This is based on Schurer's 5th - 95th percentile range of
current warming relative to the late - 1800s, using the Cowtan and Way temperature record corrected for the difference between sea surface temperature and surface air temperature warming rates.
Not exact matches
This would not give us a more informative an answer about what the
relative attribution of the 20th century
warming is, but would perhaps give us a range on what it could be, given our
current lack of knowledge and understanding.
Current state - of - the - art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in
warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant
relative humidity.
Is it not the case that if the
relative lack of El Niño's and predominance of La Nina's is in fact due to global
warming, rather than natural variability, then the
current increase in the rate of
warming of the ocean below 700m may continue.
Because the long - term
warming trends are highly significant
relative to our estimates of the magnitude of natural variability, the
current decadal period of stable global mean temperature does nothing to alter a fundamental conclusion from the AR4:
warming has unequivocally been observed and documented.
And at last, the Norwegian
Current, the Spitsbergen
Current and the East Iceland
Current carry
warm,
relative saline waters into the Arctic seas.
That's about 10 years worth of
current emissions from existing power plants alone, and enough to put a big dent in the remaining budget of emissions we can dump into the atmosphere and still have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2 degrees C of
warming relative to the preindustrial era.
The effect of the mistakes was to make it appear that the MWP wasn't as
warm relative to
current temperatures as it'd previously seemed to be.
Note that the calendar - year means tend to fall a bit below a preceding maximum in the 12 - month running mean, so the 2016 mean will probably fall a bit below the
current +1.3 °C
warming relative to 1880 - 1920.
You have to go a very, very long way around the facts to call it questionable or preconceived that the
current level of global temperature today is
warm relative to the later part of Marcott's reconstruction.
There are three distinct
warmer periods
relative to the
current warmer period.
We consider several important climate impacts and use evidence from
current observations to assess the effect of 0.8 °C
warming and paleoclimate data for the effect of larger
warming, especially the Eemian period, which had global mean temperature about +2 °C
relative to pre-industrial time.
That is inconsistent with his
current account, based on which natural
warming due precession of the perihelion
relative to the equinox should guaranttee that for quite some time.
The most recent trough in solar activity likely plays a role in depressing short - term trends, and the overall decline in total solar irradiance (TSI) in recent years
relative to past solar cycles may be a small contributing factor in the
current slow - down in the rate of
warming.
Due to the way in which these various cycles have been
relative constant over the last 35 million years, the earth has settled into a relatively recent cycle of approximately 100,000 year long declining climates and ice ages, and brief 12,000 - 18,000 year long
warm spells we call inter-glacial periods like our
current Holocene.
Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average
warming (
relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6 °C.
Current observations are, I believe, consistent with these principles, in that as the climate has
warmed, atmospheric water has increased, but continues to play «catch up» in that
relative humidity has tended to decline slightly.