Sentences with phrase «century warming does»

Like JimD, you appear to be reaching into a bag of rationalizations to cover up the fact that 20th century warming does not support a postulated 2xCO2 sensitivity of 3C, but rather one of around 0.7 C (if half the 20th century warming is attributed to natural forcing, as the many solar studies I cited indicate).

However, it is wrong to assert, as Karlsson does, that late 20th century warming did indeed occur at such exceptional rates.

Not exact matches

All you've done is stolen and re-presented a warmed over version of Pascal's Wager, a piece of «logic» so bad it was eviscerated as such centuries ago.

I don't know about you all, but I love waking up to these ~ 50 degree mornings, donning a cardigan, and using the seat warmer on the drive to work (I have a slight addiction to that feature, hooray for 21st century cars!).

Models using only natural forcings are unable to explain the observed global warming since the mid-20th century, whereas they can do so when they include anthropogenic factors in addition to natural ones.

All but one of the main trackers of global surface temperature are now passing more than 1 °C of warming relative to the second half of the 19th century, according to an exclusive analysis done for New Scientist.

The material on Amazon forest dieback was in the IPCC assessment as were the numbers on recent sea level (thought the IPCC did not use the information on recent contributions from land ice in their estimate for 21st century warming.)

«There is still time to avoid most of this warming and get to a stable climate by the end of this century, but in order to do that, we have to aggressively reduce our fossil fuel use and emissions of greenhouse gas pollutants.»

Researchers now have hard evidence that the circulation that helps warm the North Atlantic did indeed abruptly slow or perhaps even stop for centuries at a time more than 100,000 years ago.

One thing is already clear: A warmer global atmosphere currently holds about 3 to 5 percent more water vapor than it did at the beginning of the 20th century, and that can contribute to heavier precipitation.

Now, one year doesn't make a trend, but this does — 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.»

Methane, when assessed over the course of a century, warms the planet about 25 times as much as the same mass of carbon dioxide does.

On the other hand, statistical analysis of the past century's hurricanes and computer modeling of a warmer climate, nudged along by greenhouse gases, does indicate that rising ocean temperatures could fuel hurricanes that are more intense.

If these glaciers retreat at a similar rate to what they did in the past decade, 30 of them would disconnect from warm ocean waters by the end of the century with that kind of travel distance, it says.

By the end of this century, according to the new research, some «megapolitan» regions of the U.S. could see local average temperatures rise by as much as 3 degrees Celsius, in addition to whatever global warming may do.

For instance, if nothing is done to reduce the amount of heat - trapping gasses, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, Earth could be 5 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 8 degrees Celsius) warmer by the end of century, said Sivan Kartha, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute.

The warming of the WAIS is most worrisome (at least for this century) because it's going to disintegrate long before the East Antarctic Ice Sheet does «'' since WAIS appears to be melting from underneath (i.e. the water is warming, too), and since, as I wrote in the «high water» part of my book, the WAIS is inherently less stable:

It can not be seen directly because of oceanic damping, but it does call for about ~ 0.3 C of warming (instead of ~ 0.1 C from pure TSI) in the early 20th century based on Lockwood's solar activity reconstructions.

But our main point does not depend on that and is robust: with any model and any reasonable data - derived forcing, the observed 20th Century warming trend can only be explained by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, while other factors can explain the shorter - term variations around this trend.

Investigating the cause of 20th Century warming is properly done in detection and attribution studies, which analyze the various forcings (e.g., solar variations, greenhouse gases or volcanic activity) and the observed time and space patterns of climate change in detail.

This analysis by Sedláček & Knutti (2012) does not attempt to connect modelled and observed ocean warming patterns with human activity, but does demonstrate that natural variability is incompatible with the warming in the 20th century simulations, and with historical observations.

Nor does it materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.»

But I went on to say that I did not think the stronger relationships would really provide a guide to how much global warming there would actually be late this century on the RCP8.5 scenario, or any other scenario.

So how much time do we have for an overshoot and to how much warming are we committed in the longer term of several centuries?

The real question is which factor is doing the heavy lifting — and a new report in Nature released Wednesday says that on the Antarctic Peninsula, at least, human - generated greenhouse gases have almost certainly been by far the most important driver of warming over the past half - century.

It does have a lively pace, a warm spirit, a contagious sense of fun, some very pretty 18th - century European settings and Peter O'Toole as the title character in his later years.

