Sentences with phrase «only warming source»

The only warming source here is the sun.

Not exact matches

Kyoto regulates all sources of carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases, but reliable long - term data by country are available only for carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (which accounts for about two - thirds of the human contribution to global warming).

Puncak Jaya is the only place to get ice core data from the western side of what's known as the Pacific Warm Pool the single largest heat source to the global atmosphere.

Not only has Dr. Soon lied to us and our lawmakers about the seriousness of global warming — he even lied directly to Congress in 2003 about his sources of funding at a time when he was promoting his study funded by the American Petroleum Institute, the $ 200 million / year oil and gas lobbying group.

As nitrogen ice on the surface of the plain cools, it recedes, only to be replaced by a rising blob of nitrogen that has been warmed by Pluto's meagre internal heat source.

With a professional interior photoshoot only 2 weeks away, I'm in turbo - decorating mode sourcing the last few pieces and giving our home the finishing touches it needs to truly feel like us: casual, modern and warm.

And I just realised that probably the only thing that makes me sad about the warmer days at this time of the year, is that I will no longer be able to wear all of the cool leather coats and jackets I recently sourced in vintage.

THE DVDs Fahrenheit 451 gets a gratifyingly exhaustive Universal / Laurent Bouzereau treatment, starting with a warm 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer that only succumbs to distracting grain for a few seconds in chapter 10 — the result, no doubt, of a bad optical transition inherent in the source print.

However, if a pet would benefit from a warming diet - this can not be achieved by offering only raw (energetically very cold) food no matter which warming protein sources, vegetables, and grains are chosen.

One needs to remember that Greenland is not the only source of freshwater, and that warming itself also reduces density.

As far as I know, the 2 main sources of satellite data for temperatures in the lower troposphere are UAH and RSS, and they vastly differ in their trends in the tropical troposphere, with RSS's trend being twice as warming as the UAH trend, although they show the same trends in the remaining troposphere, resulting in a Global difference of only 0.035 C / d trend.

According to an op - ed in the New York Times (subscription only), the cancellation may have been politically motovated and deprives the scientific community of an vital source of data on global warming.

It would seem to be required that very drastic warming of the deep ocean is the only way that this source of Methane would be released and trigger a «runaway» greenhouse warming.

In fact, I was by default not doubting the global warming classic interpretation till I started reading multiple sources on the net, and as my self - confession as a recent skeptic shows, the argument from the denialist camp are not only convincing to petrol gulping rednecks, but also to a very scientifically minded, atheist european (although, I must admit, I like motor sports; — RRB --RRB-.

It does seem at first glance that a warm troposphere would warm the stratosphere, but the explanation that more of the earth - sourced infrared radiation is absorbed lower in the the troposphere by higher levels of CO2 makes sense if one thinks about the thermodynamic losses involved in the CO2 re-radiation processes; some of the earth - sourced infrared is transformed into kinetic energy and only a fraction is reradiated as more infrared radiation (if I'm understanding correctly).

How can Wien's law require more energy - out be generated but the only source of energy for global warming (except the solar) is by reducing the energy - out to create an energy imbalance to create the radiative warming.

When we have enough and then some of energy from this source, and if it starts to warm dramatically, then and only then look at reducing CO2.

This fanatical belief had them convinced that America's light bulbs were causing global warming, and the only way to save the planet was to declare war on Americans favorite lighting source.

The part within the current Oregon Petition page about fictional names, with a much more simplified solitary Seattle Times source, (screencapture here) was first placed there on March 31, 2007 — only three weeks and a day after «The Great Global Warming Swindle» was broadcast.

It can be seen from basic greenhouse theory that greenhouse warming should amplify not only the global mean surface temperature but also any variations in the global mean surface temperature that are from non-greenhouse sources at the same rate.

[12] Morano offered no documentation to support the «$ 50 BILLION» claim, and cited only one figure to support the «$ 19 MILLION» claim — a statement that «skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $ 19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades,» falsely suggesting that ExxonMobil was the only source of funding for global warming «skeptics.»

First, the 20th century warming is only «consistent with natural variability» if one imagines sources of variability that have not emerged in the climate record over the course of millions of years.

While many sources of stress have caused corals to bleach, «mass» coral bleaching (at scales of 100 km or more) has only occurred when anomalously warm ocean temperatures, typically coupled with high subsurface light levels, exceeded corals» physiological tolerances.

«I think interest in wind power and other renewable energy sources is now growing not only in Delaware, but nationally due to the rising cost and long - term supply issues associated with traditional energy sources, as well as other concerns such as global warming,» Kempton said.

Aircraft not only emit 12 percent of CO2 emissions from U.S. transportation sources — they also emit nitrogen oxides other than nitrous oxide, causing warming when emitted at high elevation.

More recently, scientists have been surprised to learn that black carbon — not only from biomass fires but from dirty diesel engines and other sources — is a far larger contributor to global warming than previously suspected: The dark particles absorb and retain heat close to the Earth's surface that might otherwise be reflected.

