Sentences with phrase «i.e. warmer things»

The longwave part of the net radiative change includes the «greenhouse effect» (i.e. the atmosphere radiating energy downward) and the longwave feedback (i.e. warmer things radiate more energy away).

Not exact matches

As prevention seems to be the best solution to most things, here is my best advice (i.e. guidance, encouragement, not evidence - based): Don't wait too long (say past 6 or 8 weeks) because babies get to a point where Mama's warm body is really the source of food and all other substitutes fail miserably — that is not the easiest time to introduce a piece of silicone.

In selecting these colours I had in mind two things - the warm / cool influence in each of these and the depth of tone i.e. the lightness or darkness.

The warming trends in looking at numerous 100 year temperature plots from northern and high elevation climate stations... i.e. warming trends in annual mean and minimum temperature averages, winter monthly means and minimums and especially winter minimum temperatures and dewpoints... indicate climate warming that is being driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — no visible effects from other things like changes in solar radiation or the levels of cosmic rays.

In summary, global warming threatens many of the things that humans hold to be of most value, i.e., life, health, family, the ability to make a living, community, and the natural environment.

I personally believe that IPCC will ignore the actual lack of warming (i.e. cooling) and stick with its exaggerated forecasts in the hopes that things will turn around again until it becomes painfully obvious that these are unrealistic and that the IPCC models have lost all credibility.

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.

Other papers imply a similar thing, i.e. CO2 increases in the atmosphere can be explained largely by the warming ocean.

You need to consider all the other things, besides GHG, which can and do «force» the climate (i.e., cause warming or cooling across the planetary system).

The overall net emission over this period = + 0.5 units yet we can see how anthropogenic and sea (e.g. warming) contribute equally to this figure while net natural emission (i.e. sea + land) is — 0.5 Do we really know enough about the carbon cycle, in particular the natural fluxes of CO2, to rule out that some thing like this is going on?