Sentences with phrase «somehow warm not»
Scalp feels so revived and somehow warm not even massages make such sensation But after the apple cider vinegar leaves a smell of rotten apples.
https://www.hairlossrevolution.com/ Not exact matches
Yay, I'm so glad that you made the cake and liked it — so delicious served warm:) And I can't actually see the mistake, I think it may have been cut off somehow?
They don't understand that though, they only understand that they are somehow out of their warm hiding place, and now someone is taking of clothing that was making them warm.
Somehow, film makes the scene a little more lush, a little more warm, even if it's not in color... and the telescope was carefully hand - guided over the 30 - minute exposure.
Whether global warming is somehow to blame or not, much of the United States is getting walloped this winter.
Cinnamon and ginger are warming notes I wouldn't normally associate with strawberries — although they do seem quite fitting for the wintry weather we've been having — but somehow the mixture really works.
I am reading through the list and damn, that is a lot and I somehow don't feel warm to any of them.
Somehow I still do not have a denim jacket — thinking that needs to change this year (if it ever gets warm again)
It somehow manages to keep me warm on the cooler days while not suffocating me on the warmer days.
The next few weeks ahead are chock full of clients, projects, travel and events and the warm weather and sunshine somehow give me that little push I need to get sh!t done... when all of the coffee isn't quite cutting it.
Somehow, when the weather starts to warm up, shoes are always the last thing to get the memo, if only because 50 - degree weather with a steady chance of rain doesn't exactly call for open - toe sandals.
Time hasn't seen the public warm to or familiarize themselves with Quicksilver, which somehow didn't even draw many mentions when the similarly - themed Premium Rush was released last year.
This is hardly the most promising premise for a romantic comedy, but damned if Warm Bodies — directed by Jonathan Levine and adapted from the novel by Isaac Marion — doesn't somehow bring it to life.
I couldn't have been the only viewer who exited Guadagnino's movie and walked out into the freezing cold, feeling sadder but somehow, magically, warmer.
I will get rid of it somehow this summer when it warms up and the ticking sound is not a obvious.
The elk rose to their feet just ahead of her, and at first she thought they had somehow scented her, even though the day's warming currents had not yet begun to ascend the hill — even though the last of the night's heavier, cooling currents were still sliding in rolling waves down the mountain, the faint breeze in her face carrying the ripe scent of the herd downhill, straight to her.
To say it a bit worse but in modern lingo: to maintain radiative equilibrium, the planet has to put out a certain amount of heat, and if it can't radiate it out from the surface, the lower atmosphere somehow has to get warmer until there's some level that radiates the right amount.
A few years ago, any dispute wasn't even taken serious, so I don't think that the Global Warming advocates are somehow in the minority or disrepresented in the media.
When confronted with a contrarian who argues that somehow global warming isn't taking place, I would point to the Arctic sea ice and glaciers — which have even lasted through the warm periods of the past two thousand years — and probably well before.
I just was watching your interview with Michael Shellenberger and reading / listening up on this whole «centrist environmentalist» concept and I have to say, I take issue with people claiming the longtime «left» environmental movement was all about being a culture of restriction and somehow not in tune with the idea that this global warming crisis could lead to newer, alternative, healthy economics of another kind.
The poor old Pope has somehow been inspired, during the Bali conference, to announce that global warming is all «environmentalist dogma» that puts «trees and animals» above people, and is not science.
The only way for the TOA imbalance to be equal to the net forcing change would be for the Earth to somehow not warm over the last 250 years in the presence of that imbalance.
Also, since Motl noted all these examples of warming, I assume he must have some universal theory... or at least hypothesis... to explain them... I am hoping for something a bit better than «Well, the sun is somehow getting hotter even though our measurements don't detect this.»
Alternatively, if a deepening of the subtropical gyres gives rise to an increase in the heat stored in this water mass, with a corresponding non-zero trend in the surface heat flux; then I should think that a restoration towards conditions of the past must somehow give rise to a delayed warming of the atmosphere (if the surplus is not somehow lost to space).
I reject the idea that it is somehow inappropriate to acknowledge that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is not only possible but plausible if we continue with anything close to business as usual consumption of fossil fuels and the other activities that are contributing to ever - increasing GHG emissions.
