Sentences with phrase «expect from a warming climate»

Not exact matches

With Trump taking the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, New York can expect warmer temperatures, greater flooding and more damage from storms, and a whole host of other issues.

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity — the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere — have suggested that most models are too sensitive.

This suggests more precipitation fell away from the tropics in a colder climate, the opposite of what is expected as the world warms.

President Trump tweeted that the East Coast «could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming,» while former Vice President Al Gore tweeted that the bitter cold is «exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis.»

Kilpatrick explained that the effects of climate change are expected to be seen at the edges of species» geographic ranges, as species adapted to warm climates move further north and cold - adapted species retreat from the southern parts of their ranges.

«If we assume an optimistic scenario for greenhouse gas emissions — the RCP 2.6 scenario, [see Fact Box] which would result in a warming of about two degrees Celsius — then we can expect an increase in sea level similar to what we see in this video,» says climate modeller Martin Stendel from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.

But since climate scientists already expect a wide range of negative consequences from rising temperatures, including higher sea level, more weather extremes and increasing risks to human health, anything that accelerates warming is a concern.

Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stressed the persistent uncertainty in the range of warming expected from a buildup of greenhouse gases as cutting against the idea of specific thresholds: «Our biggest science problem is that we do not know how strong the climate feedbacks are, or even whether we know all of the ones that are important on decadal and longer time scales,» he said in an e-mail.

The physics argument seems simply that (1) past climates have been very different from today (true); (2) the changes are large compared to what we see from global warming, or expect to see, anytime soon (true).

With the warming already committed in the climate system plus the additional warming expected from rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Arctic will experience significant changes during this century even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized globally at a level lower than today's.

However climate models from even 20 - 30 years ago [Schneider and Thompson (1981); Bryan et al (1988); Manabe et al (1992)-RSB- predicted that the response of the Antarctic to enhanced greenhouse - induced warming would be much delayed relative to the warming expected to occur in the Arctic.

My first question was how come I was seeing «around 3 degrees» for climate sensitivity when the physics says to expect about one degree of warming from doubling CO2.

Please tell us how many degrees of warming we can expect from a 10 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 if no other climate factors are varied.

The pattern appears to fit what is expected from human - driven warming of the global climate, said the researchers, Tong Lee of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Michael McPhaden of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

So: The study finds a fingerprint of anthropogenic influences on large scale increase in precipitation extremes, with remaining uncertainties — namely that there is still a possibility that the widespread increase in heavy precipitation could be due to an unusual event of natural variability.The intensification of extreme rainfall is expected with warming, and there is a clear physical mechanism for it, but it is never possible to completely separate a signal of external forcing from climate variability — the separation will always be statistical in nature.

Pressing the frontiers of climate science and related research is vital, but it's wishful thinking to expect further science to substantially narrow uncertainties on time scales that matter when it comes to regional or short - term climate forecasting, the range of possible warming from a big buildup of carbon dioxide, the impact of greenhouse forcing on rare extremes and the like.

Greater warming over land and in the Arctic regions, and less warming in the sub-polar oceans, are what we expect from our understanding of climate physics, and this is what we observe.»

Attribution of the observed warming to anthropogenic forcing is easier at larger scales because averaging over larger regions reduces the natural variability more, making it easier to distinguish between changes expected from different external forcings, or between external forcing and climate variability.

They start from the premise that global mean sea level rise will continue beyond 2100, and from the prediction that for every 1 °C of climate warming, humans should expect an eventual 2.3 metre rise in sea levels.

Don't expect an apology or correction from the mainstream media, Hollywood, the Obama administration, Prince Charles, the UN, academics or Leo DiCaprio for misleading you on global warming climate change, yet again.

So we frequently hear that «while this event is consistent with what we expect from climate change, no single event can be attributed to human induced global warming».

Forcing from surface albedo changes due to land use change is expected to be negative globally (Sections 2.5.3, 7.3.3 and 9.3.3.3) although tropical deforestation could increase evaporation and warm the climate (Section 2.5.5), counteracting cooling from albedo change.

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report shows a range of figures for effective climate sensitivity — the amount of warming that can be expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels.

The two most important ones relate to a) the impact of natural climate variability and forcing factors and b) the sign and magnitude of the net overall feedback that could be expected to occur, which could either amplify or moderate the warming expected from a climate forcing.

His position: • No evidence of increasing lake clarity as a result of secchi measurements since 1946 • The interplay of stratification and plankton productivity are not «straightforward» • Challenges O'Reilly's assumption on the correlation of wind and productivity - the highest production is on the end of the lake with the lowest winds • A strong caution using diatoms as the productivity proxy (it is one of two different lake modes) • No ability to link climate change to productivity changes • More productivity from river than allowed for in Nature Geopscience article • Externally derived nutrients control productivity for a quarter of the year • Strong indications of overfishing • No evidence of a climate and fishery production link • The current productivity of the lake is within the expected range • Doesn't challenge recent temp increase but cites temperature records do not show a temperature rise in the last century • Phytoplankton chlorophylla seems to have not materially changed from the 1970s to 1990s • Disputes O'Reilly's and Verbug's claims of increased warming and decreased productivity • Rejects Verburgs contention that changes in phytoplankton biomass (biovolume), in dissolved silica and in transparency support the idea of declining productivity.

