Sentences with phrase «warming based upon»

But are the pope's concerns over potential global warming based upon the best available science?

Here's Merriam Webster's version: Main Entry: carbon dioxide Function: noun: a heavy colorless gas CO 2 that does not support combustion, dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, is formed especially in animal respiration and in the decay or combustion of animal and vegetable matter, is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, and is used in the carbonation of beverages I know you'll all correct me if i'm wrong in stating if CO2 has no scientific facts supporting global warming based upon a factor of greenhouse gases (as opposed to solar radiation in another post, which would be defined by variations in earth, space, or similar factors), then where does science determine that CO2 «disolves in water to form carbonic acid» and is «absorbed from the air by plants in photosythesis»?

Not exact matches

when Rump selects a man like Tillerson (whom he had never met) to serve as Secretary of State based upon Putin's warm recommendation.

I recently bought this lipstick & nail polish, and decided to create a warm fall look based upon their similar shade.

We're giving away umbrellas, credit card lights, black hats to keep your head warm, some T - shirts, a duffle bag, some Hollywood Movie Money Tickets so you can get into the film free of charge, and a DVD set from the BBC miniseries upon which Campbell's thriller is based.

Check out the trailer here and be sure to watch this heart - warming family movie - based - upon - the - book when it airs throughout the holiday season.

Cats shed their hair based upon both increasing daylight hours and warmer temperatures so consequently, indoor cats may shed all year round.

Viewed in that way, the data says that the Arctic is warming even more in terms of heat content than we would think, based upon purely thermometric considerations.

Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here.

One can only guess based upon the evidence so far that things will only get more exaggerated and exacerbated in a warmer world.

Attempting to discredit global warming by questioning the use of models is not a valid criticism — if you want to dispute the data upon which models are based, feel free.

«At least based upon this slicing of the data, then, the hurricane response to global warming globally didn't look nearly as predictable as anyone had thought.

We are looking at the end of this interglacial period based firmly upon historical cycles and norms without any acceleration when compared to previous cycles, as that happens, more warm would be seen as a blessing.

These are the probabilities of the given years being the warmest on record, using calculations based upon the uncertainties (and the shape of those uncertainties) associated with each year's value.

Instead of involving a choice of whether to keep or discard an observation based upon a prior expectation, we hypothesize that this selection bias involves the «survival» of climate models from generation to generation, based upon their warming rate.

However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.

When we adjust the TAR emissions scenarios to include an atmospheric CO2 pathway that is based upon observed CO2 increases during the past 25 yr, we find a warming range of 1.5 — 2.6 °C prior to the adjustments for the new findings.

Well, based upon this information I'd say the proper solution is to get Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, give him a lab coat, and let him sit behind cows for the next few years smelling cow farts and trying to ascertain their impact upon non-existent anthropogenic global warming.

The University of East Anglia's CRU has told the public it no longer stores the raw data upon which it bases its famous global warming theory.

«First off, let me say I consider the concept of a global mean temperature [upon which global warming statistics are based] to be somewhat dubious, and I say so in my recent book (with Eugene Clothiaux) Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation.

This article is a step in the right direction, however, to go further, the evidence now disclosed appears to implicate and undermine the entire basis upon which Anthopological Global Warming (AGW) was founded.

That is an observed fact, based upon the existence of the warming halt.

If you're going to believe forecasts I'd suggest you check out Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi, who seem to have a much better record than the warmers who seem to base their predictions upon what they wish would happen instead of reality.

Using this as proof to say that we can not be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science.

