Sentences with phrase «current warming because»

Not exact matches

It's a «feel good» message that gives everyone warm feelings before they die and go to Hell because the «chaplin» wanted to make sure that they were «at peace» in their current state, and lost sight of the state to follow.

It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.

But in cooler Tasmania, warmer weather could be a benefit because current temperatures can get too chilly for some grape varieties.

The current injury came about because the so called professional didn't warm up before coming on the pitch as a sub.

The Arctic took another 3,000 - 4,000 years to warm this much, primarily because of the fact that the Northern Hemisphere had huge ice sheets to buffer warming, and the fact that changes in ocean currents and Earth's orbital configuration accelerated warming in the south.

The finding runs counter to current dark matter theories, in part because the temperature measured was warmer than popular theories predict.

That's because a current of cold ocean water moves from north to south along the West Coast, cooling the coastal Pacific and removing the threat of hurricanes, which form only when low pressure systems siphon off the energy from warm ocean water.

Professor Kug notes that further research is needed to obtain a general conclusion on the matter, but this research delivers important implications for climate adaptation because the analysis shows that if current warming trends continue, it is feasible to conclude that the ecosystems in regions affected by the anomalous climate will suffer greater damages due to the cold and dry spells.

Because current involves the movement of electrons, this process produces heat — which makes devices warm to the touch.

By analogy, a warmer world wouldn't be rainier (or cloudier); it's an imperfect analogy, because rain isn't absolutely correlated with cloudiness, and lateral transport of energy by ocean, air, and latent heat currents in and out of the E & W Pacific Ocean areas won't scale to global warming

Evidence of melting glaciers and of Spanish wine - makers having to relocate their vineyards because it is getting too warm in their current location seem to be harder for the science haters to refute (though I always seem to get the «but not all glaciers are in retreat» counter-argument).

The current IPCC report, for example, limits the natural contribution to global warming since 1950 to less than plus or minus 0.1 ° C (it might have been negative e.g. because of the fading sun).

So the «skeptics» need proxies, because they want to believe that it has been this warm before (for some reason that the current models can't predict), and it went away of its own accord.

«A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming... because current global warming is offset by global dimming — the 2 - 3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.»

The second aerosol indirect effect is more likely to cause cooling than warming because, to the best current knowledge, high clouds are more likely to warm climate, whereas low clouds are more likely to cool.

However, it is important to keep in mind that we might easily more than double it if we really don't make much effort to cut back (I think the current estimated reserves of fossil fuels would increase CO2 by a factor of like 5 or 10, which would mean a warming of roughly 2 - 3 times the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 [because of the logarithmic dependence of the resulting warming to CO2 levels]-RRB-... and CO2 levels may be able to fall short of doubling if we really make a very strong effort to reduce emissions.

Because the long - term warming trends are highly significant relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4: warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.

It is a «rubish argument» to argue that because there were warmings in the past, the current warming is not primarilly due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, but that is a different argument from that which RiHo08 implied.

In part of course, because they neatly symbolize the two opposing camps in the current debate: contrast for example Emanuel's work demonstrating a linkage between increasing hurricane intensity and global warming with Gray's denial of any such link.

I recall mention that Katrina was unusual because while crossing the Gulf «Ring Current» the deeper water pulled up by the hurricane was almost as warm as the sea surface, so the deeper water fed almost as much heat energy into the storm as the surface.

On the other hand, I am not sure how far he would agree with the more extreme geo - engineering suggestions (especially the current unplanned radiative warming experiment); viz. another quotation: «We should always be prepared for future technologies, because otherwise they will come along and clobber us.»

Should the ice sheet start to melt in a serious way (i.e. much more significantly than current indications suggest), then lowering of the elevation of the ice sheet will induce more melting simply because of the effect of the lapse rate (air being warmer closer to sea level due to pressure effects).

Because without the stick, we have NO BASIS to claim that the current warming is unprecedented or even unusual.

This model or hypothesis has failed to demonstrate past warming, failed to predict current warming, and because of the nature of the Earth system, can not predict the future beyond forecasting in a limited frame of reference in a semi-stable system (i.e. temperature swings of 10, 20, 30 or more degrees F in minutes, hours, and days).

Surface temperature is an imperfect gauge of whether the earth has been warmed by an imbalance between incoming radiation from the sun, and outgoing radiation, because of the role of ocean currents in the distribution of heat between deeper and surface waters.

