Sentences with phrase «big warming effects»

The main thing to note is that she is claiming that changes to atmospheric CO2 levels have big warming effects on the climate and will cause a global catastrophe.

Scientists have modelled the expected temperature drop over the 21st century due to waning solar activity — and they found that the change is likely to be dwarfed by the much bigger warming effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

Sure, the warming effects of a big bowl of chilli are sooo nice when it's cold outside... but when it's a little warmer outside, all you have to do is let your chilli cool off a bit more.

Sunshine, warm temps and long days — three things that don't matter when you're sitting in a multiplex, ready for Hollywood's biggest season and most effects - drenched movies.

Dr Stephen Grimes of Plymouth University, who initiated the research project, highlighted the climate changes that must have caused this increase in sediment erosion and transport — «We have climate model simulations of the effect of warming on rainfall during the PETM event, and they show some changes in the average amounts of rainfall, but the largest change is how this rainfall is packaged up — it's concentrated in more rapid, extreme events — larger and bigger storms.»

El Niño — a warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that changes weather patterns across the globe — causes forests to dry out as rainfall patterns shift, and the occasional unusually strong «super» El Niños, like the current one, have a bigger effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

A much bigger issue in the often quoted «global warming potentials,» is the question of how the effect of relative lifetimes are figured in (see Archer's piece on this).

A less active sun would probably have a small cooling effect on earth's temperature, if man - made greenhouse gases weren't having a much bigger warming influence.

Also students will research the effects of global warming and climate change and evaluate whether this is the biggest threat we face as humans Students will research destruction of natural resources — with an example of deforestation — and evaluate whether humans have the right to do what they want to the planet Students will then summarise our learning from this lesson and will answer some questions to demonstrate learning from this lesson

Included in resource are the following topics: Natural causes of climate change Evidence of climate change Global Warming Causes and effects of climate change Global atmospheric circulation Tropical storms causes, characteristics, location and frequency Causes of EL Nino Effects of the Big Dry Adaptation to drought At the end of the resources are pupil booklets.

I don't mind taking the prudent steps to wean ourselves from petroleum because that has beneficial effects beyond global warming but before we enact big subsidies for non competitive electricity generation, a couple of years pause couldn't hurt.

A big component of this looming difficulty is global warming, mostly due to the effects on hydrological cycles.

I tend to be more interested in the really big patterns, like the natural greenhouse effect keeping us warmer & adding to it likely increases that warmth.

«Since the ocean component of the climate system has by far the biggest heat capacity», I've been wondering if the cool waters of the deep ocean could be used to mitigate the effects of global warming for a few centuries until we have really depleated our carbon reserves and the system can begin to recover on its own.

How big an effect do you feel that this is having on mainsteam climate science's «global warming» projections?

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

In case anyone wants to have a look back at my early work, here are links that will lead you to a few vintage pieces on humans and climate: Endless Summer: Living With the Greenhouse Effect, Discover Magazine cover story, October 1988; «Let's Be Sensible on Global Warming,» Christian Science Monitor, June 30, 1992; «The Big Thaw» (a look at Switzerland's retreating glaciers), Conde Nast Traveler, 1993.

Subsidary question: as the ocean is quite a big part of the climate system, are it's temperature variations sufficiently constraint to corroborate the very interesting conclusion of Gavin's note: «It's interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming)-- yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades.»

But if you're saying that the effect of global warming on moisture is as if sea level rise initially only affected the wave peaks, and it takes a very long time for the troughs to catch up, and therefore the waves * would * get bigger if the seas rose fast enough, then maybe.

However, because global warming is always of one sign, a much bigger impact is from the cumulative effects of these radiative perturbations on the climate.

Actually, it could be the other way round: greening is a bigger effect than warming,» Ridley writes.

(1) Human - generated CO2 and the associated global warming is a big problem for the coming century, although there are some engineering strategies that could (with other side - effects) mitigate it.

But, assuming he still stands by his 1995 paper, he finds a big drop in economic performance as temperature rises still more: the estimated effect (compared to no warming) is plus 2.3 percent of gross domestic product for a 1 degree increase, and then drops to minus 1.9 percent for a 2.5 degree increase.

If we assume that the LIA was caused mostly by naturally forced variability, then we have several periods in the 20th century of cooling and warming associated with modest unforced variability: The AMO's effect on GMST (0.25 degC peak to trough) isn't big enough to invalidate the IPCC's attribution statement.

Or to put it another way, global warming will be a big issue 50 years from now, but peak oil is already an issue, and we saw the first economic effects in the summer of 2008.

For Bender: why the hockey stick matters: 1) it is used to prove the sun does not have a big effect 2) it is used to test / tune GEMs and estimate CO2 sensitivity 3) it is used to argue that temperatures are unprecedented 4) it is used to argue therefore that organisms and man are not able to adapt to this warming 5) it is useful for whacking deniers

I know many on this site beleive peak oil is a bigger threat than global warming, but I can't help but think the 20 - 100 year time lag between CO2 release and maximum effect is a far less addressable than issues of increasing fossil fuel prices.

Clouds are one of the big unknowns about global warming as they can have a range of effects, warmer temperatures caused by global warming will result in higher rates of evaporation and therefore will result in higher cloud cover.

Global warming may have its biggest effect here.

Since it is warming somewhat, GHGs are likely responsible for some of that, but we need to know if the bigger - impact feedback effects are actually ocurring (and what sign they have in the real world).

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

The Senate Minority Report was generated with encouragement from a United States senator notorious for making bogus statements to the effect that «global warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated on the American People.»

They make a big deal that Jo Nova uses a headline «Man Made Global Warming Disproved» but then «admits» that atmospheric CO2 does have a warming Warming Disproved» but then «admits» that atmospheric CO2 does have a warming warming effect.

It's Not Global Warming «End Times» — But Only A «Big Yawn» — Climate Depot Special Report — Renowned Climatologist: «You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide»

It's not a big mirror up there at the tropopause, and either the «greenhouse effect» can warm the troposphere or it can't.

Actually, it could be the other way round: greening is a bigger effect than warming,» Ridley wrote in the piece.

turning off coal plants overnight is not realistic 5) what is the biggest problem that would result from global warming 6) what is the time table for these problems to start taking effect??

Christy claims that California central valley records show a clear warming signal because at night higher humidity has a big effect.

There was a big fuss a couple of years ago about tropospheric warming which was going to appear and thus prove the greenhouse effect.

I can understand their enthusiasm for this but for me the priority has always been the broader cause of free speech... The «chilling effect» is a bigger threat to civilized society than all Dr Mann's warming.

Walk under a big parasol during a warm summer day and you emulate the effects of an eclipse.

Thirdly anthropogenic global warming [ANT] is still put at greater than 100 %, ie 110 %, after taking off the supposed negative aerosol effect [OA], which is so unknown that the error bars are bigger than the guesstimate.This is where Gavin obtains his 110 % likely range of Anthropogenic warming that he attributes to the IPCC.

Volcanic eruptions interfere with this pathway big time, and their winter warming effect is due to it.

AMO / PDO on the other hand are system states that last 20 - 40 years, and there's very good reasons to think that they are the cause of the entire modern warming, these should be modeled by GCM's, but they don't do this either, and they have a far bigger effect on «climate» while the smaller scale chaotic artifacts have no effect on «climate».

The biggest effects in albedo are the ice and snow reduction with warming and these feedbacks are included.

To my understanding this is not a big effect, and it could cut both ways - warm rain can fall on a cool ocean as well.

CO2 accounts for it with a moderate positive feedback, and has the property that its effect is bigger in more recent years as the warming is.

And don't forget «Global warming is going to have catastrophic consequences, so we need to decarbonize the global energy economy» — The big lie of certainty regarding cause, effect, impacts and cost that is repeated by default conservatives everywhere, especially here.

The bigger issue is that it is robustly unprovable or logical that so many negative effects will happen because of a change in temperature of even 2,3,4 degrees because as temperature has risen human life and other life seems to benefit from warmer climate.

We found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.