Sentences with phrase «current observed rise»

Not exact matches

As usual, I don't place too much emphasis on this sort of forecast, but to the extent that I make any comments at all about the outlook for 2006, the bottom line is this: 1) we can't rule out modest potential for stock appreciation, which would require the maintenance or expansion of already high price / peak earnings multiples; 2) we also should recognize an uncomfortably large potential for market losses, particularly given that the current bull market has now outlived the median and average bull, yet at higher valuations than most bulls have achieved, a flat yield curve with rising interest rate pressures, an extended period of internal divergence as measured by breadth and other market action, and complacency at best and excessive bullishness at worst, as measured by various sentiment indicators; 3) there is a moderate but still not compelling risk of an oncoming recession, which would become more of a factor if we observe a substantial widening of credit spreads and weakness in the ISM Purchasing Managers Index in the months ahead, and; 4) there remains substantial potential for U.S. dollar weakness coupled with «unexpectedly» persistent inflation pressures, particularly if we do observe economic weakness.

The Solomon Committee report amplifies this conclusion when it confirms that we observe, in any year, only 50 % of the warming to which we have committed the planet by allowing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to rise to the then current level.

And in some articles where I have read that it is being observed, often historical data shows those cities and / or regions to have been warmer in the past century, which would seem to indicate (1) the permafrost issue isn't new or necessarily unnatural and / or (2) there is a substantial lag between permafrost melting and rising temps (ie, the current permafrost melt is mostly or all natural).

Global warming caused by the sun exists (a rise of 4w / m2 out of 1364 since 1700 increases solar insolation by ~ 0.3 % which is the observed 0.84 K rise of the 288K current absolute temperature), but its very difficult to change that, so I'll adapt to it.

If someone could measure the increase in CO2 from current levels, and prove that an observed rise in temperature was caused by this increase in CO2, then climate sensitivity can be measured, and CAGW could be proven or falsified.

This means that there is no validity to the comment that this is «still considerably smaller than the estimated rise in temperatures from a continuation of current CO2 emission rates» especially considering the fact that CO2 emissions from humans are definitely not the prime source of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

For example, Overpeck et al. (2006), and Hansen (2007) suggest possibilities which could eventually lead to a nonlinear response from ice sheets — accelerating the current observed sea level rise.

Working through the rest of my calculations (i.e., stratospheric water vapor and then black carbon) using the new 0.085 °C / decade baseline leaves a trend of 0.056 °C / decade that could potentially be from anthropogenic GHGs, or a total potential temperature rise of 0.337 °C — which is 48 % of the current «observed» value — or less than half of the current «observed» warming from the mid-20th century.

In the meantime, their results have tentatively breathed a small hint of life back into the climate models, basically buying them a bit more time — time for either the observed temperatures to start rising rapidly as current models expect, or, time for the modelers to try to fix / improve cloud processes, oceanic processes, and other process of variability (both natural and anthropogenic) that lie behind what would be the clearly overheated projections.

It appears that moderate levels of atmospheric CO2 rise and climate change relative to current conditions may be beneficial in some regions (Nemani et al., 2003), depending on latitude, on the CO2 responsiveness of plant functional types, and on the natural adaptive capacity of indigenous biota (mainly through range shifts that are now being widely observed — see Chapter 1).

However, the full study does indicate that multi-meter sea level rise before 2100 is likely, based on ice loss doubling times, paleoclimate records and observed ocean current changes, among other factors.

None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

To produce, from incident Energy within Infrared (region) Radiation (IrR) such a rise in median temperature that could present a total rise allowing for this current ~ 0.7 degree C residual (after Conduction / Convection), with notice of the actual materials involved, would require more ENERGY to be presented within IrR than can be either observed, or survived by land surface life (over 90 % saline water) as it is seen bio-formed.