Sentences with phrase «planetary warming by»

«We need to raise the level of our game in terms of explaining the planetary warming by infrared absorption of CO2 etc..

The Paris accord, agreed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, seeks to limit planetary warming by curbing global emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists believe drive global warming.

«The Paris pledges alone won't keep planetary warming by 2100 below the 2 °C ceiling that many consider safe.»

Trump's decision represents a new obstacle to the Paris agreement's goal of keeping planetary warming by 2100 below the 2 °C ceiling that many consider safe.

Not exact matches

The human mass is spiritually warmed and illumined by the iron grip of planetary compression; and the warming, whereby the rays of individual interaction expand, induces a further increase, in a kind of recoil, of the compression which was its cause... and so on, in a chain - reaction of increasing rapidity.

By abandoning the world's chief effort to slow the tide of planetary warming, Trump was fulfilling a top campaign pledge.

MAVEN arrived at Mars in Sept. 2014 on a mission to investigate a planetary mystery: Billions of years ago, Mars was blanketed by layer of air massive enough to warm the planet and allow liquid water to flow on its surface.

Jacobson said the sum of warming caused by all anthropogenic greenhouse gases — CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons and some others — plus the warming caused by black and brown carbon will yield a planetary warming effect of 2 degrees Celsius over the 20 - year period simulated by the computer.

According to a sample of scientists contacted by ClimateWire, however, the revised ETS does not much alter the picture of overall planetary warming or how humanity needs to respond to it.

Sea levels have been rising worldwide over the past century by between 10 and 20 centimetres, as a result of melting land - ice and the thermal expansion of the oceans due to a planetary warming of around 0.5 degreeC.

Put together, all of the warming caused by biomass - related CO2 emissions and black and brown carbon particles creates a planetary warming effect of 2 degrees Celsius (35.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over the two - decade period simulated by the computer.

As mentioned in the introduction, the satellites which measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of Earth's atmosphere (TOA) can not measure the small planetary energy imbalance brought about by global warming.

Isotopious @ 25 — Please first study Ray Pierrehumbert's «Principles of Planetary Climate» after reading «The Discovery of Global Warming» by Spencer Weart: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html The effects of atmospheric CO2 were completely worked out by 1979, at the latest.

Smaller contributions to planetary energy imbalance are from heat gain by the deeper ocean (+0.10 W / m2), energy used in net melting of ice (+0.05 W / m2), and energy taken up by warming continents (+0.02 W / m2).

Actual planetary surface temperature would likely be higher due to warming by any atmosphere gases that might be present (Borucki et al, 2011, pp. 21 - 23, Table 6).

Today, in times of resource scarcity, global warming and impending nuclear conflict, this claim is being boldly asserted once again — in the form, however, of a private - sector undertaking driven primarily by US tech billionaires from the new space industry, not least — as they claim — in order to secure the survival of mankind against home - made planetary collapse.

Changing the energy imbalance of the planetary system by inhibiting the escape of radiant heat to space WILL result in warming, no matter whether or not you can observe it accurately.

However, much of the warming in the next 50 years will be from presently «unrealized warming» caused by the existing planetary radiative imbalance of at least 0.5 W / m2 (8, 37).

I have an article running in The Times on recent vagaries in planetary temperature, which almost all scientific experts on global warming describe as a brief and normal hiatus from the long - term warming driven by greenhouse gases.

The argument for geoengineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer; governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?

«Our results suggest that, in contrast to other proposals to increase planetary albedo, offsetting mean global warming by reducing marine cloud droplet size does not necessarily lead to a drying, on average, of the continents.

Had we established a consensus viewpoint by now, to assess the planetary warming from the time it measurably began actually heating, both sides could begin from the same fiduciary.

It seems that those who fear AGW (or at least some of them) do admit that it is not realistic to expect a planetary atmosphere such as ours to warm up oceans of water over the timescale required by AGW theory because of the huge volume and density of that water and thus the heat storage differentials.

From Rasmussen Reports Voters in recent months have been increasingly skeptical of the idea that global warming is chiefly caused by human activity, but the number who blame long term planetary trends instead has now fallen back to its lowest level in nearly a year.

Curiously the regions where the warming occurred are also the regions that are most strongly affected by solar mechanisms that modulate planetary cloud cover.

The spatial mean and dispersion of surface temperatures over the last 1200 years: warm intervals are also variable intervals by Martin P. Tingley and Peter Huybers, both of Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard.

It is a fundamental tenet of anthropogenic global warming theory that all the warmth at a planetary surface above that predicted by the S - B equation is due to those GHGs rather than atmospheric mass.

