Sentences with phrase «relatively smaller warming»

For 1997 - 2012 these data show a relatively small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade — which has often been misleadingly called a «warming pause».

However, the relatively small warming in southern South America is more extensive in southern winter.

Not exact matches

«We don't know yet if this is due to a real cooling of this tiger stripe, or to the fact that we were looking much closer, at a relatively small area, and might have missed the warmest spot,» says John Spencer of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado.

Land - use changes over the past 250 years in Europe have been huge, yet, they only caused a relatively small temperature increase, equal to roughly 6 % of the warming produced by global fossil fuel burning, Naudts noted.

«Our observation that plants use roughly the same amount of water regardless of water availability suggests that a warmer or longer growing season may have a relatively small effect on evapotranspiration and thus could affect landscape water balances less than we previously thought,» Hamilton said.

This means that even relatively small marine - protected areas could be effective in protecting the top - level predators and allowing coral reefs to more fully recover from coral bleaching or large cyclones which are increasing in frequency due to the warming of the oceans as a result of climate change.

Since then, there have been small - scale climate shifts — notably the «Little Ice Age» between about 1200 and 1700 A.D. — but in general, the Holocene has been a relatively warm period in between ice ages.

Those studies find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades (Figure 8).

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

Testing revealed that warming just a relatively small area around the neck dramatically improves comfort in cooler weather.

This is because part of the outgoing radiation signal (albeit small) is emerging from relatively warm layers aloft, and thus slightly less emission is demanded from the troposphere in order to satisfy planetary energy balance.

I think however that the degree of warming has been and will continue to be relatively small and its economic effects will also remain small.

It appears to me that the family of humanity is beginning to come face to face with a myriad of growing global challenges — air pollution, sea and land contamination, global warming, peak oil, diminishing global supplies of grain, overfishing, the dissipation of Earth's scarce resources, desertification, deforestation, urban sprawl and autoban congestion are examples — the sum of which could soon become unsustainable, given a finite planet with the relatively small size and make - up of Earth.

This is relatively small as to the total warming and certainly not as large as the current level of forcing, but never the less is a contributor.

(Note that radiative forcing is not necessarily proportional to reduction in atmospheric transparency, because relatively opaque layers in the lower warmer troposphere (water vapor, and for the fractional area they occupy, low level clouds) can reduce atmospheric transparency a lot on their own while only reducing the net upward LW flux above them by a small amount; colder, higher - level clouds will have a bigger effect on the net upward LW flux above them (per fraction of areal coverage), though they will have a smaller effect on the net upward LW flux below them.

After relatively cooler ocean surface years, the increase is small, and after relatively warmer ocean surface years, the increase is large.

Their reconstructed CO2 concentrations for the past five million years was used to estimate Earth - system climate sensitivity for a fully equilibrated state of the planet, and found that a relatively small rise in CO2 levels was associated with substantial global warming 4.5 million years ago.

Indeed, arrayed against the arcane burlesque of the United Nations IPCC with its politically selected 2500 Scientists, of which a core group of 600 exists, and a relatively small number of mediocre «scientists» here and there across the American landscape who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the global warming cause, are 31,072 + legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here anwarming cause, are 31,072 + legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here anWarming Hypothesis bogus found here, here and here.

We show that all the land - based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large - scale warming.

However, taking account of sampling uncertainty (as most more recent detection and attribution studies do, including those shown in Figure 9.9) makes relatively little difference to estimates of attributable warming rates, particularly those due to greenhouse gases; the largest differences occur in estimates of upper bounds for small signals, such as the response to solar forcing (Allen and Stott, 2003; Stott et al., 2003a).

Considering the difference in potential impacts between 1.5 C and 2C of warming, using SRM for a relatively small reduction in temperatures would still have clear benefits, the paper notes.

But the report also notes that warming's effects on health is relatively small compared with other problems, like poverty.

The majority of the winter warming is associated with changes in sea ice cover even though the sea ice declines at this time of the year are relatively small.

