Sentences with phrase «same global effect»

«The two studies reinforce each other because they both show the same global effect on healthspan.»

People tend to look at corridor shooters, for example, where there's a corridor and all the effects are on and it's unbelievable, and they forget that if you apply those same global effects to an open city with people around and potential car crashes and guys in multiplayer showing up without warning, the same effect is applied to a lot of dynamic elements that are happening in every frame.

Not exact matches

We must pay attention to this immediate oppression within our nation at the same time that we take account of the global effects of our way of life.

Although it seems quite clear that the informational space of flows in cyberspace determines the new global economy, it does not seem that it has the same determining effect on the culture from which it has emerged, hence, we are calling it an outward sign of that culture.

So far the team has looked only at data from the Pacific Ocean region, but if other tropical oceans have the same effect, Earth may be well equipped to handle global warming.

At the same time, he has misgivings about the effects of global capitalism and believes in integration, tolerance, and inclusiveness.

Namely, that ozone depletion and global warming (the green house effect) are the same or almost the same thing.

They suggest this «pause» in the acceleration of carbon dioxide concentrations was, in part, due to the effect of the temporary slowdown in global average surface warming during that same period on respiration, the process by which plants and soils release CO2.

Luc Donckerwolke, Hyundai's global design chief, and Lee made it clear that they were keen to avoid the «Russian doll» effect of other automakers, in which everything looked the same, albeit in different sizes.

At the same time, it will mark the opening of another chapter that will eventually see Corvette competing in a global GT class under the international regulations that will come into effect next year.

To begin with, the former seems unlikely because the global warming effects of CO2 are unlikely to become manifest right away (the correlation between differenced variables, which Ladbury uses, only pertains to same - year relationships).

Namely, that ozone depletion and global warming (the green house effect) are the same or almost the same thing.

As an aside, the radiative forcing by aerosols (in both long wave and solar radiation at the tropopause) is not the same as global dimming (which is a solar radiation effect at the surface) though they are related.

The observed warming is likely the result of a combined effect: data strongly suggest that the AMO has been in a warming phase for the past two or three decades, and we also know that at the same time anthropogenic global warming is ongoing.

human impact — of course not????? Why not, human impact is an independent variable, There is literally no logic to say because A (global warming) can be caused by B, C, D or E, that an independent variable, G, human activity, can not then cause the same effect.

There are however statistical reasons why 1975 is a break point — breaking the trend there provides a substantially better fit over the whole record (not true for Aug 1997), and if you look at when anthropogenic effects came out of the «noise» of global temperatures, it is about the same time (fig 9.5 WG1 AR4).

In the same tone as the last post regarding atmospheric contaminants, have to wonder whether an era of widespread constant combustion across the globe, and all the waste heat from that combustion, would have any effect on the global mean temperature.

They say their findings, which focused on the effect titling had on forest clearing and disturbance in the Peruvian Amazon between 2002 and 2005, suggest that the increasing trend towards decentralized forest governance via granting indigenous groups and other local communities formal legal title to their lands could play a key role in global efforts to slow both tropical forest destruction, which the researchers note is responsible for about the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as the transportation sector, and climate change.»

Higher density sources of fuel such as coal and natural gas utilized in centrally - produced power stations actually improve the environmental footprint of the poorest nations while at the same time lifting people from the scourge of poverty... Developing countries in Asia already burn more than twice the coal that North America does, and that discrepancy will continue to expand... So, downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere.

In this new study, the researchers showed that increasing the albedo of a 1m2 surface by 0.01 would have the same effect on global temperature, over the next 80 years, as decreasing emissions by around 7 kg of CO2.

Although I was unable to demostrate the effect of this modification in the single column model, after returning from Korea I implemented this same scheme in a global atmospheric model and produced some interesting results.

Now many people have calculated the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere and all agree that this would have the same effect as a 1.3 % increase in solar flux and without any feedbacks would lead to about a 1 degree K increase in global average temperature.

Since the proportions in Australia deeply concerned about the possibly catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming (however much warming there actually is) are probably about the same as in the USA, how is it that President Trump can ignore something in his country that no one in ours seems to be able to do?

Go and look at my post again — China and India alone are building, or planning 800 new coal - fired power plants, so all the closing of US plants by the loony extremists at the EPA will have the same effect on global pollution as p*ssing in the Pacific..

Foster et al. (2010) also examined the effects of ENSO on global temperature and arrived at the same conclusion.

If empirical evidence, based on raw data, tested and verified by skeptical scientists, using the same code, algorithms and methods used by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, the IPCC or anyone else showed a cause and effect relationship between rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions followed by rising global temperatures, the amount of which could be quantified and measured, I would have to accept that catastrophic AGW was the likely cause.

