Sentences with phrase «about change of the magnitude»

But the challenges of today aren't about change of the magnitude that was being coped with in the period that ended five years ago.

Not exact matches

A few things stand out about this particular rate change: first, the magnitude of influence that just a quarter percentage - point change had on the stock market; second, the current rate with an upper range of.50 % compared to the various long - term averages of about 5 %; and third, the rate remains historically low, with only minute incremental changes, despite the relatively good news we continue to read about the economy.

Given the magnitude of change here, shouldn't we be cautious and methodical about the approach?

I've always heard mothers talk about how fast their little ones were growing and changing, but until I had Brody I never realized the magnitude of it.

With this roadmap illustrating the magnitude of visual changes over time in the videos, Brookshire overlaid the participants» EEGs to see whether people entrain around the normal visual frequency of about 10 Hz, or at the lower frequencies of signs and phrases in sign language — about 2 Hz.

«We aren't just curious about whether climate change had an impact on an event — we're also asking what can this tell us about the likelihood and magnitude of events in future.»

A magnitude - 9 earthquake in Japan, a momentous climate change summit, reports on future global «hyperwarming», and rumblings about some of the first geoengineering field trials all made 2011 a remarkable year for the environmental sciences.

«There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth's climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.»

Tom says one of the memorable events of his career was a time when he was reading about some observations of a star that showed strange a magnitude change.

The magnitude of cognitive change associated with saturated fat consumption was equivalent to about six years of ageing, meaning women with the lowest saturated fat intake had the brain function of women six years younger.»

They lone grew as torus through the Bears selecting a antisubmarine backs Has the breakaway territories of geographic region geographical area, a 14 bring about was just able to spot each day evidence us a bantam pool slow our legislature tomorrow.24 - hour interval I suppose he be fit Germany Soccer Jersey Away 2010 cheap But real Soccer jerseys Buy Cheap NBA Jerseys Green Bay Packers Jersey Driver Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Soccer hoops performer boasts fulgurant arm permanency, change magnitude and cater sources grew Monday, comely the number one smoke against the Panthers onward with a win and its contact sport social unit.

Several factors influence decisions about learning designs, including the goals of the learning, characteristics of the learners, their comfort with the learning process and one another, their familiarity with the content, the magnitude of the expected change, educators» work environment, and resources available to support learning.

Any change of this magnitude will require coordination from SkyTeam airline partners as well as American Express, so if it does indeed occur, we'll be writing all about it here on The TICKET.

What really concerns me is that I've read a lot about climate models not being able to replicate the magnitude of abrupt regional temperature changes in the past, and Raypierre has said here that he fears that past climate records point towards some yet unknown positive feedback which might amplify warming at the northern latitudes.

Alley is talking mainly about D / O events and, like some others (Broecker for instance) tried to link it to the LIA, but neither the pattern of change, the abruptness, the ocean circulation change nor the magnitude actually match.

So the Sun has its surface moved about because the average gravitational pull keeps changing magnitude and vector based on the changing locations of the rest of the milky way.

In many cases, it is now often possible to make and defend quantitative statements about the extent to which human - induced climate change (or another causal factor, such as a specific mode of natural variability) has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of occurrence of specific types of events or event classes.»

For smaller changes, this may not be so apparent or important (a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm may have about the same magnitude of forcing and result in the same magnitude of feedback as halving CO2 from 560 to 280 ppm).

Second, the proposed future effects of rising temperatures on endemicity are at least one order of magnitude smaller than changes observed since about 1900 and up to two orders of magnitude smaller than those that can be achieved by the effective scale - up of key control measures.

The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long - term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk.

It should not be so hard to accept that doubling the concentration of a gas that interacts with earth's radiative output (which is orders of magnitude larger than any other energy loss), over time and with feedbacks included, can change change the surface temperature by about 1 %.

Dr. Koonin is correct that there is still uncertainty about the magnitude of the impacts of climate change and society will have to make decisions under such uncertainty.

The GRACE observations over Antarctica suggest a near - zero change due to combined ice and solid earth mass redistribution; the magnitude of our GIA correction is substantially smaller than previous models have suggested and hence we produce a systematically lower estimate of ice mass change from GRACE data: we estimate that Antarctica has lost 69 ± 18 Gigatonnes per year (Gt / yr) into the oceans over 2002 - 2010 — equivalent to +0.19 mm / yr globally - averaged sea level change, or about 6 % of the sea - level change during that period.

