Sentences with phrase «rather warming increases»

It should be noted that not one of these events is solely the direct result of warming, but rather warming increases their frequency.

Not exact matches

Rather than steadily increasing or decreasing over the last decade, the U.S. public's concern over our warming planet has jumped up and down, according to Gallup polls.

That said, the efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine is rather low; from time to time, inefficiency causes the disparity between the warm source and the cold sink to increase.

China's stated aim of improving air quality over the coming years would change this radiative forcing, leading to a rather counter-intuitive consequence; the increase in China's contribution to global warming.

«Rather striking» climate link to Australian heat waves Because temperature extremes are easier to decipher, scientists are fairly confident that global warming increased the severity and likelihood of extreme heat events in 2013 in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, China and Europe.

Rather, the main threat to the region is the so - called Ring of Fire, an area holding a wealth of minerals waiting to be mined as warmer weather and depletion of cheaper sources increase their attractiveness.

I suspect that many eruptions caused by glacial melting might happen eventually anyway, given enough time — but this research shows that warming could increase the chances of those eruptions happening sooner rather than later.»

The Montreal Protocol had no impact on cleaning the air, it stopped the growth of CFCs which are powerful greenhouse gases (in addition to their role in depleting stratospheric ozone), therefore it slowed global warming, rather than increasing it, and we aren't trying to save ground - level ozone.

The abstract includes the statement: «Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.»

For activation / toning: Warm - ups that are dynamic, rather than static, can help to increase movement ranges and activate the muscle groups that your workouts will target.

Rather than just warming up the air around you, far infrared heat penetrates into your body, greatly alleviating joint pain, and increasing blood circulation.5 By increasing blood circulation, you're circulating the immune system around the body, increasing surveillance of infections.5 It's like having police monitoring a larger area.

The combination of more CO2 and increased IR from below must inevitably mean more warming rather than more cooling, unless there is some additional mechanism to accelerate cooling in excess of warming.

Since OHC uptake efficiency associated with surface warming is low compared with the rate of radiative restoring (increase in energy loss to space as specified by the climate feedback parameter), an important internal contribution must lead to a loss rather than a gain of ocean heat; thus the observation of OHC increase requires a dominant role for external forcing.

Is it not the case that if the relative lack of El Niño's and predominance of La Nina's is in fact due to global warming, rather than natural variability, then the current increase in the rate of warming of the ocean below 700m may continue.

Heat can change ocean dynamics and eventually will increase glacial melting, which is mainly responding to subsurface water rather than air warming.

By the way, low clouds in darkness increase surface temperature, sort of like the inverse property of commonly understood Cosmic ray effect, not causing a cooling because there are more CR's, but rather a warming, which only low clouds in total darkness can do, so the probable CR temperature signal gets cancelled from one latitude dark vs bright region to the next.

For instance, increasing cloud cover due to global warming may change the albedo, but this would be a feedback to a larger warming effect, rather than a cooling.

This seems really odd: the publlc demand made by scientists who are most alarmed by global warming is precisely not that more money go into reasearch, but rather that money go into research to increase fuel efficiency to develope carbon - emission - free fuel sources.

How gentlemanly is it that on his blog he falsely accused us of cherry - picking the last 100 years of data rather than using the full available 130 years in our PNAS paper Increase of extreme events in a warming world, even though we clearly say in the paper that our conclusion is based on the full data series?

Paul S (# 1)-- Since the Planck Response dominates over positive feedback responses to temperature, wouldn't a La Nina - like failure of surface temperature to rise lead to an increase rather than a reduction in energy accumulation compared with accumulation during a surface warming — presumably a small increase, so that the observed rise in ocean heat content would still be substantial?

There is an increase rather than a decrease in upwelling radiation, because the radiation is coming from a warmer surface and troposphere.

This is why, barring some unusual extraneous factors, we would predict «stratospheric» warming rather than cooling from a CO2 increase.

Rather, we know from first principles — the behavior of CO2 with respect to infrared radiation, first measured in IIRC the mid-1800s and worked out in more detail by Arrhenius around 1900 — that increased CO2 WILL cause warming.

Is the rather definitive statement that «The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming» at all supportable?

... we strongly support Delworth and Knutson's (2000) contention that this high - latitude warming event represents primarily natural variability within the climate system, rather than being caused primarily by external forcings, whether solar forcing alone (Thejll and Lassen, 2000) or a combination of increasing solar irradiance, increasing anthropogenic trace gases, and decreasing volcanic aerosols.

