Sentences with phrase «greenhouse warming thought»

Did a comet strike deliver carbon to heat up the Earth The impact could have triggered the greenhouse warming thought to have encouraged primitive mammals to disperse across the world and diversify into three important groups still with us today.

Not exact matches

These savory oats with Ontario greenhouse grown tomatoes are packed full of fibre, protein, and warming curry flavour, which you might think is odd first thing in the morning, but rest assured it's a delicious warm bowl to wake up with.

Pointing out that it can be difficult for people to make a link between what they eat and our warming world, he told the Global Food Innovation Summit in Milan: «I think people naturally understand that big smokestacks have pollution in them and they understand air pollution, so they can easily make the connection between energy production and the idea of greenhouse gases.

Most scientists and climatologists agree that weird weather is at least in part the result of global warming — a steady increase in the average temperature of the surface of the Earth thought to be caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses produced by human activity.

It may seem surprising to people, but you can look at something like Mars, which has a very thin atmosphere, and you can look at something like Venus which we tend to think of as sort of having this rather heavy, clouded atmosphere, which [is] hellishly warm because of runaway greenhouse effect, and on both of those planets you are seeing this phenomenon of the atmosphere leaking away, is actually what directly has led to those very different outcomes for those planets; the specifics of what happened as the atmosphere started to go in each case [made] all the difference.

It turns out Earth will warm more slowly over this century than we thought it would, buying us a little more time to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

«The prevailing thinking has been that as the oceans warm due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, the oxygen content of the oceans should decline,» Thunell says.

Analysis of the first seven years of data from a NASA cloud - monitoring mission suggests clouds are doing less to slow the warming of the planet than previously thought, and that temperatures may rise faster than expected as greenhouse gas pollution worsens — perhaps 25 percent faster.

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).

It suggests that Earth will warm more slowly over this century than we thought it would, buying us a little more time to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and prevent dangerous climate change.

There's no reason to think this trend will stop anytime soon, as greenhouse gases continue to warm the planet.

The obvious error is that they thought it was news that aerosol emissions have partially cancelled out some of the warming one would expect with greenhouse gas emissions.

I would think that max temps would also tend to be closer to the new warmer average temps in a greenhouse GW world, too.

I think the much more likely reason is because the Mann Hockey Stick, the poster child of greenhouse warming and justifying the Kyoto Protocol, has been shown to be a dud, and some people are having difficulty coping with that reality.

As your idea, that the earth would be colder, creates in effect the concept that greenhouse gases warm the planet I think this an important point to clear up.

I would think that max temps would also tend to be closer to the new warmer average temps in a greenhouse GW world, too.

Gavin: «The obvious error is that they thought it was news that aerosol emissions have partially cancelled out some of the warming one would expect with greenhouse gas emissions.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

Those arguing that the fossil fuel greenhouse is unstoppable because of hard - wired human short - term greed, scientific illiteracy and failure of technological imagination may have a point, But think about this: Building seawalls, massively air conditioning new habitats inland and dealing with a flood of environmental refugees as the planet warms with take a huge chunk of additional energy in itself.

Here are some fresh thoughts on the enduring and important questions surrounding «climate sensitivity» — how much warming will result from a substantial buildup of greenhouse gases.

The first part of your description is certainly true, I don't think the magnitude of the recent warming in the Arctic (including Greenland) is extraordinary (yet, but ask me again is a few years) when properly set against the backdrop of the last century, but I do believe that, at least to some degree, the warming of the Arctic (including Greenland) in recent years has resulted from an anthropogenic enhancement to the world's greenhouse effect.

If greenhouse gas emissions are growing, we think, the climate will warm, and if we cut emissions, we imagine that the climate will cool.

I don't think I try to poke holes at the idea that Arctic warming is «likely driven in part by the global greenhouse effect» but I do seek out weaknesses with suggestions that it is driven entirely, or to some very large degree, by a human - enhanced greenhouse effect (at least at the current time).

# 82 Jon Keller: «I think people have recommended to you Weart's Discovery of Global Warming and I will also heartily recommend it, specifically the section entitled «The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect».»

