Sentences with phrase «as planetary warming»

A positive net trend in radiant flux at TOA is defined as planetary warming.

This sacred cow turns out to be as fanciful as planetary warming hidden in the deepest ocean, or the infamous hockey stick of Michael Mann's hidden data and secret computer codes.

Not exact matches

But for planetary scientists, Jupiter's most distinctive mystery may be what's called the «energy crisis» of its upper atmosphere: how do temperatures average about as warm as Earth's even though the enormous planet is more than fives times further away from the sun?

Sea levels have been rising worldwide over the past century by between 10 and 20 centimetres, as a result of melting land - ice and the thermal expansion of the oceans due to a planetary warming of around 0.5 degreeC.

They tend to believe that as the planet warms, low - level cloud cover will increase, thus increasing planetary albedo (overall reflectiveness of the Earth), offsetting the increased greenhouse effect and preventing a dangerous level of global warming from occurring.

That's a huge boon to humanity, because the more carbon dioxide a landscape can store, the less will be left as a greenhouse gas that drives planetary warming.

As mentioned in the introduction, the satellites which measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of Earth's atmosphere (TOA) can not measure the small planetary energy imbalance brought about by global warming.

According to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the world may have as little as 15 years to «keep planetary warming to a tolerable level,» through an aggressive push to bring down carbon emissions.34

In this astronomy science project, you will model comets of different sizes and then use a hair dryer as a heat source (to mimic the Sun and other «warm» planetary objects) to determine how the size of a comet affects melting.

Today, in times of resource scarcity, global warming and impending nuclear conflict, this claim is being boldly asserted once again — in the form, however, of a private - sector undertaking driven primarily by US tech billionaires from the new space industry, not least — as they claim — in order to secure the survival of mankind against home - made planetary collapse.

If human - induced global warming, among other factors such as human - driven pollution and human - forced overpopulation, serve decisively to precipitate the massive extinction of biodiversity, the irreversible degradation of Earth's environment and the reckless dissipation of its resources, so as to make our planetary home unfit for life as we know it, then is no one to bear responsibility for such a colossal wreckage as we could help to perpetrate in these early years of Century XXI?

It is as useful for global warming as sending a man (or woman) to mars is for planetary science.

a switch from grounded ice, or ice shelves, to open waters in the Ross embayment when planetary temperatures were up to approx 3 °C warmer than today and atmospheric CO2 concentration was as high as approx 400 p.p.m.v.»

I have an article running in The Times on recent vagaries in planetary temperature, which almost all scientific experts on global warming describe as a brief and normal hiatus from the long - term warming driven by greenhouse gases.

It turned out things were far more nuanced (as he later said, «The Earth system may be less responsive in the warm times than it was in the cold times»), but in a field that had long mainly foreseen smooth curves for planetary change with rising greenhouse gas levels, the result was a vital focus on the risks of abrupt climate change.

With or without global warming, there's a solid argument that improved understanding of planetary dynamics, particularly the climate system, is essential to sustaining human progress given how risks rise as populations expand, build, farm and concentrate in zones that are implicitly vulnerable to hard knocks like floods, droughts, heat and severe storms.

Under this scenario, as greenhouse gasses build up, and cause planetary warming, yet more greenhouse gasses are released which causes still more warming.

It seems that those who fear AGW (or at least some of them) do admit that it is not realistic to expect a planetary atmosphere such as ours to warm up oceans of water over the timescale required by AGW theory because of the huge volume and density of that water and thus the heat storage differentials.

It seems the problems began when the journal's editors agreed to a special issue on «Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,» in which the issue's editors had the temerity to «doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.»

You propose the so - called saw tooth as having it's cause in a massive seismic event that produced decadal scale warming on a planetary scale.

However... this is no surprise, as slow warming has been the planetary theme for 300 years or so.

This is not Emanuel, it is the writer: «This planetary engine is slowing down as global warming pushes land and ocean temperatures closer together.»

Meanwhile, the wildly complex interactions and interdependencies between climate and planetary life are revealing increasingly dire stakes, as global warming leads to the shriveling of biologically diverse — and carbon dioxide - absorbing — forests and wetlands, which in turn contributes to yet more warming.