The bulk of the large spread in ECS across current climate models (the wide horizontal axis in Figure 1) arises because it is uncertain how low clouds respond to warming (see this blog post for a discussion).

The article found current CO2 emissions aren't falling rapidly enough to slow global warming largely because most public policy has focused exclusively on developing wind and solar power, which may actually increase emissions.

«Global warming» is the best term for the current human - caused climate change because it is the main characteristic feature of the change.

The amount of warm water entering the Irminger Current is particularly limited because the sub-Polar gyre also shunts the pole - ward transport to the east towards the Barents Sea.

This disagreement ties into the debate over man - made global warming, because if the Current Warm Period is not that unusual, then man - made global warming could be either (1) superimposed over considerable «natural global warming» or (2) non-existent (in which case global warming would have nothing to do with our «carbon footprint»).

This is because, following current best estimates, negative aerosol forcing has substantially offset the GHG - induced warming.

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.

I agree that that does not duplicate my model because it does not deal with the millennial solar cycle which induced the MWP, LIA and current warm period.

22 El Nino Starts because the easterly trade winds weaken and allow the warm waters in the Western Pacific to move east toward South America This changes where the convection current occurs.

But Lindzen has gone too far, Schneider says, because, given the complexity of the subject, it makes no sense to focus on a few unexplained aspects of human - induced warming when the overwhelming indicators — along with current temperature and weather patterns — suggest that the theory is right.

However, this actually contradicts John Christy's argument that the current sea ice decline could be natural, because that long - term orbital forcing has not reversed, and thus can not account for the sudden and rapid Arctic warming and concurrent sea ice decline.

[9] Recent warming observations of Antarctic Bottom Water in the Southern Ocean is of concern to ocean scientists because bottom water changes will effect currents, nutrients, and biota elsewhere.

It's funny because the global warming alarmists like to take whatever the current conditions are and paint a picture that makes AGW the reason for whatever is happening.

You can't deduce anything using heat conduction from warm waters above because you'll find it's so tiny that would take ~ 125,000 years to warm / cool the depths to same as surface following a surface MST anomaly if there were no currents bringing cold water through, so obviously the actual warming from waters above is 99 % + by fluid mixing.

15 Heat Transport in the Biosphere The unequal heating of Earth's surface drives winds and ocean currents transport heat throughout the biosphere Winds form because warm air tends to rise and cool air tends to sink air that is heated near the equator rises

Of course we'll first have to wait till somewhere next month to see the actual publication, but we find these interesting quotes, because the suggested relation between climate cooling and wildfire decreases emphasizes the current risk of wildfire increases in an ever warmer world.

«The existence of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were an embarrassment to the global - warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warming and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel.

He evidently is not too literate in global warming theory either because he tries to explain the current non-warming period by saying that the ``... current stand - still of the 5 - year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.»

Because there are no continents to block its path or deflect those warm waters poleward, the Circumpolar Current simply encircles the continent.

For example, because the mass balance argument says nothing about absolute numbers or attribution it may be that we are also — for example — destroying carbon - fixing plankton, reducing the breaking of waves and hence mechanical mixing with the upper ocean, releasing methane in the tundra which was previously held by acid rain and which can now be converted to CO2, or it may be we are just seeing a deep current, a tiny bit warmer than usual because of the MWP, heating deep ocean clathrate so that methanophage bacteria can devour it and give off CO2.

Up to 75 % of these species might face a reduction of their ranges by more than 80 % of their current distribution because they often have particularly low dispersal capacities and occur in lower marginal mountain chains, which might turn into climatic traps under warming.

I am a skeptic perhaps mostly because of the work of Dr Tony Brown; there is evidence that that current temperatures are not the warmest of the last 1100 years.

More clouds both drastically reduce energy input from the sun and simply slow release of what energy there is trapped in the lower troposphere, but the long term effect would be a fall in average temperature because of the significantly reduced input power but the atmosphere's ability to cool is aided by air current circulation whereby the warmer air rises above those low clouds and that infra - red is more easily re-emitted into space, whereby the low clouds now block that re-emission from hitting the ground again to any significant degree.

If you really try to argue that something can't be the driver of the current warming (not world climate) because of the small concentration, you've already lost the argument.

The belief is that warm ocean currents are rapidly melting this glacier, because it lifted off this smaller ridge in the 1970s and now moves 4x faster than Thwaites at 4 km per year.