Sentences with phrase «best estimate warming»

Not exact matches

Thus the estimated fraction of food - spoilage bacteria inhibited by the spices in each recipe is greater in hot than in cold climates, which makes sense since bacteria grow faster and better in warmer areas.

He is the principal investigator for a mission called Oceans Melting Greenland (affectionately known as OMG), a five - year effort to assess the extent to which warmer oceans are melting Greenland's glaciers, and how this information can be used to better estimate global sea level rise.

In a recent study, for instance, well - respected climate models were shown to have completely opposing estimates for the overall effect of the clouds and smoke in the southeast Atlantic: Some found net warming, whereas others found cooling.

The BBC team used clever analogies and appealing graphics to discuss three key numbers that help clarify important questions about climate change: 0.85 degrees Celsius — how much the Earth has warmed since the 1880s; 95 % — how sure scientists are that human activity is the major cause of Earth's recent warming; and one trillion tons — the best estimate of the amount of carbon that can be burned before risking dangerous climate change.

The calculations are in line with estimates from most climate models, proving that these models do a good job of estimating past climatic conditions and, very likely, future conditions in an era of climate change and global warming.

Reseachers find that, no matter how much data they collect, they may not be able to get a good estimate of the highest temperature increases that global warming may bring.

The townships must be relocated (at an estimated cost of more than $ 100 million), so they should stand a good chance of a court upholding a claim that they suffered damages because of global warming.

Complementary analyses of the surface mass balance of Greenland (Tedesco et al, 2011) also show that 2010 was a record year for melt area extent... Extrapolating these melt rates forward to 2050, «the cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 cm by 2050 ″ for a total of 32 cm (adding in 8 cm from glacial ice caps and 9 cm from thermal expansion)- a number very close to the best estimate of Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009), derived by linking the observed rate of sea level rise to the observed warming.

This means that, according to scientists» best estimates, the world will be as much as 5.4 °C warmer in 2100 than it was before the industrial revolution.

I'd love to know what they did take into account in attempting to model that period — must include astronomical location, sun's behavior, best estimates about a lot of different conditions — where the continents were, what the ocean circulation was doing, whether there had been a recent geological period that laid down a lot of methane hydrates available to be tipped by Pliocene warming into bubbling out rapidly.

As I understand it, the GCR - idea does not deny human influences on global warming and does not really provide a good estimate of what the magnitude of GCR influences might be.

«Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM (Palaeocene - Eocene thermal maximum of 55 million years ago)», oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a professor of Earth science at Rice University and study co-author said.

Keep in mind that the Paris study, looking at all the science of global warming, will only project a «best estimate» that temperatures will rise by 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) by 2100 over pre-industrial levels.

To quantify the impact of human - induced climate change on Harvey and to estimate whether it indeed exacerbated the rainfall thus requires taking into account the atmospheric circulation as well as the overall warming.

In a 2008 presentation, Dunn stated «I assert that warm is good for human health and that global warming, even the most extreme estimates, will not create heat illness or death increases and certainly no changes that are more important than the basic public health measures of vector control, water, nutrition, sewage and water quality, and housing quality.»

This is much less than the current «best estimate» of about 3 deg.C, and would imply that there is * not * any unfelt warming «still in the pipeline» from greenhouse gases we've already emitted.

The headline number (2.3 ºC) is a little lower than IPCC's «best estimate» of 3ºC global warming for a doubling of CO2, but within the likely range (2 - 4.5 ºC) of the last IPCC report.

If we thus want to know whether Harvey is a «harbinger» for the future of Houston, the attribution question addressing the overall likelihood of a hurricane like Harvey to occur, which includes many variables other than temperature and sea level rise that interact, needs to be answered by carefully estimating the likelihood of such hurricanes developing in a warming world as well as how much rain they bring.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis authors used IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) projections as well as post-AR4 analysis to estimate that emissions reductions of around 40 % from industrial nations are needed to make it likely to keep global warming below 2 °C.

A doubling of CO2 from 300 ppm in 1880 to 600 ppm in 2100 has a best estimate of 1.8 degrees (scenario B1) or about 2.3 degrees warming since 1880, which happens to be precisely the sensitivity figure given by Schmittner et al..

The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1 uncertainties).

The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

The bottom line is that multiple studies indicate with very strong confidence that human activity is the dominant component in the warming of the last 50 to 60 years, and that our best estimates are that pretty much all of the rise is anthropogenic.

