Sentences with phrase «magnitude of the warming»

«The pattern and magnitude of warming shown in this [Geophysical Research Letters] study is alarming,» said Nick Golledge, a Victoria University of Wellington researcher who led the Nature Communications study.
This type of thought experiment only tends to cement a FALSE idea of what is actually happening with the result of an increased magnitude of warming more easily accepted.
The EPA finding that most of the warming is secondary to GHG implies nothing about the absolute magnitude of the warming.
«Large magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and challenging impacts,» the report said.
But the new document also acknowledges that climate science still contains uncertainties, including the likely magnitude of the warming for a given level of emissions, the rate at which the ocean will rise, and the likelihood that plants and animals will be driven to extinction.
And since mitigation reduces the rate as well as the magnitude of warming, it also increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change, potentially by several decades.
This magnitude of warming overlaps with the upper range of estimates presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This, therefore, allows a comparison of ocean warming patterns, rather than magnitudes of warming.
One way to assess the magnitude of warm / cold and wet / dry episodes is to compute the percent area of the contiguous United States that was «very warm / very cold» and that was «very wet / very dry».
Pierrehumbert said Howarth uses the figure for methane's 20 - year global warming potential — 86 times that of carbon dioxide — without seriously discussing the magnitude of warming caused by those methane emissions compared to warming prevented by the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
However, this average rate hides considerable variations in the rate and magnitude of warming.
«BTW, this graph also switches to 1880 - 1920 as a base period, because of the widespread interest in the magnitude of warming relative to pre-industrial time.
As the authors conclude, the uncorrected model is not a serious contender for estimating the magnitude of the warming.
The magnitude of warming is expressed in temperature (the size of the duck).
Instead, the empirical evidence is completely clear that both short term and long term climate variability has in the recent geological past occurred at rates, and to magnitudes of warming and cooling, that far exceed even all the warming of perhaps 1 deg.
Sure, there is still bitter disagreement over the the magnitudes of the warming and cooling periods, but at least everyone agrees on whether different periods were warming or cooling.
«As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming.
Clearly something else other than CO2 has been the predominant cause of the warming 1910 - 1940, and climate models do not include this effect since they don't reproduce the magnitude of the warming.
If, as he says, «Adding more (CO2) «should» cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question...» then the minuscule amount of CO2 / methane created by paleo societies in their forest - burning agriculture 5,000 years ago had some part in creating the anthropocene.
You can always try to use the magnitude of the warming over the past century itself to constrain cloud feedback, but this gets convolved with estimates of aerosol forcing and internal variability.
... The impacts of [climate change] will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.»
This magnitude of warming overlaps with the upper range of estimates presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It includes something I've been advocating for decades: «this graph also switches to 1880 - 1920 as a base period, because of the widespread interest in the magnitude of warming relative to pre-industrial time.»
Emission reductions could ease the magnitude of warming by 2100 from 9.5 F to 6.5 F, which would reduce river flow by approximately 25 percent.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z