Sentences with phrase «warming mechanism not»

Not exact matches

Turns out I'm not the only one to notice that in the debate over the best mechanism to combat global warming, the pols seem to prefer cap - and - trade systems to a carbon tax.

1) White Hot Plates — turns white when food is too hot 2) Miracle Cup — spill - proof spoutless cup that promotes oral development 3) MIST Wipe Warmer — provides a mist mechanism so wipes don't dry out 4) BRICA Travel Tray — interactive tray with play table, toy holder and snack dispenser 5) LATCH bottles — designed to ease transition from breast to bottle and back again 6) CLEAN cradle tub 7) Aluminum Safety Gate 8) LATCH pacifiers — features the same nipple as the LATCH bottle for ultimate soothing 9) Snack Catcher

If a star does not have a Kuiper Belt analogue producing dust, but it still has a ring of warm dust, there must be another mechanism at play in the system.

The study did not examine that directly, but the mechanisms that will cause the increased frequency — warmer waters in the east — are already in play to some degree.

So it doesn't show a definite mechanism for a warm Arctic causing more snowpocalypses.

He and other researchers haven't yet nailed down the mechanism that connects Arctic warming to cold, snowy winters in the northeast.

In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms — the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling — but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future.

And those who argue that «it's the Sun» fail to comprehend that we understand the major mechanisms by which the Sun influences the global climate, and that they can not explain the current global warming trend.

The mechanism for reducing anthropogenic global warming, initiated through radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, is to stop emissions and reduce their concentration in the atmosphere to levels which do not stimulate carbon feedbacks.

The mechanisms for global warming are among the most well understood in climate research and are really not all that difficult to grasp.

The temperature - difference mechanism for sex determination found in alligators and turtles depends on eggs being left in unattended nests, typically sun - warmed, with clutches large enough to have a marked temperature gradient across them.

«The heat is a mechanism for a more efficient practice — you don't have to spend so much time warming up at the beginning of class and you can get deeper into poses.

If it can't, then it isn't really a «cause» of warming or cooling, though it may be part of a larger mechanism, I suppose.

b) There is some other mechanism of producing global warming that has been active in the past, but occurs by a mechanism that is not included in current models, and which doesn't have anything to do with CO2, and this, rather than CO2, is responsible for the warming seen in the instrumental record (and whatever that mechanism is, it is temporary and will go away by itself Real Soon Now).

I'm a fish geneticist so I won't bother commenting on «paleo - ocean current - ology», but it seems to me that glaciation would result in a reduction of fresh water inputs to the North Atlantic (during the ice age) and would therefore be quite different from the mechanism in question (which is related to early phases of global warming).

The sizes and lifetimes may and / or may not, depending on circumstance (component / mechanism), relate to the impact potential on warming, or cooling, or degrees of neutrality.

We also know that there have been periods in the past during which CO2 levels and temperatures have been comparable to what they are today, yet do not understand the mechanisms behind those warm periods with coincident high CO2.

The known negative feedback mechanisms can reduce the warming, but they do not appear to be so strong as the positive moisture feedback.

So the mechanism of global warming is an indirect effect of increasing CO2, not the direct effect of warming the atmosphere as is generally believed.

In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms — the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling — but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future.

And if per chance your going to bring up the «Iris Hypothesis» I would remind you that it has not been indicated as having significance in the available data and there are many reasons to doubt the strength of said self regulating mechanism such as: data indicates it «has» been warmer in the past.

They don't say what thermal source warms the water at the sea bed causing it to rise at the equator... However they do get the supposed mechanism for weakening of the THC due to global warming right.

First, the hypothesis did not invoke a mechanism for warming ocean waters to destabilize the methane (although it is possible that ocean waters reached a threshold temperature after warming gradually for millions of years).

However, in the last few centuries, we have good evidence that the natural mechanisms are not contributing as much to warming as the man - made inputs.

The fact that you don't understand the mechanisms of how increased CO2 warms the oceans is irrelevant, since the heat content of the oceans is increasing (and, thus, the planet, as a whole has continued warming despite your «hiatus»).

[Response: I still don't see why you think that the warming will accelerate much faster than the models suggest since they include these mechanisms.

A new paper by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University bolsters the established view of clouds» role as a feedback mechanism — but not driver — in climate dynamics through a decade of observation and analysis of El Nino and La Nina events (periodic warm and cool phases of the Pacific Ocean).

I am still, however, not clear what is the mechanism for warming of still water under still air when subjected to only infrared radiation.

