Sentences with phrase «still have a warming effect»

Not exact matches

The world would still warm on average, Meehl says, but the effect would be ameliorated.

But if so, where is the «missing heat» (Trenberth) or «global warming still in the pipeline» (Hansen)-- heat storage in the ocean, whose first effect would be an increasing SLR from thermal expansion?

Mass has done work that suggests atmospheric rivers, at least along the West Coast, should become more intense in the future with warming, but that the effect today is still small.

But the warming does not have an immediate effect on ozone loss and our observations show that ozone loss still continues these days.

However, with its smugly objective, disingenuously warm, and subtly patronizing tone, reminiscent of corporate videos, the voice itself seems to cast doubt on the seriousness of Garcia Torres's strategy of «rehearsing» obscure historical moments in order to see if they can still have an effect.

Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming).

If we are still having global warming — and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history — it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Yet deleterious effects of warming are apparent (IPCC 2007), even though only about half of the warming due to gases now in the air has appeared, the remainder still «in the pipeline» due to the inertia of the climate system (Hansen et al 2011).

But the warming does not have an immediate effect on ozone loss and our observations show that ozone loss still continues these days.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

Even if the legislation took effect and emissions were curtailed, the world would still see disruptive pressures building in places already facing severe drought and flood risks with or without the added kick from greenhouse warming.

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.

The fact of the matter is that CH4 releases are still small and have a small effect on warming.

As a non-scientist, it is reassuring that releases of Arctic methane should not force an apocalyptic runaway warming event, although the effects will still have very nasty consequences for our presently comfortable climate.

Back in ’88 there was still quite a debate about whether the world was in fact warming or whether the temperature record had been contaminated by the urban heat island effect of cities springing up around former rural weather stations.

Of course, «the truth,» according to Inhofe, is that climate change is a myth: «The science is still out on what effect CO2 might have in terms of what they call global warming and the science is more on our side than on their side.»

In the unlikely event that it is still large enough to have any effect at all it may well take millennia for any warming of the oceans to become apparent by which time it would be dwarfed by natural changes anyway.

I hope it will be helpful; many people still think that a particular amount of warming will have the same effect as would a change of that amount during a typical day.

So even if the IPCC were right about climate sensitivity, which Lewis» submission makes clear it is not, and even if the programme were to reduce UK carbon emissions, which it will not, the UK would still be engaging at vast expense in an exercise which will have no effect on its alleged motivation, global warming.

With 2.2 trillion tons of CO2 already in the atmosphere (causing the severe earth - warming CO2 greenhouse effect), even if we stopped CO2 production completely, it would, still, take about 20 + years to bring atmospheric CO2 concentration into a normal range.

One more time then: even if it were true that only the sun's IR warms the earth, there would still be a greenhouse effect.

Warming produced greater growth in some, less growth in others, and had no effect at all on still others.

I'd say the Svensmark effect is still the best supported alternative model for attribution of warming at this stage, but the recent satellite data is frustrating the connection at a rather crucial moment.

The «unnatural» warming so far seen is however trended strongly to the alterations to the planetary surface by Humanity over the past 400 years and the rebalance towards greater kinetic induction (in its cumulative effect) is now producing observable alterations not only to the Land Surface median Temperature, but to the Ocean (vie conduction / convection) and a still unconfirmed claim of a small overall rise in Median Atmospheric Temperature, which if «true» would place the Planetary Biosphere on the «Human Population Plot» with regard to «warming».

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).

Nevertheless, both years were still among the warmest years on record and would have been even hotter without this short - term cooling effect.

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43659.html «Dr. Spencer's essay «Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still» (July 23, 2011), written to support the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) the science behind man - made global warming has sparked increased criticism since publication.

Their paper acknowledges observations that polar bears have yet to be harmed writing, «Although the effects of warming on some polar - bear subpopulations are not yet documented and other subpopulations are apparently still faring well.»

Besides the (sketchy at best) fact that we contribute a mere 15 ppm CO2 into the atmosphere, we know that the earth IS getting much warmer and an increasingly faster rate, so even if it is only 15ppm attributed to human activity it is still having adverse effects on our planet and can not be ignored.

