Sentences with phrase «because of a warming planet»

Not exact matches

It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.

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.

Because our knowledge of the many delicate balances in the ecology of the planet is still in its infancy, and because what is known is not widely understood, the consequences of what the human race is (in its ignorance) doing to the earth may turn out to be even more serious than global wBecause our knowledge of the many delicate balances in the ecology of the planet is still in its infancy, and because what is known is not widely understood, the consequences of what the human race is (in its ignorance) doing to the earth may turn out to be even more serious than global wbecause what is known is not widely understood, the consequences of what the human race is (in its ignorance) doing to the earth may turn out to be even more serious than global warming.

Crysius continues to be beneficial to his people, and he, a ray of warmth, is dependable; but to say that he is faithful is no more appropriate than to say of the sun that it is faithful to the earth because it regularly warms our planet.

As one of the group's leaders, Hsu Jen - hsiu, rightly says eating less or no meat is a way to love our planet because livestock emit large volumes of methane into the atmosphere, which contribute more to global warming than the emissions produced by all the vehicles around the world.

The group's youth and proximity make the stars «fantastically suitable for direct searches for warm newborn planets,» says astronomer Ray Jayawardhana of UC Berkeley, because such planets would shine brightly in infrared light.

The analogy is not perfect, though, because unlike Earth's Arctic regions, Saturn's south pole is slightly warmer than the rest of 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.

Short - lived climate pollutants are so called because even though they warm the planet more efficiently than carbon dioxide, they only remain in the atmosphere for a period of weeks to roughly a decade whereas carbon dioxide molecules remain in the atmosphere for a century or more.

But the planets surface will be warmer, because a larger fraction of that infrared will be blocked by the blanket of greenhouse gases.

The team is focusing on the Arctic because, just as today's Arctic is warming faster than other parts of the planet, the Pliocene Arctic warmed more than the rest of the globe.

Such scaremongering is especially painful to me because even though I do not think that government - approved GMO foods pose meaningful health risks to consumers, and even though I believe strategic genetic engineering can be an important tool to ease human suffering on our warming and resource - constrained planet, I share the concerns of many environmentalists about the homogenization and consolidation of the global food system — trends that are accelerated by the spread of industrially produced GMOs.

That's basic physics and chemistry and people who claim that they don't believe that, they don't believe we're warming the planet through increasing CO2 levels because of climate models, they don't understand the fact that you don't need a climate model to come to that conclusion.

From the basic physics of the atmosphere, scientists expect that as the planet heats up from ever - mounting levels of greenhouse gases, net global precipitation will increase because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture.

«The finding that this was not the case is alarming, because the Arctic is the most rapidly warming region on the planet, with conservative estimates predicting further warming of another approximately 4oC by the end of the century.»

The hydrogen is evaporating from a warm, Neptune - sized planet, because of the extreme radiation from the star.

The planet, named GJ 436b, is considered to be a «warm Neptune,» because of its size and it is much closer to its star than Neptune is to our sun.

The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, because as ice melts at the top of the world, there is less of it to reflect sunlight back into space, so more of it is absorbed by ocean waters; more absorbed sunlight means even warmer temperatures, which means more ice melt a circular process known as Arctic amplification.

These oceans can be kept warm despite their great distance from the Sun because of gravitational interactions between the moons and their host planet, and they might support the kind of life found in deep sea vents on Earth.

But it would be considerably more powerful to say that because of the warming of the planet, a storm like Harvey was statistically more likely to occur — and give the odds.

That's good, because you're going to be eating a lot more of them, according to new research that finds vegetarian and vegan diets to be the most sustainable long - term option for the world's growing population on a warming planet.

The reason policy makers can get away with saying there isn't global warming is because we don't have enough information or data to map out the complex relationship of carbon dioxide to the flow of heat around the planet.»

For example, if you have invested hundreds of hours into the whole «Mass Effect» trilogy, falling in love with, let's say Liara, you saved the Rachni, you cured the Genophage, everyone survived, excluding the ones who died because the developers wanted to (all in all, you were a major Paragon), then you should be rewarded with an ending in which Shepard survives, retires to a warm planet living with the partner he / she chose, gets visited by Garrus, Joker, dr. Chakwas, and others, and the whole Galaxy is a better place because of him / her.

The troll is probably educated enough to see we are warming the planet, but doesn't like climate science and is willfully ignorant, because of vested interests of some type.