If we were certain that the ensemble mean warming represents the real climate systemt we could read out from figure 1c at which cumulative carbon emission we could expect to cross this threshold.

A 1 - to - 1 ratio would be expected if the climate were not warming, but the ratio during the period from 2000 - 2009 was closer to 2 - to - 1 in favor of warm temperature records.

# 5: Global climate model simulations that include greenhouse gases indicate that the magnitude of warming that would be expected from greenhouse gas increases is at least as large as the observed warming.

From an OSU press release: CORVALLIS, Ore. — An analysis of 35 headwater basins in the United States and Canada found that the impact of warmer air temperatures on streamflow rates was less than expected in many locations, suggesting that some ecosystems may be resilient to certain aspects of climate change.

J. T. Fasullo, R. S. Nerem & B. Hamlington Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 31245 (2016) doi: 10.1038 / srep31245 Download Citation Climate and Earth system modellingProjection and prediction Received: 13 April 2016 Accepted: 15 July 2016 Published online: 10 August 2016 Erratum: 10 November 2016 Updated online 10 November 2016 Abstract Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase oveClimate and Earth system modellingProjection and prediction Received: 13 April 2016 Accepted: 15 July 2016 Published online: 10 August 2016 Erratum: 10 November 2016 Updated online 10 November 2016 Abstract Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase oveclimate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time.

Abstract: «Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time.

I am pretty sure that the MWP was at least as warm and maybe even warmer than today, as good as the Roman WP was warmer and the Holocene Climate optimum of 6,000 years ago was warmer... The MWP had a CO2 level about 6 ppmv higher than the LIA, that is all you can expect as increase in the atmosphere from the current warm period.

The team found that from 1980 to 2010 there were 12 % more of these extreme events than would be expected in what they called «a stationary climate», one without global warming.

Both disclosures are consistent with what scientists had expected from climate change, driven by global warming as a consequence of the profligate combustion of fossil fuels that dump ever greater levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

A leaked draft of the next major climate report from the U.N. cites numerous causes to explain the slowdown in warming: greater - than - expected ash from volcanoes, a decline in heat from the sun, more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans, and so on.

The current version of the figure gives the impression that the IPCC expected temperature to warm continuously year on year, which of course was not the expectation — the projections shown here are just the long - term trend either from averaging the GCMs or using simple climate models.

The warming we've had in the last thirty years implies that at best, we could expect 1 °C from a doubling of CO2, but observations from eight natural experiments around the globe, and even on Mars and Venus suggest that 0.4 °C is the upper bound of climate sensitivity to any cause.

Pauses are expected in the warming record because of natural variation that can add to or subtract from decadal climate change because that is only tenths of a degree.

The world has been warming for a century, and this warming is beyond any cyclical variation we have seen over the last 1000 or more years, and beyond the range of what we might expect from natural climate variations.

I agree that reduction in snow or ice cover resulting from warming constitutes a likely slow positive feedback, but its magnitude may be quite small, at least for the modest changes in surface temperature that can be expected to arise if sensitivity is in fact fairly low, so the Forster / Gregory 06 results may nevertheless be a close approximation to a measurement of equilibrium climate sensitivity.

This is one of the reasons that a typical climate model has a substantially higher climate sensitivity than would be expected from observations: if a model didn't have a high climate sensitivity, its excessive aerosol cooling would prevent it matching historical warming.»

They correctly identified the various forces acting in the various directions (greenhouse gases = > warming, aerosols = > cooling, on longer time scales expect natural cooling from interglacial into an ice age); however, they said more research was needed to reliably say what path the climate would take.

Seventy years ago one might expect temperatures to eventually cool as the regional climate fluctuated from a warmer state to a cooler state.

Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near - term climate forecasts (Smith et al. 2007; Haines et al. 2009).

A delayed warming is expected from our understanding of the climate processes.

And, if we accept the IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2 °C, this naturally occurring trend will limit the amount of theoretical equilibrium GH warming we can expect from today to 2100 at somewhere between 0.6 ° -1.5 °C.

The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models...

In a November 21 report prepping readers for Doha, entitled, «Warming up: What to Expect From the Next Big Report on Climate Change,» The Economist puts great stock in the UN's thoroughly discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and suggests that our failure to secure a global climate regime is tantamount to «playing Russian roulette with the planet.Climate Change,» The Economist puts great stock in the UN's thoroughly discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and suggests that our failure to secure a global climate regime is tantamount to «playing Russian roulette with the planet.Climate Change (IPCC) and suggests that our failure to secure a global climate regime is tantamount to «playing Russian roulette with the planet.climate regime is tantamount to «playing Russian roulette with the planet.»

The other reason is, of course, that I expect we'll be hearing from global warming deniers who will tout this finding as more proof that climate change isn't happening.

The rapid warming since 1970 is several times larger than that expected from any known or suspected effects of the Sun, and may already indicate the growing influence of atmospheric greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate.