Sentences with phrase «significant warming effect»

Giaever is either arguing that CO2 is a visible gas (it is not) and the fact that you can't see it means there is too little in the atmosphere to have a significant warming effect, or that only visible gases can warm the planet, or some other similarly misinformed assertion.

What scientists think that rising CO2 doesn't have a significant warming effect?

It's the weight of evidence that confirms rising CO2 has a significant warming effect, that includes measurements but also modeling and theory.

You say: It's the weight of evidence that confirms rising CO2 has a significant warming effect, that includes measurements but also modeling and theory.

The trouble is that there remains little empirical evidence to support the idea, as we were surprised to find out when we talked to UC San Diego atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan about his research showing that another type of aerosol — black carbon — had a significant warming effect:

This form of heating has a significant warming effect on the climate, which is cause for concern.

Not exact matches

Global warming has a significant effect on rice production.

The difference in the magnitude of the effect of fan use between warmer and cooler room temperatures was significant (P =.03 for the interaction term), whereas the differences in open window status, sleep position, bed sharing, and pacifier use did not reach significance (P =.13, P =.08, P =.59, and P =.16, respectively).

While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.

«This research shows that the warming effects of both methane and hydrogen have been underestimated by a significant amount,» said Wordsworth.

Previous studies by the Cardiff team on warming effects in the Rivers Wye and Tywi reveal significant reductions in insect numbers and even an instance of local species extinction due to climate change.

According to Dr. Sumowski, «The significant effect of warmer weather on cognition should be considered when designing and conducting clinical trials.

Critics said living things are simply too «warm, wet and noisy» to allow significant quantum effects to persist.

Not so long ago, it was thought warmer air would be the main cause of melting, but now it seems warming ocean waters are already having a significant effect.

Including the elevation effects in the model increases the estimated sea - level rise by a small but significant amount (5 % enhancement of melt by 2100 and 10 % by 2200 for a climate warming scenario).

Already, in areas where sulfur - rich fuels are regulated, the researchers find a significant extra warming effect over 20 years.

It shows that changes in Earth's climate and sea level are closely linked, with only small amounts of warming needed to have a significant effect on seal levels.

The radiative properties of water vapour are accounted for in all the models used in the IPCC reports which attribute a significant portion of recent warming to anthropogenic effects.

Around 14,000 years ago the Earth started warming, and the effects were significant — ice completely left the tops of the mountains in western Canada, and where there were ice sheets, they probably thinned a lot.

The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes.

Although a significant natural influence on weather patterns, the temperature effects of the cycle smooth out over years and decades, and aren't linked to the overall warming trend.

Since the UHI effect is reduced in windy conditions, if the UHI effect was a significant component of the temperature record, then we would see a different rate of warming when observations are stratified by calm or windy conditions.

The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth's temperature, and we can evaluate whether these effects could be responsible for a significant amount of the recent global warming.

Remember that direct greenhouse effect from CO2 is quite small; the predictions rely on positive feedback from other effects (particularly water vapour feedbacks, a far more significant greenhouse gas) to cause substantial warming.

Scientists have long feared that as the world gets warmer, thawing permafrost may lead to a significant effect on global warming.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

OO An Unusually Warm Arctic Year: Sign Of Future Climate Turmoil with significant effects on US weather.

Although a significant natural influence on interannual weather, the temperature effects of the cycle smooth out over years and decades, and aren't linked to the overall warming trend.

It's interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming)-- yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades.

The Iris effect has been a controversial topic in the climate debate and has been used as an argument against a significant clobal warming, e.g. in Lomborg's «the Skeptical Environmentalist».

Rate of percentage annual growth for carbon dioxide has certainly increased since the beginning of the 21st century, but this should result in a significant change in the rate of warming any more quickly than the differences between emission scenarios would, and there (according to the models) the differences aren't significant for the first thirty - some years but progressively become more pronounced from then on — given the cummulative effects of accumulated carbon dioxide.

These latter two effects are expected to lead to slight warming, but the overall impact of land use changes is expected to be negative (i.e. a cooling)(Myhre and Myhre, 2003), although the uncertainty is still significant (maybe 0.5 W / m2 either way).

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux aWarming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

QUESTION: Why on common sense grounds is CO2 a more significant driver of the greenhouse effect & warming than water vapor?

Habitable, of course, but it would appear that the world will be changing quite substantially — and the long - term effects may be more significant than «global warming.»

Humans are altering the climate in diverse ways, a variety of human climate forcings are significant, and the effects of these forcings need to be responded to, even if the climate did not warm.

In addition there is still clear evidence in my view for aerosols having played a significant role in holding back that warming, which acts on top of the effects of internal variability which play an important role in fluctuations about the forced changes.

But accepting a nonzero warming effect puts one on a slippery slope: Once acknowledged, the effect must be quantified, and every legitimate method for doing so yields a significant magnitude.

Subsidary question: as the ocean is quite a big part of the climate system, are it's temperature variations sufficiently constraint to corroborate the very interesting conclusion of Gavin's note: «It's interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause a warming)-- yet another reason to doubt that solar forcing is a significant factor in recent decades.»

``... point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends,... It is interesting to note that significant solar forcing would have exactly the opposite effect (it would cause warming)» (of the upper atmosphere)

Sciencecodex: A recent study indicated that the urbanization in eastern China has significant impact on the observed surface warming and the temporal - spatial variations of urbanization effect have been comprehensively detected.

They should have realised that top down high solar activity combined with bottom up positive oceanic influences would in combination be enough to produce the late 20th century warming without having to invoke a significant effect from more CO2.

For instance, the warming that began in the early 20th century (1925 - 1944) is consistent with natural variability of the climate system (including a generalized lack of significant volcanic activity, which has a cooling effect), solar forcing, and initial forcing from greenhouse gases.

The team set out to present its findings «in plain English» to congress and the media — findings which suggested a lack of significant or human - caused global warming while concluding that «if the earth were to warm slightly, and atmospheric CO2 were to increase, the effects would be mostly beneficial.»

One is that the effect of global warming is slow, will warm both north and south poles equally, the change will get significant around 2060, and superimposed on top of that there is a lot of large (not not well - quantified) amplitude «weather» noise.

Not only did acceptance of global warming increase, the most dramatic finding was the neutralization of the effect of worldview, which otherwise had a significant impact.

In particular, the authors find fault with IPCC's conclusions relating to human activities being the primary cause of recent global warming, claiming, contrary to significant evidence that they tend to ignore, that the comparatively small influences of natural changes in solar radiation are dominating the influences of the much larger effects of changes in the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations on the global energy balance.

This research & paper found * * * * * * * «direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect» and Warming on Earth.

This latest research is significant, because it involves the use of 19 advanced computer climate models, ones that have had the effect of these warming tongues of the oceans, built in.

If CO2 is playing a 1 % role in greenhouse gases (total effect around 333 W / m2) and we double its amount this should cause significant warming.