Research Paper on Global Warming Did you know that the world famous scientists exploring the climate changes assert that global warming can not be changed during many cenWarming Did you know that the world famous scientists exploring the climate changes assert that global warming can not be changed during many cenwarming can not be changed during many centuries?

If this is the case, then one must answer some fundamental questions, such as why do simple models show much more warming in the last century than was actually observed?

You can, of course, argue that other factors were at work in the early 20th century warming phase, but if you want to argue that the mid-century cooling was largely due to the neutralizing effect of industrial aerosol pollutants, then you can not, as did Rodgers, claim that any part of that earlier warmup was due to the burning of fossil fuels.

I thought if CO2 is the principal driver of global warming, why did most of the 20th century warming happen before 1940, while most of the CO2 accumulation happened after 1940?

Investigating the cause of 20th Century warming is properly done in detection and attribution studies, which analyze the various forcings (e.g., solar variations, greenhouse gases or volcanic activity) and the observed time and space patterns of climate change in detail.

In the original article Angela did write: «This effect, called the permafrost carbon feedback, is not present in the global climate change models used to estimate how warm the earth could get over the next century.»

Did Briffa perhaps choose those records (as alleged) which showed warming b / c that is indeed what the regional climate was doing in the 20th century?

The news on climate change seemed bad enough in 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced in their fourth assessment report that «warming of the climate system is unequivocal,» that humans were «very likely» to blame, and that if we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, climate will «very likely» change much more than it did in the 20th century.

No one can know what will happen over the next decade, but this data does not support the IPCC assertion that we can be 90 % certain that increasing CO2 concentrations have been responsible for a substantial part of the 20th century warming, or that we an expect 3 degrees C of warming over the next century.

Why did the globe gradually warm then in the latter part of the 20th century?

Some reconstructions do appear to underestimate the late 20th century instrumental warming (e.g. Moberg et al — the dark red curve), many others however track it well or even slightly overshoot it (e.g. Oerlemans — the maroon curve).

Global warming does not mean no winter, it means winter start later, summer hotter, as Gary Peters said «The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 °C and 0.7 °C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century - scale trend.»

The hilarious part is that even if we do, the result with the 19 remaining proxies gives peak warmth in the late 15th century comparable to about 1940, but nowhere near as warm as the late 20th / early 21st centuries.

Yet even allowing this cherry - picking of proxies is still not enough to accomplish McIntyre's purpose; preceding centuries still don't come close to the late - 20th century warming.

We can, therefore, compare the present warming trends (and warming / cooling cycles; think about the «mini-ice age» of the 19th Century) with the geological record and make statistical extrapolations about changing rates and develop hypotheses about causes (whichh, basically, is what current climate scientists have been doing).

Investigating the cause of 20th Century warming is done in so - called detection and attribution studies, which analyze the various forcings (e.g., solar variations, greenhouse gases or volcanic activity) and the observed time and space patterns of climate change in detail.

Yes, that is the currently accepted figure for doubling CO2 equivalent — does that number refer to warming from now til then (I don't think so) or from pre-industrial or above the 20th Century average?

In both cases, if you really care about cutting risks of the kind of human - driven warming that could last centuries, if not millennia, you also would do well to support research in technologies or practices that could suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (See Cao and Caldeira's paper for relevant background).

The first part of your description is certainly true, I don't think the magnitude of the recent warming in the Arctic (including Greenland) is extraordinary (yet, but ask me again is a few years) when properly set against the backdrop of the last century, but I do believe that, at least to some degree, the warming of the Arctic (including Greenland) in recent years has resulted from an anthropogenic enhancement to the world's greenhouse effect.

Terrell Johnson, reporting on a recent NASA publication concluding that deep ocean temperatures have not increased since 2005 (http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-nasa-20141007): «While the report's authors say the findings do not question the overall science of climate change, it is the latest in a series of findings that show global warming to have slowed considerably during the 21st century, despite continued rapid growth in human - produced greenhouse gas emissions during the same time.»

But it's dubious, at best, to cast this as a security gap between the United States and Russia, as Slate did last month with lines like this: «Global warming could turn the Arctic into a 21st - century battlefield, and the United States isn't prepared.»

These warming periods, however, did not approach the anticipated warming of this century.

Temperatures in Greenland jumped up by more than 10 ºC within a few decades at the beginning of DO events, typically remaining warm for several centuries after.

What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century - scale response to greenhouse gas emissions?