HFCs have been commercialized to replace the chemicals that were destroying the ozone layer, but while HFCs do not destroy ozone, they have
extremely high global warming potentials and are contributing to global climate change.
Not exact matches
We're already seeing
extremely high energy costs, food shortages around the globe (which can be tied, at least in part, to biofuel production) and droughts, floods, etc., from
global warming.
I doubt this would be significantly
higher even at 6C
global warming as the EAIS is under
extremely cold air so that the
warming would have little effect.
As such, AMEG has declared: «An
extremely high international security risk of acute climate disruption followed by runaway
global warming.»
«The authors write that «the Mediterranean region is one of the world's most vulnerable areas with respect to
global warming,»... they thus consider it to be
extremely important to determine what impact further temperature increases might have on the storminess of the region... produced a
high - resolution record of paleostorm events along the French Mediterranean coast over the past 7000 years... from the sediment bed of Pierre Blanche Lagoon [near Montpellier, France]... nine French scientists, as they describe it, «recorded seven periods of increased storm activity at 6300 - 6100, 5650 - 5400, 4400 - 4050, 3650 - 3200, 2800 - 2600, 1950 - 1400, and 400 - 50 cal yr BP,» the latter of which intervals they associate with the Little Ice Age.
«We were looking at whether or not
global warming has made the occurrence of
extremely high pressure in the region on an annual basis more likely,» he said.
Climate science deniers are very fond of showing
extremely deceptive temperature graphs: They plot the data starting in 1998, when temperatures were
higher than average, so it looks like the world hasn't gotten much
warmer since then, and talk about the
global warming «pause.»
HFCs are
extremely harmful to the climate, with
global warming potentials hundreds and thousands of times
higher than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Although the
extremely persistent
high pressure is at least a century - scale occurrence (8), anthropogenic
global warming has very likely increased the probability of such conditions (8, 9).
HFCs are chemicals primarily used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and foam blowing, which were introduced to replace the ozone depleting chemicals phased - out by the Montreal Protocol, despite the fact that HFCs are
extremely harmful to the climate with
global warming potentials hundreds and thousands of times
higher than carbon dioxide (CO2).
Now if American's really want to do something about agw / cc and specifically the
extremely high cumulative and ongoing contribution to
global warming by the USA then maybe they should do something about Citizen's United?
Recent work in modelling the
warm climates of the Early Eocene shows that it is possible to obtain a reasonable
global match between model surface temperature and proxy reconstructions, but only by using
extremely high atmospheric CO2 concentrations or more modest CO2 levels complemented by a reduction in
global cloud albedo.
«
Warming during the past half century can not be explained without external radiative forcing
Global Extremely likely (> 95 %)[1] Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very
high significance levels (less than 1 % error probability).
Even though Category 5 storms, which sustain catastrophic gusts that blow at 157 mph or
higher, are
extremely rare, scientists predict an increase in strong hurricanes with
global warming.