Sentences with phrase «warming contributions as»

Not exact matches

To combat this, make sure that every division, from the top to the bottom, has an influencer employee, who embodies your philosophies so there are «the five to nine people that can legitimately warm their hands on that person's cultural contributions, because as you start getting too far away from that, it begins to crumble.»

New York City announced it filed a multibillion dollar lawsuit against five top oil companies, citing their «contributions to global warming,» as it said it would divest fossil fuel investments from its $ 189 billion public pension funds over the next five years.

The investment in truly clean and green energy production such as wind, solar, and biofuels, and offering incentives to encourage Smart Energy use by consumers would drastically reduce our contributions to global warming and reduce our dependency on nuclear power.

At all the places the President went to, and the people he met, the embrace was warm as the confessions of his contribution to the socio - economic infrastructure development of Ashanti region was ever present.

As a visual aid, the team produced a map (above) in which the countries are stretched or shrunk depending on their contribution to warming in relation to their size.

As countries prepare to finalize a climate agreement in Paris this coming December, global leaders like the United States and the European Union are releasing intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), country specific action plans that outline how they intend to reduce global warming emissions.

The material on Amazon forest dieback was in the IPCC assessment as were the numbers on recent sea level (thought the IPCC did not use the information on recent contributions from land ice in their estimate for 21st century warming.)

Kyoto regulates all sources of carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases, but reliable long - term data by country are available only for carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels (which accounts for about two - thirds of the human contribution to global warming).

So the report notes that the current «pause» in new global average temperature records since 1998 — a year that saw the second strongest El Nino on record and shattered warming records — does not reflect the long - term trend and may be explained by the oceans absorbing the majority of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases as well as the cooling contributions of volcanic eruptions.

So it's a serious entrant, and from my potentially biased point of view in the nuclear fission category, I don't know many other entrants that you look and say, «Okay, if you go from paper to real then this is a meaningful contribution to cheap energy / global warming as an incredible problem.»

Because existing phenomena — such as thermal expansion of water from warming — do not fully explain the corrected sea - level - rise number of 3.3 millimeters, stored heat in the deep ocean may be making a significant contribution, Cazenave said.

«There is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature» to the warming of the planet that has already been observed, they claim.

As the graph below from Spracklen's News and Views article shows, the balance between warming (red shading) and cooling (blue shading) have kept the country's contribution to human - caused climate change pegged at about 10 % in recent decades, despite soaring fossil fuel emissions.

He is clearly not denying that warming is taking place insofar as he specifically endorses temperature records showing that warming is taking place, and he is also concerned about human contributions to these changes.

Carbon dioxide emitted at the start of the industrial revolution is still warming the atmosphere today, which is why scientists take into account historical emissions as well as present day ones to work out a country's contribution to climate change.

Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975.

The relative contributions of the various feedbacks that make up climate sensitivity need not be the same going back to the LGM as in a world warming relative to the pre-industrial climate.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2's warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC's projections of future warming of 3 ± 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

Previous work suggested that as the atmosphere warms and becomes moister, it becomes a better insulator, so the clouds themselves have a diminishing contribution to warming.

«The School Leadership Program selected Tamesha Webb as its Intellectual Contribution Award,» says Professor Mary Grassa O'Neill, faculty director of SLP, «because of her strong and inspirational leadership, ability to bring people together and her keen intelligence, hard work, warm personality and positive outlook.»

You'll get a warm feeling as you listen to Gina share these compelling working dog stories and the upcoming red - carpet event that will celebrate their self-less contributions.

This warm - hearted, pre-Christmas evening also offers an introduction of Sternfeld's work in the 2013 Carnegie International by co-curator Tina Kukielski, as well as a visit with Wade to the very exclusive Founders Room, where his second contribution to the exhibition is located.

Attribution of early 20th century warming requires a more quantitative consideration of all the contributions (e.g. atmospheric aerosols, black carbon etc. as well as anthropogenic greenhouse contributions, recovery from volcanic aerosols and solar etc.).

The human contribution to the recent warming is as likely to be 170 % (with a -70 % natural variation cooling component) as it is to be a 50/50 split between natural and AGW contribution?

Since OHC uptake efficiency associated with surface warming is low compared with the rate of radiative restoring (increase in energy loss to space as specified by the climate feedback parameter), an important internal contribution must lead to a loss rather than a gain of ocean heat; thus the observation of OHC increase requires a dominant role for external forcing.

Today's extreme anomalies occur as a result of simultaneous contributions of specific weather patterns and global warming.»

Some claim that extraction is now adding «net terrestrial contribution to increase to +0.87 (0.14) mm yr» If so, then global warming is not contributing as much to sea level as others assert.

Yes, that struck me as one of the many oddities about Judith's (lack of) understanding of the contribution of human activity to global warming.

Various studies have used more precisely defined frameworks along these lines (see Fig. 6.14 of IPCC AR4 for example) and (subject to assumptions and uncertainties as always) found that «recovery from the LIA» would have made only a small contribution to the observed warming.

