Sentences with phrase «magnitude of warming more»

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.

Not exact matches

Inertia toward continued emissions creates potential 21st - century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid.

«We're now facing the potential for a warming of 2ºC or more in less than two centuries,» said Dr Dunkley Jones, «this is more than an order of magnitude faster than warming at the start of the PETM.

«With a warming climate, rising carbon dioxide levels, dams on more rivers than not, and overloading of nutrients into our waterways, the magnitude and duration of toxic cyanobacterial blooms is only going to get worse.»

These results demonstrate the magnitude of trade - offs likely to be experienced by this species as they acclimatize to warmer conditions by changing to more thermally tolerant clade D zooxanthellae.

Current data are not accurate enough to identify whether warming started earlier in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) or Northern Hemisphere (NH), but a major deglacial feature is the difference between North and South in terms of the magnitude and timing of strong reversals in the warming trend, which are not in phase between the hemispheres and are more pronounced in the NH (Blunier and Brook, 2001).

Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

Such an extremely warm winter in Earth's northern extremity is still a rare event but climate change has «made the event more likely by orders of magnitude», the authors tell Carbon Brief.

You would have to have a 30 year period (or even more) where the magnitude of localized warming and cooling were shown to summate equally where no net warming occured whatsoever, but that is not what is shown.

If, for example, we were to create a piece-wise continuous trend keeping your own trend, we'd find the 0.17 C decadal warming trend from your starting point preceded by an estimated warming of equal magnitude in the combined 125 prior years (beginning at a time where only 1/4 of the present day coverage existed, thus placing the entire 125 year warming more or less within the margin of statistical insignificance).

Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

For instance, what is the usual response of a CAGW movement supporter to learning that, under their own climate sensitivity assumptions, other forms of geoengineering than CO2 cutbacks could neutralize the predicted warming for < = ~ 1 % the cost and with lesser biological side - effects (such as stratospheric dispersion of micron - scale reflective dust staying suspended for months at appropriate altitude, in radiative forcing neutralizing orders of magnitude more than its own mass in CO2)?

Now we can see where Headline C came from: global warming made the expected frequency 23 times larger (because 8,547 / 379 = 23) so we expect to see a heat wave of this magnitude (or warmer) 23 times more often because of global warming.

But the question remains whether or not it will in practice be less costly than some of the other less exotic specific actionable proposals made to date (i.e. at a cost of less than around $ 16 trillion for 0.5 degC warming theoretically averted by year 2100) or more costly by at least one order of magnitude.

I'll be extremely surprised if you can come up with any warming mechanism that is not at least one or two orders of magnitude more badly correlated with climate than CO2 forcing is.

There is no mechanism proposed by which internal natural variability can lead to any warming that does not average out over decades, and even then its magnitude can't be more than tenths of a degree.

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.

Adding more «should» cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question.

«Seen in this light, the magnitude of the direct influence of a warm Arctic on mid-latitude extremes becomes more problematic.»

Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria are apt examples: Scientists can agree that more events of this magnitude can be expected in a warming climate.

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.

Responding to and in the manner of KK Tung's UPDATE (and, you can quote me): globally speaking the slowing of the rapidity of the warming, were it absent an enhanced hiatus compared to prior hiatuses, must at the least be interpreted as nothing more than a slowdown of the positive trend of uninterrupted global warming coming out of the Little Ice Age that has been «juiced» by AGW as evidenced by rapid warming during the last three decades of the 20th Century, irrespective of the fact that, «the modern Grand maximum (which occurred during solar cycles 19 — 23, i.e., 1950 - 2009),» according to Ilya Usoskin, «was a rare or even unique event, in both magnitude and duration, in the past three millennia [that's, 3,000 years].»

(Fwiw, I define myself as more of a «lukewarmer» since I see reasons to be concerned about warming and climate issues, but I think the imminence and magnitude of any civilizational»em ergency» are being exaggerated in many quarters — I'm more of a «policy skeptic» about the steps being proposed, if you care).

In 1992, we had just completed the first IPCC assessment report, here was their conclusion: «The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability... The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.

«The warming leads to a simulated long - term reduction in soil moisture which, although of weak magnitude compared to soil moisture deficits induced by naturally occurring droughts in the southwest United States, would imply that drought conditions may be entered more quickly and alleviated more slowly owing to long - term warming... Radiative forcing of the climate system is another source of predictability, although not really a welcome one, and rising greenhouse gases will lead to a steady drying of southwest North America.

It is far more important to deploy order of magnitude more accurate instrumentation than waste money on meaningless global warming models whose 35 year predictions are 300 % too hot.

More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans [132,133].

More elaborate and accurate approaches, including use of models, will surely be devised, but comparison of our result with other approaches is instructive regarding basic issues such as the vulnerability of today's ice sheets to near - term global warming and the magnitude of hysteresis effects in ice sheet growth and decay.

Also a brand new study of storm surges since 1923 finds «that Katrina - magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years» — so more severe surges are on the way.

Even just acknowledging more openly the incredible magnitude of the deep structural uncertainties that are involved in climate - change analysis — and explaining better to policymakers that the artificial crispness conveyed by conventional IAM - based CBAs [Integrated Assessment Model — Cost Benefit Analyses] here is especially and unusually misleading compared with more ordinary non-climate-change CBA situations — might go a long way toward elevating the level of public discourse concerning what to do about global warming.

That panel's first assessment report in 1990 concluded that «the size of the warming over the last century is... of the same magnitude as natural climate variability» and that «the unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more.»

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in «global warming»; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940 - 1975; nor 50 years» cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden - Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino / La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half - century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously - observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface «global warming» on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily - continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~ 0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

The increase of these extreme anomalies, by more than an order of magnitude, implies that we can say with a high degree of confidence that events such as the extreme summer heat in the Moscow region in 2010 and Texas in 2011 were a consequence of global warming.

What's so funny: — You and many others misrepresent SM's statements — pro-AGW workers cooperate with biased PR firms and think tanks (cf «Warm Words» and much more)-- The same oil companies heavily fund pro-AGW research — University research money supports pro-AGW work — pro-AGW PR / agit groups misrepresent and lie about the facts — Biased reporters cooperate in all this --(And the pro-AGW side involves 10 - 100x more resources, order of magnitude guesstimate.)

But if global - warming predictions bear out — with more prolonged droughts, more severe storms, more flooding — then figures of this magnitude will become standard.

But this feedback fo global warming appears to cost several orders of magnitude more to deal with.

They indicate that the rate of warming in the early 21st century is affected little by different emissions scenarios (brown bars in Figure 2.8), but by mid-century the choice of emissions scenario becomes more important for the magnitude of warming (blue bars).

Personally, I consider that an explanation along these lines is a more plausible explanation (by many orders of magnitude) over that of CO2 being responsible for the warming.