Sentences with phrase «things than global warming»

In addition there are worse things than global warming.

Not exact matches

One thing is already clear: A warmer global atmosphere currently holds about 3 to 5 percent more water vapor than it did at the beginning of the 20th century, and that can contribute to heavier precipitation.

«I'd rather study global warming with a toy version of the planet,» he says, «than with the real thing.»

It's one thing to cave to a wave of naysaying climate rhetoric and build a new American energy conversation on points of agreement rather than clear ideological flash points like global warming.

Although I don't know how the hostess picks themes or manages to manage things, in my brief experience with the blog, you are much more likely to find a sensible and creative discussion of how to actually address the issue (global warming, sustainability, and related matters of living well within our environment) on the family, local, or cultural levels than you are to find a large acrimonious debate among (often anonymous) people.

And even if there was significant uncertainty about the probability of global warming, that would be no cause for complacency, since it could mean that things were going to turn out worse than predicted.

However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer - review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you'd think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

On the possibility of a changing cloud cover «forcing» global warming in recent times (assuming we can just ignore the CO2 physics and current literature on feedbacks, since I don't see a contradiction between an internal radiative forcing and positive feedbacks), one would have to explain a few things, like why the diurnal temperature gradient would decrease with a planet being warmed by decreased albedo... why the stratosphere should cool... why winters should warm faster than summers... essentially the same questions that come with the cosmic ray hypothesis.

The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate.

the fact that some things concern them more than global warming proves that they're not concerned about global warming.

Entrusting our efforts to address global warming, and to preserve the climate for future generations, to Obama and team is a much, much better idea from all sorts of standpoints than entrusting those things to McCain and team, hands down.

We don't know whether or not global warming is actually dangerous, but we should lower emissions rather than continue our current habits in hopes that things will turn out alright.

How about you move to the Maldives or the sub-saharan cities if you think that there are more important things to do now than avoid global warming.

This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a revenue - neutral tax on fossil fuels.

But my larger point is this: Scientists understand key aspects of the problem much better than someone who brands the whole thing (global warming) as «uncertain» probably thinks or wants to believe.

Warming as measured by increased global heat, (heat in greater than heat out) and warming measured as increased globally averaged temperatures are closely linked but are still different Warming as measured by increased global heat, (heat in greater than heat out) and warming measured as increased globally averaged temperatures are closely linked but are still different warming measured as increased globally averaged temperatures are closely linked but are still different things.

He went to great effort to say he honored the scientists work, but then flatly said that though the Arctic is in meltdown and its worse than models predict, that we can not make a causal link to human global warming pollution can not he said things like «I wish this decision could have been otherwise» and talked about colleagues saying they were glad they weren't in his shoes.

I understand it is because in the last few years the temperature of the Earth has actually cooled so, rather than lose the momentum they had gained to make political inroads to underwrite global measures to control societies» behaviors when it comes to things like use of fossil fuels, proponents decided to cut their losses and change the term so they wouldn't be obviously wrong to the masses as it snowed on various global warming rallies.

Those that claim 2014 is the «warmest year» on record, it's better to be predictable about many things or even unpredictable about most things, than being a propagandist for global warming establishment, no matter what.

And while you are doing that, davie, you might tell us in your own words how less than 1c warming since the end of the little ice age and the beginning of the industrial revolution, measured with ever changing systems in areas of exponential land use change by people who have a total, consensual belief in global warming by ACO2 and no demonstrable scientific scepticism whatsoever, must constitute a «bad thing», awa being scientifically based and believable.

That is the problem is that the real thing that «deniers» are saying is that the conclusion of «we are all going to die» (which is a most probable true statement, we all will eventually die just not due to Global Warming) that is the political narrative on this «science» barring we give up our rights to energy production to a global authority is a hard pill to swallow unless you have real evidence rather than modeled science to go oGlobal Warming) that is the political narrative on this «science» barring we give up our rights to energy production to a global authority is a hard pill to swallow unless you have real evidence rather than modeled science to go oglobal authority is a hard pill to swallow unless you have real evidence rather than modeled science to go off of.

I am disappointed that global warming is a headline grabber for Chris Huhne — I would prefer him to be dealing with practical things concerning energy — rather than false targets.

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).

Yet the only thing which remotely looks like evidence to confirm this conspiracy is a worthless set of memos supposedly leaked out of the Western Fuels Association having the strategy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

One thing is for certain: The complex pact to limit global warming to less than two degrees Celsius will live on.

Everything Grivalja accused Goklany of doing are things James Hansen, NASA's American Idol of Global Warming, has been doing for more than a decade.

Routinely in this kind of narrative, the plight of polar bears, summer sea ice melt, global warming, and anthropogenic CO2 are conflated as the one and same thing, as each other's cause and effect, rather than treated as phenomena that have distinct and complex causes.

From what I've gathered, he is less than proud of his family's role in tobacco... and that is one big thing that drove him to work so hard to educate people about global warming.

Please note in order to avoid perpetuating the mythology that colder than normal temps in some areas mean global warming is not happening — global warming affects the flow of the gulf stream among other things, meaning that while some areas of the globe become unusually hot, others can become unusually cold — witness recent killer freezes in Europe — global warming is to blame for these effects.

If he can get over his ideological instincts, he may even learn that climate change is not just a leftist thing and that solar is a good business proposition — his comments up till now seem not to go much further than people who exclaim: «Where's that global warming when you need it!»

Not that we think the Goddard Institute for Space Studies team are particularly good at establishing global temperature or anomalies, at least no better than other industrious teams attempting to do the same thing, it's just that GISS's GISTEMP is consistently delivering the warmest anomalies and accelerating away from the pack (well it is the house of Hansen, so - called «father of global warming»...).

But rather than do the ethical thing, and join the fight to slow global warming, most companies took a page from the tobacco industry play book.

Considering that the effects of rising carbon emissions will effect more states than just the one emitting them, I'm not sure how you can argue that in state - by - state regulation is better than a tough national standard, but at least nearly two thirds of oil execs now believe that there is something to this increasing carbon emissions causing global warming thing.