Sentences with phrase «less cooling effect»

Matt Ridley writes, «Mr. Lewis tells me that... aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke)... have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written.

Not exact matches

But these cooler streets also reflect less heat onto buildings, saving on air - conditioning costs and reducing the effects of climate change.

There's no «water - cooler effect» — in other words, people are less innovative when they don't work in close proximity.

Hugh Jackman recently posted this video on his Facebook page, showing how the sound effects of a Logan fight scene are captured, and seeing the actor in street clothes screaming and fighting air make Wolverine look a little less cool.

The Spanish governing body believes that the competition should be held in May, when it is also cooler but will have less of an effect on European leagues.

According to Graf's model, Toba's massive sulphur emissions created large sulphate particles that were less able to reflect light, reducing the cooling effect (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/cpk3fm).

The model calculations, which are based on data from the CLOUD experiment, reveal that the cooling effects of clouds are 27 percent less than in climate simulations without this effect as a result of additional particles caused by human activity: Instead of a radiative effect of -0.82 W / m2 the outcome is only -0.60 W / m2.

According to Graf's model, the vast sulphur emissions created sulphate particles that grew large and so reflected less light, reducing the cooling effect (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/cpk3fm).

The draft says their cooling effect is 40 per cent less than thought in 2007, suggesting this side effect of air pollution has been overstated.

The draft says their cooling effect is 40 per cent less than thought in 2007, suggesting this positive side effect of air pollution has been overstated.

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.

Periods of volcanism can cool the climate (as with the 1991 Pinatubo eruption), methane emissions from increased biological activity can warm the climate, and slight changes in solar output and orbital variations can all have climate effects which are much shorter in duration than the ice age cycles, ranging from less than a decade to a thousand years in duration (the Younger Dryas).

A less active sun would probably have a small cooling effect on earth's temperature, if man - made greenhouse gases weren't having a much bigger warming influence.

But soaking in cool water (a shower provides a less potent effect) for no more than 15 minutes will help blood return to the heart and cause tissue compression that reduces inflammation, thereby improving recovery.

But one less - than - stellar thing that comes with cooler temps are the leftover effects of a sun - soaked summer on your hair.

My second look features: Halogen Rib Knit Off the Shoulder Top (TTS wearing a small) and comes in 4 colors / / Joe's Cool Off Charlie Step - Up Hem High Rise Skinny Jeans (TTS wearing a 26) / / Steve Madden Effect Block Heel Bootie (similar for less here) / / Rebecca Minkoff Mini MAC Velvet Convertible Crossbody Bag / / Argento Vivo Multirow Choker / / LAGOS Enso Caviar Crossover Ring / / Gucci Belt With Double G Buckle (also found here) / / Illesteva Milan II Mirrored Round Sunglasses (similar for less here) / /

My forth look features: Topshop One - Shoulder Jersey Shirt (TTS I'm wearing a US 6 fits like a 2 - 4) / / Joe's Cool Off Charlie Step - Up Hem High Rise Skinny Jeans (TTS wearing a 26) / / Steve Madden Effect Block Heel Bootie (similar for less here) / / Rebecca Minkoff Mini MAC Velvet Convertible Crossbody Bag / / Argento Vivo Multirow Choker / / LAGOS Enso Caviar Crossover Ring / / Gucci Belt With Double G Buckle (also found here) / / Illesteva Milan II Mirrored Round Sunglasses (similar for less here) / /

This one has some really cool and special effects and filters at the same time it is less complicated to use in contrast to Camtasia Studio.

Not only that, but all three versions have also been updated to allow you to fast - forward Daily Challenge replays (with a very cool VHS - style effect, no less), as well as a few minor fixes including synchronization of LAN multiplayer.

A similar effect occurs in the stratosphere, except that the negative energy imbalance now causes a cooling which causes less energy to be emitted by the CO2 (see para. 3 above).

and, of course, the effect of cooler water at the ocean's surface is less re-radiation of heat into the atmosphere over it, and hence (i) less heating of the atmosphere from that source (ii) more heat retained at that water surface.

As a function of the NAO trend through to about 1996 there was a significant cooling pattern over Greenland (look at annual mean trends from 1950 to 1996 for maximum effect), but the longer you average over the less that is seen (though since there is still a positive NAO trend it is still a factor).

While we might HOPE FOR THE BEST — that there will be a cooling trend (less sun irradiance, etc) to exactly counteract our AGW trend (even so there is the negative effects of CO2, even without the warming — ocean acidification, crop loss to weed, etc)-- we should then be trying to AVERT THE WORST with even more drastic GHG cuts.

Before allowing the temperature to respond, we can consider the forcing at the tropopause (TRPP) and at TOA, both reductions in net upward fluxes (though at TOA, the net upward LW flux is simply the OLR); my point is that even without direct solar heating above the tropopause, the forcing at TOA can be less than the forcing at TRPP (as explained in detail for CO2 in my 348, but in general, it is possible to bring the net upward flux at TRPP toward zero but even with saturation at TOA, the nonzero skin temperature requires some nonzero net upward flux to remain — now it just depends on what the net fluxes were before we made the changes, and whether the proportionality of forcings at TRPP and TOA is similar if the effect has not approached saturation at TRPP); the forcing at TRPP is the forcing on the surface + troposphere, which they must warm up to balance, while the forcing difference between TOA and TRPP is the forcing on the stratosphere; if the forcing at TRPP is larger than at TOA, the stratosphere must cool, reducing outward fluxes from the stratosphere by the same total amount as the difference in forcings between TRPP and TOA.

