Sentences with phrase «higher warming estimates»

Velders says his team came up with higher warming estimates than IPCC because their model accounts for trends that others don't, such as the faster - than expected adoption of HFCs driven by the Montreal Protocol, and an air - conditioning boom in the developing world.

Not exact matches

Most people in South Florida, an estimated 54 percent, think global warming is already harming people in the United States, also 6 points higher than the national estimate.

In the case of Scottsbluff, Vatistas and his team found that the temperature inside the tornado would have dropped from a comfortably warm background temperature of 27o C to a chilly 12o C. And at the tornado's centre, the researchers estimated the air density would have been 20 per cent lower than what's found at high altitudes.

Reseachers find that, no matter how much data they collect, they may not be able to get a good estimate of the highest temperature increases that global warming may bring.

Previous estimates suggested that peak temperatures during the warmest interglacial periods — which occurred at around 125,000, 240,000 and 340,000 years ago — were about three degrees higher than they are today.

Emissions of a greenhouse gas that has 17,000 times the planet - warming capacity of carbon dioxide are at least four times higher than had been previously estimated.

One tentative estimate put warming two or even three times higher than current middle - range forecasts of 3 to 4 °C based on a doubling of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is likely by late this century.

«Moreover, our estimate of 0.27 C mean surface warming per century due to land - use changes is at least twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone7, 8.»

Numerous new studies show that the previously assumed estimate value used by the IPCC of 3.0 °C warming per doubling of CO2 is far too high.

For the U.S., the rise in heat - trapping gases in the atmosphere has increased the probability of record - breaking temperatures 15 - fold.21 In Europe, global warming is now responsible for an estimated 29 % of the new record highs set each year.22

Scientists estimate that the last time CO2 levels were that high was more than 3 million years ago, when the Arctic was 32 °F warmer than it is today and sea levels were up to 90 feet higher.

Using Mg / Ca paleothermometry from the planktonic foraminifera Globigerinoides ruber from the past 500 k.y. at Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 871 in the western Pacific warm pool, we estimate the tropical Pacific climate sensitivity parameter (λ) to be 0.94 — 1.06 °C (W m − 2) − 1, higher than that predicted by model simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum or by models of doubled greenhouse gas concentration forcing.

Forest et al. (2006) demonstrate that the inclusion of natural forcing affects the estimated PDF of climate sensitivity since net negative natural forcing in the second half of the 20th century favours higher sensitivities than earlier results that disregarded natural forcing (Forest et al., 2002; see Figure 9.20), particularly if the same ocean warming estimates were used.

«The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about three million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters [80 feet] higher than today.»

Elevated trace GHG concentrations contributed an estimated positive forcing of approximately 1.7 — 2.3 W m - 2 (Table S5) in addition to that of CO2 and produced equilibrium climate system responses resulting in widespread significant warming, especially in the high latitudes (Figs. 3 and 4).

Using Mg / Ca paleothermometry from the planktonic foraminifera Globigerinoides ruber from the past 500 k.y. at Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 871 in the western Pacific warm pool, we estimate the tropical Pacific climate sensitivity parameter (λ) to be 0.94 — 1.06 °C (W m − 2) − 1, higher than that predicted by model simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum or by models of doubled greenhouse gas concentration forcing.

Another example would be to explain why Arrhenius, who as a Swede was reportedly in favor of a little warming, obtained ECS results from his simple, laboriously hand - calculated model of CO2 - driven global warming that are only a factor of two higher than estimates by the current ensemble of coupled GCMs.

In fact, there is an accumulating body of reviewed, published research shaving away the high end of the range of possible warming estimates from doubled carbon dioxide levels.

[T] here have now been several recent papers showing much the same — numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

«Contrary to recent assessments based on theoretical models [IPCC, 2007] the anthropogenic warming estimated directly from the historical observations is more pronounced between 45 S and 50 N than at higher latitudes....

Nobel Prize - winning economist Kenneth Arrow wrote recently that «These calculations [on costs and benefits of slowing global warming] indicate that, even with higher discounting, The Stern Review's estimates of future benefits and costs imply that mitigation makes economic sense.»

Losses accelerate with greater warming (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3 °C or above.

12:57 p.m. Updated Representative Edward J. Markey, the Democrat of Massachusetts who heads the House select committee on energy independence and global warming, has released a BP document providing an early worst - case estimate of the oil flow up the casing of the wrecked Gulf of Mexico well that is dozens of times higher than the company's initial public estimates.

