Sentences with phrase «effects of global warming because»

India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it «can not rely» on the IPCC.

The Davis Strait polar bear subpopulation is said to be «vulnerable» to the supposed effects of global warming because, like Hudson Bay, Davis Strait sea ice retreats every summer, leaving polar bears on land for several months.

Not exact matches

Overall, the group is pressing for final passage of climate legislation during this Congress because delays will make it more difficult to avoid the most severe effects of global warming.

Although the disappearance of the ice around Antarctica will have only a marginal effect on sea levels, it is important because it was predicted to be one of the first signs of global warming.

That suggests 44 percent of the forest area that burned during the three decades analyzed burned because of the effects of global warming.

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.

The problem of global warming was difficult to comprehend, because its effects weren't in - your - face obvious.

Again, science had become politicized in the minds of some people, in this case because the most recognizable voice shouting out about global warming and its effects is Al Gore.

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

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

Unlike others, I'm not saying that because of all this, «global warming stopped in 1998 therefore CO2 has little effect».

To begin with, the former seems unlikely because the global warming effects of CO2 are unlikely to become manifest right away (the correlation between differenced variables, which Ladbury uses, only pertains to same - year relationships).

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.

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.

Because of my belief in global warming and its effects, you could not sell me a piece of property within 3 meters of sea level.

Aaron # 224: «I know that many of you believe we must act drastically now to curb the effects of global warming, and because of that you can not accept a «wait and see» approach.»

I know that many of you believe we must act drastically now to curb the effects of global warming, and because of that you can not accept a «wait and see» approach.

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.

human impact — of course not????? Why not, human impact is an independent variable, There is literally no logic to say because A (global warming) can be caused by B, C, D or E, that an independent variable, G, human activity, can not then cause the same effect.

IF cool deep sea water were mixed relentlessly with surface water by some engineering method --(e.g. lots of wave operated pumps and 800m pipes) could that enouromous cool reservoir of water a) mitigate the thermal expansion of the oceans because of the differential in thermal expansion of cold and warm water, and b) cool the atmosphere enough to reduce the other wise expected effects of global warming?

So in the case of global warming just like many other cases, I would indeed say that if the economic and quasi-economic rules of journalism dictate that a complex story shouldn't be covered, indeed, «global warming» shouldn't be covered because it is one of the very complex systems on Earth influenced by very many complex effects and their relationships.

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-.

Subject of some specific concern about global warming because of large temperature rises predicted for the arctic, and because of some arctic - specific feedback effects (e.g. the albedo feedback following loss of arctic sea ice).

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.

«Since increased concentrations of CO2 can lead to global warming, some people have proposed increasing the emission of SO2 to stabilize the temperature because of the cooling effect of this gas.

The second contrarian argument we investigated involved the claim that the global climate is not very sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect because the planet has some sort of natural climate response that will offset global warming.

Again, no significant trend of the global averaged Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] is found from 2003 to 2014 (Fig. 2) because the enhanced warming effect over the western tropical Pacific is largely counteracted by the weakened warming influence on the central tropical Pacific.

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming will transform the Earth's climate for centuries, with fearful consequences for human health and wellbeing (not to mention the survival of many species and ecosystems), the world can not agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about the effects on economic growth.

However, because global warming is always of one sign, a much bigger impact is from the cumulative effects of these radiative perturbations on the climate.

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.

Environmentalists have been amongst the most outspoken campaigners against cooking on smoky fires, partly because of the health effects, partly because they use huge amounts of wood and partly because the black carbon they produce is a cause of global warming.

Each month brings us more frightening news on the effects of global warming, but because the changes are gradual, there's never a clear signal that it's time to step up to stronger action.

I want to tackle that because the greenhouse effect is currently being touted as the cause of anthropogenic global warming or AGW.

«Part of the reason Tom's One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps... Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014.»

Such events are consistent with the effects of global warming, which is expected to cause more heavy precipitation because of a greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.»

The loss of large areas of ice on the surface could accelerate global warming because less of the sun's energy would be reflected away from Earth to begin with (refer back to our discussion of the greenhouse effect).

However, because it is well understood that the influence of the exact sea surface temperatures in Europe is small compared to the overall effect of global warming, these numbers provide a good first step towards answering the climate question.»

He's the snake oil salesman who said that the CRU emails «had no effect on science» because he is fully at ease with corruption of data in his screaming global warming doom mongering, kept in his position by his anti coal nuclear interests.

-LSB-...] Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino.

«Actually, with the exception of 1998 — a «blip» year when temperatures spiked because of a strong «El Nino» effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world)-- the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

Your accusation that JQ is dogmatic is especially bizarre because he's written a ton of stuff, both at a professional and popular level, on the risk management approach needed in the face of the large uncertainties on the extent and effects of future global warming.

Muller spent two years investigating claims by global - warming deniers that temperature rises verified by multiple studies were skewed because of flawed analysis, unreliable weather stations and the effect of urban heat islands.

There seems to be a popular perception that the greenhouse effect and man - made global warming theories can not be tested because «we only have one Earth», and so, unless we use computer models, we can not test what the Earth would be like if it had a different history of infrared - active gas concentrations.

We have chosen the Finish Capital Helsinki to explain the made allegation, because this location represents North - East Europe up to Moscow in climatologic terms, the city has a long temperature data series since 1829, and Timo Niroma analysed them with regard to global warming and the effect of solar variability [2].

(Of course, we know this must be the result of Man - made Global Warming, because whenever I want a refreshingly cold glass of lemonade, I always throw it in the microwave first to get that just right icy frosty effecOf course, we know this must be the result of Man - made Global Warming, because whenever I want a refreshingly cold glass of lemonade, I always throw it in the microwave first to get that just right icy frosty effecof Man - made Global Warming, because whenever I want a refreshingly cold glass of lemonade, I always throw it in the microwave first to get that just right icy frosty effecof lemonade, I always throw it in the microwave first to get that just right icy frosty effect.

Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) is a more realistic way to evaluate the actual global warming effects of CO2 that can be validated with actual data, but TCS is rarely reported in peer - reviewed paper or media articles, because the sensitivity is about half the ECS value and is not so alarming.

It's not just because of overfishing, the pernicious effects of global warming extend to phytoplankton or fish food.