Sentences with phrase «high degree of warm»

A high degree of warming does not automatically mean we take draconian measures to cut back fossil fuel use.

A small area with a high degree of warming is simulated around the coast of Antarctica, where the inter-model temperature range is also large.

Not exact matches

(Pew counted a positive rating as the warmest third (67 degrees or higher) of the feeling thermometer.)

Preheat the grill for medium high direct cooking and grill the chops six to eight minutes per side or to an internal temperature of 155 degrees F. Tent with foil and keep warm in a low oven until service.

While it doesn't warm towels up to the same degree of heat as its higher - priced competition, this device makes up for it with a sleek design and exceptional price tag.

If temperatures are higher than 75 degrees, your baby will not need layers of clothing, including warm socks.

Every degree of warming caused directly by CO2 is amplified by feedback processes that could drive temperatures much higher

The first predications of coastal sea level with warming of two degrees by 2040 show an average rate of increase three times higher than the 20th century rate of sea level rise.

This new research confirmed those observations, with average warming rates of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit (0.72 degrees Celsius) per decade at high latitudes.

While the pattern for Central and Western Europe was one of a consistent increase in flood risk, the study also found that flood risk may actually decrease with warmer temperatures in some countries in Eastern Europe, but those results also show a high degree of uncertainty.

«Under scenarios of moderate warming, 1 or 2 degrees Celsius globally, crops in tropical regions will suffer in terms of yield, whereas at mid - to higher latitudes, they might benefit from a little bit of warming.

«We find that civil wars were much more likely to happen in warmer - than - average years, with one degree Celsius warmer temperatures in a given year associated with a 50 percent higher likelihood of conflict in that year,» Burke says.

It was 48 degrees, but they did anticipate a high of 68 and it's warming up rapidly and it's a spectacular day.

The collaborators work at the forefront of research into high - temperature superconductors, an exciting class of materials exhibiting superconductivity at temperatures as comparatively warm as -100 degrees celsius.

It's quite warm — highs of -02 to -04 degrees, and sunny.

In one sentence: Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and colleagues found that if followed by measures of equal or greater ambition, individual country pledges to reduce their emissions called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions have the potential to reduce the probability of the highest levels of warming and increase the probability of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

The stakes for full implementation are high — the agreement is expected to prevent up to 80 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions by 2050, which could prevent up to 0.5 degrees Celsius in warming.

In these high latitudes, temperatures are predicted to warm so fast and to such a degree so as to cause unprecedented melting of ice that even the most ardent of climate skeptics would be forced to concede the verity of global warming theory.

At one point in the Eemian, it was only about 1 degree C warmer than today (a level we are approaching rapidly)-- and yet sea levels were tens of meters higher than now.

The day we took these photos was one of the «warm» days coming in at about 7 degrees Fahrenheit for a high without the windchill.

Travel writer Raquel Pineira visits Cabo San Lucas in January and finds a welcoming warm climate with average highs of 75 - 80 degrees during the day.

Ocean temperatures are a warm 29 °C that is only 1 degree less than the highest of 30 °C seen during the hot months.

Will it retain the high degree of confidence regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming without clear answers for the responsibility of the mismatch?

I wrote yesterday (# 7): «A high degree of confidence is appropriate, given that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is already occurring right before our eyes, all over the world.

It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.»

We find a higher sensitivity of extreme events to aerosol reductions, per degree of surface warming, in particular over the major aerosol emission regions.

They state that addition of 3000 Gt C to an atmosphere of 2000 Gt C would lead to warming of 5 degrees C, but I don't believe it unless the climate sensitivity is much higher than today.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the buildup of greenhouse gases and its consequences pushed global temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today — well below the upper temperature range that scientists project could occur from global warming — Earth's population would be devastated.

It does show that positive feedbacks are dominant, and for timescales of anthropogenic global warming about 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius per doubling, and a bit higher if you include century - timescale «slower feedbacks» such as ice sheets.

This would cause a change of 4.75 degrees K for the 100 % reference change in GCR over the 11 year solar cycle (and a non physical decrease of more than 100 % in cloud cover — are negative high clouds cooling and negative low clouds warming?

But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it's getting harder to see why the high - end projections are given much weight.

