Sentences with phrase «have a warming effect at»

Although water vapour is a greenhouse gas it had no warming effect at the surface where the vapour simply acquired the same temperature as the surrounding air molecules.

Not exact matches

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

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.

With Rachel's Remedy I know at least one aspect of my care plan has just been made easier and that the product will stay warm, feel comfortable and produce the therapeutic effect that mother needs.

Atmospheric dust may have a powerful effect on climate, absorbing sunlight and warming the atmosphere at some altitudes while shading and cooling underlying layers of air.

Swann's previous research looked at how a hypothetical massive tree planting in the Northern Hemisphere to slow global warming could have the unintended effect of changing tropical rainfall.

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.

But at breaks in the cloud deck, smoke has the opposite effect: It is brighter than the dark ocean surface, reflecting solar radiation and reducing warming.

Brendan Kelly, chief scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, noted that the warming planet has also had dire effects on the Arctic, which unlike Antarctica, is home to 4 million permanent residents.

«We found that vegetation change may have a greater impact on the amount of stream flow in the Sierra than the direct effects of climate warming,» said lead author Ryan Bart, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSB's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

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.

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.

At night, when the air near the ground may be colder than that above, it can have a warming effect.

Specifically, anger at the effect global warming is likely to have on the rain forests of the Atherton Tablelands of Queensland.

Specifically, they looked at two long - term warming and cooling cycles whose effect on sea turtles hadn't been investigated, one in the Pacific where Japanese turtles spend their formative years, and another in the Atlantic, where young Floridian turtles live.

The report, Explaining ocean warming: causes, scales, effects and consequences, which was presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii recently (5 September 2016), has found the upper depths of the world's oceans have warmed significantly since 1995.

The knock - on effects of such a transition would be huge — they would cause marked increase of warming at the pole, since open water absorbs more of the sun's energy than ice - covered seas.

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.

Mass has done work that suggests atmospheric rivers, at least along the West Coast, should become more intense in the future with warming, but that the effect today is still small.

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.

There are also numerous «fingerprints» which we would expect to see from an increased greenhouse effect (i.e. more warming at night, at higher latitudes, upper atmosphere cooling) that we have indeed observed (Figure 6).

I haven't look at the research on the effect of warm - ups in at least 20 years... but as I recall, a warm - up set was shown to be beneficial in the manner that you describe — priming the muscles and making them stronger for the first heavy set.

That effect will have your cellular structure at a warmer level, and with that heat comes the ability for fat to go away and calories to be put to better use.

I agree that there's lots of research that needs to be done — for example, there have been several interesting recent studies looking at the effects of dynamic warm - up activities as opposed to traditional static stretches, but more is needed to identify what works best for different activities and what the mechanisms are.

Though McAdams» early screen roles found her specializing in the bitchy teen princess to maximum effect, closer inspection reveals a skilled dramatic actress who no doubt has the talent to move beyond the high - school trappings of such comedies as The Hot Chick and Mean Girls.Born to a truck driver and a nurse in London, Ontario, Canada, McAdams warmed to the spotlight early on by taking up competitive skating at just four years old.

Some people put warm packs at the base of the tail to ease discomfort, but it is not medically proven to have any effect to this day.

Critics have embraced the game with a warm reception with 30 perfect scores awarded thus far and Metacritic ranking Mass Effect 3 at 94, 92 and 91 on Xbox 360, Windows PC, and PlayStation 3 respectively.

Since we know that the earth's surface is significantly warmed by geothermal heat, that geothermal heat is variable, that truly titanic forces are at work in the earth's core changing its structure and alignment, and that geothermal heat flux has a much greater influence on surface temperatures than variations in carbon dioxide can possibly have, it makes sense to include its effects in a compendium of global warming discussion parameters.

Higher levels of CO2 prior to 1940 had some role in warming at that period, because of the greenhouse effect, but are insufficient when calculated to explain all the warming.

``... as sea ice melts, Arctic waters warm, greatly altering ocean processes, which in turn have an effect on Arctic and global climate, says Michael Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Clearly atmospheric warming has multiple causes, including CO2 and solar changes, geothermal energy and forest fires etc and all can be at the same time, but research shows solar changes have limited effect, and CO2 is dominating in recent decades and will continue to dominate.

He and his colleagues have even done analyses that show that after correcting for ENSO effects, there is no sign of a slowdown in global warming at all.

At first a very tiny effect, I would think that it would become more and more of a driver as the highest elevation started to fall to lower and lower, and therefore warmer and warmer, elevations.

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.

On the other hand, another effect of global warming, namely massive, continent - wide, intense, persistent drought, could begin at any time and have catastrophic effects on agriculture, leading to widespread famine within a few years.

It seems that at least the regional effect of aerosols in S.E. - Asia is warming, not cooling... Thus any reduction there would have a cooling effect.

Particle Pollution's Cooling Effect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emisEffect... Plus Death Interestingly, this particle pollution has the opposite effect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect on the climate as does the ship's carbon emissions: The particles have a cooling effect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect that is at least five times greater than the warming effect of the CO2 emiseffect of the CO2 emissions.

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.

The observed warming is likely the result of a combined effect: data strongly suggest that the AMO has been in a warming phase for the past two or three decades, and we also know that at the same time anthropogenic global warming is ongoing.

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.

For example, we have done many GCM simulations showing that tropical deforestation — at least averaged over the tropical land masses — induces warming that is greater than the effects of CO2.

Climate models, on the other hand, have a successful track record — look at the melting Arctic, warming around Antarctica, the surface temperature, the water feedback effect, the reduction in mountain glaciers... etc..

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

In particular, we have a very strong reason to connect GHG's to observed warming, and multiple lines of physics and data for bracketing the magnitude of this effect — which all but relegates GCM's to the trivial - influience - at - best bin.

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)-RRBat 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)-RRBAt 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-.

Keeping within a sufficiently small range of wavelengths that the effects discussed in 438 can be set aside, What such band widenning would do, without a surface temperature increase, is simply increase the range of wavelengths at which the same temperature variation accomplishes the same spectral fluxes through the band, thus not changing OLR within the band — the warming that results from such band - widenning should thus tend to increase the OLR within the band.

It's necessary to remember solar changes are known to have limited effects on warming maximising out at less than half a degree.

Where you then have a talik, from this combination of geological and radiative forces, and then there is plenty of free gas underneath that can migrate out easily through pathways once there are such tears, and then you add on top of all that that it is a seismically active zone, one can easily see how global warming could greatly amplify the effects of an earthquake at that fault zone.

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.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux aWarming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).