Not to belabor the point, but as I suggested in 333, for one part of the atmosphere to warm, transmitting that extra warmth to a second, higher part, can't lead to a cooling of the higher part through any known thermodynamic mechanism

For example, there are not sufficient observations of the uptake of heat, particularly into the deep ocean, that would be one of the possible mechanisms to explain this warming hiatus.»

-- A pair of top - notch economists, Robert Stavins of Harvard University and Richard Schmalensee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, urge policy makers not to discard market - based approaches to global warming and other environmental problems because of the death of efforts to pass a climate bill centered on a cap - and - trade mechanism for cutting emissions.

# 92 Spencer el al 2007 paper doesn't really support the precise mechanism proposed by Lindzen for Iris effect, but more simply observes a strong TOA negative correction associated with warming events at 20 ° S - 20 ° N (that is: in the 2000 - 2005 period of observation, the most significative warming episodes of the surface + low troposphere — 40 days or more — leads to a negative SW+LW cloud forcing at the top of the atmosphere).

Dr. Mann in the initial few seconds of your link did NOT say «models indicate that increased warming must come from the increase in CO2 because the models show no other mechanism».

It is not that the polar regions are amplifying the warming «going on» at lower latitudes, it is that any warming going on AT THE POLES is amplified through inherent positive feedback processes AT THE POLES, and specifically this is primarily the ice - albedo positive feedback process whereby more open water leads to more warming leads to more open water, etc. *** «Climate model simulations have shown that ice albedo feedbacks associated with variations in snow and sea - ice coverage are a key factor in positive feedback mechanisms which amplify climate change at high northern latitudes...»

If not for the global warming theory, they would probably still be regarded as «random fluctuations» of poorly - known mechanisms.

It seems, Mr. Gates, that we should be concerned about the MECHANISMS of the first order cause of the warming, not the «first (region) to see the most visible signs of warming», nor the feedbacks (second and third order impacts) that it may engender.

And nice graph of Ocean Heat Content, which confirms that at least 90 % of the late 20th century warming was natural not anthropogenic, since the only physical climate mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation.

You do nt know a bloody thing about ocean warming mechanisms or you wouldnt write such ignorant diarrhea.

The other possibility is that the models are wrong, the quantification of the warming in the north is wrong and the mechanisms are not understood, these unknown mechanisms are causing a much more rapid warming, that they asymmetrically affect the north and not the south, and - for reasons I don't see but which I'm sure are very good - you are convinced these mechanisms are driven by global warming.

The energy flow diagrams of Trenberth et al and Stephens et al show 3 mechanisms by which a warming Earth surface can warm the troposphere and restore radiative balance: it is not reasonable to assert a priori that two of them can't matter in calculating the global mean temperature after a doubling of CO2 concentration, when even a little study shows that all of them will be affected.

While the most quoted sensitivity is the equilibrium warming for 2 CO2 this is not necessarily the most useful, as differences in the CO2 radiative forcing can be confused with differences in climate response, and ideally one would like to know the climate response to any forcing mechanism.

«You don't know a bloody thing about ocean warming mechanisms or you wouldn't write such ignorant diarrhea.»

If countries aren't willing to voluntarily improve their carbon reduction pledges, the next - best thing would be a mechanism by which each nation could re-assess and improve its global warming mitigation commitment over time.

The IPCC presented the «greenhouse effect» as warming by back radiation, 70 years after professor Wood demonstrated that this mechanism does not work at all or is negligible.

While such a «missing heat» explanation for a lack of recent warming [i.e., Trenberth's argument that just can not find it yet] is theoretically possible, I find it rather unsatisfying basing an unwavering belief in eventual catastrophic global warming on a deep - ocean mechanism so weak we can't even measure it [i.e., the coldest deep ocean waters are actually warmer than they should be by thousandths of a degree]...

The most statistics can tell us at present is that there does appear to be a genuine warming trend in figure A. Whether this trend is the effect of greenhouse gas emissions or of a natural fluctuation due to some as - yet - undiscovered mechanism can not be determined from an analysis of the global mean temperature alone.

FWIW, I didn't find Armour's paper very convincing, because the actual pattern of warming seems the exact opposite of what Armour's mechanism would require.

Also part of the explanation is the claim that more humid air results in more precipitation, but again I'm unclear on why warmer air can cause more water to be evaporated, but warmer air does not by the same mechanism prevent the same water from condensing.

Adding CO2 increases IR emission by the atmosphere, even as the temperature stays fixed, which is the effect that causes downward IR to increase, and the mechanism does not rely on the atmosphere to warm faster than the ground, which is what you seem to be saying.

Either you are getting warmer or colder, wetter or dryer, but you can't predict both without giving an explicit mechanism for this unusual prediction.