Sentences with phrase «know about global cooling»

(By the way, for those of you who already know about global cooling / dimming and aerosols, I will just say for now that these effects can not be making the blue line go down because the IPCC considers these anthropogenic effects, and therefore in the pink band.

Not exact matches

So if you think of going in [a] warming direction of 2 degrees C compared to a cooling direction of 5 degrees C, one can say that we might be changing the Earth, you know, like 40 percent of the kind of change that went on between the Ice Age; and now are going back in time and so a 2 - degree change, which is about 4 degrees F on a global average, is going to be very significant in terms of change in the distribution of vegetation, change in the kind of climate zones in certain areas, wind patterns can change, so where rainfall happens is going to shift.

Scientists knew about the warming effects of greenhouse gases, but proponents of global cooling argued that greenhouse warming would be more than offset by Earth's orbital changes.

Based on current knowledge, however, it appears that achieving a high probability of limiting global average temperature rise to 2C will require that the increase in greenhouse - gas concentrations as well as all the other warming and cooling influences on global climate in the year 2100, as compared with 1750, should add up to a net warming no greater than what would be associated with a CO2 concentration of about 400 parts per million (ppm).

They will no doubt spout the same old arguments like: «I remember when global cooling was all anyone would talk about.»

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

He found that Pinatubo eruption was followed by a global temperature drop, did not know anything about ENSO oscillations, and pronounced the observed cooling to be volcanic.

«And you know in the 1920s people talked about global cooling.

National Academy of Sciences (1975): «We do not know what causes... climatic change» By Kenneth Richard After having switched from warning the masses in the 1970s about imminent human - caused global cooling to warning the masses in the 1980s about an imminent human - caused global warming, the late Dr. Stephen Schneider suggested that, to avoid «potentially disastrous -LSB-...]

Are you somehow gifted with second sight so that you just «know» precisely what GAST was (within the tenths of a degree Celsius necessary to support all of the vast range of conclusions that are being made about global warming and its causes) so that you can state that it was in fact cooler?

Now that we have seen proof that the infamous hockey stick chart was dead wrong, the warming trend of the 90's has faded into a cooling trend, we know that CO2 forcing is a non-starter and the Arctic ice cap has returned to normal there is no evidence, no scientific case, no grounds for the continuing hype and frenzy in the media about Global Warming.

We know more about this story than most in these lists of «global cooling» headlines.

Barry (# 28) Yes I appreciate that * anthopogenic global warming has not been proven, there being unknowns that we know about but can not quantify, eg ocean heat content and aerosol cooling, that may or may not act as a pipeline of future warming.

Girma, why would you expect every increase in CO2 to result in an increase in global temperature when you know about cooling influences like La Nina?

The existence of this paper is also good to use against the folks who talk about «global cooling» (yes, I know there's another RC thread devoted just to that topic!).