Sentences with phrase «less than a century since»

And it's less than a century since the average American Lutheran church conducted services in German, Swedish, or Norwegian.

It's been less than a century since we've been able to treat people with type 1 diabetes (like my wife Monica) with exogenous insulin to keep them alive.

Not exact matches

21st Century Fox (FOX), for example, is only down by about 4 % since the beginning of the year, or less than half Disney's decline.

Though American Protestantism has recently produced more significant minds than at any time since the early 18th century, even the most important American theologians have had less influence here than Karl Barth or Paul Tillich.

The net result would be a federal R&D portfolio in the 21st century that would look significantly different from today: defense R&D would be less than half the total portfolio for the first time since before World War II, while the NIH's R&D effort would be almost as large as those of all other nondefense R&D funding agencies combined.

Although laparoscopy — the technical term for minimally invasive surgery — has been around for more than a century, its use has grown substantially in the last 20 years since medical researchers have demonstrated that it is not only safer but also less expensive than open surgery for a number of different types of operations.

Hagfish may have had to endure a less - than - flattering name since scientists first described them in the 18th century.

Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in scenario A (~ 1.5 % / yr) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % / yr).

If Dr. Hansen never imagined Scenario A as being a real possibility for the next 20 years, I guess indicated by his description «Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in Scenario A (~ 1.5 % yr - 1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % yr - 1)» then his subsequent comment (PNAS, 2001) «Second, the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large» seems to indicate that Dr. Hansen doesn't support some of the more extreme SRES scenarios.

Since the last century's backlash against discussing population size management, serious advocacy of limiting human fertility has been ridiculously regarded as nothing less than an attack on the poor and disenfranchised.

Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in Scenario A (~ 1 `.5 % per year) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % per year).

For the entire Northern Hemisphere, there is evidence of an increase in both storm frequency and intensity during the cold season since 1950,1 with storm tracks having shifted slightly towards the poles.2, 3 Extremely heavy snowstorms increased in number during the last century in northern and eastern parts of the United States, but have been less frequent since 2000.11,15 Total seasonal snowfall has generally decreased in southern and some western areas, 16 increased in the northern Great Plains and Great Lakes region, 16,17 and not changed in other areas, such as the Sierra Nevada, although snow is melting earlier in the year and more precipitation is falling as rain versus snow.18 Very snowy winters have generally been decreasing in frequency in most regions over the last 10 to 20 years, although the Northeast has been seeing a normal number of such winters.19 Heavier - than - normal snowfalls recently observed in the Midwest and Northeast U.S. in some years, with little snow in other years, are consistent with indications of increased blocking (a large scale pressure pattern with little or no movement) of the wintertime circulation of the Northern Hemisphere.5 However, conclusions about trends in blocking have been found to depend on the method of analysis, 6 so the assessment and attribution of trends in blocking remains an active research area.

The IPCC has a confidence level > 90 % that less than 50 % of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is the result of non-anthropogenic external forcings and internal natural variability within the climate system.

The rise rate in the 20th century was significantly less than an inch per decade, and since 1990, it has been significantly more than one inch per decade.

A century from now it will be less interesting ruins than Detroit, since it's hard to grow food there and even without climate change there's not a lot of local water (other than the reservoir).

It states that to stand a good chance (a probability of 66 percent or more) of limiting warming to less than 2 °C since the mid-19th century will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay under 800 gigatons of carbon.

E.g.: «So you are saying that since 2014 is XXX less hot than than than the hottest year ever, then the global warming trend isn't more than +50 C / century?

Hurricanes are certainly less common in New York than in Florida or Louisiana, but if Sandy's invasion of the Big Apple is evidence of global warming, then global warming has menaced the Empire State for centuries, because hurricanes have hit New York since before the industrial revolution.

It has attributed less than 7 % of all climate forcing since pre-industrial days to «natural forcing components» (i.e. solar), conceding that its» level of scientific understanding» of» natural forcing components» (i.e. solar) is» low», whereas there are many independent studies, which attribute 50 % of the warming observed over the 20th century to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years).

Instead, it is the deliberate scientific equivalent of Monckton — using the assumptions (forcing since mid 20th century) and methods (modelling) of the warmists to show that they must be wrong on at least 2 counts (i.e. the science can not be settled, and CO2 warming must be less than generally assumed).

«The author has added an update at the end showing why it CAN BE REASONABLY ARGUED that anthropogenic greenhouse gases MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR less than half of the observed warming since the mid-20th century»

And let's not forget the elephant in the room: the amount of cooling we'd see from this even if it all came together would still be less than the global warming we've been experiencing since the 20th century.

Greenhouse gas emissions from coal, gas and oil combustion since the dawn of the 19th century and the coming of the machine - age century have pushed carbon dioxide ratios in the atmosphere from less than 300 parts per million to 400ppm everywhere, and global average temperatures have risen by 1 °C.

[Editor note: The author has added an update at the end showing why it can be reasonably argued that anthropogenic greenhouse gases may be responsible for less than half of the observed warming since the mid-20th century]

On the basis of what we now know, solar changes might account for a rise of about 0.5 °C since the 17th century, perhaps half of the warming since 1850, and less than a third of the warming in the last twenty - five years.

You may wonder why the government finds the need to pursue such action since 1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have already topped out and have generally been on the decline for the past 7 - 8 years or so (from technological advances in natural gas extraction and a slow economy more so than from already - enacted government regulations and subsidies); 2) greenhouse gases from the rest of the world (primarily driven by China) have been sky - rocketing over the same period, which lessens any impacts that our emissions reduction have); and 3) even in their totality, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible influence on local / regional / global climate change (even a immediate and permanent cessation of all our carbon dioxide emissions would likely result in a mitigation of global temperature rise of less than one - quarter of a degree C by the end of the century).

H0: Less than half of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

In addition, because workers» compensation benefits depend largely on the worker's salary, schedule loss awards have not increased for workers who earn less than $ 600 per week since 1992, nearly a quarter - century ago.