Sentences with phrase «cooler than that of a human»

Like other mammals, the platypus secretes milk through its skin to feed offspring and is warm - blooded — though its body temperature is nine degrees Fahrenheit (five degrees Celsius) cooler than that of a human.

Not exact matches

The model calculations, which are based on data from the CLOUD experiment, reveal that the cooling effects of clouds are 27 percent less than in climate simulations without this effect as a result of additional particles caused by human activity: Instead of a radiative effect of -0.82 W / m2 the outcome is only -0.60 W / m2.

At a wet - bulb temperature of 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), the human body can not cool itself enough to survive more than a few hours.

Hudson's laboratory used laser light to cool tiny amounts of the reactant atoms and molecules to an extremely low temperature — one one - thousandth of a degree above absolute zero — and then levitate them in a space smaller than the width of a human hair, inside of a vacuum chamber.

Their results show that the cooling effect of human - caused atmospheric aerosols is smaller than previously thought.

Recent finds at Willendorf in Austria reveal that modern humans were living in cool steppe - like conditions some 43,500 years ago — and that their presence overlapped with that of Neanderthals for far longer than we thought.

But the researchers found that humans at rest could devote more than a 30 percent of their metabolic activity to heating up or cooling down over the course of the day as their environments changed — a potential workout for some.

If you find yourself knowing more names of porn stars than past presidents, maybe it's time to cool it down and find a real human to play out your fantasies.

With understated fatalism rather than Titanic - size hysteria — at once slapstick and ice - cool — McKellar tracks a handful of average but bizarre Canadian earthlings as they prepare in small, banal, personal ways for extinction, then links them in a bigger human whole.

Esquire cool interview with the director of John Wick: Chapter 2, a former stuntman Stage Buddy on a new book about the immortal classic Casablanca Vox an excellent piece on AMC's Humans and how it differs from HBO's similarly AI themed but wildly different Westworld NYT Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy to return to the stage Indie Wire Tulip Fever gets pushed back AGAIN even though it was supposed to open in less than two weeks Silver Screening Room on the Adapted Screenplay race of 1976 for reasons I do nt know but I enjoyed

There really has not been much research on the effects of water temperature on cats, but there have been several studies performed on humans, and they have found that people drink significantly more water if it is cool and refreshing than if it is hot or room temperature.

Dogs are more at risk of getting heatstroke than us humans; it is not just because of their fur coats, but also because dogs cool themselves by panting and not by sweating like we do.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

Pollen data shows humans reversed natural global cooling: Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the history of human civilization

Pollen data shows humans reversed natural global cooling: Current temperatures are hotter than at any time in the history of human civilization https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/feb/19/pollen-data-shows-humans-reversed-natural-global-cooling

It seems ironic therefore, but plausible all the same, that an episode of cooling through «natural» SRM might be more readily interpreted as an «emergency» and (ab) used to justify human efforts to take control of the climate system through stratospheric aerosol injection than accelerated warming.

The 2009 State of the Climate report gives these top indicators: humans emitted 30 billion tons of of CO2 into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas), less oxygen in the air from the burning of fossil fuels, rising fossil fuel carbon in corals, nights warming faster than days, satellites show less of the earth's heat escaping into space, cooling of the stratosphere or upper atmosphere, warming of the troposphere or lower atmosphere, etc..

And knowing what causes cooling seems far more important to human beings and welfare of life on this planet, than what causes warming.

Associated with human greenhouse gas production is the release of fine particle known as aerosols which have a temporary cooling effect (they last in the atmosphere less than a week).

% of the warming is human caused (Judith picks 90 % as the upper bound): so, that means a 1 - 10 % chance that the anthropogenic fraction is not in that range: does that mean 1 - 10 % chance that the warming is either 0 - 50 % or 91 - 100 % (or more — after all, if natural variability would have been cooling, then anthropogenic causes could be more than 100 %)?

You're right, & IMO, the net effect of human activity since c. AD 1950 has been to cool rather than warm the planet, although not much in either direction.

