Sentences with phrase «about runaway warming»

We now have both a falling TSI and a negative PDO which is an entirely different (indeed opposite) scenario to the one which led to the concerns about runaway warming.

Not exact matches

On a related note, is a «runaway greenhouse» effect impossible, given the current data and understanding about global warming?

(1) What proof do government bureaucrat «scientists» provide that they are right about predictions of runaway global warming?

There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification.

I do agree that Earth is not Venus — some scientists have already told me how much they hate the label «Venus effect,» but I find it informative, simply because it gives some idea about the runaway global warming that did happen 5 times on Earth (which later, obviously, stabilized back to livable conditions).

And if we reach just shy of 3C warming (or whatever the tipping point is) by 2100 or 2200 (but do not trigger limited runaway warming or hysteresis), that by at least 2000 years from now the sea level would have risen about 30M.

In light of the recent IPCC report released this past week and stating essentially that global warming is a runaway train that can't be stopped for centuries, it may be tempting to give up hope for a brighter future... But like any patient who suffers from a chronic disease that is potentially fatal, not only is education about the condition itself essential, but also what we can do to help mitigate its impact.

They need to realize that merely warning about the catastrophic potential of runaway warming and extolling the virtues of clean energy is not enough.

And we certainly never hear a word from the «experts» about the ongoing climate engineering assault that is exacerbating the now runaway warming (in addition to contaminating the entire planet).

But what about Earth's temperatures a 100 years from now, due to that «runaway» warming Hawking insinuates that we suffer from?

About 1980ish, some old ideas like the greenhouse effect were brought out of mothballs and re-examined with new tools and techniques; simultaneously several researchers and theoreticians released their notes, published, or otherwise got together and there was a surprising consilience and not a small amount of mixing with old school hippy ecologism on some of the topics that became the roots of Climate Change science (before it was called Global Warming); innovations in mathematics were also applied to climate thought; supercomputers (though «disappointing» on weather forecasting) allowed demonstration of plausibility of runaway climate effects, comparison of scales of effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather models.

You probably guessed that if the goal is to instill incentives that will bring about big emission reductions fast enough to avoid runaway global warming, the answer is B, the marathon.

Such rapid warming is problem [mostly] because it tells something about global warming we don't already know - it's unexplained [or indicates that some kind runaway effect could be possible].

If the heat is hiding in the deep ocean it is not only unphysical, if true then it negates all arguments about runaway atmospheric warming anyway.

We will learn some things about the CO2 greenhouse effect you have probably never heard in the media, such as the fact that warming from CO2 is actually a diminishing return phenomenon whose effect is asymptotic or essentially capped, making it hard to understand the prevalence of wild, open - ended temperature runaway scenarios.

Meanwhile, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is excellent «concession» to make in the rhetorical sense, since it concedes the obvious state of our knowledge about the effects of CO2, while at the same time providing us with the solid argument that even if we double atmospheric CO2 levels from 400ppm to 800 ppm over the next 100 years the largest amount of warming possible — assuming all else remains the same and Gaia has no homeostasis negative feedback systems which tend to moderate any runaway trends — is 1.2 c.

CC can provide a perfectly adequate backdrop for a story — there's some decent SF that happens to be set in a world stricken by runaway global warming — but if it's all about the message, then the tendency is towards something that's awkward, preachy, shrill, long - winded, unfunny (or unintentionally funny) or just plain dull.

For more than two decades, meteorologists and oceanographers have repeatedly warned that runaway global warming, as a consequence of ever - greater combustion of fossil fuels, could bring about an ice - free polar ocean by about 2050.

Positive feedback means runaway warming «One of the oft - cited predictions of potential warming is that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from pre-industrial levels — from 280 to 560 parts per million — would alone cause average global temperature to increase by about 1.2 °C.

I don't care about whether runaway greenhouse warming or volcanism or a celestial impact was what caused the atmosphere to become so dominated by CO2, only that CO2is keeping Venus» surface hot.

This runaway effect that manmade climate change believers talk about comes from the hypothesis that climate change feedback mechanisms are positive and the small warming we have experienced will lead to drastic increases in global temperature.

We've outlined six things you need to know about the level of emissions reductions needed to rein in runaway warming.

Chuck, the quote seems pretty accurate to me, but some will cavil about the use of the phrase «out - of - control runaway warming process» for «each» of those systems; but there are certainly feedbacks associated with most of them that will indeed drive toward more warming, though some effects are going to be stronger and faster than others.

Really, all this impotent oinking about status here has nothing to do with the fact that the AGW contingent has no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 will lead to runaway global warming.