Sentences with phrase «likely amount of warming»

Additionally, the most likely amount of warming is 34 % of 3 °C, which is 1.0 °C.

Not exact matches

Already, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, are approaching 400 ppm, and at least the amount of warming caused by that level is likely by century's end.

They suggest that forecasts of the global warming likely to result from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may, therefore, have to be reduced by about half.

As warming continues from the increasing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that ratio will likely continue to rise.

For example, if you accept that the CO2 concentration was low a thousand years ago, why does it seem likely that temperatures back then seem to be warmer than today — there is a huge amount of evidence to support this in the Northern Hemisphere, and a growing band of evidence to support the theory that the Southern Hemisphere was similarly warm during this time.

The real «equilibrium climate sensitivity,» which is the amount of global warming to be expected for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1 °C, some three times smaller than most models assumed.

Rate of change question — would methane - using microorganisms be likely to have handled most methane as it was released from warming at geological rates of change, but not increase fast enough to metabolize the amounts of methane described at current rate of change?

The team also have a separate project, called Climate feedbacks from wetlands and permafrost thaw in a warming world (CLIFFTOP), which aims to quantity the amount of methane likely to be released from thawing permafrost methane emissions under 1.5 C and 2C scenarios.

A small amount of regional cooling is possible, but more likely is a relative cooling in the North Atlantic — i.e. it won't warm as fast as the rest of the planet.

As global warming increases, the amount of water feeding into these rivers is likely to decrease, adding another stress factor on these waterways and the people who live near them.

At some point in time the public needs to wake up and realize that the alarmists are most likely exaggerating the amount of CO2 induced warming and that there is no catastrophe coming.

The likely cause of this remarkable CO2 growth was from the Earth's own warming, causing oceans to release ever greater amounts of CO2 - not a surprise after the lengthy freezing conditions of the Little Ice Age (LIA).

It is likely that an increase will continue in the future... it appears plausible that an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to a gradual warming of the lower atmosphere, especially at high latitudes».

What is particularly galling to me is when my colleagues predict all sorts of adverse health consequences from a small amount of warming and greening of the planet, when the reverse is far more likely, and when health and life expectancy always rise hand - in - hand with the deployment of reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy.

This is an interesting concept given the fact that over 70 % of the earth is covered by water which implies that increased amounts of CO2 are less likely to cause any amount of noticeable warming.

The amount of carbon emissions we can emit while still having a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees is known as the «carbon budget.»

Trenberth notes that global warming has already increased the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere by about 4 %, «extra moisture flowing into the storms that produced the heavy rains and likely contributed to the strength of the storms through added energy.»

The amount of melting that was caused by soot from forest fires is important to know, since global warming is likely to increase the amount of forest fires in coming decades.

Thus, pathways with lower rates of emission in 2050 are likely to result in a similar amount of peak warming, while higher rates of emission in 2050 can lead to varying levels of peak warming, as seen in figure 2d.

The results presented here contribute to our understanding of the likely range under different amounts of global mean warming.

This is the amount that humans can ever emit while retaining a likely chance of limiting warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels.

As it had the same amount of warming, it likely had about the same amount of urbanization trend, given that the stations were spread as worldwide as data availability allowed (all networks have sparser coverage in the tropics).

(Athanasiou and Bear 2002) The 2oC upper temperature limit is quite controversial scientifically because, as we shall see, some scientists believe that lower amounts of additional warming could set into motion rapid climate changes that could greatly harm people around the world and increases of as little as 1oC will likely greatly harm some people in some regions.

It seems likely that similar poor siting biases also exist in global thermometer datasets, and this has probably led to an overestimation of the amount of «global warming» since the 19th century.

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08 %).

Meanwhile the latter hasn't gotten any weaker, and adding in the likely rise for cycle 24 should produce an impressive amount of warming during the decade 2010 - 2020!

It's to determine the likely accuracy or precision of models with respect to predicting the rate of warming and the total amount of warming that may occur.

Although it is important to reduce the remaining climate uncertainties, such as the magnitude of the impacts of short - lived pollutants, it does not change the fact that CO2 is very likely the driving force behind the current global warming, or that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels, the planet will likely warm in the range of 2 to 4.5 °C.

Framed in this way, total emissions of a trillion tonnes of carbon will lead to a most likely warming of 2 °C, a somewhat arbitrary, but widely accepted limit on the amount of warming that the world can endure without a high risk of catastrophic consequences.

The likely position is that variations in the rate at which the ocean surfaces warm and cool over 500 year periods such as from MWP to LIA to date regularly cycle the atmospheric CO2 up and down the observed amount yet the proxies fail to record that level of volatility.

It is likely that every year annual variance in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere exceeds the warming effects of human CO2.

As for the part about a large amount of water vapor being available, this too is part and parcel with global warming — and is in fact an often overlooked factor in the type of extreme weather and changes that become more likely as the planet as a whole warms.

That amount of warming will likely lock us into a sea level rise over subsequent centuries of at least 4 - 6 meters of at least 4 to 6 meters, at rates up to 1 meter per century.

The Vinyl salesmen are also promoting Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who has been a serial shill for the nuclear industry («there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power»), loggers of the Amazon rainforest («All these save - the - forests arguments are based on bad science...») the lumber industry («clear - cutting is good for forests»), pharmaceuticals in water (it's «inevitable that a small amount of ingested pharmaceuticals will eventually show up at trace levels in wastewater»).

The elements are: (1) the amount of temperaturechange since 1850; (2) whether the change is in the range of natural variability or is attributable to humans; (3) the amount of warming that greenhouse gases (CO2 and equivalents) will warm the Earth in the future; and whether for the most likely scenarios, there are more losers than winners and if the change is just different.

Second, using large amounts of fossil fuels to produce ethanol is likely to exacerbate global warming.

First, substantial global warming is already «baked in,» as a result of past emissions and because even with a strong climate - change policy the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is most likely to continue rising for many years.

What with humans pumping massive amounts of high heat capacity gasses into the atmosphere, the most likely hypothesis is that on - going climatic warming is anthropogenic.

They explain that termination shock is most likely to occur if a solar geoengineering effort aimed at suppressing a large amount of warming — say, the 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade expected in the high - end (RPC 8.5) carbon emissions scenario — was phased out suddenly and completely.

I search my memory and I recall that plausible estimates of the amount of warming we are likely to get from doubling CO2 is 1 - 2C.

Even many of them admit CO2 warming is likely as strong as 1C per doubling, yet still they refuse to see that such an amount makes CO2 the driver of global temperature.