If only half the warming over 1976 - 2000 (linear trend 0.18 °C / decade) was indeed anthropogenic, and the IPCC AR5 best estimate of the change in anthropogenic forcing over that period (linear trend 0.33Wm - 2 / decade) is accurate, then the transient climate response (TCR) would be little over 1 °C.

The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

Tom, the problem with your scenario is that Big CO2 Inc might very well put down a billion dollar to push down the estimate, even if they suspected they would lose, because this reduced estimate of warming might mean less regulation and them saving more than a billion dollar.

The best estimate of the anthropogenic contribution is close to the entire warming.

Item 8 could be confusing in having so many messages: «It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas... The best estimate of the human - induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period....

So, I interpret this as scything that the IPCC's best estimate is that 100 % of the warming since 1950 is attributable to humans, and they then down weight this to «more than half» to account for various uncertainties.

With the best estimates of all of these things, we should have seen somewhere between 0.6 and 1 deg C warming by now.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

Dennis Hartmann also gave a best estimate for the amount of global warming for the 21st century.

That being the case, I favor an international regulatory approach to global warming, one that would mandate, on the basis of the best scientific and economic estimates, sufficient reductions in greenhouse gases to forestall the worst disasters.

Even if poor and rich countries agree, magically, to meet in the middle — at, say, 10 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year (about Europe's emissions rate)-- that produces a world well on the way to centuries of warming and coastal retreats, even at the low end of estimates of carbon dioxide's heat - trapping power.

In the question / answer period... I asked the panel to give a best estimate of the percent of warming due to CO2 emissions versus that due to changes in land use.

[Response: Unfortunately, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Keigwin (and Pickart) published a paper in Science just a few years later in 1999 pointing that the appparent cooling (actually, the oxygen isotopic signal in question isn't entirely temperature, it is salinity as well, so the quantative 1 deg cooling estimate you cite is not actually reliable) in the Sargasso Sea is diametrically opposed by a substantial warming at the same time in the Laurentian Fan region of the North Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland.

The author shows this lack with his statement «For which, by the way, there is no natural explanation, and the best estimate for the anthropogenic share of global warming since 1950 is 110 percent — more on this in my previous post.»

For which, by the way, there is no natural explanation, and the best estimate for the anthropogenic share of global warming since 1950 is 110 percent — more on this in my previous post.

The incoming solar radiation has changed just a tiny bit in comparison — since 1950, by the way, it has even decreased and thus offset a small part of the human - caused warming — hence humans have probably caused more warming than is observed (best estimate is 110 % of observed warming).

Gavin Schmidt writes, «He (Crichton) also gives us his estimate, ~ 0.8 C for the global warming that will occur over the next century and claims that, since models differ by 400 % in their estimates, his guess is as good as theirs.

The models and observations both also indicate that the amplitude of interannual variability about these longer - term trends is quite large, making it foolhardy, at best, to try to estimate the slope of anthropogenic warming from a few years of data (as you seem to advocate).

As I understand it, the GCR - idea does not deny human influences on global warming and does not really provide a good estimate of what the magnitude of GCR influences might be.

12:57 p.m. Updated Representative Edward J. Markey, the Democrat of Massachusetts who heads the House select committee on energy independence and global warming, has released a BP document providing an early worst - case estimate of the oil flow up the casing of the wrecked Gulf of Mexico well that is dozens of times higher than the company's initial public estimates.

The IPCC estimates there is greater than 95 % chance of 50 % of warming being due to humans with 106 % the best estimate (Bobl knows that too).

By the carbon - climate response function I gave above (Matthews et al), the best estimate for the decrease in peak warming is 0.2 C, with the 5 - 95 percentile limits 0.1 - 0.3 C.

Using «best bet» forcing estimates, early reductions in sulphates can accelerate warming by a few points of a degree.

It's been criticized, and may well not be the last word on the subject, but their estimate was droughts such as the one that was observed are about 3x more likely under the observed warming than in an «unwarmed» world.

The IPCC stated with 95 % confidence that most of the global warming since 1950 is human - caused, with a best estimate that 100 % is due to humans over the past 60 years.

HadCRUT4 may well be better correlated with OHC than an index calculated by adding to the calculation of the index the estimated warming of polar regions.

Hansen's group estimates that aerosols probably counteract about half of the warming produced by man - made greenhouse gases, but he cautions that better measurements of these elusive particles are needed.