Sentences with phrase «if global temperatures»

Thus, if global temperatures were 1 degree above preindustrial by 1990, then the stated 1.5 degree «gap» in the figure is really a 2.5 degree «gap.»

Other scientists had already established that if global temperatures rise by 4 °C this century − in the notorious business - as - usual scenario in which humans go on burning fossil fuels and depositing ever more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere − then some parts of the globe could become intolerably hot for at least part of the day, and potentially uninhabitable.

If global temperatures go up another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius), it would be equal to the maximum temperature of the past million years.

If global temperatures were being driven by oscillating ocean temperatures then global temperatures would be oscillating and land temperatures would be showing less change than oceans.

Similarly, if global temperatures drop for some reason (for example, a large volcanic eruption dumping massive amounts of aerosols into the air), we should expect to see water vapor concentrations decrease.

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.»

The positive feedback would reveal its existence if global temperatures were accelerating to a tipping point of runaway warming, due to the ever - increasing human CO2 emission releases into the atmosphere,

C / If global temperatures decline and through stupidity after some way is found to limit and reduce CO2, global CO2 levels are reduced through the efforts of activist climate science establishment then the world will go hungry as the world's farmers will not be able to grow enough food as both yields and cropped area are reduced due to cooler or colder temperatures and reduced amounts of that essential plant food, CO2 other wise known as that planet destroying «carbon».

A / If global temperatures and CO2 continues to increase the farmers of the world can feed the estimated 9 to 10 billions of humanity predicted to be living on this planet by 2050, which is a half a life time away only.

B / If global temperatures decline, the world gets colder and not by much but CO2 continues to increase then the world's farmers may JUST perhaps be able to feed those numbers, perhaps!

If global temperatures continue to increase at the rate they did previously, THEN we will have the more compelling evidence to discard this theory as having a substantive effect on global temperatures.

If global temperatures are viewed as suggested in Figure 2 - 8 below the large downward drop in 2007 - 8 appears to be simply a return to the 1978 - 97 range and might not be particularly noteworthy.

According to a 2014 study, a 50 percent increase in the number of lightning strikes within the United States is expected by 2100 if global temperatures continue to rise.

If global temperatures increase by two degrees then the closest period for comparison would be Pliocene, a time when sea levels were an incredible 25 meters higher.

It concludes that, if global temperatures rise by 4 °C, the flood risk in countries representing more than 70 % of the global population and global GDP will increase by more than 500 %.

If global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius, they write in a study summarizing their findings published in the journal Climatic Change last September, «Results indicate that floods will be more frequent and flood magnitudes greater» than they would be at just 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

As Nicholas Stern - the UK economist who compiled the Stern Review of the economics of climate change in 2006 - noted in a paper last year that one of the standard models used to calculate costs produced only a 50 per cent reduction in GDP if global temperatures rose 19 degrees.

Based on «a leading aggregate damage estimate in the climate economics literature,» the report found that the nation will suffer at least $ 150 billion in additional economic damages each year if global temperatures increase by three degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, rather than two degrees Celsius:

This rise, though modest compared to what will happen if global temperatures and greenhouse gas levels remain at currently elevated levels or continue to ramp higher, is now enough to turn astronomical high tides into a notable flooding event.

If global temperatures were clearly accelerating along with the rise in CO2 that would trump any debating skill.

So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period?

But, if global temperatures increase from man - made global warming, this could increase water vapour concentrations, potentially leading to more warming.

If global temperatures were just as warm in the early 20th century as they are now, then there is no need to blame the recent global warming on CO2!

If global temperatures were to rise by twice that amount, the benefits would far outweigh the downsides in terms of improved crop growth, lower morbidity due to milder winters, increased rainfall, and so on.

Even if global temperatures are rising fast, the noise in the signal all but guarantees some succeeding years to be substantially cooler than the previous hottest year on record.

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.

Huber has shown that lethally hot and humid conditions could spread over much of the tropics if global temperatures rise more than 7 °C.

Their analysis starts by estimating the amount of carbon dioxide that could be put into the atmosphere if global temperatures are not to rise by more than 2 °C, the most that climate scientists deem prudent.

If the global temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea levels would be increasing at an increasing rate.

However, there will be no «sustainability» if global temperatures rise by 2C or more as now seems inevitable.

If global temperatures have been record for the last 150 years why are of the top 10 years from the last dozen years?

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study.

If global temperatures were the only variable to change, a warming of only 1.1 C would be enough to offset the effect of doubling CO2.

Down to earth: If the global temperatures rise 1 degree Celcius, The CO2 rise per year seems to rise 3,5 ppm faster.

A 2008 report commissioned by WWF warned that if global temperatures rise 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial averages, sea ice in the Southern Ocean could shrink by 10 to 15 percent.

Now if this cycle is repeating then everyone can be very relaxed about the long term temperature trend even if global temperatures dip definitively.

The issue is that the APF is heading poleward, and if global temperatures continue to rise as expected, the front is likely eventually to move out of the range of many foraging king penguins, the research suggests.

The observed and projected rates of increase in freshwater runoff could potentially disrupt ocean circulation if global temperatures rise by 3 to 4 °C over this century as forecast by the IPCC 2001 report.

If global temperatures rise by up to 3 degrees Celsius above their preindustrial levels, the risk of extreme events could grow by as much as fivefold in certain parts of the world.

If global temperatures increase by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as many scientists expect, so - called «hundred - year - floods» could occur every 20 years or so, putting untold numbers of people at risk.

If global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius, there may be no more Greenland ice.

Even if global temperature rise was halted at 2C above pre-industrial levels — the internationally agreed target — temperatures as high as those in 2016 would not be considered unusual, say the scientists.

Those questions will intensify if the global temperature stays flat despite rising CO2.

If the global temperature significantly overshoots the threshold for a long time, the ice will continue melting and not regrow — even if the climate would, after many thousand years, return to its pre-industrial state.

If global temperature has no agreed scientific meaning, it is meaningless, then measuring it seems pointless.

«The majority of proven coal, oil, and gas reserves may be considered «unburnable» if global temperature increases are to be limited to two degrees Celsius,» he wrote in a letter to the British parliament's Environmental Audit Committee (PDF) in October, referring to the widely accepted temperature threshold for avoiding the worst effects of climate change.

If the global temperature isn't changing — that means the land temperature should be slightly cooling (if anything)..

The issue is not IF global temperature is warming but HOW MUCH is the contribution of anthropogenic causes?

It remains to be seen if warming from the LIA will resume or if global temperature will fall when the present «zero trend» to global temperature ceases.

Who really thinks that these will melt if the global temperature rises 10 degrees?