Sentences with phrase «large magnitudes of warming»

Not exact matches

Inertia toward continued emissions creates potential 21st - century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid.

There has been a large disconnect between the scientific community and the «laymen» population on this issue as to what the real implications of a warming world at today's rate and magnitude can be.

Note that since Ts is substantially larger than Tt, it follows that the magnitude of the stratospheric cooling dTt will be larger that the surface warming dTs.

In order for subaerial volcanoes to warm the ocean, they would have to be erupting on orders of magnitude larger than observed.

It is a fact that there are cyclic warming and cooling events (periodicity 1400 years plus or minus a beat timing of 500 years) in the paleo record and roughly every 8000 years to 12,000 years the cooling is abrupt and there is a larger magnitude change.

Large - scale flooding can also occur due to extreme precipitation in the absence of snowmelt (for example, Rush Creek and the Root River, Minnesota, in August 2007 and multiple rivers in southern Minnesota in September 2010).84 These warm - season events are projected to increase in magnitude.

In panel - b the magnitude of unforced variability is large (wide range between the blue lines) and thus changes in the multidecadal rate of warming could come about due to unforced variability.

Now we can see where Headline C came from: global warming made the expected frequency 23 times larger (because 8,547 / 379 = 23) so we expect to see a heat wave of this magnitude (or warmer) 23 times more often because of global warming.

# 5: Global climate model simulations that include greenhouse gases indicate that the magnitude of warming that would be expected from greenhouse gas increases is at least as large as the observed warming.

Although the magnitude of such trends is unexpectedly large, it is insufficient to explain the observed global warming during the twentieth century.»

The reason for relatively large uncertainty regarding the Medieval Warm Period is not so much about reliability of the data as it is about the magnitude of the difference (if any) from today.

The forced component of SAT trends shows warming everywhere, with magnitudes of 1 — 2 °C over Europe, northern Africa, Greenland and the eastern U.S., and slightly larger warming (2 — 3 °C) over Russia and Canada, with the largest SAT increases (3 — 4 °C) surrounding Hudson's Bay (Fig. 2b).

There has been a large disconnect between the scientific community and the «laymen» population on this issue as to what the real implications of a warming world at today's rate and magnitude can be.

Why is the hypothesis of unusually large internal warming less unwarranted than the unwarranted assumption that any internally contributed warming during the late 20th century was equal in magnitude to internally generated cooling during the recent slowdown?

While the M10 dataset exhibits a larger spring warming trend on WAIS than the other datasets, the spatial pattern and magnitudes of trends closely match those of the READER station data (Fig. 3) where overlap occurs.

Based on an extensive literature review, we suggest that (1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase; (2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and (3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

«Scientists were quick to declare the results of the Turner et al paper, which covered 1 per cent of the Antarctic continent, did not negate a long - term warming because of man - made climate change... «Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late - 20th - century peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century,» the Turner research concluded.»

This has never made much sense in the context of greenhouse warming theory (though its proponents have tied themselves into pretzels trying to explain it) since global warming theory (as embodied in the last IPCC report) holds that the largest temperature gains should be in the lower troposphere over the tropics, and offers no reason why the warming in the Artic should be orders of magnitude larger than in the Antarctic.

global warming theory (as embodied in the last IPCC report) holds that the largest temperature gains should be in the lower troposphere over the tropics, and offers no reason why the warming in the Artic should be orders of magnitude larger than in the Antarctic.

Re: HaroldW (Nov 8 04:31), The newer Jones et al paper comments on this difference: «An urban - related warming trend of 0.1 C / decade is almost an order of magnitude larger than that given by Jones et al. [1990] and Li et al. [2004b].

The recent warming in the Arctic anyway is not direct from regional CO2, as the observed warming needs a heat / radiation unbalance which is an order of magnitude larger than the direct change in radiation caused by CO2 increases...

That is an extremely large signal (e.g., of similar magnitude to what we can easily observe in the damage record between warm and cold phases of ENSO).

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in «global warming»; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940 - 1975; nor 50 years» cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden - Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino / La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half - century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously - observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface «global warming» on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily - continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~ 0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

It is possible that the regional patterns of warming in the high - end and non-high-end models are similar, but are simply larger in magnitude in the high - end models.

The magnitude and inter-model range of simulated warming over high northern latitudes are very similar in the high - end and non-high-end models, which indicates that the biases among the models are larger than the climate change signal.

In fact, read in full, the statement outlines a number of ways global warming should worsen hurricane impacts that are a matter of consensus (to say nothing of potentially larger magnitude changes that are still debated but that may well be happening).

There is actually a rather large fractional increase in CAPE and increase in the magnitude of vertical motions as the climate warms in these simulations, but this increase is nowhere near large enough to compensate for the upper level maximum in warming.