The surface warming is also consistent with the many physical indicators, and the observed amount of warming is consistent with the expected range of climate sensitivity, which itself is based upon many different lines of evidence.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

As researcher Max Boykoff has described, relative to the assertions that CO2 warms the planet or that humans contribute to climate change, there is overwhelming scientific agreement, and therefore a clear objective basis upon which to criticize the media if they fail to accurately convey this consensus.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

(1) there is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level;

Since to me (and many scientists, although some wanted a lot more corroborative evidence, which they've also gotten) it makes absolutely no sense to presume that the earth would just go about its merry way and keep the climate nice and relatively stable for us (though this rare actual climate scientist pseudo skeptic seems to think it would, based upon some non scientific belief — see second half of this piece), when the earth changes climate easily as it is, climate is ultimately an expression of energy, it is stabilized (right now) by the oceans and ice sheets, and increasing the number of long term thermal radiation / heat energy absorbing and re radiating molecules to levels not seen on earth in several million years would add an enormous influx of energy to the lower atmosphere earth system, which would mildly warm the air and increasingly transfer energy to the earth over time, which in turn would start to alter those stabilizing systems (and which, with increasing ocean energy retention and accelerating polar ice sheet melting at both ends of the globe, is exactly what we've been seeing) and start to reinforce the same process until a new stases would be reached well after the atmospheric levels of ghg has stabilized.

Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less — hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

Other climate scientists, such a Richard Lindzen, have stated that based upon their empirical research the warming will be dampened by other climate effects, a net negative feedback.

When we adjust the TAR emissions scenarios to include an atmospheric CO2 pathway that is based upon observed CO2 increases during the past 25 yr, we find a warming range of 1.5 - 2.6 °C prior to the adjustments for the new findings.

«Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data,» Sammon wrote, «we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.»

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent — Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (or CO2e) is a measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP).

And thirdly, a simple empirical adjustment to the average of a large family of models, based upon observed changes in temperature, yields a warming range of 1.3 - 3.0 °C, with a central value of 1.9 °C.

Back in 2009, one of the network's top editors ordered journalists to «refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.»

When the IPCC's «science» portion of the Assessment was released last fall, it was immediately faulted for being based upon climate models which have greatly overpredicted the amount of climate change that has been occurring largely because they completely missed the slowdown of the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past two decades.

Based upon all this information about sex and global warming, wouldn't you think all these delegates to COP 15 would practice what they preach?

I believe that our presence here, on earth, in the numbers that we have managed to achieve, coupled with the fact that we have destroyed millions upon millions of oxygen producers (Trees) and have a penchant for asphalt and tarmac, which are very heat absorbing, and purposely keep reflective surfaces to a minimum (they're blinding) AND have created a civilization based on burning fossil fuels and using other things which are detrimental to our ecology, that, yes, we are probably responsible in large for the exelerated melting of the global ice... but, we have been in a state of warming since the last ice age ended... we just speeded up the process.

One thing which confuses me is BEST has acknowledged its uncertainty levels are both too small and somewhat biased on the temporal dimension, yet it still published a report discussing the «warmest year» claims based upon its uncertainty levels.

Yet, the diehard boneheads at the United Nations continue to scheme on way to screw rich nations out of every penny they can get, based upon the fraud of non-existent anthropogenic global warming.

Neither the hockey stick controversy nor the recent lack of warming materially affect the science upon which the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based.

Global Warming Potential (GWP)- An index, based upon radiative properties of well - mixed heat - trapping gases (greenhouse gases), measuring the radiative forcing of a unit mass of a given well - mixed greenhouse gas in the present - day atmosphere integrated over a chosen time horizon, relative to that of carbon dioxide.

the diehard boneheads at the United Nations continue to scheme on way to screw rich nations out of every penny they can get, based upon the fraud of non-existent anthropogenic global warming.

Based upon what I have read, I don't think there is anyone arguing for a different root cause creating a unique signature in the modern warming.

Each group of SMEs would produce a simple empirical chart for their fault tree block estimating how much energy was added or lost during a specific year within the modern warming, ideally based upon direct measurement and historical observation.

(And, based upon the HadCRU monthly means I glanced at yesterday, it may also be cooling on a yearly scale while warming on a monthly scale, due to ENSO - related effects and other sorts of «natural variability.»)

If you are not guessing, upon what facts do you base your statement that 2015 looks to be warmer?

Does anyone have some input they'd like to contribute that supports global warming or lack thereof based upon those types of factors?