Where do you believe that Dr. Curry implies agreement that leading climate scientists are incompetent and should not be working, and that there is a cover - up and that the current warming is caused by an iron sun rather than increased CO2 from human activity?

Shouldn't one get more more warming in the first 1 - 50 % increase, rather in the 51 to 100 % part of increase?

But as I understand the IPCC claims, the postulated future GH warming is supposed to occur primarily at higher latitudes, rather than in the warmer regions today, so it appears to me that this would present a «win - win» situation: lower heating costs, fewer cold weather deaths, increased high latitide crop yields, etc. while presenting no new problems for the warmer regions.

The results for change scaled by global mean warming are rather similar across the four scenarios, an exception being a relatively large increase over the equatorial ocean for the commitment case.

Those three facts suggest that most if not all of the observed increase in CO2 is natural unless it can be shown that for some reason warming oceans can nevertheless act as a carbon sink rather than a carbon source.

Climate alarmism is not based on empirical observation; rather, it is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2.

Roger disputed that carbon (as CO2) caused any warming, that honest, unaltered science thought CO2 to be the consequence rather than the driver of temperature increases, that increasing CO2 in the air was sourced by natural phenomena rather than mostly man - made, and that to decrease CO2 to levels required by regulation would start to starve plants, making more folks on the planet to starve accordingly.

Even if all past warming were attributed to CO2 (a heroic acertion in and of itself) the temperature increases we have seen in the past imply a climate sensitivity closer to 1 rather than 3 or 5 or even 10 (I show this analysis in more depth in this video).

William: Yes, however, there are sets of other observations that logically supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 and that the planet is about to significantly cool due to the current solar magnetic cycle change.

«DWP, so you are agreeing with CH that the atmosphere has to warm before the ocean can, rather than that the increased downward longwave flux from extra CO2 does the warming whether the atmosphere is warmer or not?»

Eyeballing the data for the last 20 years shows a small increase, if you're being generous, but Steffen can not say how much can be attributed to increased urbanisation rather than «global warming», saying it's «probably» due to a combination of both.

How many degrees of warming should the world expect for each doubling of CO2 concentrations (the relationship is logarithmic, so that is why sensitivity is based on doublings, rather than absolute increases — an increase of CO2 from 280 to 290 ppm should have a higher impact on temperatures than the increase from, say, 380 to 390 ppm).

Economists must offer convincing demonstrations of what is already apparent from the data: that modest warming correlates with increased GNP, higher average income, and enhanced living standards across the globe; and that carbon dioxide, rather than being a pollutant, benefits the growth of agricultural crops and forests.

The majority (roughly 75 %) of the warming in the last 50 years has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2?

The lack of an increase in the rate of warming is therefore a major obstacle for a high sensitivity to CO2, and strongly supports the view that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) must be rather low.

Might not warming cause increased CO2, rather than the other way around?

I think the claims made by the skeptics in this respect are extremely optimistic and what's more they disgregard (or rather do not accept) the negative consequences of the increased warming which will have to be balanced against any gains from increased crop yields.

E. Even the official «global temperature» record, which has been adjusted to promote global warming hysteria, has not followed the pattern of increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2, but rather has followed the pattern of natural causes, primarily solar activity and ocean cycles.

Ocean oscillations and currents could (and do) cause local effects as warm and cold water interchanges, but they can not cause a global effect as they just move energy around rather than increasing it.

One factor increasing my confidence is the continuing pause in warming, and the pathetic sequence of excuses dreamt up to explain it, rather than face up to the reality that they have greatly overstated the role of CO2 and underestimated natural variation.

The report says that «global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths.»

If it is later rather than sooner, at what cost to the economic structure as global warming increases?

As for the MWP, we don't know that global temps were «as high or higher» than today, but even if they were the fact that it would have been due to some «natural» factor (s) rather than CO2 doesn't alter our expectation that increased CO2 levels should have caused warming in recent decades and should do in the future.

CO2 does not produce atmospheric warming, rather, its increase in the atmosphere follows it.

«By contrast, the eastern Antarctic and Antarctic plateau have cooled, primarily in summer, with warming over the Antarctic Peninsula [C3 Ed: approximately 4 % of Antarctica land mass]... Moreover, sea - ice extent around Antarctica has modestly increased... In other words, the authors find that most of the Antarctic continent has cooled, rather than just the Southern Ocean...»