Sentences with phrase «global warming increases so»

Not exact matches

Here's a better idea for this so - called «governor» to consider: Take a look at the research done by your alma mater, Texas A&M, on global warming and the effect it will have on Texas (higher temps and greater stress on water through decreased rainfall and increased evaporation)... then stop poopooing the efforts to mitigate the effect humans are having on climate change.

& global warming that increasing frequency, that is «Karma» again, since 1950, so much gree house gas released & destroying of forests, etc. 2.)

At a global scale, the increased melting of the ice sheet contributes to rising sea level and may impact global ocean circulation patterns through the so - called «thermohaline circulation'that sustains among others, the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe warm.

This result is particularly striking because global warming has increased mean temperatures by less than 1 degree Celsius so far.

Results of a new study by researchers at the Northeast Climate Science Center (NECSC) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst suggest that temperatures across the northeastern United States will increase much faster than the global average, so that the 2 - degrees Celsius warming target adopted in the recent Paris Agreement on climate change will be reached about 20 years earlier for this part of the U.S. compared to the world as a whole.

«Human influence is so dominant now,» Baker asserts, «that whatever is going to go on in the tropics has much less to do with sea surface temperatures and the earth's orbital parameters and much more to do with deforestation, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming.»

The reason is that global warming is likely to increase droughts and change rainfall patterns, so water availability becomes even more critical than before.

The FRO2 gene is common to all plants, so boosting its expression in food crops or finding variants that thrive in poor soils could be important for increasing crop yields in the face of population growth and global warming's threats to arable land.

But if so, where is the «missing heat» (Trenberth) or «global warming still in the pipeline» (Hansen)-- heat storage in the ocean, whose first effect would be an increasing SLR from thermal expansion?

If this rapid warming continues, it could mean the end of the so - called slowdown — the period over the past decade or so when global surface temperatures increased less rapidly than before.

The global warming that we have experienced so far has increased the atmosphere's moisture storage capacity by about seven per cent.

So what does this all mean and why was the sea ice increasing despite global warming?

By producing more food on less land, it may be possible to reduce these emissions, but this so - called intensification often involves increasing fertilizer use, which can lead to large emissions of nitrogen - containing gases that also contribute to global warming.

«We know natural patterns contribute to global temperature in any given year, but the very warm temperatures so far this year indicate the continued impact of increasing greenhouse gases,» Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office's Hadley Center, said.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

The first program proposed that as human kind has mopped up its pollution so global warming may increase as pollution seemed to be preventing a certain amount of sunlight from reaching the ground.

Yes, global warming increases absolute humidity so more extreme weather incidents are expected — as in more downpours and fewer drizzles.

The first Hansen Op - Ed quote Tom Scharf objects to begins «To the contrary...» so presumably Tom Scharf is more at ease with what is being disavowed by Hansen when he said ``... it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather... (nor) to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change.»

So the mechanism of global warming is an indirect effect of increasing CO2, not the direct effect of warming the atmosphere as is generally believed.

Some claim that extraction is now adding «net terrestrial contribution to increase to +0.87 (0.14) mm yr» If so, then global warming is not contributing as much to sea level as others assert.

Last I saw from NOAA was global warming decreasing numbers but increasing intensities: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080519134306.htm However the methods and equipment for measuring occurences and intensity have improved so much that we're not exactly comparing apples to apples when we calibrate today's numbers with 70 years ago to quantify a correlation, it's effect, and provide a projection.

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

Hadley Centre climate forecasts are for more high - intensity storms in Britain as global warming intensifies — Scotland has just had the strongest storm in living memory this January, which subsequently hit Scandinavia after increasing its wind - speeds over the North Sea (so it's not just us, it seems).

So fine, one could argue that over population of humans increases the effect of global warming.

A recent video of him being interviewed by Brit Hume of Fox News had Michaels asserting that while global warming was real we could expect the average rate of temperature increase over the last century to remain flat over the next century, and so no big deal.

(b) agrarian economies are to blame for global warming, because they have deforested the land more than industrialized countries (an unproven assertion, but we'll let it pass) and so the earth is not able to absorb the increased atmospheric carbon that industrialized countries are pumping out.

This is presumably because global warming is increasing maximum temperatures so that there is farther for temperatures to fall.

So for example deglaciation warmed global mean temps by about 5 C over 10k years with a radiative forcing of about 6.5 W / m2 (total of both GHG increases and albedo decreases).

So in terms of near term impacts of global warming, the risk of increased hurricane activity is pretty high on the list of things that the public is worried about.

So far, global warming / climate change has been relatively benign for many people (while anything but benign for others), but keep in mind that it is not yet as warm as it will be based on only the increase in CO2 so far, never mind that the increase continues unabateSo far, global warming / climate change has been relatively benign for many people (while anything but benign for others), but keep in mind that it is not yet as warm as it will be based on only the increase in CO2 so far, never mind that the increase continues unabateso far, never mind that the increase continues unabated.

There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing.

-- «But global warming very definitely DOES affect the temperature of the tropical free troposphere, so it is not possible to conclude, as alas many have, that increasing SST per se means increasing tropical cyclone intensity (though it usually does signify more TC - related rain).»

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

So with an increase of nutrients (lack of treatment) and an increase of temperature (global warming), we humans have created perfect conditions for micro organism to propagate.

Since the SST changes are global, and almost certainly tied to greenhouse gas driven global warming, there are the beginnings of a corroborated link between increases in hurricane intensity and GW — however, so far there are only a couple of ducks in a row.

My reading of this statement is that you are saying that the likelihood that global warming is increasing the destructive potential of hurricanes (and is likely to do so increasingly in the future) is irrelevant to the policy debate about hurricane damage.

So, has global warming not acted to increase their number?

It is nevertheless legitimate to ask whether these have been a consequence of natural variations of if a global warming can have increased the risk for more intense storms — and many have done so (e.g. in Eos 2004).

'' a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing.

(c) The level of water vapour depends on the global temperature, so it is roughly fixed until something else warms the atmosphere when it increases in amount producing more warming.

There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C (relative to 1980 to 1999).

So it extremely behooves us to reduce our GHG emissions very drastically very quickly... just in case the solar output starts increasing, adding heat on top of our anthropogenic global warming.

Global warming caused by the sun exists (a rise of 4w / m2 out of 1364 since 1700 increases solar insolation by ~ 0.3 % which is the observed 0.84 K rise of the 288K current absolute temperature), but its very difficult to change that, so I'll adapt to it.

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.

Other policies could increase efficiency in transportation, protect valuable forests, and so forth, with net benefits entirely aside from acting against global warming.

A similar occurrence of decreasing global temperatures with rapidly increasing CO2 emissions took place during the 33 years from 1942 to 1975 (the 70's global cooling scare) so the stated correlation of increased CO2 emissions with global warming never actually existed.

Failing to stop a so - called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the 9th Commandment in order to be sure [skeptic] scientists» criticisms aren't taken seriously?

The error is small enough to have confidence that the ocean heat content has been increasing in the past 15 years, during the so called «hiatus» in global warming.

Note that the AMO index is defined solely on temperatures, so anthropogenic global warming can increase the AMO index.

Surface temperatures haven't increased as much as they did a decade or so ago, but we now understand that the extra heat from global warming is getting stored in the oceans.