Sentences with phrase «effect than the global warming»

This type of warming is still a much smaller effect than the global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Not exact matches

More than two of every five Americans reside in counties with unhealthy levels of smog and air pollution, thanks largely to the effect of global warming, health researchers report.

They found that while temperatures would go down by as much as 0.3 °C, global warming would push up temperatures by 3.7 to 4.5 °C — more than negating any effect of a global minimum (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029 / 2010gl042710, in press).

«Similarly, a number of studies have found that telling people about the 97 % scientific consensus on human - caused global warming has a neutralizing rather than polarizing effect.»

In the latter half of the decade, La Niña conditions persisted in the eastern and central tropical Pacific, keeping global surface temperatures about 0.1 degree C colder than average — a small effect compared with long - term global warming but a substantial one over a decade.

The coolants are typically greenhouse gases that, if they escape, have a global warming effect hundreds or thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide's.

Scientists knew about the warming effects of greenhouse gases, but proponents of global cooling argued that greenhouse warming would be more than offset by Earth's orbital changes.

Schlesinger and Ramankutty reach broadly similar conclusions, but they also point out that even though greenhouse gases now dominate global warming, if part of the warming during this century is indeed due to solar changes, the additional greenhouse effect may be weaker than was previously thought (Nature, vol 360, p 330).

A further factor is the rising sea level due to global warming, an effect that now also totals more than three millimeters per year and is responsible for another 15 centimeters of submerged land.

What is alarming is that the volume of water and the extent and rapidity of its movement is suprisingly much greater than previously believed, and that a possible, perhaps likely, effect of this on ice sheet dynamics is to make the ice sheets less stable and more likely to respond more quickly to global warming than previously expected.

Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90 %) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.

Re the cost of flying, there are lots of assumptions around because of different ways of using or ignoring a 1999 report on aviation's role in global warming [Aviation and the Global Atmosphere] for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the effects of flying are much worse than would be predicted by just burning thglobal warming [Aviation and the Global Atmosphere] for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the effects of flying are much worse than would be predicted by just burning thGlobal Atmosphere] for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the effects of flying are much worse than would be predicted by just burning the oil.

In a world that needs to be saved from history's» effects like war, global warming, poverty, religion's ideology, hyper - consumption, etc.... Today's education (both classroom and beyond the classroom) has to be able to shape concerned individuals who can learn from human history and be more innovative than the box allows them, to be.

Since we know that the earth's surface is significantly warmed by geothermal heat, that geothermal heat is variable, that truly titanic forces are at work in the earth's core changing its structure and alignment, and that geothermal heat flux has a much greater influence on surface temperatures than variations in carbon dioxide can possibly have, it makes sense to include its effects in a compendium of global warming discussion parameters.

Thus much more than 1C of the extreme heat could be due to global warming because of this local effect.

As the environmental effects of global warming increase, the disruption to the economy will be far worse than that caused by banning the use of unnecessary transport.

If we are still having global warming — and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history — it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

And the situation is far worse than one of «we are beginning to experience the effects of global warming AND peak oil AND fishery colapse, and so on.»

Re: # 129 The following site states why greenhouse gases have a much greater effect than the Sun and natural variability in explaining recent global warming.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

For instance, increasing cloud cover due to global warming may change the albedo, but this would be a feedback to a larger warming effect, rather than a cooling.

This argument shows that a permanent El Nino would have a different effect on global temperature than a transient one, since all that newly exposed warm water would eventually cool off.

The immediately quantifiable effects of air pollution are so much worse than the feared effects of global warming I don't really see why we would conflate the issues.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

They discussed the effect of variables being non-iid on the extreme value analysis, and after taking that into account, propose that changes in extreme precipitation are likely to be larger than the corresponding changes in annual mean precipitation under a global warming.

Global climate models have successfully predicted the rise in temperature as greenhouse gases increased, the cooling of the stratosphere as the troposphere warmed, polar amplification due the ice - albedo effect and other effects, greater increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures, and the magnitude and duration of the cooling from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

Habitable, of course, but it would appear that the world will be changing quite substantially — and the long - term effects may be more significant than «global warming.»

«If we were to have even a medium - sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than «global warming» would have had.»

Efforts to solve global warming by GHG emissions reductions strategies, rather than GHG replacement strategies, can not realistically succeed over the short - term or the long - term or any term, ever - unless the mandated reductions are so drastic that in effect they would require carbon - free alternatives for nearly all GHG sources.

In fact, the effect is more pressing for coral reefs right now than warming global temperatures.

Is less poleward transport of heat by the Gulf Stream as the AMOC weakens a positive feedback for global warming, since that energy will escape more slowly in the humid (higher water vapor GHG effect) tropics than near the poles?

This is what I get out of it: the Arctic - ice - albedo situation is more complicated than earlier thought (due to clouds, sun - filled summers, dark winters, etc), but NET EFFECT, the ice loss and all these other related factors (some negative feedbacks) act as a positive feedback and enhance global warming.

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

These plants are actually worse for global warming than the dirty ones, since you can't scrub CO2, and the dimming effect of the particulates is reduced.

Of course they fail to mention this was a time of regional warming which had only a small effect on global climate and that when global climate is considered, indeed it is anaomalously warmer now than at any time in the last thousand years.

It seems that the effects of global warming on hurricane intensity are better understood than effects on the El Nino oscillation.

But it does say; «Natural climate variations, which tend to involve localized changes in sea surface temperature, may have a larger effect on hurricane activity than the more uniform patterns of global warming...»

In 2011, the Global Warming Policy Foundation's website ran the headline «900 + Peer - Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of «Man - Made» Global Warming (AGW) Alarm,» listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute «concern relating to a negative environmental or socio - economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.»

Even if CO2 has a global warming effect it may well be far smaller than natural variability.

I detest climate studies that correlated what is happening in the NH directly to the SH, suggesting global effects, and especially ones that denote a signal from short time spans, then correlating the span with global warming, rather than global cooling.

I am no longer a «believer» in human caused global warming, there is simply no evidece for more than a small fraction of one degree C per century — and without that and the fertilisation effect of the increased CO2 that we are enjoying, the human race would starve.

Of course, «the truth,» according to Inhofe, is that climate change is a myth: «The science is still out on what effect CO2 might have in terms of what they call global warming and the science is more on our side than on their side.»

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

Slightly less than half of Americans in 1997 said the effects of global warming had already begun to happen.

(5) Given that the celebrated Paris Climate Agreement will have negligible effect on global temperatures even if every country complied, would our limited dollars be better spent on adapting to a warmer climate than on trying to prevent it?

In contrast, global warming warms nights faster (although the effect is slight) and winters faster than summer (which effect is not slight) so that modern US annually averaged temperatures are greater than those of the 1930s.

While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the «global greening» benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects — if those even exist.

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

A post-apocalyptic film in which a climatologist tries to alert the US government that the effects of global warming are imminent, however, they occur more quickly than anticipated, wreaking havoc for society.