Conceptually, it's hard to see how the Gulf Stream western boundary current could be weakened by conditions around Greenland; this is a fluid dynamics system, not a mechanical «belt»; a backup due to less deep water formation should have little effect on the physics of the gyre and the formation of the western boundary current, and it also seems the tropical warming and the resulting equator - to - pole heat transport are the drivers — but perhaps modulation by jet stream meandering is playing some role in the cooling?

It might make sense to take a small portion of the aerosol that would have been dumped into the troposphere by retired dirty coal plants, and inject that directly into the stratosphere where it will restore the lost cooling effect while (hopefully) doing less harm than the old stuff dumped into the lower atmosphere.

Since aerosols last much longer in the stratosphere than they do in the rainy troposphere, the amount of aerosol - forming substance that would need to be injected into the stratosphere annually is far less than what would be needed to give a similar cooling effect in the troposphere, though so far as the stratospheric aerosol burden goes, it would still be a bit like making the Earth a permanently volcanic planet (think of a Pinatubo or two a year, forever).

In winter, the effect of the cooler phase of the oscillation on the northern hemisphere is to depress temperatures slightly; but in summer, the cooler waters in the equatorial Pacific have less impact on the northern hemisphere's weather.

To me, it is more likely the fluctuation in E-UV coming from the sun that causes the warming and cooling effects by changing the reactions that are happening on TOA, i.e. O3, HxOx and NOx are rising now, causing more back radiation of F - UV, meaning less energy going in the oceans.

For example, even though the volcanic effect is short - lived it will still have an impact on the water cycle - less evaporation because it's cooler therefore less water vapour, lowering temperature a bit more.

As Indur Goklany has shown, even assuming that the climate models on which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accurately predict (rather than exaggerate by 2 to 3 times) the warming effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere, people the world over, and especially in developing countries, will be wealthier in warmer than in cooler scenarios, making them less vulnerable than today to all risks — including those related to climate.

El Niño and La Niña years were classifed as those with MEI values of greater than 0.5 and less than -0.5, respectively (which correspond to warming or cooling effects of ~ 0.04 °C or more on the annual global surface temperature anomaly, according to Foster & Rahmstorf).

«It perhaps suggests that the role of sulphate aerosols, that cooling effect, was less powerful than we thought,» said Mike Hulme from the University of East Anglia (UEA), who was not involved in the study.

1) Due to the short atmospheric lifetime of tropospheric sulfates, if their cooling effect was so large we would observe cooling or, at the very least, less warming over the emitting areas and downwind from them, especially China and some Eastern European regions.

My opinion expressed elsewhere is that almost all the temperature changes we observe over periods of less than a century are caused by cyclical changes in the rate of energy emission from the oceans with the solar effect only providing a slow background trend of warming or cooling for several centuries at a time.

«It perhaps suggests that the role of sulphate aerosols, that cooling effect, was less powerful than we thought,» said Mike Hulme

In effect they simply continue the distribution of the initial (solar induced) warming or cooling state around the globe and of course there are varying degrees of lag so that from time to time the other lesser oceanic oscillations can operate contrary to the primary Pacific oscillations until the lag is worked through.

Associated with human greenhouse gas production is the release of fine particle known as aerosols which have a temporary cooling effect (they last in the atmosphere less than a week).

CO2 plays a minuscule cooling role because it also radiates like water vapour, but you won't detect it because its cooling effect is less than 1 % of water vapour's, so why waste time looking?

Warmer winters (if they have lots of clouds... in winter thick clouds actually warm since there is less daylight and there cooling effect is now reversed to warming by retaining the heat... reflecting more IR than carbon dioxide can do, depending upon the type of cloud).

And it seems if somehow the ocean's effect is reduced, one will colder conditions and possibly even higher day time high temperatures, but there less room to get warmer, as compared to get cooler, and so global temperature lowers.

This ridicu - lousy bunk is PROOF of their ridicu - lousiness: 1) Stratospheric cooling is evidence of the greenhouse effect (less heat escaping to space) 2) The «pause» has always been ridiculous: just take the graph and draw the trend line.

I have already made it clear elsewhere that the additional resistor effect of human CO2 would be insignificant in relation to that from the rest of the air and the oceans together with the varying solar and oceanic heating and cooling effects but we still need to know for sure whether it is significant at all over periods of less than several hundred years because that may be the time we need to solve our energy, pollution, resource and population problems.

I suspect that in areas where industrial and transport exhaust is less, where ranches were rarer, and the agriculture was mere vegetation irrigation might have a cooling effect.

As a glider pilot we always avoided irrigation areas because there were less thermals there in the daytime becuase of the cooling effect.

Bernie says: September 8, 2010 at 6:03 pm As a glider pilot we always avoided irrigation areas because there were less thermals there in the daytime becuase of the cooling effect.

He calimed that the solar effect on cooling is 3 to 9 less effective then the warming due to AGW (according to projections).

This happens in the top 100 microns or less — giving a cool skin effect that is constantly renewed at the velocity of photons in the atmosphere and mixed into the ocean surface at the speed of eddies and waves.

on the other hand, CO2 intercepts small amount of sunlight high up, where cooling is much more efficient — as a result small amount LESS of the sunlight comes to the ground = same as the H2O cloud effect - > brings day / night's temp closer = less extrLESS of the sunlight comes to the ground = same as the H2O cloud effect - > brings day / night's temp closer = less extrless extreme.

The cooling effect is strongest in the upper atmosphere where there is less water vapor.