Sentences with phrase «even small negative effects»

But they point in a positive direction, and are precise enough that we can rule out the possibility that teacher departures due to the ERI had even small negative effects.

Not exact matches

This means that even small sleep changes, over time, will have significant negative effects.

It has established that even small doses of chemicals can have significant negative effects if they are present together.

Even if you revert completely back to your old habits with these two vices, make sure you have a small bite of food first to limit the negative effects on your blood sugar and hormone levels.

In addition, while the Florida study shows that although the «negative effects of entering a middle school are somewhat smaller outside of urban districts,... they remain substantial even in rural areas.»

In New York City, however, several studies have concluded that the small schools did improve education — but even here, some unintended negative effects cropped up.

One Michigan school district has even found these small, incremental raises have a «negative» effect on teachers.

The researchers of this evaluation find that this large effect is driven by even larger significant, negative effects for students who started in earlier grades — first through third grades — and somewhat smaller nonsignificant, negative effects for students who started in later grades: fourth through sixth.19

And even when the small screen did not have any negative effect on reading comprehension, the participants in this study still preferred a larger screen.

Payments of small bills made even after a few days from the deadline do have a negative effect on your score.

Even if they look small, their consistently negative effect accumulates over time.

You can even go one better — if you ignore the fact that there are negative forcings in the system as well (cheifly aerosols and land use changes), the forcing from all the warming effects is larger still (~ 2.6 W / m2), and so the implied sensitivity even smaller!

The effect is so small and poorly investigated even guessing whether the outcome is a net negative or positive is a value judgement.

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).

My problem (and I think the problem with most scientist skeptics) is with the type and level of feedback, which is claimed to be big, but actually which seems to be small or even negative, and which is invoked to make a small effect into a big problem.

Also, the amount of energy converted from solar to chemical energy will be a small effect compared to the reduction in greenhouse warming resulting from taking CO2 out of the atmosphere (much like burning coal doesn't release much energy compared to the increase in greenhouse effect warming), so you don't even have the right negative feedback.

Small increases in CO2 could cause small increases in temperature by slightly raising the average altitude of outgoing radiation, but it appears negative feedback from cloud variation reduces even this small efSmall increases in CO2 could cause small increases in temperature by slightly raising the average altitude of outgoing radiation, but it appears negative feedback from cloud variation reduces even this small efsmall increases in temperature by slightly raising the average altitude of outgoing radiation, but it appears negative feedback from cloud variation reduces even this small efsmall effect.

The data appears to support some net negative feedback, so CO2 effects alone, which are small by themself, are made even smaller.

The Negative profile was not a significant predictor of global marital satisfaction among women (B = − 0.05, ns), even though it had a small but statistically significant effect among men.