In policy circles, including popular calculations of emissions trajectories necessary to avoid a high chance of exceeding 2 degrees C. of warming, the hot tail has not been trimmed (unless I'm missing something?).

The paper, in the journal Science, calculates that a doubling of carbon dioxide will most likely lead to a warming of 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit, though the number could be as low as 3 degrees or as high as 4.7 degrees.

What is clear is that uncontrolled emissions will very soon put us in range of temperatures that have been unseen since the Eemian / Stage 5e period (about 120,000 years ago) when temperatures may have been a degree or so warmer than now but where sea level was 4 to 6m higher (see this recent discussion the possible sensitivities of the ice sheets to warming and the large uncertainties involved).

HOWEVER, when you apply the laws of physics to the new end state, ie globe warmed by a few degrees by GHGs, you get a situation where the new Wiens law value (higher driving temperature gives hotter energy spectrum out) and the new Stefan - Boltzmann value, (ie HIGHER energy out) disagree with the physical situation that the model REQUIRES — ie energy out = 99.98 units which is higher driving temperature gives hotter energy spectrum out) and the new Stefan - Boltzmann value, (ie HIGHER energy out) disagree with the physical situation that the model REQUIRES — ie energy out = 99.98 units which is HIGHER energy out) disagree with the physical situation that the model REQUIRES — ie energy out = 99.98 units which is LOWER.

«With temperatures 12 — 18 degrees [C] hotter than they normally are this time of year,» the Canadian Press suggests, «a massive ridge of high pressure will remain anchored over the Pacific Northwest [with] ongoing dry conditions and warmer than normal» temperatures.

Under any plausible interpretation of «business as usual», there is a high probability of warming of 2 degrees or more, relative to baseline, by 2100 6.

In the end, one need not know with a high degree of accuracy the intricacies of the climate's variability to show an increased warming trend: 3 Furthermore, there are no models that exist that are able to match recent observed warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account, i.e. if radiative forcings from CO2 aren't taken into account, then models don't match hindcasting.

Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011).

The uncertainty is whether this, when applied to the real world, is a trivial effect (say the lowest outlier position), if there is a couple of degrees warming coming (an average position, where warming will have some observable effects within a decade or two) or 5 + deg C (the highest outlier position, where significant and rapid change would occur, and where detrimental effects probably significantly outweigh beneficial ones).

his conclusion for Qld is The High Quality data for Queensland shows a warming bias of nearly 0.2 degrees Celsius per 100 years.

In May, Royal Dutch Shell responded to shareowner concerns on the issue, and adopted the same position as Exxon: «there is a high degree of confidence that global warming will exceed 2 °C by the end of the 21st century,» the company stated.

A model that has a high degree of correlation but thinks the earth is 2 °C warmer than it is has issues.

How many degrees of warming should the world expect for each doubling of CO2 concentrations (the relationship is logarithmic, so that is why sensitivity is based on doublings, rather than absolute increases — an increase of CO2 from 280 to 290 ppm should have a higher impact on temperatures than the increase from, say, 380 to 390 ppm).

We may have just about 30 years left until the world's carbon budget is spent if we want a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C. Breaching this limit would put the world at increased risk of forest fires, coral bleaching, higher sea level rise, and other dangerous impacts.

I then ask them if they can think of anything that would or could stop air freely circulating between ground level and 6 miles high... to where the temperature is eternally below -30 degrees C AT ITS WARMEST!

This way we end up with two horizontal steps, both eighteen years long, one consisting of the eighties and nineties and another one a third of a degree higher and encompassing the twenty - first century and its hiatus / warming.

They point to this uncertainty, while ignoring the very high degree of confidence scientists have that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, currently warming the planet, causing sea level rise and ocean acidification.

=== > The «C3» horizontal dark green line is placed at zero degree change; vertical red dashed lines represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of warming adjustments; and cyan vertical dashed lines periods represent the beginning of periods with extreme high frequency of cooling adjustments.

Source: press release for Myers et al., 2015 Sea Levels 2 - 4 m Higher Until ~ 5,000 Years Ago Imply Surface Temps Were At Least 5 °C Warmer According to the accepted (IPCC) formula for calculating the contribution of ocean warming (thermal expansion) to sea level rise upon reaching equilibrium, every additional degrees Celsius of surface warmth yields -LSB-...]