Example collocations logo

Warming in sentence

1698 examples of Warming in a sentence

While it cannot be scientifically proven (or disproven, for that matter) that global warming caused any particular extreme event, we can say that global warming very likely makes many kinds of extreme weather both more frequent and more severe.
This is far more likely to be the result of a warming climate – a consequence of this decade being, worldwide, the hottest for a thousand years.
For each degree Celsius of warming, 7% more water is available to rain down from saturated air masses.
Drought risk also increases with warming: even where rainfall does not decline, increased evaporation dries out the soils.
But what we see now is happening after only 0.8º Celsius of global warming.
With swift and decisive action, we can still limit global warming to a total of 2º Celsius or a bit less.
Even that much warming would require a massive effort to adapt to weather extremes and rising sea levels, which needs to start now.
With weak action, like that promised by governments in Copenhagen last December, we will be on course for 3-4º Celsius of global warming.
A Return to ReasonCOPENHAGEN – Common sense was an early loser in the scorching battle over the reality of man-made global warming.
For nearly 20 years, one group of activists argued – in the face of ever-mounting evidence – that global warming was a fabrication.
Almost inevitably, at international summits from Kyoto to Copenhagen, governments failed to take any meaningful action on global warming.
As I argued in my 2007 book Cool It, the most rational response to global warming is to make alternative energy technologies so cheap that the whole world can afford them.
Of course, no fix to global warming will work overnight.
So we need to focus more on adapting to the effects of global warming – for example, by stepping up efforts to cope with inland flooding and the urban “heat island” effect.
Acknowledging that man-made climate change is real, but arguing that carbon cuts are not the answer, amounts to staking out a middle ground in the global warming debate – which means being attacked from both sides.
In mid-2009, as part of a project by the Copenhagen Consensus Center to assess different responses to global warming, Green and Galiana performed a cost-benefit analysis of R&D spending on green technologies.
Green, a long-time proponent of a technology-led response to global warming, demonstrated the effectiveness of a policy of government investment in R&D aimed at developing new low-carbon technologies, making current technologies cheaper and more effective, and expanding energy-related infrastructure such as smart grids.
Another academic who has advocated a smarter response to global warming is Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado, the author of this year’s must-read global-warming book The Climate Fix.
Its rain forest, threatened by timber companies that have made deals with some of the militias, plays an important part in slowing global warming.
One of them comes with this week’s G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia, where leaders of the world’s advanced and major emerging economies can signal serious intent by cutting the fossil-fuel subsidies that fuel global warming.
Along with the rest of the international community, G-20 governments are committed to the target of limiting global warming to less than 2ºC above the planet’s pre-industrial level.
If current fossil-fuel reserves are exploited, we will be faced with potentially catastrophic global warming of 4ºC over the course of the twenty-first century.
It’s energy- and environmentally- friendly at a time when concerns about global warming are growing.
Despite the MDGs’ breadth, one issue received the most attention by far over the past decade: global warming.
Global warming highlights this contrast.
While global warming is a serious challenge (and will exacerbate other problems), cutting carbon emissions is a poor solution – and a poor use of funds compared to the alternatives.
The latter-day Malthusians are opposed to extending these tremendous benefits to more of the world because they believe that global warming will be so bad that it justifies stopping growth.
With blinkered analysis and misplaced concern, the academics essentially say that to reduce global warming slightly, we should end growth that can lift hundreds of millions out of poverty, avoid millions of air pollution deaths, and give billions the opportunity of a better life through improved health care, shelter, education, and income.
The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change amounts to a call to action: it argues that huge future costs of global warming can be avoided by incurring relatively modest cost today.
Because the possible outcomes of global warming in the absence of mitigation are very uncertain, though surely bad, the uncertain losses should be evaluated as being equivalent to a single loss greater than the expected loss.
BackNext