The fact: correlations between NINO3.4 SST anomalies and global sea surface temperatures are basically the same for El Niño and La Niña events; that is, El Niño and La Niña events have similar effects on regional sea surface temperatures; they are simply the opposite sign.

The same health effects I documented were likewise documented by US scientist Dr Neil Kelley and colleagues at NASA in the 1980's, and indeed presented at global wind energy and acoustics conferences.

While there have been numerous claims that warmer Polar temperatures (due to posited global warming effects) will cause more iceberg calving, I'm sure it will come as quite a shock to those same folks when they discover that there's...

And a 2017 survey found that 78 percent of Latinos were worried about global warming, compared to 56 percent of non-Latinos, and that 53 percent of Latinos said they have personally experienced the effects of global warming, while only 39 percent of non-Latinos said the same.

In general, these studies have shown that different ways of creating scenarios from the same source (a global - scale climate model) can lead to substantial differences in the estimated effect of climate change, but that hydrological model uncertainty may be smaller than errors in the modelling procedure or differences in climate scenarios (Jha et al., 2004; Arnell, 2005; Wilby, 2005; Kay et al., 2006a, b).

If you are going to look to natural factors you realize that global warming fearmongers are «spitting in the wind,» as in, «You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,» and, «If the atmosphere was a 100 - story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor,» as follows:

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).

Indeed, a portion of that small linear trend difference might be due to human CO2 emissions; or, then again, it might be due to the vast urbanization effect over the last 60 + years; or due to the large deforestation that's taken place; or, maybe it's entirely due to the serial fabrication of global warming by the world's climate agencies; or it's even possible that the post-1950 warming was entirely a natural phenomenon - the same as the prior 64 - year period experience.

However, the researchers point out that using solar geoengineering to hold global warming to 1.5 C would not have the same environmental effect as reaching the target using mitigation.

It's Not Global Warming «End Times» — But Only A «Big Yawn» — Climate Depot Special Report — Renowned Climatologist: «You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide»

Ken: The 33 C figure is derived from looking at the global energy balance, i.e., comparing the actual average surface temperature to the average surface temperature that one would of necessity have to have if the Earth were otherwise the same (in particular, same albedo) but there was no greenhouse effect.

droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, global ice cover, and rainfall are about the same (maybe a slight increase in total rainfall); forests and all other vegetation that has been studied are growing faster; actual effects of putative ocean pH change are negligible to non-existent.

Beyond some unions that legitimately fear harmful effects on their members, the attacks on the Clean Power Plan are coming from the same anti-union corporate polluters that have sought to destroy the labor movement and fought any attempt to address global climate disruption for decades.

The people who deny global warming are in the same class as those who rejected the negative effects of DDT, those who denied the negative effects of CFCs on the atmosphere, and so on.

My only hope is that global warming / climate change will effect all strata of society the same.

Routinely in this kind of narrative, the plight of polar bears, summer sea ice melt, global warming, and anthropogenic CO2 are conflated as the one and same thing, as each other's cause and effect, rather than treated as phenomena that have distinct and complex causes.

I had not even paid attention to claims of global warming myself before late 2009 (I don't know if I even heard of it before that), yet within a year I had disproved the «greenhouse effect» being foisted upon the people of the world as «settled science», and shown that climate scientists should have done the same 20 years ago, if any had been competent in their field.

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá - Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three - and - a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This «see - saw» effect redistributes the planet's heat, but total heat in the global system stays the same.

The Amazing Cripwell insists:, i >» if CAGW is having an effect in the Arctic, it is a global effect, and it must be having a corresponding effect in the Antarctic... Whatever effect is detected in the Arctic should have the same magnitude and sign as the effect in the Antarctic.

Despite his public rejection of global warming, its causes and impacts, Politico reports that Trump filed an application in May of this year to construct a sea wall to protect a golf course property in Ireland from «global warming and its effects» and these same risings seas pose a significant threat to his considerable real estate holdings in New York City and Florida.

Thus if the two mid latitude jets move equatorward at the same time as the ITCZ moves closer to the equator the combined effect on global albedo and the amount of solar energy able to penetrate the oceans will be substantial and would dwarf the other proposed effects on albedo from changes in cosmic ray intensity generating changes in cloud totals as per Svensmark and from suggested changes caused in upper cloud quantities by changes in atmospheric chemistry involving ozone which various other climate sceptics propose.

Think of it this way — if there is no chance of observing the effects of changes in PDI in the global impacts record for 50 years (Emanuel's estimate) and over that same time period we expect damage to increase in real terms by up to a factor of 32 (a real doubling in damages every 10 - 15 years), then I think that it is safe (and also responsible) to assert that over that time period the only policies that can have a discernable effect on tropical cyclone damage around the world will necessarily be adaptive.

Re 31 That is only a local effect (same as medieval optimum -RCB- so can not be global.