The obvious error is that they thought it was news that aerosol emissions have partially cancelled out some of the warming one would expect with greenhouse gas emissions.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

Live Updates below «Worse than we thought» has been one of the most durable phrases lately among those pushing for urgent action to stem the buildup of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

I honestly think she's too young to be listening to me going on and on about such confusing stuff as oil, gas, coal, greenhouse effect, global warming, manmade climate change, population explosion (she knows about it), deforestation, desertification, rapid extinction of other species, pollution, problems, overconsumption, overindustrialization, problems, politics, economics, consumerism, and problems, religion, war, etc., etc., etc..

Many think so, although the experts are divided on what mix of forces is in play — from winds to warm currents to the underlying warming of the global climate from accumulating greenhouse gases.

(I think that an anomalously warm ocean surface heated from below would lead to more evaporation, and the additional water vapor would give a positive greenhouse effect that would partially offset the effect of a drop in greenhouse gas concentrations.)

I find it hard to draw the same conclusion in looking at my coverage, which has long included the voices of researchers challenging the predominant line of thinking on climate science, among them Roger Pielke Sr., Richard Lindzen, who was quoted in the 2006 article you read, John Christy, Ivar Giaever (a Nobelist who rejects the science pointing to dangerous greenhouse warming) and others.

There are several areas in which greenhouse - driven warming is thought to be a potential influence.

Senator John McCain dared to frame his response around both energy independence and climate, and was the only Republican to mention «greenhouse gases,» although he did quickly sidestep phrasing that might have inflamed the many Republicans who think global warming is a hoax.

The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this is a main factor in the global warming of 6 °C that happened during the end - Permian extinction as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 72 over 20 years and 25 over 100 years).

Pressing the frontiers of climate science and related research is vital, but it's wishful thinking to expect further science to substantially narrow uncertainties on time scales that matter when it comes to regional or short - term climate forecasting, the range of possible warming from a big buildup of carbon dioxide, the impact of greenhouse forcing on rare extremes and the like.

The past two weeks have not been good for the Arctic and climate change: First, scientists discover that permafrost holds more greenhouse gases than we thought; Second, sea ice melt - off is at its second greatest amount ever and could set a new record by summer's end; Third, new research confirms that the past decade has indeed been the warmest since the Romans occupied Britain, and the trend is for more warming.

For years, there's been a building chorus of warnings on the looming prospect of «climate conflict» and «global warring» that might be set off as greenhouse - driven warming disrupts longstanding weather patterns in already - turbulent parts of the world (think sub-Saharan Africa) or rising seas dislocate coastal populations (think Bangladesh).

The contribution of greenhouse gases is greater than the observed warming, while the total anthropogenic contribution is thought to be around 0.7 °C because of the cooling effect of aerosols.

What simply amazes me (TonyB seems to agree) is that U.K. and other jurisdictions have enacted laws to mandate greenhouse gas reductions with HUGE impact on the taxpayers» lives without any evidence that they have even thought about the effectiveness of their programs in actually reducing global warming.

Global warming also refers to what scientists think will happen in the future if humans keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

What this means is that we are actually in a whole lot more trouble than we thought and that global warming due to greenhouse gas emmisions should actually be happening at approximately twice the rate it is now.

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.

In the scorching summer of 1988, when global warming first hit headlines in a significant way, presidential candidate George H.W. Bush used a Michigan speech to pledge meaningful action curbing heat - trapping greenhouse gases, saying, «Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the White House effect.»

Just when you thought the warmers couldn't possibly get any nuttier, we get this one from the Daily Exchange titled «Cows» Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measured Inaccurately, Study Finds.»

If global warming is real and reversible (and I have no reason to think that it is not), then resources should be better spent on technologies to reverse the greenhouse trend — not on attempts at worldwide conservationism.

To me all the witnesses and senators are obviously persons of consequence but I don't think your excerpt shows that anyone should think he takes issue with this statement — «No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet.»

«I would say, and I don't think I'm going out on a very big limb, that the data as we have it does not support a warming... I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small»

This warming was obviously caused by Californian Indians ripping around in SUVs and motorcycles spewing dangerous greenhouse gases with no thought for the future.

What is more, I think that what we know about the greenhouse effect and what we have seen of the warming, ice melt, increased drought, increased inpulsive precipitation etc. is sufficient to establish a credible threat.