Sentences with phrase «degree of warming seems»

They suggested this based on paleoclimate data from the Eemian period, when one degree of warming seems to have done just that.

Not exact matches

Ocean temperatures between 82 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit seem to be «ideal for the genesis of tropical cyclones,» Emanuel says, «and as that belt migrates poleward, which surely it must as the whole ocean warms, the tropical cyclone genesis regions might just move with it.

If all the brewery's CO2 could be stored in this way, the ethanol could become a biofuel to burn, one that actually reduces the amount of CO2 in the air and that seems to be one of the last hopes on offer to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

The good news is that extreme global warming by century's end, anything above 3 degrees C or more, seems «extremely unlikely,» in the words of the IPCC.

Given that the degree of under - estimation of TCR using the Otto method seems inversely correlated with the NH / SH warming ratio, at least in the models used in Shindell (2014), it would seem that the rather large NH / SH warming ratio observed in the «real» earth system indicates a tiny to non-existent underestimation of TCR when using those simple methods (e.g. Otto et al) in the real world.

A couple of weeks ago we had a 70 degree day and it seemed like warmer spring weather was in the not too distant future so we started adding some spring like touches to our family room.

The water has been very warm this week averaging at 29 degrees c. On some afternoon we have had a bit of swell but towards the end of the week it seems to have calmed down a lot.

While I'm posting (I can see how you guys get into this) I'm also very uncomfortable with your notion of «tacit knowledge:» it certainly seems to be tacit knowledge in the blogosphere that the chances of the climate sensitivity (equilibrium warming on indefinite stabilization at 560ppm CO2, for the non-enthusiasts) being greater than or equal to 6 degrees are too small to be worth worrying about (meaning down at the level of an asteroid strike).

I could even use the data you supply to argue it the other way — that is, the two minima you compare seem quite different, yet both» 96 - ’97 and» 07 - ’08 are pretty hot periods globally, with 2007 for instance just a few hundredths of a degree warmer than ’97 in HadCRUT.

As I recall, the researchers, and Myles Allen in particular, emphasised the fact that the bottom end of the range (ie the 2 in 2 - 11 degrees C) corresponded to previous predictions of 2 - 5 degrees C. I seem to remember that they said this gave strength to the prediction that there would be a warming of * at least * 2 degrees C, but that there was a greater degree of uncertainty at the top - end.

But in the second, he seems fixated on the 2 degrees of warming ahead....

Not only that but it seems clear the technology required to achieve the global target of keeping global warming to an extra 2 degrees, is numerous and diverse.

But it is true that they don't seem to be addressing the question of overall uncertainty as to whether, or to what degree, increased CO2 emissions will translate into a warmer climate long - term.

It just seems to me that if you really don't think the climate should get more than 2 degrees warmer, then you kind of have to be talking about geoengineering in one way or another.

While there is no surprise we get a degree of warming with 2 W / m2 of forcing, you seem not to accept any of that as even possible and look for other sources to exceed the CO2 effect when none is needed.

R Gates wrote: «What you seem to fail to realize though is that a few tenths of a degree of temperature spread out in the ocean equates to eventual huge temperatures in the atmosphere when that heat is released» ----------------------------------- By what possible mechanism can a release of heat from the ocean warm the atmosphere to a higher temperature than that of the ocean surface, as you seem to be implying?

And I'm worried that if governments keep saying what they're doing is organized at stopping warming at 2 - degrees, then the people who are actually on the front lines of climate change — coastal cities, farmers and so on — are going to think about preparing for a world that's 2 degrees warmer, when in reality the evidence seem to suggest they should be preparing for a world that [has warmed] a lot more than 2 degrees.

In an immensely complicated perhaps chaotic system, which nevertheless has been semistable for some billions of years, it seems to me that feedback must normally be negative, leading to less than 1 degree of warming.

Worse yet, on our present trajectory, it seems highly unlikely that the warming process will stop at 2 or even 3 degrees Celsius, meaning that later in this century many of the worst - case climate - change scenarios — the inundation of coastal cities, the desertification of vast interior regions, and the collapse of rain - fed agriculture in many areas — will become everyday reality.

It seems obvious that one should list the factors and degree of cooling for each and do the same for those that warm.

BUT, the idea of «those who have» all settling into their new, green, lifestyles while leaving the proles (who will never afford the new housing or the solar panels or even the replacement, more efficient boiler) to go cold, hungry, and without transport seems to me a far greater danger to the future of mankind than any degree or two of warming.

As a non-climatologist, it seems logical to me that carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming in some form — but if global warming meltdown starts in eight years» time, I will eat my copy of Six Degrees, appendices and all.

However, its analysis seems premised on calculations relating to a 2C global goal, which given that Africa has historically warmed 150 % compared to global averages, would mean an unthinkable 3.5 degrees of warming for the continent.

In summer that difference is even more spectular, maybe even up to 20 degrees C. Now, considering a global warming rate of 0.6 degree C per century seems quite rediculous to me when I compare this to my own observations that happen during a period of 48 hours or less.

The proposed rapid acceleration of sea level rise when surface warming has slowed (or stopped, if your prefer satellite data) and when ocean warming is in the hundredths of a degree per decade range seems very strange.

The bigger issue is that it is robustly unprovable or logical that so many negative effects will happen because of a change in temperature of even 2,3,4 degrees because as temperature has risen human life and other life seems to benefit from warmer climate.

It would seem to me that if the science was settled, as you all claim, it should be very clear exactly how many degrees the globe should warm per ppm of CO2.

The investment cost seems to be around $ 1 trillion invested now per tenth of a degree warming theoretically averted by year 2100.

The upshot of all the latest research, however, is that while limiting warming to 2 degrees is seeming unlikely, and 1.5 degrees nearly impossible, staying within something like 2.5 degrees still seems quite possible if there's concerted action.

A couple of weeks ago we had a 70 degree day and it seemed like warmer spring weather was in the not too distant future so we started adding some spring like touches to our family room.