Sentences with phrase «has a warming effect so»

Oat also has a warming effect so it's ideal to eat it during cold months.

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.

I've mentioned this before, but I am so ready for Spring to be in full effect with warmer weather, spring veggies, and lots of...

Pollutants that form minute droplets in the atmosphere have horrendously complex effects — so it's far from certain what they mean for global warming

So while it may take decades for warming at the sea surface to change deep - sea temperatures, alterations in wind - driven events may have more immediate effects.

So far the team has looked only at data from the Pacific Ocean region, but if other tropical oceans have the same effect, Earth may be well equipped to handle global warming.

Not so long ago, it was thought warmer air would be the main cause of melting, but now it seems warming ocean waters are already having a significant effect.

The effect is so strong, she said, that if Earth continues to warm at the current rate, the LC50 for one species she has studied, fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), will be only half as much in 2060 as it is now.

Since so much of the ice sheet is grounded underwater, rising sea levels may have the effect of lifting the sheets, allowing more - and increasingly warmer - water underneath it, leading to further bottom melting, more ice shelf disintegration, accelerated glacial flow, and further sea level rise, and so on and on, another vicious cycle.

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?

It's now commonplace to talk about global warming and carbon footprints, so much so that it's easy to forget that until quite recently few thought it was even possible that the actions of our species could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the Earth's climate.

Also, highland regions at the equator would get colder and northern low - lying regions would get warmer; this is the so - called «icy highlands effect,» which results in the peaks of mountains on Earth being snow - covered.

«From a policy perspective, we have to recognize that we have been trending toward drier conditions over the last 1,500 years and the warming in Nevada is only going to exacerbate that trend,» he said, noting that «warmer temperatures cause more soil moisture to evaporate so you amplify the effects of drought when climate is warming.

Is there a top end to the warming trend where we have so much CO2 in the air, more does not increase the greenhouse effect any more?

Warmth sometimes has a soothing, relaxing effect, so a warm compress or hot water bottle might be worth trying.

The weather in Vancouver is a lot colder than it was in London, so I've been playing with some warm ideas, like layering this bralette top from the Dynamite Spring collection over a button down for a colorblock effect and pairing it with my favorite leather jacket as of late (and I'm realizing it's almost a full Dynamite look)

And I thought leather also had a temperature regulating effect, so you should not be too warm, right?

If the student types in «global warming,» then it asks if you would also like results that only focus on «causes of global warming,» «effects of global warming,» and so on.

They vary from minutiae such as how and why snail slime works so well, to broader topics such as global warming, over-fishing, famous divers he has known, and the effect of the moon (did you know that a cruise liner is approximately 7 pounds lighter when the moon is overhead?).

The eye is attracted to cold colours, so aim to use either cold colours or warm colours with white added (white always has a cooling effect).

The potential for surprises increases as a function of sensitivity, but even «not so alarming» trends in warming can have long standing negative effects on reefal communities, continental aridity, etc..

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.

Research by an international team of scientists recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that the cooling effect of aerosols is so large that it has masked as much as half of the warming effect from greenhouse gases.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than Air does.

Paradoxically temperatures in the middle troposphere (400 mb) have been falling, perhaps reflecting a combination of effects, like surface warming, drier middle altitudes, lower solar influence and so on?

The immediately quantifiable effects of air pollution are so much worse than the feared effects of global warming I don't really see why we would conflate the issues.

So, if you have two identical glass greenhouses with thermally isolated mercury thermometers at equilibrium in the sunlight [One with Air at Press =P, and the 2nd w / CO2 at Press =P], and you close the blinds — you will see the thermometer in the CO2 greenhouse retain its temperature longer — not because of any «global warming» type effect, but simply because Air conducts heat to the walls of the greenhouse better than CO2 does.

Building cities along coastlines as we have throughout our so - far short modern history, short though it has been from the standpoint of our climate history, should be recognized as the kind of short term planning that has gotten us into this trouble whether it happens now or a few decades or centuries down the road, and this concern over atmoshperic warming is just one of a multitude of possible planet - affecting scenarios that could have devastating effects on our world's societies.

So in the case of global warming just like many other cases, I would indeed say that if the economic and quasi-economic rules of journalism dictate that a complex story shouldn't be covered, indeed, «global warming» shouldn't be covered because it is one of the very complex systems on Earth influenced by very many complex effects and their relationships.

In this regard, I would observe that at least one important AGW effect, rising sea level, does not depend on a specific regional outcome so much as on global mean T. (At least, I think this is so (because my understanding is that most of the rise comes from lower density of warmer water, not from melting ice sheets — though again, not 100 % sure on this point)-RRB-.