Market / consumer / sociological research that suggests that higher - quality, better, more, etc. communication involving an understanding of global warming (including solutions) would not help, or would be bad somehow, strikes me as simply silly.
It was well known — and in fact had been demonstrated most recently in an article in Nature — that, while el nino, along with volcanic eruptions, did explain a fair amoount of the short - term year - to - year variability in global temperatures, it could not accouny for the warming trend., Had McLean et al somehow discovered something that had eluded the entire research community fir decades?
Somehow, I don't think that's what you're saying when you write things like «The true null [is] that there is no evidence of human influence warming the planet dangerously.»
But he wasn't done; he also added, ``... the idea that CO2 is somehow causing global warming is on its face fraudulent.»
You have to demonstrate it's not causing any warming at all, somehow, you don't get to just declare it's not, and act like the alternative view is somehow under a burden of proof which you're not also under..
Sceptics somehow bizarely claim this means the climate isn't warming.
Just like last year, the Minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Commitee (read James Inhofe (R - Exxon)-RRB- has just released another «report» somehow proving that the globe isn't warming or, if that fails, that humanity has nothing to do with the warming -LSB-...]
Parsimony is not a grounds for ignoring the now mountain of evidence that solar activity does somehow drive climate much more powerfully than can be explained by the tiny variation in solar irradiance, and the implications of a solar explanation for 20th century warming are much different than for an internal - variation explanation.
There is this idea that floats around the climate skeptic blogosphere that somehow a cold body does not radiate AT ALL to a warmer object, as if radiation from the cool atmosphere to the warm ground violates the 2nd Law.
Henry@Evan Mr. Green, after insulting Lord Monckton, I had asked you to produce some test results from tests or observations that you had obtained yourself that would somehow prove to me (us) that modern warming (i.e. the warming observed in the past 4 decades) was not natural or largely not natural.
They instead act like the predictions based on non-paused warming somehow don't have to be adjusted because the pause will end someday.
HenryP says: March 13, 2012 at 8:46 am... Mr. Green, after insulting Lord Monckton, I had asked you to produce some test results from tests or observations that you had obtained yourself that would somehow prove to me (us) that modern warming (i.e. the warming observed in the past 4 decades) was not natural or largely not natural.
I repeat: Their explanation does not even make any sense if the Arctic has been warming the last 40 years, that this somehow leads to near record low temps now in 2017/18 in the northern hemisphere.
Nothing I have seen so far attempts to incorporate the second law in all of this, Gerlich and Tscheushner make a start, in any case a cooling stratosphere coupled to a warming troposphere has to be answered somehow and the explanation «the radiation doesn't get to the stratosphere» just doesn't cut it for me.
Finaly, the even if one accepted the rate of warming was right, and that somehow the models were correct, (which they are not) the actions often proposed make almost no economic sense for those paying the bill.
Until you can somehow get around this physical FACT, you can not get a cooler object to further warm a warmer object, if you could, you can make energy out of nothing.
So, somehow, over these last few years the world hasn't warmed as much as «it should have».
We just question the certainty of how much warming has occurred, whether CO2 is the «thermostat» which overides natural variation in temperature and don't see enough evidence that the Earth is somehow «out of whack» and on the verge of some «tipping point» if such a thing exists at all.
So if your consensus is «humans are causing most of the observed warming», then you need the papers that don't somehow quantify the effect in a different category, because you then have to add an assumption in order to get an endorsement for your consensus definition.
But I have not even gotten to the real whopper — that somehow, once we hit 2 degrees of warming, the whole climate system will run away and temperatures will «inveitably» rise another 8C.
Also, I could not find any correctly conducted experiments (tests & measurements) that would somehow prove to me that the warming properties of CO2 (by trapping earth's radiation between the wavelengths 14 - 15 um) are greater than its cooling properties (by deflecting sunlight at various wavelengths between 0 — 5 um).
Having peddled the global average concept as «proof» of global warming for the last 30 years, it's somehow not the right metric any more.
Literally hundreds of articles could appear tomorrow re-confirming these results, and the IPCC could continue to report emphatically that Antarctica is not warming (and may well be cooling), and somehow, this will all translate into claims that «Antarctica is still warming and melting.»
The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.»
So he thinks that models that weren't dealing with long - term ocean sequestration of heat, but somehow accidentally predicted the pause, have relevance to claims about future warming if the ocean were involved in a way that wasn't in the models?