Sentences with phrase «second warming effect»

Not exact matches

If the bread is already cooled, it can easily be toasted or even microwaved for 10 seconds to get that warm effect once again.

Methane gas is second behind carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming; cow flatulence and excretion account for 20 percent, or 100 million tons, of the total annual global methane emissions.

When the researchers simulated a second effect of climate change in addition to warming, namely drought, the results were even the opposite as expected: The soil animals ate less, and also the microorganisms living in the soil showed a decline in respiration — an indication that they also consumed less food.

Bond, who led the most comprehensive study to date of black carbon's environmental effects, has found that the pollutant is second only to carbon dioxide in terms of its warming impact.

The future effect of global warming is the subject of a United Nations report to be released today in Brussels, the second of four installments being unveiled this year.

Those undesirable effects were generally found, however, only if each stretch was held for more than 60 seconds and the subject then immediately became fully active, with no further warm - up.

The second aerosol indirect effect is more likely to cause cooling than warming because, to the best current knowledge, high clouds are more likely to warm climate, whereas low clouds are more likely to cool.

The second order effect of increasing cloudiness caused by more GCRs when «atmospheric conditions are suitable» for the formation of high clouds due to the other effects of global warming should be warming.

A BBC report on March 31 noted that the report released at Yokohama is the second of a series «that outlines the causes, effects and solutions to global warming» and that «the prognosis on the climate isn't good.»

The second contrarian argument we investigated involved the claim that the global climate is not very sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect because the planet has some sort of natural climate response that will offset global warming.

In my second article (Earth's Atmosphere Is Warmed Primarily By Molecules That Are Not Greenhouse Gases) established that it is gases which are not so called greenhouse gases that contribute most to the warming effect both in absolute terms and proportionately.

As the total cloud cover increases, the first effect acts to reduce the warming (a negative feedback) while the second effect acts to increase it (positive feedback).

The only way, however, CO2 might affect air temperature could be by getting warmed directly by radiation, like many other things around us, but it is not the IPCC version and second, such an effect can only be negligible (I can go into details on that, if needed).

But even forgetting about these, it is really hard to reconcile sensitivities of, say, four degrees per doubling with history, where we have had about 0.6 C (assuming irrationally that its all man - made) of warming in about 42 % of a doubling (the effect, I will add, is non-linear, so one should see more warming in the first half than the second half of a doubling).

In a second set we also changed greenhouse gases such as CO2 to determine whether the aerosol effects change if greenhouse gases simultaneously warm the climate.

If CO2 were to double a second time the warming effect would be much less than the first time.

What's more, some future effects of global warming that are predicted by the IPCC's second and third assessments in 1995 and 2001 are already being observed — much faster than expected.

The second issue raised in our Science paper (now available free, see bottom of this post) is that perhaps there shouldn't yet have been substantial long - term trends in hurricane intensity — whether we would be able detect them above the natural variability or not — because until the last couple of decades, aerosol cooling effects on hurricanes have been counteracting the effects of greenhouse gas warming.

Global warming catastrophists in fact have to argue against historical data, and say it is flawed in two ways: First, they argue there are positive feedbacks in climate that will take hold in the future and accelerate warming; and second, they argue there are other anthropogenic effects, specifically sulphate aerosols, that are masking man - made warming.

This is beyond well understood and only Edim, Latimer, and many of their colleague skeptics can't figure out that the ripple does not extend to the overall upward trend apart from a second - order effect due to the gradual global warming signal.

The second time was when climate change hit The Trump Organization's bottom line: His golf course in Ireland is threatened by coastal erosion, so the company recently applied for a permit to build a seawall to protect the property from «global warming and its effects.»

[2] Booker has opposed the scientific consensus on numerous issues including global warming, the link between second - hand smoke and cancer, and the negative health effects of asbestos.

This is a statement about IPCC's attribution, not about science, and it is a double nonsequitur to the initial statement quoted, first overtly re man, second covertly re the warming effects of man's CO2 emissions.

You can read the second part of the piece to see that ENSO has not even had an overall warming effect over the last 15 years.

In particular: i) the emphasis on reconstructions of historical temperature records; ii) the over-sensitivity of climate models; iii) the exaggeration of positive feedback mechanisms and the opposite with respect to negative feedbacks; iv) the over-statement of second and Nth - order effects of warming on natural processes and society as «impacts»; v) the IPCC reports are not written exclusively by scientists, but in the case of WGII and WGIII especially, are, as has been discovered — by sceptics — written by academics from other disciplines, often without any remarkable expertise, and by activists, with particular agendas.

For instance, Bond et al. report that black carbon aerosol, or soot, is second only to carbon dioxide as the substance emitted by human activity that has the greatest warming influence on the climate — contributing a quarter (or perhaps even a bit more) to the current overall anthropogenic warming effect.

The article cites approximately the same number I have used in my work and that was used by the IPCC: absent feedback and other second order effects, the earth should likely warm about 1.2 C from a doubling of CO2.

«The second is that the natural and anthropogenic aerosols are not well - mixed geographically and can have a substantial effect on regional warming rates.

Second, you assert incorrectly that «no scientists have made a claim of direct cause and effect» between global warming and hurricane Katrina.

1995 Second IPCC report detects «signature» of human - caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century.

But the second observation from the radiosonde work should put an end to the claims that the greenhouse effect causes global warming.

The second issue is far more complex, namely the inter-relationship with other gases in the atmosphere and what effect it may have on the rate of convection at various altitudes and / or whether convection effectively outstrips any «heat trapping» effect of CO2 carrying the warmer air away and upwards to the upper atmosphere where the «heat» is radiated to space.