Sentences with phrase «atmospheric effects produced»

Not exact matches

Research at the Rodale Institute found that «organic farming helps combat global warming by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide and incorporating it into the soil, whereas conventional farming exacerbates the greenhouse effect by producing a net release of carbon into the atmosphere.»

Despite its smaller ash cloud, El Chichn emitted more than 40 times the volume of sulfur - rich gases produced by Mt. St. Helens, which revealed that the formation of atmospheric sulfur aerosols has a more substantial effect on global temperatures than simply the volume of ash produced during an eruption.

The sound effects include Major Fletcher walking, sprinting or dashing, gunfire from your weapons, a range of attacks from machines and their respective weaponry, explosions from environmental hazards such as explosive barrels and electric devices when shot at and ambient sound effects such as heavy rain that breathes more life into the surrounding environments, alongside atmospheric music, while the DualShock 4 speaker sporadically produces a voice - over detailing your latest objective.

Rich environments: We pushed our artists to the limits to produce the best immersive, atmospheric backgrounds, smoothest animations, and coolest special effects, setting a new benchmark for 2D games.

Here, and in other works he shows at Tate Britain, Richards» creates atmospheric, oblique and melancholy scenarios that put me in the poet Mallarme's injunction to «paint, not the thing, but the effect it produces».

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.»

On the contrary, the petition cites «substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.»

1 - A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate.

You know, for a little while there I even thought that Bob T himself (who is undoubtedly an interesting fellow) might even be sharp enough to appreciate that the coupling of increased atmospheric CO2 and increased seawater N nutrient levels to produce enhanced cyanobacterial productivity in near surface layers of the oceans would also produce the weather - moderating effects listed above (particularly in the areas where tropical storms are «brewed»).

Although I was unable to demostrate the effect of this modification in the single column model, after returning from Korea I implemented this same scheme in a global atmospheric model and produced some interesting results.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

Once I do some double checking, you should be able to «see» how the slow and relatively small changes in SST are amplified by the lower capacity land masses and the atmospheric effect, to produce larger temperature swings with the same energy.

A review of research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects on Earth's weather or climate.

«Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth.»

What counts in producing the greenhouse effect on Venus are the differences to the Earth, such as the lack of oceans on Venus (Oceans cover 71 % of Earth's surface area), and the much higher total atmospheric pressure.

With all of the negative effects predicted to occur in response to the ongoing rise in the air's carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration — a result of burning fossil fuels to produce energy — it is only natural to want to see what has been happening to our Earth's many ecosystems as the atmospheric carbon dioxide load has risen.

I know many clever scientists have produced figures calculating the heat budget of the atmospheric greenhouse effect but the value to be fixed to the convective process as a negative forcing has not been adequately quantified as far as I know.

Interestingly enough, most Ice Ages occur at the highest peak of gases produced which effects atmospheric interaction with the planets eco-system to lower gases by killing off plant and animal life that produce it.

Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions are urgently needed to prevent dangerous climate change, but they must be complemented by reductions in short - lived climate pollutants, which produce a strong global warming effect but have relatively brief atmospheric lifetimes.

Any chemically reactive gas, whether a greenhouse gas or not, will produce some level of indirect greenhouse effect through its impact on atmospheric chemistry.

They found that changes in atmospheric ionization during the 11 - year solar cycle, and the resulting variations in aerosol formation, produced a globally asymmetric radiative forcing with a net cloud albedo effect of − 0.05 W m − 2.

The petition further stated that «there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.»

The latter, which isolated Antarctica within a cold polar sea, produced global effects on atmospheric and oceanic circulation.

Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of «positive feedbacks» (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models.