So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.

... all I could think was how I wish I Mair had turned it right back around on him, telling Cruz he was grossly wrong; that the data conclusively and obviously show the Earth has been and still is warming, that «the pause» is just a statistical effect, unreal, and that the clear trend is that the Earth is getting hotter.

Even in the best - case scenario, the one seized upon by Gardner in Brown, in which humans turn out to have the least possible effect on the climate, we'll still only be able to avoid the most dangerous effects of warming if our extremely good luck is coupled with aggressive steps taken to reduce emissions.

For example, the urban heat island effect seems to be a defense of global warming skeptics, yet I would ask, «Isn't city heat still heat?

What is evident is that carbon dioxide still has the edge in effecting global warming - according to Braathen, it contributed 91 % of the total greenhouse gas heating effect in the past 5 years.

Are you claiming that if the atmosphere were replaced with a different set of gasses that do not contain GHG molecules, but still had all the other macro effects such as clouds etc in the exact same amount as our current atmosphere... are you claiming that this atmosphere would NOT cause (directly or indirectly) the surface of the earth to warm at all?

But it was cold this winter and C02 is plant food and only a trace gas and the greenhouse effect has been disproved anyway and even if the greenhouse effect does exist, C02 has negligible impact compared to water vapour and our only source of heat is the sun so it must be the sun, unless it is due to the C02 from volcanoes, but C02 follows warming so it can't be the C02 and the medieval warm period was warmer anyway and all the temperature reconstructions that show this not to be true are produced by corrupt scientists being paid by corrupt governments that have colluded to create an excuse to form a one world unelected social - ist government and even if the scientists are not that corrupt, although the e-mails prove they are, they have still got it wrong as the climate sensitivity is not as high as they think it is because it is basically the planets orbits and cosmic rays so we can say for a fact that the warming that probably does not exist is definatley not due to humans and even if it was the evidence is not sufficient to make drastic changes to the economy and increase taxes so that the politicians and scientists and business leaders get rich and leave us all poor — do they think we are stupid or something?

Since this book is written by a sceptical French climatoligist who has no connection to the oil industry or the various liberterian think tanks and who claims indisputably, that the «greenhouse effect or global warming scenario is a myth» fostered on the general public by so called scientists, I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal, because I am still in the process of forming an informed opinion.

Trenberth still relates the effect from CO2 based on 100ppmv causing an increase of 0.6 °C but does not subtract the 0.5 °C of natural warming as recovery from the LIA that has nothing to do with CO2 emissions therefore producing an effect six times too high for the effect from increased CO2 Trenberth is not aware that CO2 is not increaseing at an accelerated rate as predicted by Hansen but at a near linear rate averaging 2.037 ppmv / year so by 2100 the concentration will not be as predicted by the IPCC as per scenario A1 but merely reach a level of 573.11 ppmv by 2100, This is only in the case that CO2 increase is maintained but this may not happen as the rate appears to be slowing down with the average rate for the past 5 years being lower than the rate for the past ten years.

Berkeley Lab researchers Dev Millstein and Surabi Menon found that atmospheric feedback — such as changes in cloud cover or precipitation — does have an important effect, resulting in different amounts of cooling in different cities, but that cool roofs and pavements are still beneficial for combating global warming.

While methane and nitrous oxide make up much smaller portions of total greenhouse gas emissions, these gases are still important factors in the climate crisis, in part because they each have stronger global warming effects than carbon dioxide and also because they constitute an increasing portion of total emissions.

Although have seen a trend towards El Niño dominance and a weakening of the Walker circulation, there is still controversy as to the effect of global warming on ENSO processes.

WRI's recent research shows that while 49 countries have peaked their emissions, it is still insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 - 2 degrees C (2.7 - 3.6 degrees F) and prevent the worst effects of climate change.

Few have suggested that below 2º C of warming the effects will be beneficial; the goal of setting that target is to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change, and some still say it's too high.