Sentences with phrase «actually warming the planet»

Audience member: What is the most compelling evidence you have that human behavior is actually warming the planet?

Not exact matches

This is actually the more controversial aspect of global warming because the evidence that the planet is warming is simply too obvious and incontrovertible to deny.

Apparently, these natural carbon sinks only do their job effectively in tropical regions; in other areas, they have either no impact or actually contribute to warming the planet.

It may seem surprising to people, but you can look at something like Mars, which has a very thin atmosphere, and you can look at something like Venus which we tend to think of as sort of having this rather heavy, clouded atmosphere, which [is] hellishly warm because of runaway greenhouse effect, and on both of those planets you are seeing this phenomenon of the atmosphere leaking away, is actually what directly has led to those very different outcomes for those planets; the specifics of what happened as the atmosphere started to go in each case [made] all the difference.

While we know volcanic eruptions can cool the planet with particles for a year or two, the long - term impact of these volcanoes is actually adding to global warming.

The research published by a team from the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) at the University of Colorado actually finds that Colorado gets snowfall at some of the warmest temperature on the planet, with snow falling even when temperatures are approaching 4 degrees Celcius.

Only then will they have enough credibility in the public's eyes to galvanize a cooperative effort to do something about the risks out there to our planet from man made warming, if it is actually occurring.

However, it is the politicians who are actually behind the tragic warming trend on our planet.

In any case, no - one is suggesting that the planet's core is getting hotter, which would be needed to actually make our planet warm; to the contrary, the planet will be very slowly cooling as the radioactive elements in the core providing this heat gradually lose their energy.

A final fact that is most astounding and perplexing, there are many who claim to be fighting against climate engineering which are actually parroting the preferred propaganda prepared by the power structure itself, that «global warming is a hoax» or even more ridiculous, that the «planet is cooling».

But when policymakers from around the world gather at a key U.N. climate meeting in Poland later this year, countries will be forced to reckon with the difference between how much they say they want to limit the warming of the planet and how little they actually are doing to make that happen.

Actually, «skeptics» tell me that hardly any «skeptics» doubt that the planet is warming (and that ACO2 emissions contribute to that warming).

In the article, headlined «Time that climate alarmists fessed up,» Bolt claimed that «the planet hasn't actually warmed for a decade - or even 15 years, according to new temperature data from Britain's Met Office.»

And as you will read about below, a shocking UN report that was recently leaked shows that the planet has actually not been warming for the past 15 years.

They believe that if you fictionalize the input power of the Sun to -18 oC, on average, on a flat Earth, and then create a greenhouse effect to explain why it is so much warmer than this on the ground, that this is a more valid way of thinking about the planet Earth than its reality of actually being spherical with +49 oC of heating input.

So: Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's not actually able to warm the planet.

«The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it's been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years» also tranlates into: «The analysis reveals that the planet today is colder than it's been during 20 to 30 percent of the last 11,300 years» So, actually there's nothing to see here except that during certain periods in the past, the earth was warmer and contrary to all the warmist hype and catastrophism, we are nowhere near something unprecedented.

On a century timescale, this is actually quite a large and rapid warming, and let's not forget that based on the greenhouse gases we've emitted to this point, we've already committed the planet to an additional 0.6 °C warming, nearly twice as much as the «modest warming» thus far.

While the Kyoto Protocol had already been set into place as the primary solution to climate change, the historian of science Stuart Weart marks the point at the year 2001 where climate scientists had actually reached a consensus that human activity was warming the planet via GHG emissions and land - use changes, the former largely from fossil fuel use.

In their attempt to create the illusion of ferocious winter weather on a rapidly warming planet, the geoengineers are actually further fueling the overall planetary heating.

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

The study, which shows that trees planted in tropical regions can help fight climate change, found that global forests actually produce a net warming of the planet.

I read (i believe it was on a skeptics site actually) that there are 4 things capable of warming the planet on a global scale.

What we're also saying is this little bit of warming is actually good for most species on planet.

The main problem with the whole proposition of a «raised ERL» mechanism of surface warming is that no planet holding an atmosphere actually emits its heat to space from some particular level or some specified temperature surface.

The irony is, of course, is that the planet has actually not warmed for over 15 years, but we have been told, ad nauseum, that it is

If the engineering feat required today was to actually warm up the planet, how would we do it?

So, of all the children round the world currently being taught in schools about the perils of man - made global warming, not a single one has lived through a period in which the planet was actually warming.

The ultimate irony of Heat is that his prescription is probably the only one that can save this planet from the scourge of global warming, but that, as simple, direct and painless as it is, this prescription has about the same likelihood of actually coming about as a snowball's chance in hell.

By capturing thermal radiation (heat energy emitted from the earth's surface components and re radiating it in all directions — part of the same process that is accepted (somewhat like the «earth revolves around the sun accepted») to keep the planet much warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of any of these molecules — it actually «cools.»

On the other hand, if we imagine a case where the planet actually equilibrates at some warmer temperature, then there would be an energy difference proportional to the difference in global temperature — and that difference would be quasi-permanent, in line with the notion that energy was «trapped» in the system.

Among those who have actually studied the matter, the proposition that we are warming the planet is not controversial.

It will get warmer though I think and various animals will be extinct etc... I am an optimist for humanity actually and the planet but that does not mean we should be blind about our future.

If that hypothesis is true, we could actually experience more extreme cold snaps, even as the planet continues to warm.

Given that the cosmic ray effect described by Svensmark would be more than sufficient to account for the net estimated temperature change since the Industrial Revolution, the key question becomes: Has human activity actually warmed, cooled or had no net impact on the planet?

«While we've long known that as the planet warms up, changes would be seen first and be most pronounced in the Arctic, few of us were prepared for how rapidly the changes would actually occur.»

They are more willing to accept a lower standard of living to save the planet and three quarters of them actually believe global warming exists.

We know what burning fossil fuels does to warm the planet, but now research is showing that air pollution is actually slowing down wind speeds, hampering the effectiveness of wind farms themselves.

Actually, funny that you mention it, but actually, I do hope the planet continues Actually, funny that you mention it, but actually, I do hope the planet continues actually, I do hope the planet continues to warm!