Sentences with phrase «have a warming effect about»

Not exact matches

«The U.S. has obviously been clear about where it stands with the Paris Agreement, but it is heartening that 19 other countries reaffirmed their commitment to the agreement,» said Thoriq Ibrahim, minister of energy and environment for the Maldives and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, a group of countries vulnerable to the effects of global warming.

The world has to take a look at itself and consider what it is going to do about the increasing effect of global warming.

I want to say that there are some factors missing from his analysis — I remember reading about how the heat island phenomena can have an observable effect because of the dome of warm air which forms during the day.

«Similarly, a number of studies have found that telling people about the 97 % scientific consensus on human - caused global warming has a neutralizing rather than polarizing effect.»

The Earth's average surface temperature is about 33 °C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

New flood research makes one thing clear about the deleterious effects of global warming: they are not problems developing nations will have to face alone.

Scientists knew about the warming effects of greenhouse gases, but proponents of global cooling argued that greenhouse warming would be more than offset by Earth's orbital changes.

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

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.

Just days later, a real - time analysis by scientists working with Climate Central's World Weather Attribution program has found that global warming has boosted the odds of such an extreme rainfall event in the region by about 40 percent — a small, but clear, effect, the scientists say.

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11 % of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6 % of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect -LRB--0.004 °C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

Previous studies about the effect of Arctic warming on the jet stream have focused on its larger fluctuations — the peaks and troughs like the ones that have stayed stuck in place over the U.S. this winter.

A new study from The Auk: Ornithological Advances uses European House Sparrows, which have spread into a variety of climates in Australia and New Zealand since their introduction in the mid-19th century, to show that this trend in birds might actually be due to the effects of high temperatures during development — raising new alarms about how populations might be affected by global warming.

I've heard about mangos doing the same thing but I would be reluctant to say don't eat mangos or goji berries due to their «warming» effect because I have not seen any research to confirm this.

Again, science had become politicized in the minds of some people, in this case because the most recognizable voice shouting out about global warming and its effects is Al Gore.

For example ~ while studying global warming and learning about the effects of flooding on populations ~ I had students deal with flooding in their various countries.

The main reason for these new low viscosity oils is fuel efficiency, the side effect is engineers have changed the oiling systems on new cars in various ways that do not tolerate high viscosity oils, but could assume you are correct about reducing warm up time before oil flows to all internal parts in the engine.

We've been bombarded with horror stories about the disasterous effects of «Global Warming», «Climate Change» or whatever it's name is today.

Only people who doesn't understand it or doesn't know about it say that cold air has any heating effect on a warm surface.

Here is the # 1 flawed reasoning you will have seen about this question: it is the classic confusion between absence of evidence and evidence for absence of an effect of global warming on extreme weather events.

Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still «in the pipeline» due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011).

Oh, and we've increased CO2 by 100 ppm already (it doesn't quite have the punch of the other 100 ppm because of logarithmic effects, yadda yadda, but the court can be assured we're going to warm up by about an ice age by 2100).

One general result of these complexities is that CO2 has its strongest warming effect about 10 - 12 miles above the surface of the earth.

Let's see... many models show that aerosols could have been artificially keeping the world's average surface temperature cooler by about 3 - 5 degrees C from 1900 - 2000 --(sulfate aerosols certainly have some certifiable cooling effects cancelling out the warming effects of CO2).

I do agree that Earth is not Venus — some scientists have already told me how much they hate the label «Venus effect,» but I find it informative, simply because it gives some idea about the runaway global warming that did happen 5 times on Earth (which later, obviously, stabilized back to livable conditions).

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?

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.

In addition there is still clear evidence in my view for aerosols having played a significant role in holding back that warming, which acts on top of the effects of internal variability which play an important role in fluctuations about the forced changes.

She clearly doesn't have the slighest clue about global warming, its effects, or its causes.

Back in ’88 there was still quite a debate about whether the world was in fact warming or whether the temperature record had been contaminated by the urban heat island effect of cities springing up around former rural weather stations.

Gallup's annual update on Americans» attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence.

And if the rest of the nation missed the Limbaugh radio ad — assuming it did actually get broadcast time — there's no way on Earth that the campaign would have had any effect on people's opinion about global warming.

Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated By Frank Newport Gallup's annual update on Americans» attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to -LSB-...]

Would they take as their baseline the existing un-nastied climate at whatever it is today and start making predictions about the terrible effects of warming after another +2.0 C?

The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea, as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol — black carbon — had a significant warming effect:

Previously you have said you'd like to see a proper debate about the consequences of global warming (or words to that 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..

Rockefeller and Snowe said that ExxonMobil's extensive funding of an «echo chamber» of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science had unfortunately succeeded in raising questions about the legitimate scientific community's virtually universal findings on the detrimental effects of global warming.

There were many ups and downs, but they had little effect on the overall warming of about 0.5 — 0.6 C calculated for the entire interval (compare the black line with the individual red and blue bars)..

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

Just as national concerns about the effects of continuing deforestation eventually eclipsed local interests, now global interests are beginning to eclipse national ones as deforestation has become a major driver of global warming.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that although volcanic activity can account for about 10 % of the observed global warming from 1979 to 2005, between 1889 and 2006 volcanic activity had a small net cooling effect on global temperatures.

Stuart L I am a stupid layman, but wonder about the effects of water vapour (clouds) when I lived in the UK cloud conditions would cause the temps to be milder (warmer) here in Philippines cloud causes cooler conditions, how can one calculate the overall effect on the earths surface?.

And because using biogas for power generation will have a positive effect on global warming, we can feel good about it as well.

Dr Solomon and her colleagues peg the 2000 - 2009 cooling effect at about a third of the opposite effect they would expect from the carbon dioxide added over the same decade, and only a bit more than a twentieth of the warming expected from the rise in carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution.

I see you wrote 6 paragraphs about your supposed climate «skepticism» arising from the urban heat island effect, but I see not a single word of explanation about why the UHI effect would turn a non-warming trend into a warming trend.

If only GHG forcing is used, without aerosols, the surface temperature in the last decade or so is about 0.3 - 0.4 C higher than observations; adding in aerosols has a cooling effect of about 0.3 - 0.4 C (and so cancelling out a portion of the GHG warming), providing a fairly good match between the climate model simulations and the observations.

The history of climate change goes back much further: in the 19th century, physicists theorised about the role of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, and several suggested that the warming effect would increase alongside the levels of these gases in the atmosphere.

But even forgetting about these, it is really hard to reconcile sensitivities of, say, four degrees per doubling with history, where we have had about 0.6 C (assuming irrationally that its all man - made) of warming in about 42 % of a doubling (the effect, I will add, is non-linear, so one should see more warming in the first half than the second half of a doubling).