Sentences with phrase «warming by definition»

Rob Ellison — «It is not that difficult — if the net flux anomalies trend is positive the planet is warming by definition.»

It is not that difficult — if the net flux anomalies trend is positive the planet is warming by definition.

An increasing trend in net flux is a relative warming by definition.

Well, this is shearling skin so it is extra warm by definition.

Not exact matches

Scientists can measure how much energy greenhouse gases now add (roughly three watts per square meter), but what eludes precise definition is how much other factors — the response of clouds to warming, the cooling role of aerosols, the heat and gas absorbed by oceans, human transformation of the landscape, even the natural variability of solar strength — diminish or strengthen that effect.

-- After reviewing the report required by subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture, may, by regulation and after public notice and comment, modify the non-Federal lands portion of the definition of «renewable biomass» in section 610 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 in order to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

The current era (at least under present definitions), known as the Holocene, began about 11,700 years ago, and was marked by warming and large sea level rise coming out of a major cool period, the Younger Dryas.

By definition, a feel - good film is something that should leave you with warm feelings of inspiration or general happiness by the enBy definition, a feel - good film is something that should leave you with warm feelings of inspiration or general happiness by the enby the end.

By definition, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is a warm - up act... it's setting the stage for the finale which will be released in one year.

The Korean brand has dabbled with warm hatches and coupes, but none of them should be mentioned in the same sentence as the i30 N. By the definition of a hot - hatch, the new hi - po Hyundai is scorching.

These are sexy situations made sexier by insinuation rather than high definition and with poppy color combos that would speed the pulse of any warm - blooded body.

The definition I'd choose is much like the one stated by Richard Somerville of the University of California, San Diego, during a climate debate several years ago over the proposition that «Global Warming is Not a Crisis.»

The mixed layer of the ocean is mixed (pretty much by definition) thus the net fluxes at the surface (latent heat, sensible heat, long wave up and down, short wave down) warm or cool the whole layer.

By definition, you can't do anything about global warming or global biodiversity loss.

Anyone who, at the time, to a lesser or greater extent, may have thought Hansen was exaggerating, by definition was «predicting» less warming.

The claim, which Mann himself uses in the NYT, for example, that 97 % of scientists agree that «climate change is real» and that «we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet» isn't borne out by a reading of the survey, which was itself imprecise about its own definitions, and captures the perspectives Mann has himself dismissed as «anti-science»: sceptics are part of the putative ’97 per cent».

Instead, by using multiple definitions of consensus and arbitrarily removing two - thirds of the sample because the abstracts had inconveniently not expressed any opinion on global warming, they had turned a 0.3 % consensus into 97.1 %.

That means climate shifts from warming to cooling at the highest concentrations and vice versa, by definition.

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 % or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.

Here you can read the definition of Munchausen by Proxy... I made some changes to reflect what I'm talking about with respect to global warming fraud, but the basics are there.

In addition, the CO2 - only budget is of limited policy value since it by definition neglects many important forcing agents and is expected to significantly underestimate the warming.

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.

I don't know anyone this side of a loony bin who denies we've warmed since coming out of the LIA (by definition).

It is no surprise there is significant disagreement over the amount of warming estimated — as James Hansen and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies explain7, there is no clear definition of what we mean by absolute surface air temperature and wide variation in the estimated mean surface temperature of the planet.

I think in the case of GHG driven warming, it makes more sense to have a better definition of the risks (say a credible narrowing of the Charney sensitivity range by 50 % or more) before moving beyond «no regrets» type policies.

-- After reviewing the report required by subsection (a), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture, may, by regulation and after public notice and comment, modify the non-Federal lands portion of the definition of «renewable biomass» in sections 211 (o)(1)(I) and 700 of the Clean Air Act in order to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

-- Based on the scientific review, the agencies may, by rule, modify the definition of «renewable biomass» from Federal lands in sections 211 (o)(1)(I) and 700 of the Clean Air Act and section 610 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 as appropriate to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

-- After reviewing the report required by subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture, may, by regulation and after public notice and comment, modify the non-Federal lands portion of the definition of «renewable biomass» in section 610 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 in order to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

Because the perception of a scientific consensus on global warming is so widespread, this has led some people to believe that any criticism of man - made global warming theory is by definition «anti-science», and part of an apparent «war on science».

At equilibrium, nothing can warm anything else, by definition.

Keep you eye on the energy flow ball: By definition a warmed molecule is never in a state where there is no «flow of energy», which flow may be defined as «disequlibrium».

By definition, GLOBAL warming happens over the entire planet, so no, there can not be global warming in any one location or region.

I agree that global warming has undoubtedly paused by that definition.

This paper got plenty of attention when it was released last August and many, many problems have been pointed out by others, but most of the discussion has focused on the inappropriate definition of warming that has taken place in the Southern Ocean.

Are you assuming that global warming (natural or man made) is bad by definition?

It will happen because the lie by definition is not true, man has done alot of things to this planet but causing it to warm is not one of them.

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Global warming is by definition global.

(well, except I expect the rate of warming to pick back up again, so my guess is that there will turn out to have been no slowdown by this definition at all).

So the definition of global warming as something caused by humans is not «unequivocal» but rather the exact opposite.

I'm really keen to hear your explanation as to how warmer water (by definition less dense) disappears to the depth.

@Baa Humbug «I'm really keen to hear your explanation as to how warmer water (by definition less dense) disappears to the depth.»

Popular Science has a relatively user - friendly definition of «bomb cyclone» you can check out, but this type of weather event is essentially a super fast drop in pressure (bomb) caused by warm air meeting cold air, combined with the rotation of the Earth to create a swirling effect (cyclone).