Sentences with phrase «effects of global warming does»

Just because we're only recently experiencing the likely effects of Global Warming doesn't mean that it didn't exist in the past.

Film Review by Kam Williams Headline: Climate Change Documentary Chronicles Effect of Global Warming Do you believe in global warming?

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.

Not exact matches

The world has to take a look at itself and consider what it is going to do about the increasing effect of global warming.

Even if you don't have a compassionate bone in your body for animals, surely the effects of global - warming must be a concern to EVERYONE

Much of the damage will have been done by the year 2010, it says, and the rest by 2070, when the predicted effects of global warming from emissions of greenhouse gases will have done their worst.

As it does, it could release tons of additional methane gas, which has 20 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, possibly increasing the rate of global warming.

The cooling effect of aerosols can partly offset global warming on a short - term basis, but many are made of organic material that comes from sources that scientists don't fully understand, said Joost de Gouw, a research physicist at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., who is unaffiliated with the studies.

All of them contribute, he said, and an exclusive focus on any one dimension, whether it's levees that are too high or the effects of global warming, «doesn't give people accurate answers.»

Also students will research the effects of global warming and climate change and evaluate whether this is the biggest threat we face as humans Students will research destruction of natural resources — with an example of deforestation — and evaluate whether humans have the right to do what they want to the planet Students will then summarise our learning from this lesson and will answer some questions to demonstrate learning from this lesson

** CLIMATE CHANGE LESSON ** Included in the lesson package is: The teacher version of the PowerPoint The student version of the PowerPoint Three videos embedded in the PowerPoint Student lesson handout In order, the lesson covers: Weather vs. Climate Earth's energy supply The atmosphere Greenhouse gases The greenhouse effect Enhanced greenhouse effect The role of the carbon cycle Effects of global warming Historic climate change Climate proxies What you can do The student version contains multiple blanks that need to be filled in throughout the lesson.

They vary from minutiae such as how and why snail slime works so well, to broader topics such as global warming, over-fishing, famous divers he has known, and the effect of the moon (did you know that a cruise liner is approximately 7 pounds lighter when the moon is overhead?).

Why don't you give as much attention to the over 19000 American Scientists who have signed a petition which very much doubts the effect of human activity on global warming.

He and his colleagues have even done analyses that show that after correcting for ENSO effects, there is no sign of a slowdown in global warming at all.

I don't mind taking the prudent steps to wean ourselves from petroleum because that has beneficial effects beyond global warming but before we enact big subsidies for non competitive electricity generation, a couple of years pause couldn't hurt.

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.

The reason I say that is that Revkin apparently didn't find reason enough to report on the Bush administration's firing of my brother, after I had sent him the documentation that accompanied NOAA's removal of my brother from the National Weather Service for his 2003 press release documenting the effects of early snowmelt and spring flooding on Midwest flood prone areas, unquestionably due to anthropogenic global warming.

But I do it anyway, so that my children are not paying even more, 50 years from now, because of the effects of global warming.

However, that doesn't stop the fact that there are other ways to combat the effects of global warming and I think all ways should be used immediately.

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.

I thought computer models didn't work when it came to predicting the effect of mankind on global warming!

However, it does mean that even if Lindzen's Iris does exist, we in the mid latitudes are not safe from the effects of global warming.

Global warming, on the other hand, is far less of an immediate threat, many of its effects can not be reversed no matter what we do, the cost of attempting such a reversal could destroy the economies of emerging nations and make their development impossible — and it is a slow moving threat, that governments can plan to deal with over time.

As a disclaimer, I will confess that these changes are not due to the magnanimity of the consumers who want to alleviate the potentially devastating effects of Global Warming, but instead are primarily due to the fact that people don't want to spend so much money on gas (and they use the Global Warming argument as a backup to assuage their conscience)

In this regard, I would observe that at least one important AGW effect, rising sea level, does not depend on a specific regional outcome so much as on global mean T. (At least, I think this is so (because my understanding is that most of the rise comes from lower density of warmer water, not from melting ice sheets — though again, not 100 % sure on this point)-RRB-.