But coal is not «cheap» for the Appalachian communities destroyed by mountaintop removal (see appvoices.org), nor for the miners killed or sickened because worker safety would be too costly for mine owners, nor for the areas made permanently dead from the mining practices, nor for the children poisoned by the toxic fumes of even the cleanest - burning coal plants, not to mention the entire planet, every species, every community, every neighborhood being damaged and degraded by the global warming coal burning causes.

David Tenenbaum # 8 (Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.)

Are the episodes thought to be actual changes in the amount of heat being radiated by the planet (because the surface of the ocean gets warmer and cooler, does the actual infrared flux from the top of the atmosphere then change as a result)?

Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.

Those arguing that the fossil fuel greenhouse is unstoppable because of hard - wired human short - term greed, scientific illiteracy and failure of technological imagination may have a point, But think about this: Building seawalls, massively air conditioning new habitats inland and dealing with a flood of environmental refugees as the planet warms with take a huge chunk of additional energy in itself.

If the planet's climate were changing solely because that's what planets do, evolve through different climatic periods of warming and cooling over millions of years, adverse consequences like the loss of coral reefs and the potential for disappearing Polar Bears would still be undeniably sad, but at least a little easier to swallow.

The latter brings a somewhat slower warming at the surface of our planet, because more heat is stored deeper in the ocean.

On the science If people understood what Hansen has been explaining, what the IPCC report says if you read it closely, what climate scientists say off the record, what I try to cull together from the literature, they would understand that we can't go above 450 p.p.m. [parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere], because that will almost certainly take us across thresholds that shoot to 750 to 1000 p.p.m. — and that is 5 °C + warming, and that is an ice - free planet.

Liu also argued against setting a too - tough long - term goal on reducing carbon emissions, or sharply limiting the number of degrees the planet warms this century, because that would involve huge lifestyle and economic changes.

Since the beginning of the industrial age, 30 % to 60 % of the coral reefs on the planet have disappeared because of human activity and warming oceans.

-- tendency of the * planet to warm — The UAH data is v5.4, v5.5 limits the recent deviance — «no hidden either warming or cooling jumps» reads awkwardly — «But despite the fact that August 1997 was shamelessly cherry - picked by David Rose because it gives the lowest warming trend to the present of any point before 2000» — It was picked to show 15 years, not the lowest trend.

Thus we hear so much about «down welling» re - radiation from the atmosphere warming up the planet dangerously because humanity is releasing a certain amount of CO2 that would not otherwise be in the atmosphere.

Because the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, with grave consequences for local biodiversity and cultures, and for low - lying communities around the world at risk from climate change.

The second contrarian argument we investigated involved the claim that the global climate is not very sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect because the planet has some sort of natural climate response that will offset global warming.

Its just something to ponder because regardless of belief the data of the planet warming up is not a myth, maybe what is causing it is debatable.

The warming of the planet is allegedly because of a warmer atmosphere, due to more CO2.

it's same as if Tony was showing a mouse eating a cup of grain from the bushel — as proof that: the WHOLE planet is cooler by 0,12 C, because of it — or looking at a bucket of water, and declaring that: the temp of all the seven seas are warmer by 0,03 C. I always had binoculars and a telescope, not big one, but understand what can be seen and what can not.

The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

The lack of a statistically significant warming trend in GMST does not mean that the planet isn't warming, firstly because GMST doesn't include the warming of the oceans (see many posts on ocean heat content) and secondly because a lack of a statistically significant warming trend doesn't mean that it isn't warming, just that it isn't warming at a sufficiently high rate to rule out the possibility of there being no warming over that period.

With the Earth known as the «water planet» because of over 70 % of the globe covered by deep oceans, warmer temps directly result in more evaporation of the ocean water into the air - clouds.

Yet the planet is considerably warmer in July, because of the much greater land mass in the Northern Hemisphere.

When the world's scientific academies warn we are heading into a world of 4 °C warming, changing the conditions of life on the planet, they are not saying it because it's fashionable.

First, let me be clear about this reality: Planet Earth is warming because of human activity, because of us, and that is profoundly affecting the climate.

Foolish, because embracing cheap gas distracts us from the serious business of building wind and solar and using energy more efficiently; and dangerous, because the planet will not stop warming while we play shell games with carbon.

This will surely make the average surface temperature of the planet higher, than if there was no atmosphere (because the cold shadow areas are now warmer, resulting in a higher average temperatures.)

And it's happening because of carbon dioxide and global warming: «human use of fossil fuels has been causing the greening of the planet in three separate ways: first, by displacing firewood as a fuel; second, by warming the climate; and third, by raising carbon dioxide levels, which raise plant growth rates.»