Sentences with phrase «very warming post»

That was a very warming post to read this morning.

Not exact matches

I warm it post run and enjoy it very much.

You are also very natural, and in case I am wrong about that (which I doubt), that surely would mean that you are a talented writer (which comes down to the same, because who can write such entertaining and pleasant posts but a warm, sweet person?).

this is such a lovely post — makes me miss traveling and it makes my heart a little fuller and a bit melancholy because this just sounds too perfect and i very much wish i was in a cosy little cottage catching the eye of horses out the window whilst warm by the fire....

Then she fell into YouTube and social media posts about veganism and «decided to become vegan because of the environment and animals,» she told me, «The meat and dairy industries are very bad for the environment and contribute to global warming.

And on that heart - warming note I will finish up today's post — however I do encourage you to keep an eye out for a very pleasant surprise on the blog later today.

This will be very anti-climactic for a post about natural homemade carpet cleaning, but in many cases, warm water in a steam cleaner will work for stains and overall cleaning.

Lisa, I find myself struggling today with what to pack for a warm - weather getaway and would be very interested in a post on what you're taking to Kauai!

Each bridesmaid rocks a very vintage, very chic variation, using the wedding's warm color... Read the Post

Very warm and inviting Corina Nika recently posted..

I loved your dress is beautiful and very warm The pink pineapple New post: http://thepinkpineappleblog.blogspot.com/

When we shot this post however, it was still very warm.

I prefer more warm neutral colors too but you made this work very well with the other colors you used in your IG post!

I am tagging as many travel worthy posts on my Pinterest as possible and am in need of some warmer clothing cause we are going somewhere very cold.

It is always very heart warming when I receive their events to be posted... it shows me that they appreciate what we do and appreciate our sponsors that support animal rescue.

-- is it right to say that this study doesn't show any significative influence of anthropogenic, post -1970 warming on SLR, since the SLR reacts mainly with a very large time constant and averages the temperature over a time much longer than 40 years?

I have a post at Nate Silver's 538 site on how we can predict annual surface temperature anomalies based on El Niño and persistence — including a (by now unsurprising) prediction for a new record in 2016 and a slightly cooler, but still very warm, 2017.

While I'm posting (I can see how you guys get into this) I'm also very uncomfortable with your notion of «tacit knowledge:» it certainly seems to be tacit knowledge in the blogosphere that the chances of the climate sensitivity (equilibrium warming on indefinite stabilization at 560ppm CO2, for the non-enthusiasts) being greater than or equal to 6 degrees are too small to be worth worrying about (meaning down at the level of an asteroid strike).

Andy, this is a very important and interesting post, and I hope we can learn about more and more emerging experiments out there related to climate change, sustainability and global warming.

Following up on my post from last week on the Arctic Oscillation, Ken Chang has written a Week in Review story with a bit more detail on the unusual atmospheric patterns behind the big, but very constrained, chill, and the dominance of warm conditions — just not where a lot of Western media are situated.

In particular, the characters visit Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where (very pleasingly to my host institution) they have the GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long - term cooling trend (although slight warming since the 1970's).

While on the topic of the oceans» response to warming, I would very much like to see a RealClimate posting on the effects on sea levels of GW.

First: Months ago, as you know, a very creative and conscientious Dot Earthling (Anna Haynes) suggested in a Dot Earth post that The New York Times should do a survey / questionnaire of all members of Congress regarding their specific views on global warming and potential ways to address global warming.

Andy, I found the plankton post informative, but I have a concern: IF public understanding of global warming (and potential ways to address it) were at the «A» level, or at least the «B» level, then we'd all have context within which to find these types of things (e.g., the current story) very helpful.

In my piece weighing the merits of very different strategies for giving ice - dependent polar bears a chance in a warming world, I promised I'd post the views of some of the biologists, sea - ice researchers and climate scientists who've been tracking relevant questions.

Nevertheless I say again that I'd like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Marco @ 47: I see what you mean about the general relevance and importance of the posting that you cited, but I'd still like to see someone of stature in science or someone of high visibility in the national media challenge Professor Happer specifically about the contrast between the very headline on his WSJ op - ed («Global warming models are wrong again») and what's asserted by this RC posting (and by Lazarus @ 31) about the retrospective reliability of Hansen et al. (1981).