Another reason for concern: the President's comment on global warming in his 2009 State of the Union message, which began with something to the effect: I know some of you don't believe in global warming...

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.

I don't know if there are any German - speaking people here, but if you are, it would be great to see more of you working on articles like Globale Erwärmung (global warming) or my newest ambitions on Folgen der globalen Erwärmung (effects of global warming), and whatever climate - related article you can find.

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.

Considering that the mechanism of the «natural AMO» is so poorly understood, there's no justification for immediately blaming increases in hurricane activity on it while entirely ignoring global warming effects on sea surface temperatures (and atmospheric moisture), for which very clear mechanisms do exist.

I do think they «aren't needed» to support the assertion that various global warming - related factors have observably played a role in causing, contributing to, and / or greatly exacerbating the destructive effects of recent «extreme weather events».

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...»

And if the rest of the nation missed the Limbaugh radio ad — assuming it did actually get broadcast time — there's no way on Earth that the campaign would have had any effect on people's opinion about global warming.

Not only did acceptance of global warming increase, the most dramatic finding was the neutralization of the effect of worldview, which otherwise had a significant impact.

4) Thus the 1998 super El Nino induced global warming was a secondary effect of short - wave ocean heating, not necessarily recent, and had very little to do with GHG.

The most statistics can tell us at present is that there does appear to be a genuine warming trend in figure A. Whether this trend is the effect of greenhouse gas emissions or of a natural fluctuation due to some as - yet - undiscovered mechanism can not be determined from an analysis of the global mean temperature alone.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this effect will do anything but get stronger from here on as the vast «crops» of oceanic bacteria adapt to both warmer ocean waters and increased CO2 and nutrient levels and simply increasingly cool the global atmospheric climate simply by «growing faster»!

If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

Although a libertarian might well agree that CO2 absorbs / scatters IR radiation, and that this will produce a warming effect, and agree that this effect could cause problems, and could even agree that it requires the intervention of some agency, he doesn't have to agree with Read that this represents either a global catastrophe in the making, or a palpable «limit to growth».

You don't have to doubt the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory to know that there are key variables that have important, measurable effects on world temperatures at these kind of timescales — ocean cycles come to mind immediately — which he has left out.

In the scorching summer of 1988, when global warming first hit headlines in a significant way, presidential candidate George H.W. Bush used a Michigan speech to pledge meaningful action curbing heat - trapping greenhouse gases, saying, «Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the White House effect.»

Americans do appear to have become more likely to believe global warming's effects are already taking place and that it could represent a threat to their way of life during their lifetimes.

Though scientists warn that global warming will likely continue for centuries because of the long natural processes involved, there are a few things we can do to decrease the effects.

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.

Gallup found that whereas 47 % of Americans who say they understand the issue of global warming «Very well» think that it's «caused by the effects of pollution from human activities,» 62 % of those who feel they understand it only «Fairly well» do; and 59 % of those who feel they understand it «Not well» do.

So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

A 90 % level of confidence doesn't mean that 10 % of the evidence suggests that an effect is not occurring — in fact there is no reliable evidence showing that manmade global warming is not taking place.

Truncating down to 1950 has yet another benefit: it shows that if we ignore the temperature data beyond 1970 (since we're using 1950 - 1970 temperature data to avoid end effects) and find the best fit using only HadCRUT3 up to 1970, we predict the next four decades of temperature remarkably well, even predicting the relatively flat temperature for 2000 - 2010, which the model shows is entirely attributable to SOL and has nothing to do with a cessation of long - term global warming.

My personal belief, from years of doing my own research about anthropogenic global warming, is that there is an effect but it is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural variation.

That is decidedly not how this paper is used in public discourse though, I think in many instances this paper is used to say that not only do humans cause global warming, but they are also the major cause and the degree of effect on nature / climate is in some way dangerous and needs to be mitigated.