This would actually not be true at sufficiently high latitudes in the winter hemisphere, except that some circulation in the upper atmosphere is driven by kinetic energy generated within the troposphere (small amount of energy involved) which, so far as I know, doesn't result in much of a global time average non-radiative energy flux above the tropopause, but it does have important regional effects, and the result is that the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the tropopause at all latitudes in all seasons so far as I know.

So, the question of whether or not more of these clouds would be formed, along with the question of their net effect (given that they reflect sunlight from above, but also trap heat from below), gives rise to some degree of imprecision when it comes to the degree of warming predicted by models.

So a lack of volcanic activity must have the opposite effect, and result in warming.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

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, the Alaska climate site statement referring to the 1977 PDO shift as «natural» is misleading in the extreme in that the effect of global warming on the PDO warm phase would be with regard to its persistence and possibly its timing.

So we have Stefan saying: Pam's high intensity and terrible impact on Vanuatu have invariably raised the question of the possible effect of global warming on its characteristics.

As more optical thickness is added to a «new» band, it will gain greater control over the temperature profile, but eventually, the equilibrium for that band will shift towards a cold enough upper atmosphere and warm enough lower atmosphere and surface, such that farther increases will cool the upper atmosphere or just that portion near TOA while warming the lower atmosphere and surface — until the optical thickness is so large (relative to other bands) that the band loses influence (except at TOA) and has little farther effect (except at TOA).

I haven't thought much about the THC although I've expressed doubt about seeing large regional cooling if it did shut down or change direction, mainly because global warming is so rapid that any cooling effect with time would be dampened by warming factors going on.

Efforts to solve global warming by GHG emissions reductions strategies, rather than GHG replacement strategies, can not realistically succeed over the short - term or the long - term or any term, ever - unless the mandated reductions are so drastic that in effect they would require carbon - free alternatives for nearly all GHG sources.

So you mean to tell me that so dramatic a warming had no effect on Viking migrationSo you mean to tell me that so dramatic a warming had no effect on Viking migrationso dramatic a warming had no effect on Viking migrations.

So while the sensitivity of CO2 / warming may be an important (though somewhat uncertain) matter, so too is how sensitive nature is in emitting GHGs in response to the warming (& to the concomitant GW effects), and this it seems is a lot more uncertain and has a lot more potential for danger... like some sleeping monster we keep pokinSo while the sensitivity of CO2 / warming may be an important (though somewhat uncertain) matter, so too is how sensitive nature is in emitting GHGs in response to the warming (& to the concomitant GW effects), and this it seems is a lot more uncertain and has a lot more potential for danger... like some sleeping monster we keep pokinso too is how sensitive nature is in emitting GHGs in response to the warming (& to the concomitant GW effects), and this it seems is a lot more uncertain and has a lot more potential for danger... like some sleeping monster we keep poking.

a) atmospheric CO2 from human activity is a major bause of observed warming in the 1980's and 1990's, c) that warming is overstated due to a number of factors including solar effects and measurement skew d) the data going back 150 years is of little reliability because it is clustered so heavily in northeast america and western europe rather than being global e) the global climate has been significantly shifting over the last thousand years, over the last ten thousand years, and over the last hundred thousand years; atmospheric CO2 levels did not drive those changes, and some of them were rapid.

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.

Bill says he's got a paper in press about warming effects on lake life, so I suspect he does know a number of «peer - rev'd» similar studies — they may be warmists, but what matters is nailing any details of their evidence that shows bias etc..

So how come the warmer temperatures 1920 - 40's has no effect at all on the extremely straight Antarctic CO2 curve?

Difference between nighttime lows and daytime highs decreasing — no they aren't Warming of the planet since 1880 — same trend since LIA 40 % rise in Atmospheric CO2 since ~ 1800 — has little effect Underlying physics of the Greenhouse effect — you don't appear to understand them, and neither do modellers, which is why their predictions have been so wrong

I'd like to stick to facts: * CO2 levels are rising because we emit CO2 (so we can do something about it) * CO2 is a greenhouse gas * CO2 thus contributes to warming of the surface * Other effects compensate or amplify these changes * Those other effects haven't reversed / stopped the warming trend yet

I said «So how come the warmer temperatures 1920 - 40's has no effect at all on the extremely straight Antarctic CO2 curve?».

But over the last decade or so, glaciologists have come to appreciate that ice sheets are not gigantic lumps of «static» ice; warming effects can cause them to act erratically and to move much faster than simple models suggest.