A General Agreement on Climate Change (GACC) would consist of core agreements on allowable national contributions to global warming over time and would enable a wide range of other agreements on technology transfer, funding mechanisms and other issues as needed to accommodate the interests of nations.

Warming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux aWarming must occur below the tropopause to increase the net LW flux out of the tropopause to balance the tropopause - level forcing; there is some feedback at that point as the stratosphere is «forced» by the fraction of that increase which it absorbs, and a fraction of that is transfered back to the tropopause level — for an optically thick stratosphere that could be significant, but I think it may be minor for the Earth as it is (while CO2 optical thickness of the stratosphere alone is large near the center of the band, most of the wavelengths in which the stratosphere is not transparent have a more moderate optical thickness on the order of 1 (mainly from stratospheric water vapor; stratospheric ozone makes a contribution over a narrow wavelength band, reaching somewhat larger optical thickness than stratospheric water vapor)(in the limit of an optically thin stratosphere at most wavelengths where the stratosphere is not transparent, changes in the net flux out of the stratosphere caused by stratospheric warming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling will tend to be evenly split between upward at TOA and downward at the tropopause; with greater optically thickness over a larger fraction of optically - significant wavelengths, the distribution of warming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux awarming or cooling within the stratosphere will affect how such a change is distributed, and it would even be possible for stratospheric adjustment to have opposite effects on the downward flux at the tropopause and the upward flux at TOA).

What this means is that the overall rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans is a complex function of numerous processes — biological, chemical and physical — whose individual contributions are still a matter of active scientific research (and which are certainly changing as the planet warms).

It's hard to see anything shifting these coal trends unless and until other energy choices become as cheap and convenient, or countries are kicked so hard by climate disruption that they realize the value of a global push to limit the human contribution to warming exceeds the economic value of abundant fossil energy.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2's warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC's projections of future warming of 3 ± 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

I still believe that natural warming plus short term GHGs have had similar contributions as CO2 for the late 20th century climate variation.

They discuss CO2, another GHG, but without any mention of its warming contribution, and they do so in the same manner as N2, which has no warming potential.

Although global warming strikes me as one of those issues where there is no real balance and it is wrong to create an artificial or false equivalence, there is no harm and some possibility of benefit in inviting skeptics about the human contribution and other factors to speak, but in a setting in which the context of the vast majority of scientific evidence and speakers is also made clear.

I believe her emphasis on uncertainty has made a valuable contribution to the climate science dialog, even though, as she knows, I disagree with her about the merit (as I see it) of the IPCC attribution of most post-1950 warming to anthropogenic GHGs.

Some people, well - known for disputing the mainstream consensus on climate science, are asking the judge to admit their views in a friend of the court brief, asserting that «there is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature to the global warming» of the past several decades.

As the Arctic warms, an increased contribution to sea level rise is inevitable.

Consequently your logic is that you define as a «denier» anyone acknowledging CO2 warming, the UHI effect, or even < 50 % anthropogenic warming contribution.

Likewise even as the globe warms now, some of the contribution is from this chemistry effect of warmer oceans holding CO2 less efficiently, so maybe 10 ppm is also contributed by the degree of warming, but the other 100 + ppm is from emissions.

And then, like many «skeptics,» she turns around and hides behind the «skeptics» aren't monolithic argument, or «skeptics» aren't subject to groupthink arguments, even as she downplays the % of «skeptics» who flat out reject that there's any GHG effect or who make arguments that aren't logically consistent with the protestation that «we don't doubt that the climate is warming or that ACO2 contributes to that warming, we only question the magnitude of the contribution.»

While diesels are the workhorses of the transport sector and relatively energy efficient (as compared to gasoline vehicles or jet aircrafts), their combined contribution to transportation - related climate warming greenhouse gases and other short - lived climate pollutants, particularly black carbon, is significant.

We may, however, notice that values considered by Nic Lewis as more correct would still attribute well over 50 % of the warming to human contribution.

The plans, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), will be the building blocks for a UN deal expected at the Paris summit, which runs from November 30 to December 11 and is tasked with fighting global warming in the years from 2020.

If you mean to use the unqualified phrase «natural variability» to refer to short - term inter-annual variability — something that a 5 year running mean almost completely obliterates — then you can't credit * this * variability as a natural contribution to the recent inter-decadal warming trend.

First, while the early 20th century warming was likely predominantly naturally - caused (i.e. low volcanic activity and increasing solar activity), there was also a significant human contribution as greenhouse gas emissions began to ramp up.

It seems likely to be a combination of factors / definitional differences — as Dr Rogelj says — account for the difference between the IAM and non-IAM budgets, as both physical climate uncertainties and technical / societal uncertainties regarding how much we are able to reduce contributions to warming from non-CO2 matter to estimates of remaining budgets.»

The Administrator may add to the list of class II, group II substances any other substance used as a substitute for a class I or II substance if the Administrator determines that 1 metric ton of the substance makes the same or greater contribution to global warming over 100 years as 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide.