Sentences with phrase «bigger effect on global»

So while the cooling effect is unlikely to grow much, the gases will accumulate and have an ever - bigger effect on global temperature.

Suppose someone considered that farming and other land develop such as urban centers, and natural variability was bigger effect on global temperature than CO2?

Cluss added that the seasons are having a bigger and bigger effect on global dairy prices as Oceanic countries fill the gap left by falling EU production.

While these adjustments don't have a big effect on the global temperature record, they are needed to obtain consistent local records from equipment which has changed over time.

The Trump administration's proposal to repeal the carbon - cutting Clean Power Plan likely won't have a big effect on the global carbon equation, but together with other pro-coal measures, as well as a lack of attention to energy conservation, could bump United States emissions beyond the limits targeted by the Paris climate agreement.

But it did not have as big an effect on the global climate overall.

Not exact matches

The changes wrought by the proposed legislation will have a much bigger effect on some groups — especially those who get insurance through their employers and those on Medicaid — than estimated by recent analysis from independent healthcare policy experts such as the Brookings Institution and credit rating agency S&P Global Ratings

By bringing a big global problem to a local and more manageable scale, we can gain insight on the effects of climate change on our community.

By bringing a big global problem to a local and more manageable scale, we can gain insight on the effects of climate change in our community.

As Dr. Mackey cited in the published article Sea Change: UCI oceanographer studies effects of global climate fluctuations on aquatic ecosystems: «They would tell us about upwelling and how the ocean wasn't just this one big, homogenous bathtub, that there were different water masses, and they had different chemical properties that influenced what grew there,» she recalls.

The finding is part of a bigger research effort to understand the role of dust in the environment and its effects on local and global climate.

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).

He tells Newsweek the findings play into a bigger picture, where we see large volcanic eruptions having an impact on the global climate that causes a chain effect resulting in social unrest.

The biggest reason is that the UK is only a small part of the global economy, and the economic effects on non-EU trade and finance are smaller still.

In the big, wide - ranging world of global change effects, one would be hard pressed to find a topic that is more important — or of more interest to more people — than effects on human health.

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

You can forecast what the average effect of such would be, but if it is big enough to show up on the global picture, you will see a deviation while it is in effect away from its average effect and later a deviation the other way.

«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?

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.

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.

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.

On the subject of the evils of being financed by Big Business: On March 31st Guardian environment editor John Vidal published an article quoting the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, to the effect that temperatures are due rise 5 - 7 °C this centurOn the subject of the evils of being financed by Big Business: On March 31st Guardian environment editor John Vidal published an article quoting the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, to the effect that temperatures are due rise 5 - 7 °C this centurOn March 31st Guardian environment editor John Vidal published an article quoting the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, to the effect that temperatures are due rise 5 - 7 °C this centuron the Science and Policy of Global Change, to the effect that temperatures are due rise 5 - 7 °C this century.

The biggest area of marine ice in the east is likely to be released despite the cold air temperatures, confirming the worries about the effect of melting Antarctic ice on global sea levels.

I think the biggest effect the atmosphere has on climate is 14.7 psi at the surface raises the vaporization point of water enough that can have a global ocean covering 70 % of the surface to an average depth of 4000 meters.

As Treasury notes, other global factors can have bigger effects on the path of economic activity.

The big debate about CO2's effect on global surface - level air temperatures is what will happen when atmospheric CO2 doubles in concentration from pre-industrial times, i.e., increases from 0.026 % (280 ppm) of the atmosphere to 0.056 % (560 ppm).

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.»

The biggest effect comes from really aggressive planting of forests, as described in an essay (pdf) by Peter Read on his global gardening plans.

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.

One of the strongest ideas of the green movement has been «think global act local», which empowers people to believe that their own actions can have an effect on problems that are as big as the planet.

Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends.

If only one person burned a little coal, no one would really care about global or regional effects — maybe some local neighbors and some downstream interests would have a problem, or not, depending on how the ash is handled, how the coal was obtained, etc, but in so far as the CO2 emissions are concerned, no big deal.

Do you think the satellite manufacturers might be in the pay of big oil or do you think this may help prove that the whole idea of global warming, and the proof of it happening was based on the misunderstanding of the local urban heat island effect?

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).

Jurors often harbor a basic belief that if a big company is on trial, it has probably harmed people or the environment in pursuit of profits and has caused long - term damage to people and the planet — either by directly causing human health effects, polluting the air, water, or ground, or by contributing to global warming.