Sentences with phrase «gave warmer responses»

While feelings toward evangelicals have remained stable (even among Democrats), Americans gave warmer responses to every other faith group this year than they did in 2014, according to Pew Research Center findings released today.

Not exact matches

I blog because I love it and because I believe the way to the heart is through the stomach, so seeing such a positive response to a post I already love gives me the warm fuzzies.

Over functioning for your child can be difficult to give up because it can be an automatic response, and also might give you that warm feeling of being «helpful» to your child.

Asaolu, in his response, appreciated the officials of the camp for the warm reception and the opportunity given to Unilever to extend a hand at a time like this.

They boil down to climate (warm and friendly behavior), input (the tendency for teachers to devote more energy to their special students), output (the way teachers call on those students more often for answers) and feedback (giving generally more helpful responses to the students for whom teachers have the highest hopes).

On time - scales of a few decades, the current observed rate of warming can be used to constrain the projected response to a given emissions scenario despite uncertainty in climate sensitivity.

Warmer colors indicate relatively similar responses for a given brain region; cooler colors indicate relatively dissimilar responses for that brain region.

The Holy Grail for developers of the semantic Web is to build a system that can give a reasonable and complete response to a simple question like: «I'm looking for a warm place to vacation and I have a budget of $ 3,000.

One of the things that people (particularly from an engineering background) have trouble with is the idea that the feedback from a small amount of warming can give rise to a much larger amount of warming, and this seems, from an «enginering perspective» on the meaning of «feedback», to result in an uncontrolled «runaway» response.

[Response: Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to 1990 levels) should give us a good chance to stop global warming short of 2 ºC above preindustrial temperatures.

[Response: Sea ice is still not at levels seen during the Early Holocene, and since we are discussing sea floor sediments the main reason given to be concerned is that the change of summer sea ice will warm the bottom sea water, we are clearly not there yet.

The question from the audience was along the lines of «the senator has asked for empirical proof that humans are largely responsible for recent warming, will someone give it to him» and Dr Cox's response was to wave around a smoothed GISTEMP LOTI graph?

I sent her note to a few experts on Antarctic ice and this morning got a nuanced response (this is not a surprise given the complexity of Antarctic climate, where some places are cooling even as the peninsula has sharply warmed) from David G. Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

I'm sorry, because I know you give a damn, but just like the CO2 levels track with warming trends, our press coverage since 1990 is on track with our response.

The disequilibrium referred to comes from the fact that the ocean has a lot of thermal inertia and takes a long time to warm up, whereas the atmosphere has a short response time and quickly comes into equilibrium with any given ocean temperature, corresponding to the current amount of greenhouse gases.

Paul Voosen, one of the most talented journalists probing human - driven climate change and related energy issues, has written an award - worthy two - part report for Greenwire on one of the most enduring sources of uncertainty in climate science — how the complicated response of clouds in a warming world limits understanding of how hot it could get from a given rise in greenhouse gas concentrations:

(57j) For surface + tropospheric warming in general, there is (given a cold enough start) positive surface albedo feedback, that is concentrated at higher latitudes and in some seasons (though the temperature response to reduced summer sea ice cover tends to be realized more in winter when there is more heat that must be released before ice forms).

As a result, I hardly expect such visuals to shift many views, particularly given that responses to the science pointing to substantial, enduring greenhouse warming are shaped far more by divergent values, and feelings of risk, than the data.

But, given how pathetic our response has been to scientific consensus on global warming, I'm not holding out hope.

[Response: Scientists have looked at this repeatedly — and the other drivers don't appear to be playing much of a role — whereas the GHGs give a lot of what we see (warm troposphere, cool stratosphere etc.)-- gavin]

All reputable scientists in this area know and acknowledge that there remain uncertainties with respect to climate sensitivity (how warm, how fast in response to a given level of GHGs)-- indeed that's where most of the research is going — along with a better understanding of the speed of impacts (e.g. ice loss).

By the carbon - climate response function I gave above (Matthews et al), the best estimate for the decrease in peak warming is 0.2 C, with the 5 - 95 percentile limits 0.1 - 0.3 C.

I have explained the trick creating the illusion of the «Greenhouse Effect of 33 °C warming by greenhouse gases» which anyone with even half a brain could follow, as well as giving some other examples of the fake fisics created to hide this sleight of hand, and all the response I get is silence or verbal diarrhoea as distraction.

The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change.

Also, since the overall process is essentially CO2 - driven warming plus feedback responses, something close to 0C is probably also ruled out on the basis that feedbacks can't entirely cancel out the CO2 - drive warming, given that they would then turn off.

The authors also published their own response with Carbon Brief, pointing out that they «present no evidence in our paper to suggest that future CO2 - induced warming under any emissions scenario will be lower than the projections given in AR5 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report]».

Given the dimensions of the atmosphere and the speed of light and allowing for multiple bounces this delay is probably a few milliseconds and it might change the response time of the gases in the atmosphere causing them to warm up slightly faster after sunrise.

But we also do not give scenarios for a 10, or even 5 degrees warming in 2050, because also this is not supported by our understanding of the climate system response, and thus also not by the climate model integrations.

In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that «even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.

Namely, it is hard to fingerprint when different numerical simulations give different responses... Just seeing for example that the troposphere warms up more than the stratosphere, doesn't mean much.

Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming.

When i explained to them that CO2 will only cause 1.2 C rise and it is WV that will give us the «global warming» the initial response was «so we have been lied to».

Radiative Heat Transfer is a fast response mechanism and there is no basis for the idea that it would take decades for warming to take place for any given change to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Our message was that voters have not been given the facts on climate change, and that candidates need to be questioned on their intentions to spend billions on global warming theories... «The response was intense.

The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that «even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses.

We will be able to give probabilistic estimates of the climate's transient sensitivity to greenhouse gas increases and will have an improved understanding of the response of sea ice, precipitation, and temperature extremes to warming.

So first you get warming by CO2 then the H2O response, which gives you the total effect.

Given the response of carbon sinks to data, we have to wonder to what extent 1.5 - 6C of warming will result in significantly more non-anthropogenic emissions which could increase warming.

Response: The physical mechanisms for the CRE theory of the ozone hole and the CFC warming theory have been given in detail not only in my new IJMPB paper but in my 2010 Physics Reports and J of Cosmology papers [see the main content of my paper in the above].

Something is going on in this survey behind the top line figures, I suspect that respondents are trotting out the «right» answers to the ** motherhood ** questions like «Global warming has been happening» but giving some more thought to those questions that require a more measured PERSONAL response.

[Response: Our approach in that paper assumes a probability distribution that shifts towards warmer temperatures, but is otherwise unchanged — just like the simple example given in the second graph above.

Given that surface temperatures have levelled off / slightly dipped for the last decade, what would be your response to a discovery that that the oceans have also not warmed over that period — i.e. that actually there is no warming waiting in the «pipeline»?

That is a ratio of 4 ppm / K for the 50 year means, most of that was a warming period so this gives an estimation of the long term response.

While the JBL Link 300 won't give you audiophile sound, most people will enjoy its powerful bass response and warm sound.