Sentences with phrase «much effect on the temperature»

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, «there would not be much effect on temperatures.»

Jeffrey, there is little evidence that CO2 has much effect on temperature.

Not exact matches

I've never baked at high altitude, so I'm unsure of the effects on macarons — my initial thoughts were that you can't tweak the ingredients too much because then ratio would be off, but the meringue may take longer to beat up, the sugar will probably boil more quickly, and baking time or temperature may need adjusting.

«Most people probably expect that temperature and carbon dioxide will rise together and then temperature will come down when the carbon dioxide input is shut off, but carbon dioxide has such a long life in the atmosphere that the effects really depend on how much you put in.

The future of the currents, whether slowing, stopping or reversing (as was observed during several months measurements), could have a profound effect on regional weather patterns — from colder winters in Europe to a much warmer Caribbean (and hence warmer sea surface temperatures to feed hurricanes).

That means existing climate change models predicting the effects of rising temperatures and heat stress on maize may be counting on yield boosts that aren't coming, and overestimating how much our corn fields will yield in the future.

Well, I don't think we should start messing around fixing it in the sense of sending them miles up into the space; [in] fact I make some arguments why that's not going to happen, because we can't even agree on CO2 now, the world's nations are not going to agree upon how much to try to turn the thermostat back, particularly when the crops might be growing better with higher CO2, right now when the temperature effects haven't kicked in fully.

This would have an effect on sea level, but not much effect on air temperatures.

For a subset of 14 relatively clear (cloudy) stations, the mean temperature drop was 0.91 ± 0.78 (0.31 ± 0.40) degrees C, but the mean temperature drops for relatively calm and windy stations were almost identical, indicating that cloud cover has a much greater effect than wind on the air temperature's response to an eclipse.

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.

Much study has focused on the effects these rising carbon dioxide levels could have on weather patterns and global temperatures, but could elevated atmospheric CO2 levels negatively affect the nutritional value of the food we grow?

Trypsin inhibitor content of soy protein isolate can vary as much as fivefold.21 (In rats, even low - level - trypsin - inhibitor SPI feeding results in reduced weight gain compared to controls.22) But high - temperature processing has the unfortunate side effect of so denaturing the other proteins in soy that they are rendered largely ineffective.23 That's why animals on soy feed need lysine supplements for normal growth.

This leather treatment is able to reduce surface temperatures on dark interior colors by up to 20 Celsius degrees (36 Fahrenheit degrees), and also offers advantages on light - colored upholstery, where the heating effect of sunshine is less severe, reducing the surface temperature by as much as 15 Celsius degrees (27 Fahrenheit degrees).

There really has not been much research on the effects of water temperature on cats, but there have been several studies performed on humans, and they have found that people drink significantly more water if it is cool and refreshing than if it is hot or room temperature.

Since we know that the earth's surface is significantly warmed by geothermal heat, that geothermal heat is variable, that truly titanic forces are at work in the earth's core changing its structure and alignment, and that geothermal heat flux has a much greater influence on surface temperatures than variations in carbon dioxide can possibly have, it makes sense to include its effects in a compendium of global warming discussion parameters.

Many recent studies (e.g. Hansen & Sato) have claimed that future rise in global average temperature (GAT) will create a much greater effect on sea level than IPCC AR4 predicts.

Clean air is air without much SOx and that must have effects on global temperature.

The famous «255 K» value for no greenhouse effect on Earth is an example of this, although in reality if we got that cold you would expect a snowball - like Earth and a much higher albedo from the increased brightness of the surface... and thus the «no - greenhouse temperature» would be even colder than 255 K.

Clouds could have an effect on temperature, but in the present climate they don't do much, because the cloud greenhouse effect just about cancels out the cloud shading (cooling) effect.

I will have more to say on this as the latest SST / SHA maps (2 days behind Real - Time) come to hand and I can determine just how much Florida has cleaned up those wasteater emissions off its west coast and what effect that has had on overall GOM temperatures and dynamic circulation couplings.

Thus, a decreasing pole - equator temperature gradient shouldn't have much effect on hurricanes.

Temperature changes will have a much stronger effect on reptiles than it will on humans.

Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle and Spokane, Washington comprised the «cold» group — Braga et al. (2002) determined both the acute effects and lagged influence of temperature on cardiovascular - related deaths, finding that in the hot cities neither hot nor cold temperatures had much impact on mortality related to cardiovascular disease (CVD).

But even when carbon dioxide does make its way out of the atmosphere, Earth's natural systems can release other carbon dioxide molecules that were previously stored in the oceans / land back into the atmosphere, making the full effect of carbon dioxide emissions on surface temperatures much longer than this 5 - 200 year average.

Over even longer periods of time, such as thousand year time cycles, the effect of CO2 on temperature is much more noticeable.

The real question should be: how much of an effect does increasing CO2 by X amount have on the planet's temperature?

