Sentences with phrase «greenhouse warming though»
Note that ozone depletion has only a minor role in greenhouse warming though the two processes often are confused in the media.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ Not exact matches
During his campaign, Trump also called global warming a hoax and promised to quit a global accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions, though he has since softened his stance and said he is keeping an «open mind» about the deal.
The reality is though, that we can't ignore the ever - increasing depletion of our world's forests and its negative impact through greenhouse gases causing global warming.
Schlesinger and Ramankutty reach broadly similar conclusions, but they also point out that even though greenhouse gases now dominate global warming, if part of the warming during this century is indeed due to solar changes, the additional greenhouse effect may be weaker than was previously thought (Nature, vol 360, p 330).
He reveals how humans will colonize the galaxy with the help of self - replicating nanobots, fling an asteroid into Mars to unleash a planet - warming greenhouse effect, and fight off alien invaders by hacking their technology — though it won't be like Independence Day.
In press briefings and interviews I contributed to, I mostly focused on two issues — that 2014 was indeed the warmest year in those records (though by a small amount), and the continuing long - term trends in temperature which, since they are predominantly driven by increases in greenhouse gases, are going to continue and hence produce (on a fairly regular basis) continuing record years.
While not a scientist, I clearly understand that fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases, though the degree of warming are obviously open for heated debate and frankly, a lot of not so friendly jabs on this and other sites.
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).
Even though it was widely recognized by the end of the 1980s that the existing stock of atmospheric greenhouse gases was likely to lead to some inevitable warming, the policy community suppressed discussion of adaptation out of fear that it would blunt the arguments for greenhouse - gas mitigation.
About 1980ish, some old ideas like the greenhouse effect were brought out of mothballs and re-examined with new tools and techniques; simultaneously several researchers and theoreticians released their notes, published, or otherwise got together and there was a surprising consilience and not a small amount of mixing with old school hippy ecologism on some of the topics that became the roots of Climate Change science (before it was called Global Warming); innovations in mathematics were also applied to climate thought; supercomputers (though «disappointing» on weather forecasting) allowed demonstration of plausibility of runaway climate effects, comparison of scales of effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather models.
This is the kind of climate science question that you have called a «side issue», though the answer is integral to answering one of your favorite questions: Granting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, how much warming can result from and increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Current warming is only really related to changes in greenhouse gases though.
Though governments around the world have agreed to curb emissions, and at numerous international meetings have reaffirmed their commitment to holding warming to below 2C by the end of the century, greenhouse gas concentrations are still rising at record rates.
«Exxon's «Lights Across America» website advertisement states that natural gas is «helping dramatically reduce America's emissions» even though natural gas is a fossil fuel causing widespread planetary warming and harm to coastal cities like San Francisco and the use of natural gas competes with wind and solar, which have no greenhouse gas emissions.»
Sorry paper gets a bit fat ZERO due this statement (below) obviously forced on anyone trying to get something worthwhile published in that garbage Journal NATURE «though similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.»
Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.
The hypothesis implicit though rarely explicitly stated in the IPCC's work is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human - related greenhouse gas emissions.
People obviously see though Jerry Brown's feeble attempt to quash this by naming the initiative «Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.»
RGATES Yes thanks, That much was already clear from your earlier comments though, and doesn't relate to my question — which has I fear has itself become unclear due to my attempts to rephrase it... Anyway, so we understand that there can be factors other than greenhouses gasses warming the earth, but that's not what I'm asking about.
The implication is that even though other teams have repeatedly warned that the world's reefs are in peril as the world warms because of ever - greater ratios of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as a consequence of human combustion of fossil fuels at a profligate rate, the world's great reefs may survive for perhaps another century, rather than perish within the next 50 years.
Though he doesn't seem to deny that greenhouse gasses are warmed by IR, wherever it comes from.
This is a predictable, and predicted, result of greenhouse warming, though it could be due to natural variation.
Now, it doesn't go in the direction it sounds like you prefer, the long series of discussions on the science end up endorsing much of the core of the modern scientific consensus around the physics of greenhouse and global warming (though pointing out places where public media frequently argues well beyond the science).
It does magnify the night - time greenhouse effect by warming the clouds or the higher levels of the atmosphere, thus increasing the amount of heat radiated back to the surface; though the overall effect is to reduce net planetary greenhouse warming by limiting the temperature gradient.
Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.»
Question: I am yet to find a satisfactory resolution on the argument that goes something along the lines of «the poles are not warming more than the tropics even though «the greenhouse - gas theory» predicts so, and thus «greenhouse effect» can not account for the currently observed warming.»
One would have thought though, that in the 30 years since our Congress first began to confront the reality of a warming planet, when in 1986 Senator John Chafee (R - R.I.) and newly elected Senator Al Gore (D - TN) held hearings on the subject of «Ozone Depletion, the Greenhouse Effect, and Climate Change,» at least one branch of our government would have come to reckon with the existential threat of climate change.
Scientists caution that even though the world is warming over time, with the amount of heat - trapping greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere now unsettlingly ensconced at the highest level in human history, every year is not expected to set a new record.
Even though much of the greenhouse gas forcing has been expended in causing observed 0.8 °C global warming, the residual positive forcing overwhelms the negative solar forcing.
To understand global warming, it's first necessary to become familiar with the greenhouse effect, though.
Given this information it is possible, though unlikely, that they found greenhouse gases cause global warming at sufficient rate only to cause 45 % of recent warming, but it is far more likely that they found warming at a sufficient rate to cause >> 50 % of warming.
In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause a greenhouse effect, though Titan's atmosphere has an anti-greenhouse effect that reduces the warming.
This has never made much sense in the context of greenhouse warming theory (though its proponents have tied themselves into pretzels trying to explain it) since global warming theory (as embodied in the last IPCC report) holds that the largest temperature gains should be in the lower troposphere over the tropics, and offers no reason why the warming in the Artic should be orders of magnitude larger than in the Antarctic.
Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.
Though CO2 gets all the press and is the number one greenhouse gas, causing 40 % of warming, black carbon comes in at number two.
I look at the work in atmospheric physics and chemistry journals and even some work at NASA that show global warming is more a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect, though very real, is perhaps being taken a step too far with some of the AGW claims made.
Though the greenhouse effect itself is completely natural, and very beneficial, global warming scientists believe that anthropogenic (man - made) emissions of carbon dioxide (mostly from burning fossil fuels) have increased CO2 in the atmosphere to a point where we are now experiencing what could be called an «enhanced greenhouse effect».
The fact that carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» - a gas that prevents a certain amount of heat radiation escaping back to space and thus maintains a generally warm climate on Earth, goes back to an idea that was first conceived, though not specifically with respect to CO2, nearly 200 years ago.
Knowledge of Global Warming Causes & Effects Weak At Best Though 87 % of Americans have heard of the greenhouse effect, only 57 % of people know that it refers to gases in the atmosphere trapping heat, with 13 % never having heard the term; 50 % of people know that global warming is mostly caused by human activity; 45 % of people understanding that CO2 traps heat; just 25 % of people have even heard the terms coral bleaching or ocean acidifiWarming Causes & Effects Weak At Best Though 87 % of Americans have heard of the greenhouse effect, only 57 % of people know that it refers to gases in the atmosphere trapping heat, with 13 % never having heard the term; 50 % of people know that global warming is mostly caused by human activity; 45 % of people understanding that CO2 traps heat; just 25 % of people have even heard the terms coral bleaching or ocean acidifiwarming is mostly caused by human activity; 45 % of people understanding that CO2 traps heat; just 25 % of people have even heard the terms coral bleaching or ocean acidification.
Conclusions Even though estimates of climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 are most likely way over-estimated by the official climate Team, it is a scientific truth that GHGs, mainly H2O but also CO2 and others, play an important role in warming the Earth via the Atmospheric «greenhouse effect».
In addition to Adrian Burd's recommendation, Al should read the comprehensive review by Wild: «Global dimming and brightening: A review» http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf «Recent brightening can not supersede the greenhouse effect as the main cause of global warming, since land surface temperatures overall increased by 0.8 °C from 1960 to 2000, even though solar brightening did not fully outweigh prior dimming within this period...» The story is nowhere near as simplistic as Al would have it.
Indeed, according to the EPA, so - called «enteric fermentation» in cows and other ruminant animals, like sheep and goats, contributed 26 percent of the country's total emissions of methane, a hard - hitting greenhouse gas with much greater short term warming consequences than carbon dioxide does (though the latter packs a far greater long - term punch).