Not exact matches
-- soak them in
warm water for about quarter of an hour or so and it'll soften them up a treat, and you can use the
water for binding I'm about to make these with a
slight twist of ground almonds rather than walnuts.
When that happens, it doesn't take much — a submarine landslide or a
slight warming of the bottom
water — to release potentially catastrophic burps.
In general, the regions of expanding
warming upwelling
water in the Indian Ocean, North Pacific, or wherever they are, must create
slight bulges in the surface, and the regions of shrinking, cooling, sinking
water in the Arctic must create
slight depressions in the sea surface (again, I mean in a very low pass sense — obviously storms, tides, etc, create all kinds of short - terms signals obscuring this).
Some models actually show a
slight cooling of the southern oceans for a while, and all show it not keeping up with the rate at which the
waters to the north
warm — for a somewhat longer period of time.
(Look, the models are wrong; CO2 has a
slight warming effect, not magnified by
water vapor).
Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been
slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that «80 % to 90 % of global
warming involves heating up ocean
waters,» according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
They explain how, overall, Antarctic sea ice cover (frozen sea surface), for separate reasons involving wind changing in relation to the location of certain
warming sea
water currents, shows a
slight upward trend, though it also shows significant melting in some areas.
AGW is a hypothesis that makes sense, namely: — GHGs absorb outgoing radiation, thereby contributing to
warming (GH theory)-- CO2 is a GHG (as is
water vapor plus some minor GHGs)-- CO2 concentrations have risen (mostly since measurements started in Mauna Loa in 1959)-- global temperature has risen since 1850 (in ~ 30 - year
warming cycles with ~ 30 - year cycles of
slight cooling in between)-- humans emit CO2 and other GHGs — ergo, human GHG emissions have very likely been a major contributor to higher GHG concentrations, very likely contributing to the observed
warming
It only becomes significant in the models by assuming that
water vapor concentration increases in response to the
slight warming produced by CO2 increases and therefore constitutes a powerful positive feedback effect which triples the effect of CO2 by itself.
Before those
warm water intrusions facilitated the loss of sea ice, air temperatures in the 80s and 90s reported a
slight cooling trend contradicting CO2 theory.12
There might even be a
slight warming effect by
water that had passed through the condensors of other ship.
What kind of nonsense is this about
slight warming of
water temperature at engine inlets?
That 1.1 C is the IPCC low end «sensitivity» estimate which isn't a scary number at all and in fact is a great number because if that's all it is then the
slight warming, mostly in the winter in the higher latitudes, is a great boon to agriculture especially when the biological effect of higher CO2 on green plant growth rates and
water consumption is taken into consideration.