Not exact matches
If warming is supposed to
happen at an ever -
accelerating rate, why has EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE
happened since 1988?
The best possible outcome right now, Rahmstorf said, is that we stabilize temperatures and that sea level rise
happened at a steady
rate over the next few centuries, and not
accelerate.
Trenberth still relates the effect from CO2 based on 100ppmv causing an increase of 0.6 °C but does not subtract the 0.5 °C of natural warming as recovery from the LIA that has nothing to do with CO2 emissions therefore producing an effect six times too high for the effect from increased CO2 Trenberth is not aware that CO2 is not increaseing
at an
accelerated rate as predicted by Hansen but
at a near linear
rate averaging 2.037 ppmv / year so by 2100 the concentration will not be as predicted by the IPCC as per scenario A1 but merely reach a level of 573.11 ppmv by 2100, This is only in the case that CO2 increase is maintained but this may not
happen as the
rate appears to be slowing down with the average
rate for the past 5 years being lower than the
rate for the past ten years.
It has
happened at that
rate in the last 10000 years, and with what we are doing to
accelerate to process, yes that could
happen.
Many economists expect wage growth to
accelerate with the unemployment
rate at historically low levels — let's hope this
happens sooner rather than later but until then put your best foot forward to maximize your job search success!