* There is too much conflicting evidence about climate change to know whether it is actually happening * Current climate change is part of a pattern that has been going on for millions of years * Climate change is just a natural fluctuation in Earth's temperatures * Even if we do experience some consequences from climate change, we will be able to cope with them * The effects of climate change are likely to be catastrophic * The evidence for climate change is unreliable * There are a lot of very different theories about climate change and little agreement about which is right * Scientists have in the past changed their results to make climate change appear worse than it is * Scientists have hidden research that shows climate change is not serious * Climate change is a scam * Social / behavioural scepticism measures * Climate change is so complicated, that there is very little politicians can do about it * There is no point in me doing anything about climate change because no - one else is * The actions of a single person doesn't make any difference in tackling climate change * People are too selfish to do anything about climate change * Not much will be done about climate change, because it is not in human nature to respond to problems that won't happen for many years * It is already too late to do anything about climate change * The media is often too alarmist about climate change * Environmentalists do their best to emphasise the worst possible effects of climate change * Climate change has now become a bit of an outdated issue * Whether it is important or not, on a day - to - day basis I am bored of hearing about climate change

If we do the numbers and assume that climate change is 100 % man made that CO2 is the sole culprit of climate change, and that the climate models are accurate despite routinely grossly overestimating the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperature, then, according to the Paris Accord, spending over $ 1 trillion / year for the next 85 years (adjusted for inflation every year) will cease temperature increases by as much as 0.03 C.

Nor does it look likely that the next El Nino, which Michaels says is «really weak,» will have much of an effect on global temperatures.

But from reading all these papers, it striking how large the disconnect is between how much you hear about «arctic amplification» and how small the effect on the global temperature appears to be.

Because the water holding capacity of the atmosphere increases exponentially with temperature (e.g., Trenberth et al. 2003), a positive anomaly on top of already high SSTs has much greater effect than if located elsewhere.

So, this urbanization has probably not had much effect on actual global temperatures, e.g., Jacobsen & Ten Hoeve, 2012 (Abstract; Google Scholar access).

Here's a hint: begins with a G. 3) So after all that blabing about moon, mercury and venus it is still hard to see how the obscure part of Venus (which is not recieving any direct radiation from the Sun) is still over 400 Celcius when on a plante much closer to the same sun temperatures plunge to a a hundred negative... since the Greenhouse effect does not exist it must be MAGIC, pardon me, SCIENCE.

Further climate change is expected to intensify these effects on North Sea plankton, cod, and marine ecosystems.7 By 2100, scientists estimate that average world sea surface temperatures could rise as much as 5.4 ° F (3 ° C) if our heat - trapping emissions continue unabated.13, 14

Hawkins and Jones (2013) focused on one small aspect of Callendar's work: his compilation of World Weather Records station temperature data into zonal and global temperature anomalies, in effect, delimiting Callendar, whose contribution was much more diverse, as a sort of John the Baptist of temperature accountancy, merely preparing the way for Phil Jones.

One complaint of developing nations is a lack of clarity on how much money richer countries will provide to help them cut emissions and adapt to the effects of warmer temperatures such as rising sea levels and melting glaciers.

This new report seems to agree on what is cause (higher temperature, through whatever means) and what is effect (increased CO2) but that the CO2 response is much more immediate.

I think you dismiss the effect of quantitative things like forcing changes and imbalance, and even if I told you the much weaker 11 - year solar forcing cycle is detectable in the temperature record, you would dismiss that on the same principle despite the observations showing it.

Such higher levels of warming would make it much more difficult for countries to keep the global temperature rise to below 2C, as they agreed to do at the landmark Paris climate summit last year, to avoid dangerous extreme weather and negative effects on food security.

Without the cooling, the effect of evaporation on the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 °C (153 °F), and a warmer planet.»

I realise the AMO will also have been affected by solar input, but given the AMO varies by 2C or so in the longer term, and the residual calculated by Hathaway et al is only 0.5 C or so from peak to trough, it would seem that after allowing for the solar effect on the AMO there wouldn't be much room for any co2 warming effect in the Armagh temperature record after the calcs were done.

But unless the albedo changes quite a lot there's not usually much effect on average temperatures.

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).

Tamino has also previously performed a multiple regression of temperature on various short - term effects, including the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), and confirms that TLT data are much more sensitive to ENSO than surface temperature data (Figure 2).

I may be missing something but, looking at these data, I once again find myself unable to believe that the much more scattered industrial aerosols may have had as strong an effect on the global temperatures as the IPCC claims.

Not one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures but rather than interacting additively, these different effects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures.»

One important determinant of how much climate will change is the effect of so - called «feedbacks» in the climate system, which can either dampen or amplify the initial effect of human influences on temperature.

But no one knows how much methane escapes, nor its potential effect on regional or global temperatures.

• Poles to tropics temperature gradient, average temp of tropics over past 540 Ma; and arguably warming may be net - beneficial overall • Quotes from IPCC AR4 WG1 showing that warming would be beneficial for life, not damaging • Quotes from IPCC AR5 WG3 stating (in effect) that the damage functions used for estimating damages are not supported by evidence • Richard Tol's breakdown of economic impacts of GW by sector • Economic damages of climate change — about the IAMs • McKitrick — Social Cost of Carbon much lower than commonly stated • Bias on impacts of GHG emissions — Figure 1 is a chart showing 15 recent estimates of SCC — Lewis and Curry, 2015, has the lowest uncertainty range.

My understanding is that a uniform prior in S (and hence, equivalently, a 1 / Y ^ 2 prior in Y) would be the correct uninformative reference prior (that which has least effect on the posterior PDF) if way stayed with Forster & Gregory's OLS regression method to estimate Y, if and only if the magnitude of the errors in measurements of the surface temperature were much less than combined errors in the measurements of forcings and net radiative balance, the opposite of what Forster & Gregory's error analysis showed.