The rising Temperature of the Planetary Surface (the actuality behind the «it is getting warmer» within the «greenhouse platforming») is rising as the materials OF the surface are altered within (and by) Human «constructions» and the materials there in used.

Chief, Did you mean to say:» SW up strongly increased as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space — planetary warming.»?

SW up strongly increased as a result of less cloud reflecting less sunlight back into space — planetary warming.

There is essentially universal agreement that atmospheric CO2 is increasing as a result of the consumption of fossil fuels and that this should enhance the «greenhouse» effect leading to a warming of the planetary surface.

And to maintain or slightly increase planetary temperature is also very much a global good if — as Ruddiman and other scientists assert — the human production of greenhouse gases is helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly warm, interglacial mode.»

The key science question for citizens and their representatives is not whether most recent warming is man - made but whether climate change, as Al Gore HAS put it, is a «planetary emergency... that threatens the survival of civilization and the habitability of the Earth.»

If you are concerned about planetary climate, then it behooves you to consider the «history» of the planet before singling out something as paltry as the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

The attempt to involve «fluorocarbons» and other superfluous «concepts» is based still in the misinterpretations of Energy prevalent within «greenhouse science» as still the Energy incident to the surface, persistently within the Visible and Lower UV spectrum, has NOT been observed to alter in any manner sufficiently significant to cause either «warming» or «cooling» in interaction with the materials actually present both within the atmosphere, or on the planetary surface.

Average planetary temperatures increased by a «net» of 0.7 degrees C (1.3 F) between 1900 and 2000, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise — but not in a straight line: they rose 1900 - 1940, cooled 1940 - 1975 and warmed 1975 - 1995.

I say CO2 simply follows ocean outgassing / absorption as it warms and cools and temperatures are bounded by planetary albedo i.e. how much land can potentially be locked under high albedo glaciers or alternatively how much can be exposed to present a lower albedo.

As I understand planetary climate, we live on a planet with 100,000 year plus ice ages, separated by 10,000 year warm periods.

2) The 18 year pause without warming (Strike 2) As atmospheric CO2 is increasing with time, the delta T (increase in planetary temperature due to the increase in CO2) should also be increasing with time.

A wide range of other observations (such as reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content) and indications from the natural world (such as poleward shifts of temperature - sensitive species of fish, mammals, insects, etc.) together provide incontrovertible evidence of planetary - scale warming.

Moreover, we have known since the mid-nineteenth century that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and thus acts as a greenhouse gas which impedes planetary heat loss and thus warms up the surface.

It suggests that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of planetary warming events, as other factors now have stronger weight on the final result.

It is (as far as I can tell) named after Theodor Landscheidt, a solar scientist who worked on the relationship between planetary cycles and solar cycles has been basically ignored by the scientific community (he had an H - index of 3 — which is pretty poor) but taken up enthusiastically by global warming sceptics and astrologers.

Although they describe it as lees steep warming rather than my more bold claims of planetary cooling.

I really, really hope that an enterprising investigative journalist with that rare contemproary quality — integrity — considers the production of a documentary of the history and the scientific implications underlying the CRU theft, and compares that with the actions (such as this) of the flat - earth / Creationist style ideologues who seek to deny the reality of human - induced planetary warming.

As Republicans piled up attacks, Sen. Bernard Sanders, I - Vt., shot back, «This is not a debate about Gina McCarthy... it is a debate about global warming and whether we are going to listen to the leading scientists of this country who are telling us that global warming is the most serious planetary crisis we face.»

Fourier had calculated that a planetary object the size of Earth should, quite simply, not be as warm as it is at its distance from the Sun.

This is true (planetary orientation changes are viewed as the initiator) but misleading (greenhouse gases were a necessary driver of the overall warming trend).

As I have reported before, planetary warming seems to be a factor already in limiting supply and therefore raising prices, and many groups expect the challenge to grow.

As The New American has been reporting since last year, the UN and its member governments and dictatorships are frantically hoping to secure a planetary «climate» regime next year at a global - warming summit in Paris.

In the AM2 - based model, low cloudiness decreases as ocean circulation increases, reinforcing the sea ice changes in reducing the planetary reflectivity, and warming the climate.