Sentences with phrase «stronger warming effect»

The shorter - lived gas has a much stronger warming effect than CO2.

The soot produced by burning fossil fuels has a stronger warming effect because it contains a higher ratio of black carbon to sulfate, which reflects sunlight to produce a cooling effect.

It seems to have quite a strong warming effect.

For his part, Mr. Monckton says there is no need to exploit such events because he and others have exposed fatal weaknesses in the mainstream view that a strong warming effect is due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide — regardless of the peer - reviewed, Nobel Prize - winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the conclusions of various national academies of science and 100 years of growing accord on the basics.

One general result of these complexities is that CO2 has its strongest warming effect about 10 - 12 miles above the surface of the earth.

Believers say: «Only if we include a strong warming effect from CO2 can we explain the past 60 years» warming.

Andy Lacis» criticism is that the IPCC's evaluation of the results of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations was not strong enough in emphasizing the strong warming effects to be expected.

«The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted.

Not exact matches

An active hydrological cycle would have required a warmer climate in the planet's early history and therefore a thicker atmosphere, one capable of creating a strong greenhouse effect.

Other experts say that the effect of hurricanes on global warming would probably be minimal as only the largest storms are expected to get stronger.

(At the time, the sun was as much as 6 % fainter than it is now, Lenton says, so the planet - warming effect of greenhouse gases wasn't as strong.)

«This process pushes the storm northward (or southward in the southern hemisphere), and this effect will also be stronger in a warmer climate.»

These effects may not only lead to stronger warming at the north of our planet, but also at the south polar region.

«Based on our findings, it appears that future Arctic warming and reduced sea - ice cover could have a strong effect on tropical rainfall,» says James Collins.

And, Stevens says, the study doesn't discuss the types of clouds that are thought to be the most crucial for future warming: low - lying clouds over the subtropical oceans, which have a strong cooling effect but may be dissipating as the world warms.

Dr Li said the latest research findings give a better understanding of changes in human - perceived equivalent temperature, and indicate global warming has stronger long - term impacts on human beings under both extreme and non-extreme weather conditions, suggesting that climate change adaptation can not just focus on heat wave events, but should be extended to the whole range of effects of temperature increases.

El Niño — a warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that changes weather patterns across the globe — causes forests to dry out as rainfall patterns shift, and the occasional unusually strong «super» El Niños, like the current one, have a bigger effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The effect is so strong, she said, that if Earth continues to warm at the current rate, the LC50 for one species she has studied, fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), will be only half as much in 2060 as it is now.

In addition, changes in the atmosphere cause the warming effect to be stronger at night.

Doesn't mean the globe isn't warming, it means I happen to live in a place where the effects of La Nina are quite strong.

I am very cuious if you found a variance between Upper Air and Surface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface based one.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

It is challenging to see how volcanism could cause an ice age, since its cooling effects would have to be stronger than, and to outlast, its warming effects.

They have also concentrated on the effects on weather during winter, when the Arctic warming signal is strongest.

I haven't look at the research on the effect of warm - ups in at least 20 years... but as I recall, a warm - up set was shown to be beneficial in the manner that you describe — priming the muscles and making them stronger for the first heavy set.

Wear it in cold weather to remain warm and trendy through the strong wind but don't forget the heeled booties to emphasize the classy effect!

His early paintings (eg, Sheep in Landscape, 1869) show a quietude of mood, a strong interest in the effect of light and observation of detail, and warm, rich colour.

It seems clear that the UHI effect is a real physical effect and the complaint from AGW skeptics and denialists is that the strong (and real) warming in urban areas is contaminating regional and global temperature averages.

«As a global society, we need to get down to a level of 90 percent reductions by 2050» to have a decent chance of warding off the strongest effects of global warming.

Cox seems to be straightforward in saying that reduced aerosol effects (cooling) will result in greater warming (from GHGs) and that the cooling effect now is stronger than normally supposed.

In particular, we have a very strong reason to connect GHG's to observed warming, and multiple lines of physics and data for bracketing the magnitude of this effect — which all but relegates GCM's to the trivial - influience - at - best bin.

I am very cuious if you found a variance between Upper Air and Surface warming... I calculated total amospheric refraction temperatures, ie from data extracted by analyzing optical effects, some of my results show an impressive yearly warming trend, much stronger than the surface based one.

The fact that the increase in damage cost is about as large as the increase in GDP (as recently argued at FiveThirtyEight) is certainly no strong evidence against an effect of global warming on damage cost.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

They keep yapping about «thousands of scientists» contributing to the IPCC AR4, when in fact the Summary for Policymakers was written by a small coterie of believers in a strong effect of CO2 on global warming.

As discussed elsewhere in these pages, there is strong evidence that anthropogenic effects are largely responsible for this warming.

[Response: You don't expect it to be completely the same since there are differences: GHGs cause stratospheric cooling, solar irradiance increases cause warming there — GHGs have a very even effect across latitudes, solar is stronger in the tropics.

# 92 Spencer el al 2007 paper doesn't really support the precise mechanism proposed by Lindzen for Iris effect, but more simply observes a strong TOA negative correction associated with warming events at 20 ° S - 20 ° N (that is: in the 2000 - 2005 period of observation, the most significative warming episodes of the surface + low troposphere — 40 days or more — leads to a negative SW+LW cloud forcing at the top of the atmosphere).

His book is strong on fundamental principals of the physics of the atmosphere underlying the greenhouse effect and global warming.

I have a paper in press on very strong effects of climate warming on the food chain of a large Italian lake.

The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice — temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice - sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic...» *** This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes.

Over short periods they certainly do that but over periods of few decades it's likely that the warming effect of CO2 is stronger.

Not only that, but they give it power over El Nino by pontificating that «Pinatubo climate forcing was stronger than the opposite warming effects of either the El Nino event or anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the period 1991 - 93.»

22 Cause and Effect La Nina Cause: Stronger than normal trade winds push warm water farther west Effect: Polar jet stream is amplified, brings cold air to northwest.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that this effect will do anything but get stronger from here on as the vast «crops» of oceanic bacteria adapt to both warmer ocean waters and increased CO2 and nutrient levels and simply increasingly cool the global atmospheric climate simply by «growing faster»!

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

The CO2 dependence on temperature is between 2 - 4 ppmv / °C, that is based on the effect of the cooling caused by the 1992 outburst of the Pinatubo and the 1998 warming of a strong El Niño.

Per molecule they actually exert a warming effect that is thousands of times as strong as that of CO2 [that remains the most important contributor to climate change, simply because we emit such enormous amounts of it].

@Ferdinand: You write: «The CO2 dependence on temperature is between 2 - 4 ppmv / °C, that is based on the effect of the cooling caused by the 1992 outburst of the Pinatubo and the 1998 warming of a strong El Niño.»

In an interview with Yale Environment 360, the Wesleyan University economist talked about why the world needs to start taking steps to adapt to climate change and why strong action must be taken despite uncertainty about the extent of the warming and its ultimate effects.