Sentences with phrase «certain amount of warming»

Similarly, a ball in a black pocket will lead to minimal damages from a certain amount of warming, while a ball in a red pocket will lead to much larger warming than we anticipate.

Suppose a factor, such as natural variability, caused a certain amount of warming from say, 1930 - 1950.

Even worse, it is actually misleading to say the world is heading for 3.5 °C of warming, or 3.0 °C or 4.0 °C, because to do so gives the impression that we can set the global thermostat at a certain temperature, whereas beyond a certain amount of warming (maybe 2.0 °C although scientists do not really know) feedback mechanisms will be set in train that will amplify human - induced warming and take the Earth to a warmer, perhaps much warmer, state.

The climate system is already committed to a certain amount of warming from carbon dioxide emissions of the past, but the worst effects of global warming can still be avoided.

All of the committee members and the three co-chairs emphasized the need for businesses to start examining these issues and pressing for public policy solutions now, due to the fact that greenhouse gases emitted today can last in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, effectively «baking in» a certain amount of warming.

Not exact matches

Because the Earth's climate has a certain amount of natural variability, and those natural cycles can have warming and cooling effects that last for a couple of decades or even longer, Tebaldi said, it takes time to detect a change.

«Some warming is a virtual certainty, but the amount of that warming is much less certain.»

While I'm definitely ready for warmer weather — there is a certain amount of fun to be had in layering and playing with a mix of textures.

During warm weather, Brian has learned to live with a certain amount of screaming.

There's a certain amount of background work that goes on before I get down to the nitty - gritty, so that takes the pressure off the starting point, helps the warming - up process.

To say it a bit worse but in modern lingo: to maintain radiative equilibrium, the planet has to put out a certain amount of heat, and if it can't radiate it out from the surface, the lower atmosphere somehow has to get warmer until there's some level that radiates the right amount.

The first program proposed that as human kind has mopped up its pollution so global warming may increase as pollution seemed to be preventing a certain amount of sunlight from reaching the ground.

If we wind up emitting an extra gigatonne [billion metric tons] of CO2 into the atmosphere this year, it commits the Earth to a certain amount of additional warming that can't be taken back — a warming that starts to emerge within decades but will still be with us after thousands of years.

Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

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.

But we are «in the middle» on the scale and for long - term lukewarmers the term only conveys meaning about the the amount of warming expected for certain amounts of CO2 injected into the atmosphere.

In his abstract he says «Given that global warming is unequivocal, the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming...» This may not be true but it makes certain amount of sense.

Part of problem is that even with current levels of emissions, the inertia of the climate system means that not all of the warming those emissions will cause has happened yet — a certain amount is «in the pipeline» and will only rear its head in the future, because the ocean absorbs some of the heat, delaying the inherent atmospheric warming for decades to centuries.

The professor even acknowledged that certain values which were possible would give you an amount of warming equal to the previous century + and no big deal.

Well, ANU, snarky though you may be, you raise a nominally interesting point; the problem, however, is that the amounts are anomalies; so the 90's are on average a certain amount above the average of the base period; now to compare the increase in anomalies in the noughties, which are higher than the nineties and say this is evidence of progressive warming, hottest ever, or whatever is the current alarmist catch - cry, ignores the fact that the true measure of the warming is not the absolute anomalies but their difference; that is the amounts for the noughties should have the amounts for the nineties subtracted from them and then compared with the nineties after they have the eighties subtracted from them.

Another way is from certain wavelengths of the light that are reflected back and get absorbed by greenhouse gases and warm the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, methane and tiny amounts of CO2).

«I actually find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where all countries agree on a certain amount of global warming that they want to counteract.

A certain amount of continued warming of the planet is projected to occur as a result of human - induced emissions to date; another 0.5 °F increase would be expected over the next few decades even if all emissions from human activities suddenly stopped, 11 although natural variability could still play an important role over this time period.12 However, choices made now and in the next few decades will determine the amount of additional future warming.

What's less certain is the exact AMOUNT of warming.

No matter how many «green» cars and solar panels Kyoto eventually calls into existence, the hard fact is that a certain amount of global warming is inevitable.

The fact that carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» - a gas that prevents a certain amount of heat radiation escaping back to space and thus maintains a generally warm climate on Earth, goes back to an idea that was first conceived, though not specifically with respect to CO2, nearly 200 years ago.