Sentences with phrase «how warm the globe»

Tomorrow you're going up to New York City, where you're going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather.

But hey — if you're still stoked to celebrate global warming, and you live in North America, how about taking a walk in a park new you this weekend, and feel how warm the globe is becoming.

The same can be said about how we do not know precisely how warm the globe will get in 25, 50, 100, or 150 years, dynamics do change; the 1990's was the height of recent population explosion, and even though the global population is rising steadily, the incline has decreases a bit; China, India, japan have issues with pollution, overcrowding, exponential GDP growth or decline, respectively.

Not exact matches

As the globe warms, communities across the world are providing examples of how to adapt.

Finally, one recent study suggests that incomplete sampling of Arctic temperatures led to underestimation of how much the globe actually warmed.

The next step was see how those factors were influenced by ENSO; while El Niños and La Niñas are defined by how much warmer or colder than normal tropical Pacific ocean waters are, they trigger a cascade of reactions in the atmosphere that can alter weather patterns around the globe.

But how could a warming globe and a changing climate interrupt this process?

If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, «Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.»

From our friends at NASA comes this amazing 13 - second animation that depicts how temperatures around the globe have warmed since 1950.

In the paper Gray makes many extravagant claims about how supposed changes in the THC accounted for various 20th century climate changes («I judge our present global ocean circulation conditions to be similar to that of the period of the early 1940s when the globe had shown great warming since 1910, and there was concern as to whether this 1910 - 1940 global warming would continue.

The fundamental difference in opinion (which has not changed since Michaels and Hansen started debating each other in 1988) is that Hansen (and the vast majority of relevant experts) think that climate sensitivity (how much the globe will warm under a doubling of CO2) is around 3 (+ / -1) °C, while Michaels thinks that it is much less (< 1 °C).

Ocean surfaces have warmed considerably over the last few years, and since oceans cover roughly tw0 - thirds of the globe's area, it is reasonable to examine how sea surface temperature evolution has played into the short - term evolution of GMST.

This iconic animation from NASA depicts how temperatures around the globe have warmed since 1880.

When Sea Levels Attack Few people ever realize how much global warming will impact people across the globe, especially those living along the coast or on the islands scattered throughout the oceans.

Few people ever realize how much global warming will impact people across the globe, especially those living along the coast or on the islands scattered throughout the oceans.

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

But over the last few years, glaciologists and climate scientists have come to better understand how ice - sheets are likely to respond to a warming globe.

How could we ever see «global» warming in your snow - covered countryside of France, unless somehow you've proven that France is a perfect proxy for the temperature of the whole globe?

And, just talking about how fearsome the problem of AGW is, much has been accomplished — e.g., irrespective of exactly what made it happen (we have a Eurocommie - approved Nobel Laureate who takes credit for it, which also is the consensus of opinion among Leftists), we apparently can all take it as given that the seas were rising but now they've stopped, much like the globe was warming but now... it's stopped.

When they worked out how the ice would disappear, they failed to take both methane quantities and political inadequacy would affect the warming of our globe.

After many years of fretting about how an industrializing - China's rising CO2 emissions were hotting - up the globe, the claim that those same smokestacks were helping to offset global warming raises many questions.

Monitoring the ocean to its full depth with consistently calibrated instrumentation all over the globe — and doing so for decades at a time — is critical to track how global warming impacts the oceans» ecosystems and biogeochemical processes.

This will trigger an irreversible feedback system and nullify existing calculations of just how much carbon humans can burn and keep the globe within a relatively safe degree of warming.

Finally, one recent study suggests that incomplete sampling of Arctic temperatures led to underestimation of how much the globe actually warmed.

People are too occupied with trying to keep cool to laugh about how silly it is to think the globe is warming.

I did this because Anthony Watts and Joe D'Aleo published a document claiming that the GHCN data, and the way it was processed, exaggerated estimates of how much the globe has warmed over the last century or more.

I forgot to mention that on the «science denial kills» question, while others have already pointed out how laughably bogus the «Global Warming is killing people» claim is, we might also mention that when the globe cools, (and when people don't have access to low cost energy for warmth), the associated crop failures, disease, starvation, and cold related deaths, number in the millions annually as history has amply demonstrated.

If you say that the «globe» from 0 - 80 is warming at this rate and we have no clue how much it is warming from 80 - 90 you are being factual.

How about this logic... if the ocean is an enormous heat sink and ate their warming, and this was not anticipated or built into the models AT ALL, then the models are all cr @p, the huge sensitivity to C02 (amplification) is in the same crock of poo (i.e. the ocean provides damping and there is no amplification), and there really is no such thing as CAGW... there's only 134 pathetic excuses for climate models that are all wrong because the scientists didn't consider that 75 - ish percent of the globe was covered with water.

How much warmer the globe has become compared to 1998 can only really be commented on after an El Nino influence on the global average surface temperatures similar to the 1997 - 1998 El Nino occurs, and other transient or cyclical influences on the «annual average» are considered.

I'd love to know how the globe can be warming when the best longest lived thermometers are not, but only the new ones at tropical airports are...)

If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, «Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.»

But then how come the globe is warming, and has warmed and cooled in the past?

The press conference, hosted by UK climate science denying think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and the Foreign Press Association, is the latest demonstration of how Trump's newly - empowered network of climate science deniers is using its platform to promote the interests of the fossil fuel industry around the globe.

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

It would seem to me that if the science was settled, as you all claim, it should be very clear exactly how many degrees the globe should warm per ppm of CO2.