Considering the heat capacity of the oceans is about 1,100 times greater than the air, would not even a modest change in cloud cover affect the radiative balance with far greater magnitude than a parts - per - million change in an atmospheric gas constituent?

Disputes within climate science concern the nature and magnitude of feedback processes involving clouds and water vapor, uncertainties about the rate at which the oceans take up heat and carbon dioxide, the effects of air pollution, and the nature and importance of climate change effects such as rising sea level, increasing acidity of the ocean, and the incidence of weather hazards such as floods, droughts, storms, and heat waves.

In panel - b the magnitude of unforced variability is large (wide range between the blue lines) and thus changes in the multidecadal rate of warming could come about due to unforced variability.

So, the magnitude of the glass jar water level change was only about 3 % of the cylinder water level changes.

And that average depth of the oceans is an order of 3 magnitudes greater, about 3600 meters; changes in ocean heat storage and ventilation have humongous impacts on global climate.

Based on nothing more than dubious computer models, these people pretend to know what the future holds (climate change of such magnitude that it's worth worrying about).

Balanced against, for example, changing the root - mass preference of domestic and timber planting to favor biosequestration, it's also about two orders of magnitude less efficient.

Note: This post will remain an extra day... ======================================= More than 70 recent scientific publications show that there is absolutely nothing unusual about the magnitude and rapidity of today's sea level changes.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

(3) The consensus position on climate change science and why it is entitled to respect despite some scientific uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of climate change impacts and,.

Third, even if a small imbalance of the small, unmeasurable magnitude expected from CO2 changes could be measured (again, it can't) if would not say anything whatsoever about its cause.

Finally, the number of published articles about climate change and the magnitude of effect sizes therein both increased within 2 years of the seminal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changechange and the magnitude of effect sizes therein both increased within 2 years of the seminal report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeChange 2007.

No - I also don't doubt that ACO2 will warm the climate if all other conditions remain unchanged (which is highly unlikely to happen in the actual system), but am uncertain about the magnitude / timing of the effect in the real climate system and whether any change will lead to conditions that are better or worse for the US or the planet overall.

Over and over again opponents of climate change policies have argued that nations need not act to reduce the threat of climate change because there are scientific uncertainties about the magnitude and timing of human - induced climate change impacts.

In the last two entries we examined the failure of the US media to communicate about: (1) the strong scientific position on climate change, and (2) the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reduction necessary to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.

The US media has utterly failed to sound the alarm about the magnitude of the threat of climate change.

In this post we look at the failure of the US press to communicate about the enormous magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to prevent harsh climate change impacts.

Of course, the same could be said for global temperature, where a half degree C temperature increase on an absolute Kelvin scale would only be about 0.17 %, so an argument can be made that on a percentage basis, this change in irradiance is about the same order of magnitude as our change in temperaturOf course, the same could be said for global temperature, where a half degree C temperature increase on an absolute Kelvin scale would only be about 0.17 %, so an argument can be made that on a percentage basis, this change in irradiance is about the same order of magnitude as our change in temperaturof magnitude as our change in temperature.

In previous entries, Ethicsandclimate.org examined the failure of the US media to communicate about: (a) the nature of the strong scientific consensus about human - induced climate change, (b) the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, (c) the practical significance for policy that follows from understanding climate change as essentially an ethical problem, (e) the consistent barrier that the United States has been to finding a global solution to climate change in international climate negotiations, and (f) the failure of the US media to help educate US citizens about the well - financed, well - organized climate change disinformation campaign.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

This also created a grand illusion in the public mind about the magnitude and drivers of climate change, which fueled a new religion (moral norm) in society toward «saving» Earth's climate from an «imminent» catastrophe.

«The climate has always changed and it always will — there is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events,» Mr Carter added.

This is particularly true because if the consensus view is wrong about the magnitude and timing of climate change it could be wrong in both directions, that is, climate change impacts could be much worse and more rapid than the impacts identified by IPCC and the US Academy of Sciences even if they also could be less harmful in regard to timing and magnitude.

In justice, Marcott has tried to corrent the most egregious press coverage, for example at Discover blogs where he said exactly what I have said about it: It is impossible to speak of relative rates of change when comparing two records whose time resolution differs by 5 orders of magnitude.

«[W] e have to reject the false alternative of «climate change believer» or «climate change denier» and become «climate thinkers» — people who think carefully about the magnitude of man - made warming and compare it with the unique benefits of fossil fuels,» Epstein adds.

So, that's 1.2 degrees C for the basic physics of added greenhouse effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; coupled with a further increase of a similar magnitude from changes in atmospheric water vapour that come about as a direct consequence.