey approach would fail to reduce carbon emissions enough to prevent catastrophic warming.

Indeed, cod have already been negatively affected.3, 10 The shifts in plankton ecosystems linked to warmer surface temperatures have produced a poor food environment for young cod (larvae), reducing the chances that they will survive until they are large enough to be harvested.10

2.2 Reducing CO2 emissions to 2005 levels is not enough to limit global warming to 2 - 2.4 °C, a level that would prevent the most severe consequences.

If the countries make good on their pledges, they will dramatically reduce the emissions scientists link to global warming, but not enough to hold temperatures to levels scientists say are needed to minimize risks of drought, flooding and other catastrophic effects.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

England and his colleagues calculated that the stronger trade winds have reduced the global average surface temperature by 0.1 - 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 - 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit)-- enough, they write, «to account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001.»

been reduced significantly (enough for the heating to slow down and prevent boiling), what we have is a warming planet.

A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910 - 40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)-- but not really enough.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

The La Ninas can remain long enough to reduce cloud cover such that more solar irradiation warms the cloudless pacific equatorial region.

I'd say the biggest and potentially most murderous swindle being practised at present is the pretence that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to merit immediate and far - reaching action to reduce usage of fossil fuels.

The United Nations has been trying to get member nations to reduce carbon emissions enough to limit warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 F).

The Paris Agreement calls for reducing global warming emissions enough to have a reasonable chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

These targets are less transformational than many of those contained in the mishmash of options currently contained within the draft of the UN's climate deal, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to have adecent chance of limiting warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The nations of the world agreed in Paris last December to try to reduce emissions and hold global warming to significantly less than 2 °C altogether, but there is evidence that national plans tabled so far may not be enough.

DeWitt: Since DLR is only absorbed by the skin layer, the temperature difference between the skin layer is sensitive to which hypothesis is correct: Hypothesis A, energy from higher DLR warms the skin layer enough to be lost as enhanced evaporation and emission; or Hypothesis B, energy from higher DLR reduces the skin layer's demand for energy from below.

The warming the world has already experienced could be enough to melt more than a third of the world's glaciers outside Antarctica and Greenland — regardless of current efforts to reduce emissions.

Overall, and at least tentatively, some positive climate science - related news — albeit set in the context of atmospheric CO2 being such that even if emissions were reduced to zero today there's enough warming baked into the system that we will cruise past the critical 2 °C warming threshold.

The game has a fantastic premise: You're in charge of global decision - making, and you have to figure out how to reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change, and prepare humanity to adapt to the warming we'll see irregardless.

Towards the bottom of the range the temperature was cold enough for glaciers to increase in size and at the top was warm enough for glaciers to be reduced by melting.

Too bad, as the New York Times point out, that even though natural gas does have a far less impact on global warming than does coal, if we're going to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 enough to prevent the worst of climate change, the increase in natural gas usage won't cut it.

This underscores the realization that simply reducing consumption, mitigating harm done to the environment, won't be enough to reverse global warming.