Example collocations logo

Warming in sentence

1698 examples of Warming in a sentence

They recognized the dramatic implications that even this amount of warming would have for sea levels, freshwater supplies, agriculture, extreme weather events, public health, and the planet’s flora and fauna.
We now appear to be on track for four-degree warming, with almost unimaginable consequences.
A warming planet is already having a devastating impact on some of the world’s most vulnerable populations, and it will only continue to do so.
Some point to climate change, with global warming producing deeper droughts and more extreme weather.
The key point is that it is possible to increase substantially the amount available to fight global warming in the developing world by using the existing allocations of SDRs, with interest payments on them guaranteed by the IMF’s gold reserves.
How much global warming will it cause, and how will local climates, ecosystems, and vulnerable species be affected?
There is uncertainty about the quantitative parameters, and there can be doubt about whether the warming of recent decades is entirely due to the “greenhouse effect.”
But the basics of global warming are not in scientific dispute.
If we know that the earth is warming, but are uncertain about how fast and with what effects on climates worldwide, what are the most urgent steps that we should take to address it?
But private interests will not undertake some essential R&D under any circumstances; the “market” will not induce the necessary outlays, because investors cannot capture all the benefits of moderating global warming for the human race.
For some, particularly the Bush administration, uncertainty regarding global warming appears to be a legitimate basis for postponing action, which is usually identified as “costly.”
The most terrifying possible consequence of global warming that has been identified is the “collapse” of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the sea bottom and protrudes a kilometer or two above sea level.
European politicians instead seem to have become increasingly committed to the notion that global warming is the world’s most urgent problem.
A 2004 conference that Lomborg initiated, for example, focused on global warming; for the three widely touted climate-change policies examined, Lomborg’s panel concluded that “costs were likely to exceed benefits.”
Since then, Blair has become an adviser to banks (which need all the advice they can get these days), is touring the world to promote a sensible policy on global warming and climate change, has created a foundation to help bridge the divide between different faiths, and will lecture on religion at Yale.
If China and India replicate American per capita consumption of fossil fuels, the resulting greenhouse-gas emissions will only accelerate global warming.
The West industrialized rapidly without worrying about climate change, contributing mightily to the stock of greenhouse gases that has led the world ever closer to the tipping point at which global warming can no longer be halted.
Developing countries, particularly those in Asia, will suffer the worst consequences of global warming: storm damage, rising sea levels, and massive refugee flows.
It also resurrected the unwarranted claim that global warming was to blame for such events, together with the morally irresponsible argument that we should help future hurricane victims by cutting CO2 emissions.
Now, global warming is real, and cutting CO2 is a good idea when the reduction cost is lower than that of the damage it prevents.
There is also a grain of truth in the connection between hurricanes and global warming: the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects stronger but fewer hurricanes toward the end of this century.
But the end of the century is 88 years from now, and blaming global warming now is simply unconvincing (Bloomberg’s first source for its claim was a 134-character tweet).
And, though hurricanes will be perhaps 2-11% stronger by the end of the century, they will also be less frequent, while societies will be more robust, with total global damage costs set to decline from 0.04% to 0.02% of world GDP over this period.But the real damage from the claims about Sandy and climate change stems from what often follows: the insidious argument that if global warming caused this destruction, we should help future victims of hurricanes by cutting CO2 emissions now.
Models show that the cost, by then, would be at least $40 trillion annually.Contrast this to what New York City is rightly concerned about: the 3.3% chance each year (entirely without global warming) that a Category 3 hurricane will hit New York.
In its 2012 report on extreme weather, the IPCC said that it puts little trust in any attribution of hurricanes to global warming.
But the real damage from the claims about Sandy and climate change stems from what often follows: the insidious argument that if global warming caused this destruction, we should help future victims of hurricanes by cutting CO2 emissions now.
Contrast this to what New York City is rightly concerned about: the 3.3% chance each year (entirely without global warming) that a Category 3 hurricane will hit New York.
Back then, America urgently needed to rebalance the federal budget to rein in explosive growth in the debt/GDP ratio; to overhaul America’s extraordinarily expensive and inefficient health-care system; and to begin to deal with global warming via a slow ramp-up of a carbon tax.
The long-run deficit, health-care financing, and global warming, no less than securing retirement income and enabling educational opportunity, were issues on which bipartisan progress and agreement should have been easily attained.
And we have made no progress on global warming, preserving a middle-class society, or improving the education system to make equality of opportunity a reality.
BackNext