Sentences with phrase «how warm that support»

«Though he has thrown his support publicly behind Warren, there has been some speculation about how warm that support is.

Not exact matches

His head will get smaller maybe, he'll focus on what he has now before he lose it all, when he come from warming bench at Barcelona to Arsenal and how he was treated and supported, it gave motivation and he became a better player and leader on the pitch for his national team even more so.

But data on how warming might affect women in urban environments are scarcer, and Hidalgo's initiative will support research into that.

«My fieldwork with the support of the InBev - Baillet Latour Fellowship will shed light on which processes are responsible for this ice shelf breakup, thereby improving the estimates how, when and where East Antarctica is most vulnerable to global warming.»

«My fieldwork with the support of the InBev - Baillet Latour Fellowship will shed light on which processes are responsible for this ice shelf breakup, thereby improving the estimates how, when and where East Antarctica is most vulnerable to global warming» said Lenaerts.

An a priori determination not to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and an eagerness to grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to support that determination, is not «skepticism».

I feel the exact same was as you about this wonderful blogging community — heck, that's how we became friends, because fellow bloggers are warm, welcoming people who support each other.

How can warm - ups and debriefs support both learning objectives and feelings of emotional safety?

Learn how Word Warm - ups supports the continued reading development of students.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

While many keystrokes on this blog have been invested in shadow boxing about warming vs cooling and about CO2 versus cosmic rays, Mr. Clarke is betting the company on electric cars for security and climate reasons and Mr. Bryson is explaining how the utilities are going to support this technology.

Overall, the questions seem to focus on minutia rather than the big picture of how CO2 emissions warm the planet and the evidence supporting that.

It doesn't matter how much evidence you supply, Andy, supporting rising sea's, erratic weather patterns, warming globe.

You confuse polls Measuring public concern with global warming (which varies according to a great many factors and critically depends on how you phrase the question, as Krosnick has shown)-- with public support for strong climate action.

One last thing just look at how many Politicians Governments support the Global Warming Claims.

US public opinion is very soft in how much it will support on global warming.

In 2010, the Oregon Global Warming Commission launched its Roadmap to 2020 project, designed to offer recommendations for how Oregon can meet its 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal, get a head start on its 2050 goal, and support a clean energy - based Oregon economy.

Theoildrum.com is focusing on peak oil — not on the critical issues of how IPCC's has formulated / supported «catastrophic anthropogenic global warming».

; what leads you to believe that the physical and biological trends we've seen / measured are likely to reverse within a mere 20 years, especially if / as we enter a solar upswing; how have you accounted for warming - driven methane release; what credible peer reviewed literature on «the other side» are you describing; what supports your confidence that there is little to no probability that the AGW that you do accept will change weather patterns enough to disrupt crop planting / growing / harvesting / production severely (or do you classify famine as a natural phenomenon?)?

Nor did you explain how this research would account for the evidence in support of the CO2 - induced warming hypothesis, such as stratospheric cooling and mesospheric cooling [hint: it doesn't account for these].

«When I joined the American Physical Society sixty - seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood... the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence... How different it is now... the money flood has become the raison d'etre of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs... It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.

A new method for projecting how the temperature will respond to human impacts supports the outlook for substantial global warming throughout this century — but also indicates that, in many regions, warming patterns are likely...

It's not clear how the earlier warming, with no attribution given, supports the proposition.

Having worked in the coal industry as a geologist and mining engineer, I have considered some of those massive, exceptionally deep coal seams (some in the Powder River Basin get up to 80 feet thick) and I wonder how warm and luxurious it would have to be to support plantlife that would accumulate such massive amounts of carbon.

The debate is sort of encapsulated in two quotes: One is Robert Kennedy Jr. saying that if people only had the facts about global warming and understood how urgent this issue was, then they would take action, the right policies would come up and people would support the right candidates.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He looked up how many peer - reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we're heating up compared to those that don't.

An a priori determination not to accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and an eagerness to grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy, to support that determination, is not «skepticism».

So You can't understand how surface warming from GHG can add heat to the depths, but you're quite willing to accept surface warming from the sun can add heat to ocean depths — AND you're willing to cite web - blogger science to support your claim.

The reason I have become so obsessed with «global warming» in the last few years is not because I'm particularly interested in the «how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin» non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine.

How do these results support significant warming in West Antarctica?

Don't whitewash the details of the Antarctic warming and how hard it's been to put the record straight, kids — but also, much more importantly, don't claim that the statement «the risk is rising and sorely needs addressing» is supported by the basics of climate science.

How can you justify the use by CRU of samples from just a handful of trees to support major theories of global warming?

I think we can dispute how much warming per doubling of CO2 the data support, but I think it's a going to be a very difficult task demonstrating a plausible mechanism (by plausible I mean something that isn't completely eliminated by existing observation and well - established theory) that set t the sensitivity to CO2 to «zero» above some threshold CO2 value.

The question then becomes how much insurance and what kind, and here I think the skeptics are especially useful in challenging what's mistakenly called «the scientific consensus»: that if you believe global warming is a risk, you should be supporting drastic cuts in carbon emissions and expanded versions of the Kyoto Protocol.

See also the igloo that James Inhofe's family built on the National Mall (they called it «Al Gore's new home») or the ad from the Virginia Republican Party, aired before the same snowstorm, advising voters to call legislators who supported climate actions and «tell them how much global warming you get this weekend.

In support of his persecution complex, Lennart dropped a small bomb about how a paper of his had been rejected by ERL because, according to the Times, «Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was «less than helpful» to their cause, it was claimed last night.»

Summary of how they got to this finding: They use CMIP models which, if not outright flawed, have not proved their validity in estimated temperature levels in the 2030 to 2070 timeframe, are used as the basis for extrapolations that assert the creation of more and more 3 - sigma «extreme events» of hot weather; this is despite the statistical contradiction and weak support for predicting significant increases in outlier events based on mean increases; then, based on statistical correlations between mortality and extreme heat events (ie heat waves), temperature warming trends are conjured into an enlargement of the risks from heat events; risks increase significantly only by ignoring obvious adjustments and mitigations any reasonable community or person would make to adapt to warmer weather.

You might be surprised by how much money supports the claim that human beings cause global warming.

When you learn that models do not know how to treat areosols and clouds, but those models are used to support the statement that 100 percent of the warming is caused by man, take notice.

While these oscillations may be quite real, the notion that they are responsible for the observed warming temperatures in the Arctic is not supported; how can an oscillation produce a long - term warming trend?

How much warming is caused by a what amount of CO2 is more complicated but again there is a substantial and strong body of work supporting the IPCC conclusions.

HOW NOKIA 8 DEDUCTED MARKS (A warm support always from Nokia fans to Nokia, we know you have tried.

«Dr. Colleen Kane - Dacri is a warm and empathic therapist who has a deep understanding of how challenging it can be to reach out for support through therapy.

Early Headstart Paper No. 15: The heart of individualizing responsive care: This paper provides a detailed overview of how observing children can support the development of warm trusting relationships.

This paper provides a detailed overview of how observing children can support the development of warm trusting relationships.

MSC, an empirically supported 8 - week course developed by Chris Germer and Kristin Neff, teaches participants how to hold themselves in a warm, connected and mindful presence when they suffer, fail, feel inadequate, or when life is just plain difficult.

I offer warm, compassionate, honest support and I will give you feedback about how you undermine or limit yourself.