Nothing in Mr. Svec's response (as it's written in the headline post) sufficiently addresses the central issue, i.e., that global warming is a very big problem and that continued use of carbon dioxide - emitting energy sources is the biggest part of the problem.

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,» There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.»

This would have shown that the 1940s was the warmest period of the 20th century, and that there had been very slight cooling post the 1940s.

This analysis should be conducted now, before we spend vast sums trying to mitigate global warming (and even then, one can make a very good argument that adapting to warming is cheaper than preventing it, but again that's a different post).

48 Growing Energy & Environmental Concerns 58 % of Americans rank «dealing with the nation's energy problem» as a top priority in 2006, up from 40 % in 2003 87 % of Americans cite home heating and energy prices as a «very big» or «big» problem for the nation's economy 88 % of US adults respond that «energy efficient» was very important in their electronics, appliance, lighting and heating / cooling equipment purchases Gallup polls: Americans» concerns about environmental issues have increased more than 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2006 The LOHAS Consumer Report: 91 % of people are in total agreement with the statement «I care about protecting the environment» ABC News / Washington Post Poll: 79 % of Americans think global warming poses a serious threat to future generations Source: AP Source: NASA

Coincidentally, my very first post on SkS was on quantifying the human contribution to global warming.

I was going to look at the whole thing now but the post has been getting very long so for now I'll just focus on the ideas that the current warming is insignificant on geological timescales, and that warming is good anyway.

Since hardly anyone cares anymore, your post is very timely as a forecast of the imminent death of global warming as a political issue.

Guest Post by Mark Richardson «It hasn't warmed since 1998» is still a very popular argument.

Nice post, but I think a better physical analogy for CO2's atmospheric warming ability is as «a very thin, gaseous mirror.»

As for your alternative explanation in a previous post, I am trying to think of a world subject to a warming force due to increased GHGs since the 19th century... this warming didn't materialize around the mid-century due to large quantities of aerosols emitted in the NH... somehow this NH cooling trespassed the equatorial belt and affected the SH, which not only didn't warm but cooled even more than the NH... doesn't sound very plausible, does it?

In an April 18 post, «Confessions of a Climate Convert,» Tucker told readers how he came to question the ideologies of the climate debate, examine the science, and conclude that global warming was, in fact, very real.

assuming what you say about skeptics changing topic as you describe is accurate, and at this point I do we are talking about data that is less than 200 years old, out of which extraordinary claims are made as to how that data relates to distant past and future trends tough sell assuming that all adjustments to the data are scientifically sound, It is very difficult for me to believe that measurements that have gone through so many iterations can be trusted to.0 and.00 in most other sciences, I doubt they would tough sell (the photo of the thermometer is downright funny) in terms of goal post moving I observe predicted heat being re-branded as «missing» a prediction of no snow re-branded as more snow a warming world re-branded to a «warm, cold, we don't know what to expect» world topped off with suggestions that one who thinks the above has some sort of psychological disorder extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence especially when you are teaching children that their world is endangered

Also, Richard, in a previous posting you seemed to imply that radiation could come from a cooler body towards a warmer one and then, at the very doorstep, be rejected somehow because the radiation was somehow marked and detected as coming from a cooler object.

My own posts at that point had been very mild — observing that it seemed reasonably enough to me that Antarctica was warming along with the rest of the world.

You'll find a few people — myself included — who are sceptical of the IPCC AR5 attribution statement and a few more who are very sceptical of claims that all post industrial warming is anthropogenic.

One can very easily debate attribution of recent — and all post industrial warming for that matter — whilst still accepting Mosher's 1 - 4.

It's a truism that whenever I write about the solid fact that the Earth is warming up, that post will get comments that make it clear that denialists — and please read that link before commenting on my use of the word — are like religious zealots, writing the same tired long - debunked arguments that are usually debunked in the very post they're commenting on.

Moreover, even if it is true that Anthony Watts does not personally think that there has been no global warming and is just happy to let others interpret his work that way, you don't need to go very far in this blog to find all kinds of posts and comments where people just flatly deny the evidence that there has been global warming at all.

Leslie, this was a very warm and real post.

I love you picture collage - everything you do is very creative - and I just received a warm brown, fuzzy blanket to keep me warm - Love this post - Happy Day