Sentences with phrase «bit less warming»

«In the short term, there is maybe a bit less warming than expected,» says Otto.

Not exact matches

The trick is to switch up the flavors a bit (less fruity) and... wear something warm while consuming.

Well, i have read thru the comments on this a couple of times, and while i have made a few loaves, I seem to have the same problem each time — it's not as «tall» as yours, so I hope adding a bit less water and more yeast will help — also, i have regular yeast — a whole jar full — and added it to the flour before adding it to warm water — so I hope by adding warm water to not cold yeast will help.

I was lazy and just warmed leftovers on a skillet:) however if you plan to re-bake it later on the oven, I would suggest cooking it for a bit less time (the first time) just so it does nt dry out.

Also I tried two days ago and something weird happened I blend the cream and as it was warming up a little bit it became something strange like less creamy more thick like a flan I don't really know what happened.

But some found a rise of 2 °C or perhaps a bit less, a costly but manageable warming.

Buie and Elliot also found that the planet's surface is now somewhat darker than five years ago, meaning that it reflects less sunlight and therefore is a bit warmer.

The warming due to water vapor helps the air hold water, but in the Earth's orbit, it is not actually sufficient to keep the air warm enough to keep the water it already has — so you go into the death spiral, with a bit of cooling, less water, then more cooling, and so on to Snowball.

The trick is to switch up the flavors a bit (less fruity) and... wear something warm while consuming.

Your bodynaturally craves warming soups, like the recipe below, cooked foods, and the right fats to protect its organs and skin from biting winds, freezing temperature, and less sunlight.

Its been warming up here for weeks, so its fun to change things up a bit with a few less layers (although we all know I love my layers!).

Plus, in the warmer seasons we've found that our schedules get a bit more hectic than usual, leaving us less time to brew that pot of coffee every morning.

It's all a bit like a less clever (but still cute) riff on the likes of Fido or Warm Bodies.

The extended early stretch at the resort is essentially a warmed - over, less biting Schumer solo set, rattling off jokes about trashy tattoos, partying too hard, and awkwardly flirting with hot guys.

She takes a bit to warm up to new people but given her past, we would expect no less.

Battlefield Hardline has been a bit of a hard sell for EA and Visceral, with its last beta recieving a less - than - warm reception.

Some show a bit more, some show a bit less, and most are pretty close, «big picture», to the observed warming.

This suggests to me that he was getting the basics more or less right, which in turn emphasises the point that the best models and theory we have all predict and have consistently predicted the same thing: warming, and quite a bit of it by the end of this century if we keep dumping CO2 in the atmosphere at our current rates.

I'm concerned that little bits of info (e.g., more ice here, less ice there, sick animals here, winter storms there, and etc.) can be much more confusing than illuminating in the absence of a general understanding of the basic dynamics of global warming as (the majority of) scientists see them.

You know, we have seen global warming thus far of just a little bit less than one degree Celsius and look at what has happened: Superstorm Sandy, Boulder, Colorado, all these fires, Hurricane Irene one year before Sandy — how many billions was that?

So there is the first bit of information: If you do not believe that the climate is warming on a global scale then in terms of evolution you are less knowledgeable about your environment (less intelligent) then the great majority of animals, plants, insects, and even ocean dwelling single celled organisms like plankton.

I watched this with growing disinterest — it was certainly an answer to the Great global warming swindle in that both were pretty dreadful — this was shockingly over simplistic and you knew from the start who was going to win — even Eastenders can manage a bit more intrigue — but then look what kind of rubbish passes for a subject on things like Panorama; Having over done every other exciting angle on the «credit crunch» they did a program on how it's effecting us — based super scientifically on a small sample of people moaning sorry responding to panorama online which somehow justified a whole program of what some people were doing like driving less or renting a room out — totally pointless.

I understand bits of Scotland when from warm than present to being underneath a glacier in less that a century.

Eout changed quite a bit in both the SW and LW — more IR emitted (cooling) and less SW reflected (warming) over the period.

Eyeball Mark I suggests that deeper waters (OHC to 700 meters) have probably warmed about 1.5 C since 1955, and the surface a bit less — maybe.8 C or so?

«I continue to believe that warming of Earth's surface temperatures from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases carries risks that society must take seriously,» he wrote, «even if we are lucky and (as my work seems to suggest) the most catastrophic warming scenarios are a bit less likely.»

«You can see practically nothing is happening here, basically a little bit of warming, but it's much much less than the models predict.

Over the 160 + year total period the actually observed warming is a bit less than half the theoretical warming at equilibrium per IPCC.

Even if extra greenhouse gases just make it a bit warmer at the top of a natural cycle and a bit less cold at the bottom of a natural cycle then the current kerfuffle is pointless, harmful and dangerous.

I found it to be in the model ball park (perhaps a bit larger, actually) which implied a large warming bias in the surface data, a large cooling bias in the satellite data, some less large combination of those two, or an unknown real climactic effect on lapse rate variation that only operates on the long term and is absent from current models:

So that would mean that the current warming could be half or a bit less than half due to non-natural causes.

When I wrote about Dr. Lomborg's proposal to focus less on climate change and more on problems like malnutrition and disease, he told me: «I don't think our descendants will thank us for leaving them poorer and less healthy just so we could do a little bit to slow global warming.

So, if we take what the best science gives us, we find that pretty close to half of the warming that is currently indicated by the extant global temperature datasets may be from influences other than anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases — perhaps a bit less, perhaps a bit more.

I find it even less relevant that a bit we don't live in might get 1K warmer in 100 years.

The date this piece is September 22, 2006, a bit less than three months after the release of Al Gore's «An Inconvenient Truth» movie, so it would not be much of a stretch to guess that when the writer says he recently came to understand this «false sense of uncertainty» situation, he gleaned it from the movie, where Gore spelled out the «reposition global warming» phrase full screen and then immediately followed it with a reference to the infamous «Doubt is Our Product» leaked memo phrase from the tobacco industry.

Love «great rooms» but slanted ceilings, less window warm up the space a bit..