Sentences with phrase «certainly had a warming effect»

Not exact matches

But while the destructive effects of CFCs appear to have been conquered, the global warming almost certainly induced by rising levels of carbon dioxide could tip the balance the other way, says Harris.

The first part of your description is certainly true, I don't think the magnitude of the recent warming in the Arctic (including Greenland) is extraordinary (yet, but ask me again is a few years) when properly set against the backdrop of the last century, but I do believe that, at least to some degree, the warming of the Arctic (including Greenland) in recent years has resulted from an anthropogenic enhancement to the world's greenhouse effect.

Rate of percentage annual growth for carbon dioxide has certainly increased since the beginning of the 21st century, but this should result in a significant change in the rate of warming any more quickly than the differences between emission scenarios would, and there (according to the models) the differences aren't significant for the first thirty - some years but progressively become more pronounced from then on — given the cummulative effects of accumulated carbon dioxide.

Let's see... many models show that aerosols could have been artificially keeping the world's average surface temperature cooler by about 3 - 5 degrees C from 1900 - 2000 --(sulfate aerosols certainly have some certifiable cooling effects cancelling out the warming effects of CO2).

I'm pretty sure you can get the grey version of that into a strat - cooling / trop - warming situation if you pick the strat absorbers right, but Andy is certainly right that non-grey effects play a crucial role in explaining quantitatively what is going on in the real atmosphere (that's connected with the non-grey explanation for the anomalously cold tropopause which I have in Chapter 4, and also with the reason that aerosols do not produce stratospheric cooling, and everything depends a lot on what level you are looking at).

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.

We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true.

While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.»

The very limited basic premise is that CO2 at certain concentrations can have a warming effect, but that effect is very mild and certainly can not account for the warming previous to the 1970's.

The evidence for this effect is not definitive, and it certainly has not limited the tropical warming to this point in time.

He certainly reduced the noise in the trend by a lot, and gets a pretty good steady trend, which is what would be expected from a steady warming effect due to increasing GHG's in the atmosphere.

The best course, he says, would be to adopt a modest carbon tax — because there are certainly some ill effects of global warming — and adjust it as we learn more.

Since no scientists have made a claim of direct cause and effect (see our recent post on potential statistical links between hurricane intensity and tropical warming), any scientific assessment (such as the next IPCC report) will certainly not do so either.

If you argue that CO2's absorption ability was saturated in earlier events, then you have to argue that it is saturated today, and that incremental CO2 will have no further warming effect, which AGW supporters are certainly NOT arguing.

One thing I would add — it ought to be obvious (and I certainly hope it is) that a process of «winding back and decelerating the present form of capitalism», including «more social democracy, more regulation», will only be effective at mitigating the effect of global warming (partially or wholly), if it includes a large suite of policies specifically aimed at addressing global warming, that is, replacing emissions - producing activities or processes (particularly energy sources) with non emissions - producing ones.