Consider that one can be an arguably disinterested observer by having reasoned from the climate focused science debate that when compared to the natural variations of all the dynamics of the Earth Atmospheric System (EAS) then there is at most a small and relatively insignificant warming from historic levels of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

However, as discussed above, Gillett et al. also attribute a relatively small amount of warming (~ 0.6 °C) to that greenhouse gas increase.

To clarify my statement above, most «AGW skeptics» don't doubt CO2 greenhouse warming, we just insist that it is a relatively small factor.

Because of its long life span and high global warming potential (GWP), even a relatively small amount of SF6 can impact the climate.

That may be changing, well, actually, since global warming is being down played and the economy sucks, it will take longer, but cheap solar panels (nanosolar) and relatively cheap hydrogen fuel cells (Ballard power package handling units in production) with small to medium scale electrolyzers are pretty close even with not so great hydrogen storage options.

On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?»

Extratropical cyclones are distinct from tropical cyclones, which are generally smaller and more intense, and, as their name implies, originate over relatively warm water in the tropics.

Since the 1,500 - year period remains relatively unchanged, whether in an ice age or warm period, the sun's variability — though small — is an attractive explanation.

Wouldn't relatively - small, easily - refueled, modular nuclear generators, sited below ground near point of use and augmented with rooftop solar in warm climes, enable «mini-grids» to power sub-communities and small towns without extensive transmission lines?

Given that the 20th century is a relatively small segment of the temporal continuum of Earth's climate over the past 2 - 3 million years, how significant indeed is the warming trend that you assert?

Concern with relatively small effects of possible anthropogenic caused global warming is a misplaced distraction, and will probably lead to the public losing confidence in scientists, and could weaken the support needed when real problems occur.»

My interpretation of these two papers is that sea level rise is a relatively small cost over 100 years and dwarfed by the benefits of warming for agriculture and human health and by the cost of energy at large temperature increases.

Prof. Wegman, et al, show that a relatively small clique of climate scientists uncritically review each others» submissions in a back - scratching, mutually beneficial way, in order to extract ever more global warming funding.

This is because anticyclonic conditions tend to bring relatively sunny and warm conditions, and a clockwise wind pattern promotes ice convergence, making for a more compact, and thus smaller ice cover.

There is a very good reason your alarmist blogs never win science awards: the readers of your thinly - trafficked blogs are a relatively small clique of believers in the man - made global warming hoax.

Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere in very small increments relatively — this reduces the heat loss from oceans that are routinely warmer than the new higher equilibrium temperature.

You write «Just a few more decades of ocean warming would be enough to destabilise the relatively small region of ice by the Amundsen Sea − starting a cascade of slipping and sliding that would tip enough ice into the ocean to raise sea levels by three metres.»

So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.

Just a few more decades of ocean warming would be enough to destabilise the relatively small region of ice by the Amundsen Sea − starting a cascade of slipping and sliding that would tip enough ice into the ocean to raise sea levels by three metres.

On top of that there's the methane and the volatile organic compounds that are unavoidably released from relatively uncontrolled combustion of solid biomass fuels — small quantities but high global warming indexes.

... «I argue that the current agreement of model simulated and observed warming (given the other forcings) points towards a relatively small total aerosol effect.»

A relatively small amount of initial warming can be greatly magnified in the Far North.

By letting most of the Sun's light radiation through, and only letting a smaller amount of the resultant infrared radiation out again, these gases help to maintain the relatively warm temperatures that allow the oceans to exist and life to flourish on Earth.

While the impact of adjustments that correct for these biases are relatively small globally (and actually reduce the century - scale warming trend once oceans are included) there are certain regions where the impact of adjustments on temperature trends are large.

The surge in atmospheric CO2 that accompanies an ENSO warming event is obviously measured in gigatons, and this from a temperature change in a relatively small portion of the total ocean.

If relatively small changes in CO2 levels have big effects — meaning that we live in a more sensitive climate system — the planet could warm by as much as 6 degrees Celsius on average with attendant results such as changed weather patterns and sea - level rise.

Each pound of CO2 will cause a relatively small amount of warming each year for many years.