Sentences with phrase «have no warming effect because»

trees can also have a warming effect because they are dark and absorb a lot of sunlight, holding heat near ground level

Not exact matches

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.

The reduced downforce also has the knock - on effect of tyres taking longer to come up to operating temperature (there are no tyre warmers in IndyCar) as well as making them wear out quicker because the drivers are sliding around more.

Because the Earth's climate has a certain amount of natural variability, and those natural cycles can have warming and cooling effects that last for a couple of decades or even longer, Tebaldi said, it takes time to detect a change.

The soot produced by burning fossil fuels has a stronger warming effect because it contains a higher ratio of black carbon to sulfate, which reflects sunlight to produce a cooling effect.

Scientists have been interested in the effects of pollution on Arctic clouds because of their potential warming effect.

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.

Although the disappearance of the ice around Antarctica will have only a marginal effect on sea levels, it is important because it was predicted to be one of the first signs of global warming.

It is clear that continuing to rely on fossil fuels will have catastrophic results, because of the dramatic warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The observed amount of warming thus far has been less than this, because part of the excess energy is stored in the oceans (amounting to ~ 0.5 °C), and the remainder (~ 1.3 °C) has been masked by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols.

For instance, the greatest negative effects of warming are expected to occur in the tropics because tropical species tend to have a narrower range of thermal tolerance when compared with higher latitude species.

Thus far, Kepler has found 48 planetary candidates in their host star's habitable zone (of which 10 are near Earth - size), but this number is a decrease from the 54 reported in February 2011 only because the Kepler team is now applying a stricter definition of what constitutes a habitable zone around stars to account for the warming effect of planetary atmospheres, which would move such a zone away from the star, outwards in orbital distance resulting in longer orbital periods (NASA news release; and Kepler Press Conference slides — in pdf).

Re the cost of flying, there are lots of assumptions around because of different ways of using or ignoring a 1999 report on aviation's role in global warming [Aviation and the Global Atmosphere] for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the effects of flying are much worse than would be predicted by just burning the oil.

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.

«In the spring the qualities of heavy, dense, damp and cool are in the environment, and because of seasonal effects, we as humans start to accumulate some of those same qualities in our bodies, especially after the wintertime when we've been eating warm, heavier foods that mitigate the cold and dry qualities of winter,» explains Erin Casperson, an Ayurveda Health Counselor and Yoga Journal LIVE!

This is because ginger has a warming effect on the body as opposed to herbs that cool such as peppermint and sage.

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, 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.

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.

The context makes it clear that Mr. Clinton was not recommending a slowdown to limit warming, and instead was saying that an economic slowdown and emissions cuts in the United States and other industrialized countries would have no effect because emerging economic powerhouses like China would not follow suit.

For his part, Mr. Monckton says there is no need to exploit such events because he and others have exposed fatal weaknesses in the mainstream view that a strong warming effect is due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide — regardless of the peer - reviewed, Nobel Prize - winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the conclusions of various national academies of science and 100 years of growing accord on the basics.

Unlike others, I'm not saying that because of all this, «global warming stopped in 1998 therefore CO2 has little effect».

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).

I don't mind taking the prudent steps to wean ourselves from petroleum because that has beneficial effects beyond global warming but before we enact big subsidies for non competitive electricity generation, a couple of years pause couldn't hurt.

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.

It has seemed to me from the beginning that this is the crucial point, because the lag effect and the persistence equate to «built in» warming far into the future.

``... estimates of future rises remain hazy, mostly because there are many uncertainties, from the lack of data on what ice sheets did in the past to predict how they will react to warming, insufficient long - term satellite data to unpick the effects of natural climate change from that caused by man and a spottiness in the degree to which places such as Antarctica have warmed....

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 ask because my limited understanding is that temperature is related to kinetic energy, but would not register an overall increase in potential energy, in which case energy from the sun could be partitioned in heat energy emitted from the planet and work used to increase potential energy, possibly allowing an energy balance that does not require a radiation balance, and also does not require a warming effect.

human impact — of course not????? Why not, human impact is an independent variable, There is literally no logic to say because A (global warming) can be caused by B, C, D or E, that an independent variable, G, human activity, can not then cause the same effect.

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

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-.

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?

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).

The picture is complicated because different kinds of aerosols can have different effects: black carbon or soot has warming rather than a cooling effect, for instance.

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.

It melts without having much cooling effect, and in short order there is net warming because of the reduced albedo of wet snow vs. dry snow and bare rock vs. snow cover.

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.

«Since increased concentrations of CO2 can lead to global warming, some people have proposed increasing the emission of SO2 to stabilize the temperature because of the cooling effect of this gas.

The running head for our paper is «indirect effects of climate warming,» because the key seems to be the change in habitat structure (due to warming) that has altered predator - prey relationships.

And explains why Earth because it past much warmer periods hasn't already had a runaway effect.

This latest research is significant, because it involves the use of 19 advanced computer climate models, ones that have had the effect of these warming tongues of the oceans, built in.

The second contrarian argument we investigated involved the claim that the global climate is not very sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect because the planet has some sort of natural climate response that will offset global warming.

The article on the solar minimum was an aberration because it did not mention CO2 at all, or the effect solar changes might have on global warming.

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

3 — Some consideration of low probability, large effect events, whether this be Hansen's «tipping points» where there is rapid run - away warming, or of «Day After Tomorrow» style cooling because of slowing of the North Atlantic Conveyor (would shelve the plans to invade Canada, but would necessitate increased protection of your northern border to protect from an influx of Quebecois; — RRB --RRB-.

Some AGW proponents have tried to minimise the significance of all this by suggesting that the implication is that Greenhouse Gases are even more important because the troposphere warmed despite the now revealed cooling effect of the more active sun.

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