Sentences with phrase «further global warming reaches»

According to Hansen, «if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know.

Not exact matches

Professor Chen remarked, «Among the extensive and far - reaching impacts of global warming, human health and labour productivity are most directly affected by thermal discomfort and heat - related morbidity and mortality.

Further, it if could be proven that all those French people died because of global warming, wouldn't most people agree that the dangerous level of warming has been reached?

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

If future global emissions are not curbed, human - driven global warming could cause further large declines in long - term temperature variability, the lead author tells Carbon Brief, which may have far - reaching effects on the world's seasons and weather.

The economic constraint on environmental action can easily be seen by looking at what is widely regarded as the most far - reaching establishment attempt to date to deal with The Economics of Climate Change in the form of a massive study issued in 2007 under that title, commissioned by the UK Treasury Office.7 Subtitled the Stern Review after the report's principal author Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, it is widely viewed as the most important, and most progressive mainstream treatment of the economics of global warming.8 The Stern Review focuses on the target level of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) concentration in the atmosphere necessary to stabilize global average temperature at no more than 3 °C (5.4 °F) over pre-industrial levels.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity?

But global warming will have additional, far - reaching effects on the planet.

Some actions by the President of the United States can have far - reaching international consequences, including something so trivial as how he reacts to a particular global warming alarmist book.

Further, the probabilistic approach reveals a picture startling to even most global - warming pessimists: If we're to avoid precipitating what that U.N. Framework Convention genteelly calls «dangerous anthropogenic interference,» we're going to have to aim at an atmospheric greenhouse - gas concentration target that, by current trends, we'll reach in less than two decades.

Two years ago, an authoritative study predicted there could be as little as 10 years before this «tipping point» for global warming was reached, adding a rise of 0.8 degrees had already been reached with further rises already locked in because of the time lag in the way carbon dioxide the principal greenhouse gas is absorbed into the atmosphere.

Global warming is expected to have far - reaching, long - lasting and, in many cases, devastating consequences for planet Earth.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

I'd say the biggest and potentially most murderous swindle being practised at present is the pretence that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to merit immediate and far - reaching action to reduce usage of fossil fuels.

As most of us know by now, human - caused global warming has far - reaching effects, but none so acute as those at the poles.

The potential health implications of this pipeline are enormous and far reaching — from spills poisoning our water and soil, to the public health impacts of a warming global climate — the impacts will likely be devastating.»