Sentences with phrase «negative effects of warming»

Secondly, it needs to be recognized that management of non-climatic stressors that interact and reinforce the negative effects of warming and ocean acidification can go some way in mitigating the effects of climate change at the local level.

the hockeystick people carefully select a method which most highly weights the warmest proxies the effects people look only at the most dire negative effects of warming they can find and choose not to investigate positive effects.

For instance, the greatest negative effects of warming are expected to occur in the tropics because tropical species tend to have a narrower range of thermal tolerance when compared with higher latitude species.

«MS study correlates negative effect of warmer weather on cognitive status.»

Kessler Foundation MS study documents negative effect of warmer weather on cognitive performance

Not exact matches

The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects.

It should be comfortable, warm and as it has been mentioned before it is important for it to be flame - retardant and it shouldn't have a negative effect on the sensitive skin of the little one.

One of the negative environmental conditions that will worsen with the effects of global warming is the flooding of farmland due to torrential rain.

«Immediate action is required to develop a carbon - neutral or carbon - negative future or, alternatively, prepare adaptation strategies for the effects of a warmer climate,» said Dr Goodwin, Lecturer in Oceanography and Climate at Southampton.

The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning.

Furthermore, he said, the shrinking range of pikas is just one example of the negative effects of global warming on plant and animal species around the world.

In many of the wood frog populations studied, researchers found evidence of interacting temperature and precipitation influencing population size, such as warmer summers having less of a negative effect in areas that received more precipitation.

When the AMO is in its positive phase and the sea surface temperatures are warmer, the study has shown that the main effect in winter is to promote the negative phase of the NAO which leads to «blocking» episodes over the North Atlantic sector, allowing cold weather systems to exist over the eastern US and Europe.

The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of climate sensitivity, the role of cloud formation and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

They speculate that a number of events that relate to historical fishing practices, both commercial and recreational, combined with the warming waters in the Gulf of Maine may be increasing the negative effects of the growth of kelp.

So the best thing you can do is encourage them to stretch early in their warm - up, and then do some more dynamic activity afterwards to help «shake out» the negative effects of stretching before game time.»

For example, this November 2009 study, titled «Negative effect of static stretching restored when combined with a sport specific warm - up component,» which reaches the opposite conclusion.

Combat the negative effect of extremely warm weather conditions with fab dresses sculpted from natural and light textures.

Specification points covered are: Paper 2 Topic 1 (4.5 - homeostasis and response) 4.5.1 - Homeostasis (B5.1 lesson) 4.5.3.2 - Control of blood glucose concentration (B5.1 lesson) 4.5.2.1 - Structure and function (B5.2 lesson) Required practical 7 - plan and carry out an investigation into the effect of a factor on human reaction time (B5.2 lesson) 4.5.3.1 - Human endocrine system (B5.6 lesson) 4.5.3.4 - Hormones in human reproduction (B5.10 lesson) 4.5.3.5 - Contraception (B5.11 lesson) 4.5.3.6 - The use of hormones to treat infertility (HT only)(B5.12 lesson) 4.5.3.7 - Negative feedback (HT only)(B5.13 lesson) Paper 2 topic 2 (4.6 - Inheritance, variation and evolution) 4.6.1.1 - sexual and asexual reproduction (B6.1 lesson) 4.6.1.2 - Meiosis (B6.1 lesson) 4.6.1.4 - DNA and the genome (B6.3 lesson) 4.6.1.6 - Genetic inheritance (B6.5 lesson) 4.6.1.7 - Inherited disorders (B6.6 lesson) 4.6.1.8 - Sex determination (B6.5 lesson) 4.6.2.1 - Variation (B6.9 lesson) 4.6.2.2 - Evolution (B6.10 lesson) 4.6.2.3 - Selective breeding (B6.11 lesson) 4.6.2.4 - Genetic engineering (B6.11 lesson) 4.6.3.4 - Evidence for evolution (B6.16 lesson) 4.6.3.5 - Fossils (B6.16 lesson) 4.6.3.6 - Extinction (B6.16 lesson) 4.6.3.7 - Resistant bacteria (B6.17 lesson) 4.6.4.1 - classification of living organisms (B6.18 lesson) Paper 2 topic 3 (4.7 - Ecology 4.7.1.1 - Communities (B7.1 lesson) 4.7.1.2 - Abiotic factors (B7.1 lesson) 4.7.1.3 - Biotic factors (B7.1 lesson) 4.7.1.4 — Adaptations (B7.2 lesson) 4.7.2.1 - Levels of organisation (feeding relationships + predator - prey cycles)(B7.3 lesson) 4.7.2.1 - Levels of organisation (required practical 9 - population sizes)(B7.4 lesson) 4.7.2.2 - How materials are cycled (B7.5 lesson) 4.7.3.1 - Biodiversity (B7.7 lesson) 4.7.3.6 - Maintaining Biodiversity (B7.7 lesson) 4.7.3.2 - Waste management (B7.9 lesson) 4.7.3.3 - Land use (B7.9 lesson) 4.7.3.4 - Deforestation (B7.9 lesson) 4.7.3.5 - Global warming (B7.9 lesson)

The potential for surprises increases as a function of sensitivity, but even «not so alarming» trends in warming can have long standing negative effects on reefal communities, continental aridity, etc..

Data from satellite observations «suggest that greenhouse models ignore negative feedback produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects» of human carbon dioxide emissions.

These latter two effects are expected to lead to slight warming, but the overall impact of land use changes is expected to be negative (i.e. a cooling)(Myhre and Myhre, 2003), although the uncertainty is still significant (maybe 0.5 W / m2 either way).

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.

For example, Spencer et al 2007 analysis of recent and precise climatologies suggests that the iris effect is not dead, after all, and the order of magnitude of the negative feedback -LRB--6 W / m2 TOA for warm tropical events) is interesting.

This is what I get out of it: the Arctic - ice - albedo situation is more complicated than earlier thought (due to clouds, sun - filled summers, dark winters, etc), but NET EFFECT, the ice loss and all these other related factors (some negative feedbacks) act as a positive feedback and enhance global warming.

Similar negative effects occur with worsening air pollution — higher levels of ground - level ozone smog and other pollutants that increase with warmer temperatures have been directly linked with increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease — food production and safety — warmer temperatures and varying rainfall patterns mess up staple crop yields and aid the migration and breeding of pests that can devastate crops — flooding — as rising sea levels make coastal areas and densely - populated river deltas more susceptible to storm surges and flooding that result from severe weather — and wildfires, which can be ancillary to increased heat waves and are also responsible for poor air quality (not to mention burning people's homes and crops).

# 92 Spencer el al 2007 paper doesn't really support the precise mechanism proposed by Lindzen for Iris effect, but more simply observes a strong TOA negative correction associated with warming events at 20 ° S - 20 ° N (that is: in the 2000 - 2005 period of observation, the most significative warming episodes of the surface + low troposphere — 40 days or more — leads to a negative SW+LW cloud forcing at the top of the atmosphere).

Spencer + Braswell have shown that over the tropics on a shorter - term basis, the net overall feedback from clouds with warming is negative; this is largely due to an increase in reflection of incoming radiation by increased clouds with a smaller effect from the reduction of energy trapping high altitude clouds, which slow down outgoing radiation by absorbing and re-radiating energy.

In 2011, the Global Warming Policy Foundation's website ran the headline «900 + Peer - Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of «Man - Made» Global Warming (AGW) Alarm,» listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute «concern relating to a negative environmental or socio - economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.&raquOf «Man - Made» Global Warming (AGW) Alarm,» listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute «concern relating to a negative environmental or socio - economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.&raquof AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.»

New breeding lines derived from MAS, either in entirely new or recombined genetic backgrounds or in the background of rice mega-varieties that are already planted to millions of hectares, could potentially alleviate the negative effects of climate change on rice production due to global warming.»

@David: You write: «If the beneficial aspect of CO2 increases in a lineal manner and the warming effect of CO2 decreases logarithmically, then does it not makes sense that at some point CO2 itself becomes a negative feedback?»

While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the «global greening» benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects — if those even exist.

Before it is safe to attribute a global warming or a global cooling effect to any other factor (CO2 in particular) it is necessary to disentangle the simultaneous overlapping positive and negative effects of solar variation, PDO / ENSO and the other oceanic cycles.

Its warming effect, however, is simultaneously amplified and dampened by positive and negative feedbacks such as increased water vapor (the most powerful greenhouse gas), reduced albedo, which is a measure of Earth's reflectivity, changes in cloud characteristics, and CO2 exchanges with the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems.

Amongst other things the above link (2) shows how the negative PDO from 1961 to 1975 cancelled out the warming effects of solar cycles 18 and 19 and led to a cooling trend during those years despite the relatively high TSI levels.

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.

With continued warming, however, benefits will likely peak and subsequently decline, and the effects of climate change for the nation as a whole in these sectors will turn negative.

But the utter incoherence of views presented by deniers gives the game away even so (it's cooling, it's warming but the sun is responsible, it's warming but some unknown natural cycle is responsible, the «greenhouse» effect violates the laws of thermodynamics, but somehow the energy radiated back to the surface by the atmosphere simply vanishes, there is a greenhouse effect but negative feed - backs make it negligible, & c ad nauseam).

(While the data did suggest strong positive water vapor feedback, which enhances warming, that was far exceeded by the cooling effect of negative feedback from cloud changes.)»

[37] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity.

The prominent upward trend in the GM precipitation occurring in the last century and the notable strengthening of the global monsoon in the last 30 yr (1961 — 90) appear unprecedented and are due possibly in part to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, though the authors» simulations of the effects from recent warming may be overestimated without considering the negative feedbacks from aerosols.

A self stabilising system which is as well capable of neutralising any ocean skin effect as it is capable of neutralising negative ocean cycles, positive ocean cycles and any warming of the air by any increase in greenhouse gases.

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).

Observed data and many studies indicate that a warming climate has a negative effect to crop production, generally reduce yields of staple cereals such as wheat, rice and maize, which, however, differs between regions and latitudes.

BTW: There is no physical evidence that the assumption of a net positive feedback is correct, and much physical evidence to suggest that the real world feedbacks are net negative and will reduce the proposed direct warming effect of CO2 towards (closer too) 0.

None of the Annan / Hargreaves priors go below zero, and while this may be physically realistic it does not allow for the fact that the observational data generate negative sensitivities, mostly because of ocean cycle warming and cooling effects that the radiative forcing estimates do not take into account.

Meanwhile, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is excellent «concession» to make in the rhetorical sense, since it concedes the obvious state of our knowledge about the effects of CO2, while at the same time providing us with the solid argument that even if we double atmospheric CO2 levels from 400ppm to 800 ppm over the next 100 years the largest amount of warming possible — assuming all else remains the same and Gaia has no homeostasis negative feedback systems which tend to moderate any runaway trends — is 1.2 c.

2 °C of warming would have very negative effects, which is why it is important to swiftly work towards the Paris goal of the 1.5 °C limit.

If the negative effects of climate change, the rising air temperatures, the changing precipitation, the prevalence of extreme weather events, and the rising sea levels, become too disruptive or costly, we have the option to deploy certain climate altering technologies to remove greenhouse gases directly from the air or reflect sunlight back out of the atmosphere before it warms the earth.

Warming effect of CO2 is Negative?