Sentences with phrase «if average global temperature increased»

I'm not predicting this, but what if average global temperature increased 0.5 degrees in the next twenty years?

«The results show that the extreme sea levels observed during Hurricane Katrina will become ten times more likely if average global temperatures increase by 2 °C», said Dr Jevrejeva.

PS — I still can not get persudaed that lots of bad things will happen if the average global temperature increases from say 288.4 K to 289.9 K. Especially when most of the increase seems to come from slightly warmer nights,

• No adaptive responses to coral bleaching, even on a regional scale, will be available if average global temperature increases 2 °C by 2050.

If average global temperature increases by 3C, the average temperature of the tropics increases by only about 1 C (i.e. a 0.3 % increase).

Not exact matches

In December 2015, the world agreed to the Paris Accord; to slash greenhouse gas emissions to hold global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C (over what it was before the Industrial Revolution), and, if we miss that target, to as far below 2 degrees as possible.

But average global temperatures will increase dramatically if nations just sit and wait until then, concludes the report, Redrawing the Energy - Climate Map.»

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100.

For more than a decade, IPCC scientists have warned that many people will suffer greatly if Earth's average global temperature increases by more than 2 ° Celsius (3.6 ° Fahrenheit) over what was typical before the Industrial Revolution.

According to the Paris Agreement, global emissions must peak by 2020 and then start declining if we want to keep average global temperature increase under 2 ° Celsius.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

... Polar amplification explains in part why Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appear to be highly sensitive to relatively small increases in CO2 concentration and global mean temperature... Polar amplification occurs if the magnitude of zonally averaged surface temperature change at high latitudes exceeds the globally averaged temperature change, in response to climate forcings and on time scales greater than the annual cycle.

If one accepts that the «global average» temperature is the one and only important correlating parameter, it seems that one would have to conclude that an increase in the «global average» temperature results in an increase in the mass of glaciers.

We can not afford to delay further action to tackle climate change if the long - term target of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2 °C, as analysed in the 450 Scenario, is to be achieved at reasonable cost.

If you wanted the global / regional / local averages to somehow provide a measure of average human misery due to increasing temperatures, then population - weighted or un-weighted averages will probably capture that, since the density of met stations is a reasonable proxy for population density.

Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C.

'' If and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?»

This seems to misunderstand the climate system lag time: «If and when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, what will be the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000?»

For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM - 3 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values can not be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.

Figure 1: If climate skeptics are right about climate sensitivity (green), then global average temperature increases will be more moderate this century, shown here for RCP6 (left) and RCP8.5 (right).

If average global temperatures rise by just 3 °C, then Europe's drought risk could increase to double the area faced with drying out.

If climate skeptics are right about climate sensitivity (green), then global average temperature increases will be more moderate this century, shown here for RCP6 (left) and RCP8.5 (right).

But even if this new trend continues, «it is not yet at a rate that would meet the long - term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 3.6 °F (2 °C) above preindustrial levels.»

:: An Anamoly describes the sum of difference over a year, when this sum is added to the baseline Temperature, average annual global Temperature for the year is described, when this figure is added to the population the average is increased, if the Anomaly is positive.

If greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were to stabilize in 2100 at levels projected in the B1 and A1B emission scenarios, a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5 °C would still be expected around 2200.

If CO2 is a forcing, the temperature could only increase (unless compensated for by an as - yet - undiscovered forcing which magically disappeared as soon as credible average global temperature measurements became available).

Denmark's prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said if the world wants to limit increase in average global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius, then both developed and developing nations have to take urgent action and that poverty alleviation or development goals can not be tackled without addressing climate change.

Even if these INDCs are fully implemented, the average global temperature is still on track to increase 2.7 - 3.7 degrees C by 2100, according to a range of studies.

«The notion it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

If climate ambition is not raised progressively, it is estimated that the path set by the INDCs would be consistent with an average global temperature increase of around 2.7 degrees Celsius (°C) by 2100, falling short of limiting the increase to no more than 2 °C.

Whereas if incorrectly use the term to mean make something hotter - the oceans are not making things hotter, but rather they are moderating, and increasing the average global temperature.

An average $ 2.5 trillion (# 1.76 trn) of the world's financial assets would be at risk from climate change impacts if global temperatures are left to increase by 2.5 °C by 2100, warns a new study by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.

That is problematic if you want to explain the increase in global average temperature as due to UHI only, but it doesn't require perfect cancellation everywhere.

Parker's null effect was in searching for a trend in UHI: an increase over time, globally, to see if that could be used as an alternative explanation for the increase in global average temperature.

Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. rips RealClimate.org's claims: «It is straightforward to shed doubt on Gavin Schmidt's (and the IPCC) claim» — «If the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration were so dominate we would expect the global average [annual] lower troposphere temperature to more - or less monotonically continue to rise in the last decade or so.

The scientific consensus has concluded that further increases in CO2 and average global temperature are almost certain to destroy the coral communities of the Great Barrier Reef for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Addressing these emissions will be critical if we are to achieve the UNFCCC goal of limiting average global temperature increases and climate change.

If we allow sustained global average temperature increases of more than 1 degree Celsius, we will suffer irreversible climate destabilization and a planet largely inhospitable to human civilization.

Actually if the influence of ENSO and volcanoes are removed from the global average temperature plot, a continuous increase in temperature appears.

If we all the oil locked in the tar sands (1.63 trillion barrels), the average global temperature would increase 0.4 degrees Celcius — half of what we've already seen.

Or if we assume average global temperature is currently 15 C, that by 2075 that average global temperature will be 17 C. First there is zero evidence of this happening and second one could assume one will first get 1 C increase in global temperature.

Finally, even if the increase is «only» 3 degrees Celsius, remember that this is an increase in the average global temperature.

The skeptics have a responsibility to answer the obvious question, if average global temperatures are increasing, what is the cause?

If radiative forcing were to be stabilised, keeping all the radiative forcing agents constant at B1 or A1B levels in 2100, model experiments show that a further increase in global average temperature of about 0.5 °C would still be expected by 2200.

It could increase global average daytime temperatures - especially if you included the area of the plywood oceans and have somewhat lower global average nite time temperatures.

So I estimate that if we followed IEO2011 / RCP8.5 out to 2035, and then stabilized our forcing, we would eventually arrive at an average global temperature increase of 2.4 ºC.

Sea level rise here is happening 3 - 4 times as quickly as the global average — with the expectation, the USGS says, that «if global temperatures continue to rise, rates of sea level rise in this area are expected to continue increasing.»

If they are the cause of global warming, average nighttime temperatures should increase more than daytime ones — reducing the total daily temperature swing.

Specifically, the term is defined as how much the average global surface temperature will increase if there is a doubling of greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents) in the air, once the planet has had a chance to settle into a new equilibrium after the increase occurs.

But given that carbon dioxide levels were now substantially higher than anything in the past two millions of years, in either glacials or interglacials, it had become abundantly clear that the greenhouse effect was something we needed to take extremely seriously: even if the precise future increase in temperature was still an unknown quantity, with a fairly wide error - range, models indicated that for a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels, a rise of three degrees celsius as a global average was the most likely outcome.