The uncertainty range around the estimate of 3.9 °C from current confirmed proposals means warming could be significantly higher, but there is essentially no chance of limiting warming to the 2 °C target.

That may mean that some of the highest estimates of future temperature rises, of more than 6C within several decades, are less likely, but it does not let the world off the hook — warming of more than 2C is still highly likely on current high emissions trends, and that would cause severe consequences around the world.

«Please explain, for instance, in which way the tropopause region for which the so - called anthropogenic radiative forcing was estimated can warm the earth's surface which has a temperature of about 65 K higher than the tropopause region.

An especially powerful El Niño cycle in 1998 is thought to have contributed to the unusually high temperatures that year, and Hansen's group estimates that there's a good chance 2010 will be the warmest year on record if the current El Niño persists.

Of course the warming up to 1950 would have a lot less attribution due to co2 warming, so the 0.7 c (due to AGW) estimate is probably far too high.

The high - end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still.

Mark Campanale of the thinktank Carbon Tracker Initiative said the actual financial losses from unchecked global warming could be higher than estimated by the financial model behind the new study.

Using the IPCC climate sensitivity of 3.2 C, the CO2 level by 2100 would need to double by 2100, from today's 392 to 784 ppmv, to reach this warming (the high side IPCC «scenario and storyline» A2 is at this level, with estimated warming of 3.4 C above the 1980 - 1999 average, or ~ 3.2 C above today's temperature).

This is not good news for global warmers because the mid to high end estimates of 2100 temperature are off the table, and the missing 2.25 W / m2 of GHG forcing went back into space.

Several solar studies estimate that around half of the past warming can be attributed to the high level of solar activity in the second half of the 20th century (Lean curve).

Estimates of net warming from increased carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution range from a relative high 0.17 °C 15 down to 0.1 °C 16.

Summing up: My question for sTeve is: why would you choose the GISS estimate of temperatures, which shows parts of the past decade as higher than 1998 and considerable average warming, over the other three monitoring agencies, which show much less or no warming for the decade?

This warming can not have been caused by the sun, you see, because as numerous «consensus» scientists have noted, solar activity was not going up over this period, but only persisted at a high level (whether extraordinarily high, as Usoskin estimates, or merely high, as Muscheler estimates).

Of course, if there are any new energy technologies over the next 89 years (and there sure as hell will be), then this theoretical warming estimate is too high.

However, estimates for life - cycle global warming emissions from hydroelectric plants built in tropical areas or temperate peatlands are much higher.

This doesn't mean that there is not some global warming, but it likely means that temperature rises will be lower, not higher, than previous estimates.

The following figure, which presents the FTA's estimates of habitat converted to cropland as of 2100, shows that the amount of habitat lost to cropland may well be least under the richest - but - warmest scenario (A1FI), but higher under the cooler (B1 and B2) scenarios.

They estimate that Harvey's rainfall was probably almost 19 percent higher due to global warming, which also means the probability of a storm of Harvey's size is now 3.5 times more likely.

The colored bands represent the range of warming outcomes spanned by high and low life - cycle estimates for the energy technologies illustrated: (A) natural gas, (B) coal with carbon capture and storage, (C) hydroelectric, (D) solar thermal, (E) nuclear, (F) solar photovoltaic and (G) wind.

The new analysis reveals that global trends in recent decades are higher than reported in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, and the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.

If the hypothesis is that warming will increase at 1C per decade, and if we observe a cooling of -20 C in 10 years, then we can conclude that the estimate of 1 per decade is high.

If there is a systemic warming bias in CRU data (as Climategate hints there may be), then the Schwartz estimate may be significantly too high.

In fact, most global warming catastrophists believe the climate sensitivity is at least 3ºC per doubling, and many use estimates as high as 5ºC or 6ºC.

Interest was especially high this particular December because a race was on: since mid - to late summer, the scientists in all three groups had been telling their friends and acquaintances, including those in the news media, that 2005 might turn out to be the warmest year on record — since about 1880, that is, when station coverage first became global enough to permit a meaningful estimate.

That calculation is based on «sleight of hand and faulty logic», said Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and it ignores the possibility of warming at the higher end of estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Furthermore, a paper just published by the Journal of Climate concludes that high estimates of future global warming from most computer climate simulations are inconsistent with observed warming since 1850.

According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell - Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees (Nicholls et al., 2011).