Sentences with phrase «then warmed the globe»

That CO2 then warmed the globe, melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.

Not exact matches

Then other reefs around the globe got hit with the warm waters.

Global warming causes ocean temperatures to rise, resulting in an increased loss of oxygen, which can then affect the nitrogen budget across the globe.

Why did the globe gradually warm then in the latter part of the 20th century?

CO2 is as you know, the most important global warming gas, as it stays in the atmosphere for long ages, this then is the major «amplifier» of a warming globe between the ice ages.

And if the warming over the rest of the world is not attributable to greenhouse gases or «solar output», then «the greater climate change near the pole compared to the rest of the hemisphere or globe» is not attributable to them.

If you believe that adding CO2 warms the globe, then you believe that if you add C02, you warm the globe.

Clearly, McKibben «cherry - picks» certain weather events that recently happened across the globe, and then remarkably claims that they are all «connected» to CO2 - induced global warming.

If 72 % of the world's surface and Earth's atmosphere are not exhibiting accelerating and dangerous warming, then any claim that the entire globe is exhibiting those characteristics is a scientific falsehood, i.e. a blatant lie.

The only warming that can be ferreted out of the temperature records is in the coldest and most inhospitable regions on Earth, such as in the dry air of the Arctic or Siberia where going from a -50 °C to a -40 °C at one small spot on the globe is extrapolated across tens of thousands of miles and then branded as global warming.

When cold weather is excused as a cold snap weather pattern and hot weather is touted as the globe warming due to climate change and these two temperature differences are plugged into models differently, then the scam is on.

I think the real cooling will start after the SC24 max (~ 2015) and globe will cool faster then it warmed in the 80s / 90s.

How about this logic... if the ocean is an enormous heat sink and ate their warming, and this was not anticipated or built into the models AT ALL, then the models are all cr @p, the huge sensitivity to C02 (amplification) is in the same crock of poo (i.e. the ocean provides damping and there is no amplification), and there really is no such thing as CAGW... there's only 134 pathetic excuses for climate models that are all wrong because the scientists didn't consider that 75 - ish percent of the globe was covered with water.

They believe those who work for the government when they say, «we have modeled your future;» and, then the people don't understand when they learn that the, Global warming computer models are confounded as Antarctic... (It's unprecedented: across the globe, there are about one million square kilometers more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began).

In a ground - breaking new paper (Lansner and Pepke Pedersen, 2018) published in the journal Energy and Environment, an analysis of land surface instrumental records from across the globe's ocean air sheltered (OAS) regions reveals that, like the proxy evidence presented above, most of the modern era warming occurred prior to the 1940s, and the there has effectively been no net warming since then.

But then how come the globe is warming, and has warmed and cooled in the past?

I have seen some AGW proponents declare that because there was a slow decline in TSI from the peak of cycle 21 to the end of cycle 23 then the globe should have been cooling and the level of TSI could not be the cause of the apparent continued warming.

Your assumption equates to the position that the tropics will be relatively warmer then other parts of the globe during the height of a solar cycle, and cooler at the minimum.

If we can power 50 - 65 % of the globe on renewable and use carbon capture and other cleaner methods with what we have then we can do very well with the anthropogenic global warming issue.

In other words, back then they expected that the entire globe would heat up at once due to manmade Global Warming, so if the past temps didn't all go up together it didn't matter that they were hotter.

I made the point then (and repeat it here) that although this doesn't «disprove» global warming (the globe has warmed and during this warming we have gone from about half a million cars to almost a billion, from about 500 coal - fired power plants to about 23,000 — I'll let you tell me about the growth in the numbers of airplanes, washing machines and data centers...), it is a fairly straightforward argument against high sensitivity of the atmosphere to increasing concentrations of CO2.