Sentences with phrase «possibly effect climate»

It couldn't possibly effect climate.

Not exact matches

A new study has found that turbulent mixing in the deep waters of the Southern Ocean, which has a profound effect on global ocean circulation and climate, varies with the strength of surface eddies — the ocean equivalent of storms in the atmosphere — and possibly also wind speeds.

New research describes possible planetary systems where a gravitational nudge from one planet could have a mild to devastating effect on the orbit and climate of another, possibly habitable world.

So, the Alaska climate site statement referring to the 1977 PDO shift as «natural» is misleading in the extreme in that the effect of global warming on the PDO warm phase would be with regard to its persistence and possibly its timing.

Perhaps the most fundamental conceptualization in climate science is the «thought experiment» that envisions what the temperature of the Earth might possibly be if there was no greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases, or atmosphere.

Since data can be analysed and (somewhat reliable) determinations can be made of whether it fits in deterministic, stochastic or chaotic profiles and on which scales of time (possibly also of space), I don't see there being a death knell here for studying cause and effect or probability in Climate.

Climate models are like weather models for the atmosphere and land, except they have to additionally predict the ocean currents, sea - ice changes, include seasonal vegetation effects, possibly even predict vegetation changes, include aerosols and possibly atmospheric chemistry, so they are not like weather models after all, except for the atmospheric dynamics, land surface, and cloud / precipitation component.

«Such a change in the carbon dioxide level might, therefore, produce major consequences on the climate — possibly even triggering catastrophic effects such as have occurred from time to time in the past,» Hornig said.

Bart R wrote, «Since data can be analysed and (somewhat reliable) determinations can be made of whether it fits in deterministic, stochastic or chaotic profiles and on which scales of time (possibly also of space), I don't see there being a death knell here for studying cause and effect or probability in Climate.»

You seem to accept that the radiative effect of the added CO2 will emerge as the dominant climate change forcing, yet other human forcings, such as due to land use / land cover change are emerging as possibly larger effects.

This flying insect decline is probably caused by land use factors (agriculture, possibly insecticides like neonicotinoids, possibly amplified by inert effects of «ecological sinks» in the landscape) and independent of climate development.]

Beyond the present danger, scientists warn that — unless the issue of climate change is addressed — we could see the breakup of larger ice shelves, which could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region and possibly the world.

Even in the limited cases where the anthropogenic increase in CO2 (a non-climatic factor, albeit affecting climate) is held to cause tree - ring growth via fertilization, there is no suggestion that the «distribution» through the year could possibly have an effect.

For example, to detect the impact of climate change on wild fish stocks, it is necessary to understand the effects of fishing, habitat alteration, and possibly pollution, as well as the internal stock dynamics.

At a regional scale and at the surface, additional more localised and shorter time - scale processes besides radiative forcing can affect climate in other ways, and possibly be of comparable importance to the effects of the greenhouse gases.

My most trenchant critic was a distinguished solar scientist who felt that the sun could not possibly have such an effect on the climate system below.

In the latest in radical climate doomsaying, a new report warns that fossil fuel consumption will need to be reduced «below a quarter of primary energy supply by 2100» to avoid possibly disastrous effects on global temperatures.

«We have focused on the U.S. economy, although the bulk of the economic damage from climate change will be borne outside of the United States (42), and impacts outside the United States will have indirect effects on the United States through trade, migration, and possibly other channels» — In other words they ignored the indirect effects which are extremely important hence their study is to put it mildly rubbish.

The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial / inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are, land / ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth (magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth's climate (how close to interglacial - glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial (violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation / oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) / extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.

Instead of addressing only one side of these questions, I would ask a different question: how much of the effects to which climate change possibly contributes can be avoided by CO2 reductions?

They are dealing mostly with the atmosphere - the climate models are even more compromised when trying to deal with the effect of the oceans with their multi-decadal and possibly multi-century patterns.

in a few days we will see a Study, or possibly many Studies which show support by 97 % of Climate Scientists that say that this effect is caused by CO2.

What I do not understand is how any potential benefits from a warmer climate always seem to be down played, assumed to be transient in this case, yet all of the identified harmful effects are talked about, with no mention of them possibly being transient.

We also might reverse some of the effects of two hundred years of environmental neglect that has left us on the brink of a possibly catastrophic global climate change.

The scenario painted in the film «The Day After Tomorrow» seems extremely unlikely, even to most climate change advocates, but one could easily make a far more convincing version, based not on the effects of climate change, but the efforts of some crackpot to «save the world» from same by implementing some well meaning scheme that could all too easily lead to a disaster far more immediate and possibly far more destructive than anything a few degrees of temperature rise could produce.