It seems the problems began when the journal's editors agreed to a special issue on «Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,» in which the issue's editors had the temerity to «doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.»

It is rapidly expanding energy use, mainly driven by fossil fuels, that explains why humanity is on the verge of breaching planetary sustainability boundaries through global warming, biodiversity loss, and disturbance of the nitrogen - cycle balance and other measures of the sustainability of the earth's ecosystem.

An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It by Al Gore (Rodale, 2006) 4.

An area of tropical forest the size of India will be deforested in the next 35 years, burning through more than one - sixth of the remaining carbon that can be emitted if global warming is to be kept below 2 degrees Celsius (the «planetary carbon budget»), but many of these emissions could be cheaply avoided by putting a price on carbon.

The rising Temperature of the Planetary Surface (the actuality behind the «it is getting warmer» within the «greenhouse platforming») is rising as the materials OF the surface are altered within (and by) Human «constructions» and the materials there in used.

Variations in how the Earth is tilted and its orbit around the sun make for a pattern of planetary warming phases followed by cooling phases across the millennia.

There are also papers explaining the mechanisms by which specific solar cycle changes could reduce planetary cloud cover and there is observational evidence that shows sub cycles of warming and cooling with the sub cycles correlating to the specific solar mechanisms during the 20 year period at which time there was satellite measurement of planetary cloud cover.

Net radiant flux is planetary warming upward by convention.

Unabated planetary warming and its ocean structure since 2006 ~ Nature Climate Change 5, 240 — 245 (2015) ARGO data taken at 5 meters by 4000 precision instruments spread around the global ocean shows 0.05 C / decade warming since 2006.

It does magnify the night - time greenhouse effect by warming the clouds or the higher levels of the atmosphere, thus increasing the amount of heat radiated back to the surface; though the overall effect is to reduce net planetary greenhouse warming by limiting the temperature gradient.

The interglacial and the glacial planetary temperature data shows cycles of warming and cooling interrupted by very strong «RCEs» (Rickies) Rapid Climatic Change Events (For example the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event and the termination of the last interglacial).

The «unnatural» warming so far seen is however trended strongly to the alterations to the planetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warminplanetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warminPlanetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming».

Average planetary temperatures increased by a «net» of 0.7 degrees C (1.3 F) between 1900 and 2000, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued to rise — but not in a straight line: they rose 1900 - 1940, cooled 1940 - 1975 and warmed 1975 - 1995.

It is my view that the atmosphere will always find a way to lose energy to deep space by some means at or near its top, and will thus always have a troposphere lapse rate which implies that the planetary body will always be warmer with an atmosphere (regardless of gas mix) than it would be without one.

or the lack of indisputable proof that «warming» is caused by human actions... or the acknowledgement that IF there is actual «warming», that it may be caused by some much larger unknown cyclical planetary phenomenon that would take a millennia to track and research.

The fact that the actual measured planetary warming is less than the lowest IPCC model prediction warming and is found only at high latitudes (which is not predicted by the IPCC models) logically supports the assertion that the planet's response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase reflecting more sunlight in to space) rather than to amplify the change (positive feedback) due increased water vapour in the atmosphere.

I say CO2 simply follows ocean outgassing / absorption as it warms and cools and temperatures are bounded by planetary albedo i.e. how much land can potentially be locked under high albedo glaciers or alternatively how much can be exposed to present a lower albedo.

«The ability of a planetary atmosphere to inhibit heat loss from the planet's surface, thereby enhancing the surface warming that is produced by the absorption of solar radiation.

Easterbrook's predictions were «right on the money» seven years before Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for warning that the Earth was facing catastrophic warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide, which Gore called a «planetary emergency.»

Every engineered cool - down that is carried out by the climate engineers comes at the cost of an even worse overall planetary warming.

As I understand planetary climate, we live on a planet with 100,000 year plus ice ages, separated by 10,000 year warm periods.

That stubborn error in the satellite data is about six times larger than what is scientifically possible, and several times larger than the effect scientists are trying to see, namely planetary warming caused by continued massive emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Then, for the benefit of the lay reader, who would not be expected to understand the clear (to a competent physical scientist) implication of this simply - stated fact, I wrote: «This in fact indicates that the Venusian atmosphere is heated mainly by incident infrared [not the VISIBLE portion, which is indeed largely reflected, defenders, but INFRARED] radiation from the Sun, WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED BUT ABSORBED [or allowed in to heat the lower atmosphere] by Venus's clouds, rather than by warming first of the planetary surface.