Arguing about where the natural warming is coming from is pointless as there is only one source of heat.

Not only do these different proxies around the world show a pronounced warming in the late 20th century, they are also useful in revealing the fossil fuel signature source of recently accumulating carbon dioxide (the Suess effect, see here and here) in the atmosphere.

Rep. Smith's inquiry comes on the heels of critical pieces about Dr. Shukla in conservative news sources such as the Daily Caller, a website that has published claims that «global warming only exists in the world of computer models.»

Recent assessments of all data sources has now made clear that not only was there never any «hiatus» in the rising temperatures, the planetary warming is actually accelerating rapidly.

Next closest is Xigaze, which covers the time period but is only warming at 1.5 °C / century, so it could not have been the source.

It remains one of the greatest ironies of the environmental movement that those most concerned with global warming, like Ms. Collard, are opposed to nuclear energy, the only non-greenhouse gas - emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels while satisfying Canada's growing demand for energy.

The only expected source of warming, therefore, is the equilbrium response to the already - existant TOA imbalance caused by past forcing changes.

The non-scientist Naomi Oreskes, who was not only criticized as being an unreliable source for determining what constitutes being «a science paper on global warming,» but also a person who can't reliably recount her own personal history events accurately.

So, once again, it is ever more obvious that the collective lot of enviro - activists have only one source for their unsupportable accusation about a fossil fuel industry denial mating, the worthless set of «reposition global warming» memos, and the one guy responsible for gaining media traction for them, Ross Gelbspan.

Today, more than 1/3 of our nation depends on this fuel source for electricity, meaning when oil and gas companies let it escape into the atmosphere, it not only accelerates global warming, it also results in massive amounts of wasted resources and diminishes our energy independence.

If, prior to the existence of significant anthropogenic CO2, real world switches between warming and cooling are observed to have happened then protestations about the smallness of solar variability come to nought when the only relevant heat source is the sun.

Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means «implicitly endors [ing] that humans are a cause of warming» where «a» is something less than primary (that is, over half) is if there is some as - yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as - yet undiscovered source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.

The only way to double global energy consumption while cutting global warming emissions in half is by developing new sources of clean energy.

Climate Scientists Recant Only 50 % Of Recent Arctic Warming & Sea Ice Loss Is Human - Caused Image Source: Climate4you The Arctic region was the largest contributor to the positive slope in global temperatures in recent decades.

With the oceans being the only likely source of «capacitance», we can see that for them to be both warming the atmosphere through an energy discharge and at the same time, gaining energy is not physically consistent.

But it was cold this winter and C02 is plant food and only a trace gas and the greenhouse effect has been disproved anyway and even if the greenhouse effect does exist, C02 has negligible impact compared to water vapour and our only source of heat is the sun so it must be the sun, unless it is due to the C02 from volcanoes, but C02 follows warming so it can't be the C02 and the medieval warm period was warmer anyway and all the temperature reconstructions that show this not to be true are produced by corrupt scientists being paid by corrupt governments that have colluded to create an excuse to form a one world unelected social - ist government and even if the scientists are not that corrupt, although the e-mails prove they are, they have still got it wrong as the climate sensitivity is not as high as they think it is because it is basically the planets orbits and cosmic rays so we can say for a fact that the warming that probably does not exist is definatley not due to humans and even if it was the evidence is not sufficient to make drastic changes to the economy and increase taxes so that the politicians and scientists and business leaders get rich and leave us all poor — do they think we are stupid or something?

Backing that up, NASA says that 1) sea surface temperature fluctuations (El Niño - La Niña) can cause global temperature deviation of about 0.2 °C; 2) solar maximums and minimums produce variations of only 0.1 °C, warmer or cooler; 3) aerosols from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo for example) have caused average cooling of 0.3 °C, but recent eruptions have had not had significant effect.

The match between the Keeling curve and the warming is only confirmation, not the source of the hypothesis.

That's the finding of a new Harvard study that, for the first time, examines the true cost of coal throughout its entire life cycle... Clearly, the fact that coal contributes more global warming pollution than any other source in the nation is far from its only problem.

They dismiss this outright, insisting that expanding electricity access to this segment, even with fossil - fuel - based sources, would have only a minuscule impact on global warming.

Not only that, but there is increasingly compelling evidence that the recent short - term slowdown in the surface temperature record was much less pronounced than previously estimated, if rapid Arctic warming is fully reflected, along with potential biases from the changing mix of sea surface temperature measurement sources in recent years.

One thing I would add — it ought to be obvious (and I certainly hope it is) that a process of «winding back and decelerating the present form of capitalism», including «more social democracy, more regulation», will only be effective at mitigating the effect of global warming (partially or wholly), if it includes a large suite of policies specifically aimed at addressing global warming, that is, replacing emissions - producing activities or processes (particularly energy sources) with non emissions - producing ones.

Maibach, who is now working on a further project to measure the effects the views of weathercasters have on their audience, added: «Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming - only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy.»

And political change is not the only source of instability: global warming has... [more]