Sentences with phrase «have a warming effect if»

Not exact matches

Even if you don't have a compassionate bone in your body for animals, surely the effects of global - warming must be a concern to EVERYONE

This study focused on the effect of warming mother's breasts before using a double electric breast pump by a warm compress compared to an unwarmed breast to see if the warmed breast would elicit more milk for NICU babies.

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.

It's not clear how much of a greenhouse effect that would produce, but it's a good bet that Earth would be a lot warmer — much as it would be, say, if there were no plants drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

The coolants are typically greenhouse gases that, if they escape, have a global warming effect hundreds or thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide's.

If, as Perry has claimed, climate change is a baseless hoax, it makes no sense that he should advocate for a technology explicitly designed to capture and sequester carbon emissions from coal - fired power plants for the sole purpose of averting the warming effect of those emissions.

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.

If warming rises above 2 °C, the effects of climate change would only intensify.

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?

The warming commitment if we stop all human emissions (GHG and aerosol) is probably very substantial: The cooling effect of the aerosol will very quickly disappear, thereby «unmasking» the greenhouse warming, approximately half of which has been canceled by aerosol cooling up to now.

If convection and evaporation were not present, I could see the argument being made that a slight increase in Radiation having some warming effect, however convection and evaporation do exist within the Troposphere and the rate of cooling the two exhibit increases as surface temps increase.

Furthermore, a deeper upper layer of warm surface water may weaken the cold tongue if the Ekman pumping doesn't reach down below the thermocline to bring up colder water, and weakened trade winds would have a similar effect through reduced Ekman pumping near the equator.

Since the UHI effect is reduced in windy conditions, if the UHI effect was a significant component of the temperature record, then we would see a different rate of warming when observations are stratified by calm or windy conditions.

[Response: Note also that more low clouds would unambiguously mean a cooling effect, but more high clouds could lead to either a warming effect or a cooling effect, depending on the altitude of the clouds and the typical particle size in the GCR - induced clouds (if any).

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

A less active sun would probably have a small cooling effect on earth's temperature, if man - made greenhouse gases weren't having a much bigger warming influence.

(I wonder if such enhanced wind driven mising would in effect be a negative feedback on warming rates, enhaning ocean thermal damping.)

This language would have been superfluous and without legal effect if, as Waxman assumes, EPA already had authority since 1970 to regulate carbon dioxide as an «air pollutant» or greenhouse gases in general based on their» global warming potential.»

Hardly any research has however investigated if warm ups have an adverse effect on muscle fatigue and performance.

If you have garments in your closet which don't do you justice, aim to team them with some of your new warmer shades close to your face to soften the effect.

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 oIf 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 oif you would also like results that only focus on «causes of global warming,» «effects of global warming,» and so on.

For example, if you have invested hundreds of hours into the whole «Mass Effect» trilogy, falling in love with, let's say Liara, you saved the Rachni, you cured the Genophage, everyone survived, excluding the ones who died because the developers wanted to (all in all, you were a major Paragon), then you should be rewarded with an ending in which Shepard survives, retires to a warm planet living with the partner he / she chose, gets visited by Garrus, Joker, dr. Chakwas, and others, and the whole Galaxy is a better place because of him / her.

However, with its smugly objective, disingenuously warm, and subtly patronizing tone, reminiscent of corporate videos, the voice itself seems to cast doubt on the seriousness of Garcia Torres's strategy of «rehearsing» obscure historical moments in order to see if they can still have an effect.

Regardless, I would posit the worsening winter ice formation is as expected given the poles suffer first and winters warm faster than summers, BUT that this is happening within two years of the EN peak, which was my time line in 2015, one wonders if the combination of warm EN - heated Pacific waters (oceans move slowly) and warm air are a trailing edge of the EN effect OR this is signallibg a phase change driven by that EN, or is just an extreme winter event.

but even if the current tooo - short - to - call cooling trend reverses, and it is proved that co2 MIGHT have some limited effect on planetary warming, then the question is, how much warming?

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Let me try to be more explicit: if you want to assume (or, if you prefer, conclude) that aerosols produced by the increased burning of fossil fuels after WWII had a cooling effect that essentially cancelled out the warming that would be expected as a result of the release of CO2 produced by that burning, then it's only logical to conclude that there exists a certain ratio between the warming and cooling effects produced by that same burning.

Anyway, if soot aerosols are to blame, then a reduction of them would have a cooling effect, not a warming effect...

If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming).

If we are still having global warming — and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history — it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Another point: even if solar variability, for some magical reason, had a noticeable warming effect over the last decades, this would have to come in addition to the CO2 - effect and would not call it into question.

If you believe the warming is natural, first please explain why the increases in CO2 isn't having the effect our knowledge of physics tells us it will have.

V 323: If those aerosols canceled the warming effect of fossil fuel emissions from 1940 - 1979, as has been claimed, then they would have had the same effect prior to 1940, regardless of whether the volume of both CO2 emissions and aerosol emissions were smaller.

If the warming effects of CO2 emission from ff were essentially neutralized after the 1940s, then one would expect that a similar neutralization would have been in effect prior to 1940.

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.

If it's wetter, warmer, cooler, drier, windier than what you anticipated that will have an effect on what you harvest.

Furthermore, a deeper upper layer of warm surface water may weaken the cold tongue if the Ekman pumping doesn't reach down below the thermocline to bring up colder water, and weakened trade winds would have a similar effect through reduced Ekman pumping near the equator.

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.

I wonder if that briefing will extend to the effect that ramping up tar sands oil production in Alberta using Alaskan natural gas will have on global warming?

«Since the ocean component of the climate system has by far the biggest heat capacity», I've been wondering if the cool waters of the deep ocean could be used to mitigate the effects of global warming for a few centuries until we have really depleated our carbon reserves and the system can begin to recover on its own.

All of the effects of global warming have been foretold for almost 5 decades in advance (if memory serves, the first climate model was created sometime back during the late 60's), and was able to compute current warming to a very high level of accuracy.

Given the total irrelevance of volcanic aerosols during the period in question, the only very modest effect of fossil fuel emissions and the many inconsistencies governing the data pertaining to solar irradiance, it seems clear that climate science has no meaningful explanation for the considerable warming trend we see in the earlier part of the 20th century — and if that's the case, then there is no reason to assume that the warming we see in the latter part of that century could not also be due to either some as yet unknown natural force, or perhaps simply random drift.

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.

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.

Also: would that major increase in volcanic activity (if there were one) be something that, under ordinary circumstances would be negligible, but because of the human - induced warming have a greater effect?

It is conceivable that aerosol effects (which includes «smoke») could also affect the lapse rate, but the aerosols tend to warm where they are located and depending on the composition, cool below — this gives an impact that — if it was a large factor in the tropical mean — would produce changes even larger than predicted from the moist adiabatic theory.

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).

If C02 is the largest single contributing factor to the Greenhouse Effect (because supposedly water vapor is only involved as a feedback to primary chemistry involving C02 itself), and C02 lags temperature increases (as has been stated on this very blog), how has the Earth ever returned to colder glacial conditions following periods of warming?

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.