Sentences with phrase «how much warming»

So if someone would ask Bart how much warming we have seen since 1975 i think his answer would be 0.4 degrees (0.17 * 2.4).

How much warming is not known precisely.

Will any of them affect how much warming we have had?

You can easily find the answer to your question regarding how much warming can be expected.

Understanding the risk of half a degree of extra warming brings other scientific challenges, including the need to narrow the uncertainty over how much warming a given amount of carbon produces, known as the climate sensitivity, and the role of short - lived gases, such as methane.

Hugh Pepper says: October 22, 2011 at 11:31 am «You can easily find the answer to your question regarding how much warming can be expected.

Everyone who comes up with a statistical analysis of this sort is essentially trying to reach a conclusion as to how much warming was natural variation and how much wasn't, without knowing what the natural variation actually is!

Their response, which I have found to be typical, was 1) it doesn't matter how much the warming is, it is bad to change the earth at all and 2) we need to aggresively fight CO2 «just in case» there is some catastrophic tipping point lurking out there.

If that is the case, then you should do your best to disabuse them from the idea that there has been no warming in the 20th century, and point them to the real argument, which now seems to be about «how much warming?»

Now the first thing to say is that there is some uncertainty about how much warming has really occurred.

Climate model simulations are used to predict how much warming should be expected for any given increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The research is a «big advance» that halves the uncertainty about how much warming is caused by rises in carbon emissions, according to scientists commenting on the study, published in the journal Nature.

How much warming is caused by a what amount of CO2 is more complicated but again there is a substantial and strong body of work supporting the IPCC conclusions.

The lack of warming for more than a decade — indeed, the smaller - than - predicted warming over the 22 years since the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections — suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

With the link to carbon dioxide levels and taking into account other factors and past trends, Snyder calculated how much warming can be expected in the future.

That is, how much warming effect is likely compared to some simple baseline of just taking direct absorption by changing levels of CO2.

Now I am not denying that it does, but how much warming is the result of the lapse rate and adiabatic heating resulting from the depth of the atmosphere and how much from CO2 and other GHGs «trapping» heat?

How much warming does each contribute?

The question is: how much warming since 1850 can be allocated to external forcing and how much can be allocated to internal variability.

What will the short - term adjustment look like, how much warming are we already committed to, based on the CO2 we've already emitted?

They wasted years of brain power on dragon slayer crap, sun nut theories, UHI, color palettes, goddarian nonsense, and they avoided the big question: how much warming.

In order to explain how much warming is due to that identified mechanism, all of the other mechanisms affecting warming and cooling must be identified and quantified.

What we want to know is how much warming can be ASSIGNED to natural variability and how much can be assigned to external forcing and then we want to know how much of the external forcing is natural and how much is human caused.

-- after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.

If the sensitivity is greater than 3 deg, how much warming might we have expected to have had since the last IPCC forecasts in 2000?

The most important question in the climate and man - made global warming is «How much warming will CO2 cause?»

What is relevant is how much warming will take place.

In one sentence: there are uncertainties both in how much warming for a given forcing and how much damage that warming will do; people examining temperature uncertainty tend to make simplifying assumptions like +2 C is safe, +4 C is expensive, and +6 C is catastrophic, but it is also possible that +2 C will be expensive and +3 C will be catastrophic.

For instance, when would be the start of the next period and when and how much warming would be required to forestall such an event.

There is little agreement on what the impacts of the warming will be, how much warming we will experience due to our actions or what actions we should take to change the course of the climate trajectory.»

if you want to help us all, and win the argument, why don't tell us exactly, how much warming and how much cooling is caused by an increase in CO2 of only 0.01 % (over the past 50 years)?

What I'm saying is determining how much warming you would have today from forcings in the past from numbers that your beliefs produce would be a good check on your beliefs.

So my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere?

Hare B and Meinshausen M, «How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided?»

These estimates are critical, as climate sensitivity will be one of the main factors determining how much warming the world experiences during the 21st century.

That said... this result doesn't tell us much about how much warming we'll get over the next 100 years.

So by itself, this result doesn't tell us much about how much warming we'll get over the next 100 years.

Paterson doesn't dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but he says there is «considerable uncertainty» over how much warming we'll see.

Called the «transient climate response», or TCR, this is an estimate of how much warming we'd see if we increased carbon dioxide by 1 % a year until levels had just doubled (about 70 years).

The pertinent question is, «how much warming has there been?»

How much warming does 2 W / m2 translate to?

I think we can dispute how much warming per doubling of CO2 the data support, but I think it's a going to be a very difficult task demonstrating a plausible mechanism (by plausible I mean something that isn't completely eliminated by existing observation and well - established theory) that set t the sensitivity to CO2 to «zero» above some threshold CO2 value.

The correct statement would be: «we have not the faintest idea about how much warming is natural vs anthropogenic».

You still don't want to talk about how much warming 3 GJ / m2 from CO2 has had, and prefer to show graphs that are all over the place to demonstrate some obscure self - canceling randomness in the system.

We just question the certainty of how much warming has occurred, whether CO2 is the «thermostat» which overides natural variation in temperature and don't see enough evidence that the Earth is somehow «out of whack» and on the verge of some «tipping point» if such a thing exists at all.

There * is * broad agreement on that basic fact, even while disagreements exist and research continues on many finer details like how much warming, how soon, with what impacts.

How much warming will that cause?

However, since the IPCC provides us with the 95 % confidence range of the total net anthropogenic forcing in Figure 1, we can account for the uncertainties which concern Lindzen, and evaluate how much warming we «should have seen» by now.

The equilibrium sensitivity concerns how much warming will occur in response to a net forcing up until the whole system is back in balance.

Also, the magnitude of GHG emissions reductions committed to by a nation is implicitly a position on how much warming damage a nation is willing to inflict on others around the world, a matter which is a moral issue at its core.