Sentences with phrase «if further global warming»

According to Hansen, «if further global warming reaches 2 or 3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know.

Not exact matches

If in the 1970s we had begun a program of efficient use and switching gradually to other sources of energy, «peak oil» would remain quite far in the future and there might still be some chance to reduce global warming.

If trees die because of those droughts, the carbon they store will be released into the atmosphere, where it will further exacerbate global warming.

Even if those and other nations» promises under the Paris agreement are kept, global temperatures may yet soar well above 2 °C (3.6 °F) compared with pre-industrial times — roughly twice the amount of warming recorded so far.

So far the team has looked only at data from the Pacific Ocean region, but if other tropical oceans have the same effect, Earth may be well equipped to handle global warming.

An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm.

It's not clear how far north such thawing might extend if global average temperatures continue to warm until they match those from long ago.

If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled from its pre-industrial level, the graph suggested, global warming would rise far above the widely accepted prediction of between 1.5 and 4.5 °C.

These changes have been compounded by stronger waves in the North Sea in recent decades, and could be further exacerbated if predictions that storminess will increase with global warming prove accurate.

Realistic large - scale solar panel coverage could cause less than half a degree of local warming, far less than the several degrees in global temperature rise predicted over the next century if we keep burning fossil fuels.

-- If however, the (almost inconceivable) abrupt global total cessation of (fossil) C emissions were to occur, then we could expect warming to stop without further need for mitigation.

The measured energy imbalance indicates that an initial CO2 target «< 350 ppm» would be appropriate, if the aim is to stabilize climate without further global warming.

The number of extreme heat waves has increased several-fold due to global warming [45]--[46], [135] and will increase further if temperatures continue to rise.

However, if you compare the mean global temp for the 2000's so far to the mean for the 90's you are definitely going to have to say, «warmer.»

Further research will be required to investigate if this fluctuation carries features of projected future climate change and the CO2 growth rate anomaly has been a first indicator of a developing positive feedback between climate warming and the global carbon cycle.

But if we're actually committed to the development and bringing out of poverty of the world's many billions, then energy and global warming together form by far the biggest of all the challenges we face.

Presumably, if we follow your argument that further wealth / industrialization will descrease atmospheric carbon, we should also believe that if we were to return to an agrarian economy, this would accelerate global warming.

So, if one wants to claim that only long terms trends really count, then I see nothing to take seriously as far as «global warming» is concerned, since I see no long term trend at all........

In my year - end summary post over the weekend, I touched on some analysis showing, unsurprisingly, that after several years of heavy exposure, global warming, the greatest story rarely told, had reverted to its near perpetual position on the far back shelf of the public consciousness — if not back in the freezer.

Further, it if could be proven that all those French people died because of global warming, wouldn't most people agree that the dangerous level of warming has been reached?

«Since the ocean component of the climate system has by far the biggest heat capacity», I've been wondering if the cool waters of the deep ocean could be used to mitigate the effects of global warming for a few centuries until we have really depleated our carbon reserves and the system can begin to recover on its own.

Re 9 wili — I know of a paper suggesting, as I recall, that enhanced «backradiation» (downward radiation reaching the surface emitted by the air / clouds) contributed more to Arctic amplification specifically in the cold part of the year (just to be clear, backradiation should generally increase with any warming (aside from greenhouse feedbacks) and more so with a warming due to an increase in the greenhouse effect (including feedbacks like water vapor and, if positive, clouds, though regional changes in water vapor and clouds can go against the global trend); otherwise it was always my understanding that the albedo feedback was key (while sea ice decreases so far have been more a summer phenomenon (when it would be warmer to begin with), the heat capacity of the sea prevents much temperature response, but there is a greater build up of heat from the albedo feedback, and this is released in the cold part of the year when ice forms later or would have formed or would have been thicker; the seasonal effect of reduced winter snow cover decreasing at those latitudes which still recieve sunlight in the winter would not be so delayed).

There is medium confidence that approximately 20 to 30 percent of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5 °C (relative to 1980 to 1999).

Yet, although the oscillations seen in Fig. 2 suggest the AMOC may well swing up again for a while, a long - term further weakening is what we have to expect if we let global warming continue for much longer.

If you are not impressed by the science so far, perhaps it's because none of the sources you rely on have adequately communicated the implications of global warming.

I this instance, you end with this: «a long - term further weakening is what we have to expect if we let global warming continue for much longer.»

We need to not be alarmist about the potential of this alarm, but realize that it is something to be alarmed about if we let this «little» global warming thing go too far... on top of the other reasonably alarming things that are already going on, such as hitting thermal limits for crops, etc..

So all meteorlogical data postdates global warming's acceleration, and if things are starting to skew further now, it's more proof for those willing to see it.

Even before the Francis and Vavrus study made it to print, we noted that their findings ran afoul of other existing literature which painted a far murkier picture of the influence (if any) that anthropogenic global warming was having in extratropical cold - season storm systems.

Right now the consensus view is that it is too early to say if global warming has already brought about a detectable change in the number and nature of tropical storms — the changes seen so far are still within the bounds of natural variability.

Even if CO2 has a global warming effect it may well be far smaller than natural variability.

It seems to me that even from a consensus viewpoint that the calculated contribution of global warming should still be very small, and that if there are much bigger changes in the short term they are far more likely to be weather than climate.

If future global emissions are not curbed, human - driven global warming could cause further large declines in long - term temperature variability, the lead author tells Carbon Brief, which may have far - reaching effects on the world's seasons and weather.

If we are lucky, and it seems that we have been for two years so far, it will remain cold enough so the average person begins to doubt the coming global warming catastrophe predictions — thank you Mr. Sun and Mrs. Cosmic Rays, for riling up the leftist so they reveal their true bad character — with harsh character attacks on scientists who do not deserve them.

A global warming theory suggests that if the caps shrink due to warming, then they will reflect less sunlight and so Earth will warm even further.

If we turn any further Left, we could crash into the Sun, and that WOULD result in global warming.

If a time would ever come when the permafrost returns to northern U.S., as far south as New Jersey as it once did, it's not inconceivable that Congress, caught in the grip of the global warming zealots, would keep all the laws on the books they wrote in the name of fighting global warming.

If you wonder why the anthropogenic climate change theory («global warming») is losing credibility among the general population, you need not look any further than articles and statements such as your recent paper.

We have far more data about increasing CO2 than increasing water vapor, hence if we want to test this hypothesis by looking for a correlation between global warming and the combined effect of CO2 and H2O, a correlation with CO2 alone is more feasible than one involving water vapour.

If you missed the reams of comments posted here by people living there, who were telling us that this past winter was much colder than usual, and begging the planet to «send us some of that global warming», then go back over the archives and tell us they were all wrong, and that those articles are accurate when they say «The unseasonably warm and wet winter so far in Britain has coaxed plants into early flowering.»

The money spent on the Flannery ads would have been far better spent on ads dispelling some of the misinformation concerning the safety of nuclear energy, which if adopted in place of fossil - fuel power generation will make a much bigger impact on global warming.

He is being accused of furthering a «political agenda» by dissenting on global warming, but what if the reverse is actually true - that it's Big Climate that is using its «political agenda» to stifle dissent and keep the industry chugging along in perpetuity.

Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short - term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal.

Within hours of the announcement by scientists in the US that 2017 was at least the third warmest year recorded, if not the second, over the Earth's land and oceans, there comes a further revelation: 2017 was also the warmest year on record for the global oceans.

«Here we present an analysis based on sea - level data from the altimetry record of the past ~ 20 years that separates interannual natural variability in sea level from the longer - term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming... Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short - term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal.»

The relationship between accuracy and political advantage is tenuous at best.The most vociferous critics of global warming advocates — far - right conservatives — understand this viscerally, instinctively, if not consciously.

Further, the probabilistic approach reveals a picture startling to even most global - warming pessimists: If we're to avoid precipitating what that U.N. Framework Convention genteelly calls «dangerous anthropogenic interference,» we're going to have to aim at an atmospheric greenhouse - gas concentration target that, by current trends, we'll reach in less than two decades.

If the science on global warming were truly «settled», then there would be no need for any further research, and none of the researchers we mentioned in this essay would be bothered with studying it anymore.

If you needed proof that God has a wicked sense of humor, look no further than the timing for the next big global warming hearing from Senate Democrats.

An ECS of three degrees C means that if we are to limit global warming to below two degrees C forever, we need to keep CO2 concentrations far below twice preindustrial levels, closer to 450 ppm.