Well it's even more complex than that because the net warming from humans doesn't just involve CO2, but other greenhouse gases and it factors in the cooling effect of aerosols being dwarfed by the CO2 forcing.

One study estimates that there are likely to be places on Earth where unprotected humans without cooling mechanisms, such as air conditioning, would die in less than six hours if global average surface temperature rises by about 12.6 ° F (7 ° C).16 With warming of 19.8 - 21.6 ° F (11 - 12 ° C), this same study projects that regions where approximately half of the world's people now live could become intolerable.7

The reason greenhouse gases can be (and probably are) responsible for more than 100 % of the observed warming is that other factors (mainly human aerosol pollution) have caused cooling at the same time.

The various kinds of evidence examined by the panel suggest that the troposphere actually may have warmed much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20 - year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling of the upper part of the troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere).

(maybe most of you are too cool to remember that sort of moment... but think of something equally bad like the time you accidentally set something on fire and it started getting out of control...) I think it will be worse than that... Seems like to me we need to be much, much, more certain before we go making policy all over the earth that could actually harm us... or maybe not quite so bad, but really not desirable, harm many developing countries and distract them from addressing real environmental land use and energy production problems that would actually help the environment and save human lives now, today... but keep an eye on the future... not suggesting head in the sand stuff... just let's stop the panic... if you have to panic it's probly too late... most people don't behave terribly rationally while panicing...

I have already made it clear elsewhere that the additional resistor effect of human CO2 would be insignificant in relation to that from the rest of the air and the oceans together with the varying solar and oceanic heating and cooling effects but we still need to know for sure whether it is significant at all over periods of less than several hundred years because that may be the time we need to solve our energy, pollution, resource and population problems.

The reduction in nighttime cooling that leads to this bias may indeed be the result of human interference in the climate system (i.e., local effects of increasing greenhouse gases or human effects on cloud cover), but through a causal mechanism different than that typically assumed.

Jim, the consensus is that global warming started in the ~ 1960s and that more than 100 % of the total warming since then is human (there would be global cooling without humans).

We've found that the increase in the frequency of concurrent warm conditions in the west and cool conditions in the east is more likely with human caused climate change than it would be in a world without climate change.

He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated.

The only difficulty with absorbtion of radiation is that at 20C, matter is cooler than the human body, so its unlikely a human will absorb that much radiation.

-- Volcanoes and vents emit less than 1 % of human emissions (even the Pinatubo eruption caused a dip in the CO2 increase, as the cooling by the volcanic dust increased the absorption of the oceans beyond the extra emissions.

One scientist, paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman, even argued that the rise of human agriculture had already produced enough greenhouse gases to counteract the gradual cooling that should have come during the past several thousand years; every previous cycle had begun a steady cooling soon after its peak, rather than leveling off as ours had done.

Global cooling would be a LOT harder on human civilization than even the wildest - eyed projections of the AlGorites.

And the best estimate from the body of peer - reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than 100 % of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little bit of that with a slight cooling influence.

We would have cooled the planet A TINY BIT, because the air pollution would have been AT TINY BIT more important than the (at best guess CONTRARY) influence of the extra CO2 attributable to human behaviour.

The kind that believes utter nonsense like that the sun is made out of iron, volcanoes emit more C02 than humans, there is no greenhouse effect, that the ocean is cooling, sea - level isn't rising, and that legitimate papers that contradict their wild claims actually support them?

Since solar effects, both direct and indirect, are more than sufficient to account for net estimated temperature change over the period of significant fossil fuel usage, have humans been warming or cooling the planet?

The odds of a polar bear dying from global warming is less likely than a human dying from global cooling.

Yes, Earth warms and cools over time, but that doesn't mean that humans can't be one of the factors that do so — and there is no doubt whatsoever that we are responsible for increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 30 %.

5) Sweep it over the entire population, to convince them to pay attention themselves as best they can to basic math and science when they are in school, so they understand this stuff at the level which almost all human beings are capable of achieving, rather than the pitiful few who bother to try in our society (because it's simply not cool to actually learn).