Sentences with phrase «positive effect of warming»

This article will show an example of a positive effect of warming.»

However, it made certain criticisms, in particular that there was an emphasis on worst - case scenarios and little mention of the positive effects of warming in some regions.

Not exact matches

- Pain relief and mobility: The warm water in which a water birth occurs can have several positive effects on the delivery experience of some expecting mothers.

The findings suggest that effective new greenhouse gas controls could help lessen the effects of climate change on the release of carbon from soils of the northern permafrost region and therefore decrease the potential for a positive feedback of permafrost carbon release on climate warming.

However, many effects of global warming are likely to be less positive.

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.

Another positive feedback of global warming is the albedo effect: less white summer ice means more dark open water, which absorbs more heat from the sun.

But other results were contrary to expectations, such as positive effects of higher than normal rainfall in wetter parts of the range and positive responses to winter warming, especially in milder areas.

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.

Also, steps you can take to improve local air quality — driving less, using less electricity, turning the thermostat down, etc. — will have the positive side effect of helping mitigate global warming.

The direct warming effect of CO2 is relatively small, and only becomes dominant through positive feedbacks in computer models.

Another great benefit of warm water is its positive effect on hair vitality — drinking warm water supports the health of hair roots and their nerve endings and promotes shiny, soft hair.

If there is a difference in how you feel when it comes to looking at nature from your window, imagine how positive the effects are when you are actually immersing your senses in nature in real time — when you're actually feeling the breeze caress your skin, the sun warming your body, the smell of the ocean air, or the taste of sea salt on your lips.

Our investigation proved that men shouldn't feel the need to conceal their softer sides, profiles that included «affectionate» and «generous» saw an uplift in responses of over 20 % — «warm» and «genuine» had a similarly positive effect.

Now, if warming also causes increased CO2, then we may be talking about a positive feedback loop in which the warming spirals upwards, which amplifies the warming effect of whatever CO2 we humans contribute to the atmosphere.

Alternative, more indirect, but not for that reason ultimately not effective approaches must be developed, including «demonstration» projects which show that people working together an have a positive effect on certain contributors to warming, including black soot produced by millions of stoves that use dung for fuel.

(I think that an anomalously warm ocean surface heated from below would lead to more evaporation, and the additional water vapor would give a positive greenhouse effect that would partially offset the effect of a drop in greenhouse gas concentrations.)

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Is less poleward transport of heat by the Gulf Stream as the AMOC weakens a positive feedback for global warming, since that energy will escape more slowly in the humid (higher water vapor GHG effect) tropics than near the poles?

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.

The irony is obvious, but there's also the added point that while oil money is behind a lot of the denial, they themselves are ready to jump on the positive — for them — effects of global warming.

The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice — temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice - sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic...» *** This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes.

Some had regions of minimum warming in the North Atlantic and Ross Sea due to positive feedbacks: a local effect on convection in the Ross Sea and a non-local impact on the meridional circulation in the North Atlantic.

Assuming that scientists haven't left out anything vital, this suggests that the net effect of water - based feedbacks is positive and would amplify GHG - induced warming by more than a factor of two.Many assumptions have been made, but the historical evidence increases our confidence in model results.

And, quite disturbingly, with a manifest warming of only 0.8 ºC, we are already seeing effects − such as the precipitous receding of the Arctic sea ice − that are not only dangerous in themselves but also producing positive feedbacks that accelerate the warming.

Much of the warming feared by the alarmists relies upon a positive feedback involving increased water vapour exaggerating any CO2 warming effect.

The notion of an H2O positive feedback (which probably is present on a clear day) is squashed by this process.While warmer air can hold exponentially more water vapor, presumably increasing greenhouse effects (an process the IPCC hangs its collective hat on), it is also this exact same property that vastly improves the chances of convective and phase change heat transport by thunderstorms.

Re: The Single Most Important Point: yes, the ASSUMED positive feedback effect is DOUBLE the effect of CO2 alone, giving rise to a predicted warming 3 times that due to CO2 alone.

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.

(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.)»

The presence of BC resulted in positive radiative forcing in the atmosphere leading to warming effect (+ 2.1 W / m2) whereas cooling was observed at the top of the atmosphere (− 0.4 W / m2) and at surface (− 2.5 W / m2).

It's slightly warmer, most likely due the combined effects of gradual warming since the LIA and the latest positive PDO phase change.

It only becomes significant in the models by assuming that water vapor concentration increases in response to the slight warming produced by CO2 increases and therefore constitutes a powerful positive feedback effect which triples the effect of CO2 by itself.

As I've demonstrated, some warming has to be attributed to the positive feedback effect of water vapour, however, you are right in saying that the trigger for past warming was (almost always) solar activity (or Milankovitch cycles).

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).

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.

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.

The bad effects of warming greatly outweigh the positive effects, and we are already seeing the front end of these bad effects today (polar bears dying, glaciers melting, etc)

12: Indigenous Peoples).91, 101 Warming also releases human - caused pollutants, such as poleward - transported mercury and organic pesticides, from thawing permafrost and brings new diseases to Arctic plants and animals, including subsistence food species, posing new health challenges, especially to rural communities.165, 166 Positive health effects of warming include a longer growing season for gardening and agricultureWarming also releases human - caused pollutants, such as poleward - transported mercury and organic pesticides, from thawing permafrost and brings new diseases to Arctic plants and animals, including subsistence food species, posing new health challenges, especially to rural communities.165, 166 Positive health effects of warming include a longer growing season for gardening and agriculturewarming include a longer growing season for gardening and agriculture.5, 167

For example, if modest warming and the fertilization effect of CO2 have boosted agricultural output around the world — something biologists have no doubts about — then the Third World owes the First World an enormous debt of gratitude for that positive externality of the Industrial Revolution, though that is not a debt the First World is entitled to collect.

This false positive - feedback (amplification) due to the assumed non-bouyancy of warm air is vital for greenhouse effect climate disaster predictions»

The most likely combined effect of changes to all cloud types is to amplify the surface temperature warming (a positive feedback).

(Too much uncertainty regarding the existence and magnitude of «biotic regulation» of our climate and the purported negative human impact on this mechanism; no mention of possible positive effect on biota of higher CO2 concentrations and / or slightly warmer temperatures.)

If the climate models that are used to predict the reaction to the climate from natural and anthropogenic effects include positive feedbacks independent of the warming mechnism, then your statement about such feedbacks not being invoked when talking about natural warming is manifestly incorrect.

In summation, the material presented in this chapter represents overwhelming evidence for a positive effect of global warming on human health.

«there is still a positive warming trend when you take out cycles like the PDO and effects of the sun and other such influences» — quite right.

There are negative consequences of a warmer planet, and there are positive effects as well.